[IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

0-7803-9028-8/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE.

Ice-Minus Strawberries, Flavr Savr Tomatoes, and Science Literacy: The Disconnect Between Science and the Public

Susan Allender-Hagedorn Virginia Tech [email protected]

Abstract

“Breeding a better ketchup: Tomato tinkerers plan gene-altered condiments,” “They’re fiddling with our food,” “Allergy dangers lurk in gene mix”: for over a decade headlines have questioned the safety of biotechnology-produced food products. Biotechnologists themselves have been portrayed as greedy and amoral. Why is biotechnology receiving such alarmist press? Why do biotechnology opponents seem to more easily convert the public to their own “truths” when at the same time many scientific pronouncements seem to be met from the start with suspicion? One proposed solution is to raise the level of science literacy for the non-scientifically trained, but will an ability to recite science facts ameliorate the problem? There is growing recognition that poor communication between scientists and the public is a major root of the disconnect. This panel paper uses the Ice-Minus and Flavr Savr cases to examine Daniel E. Koshland Jr.’s statement that “there are two truths in this world: one of the laboratory, and the other of the media. What people perceive as the truth is truer in a democracy than some grubby little experiment in a laboratory notebook.” The paper will address ways to forge a real connection between the public and biotechnology.

Keywords: biotechnology, Ice-Minus, Flavr Savr, science literacy

Introduction

“Breeding a better ketchup: Tomato tinkerers plan gene-altered condiments,”[1] “They’re fiddling with our food,”[2] Allergy dangers lurk in gene mix”[3]: for over a decade headlines have

questioned the safety of biotechnology-produced food products. Genetically engineered food has been described as “Frankenfood,”[4] which will possibly lead to “Farmageddon.”[5] Biotechnologists themselves have been portrayed as greedy and amoral. Why has and is biotechnology receiving such alarmist press? Why do biotechnology opponents seem to more easily convert the public to their own “truths” when at the same time many scientific pronouncements seem to be met from the start with suspicion?

One proposed solution is to raise the level of science literacy for the non-scientifically trained, but will an ability to recite science ameliorate the problem? There is a growing recognition that poor communication between scientists and the public is a major root of the disconnect. In March 1990, in Science, editor Daniel E. Koshland, Jr. stated:

There are two truths in this world: one of the laboratory, and the other of the media. What people perceive as the truth is truer in a democracy than some grubby little experiment in a laboratory notebook.[6]

This disconnect is an important problem—negatively perceived science can have an enormous impact on the future of scientific endeavors:

Effective responses to issues of energy, food, environment, AIDS, health care, crime, and many other problems facing society require a sound foundation in science. Public policy based on ignorance or misapprehension of scientific knowledge can have very serious consequences, not just for human well-

254


being but for life itself. Society expects and needs both expertise and literacy in science if it is to deal successfully with many of the most pressing problems of our age.[7]

Also in the same Science editorial by Koshland, a mock interview between a reporter and “Dr. Noitall,” an eminent non-scientist was printed:

Science: We have come to ask you why scientists seem to have such a poor image.

Dr. Noitall: How can you possibly ask such a simple-minded question? You are the people who have brought us nuclear war, global warming, and acid rain. You enjoy dissecting frogs, and you keep mice and rats in little cages.[8]

In a public poll, DNA was defined as

• a sickness • the smallest known molecule • a food additive • an airport.[9]

With all this misinformation, how can a real--and useful--connection be forged between the public and biotechnology in a world inundated with headlines of mad cow disease, genetically engineered foods, possibility of bioterrorism, and embryonic stem cell research?

