Millions of dollars go into the science research and technology innovation in the area of biotechnology only for the results and products to sit on the shelves for years because of lack of approvals by various governments and regulatory agencies worldwide. A good example is the Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project in 1999 developed by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) (Olembo et al., 2010). On the basis of pragmatism, it would make sense to balance out this expenditure by directing some of it to the bottleneck that has the potential to either delay or deny a technology from being utilized perpetually. Even when the scientist have budgeted well, it is prudent to know that success is not always about providing the people with more scientific facts but to use tried and time tested skills from the ‘science of effective communication’ to relay the information in a manner as to improve greatly, the odds for success (Iraki-kipkorir, 2017).
The understanding of basic tenets of biotechnology provides a basis for effective communication. Finding ways to simplify the terms of biotechnology without losing meaning is critical. It is important to communicate in an easy to understand manner and terms. But we must have some basic means of stating role of genes and genetics in understanding the evolution of agriculture and foods today. The audience also needs to understand the evolution in the methods of yesterday and the ones used today verses those used centuries ago. Without these basic tenets, it will be very hard to discuss risk and benefits with the audiences (Iraki-kipkorir, 2017).
In organizing the content of training, scientists first need to put the biotechnology into the context. A good place to begin is to communicate a general theory of history of foods and agriculture. This will put biotechnology into perspective as one of the technologies that has been used by man to affect food supply such as domestication, mechanization, use of chemical inputs, processing, among others (Garvey, 2013). Evidently, each of these processes has raised questions of risk, and benefits in every era. The general understanding about how these changes have affected the food supply chain and types of foods available become critical. For example, people generally do not appreciate the reason why foods in restaurants and groceries taste the way it does. But this ignorance or lack of understanding become hindrance in raising the awareness about how the food of tomorrow may need to look and taste like. By not appreciating these changes, a majority of people then cannot appreciate biotechnology and genetically modified foods could lead to changes in our food system. The benefits of classical breeding as expressed on the basis of amount of land that would be required to produce the same amount of food in the USA based on the productivity of 1929, the land requirement is almost 10 times more (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014). A projection of how much this can influence food and agricultural productivity in Kenya can offer some relatable insights. These are real matters that when discussed and shared with audience has potential to help the scientists get a basis of relating benefits of biotechnology to the common public (Box 2).
Starting with the end in mind: The need for communication strategy
Because of the multifaceted nature of debates around biotechnology, clarity and expected end of communication is important. It is evident that science and risk-benefit communication in particular require goal clarity about whom it is intended and for what results. Many times scientist attempt to give a summary of the science but without taking the time to understand the audience to be targeted and the results this communication ought to achieve (Besley et al., 2017). Evidently, every player requires a unique messaging even from the same scientific data and results. For example, policy makers require different messaging, presentation, and delivery than farmer groups, lobbyists or even the media.
Having a goal for each communication will allow scientist’s package targeted information to respond even to unspoken nuances by their target audience. It is also very important that scientists appreciate the fact that they are starting at a disadvantage mainly because the early part and introduction phase of biotechnology was mishandled and public was treated to tons of negative messaging that will take years to correct (Gassen, 2007). In Kenya, Health Ministry banned import of GMO foods because of an alarmist publication purporting GMOs cause cancer. Years later after the research informing the decision was retracted, and discredited, the decision still holds (MoSPH, 2012). It is very important to map out how decisions are made and who is making them whether it be advisors to the president, government ministers, or cabinet secretaries so that they can be appropriately targeted with relevant messaging to remove the fog and ease their decision-making prospects.
In the Kenyan case, communication targeting the political class with a message of how this technology would lead to solutions in the country’s key primary area of food security and contribute to the manufacturing pillar of the Big 4 agenda seemed to be the kind of messaging required to allow government re-consider continued development of the biotechnology crops in the country (Vijida, 2019). The cabinet decision that allowed the country to proceed with commercialization of Bt. cotton was lauded as a positive step in the right direction. Well planned risk-benefit communication strategy will have multifaceted approach to address the specific needs of specific stakeholders and ensure that appropriate feedback is obtained.
Need for biotechnology and biosafety communication strategy more than in any other technological advancement
One wonders why in the technology space, we have accepted technological innovations some which have more proven direct harm to us with little protest as compared to the GMO crops and foods. Our study especially wanted to understand the reason why biotechnology in food applications has held such a polarizing position. Food is central, universal and almost sacred part of human beings. Anything modification affecting food touches on our beliefs, lives, culture, future, and all of these at the same time. Ignoring this nature of food and biotechnological innovations and purely focusing on the scientific benefits is the shortest route to raising resistance from the public.
For example whereas there are many technologies used in crop biotechnology including the tissue culture, marker assisted breeding, and mutation breeding, the gene insertion remains most controversial whereas the data available points that tissue culture introduces more genetic variability than the gene insertion. This experience also demonstrates that the technology is not the matter per se but rather perceptions shaped by anti GMO lobby groups and group think culture that has engulfed the world these days.
