Relational Map of Plant Synthetic Biology in the UK<\/a>. Jon Williams from BASF noted that the Plant Synthetic Biology Community needs to understand relationships to ensure we improve outcomes. Jon\u2019s thoughts echoed those of other speakers on the need to increase engagement, to understand audiences, to make a dialogue. As Penny Hundelby from the John Innes Centre noted, \u201cgood science isn\u2019t just designed in the lab \u2013 it is shaped through engagement with the people it\u2019s for.\u201d<\/p>\nThe event itself was split between two panels, Ethics, Innovation and Rural Futures followed by Mutual Learning, Deliberation and Governance. This was a deliberate departure from conventional formats where ethics are often left until the very end after science presentations. Opening the programme with Danielle Hamm from the Nuffield Council of Bioethics reflects our conviction that values, sense of belonging, and our relationships with different parts of society shape not only the scientific questions we ask but also what we recognise as evidence and meaningful knowledge. Danielle spoke about successful public engagement work on issues around mitochondrial replacement techniques and precision bred animals. Demonstrating in her talk how ethics can actively contribute to better science by broadening perspectives, sharpening questions, and improving decision-making.<\/p>\n
Northumberland farmer Mike Lewis, tasked with giving a view from behind the hedgerow, mentioned that for the farming community personal relationships are key. Which means for the Plant Synthetic Biology Community successful developments in technology have to go beyond publications, regulations, and translation into products but to spend time with understanding the needs of those who will be impacted by plant synthetic biology. Something that is and can be achieved.<\/p>\n
The purple tomato, developed at the John Innes Centre on Norwich Research Park was highlighted several times \u2013 a product design to enhance the nutrition of society. But, as noted by Pat Thomas from BeyondGM, scientists and policymakers need to understand more about the needs of society and why they are not accessing nutritional food in the first place. This concern over food use and access was highlighted by Sarah Calcutt who spoke of the challenges for farmers but also of societies relationship with food. Crystallising her presentation with the horrifying point that there are more food banks in the UK now then there are McDonalds. Sarah also noted that 30% of our food currently is not consumed by a person but goes to waste. Highlighting once more than despite the global concerns cited by regulators and policymakers of population increases and climate change impacts \u2013 the world has challenges that science and technology on its own cannot fix, as noted by Keith Lindsey from Durham University.<\/p>\n
What was apparent from the diverse panel of presenters was the need to ensure all voices are heard. That we understand not just the words used but also the meaning and weight of those words. Pat Thomas, again, mentioned the oft cited concern of publics, that of scientists \u2018playing God\u2019, is not about scientists being raised to the heavens but of a society who are situated and told to watch someone else mess with something they care deeply for.<\/p>\n
The event, chaired by Julian Little and Liz Rylott, has set the stage for the Plant Synthetic Biology Community to step up and to reach out to the disengaged, the unengaged and the very engaged stakeholders impacted or interested in this emerging technology. A challenge, our team are taking forward with future online and in-person events over the next two years.<\/p>\n
The conversation continues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Written by: Dr. Oliver Prichard Moore What happens when you bring stakeholders from the sciences, the third sector, farming, agri-tech, and civil society together around … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":78017,"featured_media":859,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/78017"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=858"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":860,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858\/revisions\/860"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/global-science-and-epistemic-justice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}