Vulnerability of Biotechnology

Biotechnology has been the springboard for many popular entertainment depictions of science. In an interview, Michael Crichton, the author of Jurassic Park, states:

I wanted to sound a cautionary note. Science is wonderful, but it also has its hazards. If the book makes some people uneasy, maybe it should. . . . [People] are uninformed and gullible. . . . I am not through with biotechnology.[10]

In the preface to Jurassic Park, in an understandable fashion (but with now partially out-of-date information), Crichton unattractively

describes the process of biotechnology and the motives of biotechnologists:

Biotechnology promises the greatest revolution in human history. It is broad based. Much of the research is thoughtless or frivolous. The work is uncontrolled. No one supervises it. No federal laws regulate it. There are very few molecular biologists and very few research institutions without commercial affiliations. The old days [of pure science] are gone. Genetic research continues, at a more furious pace than ever. But it is done in secret, and in haste, and for profit.[11]

Most recently Crichton has tilted at the windmill of nanotechnology in his novel Prey. In this book, greed in the biotechnology/nanotechnology industry and corporate proprietary secrecy nearly lead to the end of humankind. The entertainment value of this and similar books and movies makes it very difficult for people not trained in scientific matters to contemplate scientifically-related topics that never-the-less have a deep impact on their lives.

The very vocal opponent of biotechnology, Jeremy Rifkin, used the controversy over tests of genetically engineered food in the 1990s to proclaim:

In the mere act of using it [biotechnology], we have the potential to do irreparable psychological, environmental, moral and social harm to ourselves and our world.[12]

But Mary Ann Liebert, editor and publisher of Genetic Engineering News, writes that:

While Jeremy Rifkind [sic] may cheer, the biotechnology industry should immediately seek to provide more educational material that explains the new technologies in language that the public can understand and feel comfortable with. We have seen over the years that the public is often suspicious of science and technology advances. Physics made possible the Atom Bomb, chemistry resulted in Love Canal, and Jurassic Park’s genetically engineered dinosaurs

255


may indeed alarm and stir up an uneducated public.[13]

In June, 1992, The Washington Post published an alarming menu, “A Dinner of Transgenic Foods.”[14] (See Figure 1.) This raised the specter of dining on tomatoes with fish genes, potatoes with moth genes, milk with bovine growth hormones, and most importantly, pork chops with human genes!

Biotechnologists note the potential harm such alarm can cause their activities. Two scientific societies closely related to biotechnology, the American Society for Microbiology (approximately 20,000 microbiologist members) and the American Phytopathology Society (over 4,000 plant pathology members) have standing committees to discuss not only the ethics of their profession, but to stress the professional and public responsibilities of members and to promote more accurate knowledge on the part of the public. Former Phytopathology president, Dr. Sue Tolin, stated that the public seems to feel that we “live in a sterile world, where all evolution has ended.” She is very concerned about the public image of biotechnology and took part in a panel presented at the Library of Congress to inform Congressional aides about the science behind the on-going Food and Drug Administration’s food labeling controversy.[15] Trust once broken is very hard to re-establish, and fear once aroused subsides with great difficulty. But science and science products affect every aspect of our lives--they cannot be avoided.

According to chemist and educator Henry Bauer, although

science is not everything[, it] should not blind us to the fact that it is the very best of what we do have. Just as those who benefit from individual therapy can take pride from the persistent acts of will they exerted along the way, so humankind can take collective pride from the persistent determination to submit to reality therapy that has produced not only the science we

now know but also an understanding of how to go about learning more.[16]

Science Literacy

“Science literacy” has been called “a concept in search of a definition,”[17] but there seems to be one component in common in most definitions: A person who is scientifically literate has some knowledge of the content of science. However, there are two more necessary components to true science literacy:

1. The scientifically literate citizen has some realization that science is a process, not a finalized product.

2. Those who are scientifically literate realize that science has an impact on society and have gained some skills when dealing with science-related issues that they encounter in every day life.

Last fall the president of the Sigma Xi Research Society defined scientific literacy as “the ability to respond in a meaningful way to the technical issues that pervade our daily lives and the world of political action.”[18] But according to some official statistics, only five to 17 percent of the public achieves such literacy.[19] What does this mean in a society where

a public that has no inkling of the technical issues at stake exposes the democratic process to exploitation by special interests and demagogues, and even to fraud of the kind that masks pseudoscience, such as astrology or parapsychology, with the cloak of science.[20]

But there still is an important difference of opinion over the definition of “science literacy.” Traditionally the term has been tied to science education. Statistical evaluations are made of

1. the level of science education reached by the populace

2. the level of retention of science facts after formal education has ended.

