Opinion: Science takes big leaps; vulnerability lies with public trust
By Kerry Tucker and
Teresa Siles
Science
and technology are on a roll.
High
impact discoveries seem to be advancing at an increasing rate, at times outstripping
our knowledge and sending scientists scurrying to investigate the potential impact
of these new developments on how we live, the foods we grow and eat, and the general
health of people and the planet.
CRISPR,
TALEN and zinc finger nucleases are just a few innovations on a fast track and likely
to have profound implications for the agri-food chain. At the same time, like
many other traditional institutions, science and scientists are increasingly vulnerable
to issues of public trust.
Perceived
flaws in the peer review models commonly used in many scientific disciplines,
difficulties in replicating published results, and the seemingly increased privatization
of science for competitive advantage, are but a few of the issues threatening the
credibility of scientists in the broad areas of agriculture, food and health. In
addition, there is concern by some that “science” in many cases is pushing
defined political and cultural agendas. Illustrative of this, nutrition
researchers have recently been hit particularly hard for relationships with
food industries that critics say are too cozy. What’s more, some consumers don’t
believe scientists truly understand the diverse risks that may be associated
with things like GMOs, climate change, or the genetic profiling for disease.
Public
confidence in science and scientists is a relatively new challenge. While trust
in science remains high when compared to other institutions, science and
scientists, whether in the academic, government or corporate context, no longer
get a free hall pass when trust issues arise. Any signal of diminished
credibility, even with some of our most time-honored professions, reflects a
growing change in the context surrounding many issues related to food and
agriculture. Science should be the very foundation upon which food
recommendations are made, and new foods and agricultural practices are
developed. Trust is everything.
CRISPR
is but one example of a scientific discovery reaching a defining moment. Named
“breakthrough of the year” by the journal “Science,” CRISPR is fundamentally
changing scientists’ approach to genetic engineering, allowing genomes to be
edited with unprecedented precision, efficiency and flexibility. CRISPR technology
has the potential to open the door to all kinds of human health and environmental
improvements, with some saying the technology is closer to transforming
agricultural markets than human medical markets.
CRISPR brings new tools to agriculture and food
production with potential benefits, including higher yields with less pressure
on inputs (e.g., water and land), increasing crop resistance to pests and reducing
the toll of livestock diseases, to name a few.
The
USDA recently said it would not regulate mushrooms edited with CRISPR in the
same way it regulates other products labeled as “GMO” because the mushrooms
contain no foreign DNA. Typical techniques for editing genes include the
introduction of DNA from other species or plant pests such as bacteria or
viruses. The mushroom is the first CRISPR modified food to get the green light
to pursue commercialization without being regulated as a GMO. Critics are
characterizing the move by USDA as a “loophole” to side-step GMO regulations,
and say it threatens the concept of what constitutes “organic.” Nonetheless, more
CRISPR modified foods and crops are expected to follow.
Even with benefits evident, can a new pragmatic path
to optimal health for everyday Americans overcome political battles over
ideology? While the “purists” will continue to argue that a CRISPR answer is
just another form of GMO, can we expect greater public acceptance if CRISPR is
perceived to be both a benefit to the agri-food sector and a significant
benefit to the health of people, and potentially the planet? What if CRISPR is
used to develop a cure or vaccine for Zika or Ebola? What if the costs of some relatively
common but expensive drugs drop significantly? Would that be enough to turn the
tide of public resistance? Or will CRISPR technology continue to evoke the
negative public sentiment around GMOs that has caused outright bans in some
countries and GMO-related initiatives to appear in at least 30 states across
the nation?
On
the nutrition science front, knowledge of food and health continues to change
profoundly and rapidly. Driven by a greater understanding of the genetic and
behavioral drivers of disease, some foods traditionally classified as
nutritious will see their health portfolio improve, while others may lose their
perceived health halo, according to Carl Keen, professor of nutrition and internal
medicine at University of California, Davis.
The
personalization of health and nutrition is at our doorstep. An individual’s DNA
can help guide dietary recommendations on specifically which foods a person
should eat more, or less of, to foster optimal health and lower the risk of
genetically predisposed diseases. It can be argued that keeping “one size fits
all” nutrition advice, like the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, may be an
example of policy not fully keeping up with the science. Agricultural
commodities or companies would be wise to do their homework now on the
nutrition profile of their products and gain an understanding of their evolving
role in increasingly personalized nutrition recommendations. A review of the
trends from the Food Foresight 2016 report underscores this.
Food
Foresight, a collaboration between Nuffer, Smith, Tucker Inc. and the
California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, identified four trends
in this year’s report. One looks specifically at scientific discoveries and the
trust issues surrounding them. But the others – dealing with labor shortages,
intelligent agents providing health recommendations and global demographic shifts
– also demonstrate trust issues at numerous points. The world is shifting under
our feet and the responses and solutions from the agriculture sector are often
elusive.
Transparency
and a strategic public positioning strategy can go a long way toward building
public confidence. Credibility is everything and any signal of complications
with trust must be taken seriously, and acted on with alacrity.
Related
to science, agriculture and university scientists must continue to advocate for
credible, consensus science rooted in sound scientific process. Scientific
research should also be done with transparency related to methodology, results
and funding sources. We also must engage in a dialogue with stakeholders about
science that improves food production and health. It’s critical for those in agriculture
and research to be sensitive and not dismissive to public concerns.
There
are common principles that help begin conversations with the greatest odds for
garnering trust. Being open and transparent is a good place to start. A few other
observations for scientists and farmers:
- Begin a stakeholder conversation with sensitivity to other perspectives on a particular issue (vs. “educating” or selling a point of view)
- Share your aspirations as a scientist (or a farmer growing all kinds of safe and nutritious foods)
- Acknowledge and respect public concerns about science or agri-food production
- Share best practices and efforts toward continuous improvement
- Share what’s difficult to change about what you do and why
- Share progress in resolving public concerns
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com