Newswise — As the Government moves towards a decision about whether GM crops should be grown commercially in Britain, a major report today (19 February 2004) argues that last summer's Government-sponsored GM Nation? public debate, whilst being both innovative and an important experiment in public engagement, failed to fully meet its potential, and conveyed an overestimate of the strength of anti-GM feeling in the UK.
The report was prepared by a team of independent academic researchers given unique behind-the-scenes access to the planning and implementation of the debate.
Detailed findings of the evaluation team included the following:
"¢ GM Nation? was an innovative experiment in public engagement on a difficult and highly contentious topic"¢ Many of the participants in the debate found it a meaningful and valuable exercise but were sceptical about the impact it would have upon government policy"¢ The debate was insufficiently resourced in terms of money, time and expertise"¢ By and large the debate failed to engage the uncommitted public (one of its key objectives)
The core evaluation team comprised researchers from Cardiff University, the University of East Anglia and the Institute of Food Research. Tom Horlick-Jones of Cardiff University, team leader of the evaluation project said, "We spent twelve months gathering data on virtually every aspect of the debate. Our report tells a story of successes and failures. We recognise that the debate was an enormously important experiment, from the point of view of extending and enriching the democratic process, but this is just the start. Now is the time to start to learn the lessons on how to do this sort of thing more effectively."
He added, "The devil really is in the detail here. It's no good announcing a public debate, setting up a board to oversee it, and then to throw money at it. These things need careful design, they need not to be rushed, and they probably need a little more money " but that money has to be well spent."
The evaluation team also unveiled today a major (UEA/MORI) survey of British public opinion on GM food and crops, conducted immediately after the end of the GM Nation? debate. Key findings include:
"¢ Overall opposition to GM food was found to be 36% against, while 13% supported and about two in five (39%) neither supported nor opposed GM food."¢ A large majority (85%) thought that we don't know enough about the potential long-term effects of GM food on our health. "¢ However four in ten or more also agreed that GM crops could hold a range of future benefits, for the environment (44%), consumers (45%), and those in developing countries (56%)."¢ There were very high levels of agreement (79%) that organisations separate from government are needed to regulate GM food.
Professor Nick Pidgeon of the University of East Anglia, the Director of the research consortium that carried out the evaluation work said, "Despite many of the problems that GM Nation? faced the results of our survey broadly mirror a number of the key conclusions of the debate Steering Board, particularly regarding the widespread levels of concern across Britain about the risks of this technology and the need for independent regulation of the technology. However, our results also show that the extent of outright opposition to GM food and crops amongst the British population is probably lower than indicated in many of the GM Nation? findings."
The evaluators concluded that the GM Nation? public debate provided valuable lessons about how and how not to conduct future such debates in the UK.
The report will be discussed at a meeting today (19 February 2004) to be held at the British Academy in London.
Notes for Editors: 2. For background information on the Understanding Risk programme, of which this research forms a part, see http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur3. For more information about research conducted by the Consumer Science group at IFR, see http://www.ifr.ac.uk/Safety/ConsumerPerception.html4. The meeting taking place at the British Academy today (19th February) is being sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council's (ESRC) Science in Society Programme. Further information about this programme can be found at http://www.sci-soc.net 5. The evaluation research consortium was funded independently of the debate process through grants from the Leverhulme Trust and the Economic and Social Research Council (including ESRC's Science in Society programme).6. The ESRC is the UK's largest funding agency for research and postgraduate training relating to social and economic issues. It has a track record of providing high-quality, relevant research to business, the public sector and Government. The ESRC invests more than £76 million every year in social science research. At any time, its range of funding schemes may be supporting 2,000 researchers within academic institutions and research policy institutes. It also funds postgraduate training within the social sciences thereby nurturing the researchers of tomorrow. The ESRC website address is http://www.esrc.ac.uk 7. For more information about the Leverhulme Trust see http://www.leverhulme.org.uk 8. The national survey was conducted by the research company MORI (Social Research Institute) directly after the end of the formal GM Nation? public debate: i.e., between 19 July and 12 September 2003. A nationally representative quota sample of 1,363 people aged 15 years and older was interviewed face-to-face in their own homes in England, Scotland and Wales. All data have been weighted to the known profile of the British population. 9. For more information about MORI, see http://www.mori.com
RSS