The debate over GM food crops has been going on since the 1990s. The debate ranges over a wide spectrum of issues, which can be grouped under three main headings. First, and of most immediate concern, is the debate over the possible effect of GM foods on human health. Second is the debate over the impact of GM crops on the environment. And last is the socio-economic impact of GM agriculture.

This paper addresses the first debate, the possible health hazards of GM foods, and why it has not yet been resolved. The impact of GM crops on the environment is now well known – the rise and spread of “superweeds”, weeds resistant to herbicides, is well documented [1-3] and the engineering of resistance to even stronger herbicides is well underway with the US EPA approval of plant varieties that are tolerant of the herbicides 2,4-D [4] and approval imminent for the use of dicamba in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready XTend crop system [5].

The socio-economic debate is mainly concerned with the role of the agro-chemical industry in developing nations. This is still an open debate. On the one hand, critics of GM crops worry that the agrochemical industry will exploit the land and labour resources of developing nations, while advocates of GM crops believe that the technology can make a positive contribution to food production in these countries.

It is important to note that many advocates of GM crops are motivated by the possible benefits that GM technology may bring to humanity, and especially to the hungry people in the developing world. Other advocates, in the commercial world, are motivated by the profits that GM technology may bring to farmers and, of course, to their own industry.

This paper will provide a careful analysis of a debate over the safety of GM crops and food that took place in 1999, a debate that marks the turning point in popular attitude towards GM technology. The values underlying these two different sources of GM advocacy will be identified in that analysis. Their role in the shift from an open and reasoned debate over the science of GM to an ongoing, and often emotional, attempt to silence the critics of GM technology will be discussed. This will show how and why many advocates of GM are entirely opposed to any research that indicates possible hazards of GM crops and food.

This report summarises the presentations and discussion of a 2 day workshop on January 15-16, 2015, in Washington, DC organised as part of the National Research Council’s Roundtable on Public Interfaces of the Life Sciences.

The aim was to to explore the public interfaces between scientists and citizens in the context of genetically engineered (GE) organisms. The workshop presentations and discussions dealt with perspectives on scientific engagement in a world where science is interpreted through a variety of lenses, including cultural values and political dispositions, and with strategies based on evidence in social science to improve public conversation about controversial topics in science. The workshop istelf focused on public perceptions and debates about genetically engineered plants and animals, commonly known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), because the development and application of GMOs are heavily debated among some stakeholders, including scientists. For some applications of GMOs, the societal debate is so contentious that it can be difficult for members of the public, including policy-makers, to make decisions. Thus, although the workshop focused on issues related to public interfaces with the life science that apply to many science policy debates, the discussions are particularly relevant for anyone involved with the GMO debate.

Scientific institutions and innovation-focused government bodies have identified public attitudes to synthetic biology as an obstruction to the field. This view is based on a perception that the public is (or will likely become) fearful of synthetic biology and that a ‘public scare’ would impede development of the field.

Fear of the public’s fear of synthetic biology, which I characterise as ‘synbiophobia-phobia’, has been the driving force behind the promotion of public engagement and other activities to address ‘ethical, legal and social issues’ (ELSI).

These activities have been problematic in two ways. Firstly, they are based on the discredited ‘deficit-model’ understanding of public responses to science, in which negative public attitudes towards science are thought to result from a lack of scientific knowledge. Secondly, they have taken for granted sociotechnical expectations put forward by scientific institutions.

These promises of the field, and the tacit normative commitments embedded within them, have not been opened up to public appraisal. Synthetic biology’s ELSI-work has taken place early on, before commercialisation, but rather than helping to avoid a polarised controversy, this effort has laid the battleground for conflict among opposing groups when products begin to reach the market.

Link goes to a page with a download option.