This document summarizes David Baulcombe's presentation on engaging the public with issues involving GM crops at the British Science Association conference on May 26, 2011. The presentation discussed the history of public dialogue on GM including various UK conferences and debates from 1994 to 2009. It covered topics discussed in these dialogues like safety, novelty and labeling, sustainability and more. It also presented some of the scientific opportunities and challenges around GM including increasing photosynthesis efficiency, developing perennial crops, nitrogen fixation, and harnessing hybrid vigor.

1. Science Communication Conference 2011

2. No but yeah but no but...lessons from the history of public dialogue on GM crops

3. Public dialogue on GM

5. Citizen Foresight on the Future of Food and Agriculture (Citizen GMO UK), 1998

6. Bioremediation technologies dialogue, 2001

7. BBSRC public communications activities, 1995 - 2002

8. GM Nation?, 2002 – 2004

9. FSA GM Food Debate, 2003

10. Industrial biotechnology dialogue, 2008 - 2009

11. Future Foods, 2009

12. RAEng Public dialogue on synthetic biology, 2009

14. 1. Safety

15. 2. Novelty and labelling

16. 3. Sustainability, uncertainty and ignorance

17. 4. Developing country agriculture

18. 5. Intellectual property

19. 6. Governance and regulation

20. Who’s listening?

21. Public dialogue How? Why? What?

23. “Stakeholders and members of the public need to be engaged in dialogue about new research and technology options. This dialogue should start with the problem that needs to be addressed, i.e. food security, rather than presupposing any particular solutions.”

24. GM in the 21st century agriculture ? David Baulcombe Cambridge University – Deepartment of Plant Sciences Growing concern – engaging the public with issues involving GM crops British Science Association May 26th 2011 Thursday, May 26, 2011 16

25. Reaping the benefits Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture

27. GM for disease resistance ? isolated genes can be used in genetic manipulation – transfer of plant genes between plants Thursday, May 26, 2011 20 Gene RB cloned from Solanum bulbocastanum confers broad spectrum resistance to potato late blight Junqi Song*†, James M. Bradeen†‡, S. Kristine Naess‡, John A. Raasch§, Susan M. Wielgus*‡, Geraldine T. Haberlach‡, Jia Liu¶, Hanhui Kuang, Sandra Austin-Phillips§, C. Robin Buell¶, John P. Helgeson‡**, and Jiming Jiang*,** www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.1533501100

28. GM vs conventional breeding for simple traits retaining the characteristics of original variety to generate several new varieties at once 26 May 2011 21

29. GM for drought tolerance, water use efficiency, heat stress tolerance, mineral nutrient uptake – complex traits? genome analysis to identify relevant genes GM to transfer into varieties for improvement 26 May 2011 22

30. GM vs conventional breeding for complex traits both depend on genome analysis for identification of genes GM allows retention of the characteristics of the original variety both are long term exercises but GM may be more straightforward 26 May 2011 23

32. N2 fixing cereals ??

33. exploiting non host resistance to get broad spectrum and durable protection against disease ???

34. Unlocking the potential of the genome

35. crops are derived from wild plants that evolved to reproduce rather than to yield

36. robust complex systems do not operate flat out – they are buffered from perturbation by spare capacity and negative feedback systems photosynthesis www.helpsavetheclimate.com/chloroplast1.gif

37. scientific grand challenges in crop production enhanced photosynthesis perennial crops so that soil erosion prevented, better retention and uptake of water and nutrients from the soil, no need to rebuild root system each year nitrogen fixation vegetative seed production (ie seed produced without pollination) harnessing of hybrid vigour new species as crops Thursday, May 26, 2011 25

38. gene flow transgenes are no more likely to outcross than endogenous genes conferring a similar trait gene flow does occur gene flow with transgenic crops should be managed as it is with conventional crops food crops with genes that could confer damage to the environment, people or animals should not be released

40. restrictive of saved seed

41. restrictive of shared germplasm in different breeding programmes

42. restrictive of farmer practise

43. discourages innovation by small enterprises and favours market dominance by large companies

45. Science Communication Conference 2011

46. PASSIONATE ABOUT SCIENCEthe challenge for policymakers Andrew Wadge Food Standards Agency British Science Association26 May 2011

47. How and why is GM different to other issues related to food safety and food production? Is it actually different to other issues? Evidence-based policies for a values-based public? GM food

48. Attitudes to innovation in food production 2009 review of published studies on attitudes to a range of new and emerging technologies: Our specific research projects have examined attitudes to:

49. Typical responses to innovation is it safe? what’s in it for me? what’s in it for “them”? will it harm the environment? what about the welfare of animals? is it natural? March 2009 “An Evidence Review of Public Attitudes to Emerging Food Technologies”

51. some are disinterested but others want information to help them decide

52. Limited understanding of complex science means people make judgements based on their values

53. “emotional” responses?

54. the public intuitively expect more / different safety studies than do risk assessors

55. e.g. clinical trials & long-term feeding studies(British Social Attitudes Survey 2008-9)

56. Can science provide a better answer? risk assessment more rigour in risk assessment more openness more independence more consultation better explanation, to a wider audience general information about the technology

58. environmental impact

59. e.g. superweeds, diversity, changes to agricultural practices

60. economic impact

61. does it put the interest of multinationals above those of small scale producers?

62. will it benefit / disadvantage people in poorer countries?

63. moral and ethical dimensions

64. moving away from nature

65. motives of the innovators (and regulators)

66. why are they doing this to me, and the planet?