Nature of biotechnology debate and the role of scientists
Preparing scientists to drastically improve their effectiveness at risk-benefit communication
First, it is important to have in place the infrastructure for communication. Relying on traditional channels by governments like newspapers and other things may be suitable for a short while especially if they have good readability and a wider reach. In case these are missing, new channels will be in evitable to be created (Koch and Massey, 2011). This has to do with both the physical and technical structures that support ease of communication by identifying the appropriate platforms and facilitation for scientists to appear on these platforms with the right message and best possible delivery. It also involves identifying, capacity building, and training of key personnel who can be relied upon to communicate the science effectively. It involves mapping out, understanding and collecting data regarding, what kind of people, their values and fears. It encompasses the understanding of their values, needs, and interests, political as well as the socio-cultural ones. It is being able to discern what are the hidden worries that do not get to the media and yet remain extremely invaluable to the people or group (Joslyn, 2016). It may also mean mechanisms for collecting feedback on the perception of various stakeholders on the scientific community. It will also become very useful to review Biotechnology courses’ offerings in degree and diploma courses with a view to infusing them with few chapters on effective communication.
From 2010 to 2012, Michigan State University (MSU) organized the International Short Course in Science and Technology Communication. This course at MSU stemmed from these participant concerns about the difficulty in making science communication understandable and accessible for non scientists and the general public. The course was organized as a one week intensive course which covered broadly four main areas. These courses are a good starting point as platforms for stimulating scientists to engage as communicators of biotechnology and science in general. However, these short courses are not an end but rather a beginning and an accelerator toward a more rigorous and proactive scientific community. The aim should be to realign community to ensure that the scientists are a head of reliable, valuable and authentic information. It should be to ensure that the general public can turn to them in case of doubts or information overload.
Strategy on who is to communicate and the pillars of effective communication for scientists
There is a norm among scientific community that whoever produces the research communicates it. Most of the time, it could be the Principal Investigator (PI) or another top ranked scientist in the consortium. But who are the people to communicate? Just because one produced the research in a study, does not give one a mandate or the qualifications to be an effective communicator (France and Gilbert, 2019). Scientist must become strategic in this matter. The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), U.S, for example have communication experts on their team that convey the IFT position on matters of food science and related industry. These communication experts must have certain characteristics of being able to connect with audience and deliver the message in an understandable and effective manner (IFT-Michele Perchonok, 2019).
Scientific knowledge alone however is powerful must not be considered as sufficient in ensuring proper risk communication (Koch and Massey, 2011). FAO (1998), had given the warning that scientific knowledge alone must not be considered flawless, value-free, and unbiased, nor should scientific knowledge be considered the only important criteria for making decisions on biotechnology adoption. For a time, scientists have been accused of arrogance and not caring about the people they aim to help with their science. The failure of biotechnology industry to introduce educational and awareness creation programmes to address the public perceptions early on, was a blunder that has ramifications to this day and may continue into the future (France and Gilbert, 2019). To succeed they must communicate respect for the concern of the beneficiaries their shared value about environment, our future, and even our children. In most countries, scientists and university professors were held in high esteem by the public even though this has been changing toward a declining trust over the years (Besley, 2017). This trust seems not to be utilized properly by scientists in communicating their research in the area of biotechnology. For effective science communication, the science community must endeavor to consistently demonstrate the following values: competence, integrity, authenticity, transparency, warmth, neutrality, and passion (Iraki-Kipkorir, 2017).
There must be careful planning to build these key aspects which together constitute the most crucial element of effective risk communication which is trust (Koch and Massey, 2011). Scientists must not just let the science speak for itself, they must be willing to share with the rest of the public who they are, their interests, and the reason they are involved in the science they do. Even so scientific results must be presented with the view that they are simply part of alternate framings and not necessarily the panacea for all our world problems. The concept of finding the correct framing has been found to be an important element and makes the difference in whether societies accept and adopt a technology or pass on it (MacAthur Foundation, 2019).
Scientists must truly understand the society’s framework in order to provide a communication that is not just relatable but also actionable. For example, in some African societies, the way a technology is framed and presented will annul all the benefits. If a technology is packaged and presented as modern, western, it may simply be rejected on the framework that exists rather than by looking at its own merit. On the other hand, packaging a technology that communicates to people sense of belonging and ability to make their own independent choices without a nudging or a coercing may achieve better result even though the merits of the technology remain the same in both cases. In such a case, the framing makes all the difference (MacAthur Foundation, 2019). Where the scientists have failed to demonstrate the foregoing values, the chances of success are very dismal.
The other important aspect of communication is that the information must be accurate and evidence-based. At times the authors need to debunk the much miscommunication that has been circulated in the media and which have been taken as facts while they are inaccurate. For example, in many countries, the populace believes that the terminator gene is present in the GMOs, yet this is not true at all (Genetic Literacy Project, 2020). Sometimes starting from what your audience knows or has been convinced to believe becomes an important entry point for supplying accurate information on biotechnology.
