s | The Scientist Magazine®

Have you ever risked disapproval? Have you ever risked a belief? ... real courage is risking something that might force you to rethink your thoughts and suffer change and stretch consciousness. Real courage is risking one's clichés.- From Another Roadside Attraction by Tom RobbinsI recently attended BIO 2004, the annual jamboree of the biotech indus try. The optimism and energy of the place invigorated me as industry pioneers shared their visions of the future and I learned about new technologies, the ongoing translation of research into products and services, and the process of commercialization.But they weren't the only face of BIO 2004. I also spent some time talking to a couple of anti-biotech protestors who, like me, were in the bar taking stock after a long day. In truth, I was leveled by the parallels between us: they got a real kick out of what they were doing, too. They coveted the opportunity to get together for an "event," make new friends and contacts, get the latest information on topics of interest, and hear from some of the gurus of the protest movement. But beyond the cerebral component, they also got the physical buzz from the crowd scene, the adrenalin charge of seeing the police lined up in opposition, and the ego boost of wall-to-wall media coverage.In the course of the conversation we each aired our clichés, though I am not sure that we risked them.An oft-repeated misconception, one that I share with Leroy Hood, president of the Institute of Systems Biology, is that the anti-biotech lobby doesn't understand the science: "As we see the protesters, we must be forced to recognize how remiss we have been in taking science to the public," said Hood in one of the plenary sessions. In fact, the protestors that I talked to did have a good grasp of the science. And they admitted that, while they have a visceral horror of the "global experiment in genetic modification," no evidence shows that any harm has come from the planting of genetically modified crops.Their grievances are perhaps shifting away from the dangers of the science. As if to emphasize this, the protestors pointed out that a mere 10% of registrants at the meeting were scientists (BIO organizers have not confirmed this). Their main contention, their cliché, was that biotech is about corporate greed and global oppression, through the production of drugs that are far too expensive and not nearly efficacious enough. Biotech crops, they say, benefit no one except the seed companies. It dawned on me why I'd been called a "corporate whore" as I passed through the protestors on my way into the convention center that morning.Needless to say, on these issues we disagreed. Their arguments struck me as being naïve, failing to account for their privileged positions in terms of health, education, and lifestyle choices. Nothing in their pleasant world of massage, body painting, and organic chocolates will cure the ills of the world. But biotechnology might.I did discover, however, that some protestors are thoughtful, knowledgeable people. Wider discussions between them and the research and biotech communities would be beneficial in helping to frame the issues more clearly and in isolating those who perpetrate violence and intimidation – the true nutters about whom you can read on page 10.This represents a change in my view. I previously wrote: "Engaging in dialogue with activists in search of mutual understanding or a middle ground is dangerous."1But I'm not suggesting here that we debate the issues under the pressure of a public forum where the tendency is to take a confrontational line. I instead recommend get-to-know-you sessions behind closed doors, or maybe just chatting in a bar.Richard Gallagher, Editor rgallagher@the-scientist.com

s

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of