A recent agricultural biotechnogy conference in Calgary has again brought forth the seemingly boundless opportunities in this field of high-tech research and development. The Agricultural Biotechnology Conference has been held for several years and has started to expand its presentations into other biotech perspectives such as forestry, energy, industrial considerations and others. That’s been a positive move as it gives one a sense of the bigger picture as so much in biotech is interrelated.
There usually isn’t much controversy at these events, since much of it is preaching to the choir. What there is at times is a growing sense of exasperation at the slow rate of development considering the approaching overwhelming spectre of feeding almost nine billion people — that’s double what it was just a few years ago. Although it would seem that development itself is not the issue, it’s the regulatory mechanism that is in place that slows down the process that is causing the aggravation. That’s to be expected from those that invest millions in development, but time delays of 10 years and more seems rather excessive to get approvals. It would seem to society’s benefit to find ways and means to speed the process. However a new bug in the ointment may well preclude any time lag improvement.
Read Also
Farm equipment sales sector sees significant structural changes
Farming equipment sales have been declining for a number of years now, and one industry professional believes structural changes in the industry are needed to curb that trend.
What has added to the slowdown in the process is a whole new hurdle that was unheard of not too long ago. It’s called “social licence” and it’s become the new buzzphrase being used with almost any issue that might impact any change to human development — which seems to be everything.
Social licence was the undertone to this conference and the words were all too often mentioned in many presentations. The definition of social licence is rather loose and subject to different interpretations depending on which side of the issue you stand. The assumption is that it refers to public approval of whatever new research or development is being considered or being done. That’s about where any agreement on the definition ends because it’s “the who is issuing the licence” that becomes the bone of contention.
When it comes to scientists, researchers and industry the understanding is that public approval means government regulators and self-imposed standards. To lobby groups that oppose whatever those folks are doing that’s not good enough anymore, but their version of social licence seems to more nebulous. There is no central entity that they can point to as the issuer of social licences which drives the research community to further exasperation.
Most suspect that lobby groups really mean that they will be the issuer of any social licence. They hide that self-appointed role under the guise of protecting the interests of the people against the ominous unknowns of some nefarious technology. In the past these groups tried to promote that anti-technology perspective calling it the “precautionary principle.” It would seem they now have a new stick to pursue that angle — and it’s working. I expect much of the public expects the government to protect their interests when it comes to technology development being that’s what they elect politicians to do. But the public seems to be easily spooked by GE-technology fearmongering in the media. That in turn sees politicians sniffing the political winds and causing the regulatory to go slow on regulation and approval.
The constant use of those buzzwords at the conference seemed to display more a sense of frustration with this hurdle being placed in the way of obvious research and development in the biotech business, but then the conference audience was somewhat biased. The appearance of a small group of anti-technology protesters demonstrating at the event probably confirmed many attendee’s suspicions as to who was behind the new mania about social licence. Some of the sessions discussed the failures of technology obtaining a social licence.
The example most cited was the original introduction of GE plants and foods. The industry naively expected the public to trust them and accept that all was well. The reality was that the public was clueless about GMOs and when they sort of understood they found that there was no public benefit they could relate. Clever lobby groups noticed that naivete and exploited the situation with fearmongering and junk science. That won the day and the industry has been fighting a rearguard action ever since to try and spin a positive perception on their business and the technology
One didn’t detect at the conference that there was any specific plan to gain a social licence except that it was needed. There was a concensus that education was the medium, but the problem is where to start and what approach to take. It all seems like a moving target which would be frustrating to those that see the common sense and science in technology.
No doubt public relations consultants will be making millions providing advice on how to deal with “social licence” to every organization, research agency or corporation on the continent. Considering the history of certifying foods and activities for any number of dubious reasons or intentions, I fully expect lobby groups are thinking about just such a social licence idea.