256


A DINNER

of

TRANSGENIC FOODS

All genetic transfer dishes on this hypothetical menu have been approved by the government

for development and field testing

APPETIZERS

Spiced potatoes with waxmoth genes

Juice of tomatoes with flounder gene

ENTRÉE

Blackened catfish with trout gene

Pork chops with human genes

Scalloped potatoes with chicken gene

(All entrees served with cornbread with firefly gene)

DESSERT

Rice pudding with pea gene

BEVERAGE

Milk with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone

Figure 1: Transgenic Dinner

Biotechnology presents several problems here. A great deal of the conduct of the science involves extremely complex concepts, practices, and a very specialized language. Even a student in a college-level biology course probably would score low on a test of biotechnology literacy. Yet everyone from the worker with less than a college education to the biotechnology postdoc is affected daily by biotechnology. Everyone eats (almost everyone in the U.S. has consumed genetically engineered food, whether consciously or not); everyone has health needs (will the next super class of pharmaceuticals be artificially engineered, with what consequences for drug interactions?); and few have no opinion at all about the current

political hot potato of embryonic stem cell research.

But a person in the general public does not need to know every step of a complex procedure to gain enough of an understanding of how that procedure or resultant product will impact his or her life to make sensible decisions:

Science literacy does not require knowing the definition of angular momentum or that the expression of DNA is mediated by transfer-RNA molecules. But a scientifically literate person would know that astrology is not science and that children are not born with stronger

257


muscles just because their parents exercise in the gym. Scientific literacy implies that whether or not a person endorses a program for water fluoridation or for building a nuclear power plant is based on some understanding of the issues at hand, rather than on prejudice (that all tampering with natural resources is harmful--or unambiguously beneficial) or ignorance that decisions involve trade-offs, as might exist between a nuclear and a coal-fueled plant.[21]

According to Miller, “attainment of scientific literacy will likely require science to reverse its negative public image,”[22] but with the public’s bombardment with negative images of science, how will science classes alone reverse this negativity? There is a growing belief that the ability to regurgitate science facts is not a useable concept of science literacy. More important to the public is awareness of:

1. the process of science2. skills in judging the validity of putative

scientific information received 3. the ability to seek out understandable

information when more is needed to support a decision or action.

In many cases poor communication is at least part of the problem blocking fuller literacy. Science should be understood as an ongoing process, not the accumulation of unmoving facts. While it is unnerving to realize that several hundreds of years from now our current exciting science discoveries could be considered passé, obsolete, or even wrong, such a more realistic view of the scientific process could add excitement to what at times now seems alienating, dry, and emotionless. Such excitement and liveliness need to be reintroduced into science writing.

Many decisions about scientific research today, including funding decisions, are made by non-scientists. The ability to judge the validity of scientific information that bombards the average citizen could be crucial for the future conduct of science. But there is a glut of scientific information available today. If scientists have trouble staying abreast of results in their own fields (and biotechnologists are not immune), how can the “average” member of the public seek out useable--and understandable--information when

needed to support a decision (i.e., to buy a particular over-the-counter product) or action (i.e.,to vote for or against a particular policy)?

As professional writers and educators, we can’t solve all of the above problems, but we can attempt to ameliorate communication difficulties. A review of two public controversies can give us a clue as to where some of these difficulties arise.

Ice-Minus.

Nobel Prize winner Paul Berg’s 1974 Scienceletter entitled “Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA Molecules”[23] (a PR nightmare heading when it attracted the attention of journalists) expressed concern with the rapid expansion of biotechnology and the potential for harm that many experiments seemed to pose. This public disclaimer of lack of omniscience on the part of scientists who were conducting potentially dangerous experiments was not comforting to a public whose positive image of all scientists had drastically been eroding from many other assaults. A resulting self-imposed moratorium of certain research avenues followed (the Asilomar moratorium), an action that could have been reassuring to an alarmed public but which instead proved to emphasize the potential risks to the public.

