Message or narrative frames (or key messages or story lines grouped together in support of a particular message) in biotechnology more often than not pertain to agriculture and food production, or medicine. Both messages and narrative frames (that of agricultural production and medicine) suggests the linearity in a way biotechnology is currently viewed by the public. Such narratives may contain metaphors and frames that play an important role in the communication of science, and have direct impact on public opinion, and eventually, government policy. Such entrenched metaphors and frames can likewise contribute to the misunderstanding of the science itself.
The fifth Policy Brief, which is based on a recent study conducted by Dr. Maria Monina Cecilia A. Villena (Program Head of SEARCA’s Knowledge Management Department), explores how the public makes sense of message frames used by the government when disseminating information about genetic modification or biotechnology. It also explores the public’s (specifically, farmer leaders and traders) personal constructs about the science, and how these aid them when participating in societal discourse about GM crops.
Substantially, results of the study suggest that although biotechnology adoption is seen as a major element in the promotion of Philippine agricultural development, the communication gap may be well placed in the numerous communication channels and networks involved in the numerous advocacy efforts. Hence, future science communication efforts need to be based on a systematic and empirical understanding of the audience’s values, knowledge, and attitudes in relation to the respective interpersonal and social contexts.
Despite the long enunciated national policy on safe, responsible use of modern biotechnology, a few local government units in the Philippines have unilaterally passed resolutions and ordinances banning genetically modified (GM) crops in their respective jurisdictions. Across the globe, particularly in Europe, there are still many skeptics who refuse to recognize the potential value to mankind of GMO technology in crops to enhance farmers’ income, raise yields, improve adaptation to drought and other environment stresses, as well as to increase their nutritive value.
In the third Policy Brief, Dr. Emil Q. Javier, a member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and Chair of the Coalition for Agricultural Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP), puts a spotlight on the scientific consensus in favor of GMO technology based on published statements of the world’s leading academies of science and responsible agencies.
These statements essentially validate the potential of GMO technology to increase and improve the efficiency of production of main food staples, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers. The scientific community also concurred that GMO technology is safe and that no effects on human health have been shown as a result of consumption of GM foods.
Authored by the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP), the paper highlights the urgent need for strong political support for biotechnology and biotech crops as well as streamlined biosafety regulations in the Philippines.
Specifically, the need to enact a national law that will support and accelerate science-based innovations and technology, reduce time-consuming regulations, and provide an enabling environment for Filipino scientists to produce high-yielding, pest-resistant biotech crops that could survive in different ecosystems throughout the Philippines and support the country’s continuously ballooning population.
Regulatory approval times for genetically modified (GM) crops are increasing in many countries. The impact of unjustified regulatory delays due to inefficiencies, lack of coordination or unnecessary and redundant requirements can be devastating. Regulatory delays may especially affect the public sector and international R&D investments which are particularly intended to address needs in developing countries.
The study sought to analyze the economic impact of regulatory delays for GM crops. The authors concluded in their study that longer regulatory delays are associated with higher investment risk which could discourage investors to invest in the development of a GM crop. Results of the analysis emphasize the need for regulators, decision-makers, and developers to reduce time delays and increase the efficiency of coordinating decision points along the product development cycle — for R&D, regulatory review, and compliance to optimize costs and time in delivering a product.