The Food and Drug Administration is accepting public comments on a new education and outreach initiative about biotechnology, mandated by Congress. Comments close on Friday, November 17th, and Biology Fortified strongly encourages scientists and members of the public to submit comments to help shape and inform this initiative. A public meeting was held this week in Charlotte, NC, and a second meeting will be held on Tuesday November 14th in San Francisco from 8 am to 1 pm, where members of the public can sign up to submit oral comments as well.
Education and outreach are extremely important to address the wide gap between the scientific literature and public perceptions about biotechnology, and these outreach efforts must themselves be informed by what we know about science communication. Biology Fortified will be submitting our own comments to the federal register, but if you take a look at the comments that have already been submitted online, you can see that there are very few informed comments at all, some of which make accusations of the FDA and swearing insults and implied threats against them. These comments, however, will do little to sway the FDA, but what will have an impact are informed, on-point comments that can help them navigate this issue.
Your comments can and do make a difference. Recently, the USDA scrapped new proposed rules regulating biotechnology that did not make much sense, and this was in part due to the detailed comments that they received. What does the FDA want to hear about?
We invite the public to share information, experiences, and suggestions that can help inform the development of the education and outreach initiative. We invite interested persons, including those participating in the public meetings, to respond to the following questions specifically regarding agricultural biotechnology and biotechnology-derived food products and animal feed:
1. What are the specific topics, questions, or other information that consumers would find most useful, and why?
2. Currently, how and from where do consumers most often receive information on this subject?
3. How can FDA (in coordination with USDA) best reach consumers with science-based educational information on this subject?
The comments received will help FDA identify education goals, messaging, and dissemination strategies for FDA’s Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative.
Source: Portal Educativo. Image slightly modified.
Biotechnology is poised to become one of the most valuable scientific revolutions of the 21st century. Because the field is developing so quickly, the gap between expert and non-expert knowledge is increasing at a time when societal decisions about it are becoming more and more important. So how do we promote biotechnology literacy in the classroom? What should non-experts know about genetic technologies in order to make informed decisions? I conducted a study to answer these questions, and here is what I found.
Even though scientific knowledge is an important part of science literacy, how people feel about a technology – their general positive or negative attitudes – also plays a role in their decision-making. In fact, there’s evidence that attitudes play a greater role than knowledge in determining students’ behavior toward biotechnology. I set out to understand what issues undergraduate students draw upon when they reason about genetic technologies. I also wanted to know whether classroom dialogue about biotechnology influences their attitudes and understanding. This information can provide a window into the conceptual frameworks that students use to make decisions about genetic technologies, and can help educators and communicators develop specific strategies for connecting with their audiences.
Students discuss biotechnology
Twenty years ago, my postdoctoral mentor Pamela Ronald launched an innovative course designed for non-science majors at UC Davis. Genetics and Society engages students in the science, politics, social issues, ethics, and economics surrounding biotechnology. It remains popular today. Recognizing the importance of dialogue around this complex topic, Pam introduced “discussion sections” into the course. During the discussion sections, students engage in rational discourse about a biotechnology issue – for example, whether or not all food containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients should be labeled as “GMO”. The discussion sections provide an opportunity for students to share their thoughts and consider the many facets involved in decision-making about biotechnology. Scientific arguments used in the class are required to be evidence-based, and students are graded on the credibility of their sources. While students in Genetics and Society generally enjoy these peer-to-peer discussions, no one had looked closely at how they influence their understanding and attitudes about genetic technologies.
At the beginning of the course, I asked the students to state their attitudes on seven different biotechnology applications. Three topics related to food: whether or not we should label GMOs, whether GE of plants should be prohibited, and whether GE of animals should be prohibited. I also asked the students to justify their attitude for each topic. At the end of each weekly discussion section, during which a group of students presented on an individual application/topic, I collected this information a second time from the students in the audience. These pre-post attitudes with corresponding reasoning provided the data for my study. Figure 1. Student attitudes significantly changed for three topics following classroom dialogue. Source: Anderton & Ronald, Journal of Biological Education, 2017.
I started by looking for significant changes in students’ attitudes following the discussion sections. I found significant changes for three topics: GMO labeling, GE of animals, and the FDA ban on 23andme’s health reports* (Figure 1). Because the students did not appear to have familiarity with the 23andme ban at the beginning of the course, I didn’t select that topic for further analysis. In the end, I selected GMO labeling and GE of animals, as well as two topics for which I didn’t observe significant attitude changes (DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing research) for further analysis. Pam and I reasoned that it was important to take a close look at student reasoning in the presence and absence of attitude changes, because learning can happen even if a person doesn’t change their mind.
Analyzing the themes
Using the justifications given by the students for their attitudes on the four topics selected above – GMO labeling, GE of animals, DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing – I performed an approach called thematic analysis, in which I looked for overarching patterns or themes that were prevalent in students’ reasoning about biotechnology. Through an iterative process, I identified seven major themes that students drew upon in their justifications (Figure 2). I also tallied the number of times I detected a change in the use of a theme following a given discussion section (i.e., whenever a student adopted new reasoning or abandoned prior reasoning following a discussion section). Figure 2. Seven overarching themes related to student reasoning about biotechnology. Source: Anderton & Ronald, Journal of Biological Education, 2017.