In October, 1974, the Recombinant DNA advisory Committee (RAC) was formed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a direct result of the controversy over the conduct of biotechnology. In 1982, the RAC received the first submission for a field release of a genetically manipulated bacteria. The common bacterium Pseudomonas syringaesecretes a protein which can serve as a nucleus for the formation of ice crystals on plant leaves. The ice freezes and expands, and plant tissues are crushed and damaged or destroyed. The proposal in front of RAC proposed to delete the part of the DNA of the organism that regulated the release of the protein. Such ice-nucleating minus (thus “ice-minus”) bacteria had already been found in nature, but in small numbers. Preliminary laboratory tests of these mutant P. syringaeshowed that without the ability to secrete the protein, plant ice damage could be held off until several degrees lower temperature (as low as 25 degrees F), a potentially great agricultural savings. The proposal was to apply the bacteria to strawberry plants under open field conditions.

258


General public objections were raised concerning any release of genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs) into the environment. Many non-scientists (and some scientists, too, especially ecologists) felt that not enough was known about potential harm from ANY non-laboratory release, not just release of P. syringae.Ice-minus, as the first proposal for field testing of a GEM to be considered by RAC, became a test case. Few non-scientists aware of the case seemed to have faith in the efficacy of RAC guidelines, which were not applicable to every release and not even mandatory for anyone not receiving NIH funding. Many felt uncomfortable with guidelines which only suggested proper format and procedure to individual researchers. There were many individuals and organizations that favored a return to the Asilomar moratorium on many rDNA experiments, whether in the laboratory or with wider releases.

A period of lawsuits followed. The period was characterized by great frustration by both sides apparently poised on each side of a gulf of conflict:

a. biotechnologists frustrated by a public which seemed to be unable to comprehend their care in consideration of risks and benefits and which seemed to consider any biotechnology to be morally and ethically wrong

b. members of the general public frustrated over scientists who seemed to be unable to comprehend the public’s valid concerns over safety and regulation of a self-admittedly potentially dangerous science.

Much of the activity of the period can be summed up as:

The story of the first concerted effort by scientists to foresee and forestall the possibility of harm, however inadvertent. It is the history of that extraordinarily well-intentioned effort somehow gone sour, the public unsure what to believe and scientists sure only that the controversy became unbelievable.[24]

The responsibility for approval of field releases of these organisms was shifted to a more regulatory format within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Researchers had to meet the

requirements of RAC, EPA, and eventually the State of California. Finally, in April 1987, a California judge announced that “the experiments are not unleashing some deleterious bacteria that are going to consume the city . . . or anywhere else,”[25] and on April 19, 1987, researchers released their ice-minus preparation, four years and seven months following their first proposal to RAC.

Many public objections raised against the ice-minus releases involved a lack of trust. The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District state that they were not per se opposed to agricultural projects of this type, but little information had been shared with local officials: “They were asking us to sign a blank check!”[26]

Many of the lessons to be learned from this case study involve communication breakdowns. For example, EPA officials monitoring the field trials were extensively criticized for the negative image given to biotechnology with the heavy media coverage of the events. In particular, the officials have been criticized for giving an impression of great danger or menace to a situation they claimed to be free of significant risks. The “moon suit” used by the scientist applying the ice-minus preparation and the very large monitoring towers situated around the test site were particularly viciously criticized. From the luxury of hindsight, with prior publicity and information sharing, the public could have reacted favorably to the strong budgetary concerns, which did in fact dictate these particular practices.[27]

On the other hand, the public needs to be aware of the impact that biotechnology has and will have on their lives, both positive and negative, and they must bring to public debate the practical and ethical questions that accompany the new science. Ignorance of the issues involved leads to fear and a very real chance of rejecting biotechnology entirely, discarding potential enormous benefits without having really carefully considered all dangers: “the most important thing opponents of biotechnology have going for them in the long run is the gap between the actuality of risk and the public perception.”[28] The experience led one scientist to remark,

It is indeed unfortunate that this first effort to foresee harmful outcomes of well-intentioned experiments became so

