b'THE RISK CORNER BY: DAVID ZARUKA SCIENCE CHARTER FOR APRECAUTIONARY EUROPET he last five years in the EuropeanCRISPR on the political agenda?approach on endocrine disruption, Parliament were dark years for sci- It was time for an experiment. Couldenergy cutbacks, biodiversity restric-ence. With anti-vaxxers and che- scientists leave the lab for the lobby? tions, product phase-outs ) and further mophobes using the Parliament to runaffect investment, jobs and consumer anti-industry campaigns, every weekTHE SCIENCE CHARTER access, maybe an audience for more evi-there seemed to be an attack on researchI wrote a Science Charter with ten simpledence-based policy will coalesce.and innovation. These populist zealotspoints promoting evidence-based policy- Influence. My community is active in Brussels and Strasbourg (illegally)making. I put it in a format EU votersbut relatively small. There is no signifi-banished an ag-tech company from thecould share, as a meme, on candidatecant science body influencing European dialogue process while they flew in NGOsocial media pages. Would the Chartermedia. activists from Australia and America togenerate responses in the political space?Affluence. Western economies are lobby the Parliament. A special PESTWould anti-science MEPs like Michleenjoying the benefits of cheap money Committee was set up to recommendRivasi be forced to react to basic scien- and rich technology. We can afford more tighter restrictions on the risk assess- tific ideals? expensive alternatives. Banning sin-ment process (final vote: 526 votes for,My online science communicationsgle-use plastics means more inefficient 66 against and 72 abstentions).community responded positively. Withinglass and wood productsa few more Could it get any worse? a week the Science Charter was volun- cents on the euro that no one will feel, Themediacelebratedthelasttarily translated into 10 languages, fromright?European elections as, in general, a voteDanish to Slovenian, from Portuguese toThe M Word. There is a haunt-for Europe, but it was not a vote for sci- Polish, covering 85% of the EU popula- ing trust deficit (accentuated by the ence and innovation. Quite the opposite.tion. I provided candidate lists for eachMonsanto Papers) demanding that indus-The centre parties melted away andcountry, a central social media page andtry and research be more tightly con-special agenda groups acquired sharperguidelines for people to follow. trolled by governments. The narrative in sticks. The Green Parties have grownThen came the easy part. Get scien- most media sources is on how the public stronger on the back of the climate andtists, researchers, technology and inno- needs more protection - the precaution-biodiversity campaigns organised in thevation supporters, surely 15-20% of theary mindset is in its ascendency.months leading up to the election.population, to go out and engage in politi- Commonsense.Italmost While some feel there may be cer- cal dialogue in their social media commu- seems strange to have to campaign tain Greens who might favour sustain- nities. If the activists and NGOs, makingfor evidence-based decision-making. able technologies (more than the Socialup less than 3% of the voting population,Furthermore, everyone has their defini-Democrats), my experience says theircould sway public opinion, surely a largertion of what is scientific. Even the most cosmopolitan perception of agriculturepopulation could make a greater impact. chemophobic Green Party candidates and their prejudice against industryIn the end, this was the hardest part.can claim: We support the science on would demand many concessions and fewOutside of France, the Science Charterclimate change.opportunities. did not generate much impact in the polit- How much longer will Europe be able How did this happen? ical dialogue. Like any experiment, it wasto afford these regulatory chokeholds? Agricultural science, technology andtime to evaluate. Energy and fuel price increases have innovation are not vote winners. Foodforced angry citizens to don yellow vests prices are low, and the consumer is fedWHY DID IT FAIL? but what will happen when food prices more fear than calories. Within the con- There were many possible reasons theescalate, or the EU can no longer afford text of climate change and biodiversityScience Charter hashtag did not trendto subsidise lower yields. How many more loss, agriculture was framed as a prob- before the Euro-elections. researchers, innovators and investors will lem, technology as a threat. The researchPassion: Scientists are passionatehave to leave Europe before something and rural communities were not signifi- about their work. Engaging with peoplelike a Science Charter becomes essential?cant voting blocs, so their sustainabilitywho dont understand the research (orSo, well wait for another five years. achievements garnered little attention. dont trust them) would not attract them. More products will be taken off the Today three motivated activists in aComfort. Outside of ag-tech andmarket, more solutions lost, and a higher room with a laptop can influence changechemistry fields, other research domainsburden put on humans and the environ-on a global scale. But maybe science couldhave yet to feel the effect of technologyment. Maybe Europe 2024 will be ready do the same? Why couldnt three scien- restrictions. Once stifling precautionaryto discuss a Science Charter. tists put the European Courts decision onmeasures begin to bite (hazard-based 50IEUROPEAN SEEDIEUROPEAN-SEED.COM'