Our preliminary evidence suggests that the discussion sections – and perhaps classroom discourse in particular – provide students with a more nuanced understanding of biotechnology. For example, students generally increased their use of “Middle Way” reasoning following the discussion sections. This suggests that they developed a greater appreciation of regulations that consider biotechnology applications on a case-by-case basis. We also observed increased use of the Economic theme following the two discussion sections for which students had significant attitude changes. It is possible that the economic considerations of genetic technologies can sway people’s attitudes, but this remains to be proven.
Scientific decision-making involves more than just facts. By better understanding the complex processes that take place when students learn and make decisions about genetic technologies – like we did in this study – educators can connect with their audiences and promote biotechnology literacy. A more informed and nuanced discussion will help our society determine the best ways to use biotechnology and to direct our focus as it continues to evolve.
To access the full version of the manuscript, Hybrid thematic analysis reveals themes for assessing student understanding of biotechnology, please go to: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338599.
Please address any questions or comments to Brittany Anderton at bnanderton@udavis.edu.
*The FDA banned 23andme genetic health reports in November 2013, citing concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of such information to consumers. In October 2015 the ban was lifted, and 23andme resumed offering carrier-status testing, though no longer offers testing for health conditions such as cancer and heart disease.
Written by Guest Expert
Brittany Anderton seeks to improve the intersection of science and society by educating the next generation of responsible scientists and citizens. She has a PhD in cancer biology, studied the teaching and communication of biotechnology as a postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis, and is now the Associate Director of Research Talks at iBiology and Lecturer at CSU Sacramento.
The DIY Bio Revolution
This summer, the website GMO Answers was launched by the Council for Biotechnology Information in the hopes of making “information about GMOs in food and agriculture easier to access and understand.” As seen in past and present discussions about GMOs—the Kaua’i County Bill #2491 debate comes to mind—misinformation and fear mongering hinders productive conversation. GMO Answers is a great educational resource and I am glad it was created. However, I believe people also need to develop a personal relationship with genetic engineering and interact with it if the “GMO fright” pandemic is to be fully addressed.
Imagine if biotechnology was a common, friendly, hands-on experience for anyone interested. Imagine if learning biotechnology skills and practicing them was just as common as learning survival skills for a girl scout troop. Imagine if grandmas could receive homemade GMOs from their grandchildren. Imagine if Grandma could pick up the hobby of DIY biology along with knitting. Continue reading “GMO How-To Kit: Interactive Future of Biotech Education”→
Have you ever wondered what goes into breeding your favorite fruit varieties? Breeding apples, plums, oranges and pears is made understandable with this video that explains the basic biology, origins, and techniques involved in breeding fruit trees.
Merry Mou won first place in the Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship. 700 to 900 students participate with their research projects in a variety of categories, including physics, biology, and computer science. Winners are chosen to go on to state and national competitions.
Merry Mou won 1st place in Botany in the 2010 Championship for her project, Phenotypic and Genotypic Analyses of Oryza Sativa T-DNA Lines, which was completed in the summer of 2010 as part of the Young Scholars Program under the guidance of postdoctoral fellow Manoj Sharma. She will be participating in the California State Science Fair in May. Continue reading “Congratulations to our student champions”→
Taking a page from the modern creationist movements that seek to weaken high school education in evolutionary biology, a French group is looking to do the same to biology classes – but now it’s genetic engineering that is the target. Nature News reports in Transgenic bacterium sparks row in French schools, that CRIIGEN, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, is advocating that useful, direct education in fundamentals of genetic transformation should be kept from high school students.
I guess it was only a matter of time. The particular brand of extreme belief about the risks of genetic engineering espoused by Seralini, who is the president of the scientific board of The Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), has now spilled over into the inevitable conclusion that anything and everything GMO-like should be in advanced low-air-pressure biosafety labs only. Because simple things done a million times over such as adding a plasmid to a tube of harmless bacteria to demonstrate how basic genetic engineering works is knowledge that French high school students should not have access to. Why? Because doing a safe, controlled experiment “trivializes” a touchy subject. Continue reading “Seralini seeks to dilute biology education”→
The International Horticulture Congress (IHC2010) recently convened in Lisbon, Portugal. Presentations illustrated repeatedly how adjustment of gene expression, via transgenics or breeding, could lead to enhanced quality of fruits and vegetables.
During a workshop on August 25 I had the opportunity to listen to several experts in the field of biotechnology and public perception. The workshop was centered on making the technology more palatable for the general public- allowing these valuable, safe and environmentally friendly technologies to flirt with commercialization.
Unfortunately, one central theme was that science is letting the tail wag the dog. Continue reading “GMO Discussion at IHC2010”→
The Univeristy of Nebraska Lincoln has a wonderful site called Plant and Soil Sciences eLibrary. It is an educational site with beginner and advanced articles in English and Spanish. Topics include herbicides, plant breeding, and genetic engineering. They include power point type videos on a variety of topics. My favorite is: Who wants to be a genetic engineer? in which the viewer can choose to make Bt corn or cinnamon flavored apples. It’s adorable and educational!
