Pocket K No. 33: Communicating Crop Biotechnology
Crop biotechnology, while merely one of the many possible
scientific options to improve agricultural productivity, has triggered
increased interest in its consistent and substantial benefits. About 12
million farmers in 23 countries have planted biotech crops spread across
114.3 million hectares (James, 2007). At the same time, it has sparked
debate on its perceived risks and safety and is often caught in a maelstrom
of controversy. Diverse issues like scientific, political, economic, ethical,
cultural, and even religious viewpoints are being espoused by different
stakeholders. A focus on societal and ethical implications has made it
a recurring and contentious public policy issue.
Crucial therefore to balancing issues and concerns surrounding biotechnology
is adequate science-based, authoritative information to enable various
stakeholders to engage in an objective and transparent debate. Mutual
understanding and dialogue will enable the global community to understand
the attributes of crop biotechnology and assure acceptable by the public.
To improve the understanding of biotechnology and how its products contribute
to personal well-being, a strategic plan for public communications is
important. Traynor et al. (2007) identify some specific objectives for
public communication: make evident to decision makers that modern biotechnology
can be an effective tool for increasing agricultural productivity, and
thereby economic growth, without imposing unacceptable risk to the environment
or human and animal health; and enable members of the public to make informed
decisions about appropriate uses of biotechnology by providing accurate
information about benefits, risks and impacts.
Why is communication important?
Deliberate strategies to implement science communication
in general, and biotechnology communication in particular, is crucial
so that knowledge and experiences can be shared to enable stakeholders
to make better informed decisions as to how, when and where biotechnology
should be used.
Hence, there is a need for a multi-stakeholder process or dialogue to
ensure public acceptance for crop biotechnology and in evolving enabling
policies. A process of deliberation is expected between and among stakeholders
to converge diverse ideas. The
participation of various stakeholders in knowledge generation and validation
assures responsible use of the technology and guarantees people of having
a choice or say in its adoption.
Saner (2007) enumerates reasons why we need to involve the public, among
which include: potentially improve public policy, a more informed and
engaged public, more solid support for regulatory decisions, and greater
public confidence in government. Communication therefore include these
activities: inform or educate to help understand a policy or program;
gather information to anticipate communication challenges; facilitate
discussion among stakeholders; engage citizens for shared agenda setting
and generate options; and partnering or reaching agreement among stakeholders.
What are the steps in implementing communication activities?
There are five important steps in implementing communicating activities.
The process is cyclical, as it involves a continuous flow of reassessment
and refinement. Versoza (2003) enumerates these steps as:
Assessment. This stage involves obtaining information
to guide the communication strategy. It identifies the behaviors desired,
key messages, audiences or stakeholders to reach, the communication channels
to reach the audience, and specific units to implement the communication
activities.
Planning.
A clear course of action is determined on the basis of the assessment
earlier done. Decisions are made with regards desired behaviors, key messages,
audiences, communication channels, and activities including supporting
elements such as budget, timeline, communication research plan, and a
capacity building component.
Material
development and pretesting. Production of communication materials
entails working with the audience to develop messages that will be effective
with them. Hence, messages must be clear and easy to understand, and culturally
sensitive.
Implementation.
The delivery and distribution of communication materials whether through
print, radio or television, or through interpersonal communication means
depends not only on quality and timeliness, but also on availability of
good supporting services.
Monitoring
and evaluation. These are carried out simultaneously with implementation
to determine audience response to messages, and subsequent changes in
knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices. This process enables mid-course
corrections and identifies new opportunities to improve the communication
component. The
final evaluation enables learnings to be used for future communication
programs.
What communication activities can be implemented to increase greater
awareness and understanding of biotechnology?
Biotech communication strategies must be linked with each country’s
cultural and political climate. Public support or consumer acceptance
for biotech is crucial for deriving any benefits associated with the technology.
It is driven by a number of interrelated factors: knowledge level, awareness
of benefits, confidence, and trust.
