Public Engagement

At the ‘November Festival’, the annual cultural festival of Kyoto University, we participated in screening of the movie 'Genetic Roulette', claiming the danger of crops made with genetic modification, GMO, based on the research results.

iGEM Kyoto tried to eliminate people's fear of genetic modification by disproving the paper introduced in the movie and then making a presentation that put forward the benefits of genetic modification. We found this to be more difficult than expected, and may need to re-consider our strategy for engaging the public.

Presenters

• Daiya Ohara (2nd year student of Resource Bioscience)
• Ren Takimoto (2nd year student of Applied Science)
• Yuishin Kosaka (2nd year student of Applied Science)
• Hao Li (4th year student of Applied Science)

Specific contents of the presentation were as follows.

• Examination of the article which was shown as the basis of the assertion in the movie
• Introduction of positive opinions on genetic modification
• Current state of genetic recombination experiments and iGEM Kyoto's thought about them

After the presentation, a question-and-answer session was held.

• It is strange that Monsanto is taking a patent if Monsanto really think for humanity. If Monsanto do not take a patent I can approve genetically modified crops. (impression)
• Do you see an indication that this natto (Japanese fermented beans) is not used genetically modified for when you buy natto? Moreover, please let me know the standards for buying food.
  

  --Yes, I do. But since I am a student and I’m broke, the standards of buying food is price. (Li)

• Although in the presentation you have been examining with criticism against the paper that is contrary to genetic modification, you should also examine the papers of genetic modification promotion parties with critical eyes. Also you said it takes one month to apply for genetic modification experiment, in that slide, do you wanted to say it is too long?
  

  -- I believe that it is also necessary to verify papers of genetic modification parties with critical eyes and deepen my understanding. (Takimoto)

  
  I did not wanted to say it was too long, but I rather wanted to say that management was so thoroughly done (Ohara)
• Genetically modified crops should be circulated in the world after 100% safety has been verified. Just because food is not enough, it cannot be said that researches can make genetically modified crops (impression)
• I thought that Europe was relatively severe against genetic modification, but I was surprised to see that Monsanto was acquired by Bayer AG, a German agricultural chemical company, and I would like you to explain about it. What is the obligation to display F1 that was made by cross of genetically modified crops and non-genetically modified crops?
  

  --Organizer responded to the question of Monsanto. I do not know the answer to that question of obligation, but since the producers go through the holes of the law, I think there is no obligation to display. (Ohara)

• Will biological diversity be lost if genetically modified crops spread to the field and crossed with non-genetically modified crops?
  

  -- Genetic diversity of crops is originally low because only agricultural crops with excellent character have been selected for a long time. However, when agricultural crops with resistance to pests are spread outdoors, there is a great possibility that it will affect species diversity. (Ohara)

As can be seen from the contents of the question and answer session, some participants in the screening had strong opposition to GMOs, and very intense debate was held.

After the screening, we conduct a survey questionnaire.
The following is the results of the questionare. (It is written in Japanese.)

The following is an English translation of excerpts from the questionnaire.

• Safety can not be proved completely. However, we eat GMO by comparison of "which is worse" with increase of pesticide, increase of labor burden of farmers, and increase of starvation etc by not using Bt,. You should have analyzed the composition of that part honestly. There is no point in saying theory to a person who is opposed by an emotional reason.
• I felt that the explanation of iGEM was done not in a neutral position wanting to experiment. I think science should be dealt with safety more carefully. I think that it will be impossible to recover.
• Unfortunately it was a waste of time.
• I wanted to let my acquaintances know that GMO is not good.
• It is true that you cannot know without actually doing it. However, damage and risk are involved in experiments, so I thought how to consider them is difficult.
• I could not figure out what it was. Can you use life for experiments?
• I was angry at the agribusiness of multinational corporations as I saw the movie.
• I found it necessary to verify whether the information is correct or not.
• I felt the content of the question-and-answer was inadequate.
• I felt that genetic engineering technology is not a problem that can be proceeded by the argument of 0 or 100.
• Since we cannot simply say whether GMO is good or bad, I think it is important to select and purchase good products by yourself.
• I rarely have a chance to listen to the opinion of GMO supporters, so it was valuable, but there were also many questions in the data they (the members of iGEM Kyoto) showed.
• Thinking of the future of Japan that ratified the TPP, I felt dark.
• I think that verifying arguments of theses is actually to experiment by yourselves and to think with your own head.

We learned through this screening that it is very difficult to get people who already have an aversion to GMOs to understand any of even the slightest advantages.In a presentation dealing with issues that are deeply concerned with the values of the people, such as for or against genetic modification, we found that it is better not to make a presentation which unilaterally presses on the merit of GMO like we did, but to make a presentation which engages the audience by comparing both the merits and demerits of organic grown foods with those of GMOs. By doing so, we can form trusting relationship with the participants that produces better results for open and unbiased discussion.