Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Science and Society
  • Published:

The GM public debate: context and communication strategies

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 4, pages 819–825 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

Science communication is developing a new approach that promotes dialogue between scientists and the public. A recent example is the debate on the possible introduction of genetically modified crops into the United Kingdom. As this exercise in public engagement draws to a close, we consider the context in which this debate has taken place, and the challenges of developing such interactions between science and society.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The advisory and regulatory framework for biotechnology.
Figure 2: The United States co-ordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology.
Figure 3: Who would you trust?

References

  1. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 2002 global GM crop area continues to grow for the sixth consecutive year at a sustained rate of more than 10%. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.isaaa.org> (2003).

  2. Dunwell, J. M. Future prospects for transgenic crops. Phytochem. Rev. 1, 1–12 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. Official Journal of the European Communities L330 0013–0031 (1998).

  4. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities L106 1–38 (2001).

  5. Commission of the European Communities. Life Sciences and Biotechnology — a Strategy for Europe: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2002)27 (2002).

  6. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. Crops on trial. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.aebc.gov.uk> (2001).

  7. Assemblée Nationale et Sénat France (1997–1998) Office Parlementaire d'évaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologique. Rapport sur l'utilisation des organismes génétiquement modifies en agriculture et dans l'alimentation. [online], (cited 26 Aug. 2003), <http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/connaissance/choiz-scientifiques.asp> (1998).

  8. Meyer, H. Parliament rejects GM crop moratorium. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Jun/msg00064.html> (2003).

  9. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Report of the Royal Commission of New Zealand on genetic modification. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz> (2001).

  10. Gaskell, G., Allum, M. & Stares, S. Europeans and Biotechnology 2002 Eurobarometer 58.0: a Report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the Project 'Life Sciences in European Society' QLG7-CT-1999–00286 (2003).

  11. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and Society. 3rd Report of Session 1999–2000 (2002).

  12. Turney, J. Understanding and engagement: the changing face of science and society. Wellcome News 32, 6–7 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  13. The Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust. Science and the Public: a Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain (2000).

  14. The GM Public Debate Steering Board. “GM nation?” — national GM debate starts. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.gmnation.org.uk/ut_16/ut_16_3.htm> (2003).

  15. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology. Report 153 (2001).

  16. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P. & Weldon, S. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe: Research Report Funded by the European Commission (Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Leicester, 2002).

  17. Cabinet Office, Office of Science and Technology. The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology: Report from the Government's Review (1999).

  18. Office of Science and Technology Policy. Co-ordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology announcement of policy and notice for public comment. Federal Register 51, 23302–23350 (1986).

  19. United States Department of Agriculture. Veneman announces appointments to the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/04/0114.htm> (2003).

  20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Report of the Working Group on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology C(2000)86/ADD2 (2000).

  21. European Commission. Eurobarometer: Europeans, science and technology. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/special.htm> (2001).

  22. Wellcome Trust. The role of scientists in public debate: research study conducted by Mori for the Wellcome Trust. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.mori.com/polls/2000/wellcometrust.shtml> (2001).

  23. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. The Great GM Food Debate: a Survey of Media Food Coverage in the First Half of 1999 Report No. 138 (2000).

  24. Wellcome Trust. Public Perspectives on Human Cloning (Wellcome Trust, London, 1998).

  25. House of Commons. Genetically Modified Organisms: Fifth Report of Session 2001–2002 (The Stationery Office Ltd., London, 2002).

  26. The Royal Society. Genetically modified plants for food use. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk> (1998).

  27. The Royal Society. Genetically modified plants for food use and human health — an update. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk> (2002).

  28. International Council for Science. New genetics, food and agriculture: scientific discoveries — societal dilemmas. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.icsu.org/events> (2003).

  29. The Royal Society. GMOs and the environment. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk> (1999).

  30. The Royal Society. Transgenic plants and world agriculture. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk> (2000).

  31. The Royal Society. The use of genetically modified animals. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk> (2001).

  32. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org> (1999).

  33. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/home> (2003).

  34. GM Science Review Panel. GM science review: first report. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk> (2003).

  35. Cabinet Office. Fieldwork: weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops. [online], (cited 19 Aug. 2003), <http://www.strategy.gov.uk> (2003).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 35R, UK

    Rosie Hails

  2. Sheffield Institute of Biotechnological Law & Ethics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, SL10 1FL, United Kingdom

    Julian Kinderlerer

Authors
  1. Rosie Hails
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Kinderlerer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosie Hails.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

FSA Scientific Committees

GM Nation? The Public Debate

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hails, R., Kinderlerer, J. The GM public debate: context and communication strategies. Nat Rev Genet 4, 819–825 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1182

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1182

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing