Template:BOKU-Vienna/Public Engagement

Education

View of GMO crops in our community

In Austria, as well as most of Europe, genetically modified organisms, especially in agricultural applications, are believed to be harmful to health and environment by the general populace. According to TNS Opinion & Social , who conducted a study about Biotechnology on request of European Commission in 2010 “ 61% of Europeans agree that GM food makes them feel uneasy”. [1]

<img src="T--BOKU-Vienna--2018_picture1.png" alt="Public Engagement Picture 1" class="w-50">

We were wondering why that might be when the scientific facts paint a far more benign picture. [2]

What became clear to us very quickly is that the debate about genetic engineering is not being held on the basis of studies and facts but on the basis of emotions, fear being the primary candidate. We fear what we do not know and in Austria, the cultivation of genetically modified crops on outdoor fields is forbidden and has been since 1997, when the first genetically modified crops were only just coming up.[3]

This complete ban was sparked by a hugely successful popular petition initiated by environmental NGOs and accompanied by a campaign of fear mongering. That was almost 20 years ago, but little has changed in the general attitude towards genetic engineering, even though many of the potential risks have since been ruled out through long-term studies.

One major reason for this is that seemingly the only people interested in talking about the topic are those same environmental organizations who were so vehemently against it 20 years ago and whose opinion hasn’t changed since. In an effort to understand their point of view we tried to reach out to several of the NGOs that are the most vocal in their campaigns against genetically modified crops, but none of them agreed to meet with us or showed any interest in engaging in an open and honest discussion.

Proponents of opposing opinions are few and far between, as they tend to be viciously attacked if they dare to speak up, which prevents fact-based discussions from reaching a wider audience. Therefore, it was quite a surprise to us when we stumbled across a very well made investigative documentary that took a fact-based look at GMOs around the world. We reached out to the man behind the piece, journalist and agronomist Timo Küntzle, who was happy to answer our questions about his work and his stance on the topic of genetic engineering in agriculture.

Another somewhat encouraging voice for us was Martin Weigel of the ÖVAF (Austrian Association for Agricultural, Life and Environmental Science) who we met with in June. He was very interested in our project and thought that it could have a real impact on agriculture in the future, even though right now it is almost impossible to introduce GMO crops to the European market. However, he believes that this will change in the future due to market pressure.

Overall, we came to the conclusion that in order to have a proper discussion about GMOs a lot of educational work has to be done first. This is why we decided to make education a big part of our human practices. Our goal was to help people get over the fear of genetic engineering that was instilled in them by the media to enable a nuanced discussion of the topic in the future. Since we, as students, are not employed by anyone with a financial interest in genetically modified crops, we are less likely to be accused of being beholden to those companies than those who have been working in the field for a longer time.

<img src="T--BOKU-Vienna--2018_picture2.jpg" alt="Public Engagement Picture 2">

<img src="T--BOKU-Vienna--2018_picture3.jpg" alt="Public Engagement Picture 3">

Education Efforts

Our first opportunity to engage with the public about the topic of GMOs and our project came in April with the “Lange Nacht der Forschung”, the “long night of science”, a yearly event where Universities and other research facilities open their doors to the public and present their work.

We also took part in other university events, like the summer party where we sold coffee, cake and ice cream and talked to our customers about our project and promoted our monthly Newsletter in which we informed our subscribers about the state of our project.

In order to make the goal of our project more accessible to the wider public we produced two short films explaining our project, one in German and one in English.

We were also quite active on social media in order to reach a wider audience with our message. For example in July of this year there was a very important and long awaited ruling by the ECJ (European Court of Justice), where they ruled on the topic of CRISPR and whether products of gene editing without the introduction of foreign genes should be considered GMO.

The little hope the scientific community in Austria had was crushed by the negative ruling, condemning the use of CRISPR/Cas as part of the GMO act and thereby make it illegal except for scientific use.

This decision hit our core and so we wanted to speak our mind about this topic.

Therefore, Johannes from our Team wrote a statement in regard to this ruling which we published through our social media channels.

<button class="btn btn-primary" type="button" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#collapseReadMore" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="collapseExample"> Read the whole statement here </button>

When it comes to genetic engineering, "scientific" often turns into "political" very quickly.

We as iGEM Team 2018 from Vienna would like to share our opinion on this:

  1. The ruling by the ECJ has shown one thing:

Europe has once again opposed a critical and fact-based debate about the topic of genetic engineering.

The latest breeding method (CRISPR/Cas9) is now being lumped together with other genetic engineering methods and is therefore similarly forbidden.

The argumentation based on the precautionary principle may generally be reasonable but unfortunately, the interpretation of the ECJ is not backed by scientific facts.

This has two main consequences:

On the one hand, we settle for "already proven" methods (e.g. irradiation or chemical mutagenesis) without questioning the risks involved.

We trust random changes in the genome of our crops and animals more than considered, precise, monitored and controllable interventions.

On the other hand, we say goodbye (once again) to the chance to be at the forefront of a new industry.

