How do you deal with issues where public opinion differs from scientific evidence? E.g. how GM crops can help decrease

Question: How do you deal with issues where public opinion differs from scientific evidence? E.g. how GM crops can help decrease food shortage by increasing the yield of the produce, but GM crops are seen as 'Frankenstein foods' by the public.
- Keywords:
  crop,
  genetic modification,
  opinion
Asked by anon-253607 on 1 Jun 2020.
- anon answered on 1 Jun 2020:
  
  It’s a complicated one! I used to work with medicines and there’s a lot of “misinformation” out there
  
  For me the best way if I am approached on these subjects is to remain calm and use science and common sense on the reply. Be candid when you don’t know. Explain the supporting data.
  
  In general Scientists owe it to the public to be truthful and transparent. We need to make sure that the public has access to transparent and true information and prevent the dissemination of “fake news” or guesses.
- Charlotte Walker answered on 1 Jun 2020:
  
  Hi Georgina,
  
  I actually work on a project that is trying to increase food yield through a GM approach. It is a very interesting topic to discuss with the public! The way I deal with it is by positively engaging in the conversation, a lot of the time people do not really understand what GM is and what examples they may come across in their life time.
  
  Some of the reasons people’s perspectives are negative is because of lack of information. Interestingly there are different ways to modify an organism’s genetic material but only some methods are really considered “GM” by EU law, a fact many people are not aware of. Also, we have actually been genetically modifying plants since the agricultural revolution when we learnt to cross different varieties to promote certain traits so all modern agricultural crops are genetically modified by man by various methods.
  
  It’s important to know you facts and be able to discuss them in a way that most people would understand. I try to listen to people’s concerns and have a few interesting examples to share with them that may change the way they perceive the topic in the future.
- Gareth Mason answered on 1 Jun 2020:
  
  The most common conflict I encounter is regarding the reintroduction of beaver in Scotland, and the real and perceived impact this has on the landscape and people. I do my best to remain calm and neutral but will talk about all the benefits that have been scientifically proven to come from beavers, and try and put a different slant on the negatives that people focus on. It is a lot easier to do this in the field where I can show people exactly what I mean. As long as I stick to fact, and remain friendly, even if they continue to disagree they will hopefully at least learn something new.
- Luke Hillary answered on 1 Jun 2020:
  
  Sometimes I get this with colleagues as well as members of the public! I had to field a few comments along the lines of “coronavirus came from a Chinese lab” or “it’s only as bad as flu”. Sticking to numbers really helps.
  
  When I used to be a science teacher, I also got a few “evolution isn’t real” or “the Earth is flat”. Sometimes I find little stories can be quite helpful, e.g. I grew up in the fens where there are so few hills you can just about see the curvature of the Earth. Somehow this was more convincing.
  
  I try to avoid getting into scientific arguments on social media, mainly because people can get quite combative and sometimes have an agenda to push rather than being willing to listen to and critically evaluate evidence. There needs to be more effort made to stop the spread of misinformation, particularly around medical issues but the we also need to address the underlying reasons why people are turning to, and spreading fake news more often.
- Ricardo González-Gil answered on 1 Jun 2020:
  
  I think it is important first to understand why public opinion differs from scientific evidence. We should ask the general public why their opinion differs and listen carefully. Sometimes, people have not understood the scientific conclusions. In these cases, we have to find a better way to communicate our research findings, using more clear and friendly explanations. Other times, people are afraid or they do not trust the scientific evidence. Then, we have to be open to their opinions and discuss them with calm. Finally, We have to make the information easily accessible to the public, so they can check the scientific evidence by themselves.
- Helen Roy answered on 2 Jun 2020:
  
  It is really important to present scientific evidence clearly and to explain the uncertainties transparently and openly. In many disciplines there is not just one right answer when using scientific findings to inform decisions. So for example in conservation ecology there could be many ways of approaching a particular environmental issue and that’s why it is really important to help everyone understand the evidence so they can be part of the decision-making process. This is one of the many reasons why science communication is so important. For example there may be a limited amount of money to manage a nature reserve and choices have to be made about what to prioritise – perhaps providing specific habitat for one rare species or accommodating many common species that together play an important role in the ecosystem.
- Steve Wroe answered on 2 Jun 2020:
  
  You owe it to yourself and to science to explain the facts (as you understand them). However. Our society thrives by living in a democracy, so all that we can do is to present the scientific facts to society and to our law makers and it is then up to society to decide either to accept the scientific advice or to ignore it and choose a different path. That is called democracy. I hope that this helps
- anon answered on 3 Jun 2020:
  
  I think the best way to look at this is to understand the other side of it. One of the problems with GM foods is the lack of diversity in a batch, for instance if GM crops are hit by a disease, it is likely the entire crop will be lost with no resistance, compared with non GM crops that have more genetic diversity between individual crops.
  There are other issues surrounding GM crops as well such as non organic uses and impacting the environment and wildlife, of course the issue of organic crops exists in non GM crops too.
  But if you can make the stance for GM foods being grown in a lab like environment, such as vertical farms etc. then many of the actual issues that surrounds GM foods disappear, and you just have the issue of the view of them as ‘frankenstein foods’ to argue with, where you really need to focus on the positives such as food shortages, how the quality of the crop is not affected by being GM, and compare it to domestic animals, with high levels of plasticity in many dog breeds, and how that is so harmful but we still continue to breed such animals. But it’s important to understand why people are against GM crops so you can then base your arguments that is relevant to the person you are speaking to and pulling from scientific resources to back up your argument.