259


embattled. What we have understood from this experience is the difficulty for us as an open society of developing effective ways of venturing cautiously into the unknown, neither minimizing nor exaggerating the dangers, neither immobilizing ourselves with restrictive regulations nor proceeding without care.[29]

Flavr Savr Tomatoes

The debate over the introduction of a biotechnology-produced whole food, the Flavr-Savr™ tomato can provide relevant material for a modern science rhetoric case study. In 1992, the agricultural biotechnology company Calgene applied to sell a genetically engineered tomato. At the time most commercially-sold tomatoes were picked green because of financial losses and time spans incurred with the hard knocks involved in the picking, packaging, shipping, and merchandising of the tender fruit. The Flavr Savr tomato was engineered to be hardier in processing, allowing the fruit to be picked at a later stage of ripening, potentially allowing the tomato to soak up more nutrients--and flavor--as well as allowing for a longer shelf-life once in the store. In effect, the plant’s gene regulating the softening of a ripe fruit was “switched off.”

Dr. Richard Michelmore, molecular geneticist, stated that bioengineered foods were not dangerous:

Genes are all protein,” he [said], “and the human gut doesn’t distinguish between human, animal or plant protein. The gut breaks it all down pretty quickly.[30]

Biotechnologists claimed that foods engineered to resist pests or pesticide poisoning, especially rice and wheat, could help stave off intense hunger in lesser developed countries or could be used to react to emergency food needs in times of natural disaster. But according to researcher Thomas Hoban, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), most of the public opposes biotechnology that involves gene transfer on moral grounds.[31]

In Calgene’s first petition to sell Flavr Savr, the company wrote:

The FLAVR SAVR gene does cause intended increase in serum viscosity and consistency, decrease in fruit softening rate, and an increase in fungalresistance. . . . The increased resistance provides only a temporary delay in fungal degradation. The tomato fruit will still rot, although the onset of rot may be delayed.[32]

The Calgene company must have developed some awareness of public concerns and public illiteracy in biotechnology because in 1994, MacGregor (the biotechnology division of Calgene) released the following advertisement:

Once Flavr Savr [sic] seeds are planted in the rich earth, Mother Nature takes over. The seeds are nurtured and grown into tomatoes that take their time and soften more slowly. That allows us to keep MacGregor’s Tomatoes on the vine longer to take in more of nature’s goodness and develop more flavor--unlike most other tomatoes that are picked green.[33]

Incidently, Family Circle magazine arranged for a taste-off competition between Flavr Savr, vine-ripened, and hydroponic tomatoes. Flavr Savr came in 3rd out of the three in texture, appearance, odor, and taste.[34]

Even without taste considerations, according to Jean-Louis Palladin, chef at the five-star Washington, D.C. restaurant that bore his first name,

“But it’s unnatural.” . . . Then, upon reflection, he adds, “If it tastes good, I would try it. But I wouldn’t serve it to my customers.[35]

Other scientists also had moderate to severe reactions against the release of the engineered tomato. Reacting to claims that biotechnology was just the refinement of thousands of year-old plant and animal breeding practices, Jane Rissler, then plant pathologist with the National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., stated that traditional breeding didn’t allow “us to cross a cow with a human.” She cited an arrogance in “gene jockey” scientists, who attempted to best the abilities of nature.[36]

260


Calgene did not intend to hide the origin of the tomato. Instead of competing with “normally” grown tomatoes, the company intended to label Flavr Savr as genetically engineered, targeting the higher-end luxury market. But in the face of strong negative public reactions, sales declined after the novelty wore off, and the tomato was taken off the market.

Tools for Reconnection

Many of the recommendations for communicating science to the public listed below are taught in professional writing classes, but often the recommendations are not addressed together or applied specifically to audience analyses when conveying technical or scientific material to the non-scientific public.