Premise of most risk-benefit communication debates and navigation approach
Mitigating mistrust as a premise of risk communication debate
Mistrust has characterized most of the risk-benefit communication debates. Scientists can improve chances of success in communicating with their audience by drawing attention to successful examples in the neighboring countries and sharing testimonials demonstrating testimonials especially of farmers who have been successful. For example, crop biotechnology has had over 15 years of successful implementation in some countries such as USA, Canada, India, China and in Africa, South Africa (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014). This concept has been described as storytelling. Come to think of it, we all are captivated by stories (Sundin et al., 2018). There is nothing in endearing listeners and that works like telling stories that are not just as true but also captivating. Story telling is one of the best ways to take our audiences with communicators, to explore with them and to arrive at their own conclusion (Dahlstrom, 2014). According to the communication officers at the Feed the Future Innovation Lab at Michigan State University, storytelling was an important tool for reaching to audiences in biotechnology (Fierro, 2019) personal communication. Whereas story telling was part and parcel of some traditions, this art is one that is majorly either ignored or simply does not come naturally for most scientists. Yet, storytelling is one of the most effective ways to capture retain and inform and even educate audiences. In Africa, storytelling was part and parcel of the culture. The stories were so memorable as they were very informative. The stories do more than entertain and inform, they were powerful tools that shaped our morality, values, and contributed significantly to the betterment of the society. Story telling can therefore provide an effective tool to reach audiences with scientific information, through the narrative a context is provided and even complex scientific data can be synthesized (Dahlstrom, 2014).
At the same time, scientists must communicate the desire to help countries to build capacity especially where the technology to be adopted is a novel one. One also wonders whether in some cases, staggered introduction of technology: for example, firstly introducing Bt. cotton compared to maize in terms of adoption can give clear indication of where people are putting their fears and would cotton then perform a better job of introducing a GM technology in some cases. Starting off by introducing cotton rather than a staple food crop such as maize in East Africa, could be a better strategy in some cases. Finally, additional information sharing around letting audiences know about the foregone opportunities and including the loss of opportunity to observe the potential risks and fix them quickly, can form integral part of designed message (Wesseler et al., 2017).
In addition, the message too must be balanced in a manner that provides insights into suspected risks and addresses the important benefits that could accrue from the biotechnology. Careful wording is necessary to ensure a neutral voice in any risk communication. It may be helpful to distinguish risk assessment communication focused on the evaluation of risk and the decision documents that include risk assessment recommendations to help in the decision making process. This dichotomy can help scientists strive for a balanced risk communication. The information must also be sufficient and balanced. Balance is often very hard to strike. However, understanding the purpose, target audience, interest, and knowledge level, time constrains, and preferred mechanism of assessing information can be helpful factors to consider (Koch and Massey, 2011). It may be vital to follow-up any additional requested information through the provided contact list, or through virtual contact points present in websites, blogs or social media pages.
Communication in multi-institutional and multi-countries projects
Evidently, there are at any given point in time, somewhere in the world multimillion-dollar research on various biotechnologies. Sometimes these projects are funded by different organizations but within the same country. In other cases, the scientists may be working on the same thing but each one does independent work. Whereas it may not be possible at the beginning to have a centralized registry for all the different types of biotechnology projects going on, the messaging however should be same. It becomes very confusing especially in this era of interconnectedness when scientists give different messages and opinions on the same technology even when they are in different countries. Any mishap in one part of the world is instantly picked up and used as a blockade in the next country. Therefore, the least these institutions should do is to collaborate even if unofficially through their respective communication officers to realize a constant clear message to the public. Of course, there will be differences based on every country’s specific requirement. But the differences are not in the science ‘what to’, but rather in the ‘how to’ and this is a marked difference.
It is also helpful to have access to a wider range of technical expertise that addresses some fears that may not be related to the technical aspects of risks of the technology. For example, some crops have passed all the biosafety tests and criteria yet concerns of the public may involve matters of possible inaccessibility of international markets through the adoption of such a technology. In such a case an expert in international trade may be the better resource to help technology adoption to overcome this hurdle (Koch and Massey, 2011).
The need for constant communication and data curating
Recently, the Kenyan Government has given approval for commercialization of Bt. cotton in Kenya. This has been received as very good news by the proponents of biotechnology and many organizations (Indeje, 2020). The fact that science has prevailed and farmers at last will be receiving good quality Bt. cotton seeds has not taken the opponents out of the way. They will be looking not just for any mishandled opportunity to raise their voice but more so, they will be keen to explore any gaps in communication to dazzle the public and discredit all the effort being put in place to allow Bt cotton technology to work. The government must know that any gap in communication will be filled and any silence in the face of rising challenges will be interpreted in a manner that favors the opponents’ course. This is the reason why the communication must be proactive, rather than reactive. This was clearly the case of the controversy leading to ban of GMOs in Kenya (Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, 2012). The Science of GMOs came later and by then the damage had been done. The voice of farmers and the transformation they receive by growing Bt. cotton must be collected and presented in a manner that provides evidence. The result and the after stories of Bt cotton must be curated and preserved and presented in all relevant places. The government and the proponents need to receive challenges and constant feedback from the farmers and all players and address them as soon as they arise.
