2012: The year we make news

The last three years have been fun and exciting for us here at Biofortified. Even more so the last three weeks – as we have raised almost $2,500 in personal donations (and blog schwag purchases) to keep the blog going and expand our projects into new areas. I have thanked all of our donors personally, and taking it all together, I can’t sufficiently express in words how thankful I am that so many people have been willing to support us, and for so much. If you thought we were wildly happy back when we won the Changemakers contest in 2009, we’re so much more excited now!

We have some ambitious goals ahead of us, from art to videos, tax-exempt status and more, but there is one more thing that I think we should strive for in the coming year – making the news. We are indexed by Google News, so in that sense we are making news as we report and comment on what goes on in the world. But what I mean is making a big enough impact in the world that other news organizations start reporting on us. The more reaching out we can do, the more people may come here and exchange ideas, contribute articles, and learn about science. I know that we have a good following amongst scientists, and it would be great if we could bring more people into the discussion.

Continue reading…

Share

Biotechnology: communication and politics

I had the pleasure of speaking today with Matthew Nisbet, author of a controversial report about communication of climate change. Matt’s full report Climate Shift is well worth a read, but is a bit daunting at almost 100 pages. Andrew Revkin has an excellent play by play discussing Matt’s report as well as the commentary that has surrounded it: Beyond the Climate Blame Game. There were a lot of interesting ideas discussed at today’s meet and greet but I’ve pulled out a two ideas that are relevant to the discussion of biotechnology.

1) When talking about climate change, if we ever want to accomplish real communication, we need to find the scientists that are in the pragmatic* middle. These scientists in the pragmatic middle are more likely to be able to make themselves understood and are more likely to have things in common with the public in the pragmatic middle.

Does this apply to biotechnology? In some ways, I have to say no.

Continue reading…

Share