1. Avoid third person. The more distant the “narrator” is from his audience, the less relevant (and true) his message will seem. First person can immediately grab the attention of an audience:

They’ve spliced an antifreeze gene from Arctic flounder into other tomatoes. “Yuck,” the writer Calvin Trilling said. “This sounds a little fishy.”[37]

and

I will not sacrifice the entire history of culinary art to revitalize the biotechnology industry, declared Rick Monnen, executive chef at the Water Club Restaurant.[38]

2. Use an active voice. Most scientific writing today is still written in the passive voice. There are some indications of change, but reliance on language without action “may be one reason why scientific writing has the reputation of being dry, pompous, and boring.”[39]

3. Use narratives. These make the speaker (the narrator) seem more human and the information conveyed more accessible and believable:

As he walks across a field at Hollow Road Farm in Stuyvesant, New York farmer Ken Kleinpeter talks about the new foods. “When people are so concerned about their food, bioengineering seems the wrong way to

go. Even a minute change can have a tremendous impact,” he says. “until it’s shown to be safe, consumers shouldn’t have to eat it.”[40]

4. As much as possible avoid statistical presentation of findings. Data is good, and simply presented modest tables can stimulate an aura of trustworthiness and reliability. However, formulas and elaborate charts and figures intimidate the uninitiated, and intimidation rarely leads to trust and/or cooperation (or funding).

5. Use familiar analogies. When attempting to present highly complex scientific ideas in an accessible language, biotechnology can draw upon many analogies to familiar words and situation (DNA = “the blueprint of life” or “reading the book of man”):

Think of the chemical units as letters, the genes as words and the DNA molecule as a complete sentence that encapsulates the genetic code. Scientists can now “edit” the genetic code of DNA’s “sentence” by “cutting and pasting” the gene “word” from one DNA sentence to

another.[41]

Analogies can never definitively prove a particular point, but they can be massively influential in persuading audience opinion.

6. Choose words carefully. To a scientist immersed in communication inside his chosen profession, a particular word or phrase has an exact meaning. But even within a particular discipline, the “exact” or “correct” terminology to use when communicating with other colleagues is debated.[42] In the Ice-Minus controversy, there were intensive debates over the use of the phrase “deliberate release” vs. “planned”--or “controlled--introduction” of genetically engineered organisms.[43]

7. Avoid jargon. Heavy use of esoteric, jargon-laden language serves only to alienate the audience the scientists claim to want to reach and convince.

More specifically (and negatively), jargon is long-winded, confusing, and obscure language. Writers of jargon use esoteric terms unfamiliar to most of their readers.

261


They rely heavily on long sentences, big words, a pompous tone, and ponderous constructions in the passive voice.[44]

Often such language is adopted as “protective coloration” in an effort to impress an audience with the author’s knowledge and power. If jargon is used for this reason, it usually backfires.

8. Appeal to your audience. Scientific reasoning and logic are only part of the spectrum of rhetorical appeals that must be considered for effective communication. Of equal importance to an audience not trained in scientific exposition are appeals to emotions and the trust held by an audience for any particular speaker. Scientific rhetoric is formulated to present data logically. Scientists are very comfortable with this rhetorical device. But it is hard for a non-scientist to be sure that pseudo-logic and pseudo-reason are not at the heart of the message:

The biotech industry should expect more such tactics in the Pure Food fight--including claiming credit where no credit is due. . . . Jeremy Rifkin is part pragmatist, part idealistic visionary, and part snapping turtle. Expect him to play fast, loose, and shallow with the facts. Expect the vision and rhetoric of a clever child, expressly calculated to rattle the battlements of convention.[45]

Appeals to emotions, while often devoid of much logic, can be extremely powerful when writing for an audience not trained in logical exposition. But there is a growing awareness that applications of new scientific findings are not always benevolent, problems and mistakes can occur, scientists are human, and technologies carry with them harmful as well as beneficial potentials. When science is communicated in seemingly condescending terms, science and scientists can become a target for ridicule:

Since it took nature a couple million years to make a tomato, why do biotechnologists think they can improve on it in a couple of months?[46]

Even today, reference to a scientific background often confers an immediate aura of respectability and trustworthiness.[47] Note the appeal in the following ad:

Since 1982, the MacGregor’s Tomato Team of hard-working professional men and women has successfully applied the latest developments in genetic engineering, tomato plant breeding, and farming to solve an age-old problem--how to supply an abundance of great tasting tomatoes all year long.[48]

Of course, appeals to character can be negative as well. Implications of financial gain driving research have been central in many antibiotechnology attacks. Calgene’s claming Flavr Savr as “the $5 billion tomato”[49] has probably done more harm than good to its subsequent ad campaign.

