Communicating Science to a Common Man

On my way to the airport recently I was enjoying the view outside and trying to understand the growth model in this part of the country which boasts the presence of greenery along with the upcoming multistory buildings. Suddenly, car driver’s voice broke the stream of my thought. He inquired who we were going to receive and what was the purpose of his visit. I was not surprised by his inquisitiveness and accepted this invitation to initiate the conversation. In this I saw an opportunity to interact with a common person, who probably has no science background, in his language and see if he could appreciate what the scientists do.

We were headed to the airport to receive our guest speaker who was going to deliver an award lecture on the role of biotechnology in insuring food security for steeply growing population of our country as well as that of the world as a whole.

It has always been difficult task for scientists to communicate what they do in their labs to the general public. Thus, to address his inquiry appropriately, I had to think for few seconds before replying. I thought that if I told him that the scientists around the world are trying to use the tools of biotechnology and information available from genomics and proteomics to enhance stress tolerating capacity and increase the productivity of our crops, will he be able to comprehend. Definitely not, and our conversation would not survive even for a minute.

This dilemma has been the root source of miscommunication between what scientists do in their laboratories and how common people perceive that. This communication gap has complicated the situation and has resulted in many incidences of friction and non-acceptance of many new technologies which are directly associated with addressing prime problems that our societies are facing. However, I took the challenge and tried to make it interactive and interesting for him.

I asked him, if our population kept increasing and the land for farming kept decreasing due to various construction activities and other factors such as drought, salinity, wetlands; how he thinks we are going to feed these many people.

Image curtsy: www.jayhanson.us

He seemed clueless but was curious to know if we have answer this question.

Image curtsy: World food programme

I challenged his imagination and asked whether he can think of getting many fold more grains from a single wheat or a rice plant, and whether rice plants can grow even in semi-dry condition, and whether these possibilities will answer my first question.

He said if farmers can grow water based crops in semiarid areas and if those crops can give more yield than usual we certainly have the answer.

Then, I told him that the speaker we are going to receive today is a scientist who has done a lot of breakthrough work in this area. He and his colleagues have made a rice crop by inserting some genes so that it may tolerate, grow and survive in salty and dry soil and produce increased amount of rice.

The common man in the driver realized the implication of this scientific achievement and said that the scientists are doing much more for the society and people than many VIPs that he goes to fetch from airport on daily basis. Although I did not heed to his comparison, I was certainly relieved that he understood the potential of science to take the future challenges of humanity.

This conversation with a common man, a cab driver, proved one point undoubtedly that there indeed is a gap in how scientific achievements are communicated to our public and how our people perceive it or how their perceptions are manipulated by the vested interests.

There is urgent need to fill this gap by better communication in simple and non-scientific words so that public acceptability of scientific accomplishments can be increased and any unfounded fear of the new technologies is thwarted.

In an illuminating lecture our guest speaker, a honorable and highly acclaimed scientist, presented his findings in a very simple and lucid manner how his team inserted some genes in the crop, rice, plant so that it can tolerate the salty and dry condition and grow without drying. The new crop was transferred to an indigenous seed company to test it further on the larger scale and, if successful, transfer it to farmers for cultivation. However, due to broader opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMO) technologies the field trial could not see the light of the day.

The concerned audience put forth few relevant questions regarding the various social and economic issues associated with GMO debate. As has been stated earlier at different platforms, per se the GMO technique itself is not bad and anything which comes out for public use is tested on many scientific parameters and has to pass many controls and regulations. If the products pass all these regulations and controls and found to be safe for public use then only it is, and should be, released in public domain. The same is true of any technology that has potential for general use.

Then, why these crops should be treated any differently? In pharmaceutical sector as well, the drugs are tested and trial are conducted at various levels for its safety and efficacy and if found safe on all counts then only it is released and allowed for public use. If, however, it turns out to be not safe or have serious side effects even after the release, it is quickly and completely withdrawn.

Can’t the same be done for GMOs? The governments all over the world should devise proper regulations and controls rather than banning this technology. They should allow the improved crop varieties with increased yield and nutritional values so that world food and nutrition security is assured. By public funding of the research, new crop varieties can be made accessible and affordable to the poorest of the farmers.

Indeed, science has the answers to our new and emerging problems, it is up to us how we communicate it to our public, the end user, to enhance the understanding and acceptance and utilize it for the betterment of humanity.