Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
It wasn't a normal Café and it wasn't a debate.
We didn't want the audience to ask questions in order to get the answers.
Instead, we wanted to invert this situation.
The experts prepared issues and questions for the participants.
The groups prepared answers which were then presented to the experts
Ensuing discussion was based on that.
At the meeting I was the expert on “GMO and science”.
We discussed the following questions at our table:
Did the GMO research contribute to science?
Of course! Because it is related to the base of understanding life.
Was science needed to create GMO?
Of course, as science is the source of vast knowledge about genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry...
... and without this knowledge we couldn't have created GMO.
And this was the first question discussed.
I guess safety was discussed at all tables as well.
Though we know from other tables that it’s difficult to define what is safe and what isn't.
There was also an important question about who is responsible for supplying the society with information about GMO.
Who should and who is.
My table has naturally agreed that the scientists should.
We can also say here that the scientists can rarely talk directly to the representatives of the society.
Today we actually had such possibility.
Needless to say, the media is also clearly responsible.
Therefore we also discussed the media.
Actually, the table was science-friendly.
They only asked if the scientific research can produce a bad outcome.
And this caused quite a discussion.
We summarised saying that science cannot lead to anything bad.
Today I was sitting at the table “GMO and technology”
There weren't many people at my table. I don't know their background.
I guess they were students, but also people aged 35-45.
We discussed the safety of GM technology.
This is most probably the biggest issue which causes such a great aversion towards genetically modified plants.
From the scientific point of view and the ways how the experiments are verified...
.... we aren’t able to answer the question: what will happen in 100-1000 years.
So the argument that it is dangerous is practically unverifiable.
The second part of the discussion was more about philosophy and the definition of what is safe and what is unsafe.
Except for the Science Café participants, Professor Moses from King's College London took part as well.
He's a specialist in economic and sociological process research related to the GM technology.
My table was called "Genetically modified food".
I work daily in the GMO control laboratory at the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute in Radzików.
The people at our two tables were very interested in food which you could expect as everybody wants to know what they eat.
They had many questions and also many thoughts about it.
The scope of questions and issues mentioned was very broad.
From law and food safety to production or food in the environment, agriculture.
It seems to me that we exchanged information in a positive way...
... and it was great to hear that people are interested and are also open to discussion...
... open to listening which is not always obvious when it comes to GMO.
I was surprised that most talks were based on specialist knowledge.
I guess that either the participants prepared well or they wanted to broaden their knowledge or discuss and listen what others say.
I suppose that radical opponents of GMO who are quite numerous in Poland, weren't there.
Copernicus Science Centre, where we try to discuss science...
... or views which should be research-based might not be a good platform for such opinions.
I had the pleasure to lead the table "GMO in medicine".
I could talk to people who sat at two tables.
These were people decidedly positive about GM technology in medicine.
The questions asked were to diagnose to which extent we accept genetic intervention for medical purposes.
It turned out that the level of acceptance is very high.
As it comes to producing drugs, hormones, vaccinations, probiotics actually the participants didn't say it can be dangerous or not advisable.
Rather the opposite – it should be developed and only issues of safety were discussed...
... so that the drugs created with modern biotechnology are safe...
... or not contaminated with genetic material of animal viruses or other micro-organisms.
Second level of acceptance are xenotransplantations or using genetically modified macro-organisms as suppliers of tissues and organs for transplantation.
For example organs taken from mutated animals in order to make them less immunogenic for human beings...
For example organs taken from mutated animals in order to make them less immunogenic for human beings...
... that is more easily absorbed resulting in lack of quick rejection process.
And here also we got full acceptance.
They said it is a great method which can supply missing organs, if the technology allows it.
There are always less donors than recipients.
The third level of acceptance is the direct modification of the human genome...
... that is gene therapy, possibility to influence elimination of a certain illness...
... because we will learn how to modify genes of a person.
But also modification of those genes in gametes so we can think about a possibility to generate healthy generations.
The genetically-modified feature would be generated in next generations.
Here the participants agreed as well that such technology should be researched.
In order to get such technology, to learn it and and perfect it.
But also here the participants had the most doubts.
How to create a legal and security system so that this technology won't be used for other purposes.
For example for creating mutated human beings who can be easily used in some unholy way.
It was concluded that we should legalise such activity and not ban it.
Not to create a genetic underground which would anyway experiment out of our control.
Legalise, but create law, react flexibly to different pathologies so that we can say that this method is fully secured against using it for purposes harmful to human beings.
I think that we had a full spectrum of our society.
There were younger and older people, working in biotechnology or studying biotechnology...
... but also people who are interested, though they are not professionally related to biotechnology.
In my opinion we had a wide spectrum of people and quite a large group.
I think that estimating that 70% of Polish people are against GMO isn't objective in this context. Answering the question...
... if they are against or for GMO, such people will first say that they are against but if you ask them why, they may say they don't know why.
They heard something unfavourable in the media and this is how they formed their opinion.
So I think that true opponents of GMO in Poland are not that numerous at all.
But there is a big group, which without knowledge accepts a certain statement often appearing in the media association of GMO with something negative.
Today's conference, today's Café had a totally opposite aim.
Associating GMO with positive elements. This was also the aim of my tables.
Associating GMO with therapy, help, and medicine.
It seems to be a good path.
We've started a biotechnology series at the Copernicus Science Centre to discuss its challenges, its future and current topics, for example GMO.
We chose, therefore, this topic as it is very current in Poland, important and it's worth discussing it.
It is worth analysing it the "Copernicus way".
Looking for such forms where people can talk, meet the expert...
... ask a question, express their opinion, share their doubts, and learn something in an interactive and dialogical way.