10. Analyze the audience. Any effective communicator considers the audience he is addressing. A scientist writing for the audience not trained in science has to carefully analyze his audience’s motives, knowledge, and experiential backgrounds, interests, and even prejudices to best judge which of the elements above to utilize. This has to be done carefully. Rhetoric used just to sell might bring a short-term bonus but long-term loss of trust. Consider the MacGregor ad campaign where the engineered product is “a breakthrough we believe will change the way you think about tomatoes.”[50] The company was right, but not in the manner they had hoped!

Conclusion

Koshland was right: “What people perceive as the truth is truer . . . .”[51] Along with growing fears of technological disasters comes a public fascination with technologies themselves. The public has expressed an interest in learning about biotechnology in particular. To be able to communicate effectively with the public, scientists need to consider rhetorical formulations as carefully as they consider them when writing for fellow scientists. Additionally, scientists need to recognize that certain issues of public concern cannot be answered solely by science. Ethical and/or religious facets of applications of biotechnology need to be considered for a diverse, and often divisive, society. The majority of citizens are not trained in science, and in addition, scientists in one field can be equally illiterate in the science of another field. But in a democracy, all are the voters who will determine whether biotechnology will be able to achieve the potential

262


benefits it promises, or whether it will be underutilized or even rejected.

But this author does not mean to imply that acquisition of rhetorical skills is solely the responsibility of scientists and those who report on the work of science. While the public can be alarmed by publications calling for great caution in any application of scientific research, in some cases the alarm has been justified by poor science or poor utilization of valid scientific findings. A far greater percent of the time, however, alarms have been triggered by presentations of half-truths, or pseudoscience, or narrators furthering personal but hidden agendas. True public science literacy would help to bridge the gap between science on one hand and the rest of the world on the other.

If a non-confrontational, fully comprehensible dialogue develops between scientists and the public,

by those of us who write, lecture, teach, or otherwise communicate about science--then science itself would prove far less forbidding, far more accessible, far more tantalizing and attractive, and its practitioners much less priestly, less remote, less alien, and more real.[52]

References

[1] B. J. Feder, “Breeding a better ketchup: Tomato tinkerers plan gene-altered condiments,”New York Times, July 11, p. 17, 1992.

[2] R. Goldburg, and D. D. Hopkins, “They’re fiddling with our food,” USA Today, June 30, p. 11A, 1993.

[3] Associated Press, “Allergy dangers lurk in gene mix,” Roanoke Times and World News, April 17, p. A9, 1994.

[4] K. V. Sagan, “The great tomato debate: Is bioengineered food safe?” Family Circle, Oct. 13, p. 158, 1992.

[5] Brewster Kneen. Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 1999.

[6] D. E. Koshland, Jr., “Two plus two equals five.” Science, vol. 247, p. 1381, 1990.

[7] L. A. Steen, “Reaching for science literacy.” Change, July/Aug., p. 17. 1991.

[8] Koshland, Ibid.

[9] J. Stone, “Ignorance on parade,” Discover,July, vol. 104, p. 104, 1989.

[10] C. Potera, “Will Jurassic Park the movie create a PR problem for biotechnology?” GeneticEngineering News, Mar. 1, pp. 23-25, 1992.

[11] Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park. New York, NY: Knopf, 1990, pp. ix-x.

[12] Jeremy Rifkin, as quoted in D. Van Biema, 1988. “Biotech gadfly buzzes Italy,” TheWashington Post Magazine, Jan. 17, p. 14, 1988.

[13] M. A. Liebart, “Editor’s column,” GeneticEngineering News, March 1, p. 2. 1992.

[14] Washington Post, June 10, p. B1, 1992.

[15] Sue Tolin, Personal interview, Oct. 5, 1992.

