Anthony Scott: Reasoned dialogue must prevail over acts of destruction

COMMENT

Do not expect the GM debate to expire with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms.

Values debates do not neatly coincide with legislative decisions. People opposed to abortion, for example, did not become reconciled when the decriminalisation law was passed.

We should not, therefore, expect those absolutely opposed to the responsible use of GM techniques to lessen their opposition simply because a royal commission looking at the scientific facts and considering our nation's spiritual and cultural values, a parliamentary select committee and Parliament itself (by an overwhelming pan-party vote and following a general election in which genetic modification was a central issue) have all agreed New Zealand must proceed with caution.

However, two questions merit closer attention.

First, how tolerant will we be as a society of those who act outside the law to express their continuing opposition?

And, secondly, can we better manage the process of debating similarly complex issues of values, culture and science?

These are practical questions for New Zealand's science entities.

We have seen scientists (and their families) harassed, their research literally uprooted and dispersed, property destroyed and even acid thrown at their vehicles by those who disagree with the right to do approved research.

It is little wonder that some scientists have moved abroad - taking their work, knowledge and capabilities with them. They are, in any sense, refugees from this nation.

Laboratories have been vandalised. We expect GM work will be the target of deliberate campaigns of destruction by a few people.

The aim is to prevent legally and scientifically sanctioned work by forcing fear or despair upon the researchers.

However equivocal any of us might be about GM, we should not give comfort and support to those who deliberately wreak destruction and attack others' work or personal safety.

Wiser heads must counsel those considering direct action that it is neither heroic nor legitimate, and might well be counter-productive.

As New Zealanders we are good at expressing our views, but abhor those who step beyond the bounds.

The news media, petitions, street marches and even the courts provide forums - and there is the ultimate sanction of the ballot-box.

Anti-GM protests have paled in comparison to the 1981 Springbok tour and anti-Vietnam and anti-nuclear protests, both in numbers and the polarisation of views.

While there are some concerns, it seems New Zealanders are willing to give the Environmental Risk Management Authority process a fair go.

The second question is about what we might have learned from the GM debate, and how we might do better in this and similar future debates.

The key lesson is the need to move from talking past each other or over the heads of others to true dialogue.

It will abandon the "them and us" approach, which implies a struggle between science and society. Science is part and parcel of society, underpinning our wealth and well-being.

The adversarial approach can lead to science enterprises keeping their research secretive and hoping a "trust me" approach will work. Clearly it won't.

Instead, let's encourage more engagement, earlier. Then it can be seen as an exploration of possibilities for wider society to begin considering risk and benefit. At present, it seems to open the research to the prospect of immediate guillotining.

Let's also abandon stereotypes that portray scientists as nasty, profit-driven and mercenary, rather than people contributing their skills to build a better country.

Similar caricatures exist about those who have other views - ill-informed and willing to subvert the facts to fit a particular world view.

Our science environment is small, so unethical behaviour is easily spotted. Our publicly owned entities are driven by scientific excellence and ethical and social responsibility, not profit.

Our scientists are proud of their independence and integrity.

Dialogue will uncover shared concerns, such as the ownership of GM technologies. Should this social or political issue, related only to some uses, prevent all GM research, even that which is publicly owned? Let's clarify what is germane.

How we debate is important. At times it has been like the fabled Englishman trying to make himself understood in a foreign shop - he just shouts louder.

But louder repetition of the facts is not likely to persuade those with a different view that we do not bother to understand. Worse, it does nothing to engage a wider range of the public.

We need to make space for those who are not activists (for or against) - and who might be less well informed - to learn, reflect and add their voice. The royal commission process provides a good model.

As a society we have to better understand how science works. For example, few scientists are willing to make absolute statements.

There is always more to learn. This strength is a weakness in public debate. Absolutes are demanded either by those who fail to understand the limitations of science, or by those who benefit by fostering fear of the yet to be known.

Science is self-correcting, constantly testing results and processes. This behaviour propels knowledge and discredits the fraudulent and the fanciful.

It also makes science the best ally of sound argument.

It takes time to establish a consensus of sound scientific opinion on any subject, adjusting as new knowledge is added. Opponents, or those who report them, should acknowledge they are going against the mainstream.

The consensus on GM, for example, reinforced by British studies, is that responsible use is a matter for case-by-case analysis. This is exactly what the Environmental Risk Management Authority process allows.

The media have a vital role to play. They should cover more than the noise of the day by indicating where the weight of scientific fact, as well as opinion, lies.

In the end, science can only propose possibilities for wider society to decide upon.

Genuine dialogue will respect others' values and intent, provide a context for discussing risk and benefits and be grounded in sound science.

Now, let's prove that New Zealand values dialogue over destruction.

* Anthony Scott is the executive director of the Association of Crown Research Institutes.