A strategic and complementary combination of interpersonal communication
and different mass media modalities is recommended. Interpersonal communication
is needed to achieve acceptance and use of technology while mass media
help promote awareness, knowledge and understanding. The choice of and
combination of communication strategies is determined by specific information
requirements and needs.
Personal interfaces allow people to interact in close proximity, use
sensory channels to relay messages, and receive immediate feedback. Building
networks and enhancing partnerships, or interacting with various stakeholders
is essential to get information across, obtain immediate feedback, and
correct/modify understanding of messages. Use
face-to-face communication with multi-media strategies like publications,
electronic-based formats, videos, CD ROMs, and exhibits. The possibilities
and combinations are endless and are limited only by communicators’
imagination and willingness to think out-of-the-box.
What are some lessons learned in communicating biotechnology?
Experiences learned from communicating biotechnology through
the years have given rise to several lessons. These include:
Communication is not merely a one-way process
of dishing out information to people based on the assumption that lack
of understanding stems from inadequate information or that ample information
can compel action. Rather, it involves social negotiation and dialogue
between and among varied audiences – policy makers, academicians, scientists,
and ultimately, consumers.
Biotechnology is an example of “science in the
making” and therefore likely to be provisional and controversial. Science
in the making depends much more from those involved in the process of
public understanding of science. The various “publics” need to take an
active role in the process of creating knowledge – hence, an informed
discussion on science and biotechnology, regulations, safety issues, ethical
dimensions, socio-economic perspectives as well as communicating biotechnology.
Science communication should be looked at as a
dynamic process with various communication strategies as mere components.
Communicators are not merely skilled people who are expected to process
information. Instead, they must contribute to being part of the process
of developing ‘socially robust’ knowledge and facilitating its development.
In embarking on any science communication initiative,
it is important to take stock of the current environment for biotech taking
into consideration scientific developments, political support, role of
key players vis a vis biotech, and influence of stakeholders in decision-making
process. There
is a need to identify issues considered most important to stakeholders,
key information sources, information gaps that need to be addressed; barriers
and opportunities to biotechnology acceptance in the country, among others.
The different “publics” are not merely passive
potential audiences for science communication but as active constituents
of the system in which the scientific community thrives and functions.
Communication modalities are merely tools to facilitate
communication. The choice on their use and frequency as well as combination
of strategies is dependent on stakeholders needs and concerns, and objectives.
Evaluation is necessary to determine if we are gaining impact from their
use.
Organizations involved in communicating biotechnology
should not be merely information centers. They should strive to be significant
players in the development of enabling environments for informed decisions
regarding the role of crop biotechnology.
Network of Biotechnology Information Centers
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA) has a network involved in biotechnology communication
– the Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology based at ISAAA’s Southeast
Asia Center, and Biotechnology Information Centers located in Africa,
Asia, Europe, and Latin America.
Together the Centers work together towards becoming a common voice on
crop biotechnology by consistently sharing messages that are credible
and compelling.
References
Castillo, Gelia. 2003. Science Communication Whose
Time Has Come: An Evaluation Report on the Global Knowledge Center on
Crop Biotechnology, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
James, Clive. 2007. The Global Status of Commercialized
Biotech/GM Crops: 2007. ISAAA Brief No. 37. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Navarro, Mariechel. 2008. Bridging the Knowledge
Divide: Experiences in Communicating Crop Biotechnology. International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Los
Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
Saner, Marc. 2007. What is Public Involvement?
Paper presented during the High Level Policy Dialogue Workshop on Public
Perception of Agricultural Biotechnology. Lima, Peru, October 4-5, 2007.
Public involvement continuum also available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/public-consult/res-centre/process_e.html
Traynor, Patricia, Marta Adonis, and Lionel Gil.
2007. Strategic Approaches to Informing the Public about Biotechnology
in Latin America. In Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. Retrieved from
http://www.ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol10/issue2/full/12/index.html
Verzosa, Cecillia Cabanero. 2003. Strategic Communication
for Development Projects. The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank, USA. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/Resources/toolkitwebjan2004
pdf.