Where we complain today on Google, Facebook, and Co. about foreign rule, because they are conglomerates from other countries and we are not able to offer any marketable alternatives, this is exactly what is lying ahead for us regarding the biotech industry.

The judgment of the ECJ has only further cemented this development!

  1. In 1997 Austria decided to ban GMO cultivation.

This decision may have been the right one at the time.

However, it is no longer appropriate for precise genetic interventions that cannot be distinguished from natural variations.

Moreover, the decision at the time to include the ban in the constitution makes us inflexible in today's debate.

  1. There is also a biotech community in Austria!

Hundreds of students learn the techniques at our universities throughout the country every year, which are so vehemently opposed politically and apply them in their research as a matter of course.

  1. Genetic engineering as a technology is NOT harmful per se.

To date, not a single case of harm caused by genetically modified crops has been reported.

We as a student team in Vienna work with genetic engineering and our ROBOCROP system has the potential to help farmers (also in Austria).

However, the current legal situation in Austria (and also in large parts of Europe) does not allow such developments to reach the people, whose situation could be improved by such concepts.

We are quite disappointed by the ruling of the ECJ, but confident that a new generation of young, enlightened people who will identify today's conditions as not static and will rethink decisions made earlier.

Examples such as the Dutch government's 2017 initiative to reform GMO legislation at EU level reinforce our conviction, that some politicians see the need to adapt legislation for rapidly evolving sectors on the basis of facts and in line with the times.

One point of this initiative is particularly worth mentioning: Every 5 years the legislation should be adapted to the latest scientific status.

We hope our opinion is a meaningful contribution to a solution-oriented and fact-based debate on the ECJ ruling and related political developments in the future.

The iGEM Vienna Team 2018


<img src="T--BOKU-Vienna--2018_picture4.jpg" alt="Public Engagement Picture 4" class="w-50">

Another topic we commented on via social media was the issue one of our team members has to deal with. Shadan was born in Iran, but has been living in Austria for the past 9 years. We were very surprised and dismayed to discover that she will not be able to come with us to Boston because of the travel ban.

<button class="btn btn-primary" type="button" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#collapseReadMoreTwo" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="collapseExample"> Read the whole statement here </button>

We would like to make you aware of an issue due to the following situation.

Shadan is a member of our iGEM-Team and she is Iranian.

She has lived in Austria for 9 years!

We take part in an international competition for scientists, which takes place in Boston, USA.

Due to the restrictive visa policy of the US government towards citizens of certain countries, Shadan is not able to apply for a visa at all.

Just because she was born in another country and her passport has a different coat of arms.

That's all!

We are very disappointed that she will not be able to complete our team on our journey.

We hereby criticize the restrictive entry policy of the US Government!

Enlightened people do not distinguish between origin, do tar all with the same brush, do not generalize and do not prejudge!

It makes us very sad to see how far the United States of America is moving away from these ideals.

We hope the American society will free itself from its fears and begin to work courageously on an open and peaceful world of togetherness.

the iGEM Vienna Team 2018

Our education-efforts in a more official capacity also included the very youngest. In July we took part in the Kinder-Uni (Kids-University), a summer program for kids between the ages of 7 and 12 that allows them to get a taste of science at different universities through lectures and workshops. After a short age-appropriate introduction into the techniques used in genetic engineering, we helped the kids isolate DNA from tomatoes and also had the opportunity to tell them about our project and answer their questions.

We were also invited to a local high school to give a presentation on synthetic biology and our project for a group of about 60 of their year 11 and 12 students. After a quick crash course in cell biology and genetic engineering, made more engaging by an interactive quiz using mentimeter, we introduced our project and also talked about the importance of responsible conduct in genetic engineering. We made sure to leave a lot of time for their questions in the end, which proved to be a good idea, as they brought up many interesting points, especially around bioethics. We ended our presentation with a quick interactive feedback slide. Both the questions we got and the results of this gave us hope that maybe the days of unreflected fear towards genetic engineering are coming to an end as the general consensus was that the topic is more interesting than dangerous.

We also got the chance to present a poster of our project at the annual meeting of the ÖGMBT (Austrian Association of Molecular Life Sciences and Biotechnology) in September. This is the biggest annual conference on biotechnology in Austria and we got a lot of positive feedback from the other scientists attending.

References

[1] TNS Opinion & Social on request of European Commission Survey co-ordinated by Directorate General Research,2010, Biotechnology Report, Eurobarometer 73.1 (<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf</a>)

[2]

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/23395">https://doi.org/10.17226/23395</a>

[3] <a href="https://www.sozialministerium.at/site/Gesundheit/Gentechnik/Fachinformation_Allgemeines/Description_of_Austrian_Regulations_on_Genetic_Engineering">https://www.sozialministerium.at/site/Gesundheit/Gentechnik/Fachinformation_Allgemeines/Description_of_Austrian_Regulations_on_Genetic_Engineering</a> (16.10.2018, 11:11 )