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.