I went to a seminar titled “Harvesting ecosystem services from cellulosic biofuel landscapes” at Iowa State yesterday. The speaker was Michigan State Professor of Entomology Douglas Landis. His research is very practical, focusing on which types of plants should be used in biomass production for biofuels to encourage the highest biodiversity of insects. This is important because insects provide many ecosystem services, including pollination and predation of pests.
His work shows that switchgrass and mixed prairie encouraged higher numbers of some native insect species, but also encouraged some invasive insects. Corn likewise had mixed results (especially encouraging native insects that like to eat corn!). His methods of data collection are simply fun – low tech but effective – nets, sticky traps, leaf blowers turned into vacuums, and such.
It’s good work, because we really need people working on the sustainability issues associated with farming. Growing biomass for fuel, as any farming, could be beneficial or detrimental to the environment – it’s up to people like Dr. Landis to make sure it’s the former.
Unfortunately, Dr. Landis seems to be misinformed on one issue – Bt crops. I won’t go into too much detail here, but Bt crops have been shown to increase insect biodiversity because overall levels of pesticide are decreased. I would have thought that an entomologist concerned with biodiversity would at least contemplate a cost-benefit analysis of Bt.
In the introduction of his talk, Dr. Landis mentioned the 2007 PNAS paper “Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems”. This paper is more than a little controversial, because the authors make broad claims that do not follow from their results. The authors make the typical mistake of lumping that is never appropriate in science. All Bt is not the same, all aquatic insects are not the same, all corn fields are not managed in the same way… Dr. Landis should have at a minimum mentioned that the paper has been contested before trotting it out as evidence.
I wrote about the press release of the paper when it first came out, and I continue to be frustrated by the mediocre science and the terrible way that people twist results to make the point they want. Feel free to read the paper for yourself, but don’t pass up the rebuttals. Beachy, et. al. make the point that papers like this are taken by the popular media and used to fuel debates – regardless of the strength of the science. It truly is the responsibility of every scientist and especially of every reviewer to put aside personal bias for or against the paper and make sure the conclusions are supported as much as possible by hard evidence. The reviewers of this paper should have sent it back, requesting some of the experiments explained in the rebuttals (such as dose-response measurements, as suggested by Parrott). Streamhead with and without corn residues
Dr. Landis showed this pair of images from the Rosi-Marshall paper, implying that corn residues in streams are all the fault of genetic engineering, as if organic corn crops or other crops in general don’t clutter up streamheads. He seems to think that harvesting switchgrass or mixed prarie would somehow not leave the same sorts of residues in streams.
Of course, all crops are going to leave residues in nearby streams, plant matter that is not a natural part of the ecosystem. What I find most ironic is that, if crop residues actually do damage streams, we should start harvesting them for biofuels right now!
To make things even worse, Dr. Landis told the audience (full of impressionable sustainable ag majors) that “the Bt toxin leaches from crop residues into streams where it kills aquatic insects.” This statement is wrong for a lot of reasons, the main one being that there is zero evidence that Bt leaches from the plants that produce it. If you know of any evidence showing that it does, please let me know, but I’m not going to hold my breath. E. J. Rosi-Marshall, J. L. Tank, T. V. Royer, M. R. Whiles, M. Evans-White, C. Chambers, N. A. Griffiths, J. Pokelsek, M. L. Stephen (2007). Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (41), 16204-16208 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707177104
The Rodale Institute, major proponent of organic agriculture, is offering a free online at-your-own-pace course that focuses on the transition from conventional to organic farming. They also have a calculator that farmers can use to find how much more (or less, I suppose) their farm can make if they transition to organic, given their specific situation. If you take the course, let me know what you think.
The Rodale Institute does a lot of good work, although I am frustrated by their nonscience views on quite a few topics, including raw milk and genetic engineering. The whole technology-is-evil schtick is less than productive, but many organic techniques are productive. I used to have a very negative view of organic because of their rejection of science, but Tomorrow’s Table by Pamela Ronald changed my views. She explains that reduction of chemical inputs and impact on the environment can be best achieved with a combination of organic techniques and careful application of genetic engineering. Buying organic doesn’t necessarily mean “I think GMOs are evil” but it does mean “I don’t want to eat pesticides, and am looking for a change.”
Thanks to Dr. Cornelia Butler Flora of NCRCRD for pointing this course out to ISU’s Sustainable Agriculture students.
The course overall is a good introduction to what organic is and its benefits. Not unexpectedly, I do have a few critiques (as well as compliments)… Continue reading “Transition to Organic”→
The Food and Drug Administration is accepting public comments on a new education and outreach initiative about biotechnology, mandated by Congress. Comments close on Friday, November 17th, and Biology Fortified strongly encourages scientists and members of the public to submit comments to help shape and inform this initiative. A public meeting was held this week in Charlotte, NC, and a second meeting will be held on Tuesday November 14th in San Francisco from 8 am to 1 pm, where members of the public can sign up to submit oral comments as well.
Biofortified 