By Gurumurti Natarajan
Over a decade now agricultural biotechnology has been shaping into an effective tool in addressing a host of pertinent issues relating to improved crop yields, lower costs of production, lesser use of farm chemicals, improved efficiency in weed management, all of which contribute to a reduction in the use of land under the plough to feed a growing population and being able to achieve it in an ecologically sustainable manner.
The second generation of improvements in the ag-biotech pipeline promises even more wondrous benefits that include improvements in nutritional quality of foods (vitamin A-enriched rice, soya with healthy portions of omega 3 fatty acids), paddy that does well under drought or saline conditions, wheat that wards off the devastating fungal disease Fusarium wilt, crops that produce pharmaceutical products as vaccines in banana and plants producing useful industrial products as starch with better milling qualities or more oil that can be converted to biodiesel. In the 10 years that biotech crops have been around, farmers have been lapping up the multitude of technological innovations proffered.

From a mere 1.7 million hectares (mha) 10 years ago, globally farmers have expanded the acreage 60 fold over to 102 mha in the year 2006. Although India had been slow off the block, it has impressively adopted biotechnology growing from a humble 50,000 hectares of Bt cotton in 2002 aggregating to 3.8 mha in year 2006. What is more, 42% of all cotton grown in the country currently is raised on seeds bearing this technological innovation. Happily, the country's cotton output has shot up from 86.24 lakh bales to 210.37 lakh bales, during the same period coinciding with the adoption of the new technology.

Despite rich rewards from tangible benefits, the introduction of this new technology hasn't been without its share of detractors. Vehement street protests, rampant vandalism, damage to property, fear psychosis, innuendos, smear campaigns and skulduggery in unmatched proportions have been the order of the day perpetrated by a handful of self-appointed guardians of all things nice and beautiful (aka pesky NGOs).

Demeaning actions as these that threaten to snuff out well-established benefits to large sections of society due to inadequate and improper communications with the stakeholders bordering on corporate hubris mandates appropriate correction. Societal acceptance of any new technology is determined by a multitude of rational and emotional factors which have to be effectively addressed by responsible corporate behaviour and sensible risk communication practices.

Acceptance of a new technology is promoted by rationalisation which is an aggregate of knowledge, rigorous science, truthfulness, transparency and strength of belief in the utility of the new technology. By contrast, however, certain other factors buttress emotional issues, trigger fear, exacerbate aversion to risk fomenting its rejection. In civil society, it is the confluence of rational and emotional factors that shape the overall trust in a new technology and its applications: the former formidably strengthened by effective, engaging communication and the latter resolutely vanquished through honesty and transparency.

The cardinal errors that tend to retard acceptance of a technological innovation have been shown to tread a dark alley that begins with an attitude of 'let's wait and see' that underpins the hope that things might work out on their own and intervention is warranted only when it gets out of hand. When things don't abate, 'resort to disparaging the criticism/critic' takes over. The third stage is denial of an adverse situation or the 'everything-is-fine' syndrome. This leads to the self-assertive delusory proclamation of 'we know best'. Self-indulgent preaching in the form of 'you have to believe me' follows. 'Primacy of freedom' is the penultimate straw to dissuade the detractors in this perilous path to self-destruction. Eventually, the cocoon closes in with a defeatist diktat of 'discredit the detractors'.

Quite on the contrary, trust, the bedrock of acceptance, is developed through openness, transparency, a ready willingness to share knowledge that is backed by personal experience and matched by rigorous science.

A proactive pursuit to achieving a win-win situation is evolved around open communication that is exalted as a corporate strategy that begins with taking opposing views seriously and avoiding trivialising emerging discordance. This would logically lead to a meaningful engagement of different stakeholders where unfounded fears are allayed and proven benefits highlighted. A multidisciplinary approach to technology assessment, which would effectively address seemingly contrasting claims is essential. Promoting healthy public debates highlighting alternate scenarios and policy options are integral to the process. The quintessential objective is one of fostering trust. Open communication is the mantra de rigueur.

Thus, it is through communication that one can transfer convictions which shape perceptions, earn public trust which in turn translate as benefits for the larger good of society. Corporates who have invested billions of dollars to create fantastic technologies that have far-reaching impact on the welfare of mankind ought to strive to make corporate communications an integral activity of their very being. With it comes effective discharge of social responsibility fostering, among others, acceptance of technological innovations and their myriad beneficial applications. Lessons from the past are not to be taken lightly


[www.financialexpress.com]