Gregory L. Fowler
Provender Journal, May-June 2001, Vol. 18, Issue 3

Whether we like it or not, the world we live in has changed a great deal in the last hundred years. Of all the great inventions and discoveries during that time, perhaps the most impressive is our improved understanding of the structure and function of living cells and particularly the discovery of the double DNA helix by Watson and Crick, in 1953.

From that single event, modern genetic biotechnology was birthed-a 21st century phenomenon that promises to revolutionize our lives-at home, in the workplace, and in society-at-large. The food we eat, the way we have our babies, the way we work, the way we manage illness, the way we perceive the world around us-and our place in it-will be changed forever.

To help guide the process necessary to ensure that the changes science and technology promise are channeled in the right directions in genome science, Geneforum, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization headquartered in Portland, Oregon, was founded in 1998. At the heart of the organization's mission is the concept of "educating to legislate," that is, the creation of public policies which reflect public values and arise out of an informed dialogical process.

With regard to the importance of really understanding what one is talking about, consider the following: nearly 60 percent of people in a recent poll said they didn't want genetically engineered crops introduced into the food supply. But when informed that the ingredients were already in at least half the products on store shelves, 48 percent of the respondents said they thought biotech products were okay, while 21 percent thought they were unsafe. The remaining 31 percent didn't have an opinion.

Adding these responses to others generated from questions about the safety of genetically engineered (GE) crops, the organization that commissioned the poll of 1,001 adults concluded that, "Most Americans do not have strong or well-informed opinions about this new (GE foods) technology. The technology has moved faster than the public's ability to fully understand it and its implications."

In the last eleven months, 281 people have shared their preferences-and their values-about GE foods with Geneforum by participating in the "Go Shopping" scenario. The scenario offers three categories of (virtual) fresh strawberries to grocery shoppers. (See http://www.geneforum.org/getinvolved/gef/scenario02/ for details).

Sixty-six percent of the shoppers (185) selected the two berries which had been genetically engineered. The remaining 34 percent (96) chose the organically grown berry. For this particular sample of shoppers, cost seemed to play a more significant role in determining selection than did a label indicating "genetic modification" since of the three berries, the labeled GE berry was more expensive than the unlabeled one, a prediction of things to come if GE foods require identification. Reflecting current reality in many places, the organic strawberry was the most expensive of the three.

As expected, values driving specific choices of berries ranged from the individual (cost, taste, health, convenience, informed choice, and risk) to concern for the larger societal issues of environment, food supply, and the demise of the small farmer. Respondents were offered opportunities at the web site to share their views with agricultural experts and policy makers.

The Geneforum public involvement process is unique. Its success depends on three steps:

1. An opportunity for considerable deliberation (e.g., a risks and benefits evaluation) before responses are recorded;
2. A separation of issues of fact from value judgments (on the grounds that experts are the appropriate arbiters for fact, and, in a democracy, the people are the appropriate arbiters of value); and
3. An analysis of public input on a given issue prepared for, and delivered to, an appropriate decision making body to inform the policy making process.

Through the efforts of Geneforum, the perspectives of more than 400 Oregonians helped guide the deliberations of a body of experts convened by the state legislature last year to explore the social and ethical ramifications of altering Oregon's present statute on genetic privacy. Public perspectives are now part of a new Senate Bill poised to be debated by the Oregon legislators in the current session. Future legislation on GE foods could similarly benefit from the Geneforum process.

It is consistent with a democratic form of government to expect to exercise civic responsibility and to face public accountability for the social consequences of using genetic science. This participation makes most sense when it is seen as a joint effort between the general public and technical experts both helping to shape the political decisions of policy-makers.

Author

Greg Fowler of Lake Oswego is executive director of Geneforum, a Portland nonprofit, nonpartisan organization seeking to educate and inform citizens about the societal implications stemming from the new genetics.
Acknowledgements

Republished with permission from the author.