[16] H. H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, p. 150-1, 1992.

[17] S. L. Helgeson, “This year in school science 1989: Scientific literacy.” The Science Teacher,April, vol. 58, pp. 71-3, 1991.

[18] Francisco J. Ayala, “Scientific literacy.” American Scientist, Sept.-Oct., vol. 92, p. 394, 2004.

[19] J. D. Miller, Annual Reports to the National Science Foundation on Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States.Washington, D.C.: NSF (multiple years).

[20] Ayala, Ibid.

[21] Ayala, Ibid.

[22] H. I. Miller, “Regulation,” in GeneticRevolution: Scientific Prospects and Public Perceptions. B. D. Davis, ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 197, 1991.

263


[23] Access Excellence: About Biotech: Paul Berg. [Online]. Available: http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Paul_Berg.html.

[24] N. V. Federoff, “The recombinant DNA controversy: A contemporary cautionary tale.” The Syracuse Scholar, vol. 7, p. 19, 1986.

[25] “Tubers, berries, and bugs.” Time, April 4, p. 63, 1987.

[26] Roanoke Times and World News, Jan. 19, p. A14, 1986.

[27] Raymon Seidler, Personal interview, July, 1992.

[28] P. W. Huber as quoted in Y. Baskin, “Testing engineered microbes in the field,” ASM News, vol. 53, no. 11, p. 614, 1987.

[29] Federoff, pp. 27-8.

[30] R. Michelmore, as quoted in Sagan, p. 152.

[31] T. J. Hoban, and P. A. Kendall, ConsumerAttitudes About the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, 1992.

[32] Calgene, Inc., Petition for Determination: FLVR SAVR™ Tomato as a Non-Regulated Article Under 7 CFR 340, May 31, 1992 (petition to the Animal and plant Health Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.)

[33] Publicity release for MacGregor’s (Flavr Savr) Tomatoes, 1994.

[34] Sagan, p. 153.

[35] Sagan, p. 152.

[36] Jane Rissler, as quoted in Sagan,. p. 152.

[37] M. O’Neill, “Blasphemy! And the Purists Wail over the Genetic Dishonoring of Tomatoes,” Roanoke Times and World News, Aug. 12, p. E1, 1992.

[38] O’Neill, p. E3.

[39] V. E. McMillan, Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. New York, NY: St. Martins Press, p. 111, 1988.

[40] Sagan, p. 160.

[41] Sagan, p. 152.

[42] C. R. Broome, “Vocabulary control in the plant genome database,” Probe: Newsletter for the USDA Plant Genome Research Program, vol. 2, no. 3, Fall, pp. 7-8, 1992.

[43] Tolin, Ibid..

[44] McMillan, p. 107.

[45] R. Hoyle, “Rifkin Resurgent,” Bio/Technology, Nov. 10, p. 1407, 1992.

[46] Jeremy Rifkin, quoted in e-mail communication, Science-Technology Studies Bulletin Board, May 1, 1994.

[47] B. Patrusky, “On an antidote for science phobia,” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 94-98, 1989.

[48] Publicity release, Ibid.

[49] Sagan, p. 160.

[50] Publicity release, Ibid.

[51] Koshland, Ibid.

[52] Patrusky, Ibid.

About the Author

Susan Allender-Hagedorn has been a science and engineering writer and editor for over 25 years, and she has taught Technical and Business Writing, editing, and literature classes at several U.S. Universities (for the last 15 years at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia). Although she teaches in an English Department, her doctorate is in Science and Technology Studies, and her major research interests lie in the communication of science to the public, public perceptions of science, and science rhetoric. Currently, as well as teaching, she is founding editor of a refereed science newsletter, Environmental Detection News (covering microbial identification of sources

264


of polluted water and water policy, for everything from beach closures because of contamination to detection of bioterrorism), and she is webmaster of the award-winning “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology” webpage (http://filebox.vt.edu:8080/users/chagedor /fileboxmigration/cals/cses/chagedor/index.html). She also is webmaster and bibliographer for the Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts.

265

Documents

[IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication