The public has its own view of what is a risk
1
Sir — The importance of coffee as an agricultural commodity cannot be overstated: its retail value of US$70 billion surpasses the forecast of $56 billion for total US agricultural exports for 2003. Although coffee is the world’s most heavily traded commodity apart from oil, it has been overproduced for several years: some 117 million 60-kg bags were produced in 2002–2003 but only 108 million were consumed. Overproduction has resulted in historically low coffee prices (adjusted for inflation) of about 50 US cents a pound — the measure in which it is sold in international markets — or $1.10 a kilogram. Producing countries received about $5.5 billion out of the $70-billion total retail value for 2002–2003, compared with $10–12 billion received out of the $30-billion retail value in the early 1990s. Low prices are having a devastating effect on at least 20 million coffee- farming families in more than 50 countries. Taking an average family size of five, more than 100 million people are dependent on coffee. In Ethiopia, for example, more than 700,000 families are involved in coffee production and more Feynman put a personal spin on physics Sir — Thomas Halsey comments, in his News and Views article “Friction in a spin” (Nature 424, 1005; 2003), “No doubt string theorists and creators of Bose–Einstein condensates will be bemused to discover that they are sharing academic departments with colleagues whose idea of fundamental physics involves spinning coins.” Or perhaps not, if history is anything to go by. The physicist Richard Feynman famously put on record how one day in the cafeteria “some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air”. By noticing the difference between the plate’s angular velocity and that of the associated wobble, says Feynman, he was motivated to higher things: “The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate” (R. P. Feynman with R. Leighton Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman! Norton, New York, 1985). R. W. D. Nickalls Department of Anaesthesia, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK The public has its own view of what is a risk Sir — The assertion in your Editorial “Don’t believe the hype” (Nature 424, 237; 2003), that new toxicology data on nanomaterials and more public debate on their risks will extinguish the hype surrounding nanotechnology, is unlikely to be correct. Lessons learnt from past controversies suggest that what is actually needed is understanding of what the public perceives to be the risks of nanotechnology. Collection of scientific data and facts on potential hazards does little to calm the fears of the public, as experiences of silicone breast implants and Bt corn demonstrate. Even scientific evidence showing that there is little or no harm from a particular technology does not put an end to public controversy. It is public attitudes and reactions to perceived, not actual, risks that tip the balance of public acceptance or rejection of new technologies. Why is this so? Statistics about risks — as assessed by scientific methods — do not necessarily guide the public towards rational decisions (P. Slovic, Science 236, 280–285; 1987). Slovic and his colleagues have shown over the past three decades that non-technical people tend to overestimate the risks of activities that are unfamiliar to them, that may threaten future generations, and that have vivid historical associations, such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. The nanotechnology community is underestimating the importance of perceived risks — and the distinction between these and real risks — and their implications for progress. In 2002, the US National Nano- technology Initiative awarded only $280,000 — 0.04% of its budget of $697 million, to study the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. None of this money was allocated to studying risk perception. The longer the nanotechnology community waits to address public concerns, the more entrenched risk perception will become in the public’s minds. It is up to us to take notice and assess funds accordingly. Emmanuelle Schuler Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005-1892, USA than 15 million people depend on coffee directly or indirectly. In Central America, 540,000 coffee workers lost their jobs between 2000 and 2002 because of low coffee prices. Efforts to reduce poverty are being seriously hampered by such a widespread crisis. One rarely acknowledged victim of the coffee crisis is research, for which funding has been reduced. At Cenicafé, the National Coffee Research Centre in Colombia, for example, the workforce was reduced from 436 in 1988 to 169 in 2001, with further cuts in 2002. Research on coffee harvesting, processing, pest and disease control, post-harvest storage and mycotoxins, among others, is essential for the continued production of high- quality coffee. It is imperative for coffee research to be maintained, yet such efforts appear to be lost in the current economic crisis. One mechanism for maintaining continuity in coffee research globally would be the creation of an international coffee-research development programme within one of the 16 centres operating under the auspices of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural correspondence NATURE | VOL 425 | 25 SEPTEMBER 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 343 Global project needed to tackle coffee crisis A sharp drop in coffee prices has caused widespread suffering and hindered research. Research (CGIAR). A similar programme has already been set up for banana and plantain within the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. A coffee equivalent would coordinate global efforts in research, training, data-gathering and database management, and would report results, serving all coffee-producing countries. Global research priorities could be coordinated through the programme, minimizing duplicated research and making more efficient use of scarce coffee-research funds. The programme should also aim to facilitate development of research-based solutions to major production and quality problems, with smallholders in developing countries as the primary focus. Its structure should be non-bureaucratic, rapid-response, flexible and adaptable. Fernando E. Vega*, Eric Rosenquist†, Wanda Collins‡ *Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA †National Program Staff, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA ‡Plant Sciences Institute, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA © 2003 Nature Publishing Group
-
Upload
emmanuelle -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of The public has its own view of what is a risk
Sir — The importance of coffee as anagricultural commodity cannot beoverstated: its retail value of US$70 billionsurpasses the forecast of $56 billion fortotal US agricultural exports for 2003.Although coffee is the world’s mostheavily traded commodity apart from oil,it has been overproduced for several years:some 117 million 60-kg bags wereproduced in 2002–2003 but only 108million were consumed. Overproductionhas resulted in historically low coffeeprices (adjusted for inflation) of about 50US cents a pound — the measure inwhich it is sold in international markets— or $1.10 a kilogram. Producingcountries received about $5.5 billion outof the $70-billion total retail value for2002–2003, compared with $10–12 billionreceived out of the $30-billion retail valuein the early 1990s.
Low prices are having a devastatingeffect on at least 20 million coffee-farming families in more than 50countries. Taking an average family size of five, more than 100 million people aredependent on coffee. In Ethiopia, forexample, more than 700,000 families areinvolved in coffee production and more
Feynman put a personalspin on physicsSir — Thomas Halsey comments, in hisNews and Views article “Friction in aspin” (Nature 424, 1005; 2003), “No doubt string theorists and creators ofBose–Einstein condensates will bebemused to discover that they are sharingacademic departments with colleagueswhose idea of fundamental physicsinvolves spinning coins.”
Or perhaps not, if history is anythingto go by. The physicist Richard Feynmanfamously put on record how one day inthe cafeteria “some guy, fooling around,throws a plate in the air”. By noticing thedifference between the plate’s angularvelocity and that of the associated wobble,says Feynman, he was motivated to higherthings: “The diagrams and the wholebusiness that I got the Nobel Prize forcame from that piddling around with the wobbling plate” (R. P. Feynman withR. Leighton Surely You’re Joking, MrFeynman! Norton, New York, 1985).R. W. D. NickallsDepartment of Anaesthesia, Nottingham CityHospital, Hucknall Road,Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
The public has its ownview of what is a riskSir — The assertion in your Editorial“Don’t believe the hype” (Nature 424,237; 2003), that new toxicology data onnanomaterials and more public debate on their risks will extinguish the hypesurrounding nanotechnology, is unlikelyto be correct. Lessons learnt from pastcontroversies suggest that what is actuallyneeded is understanding of what thepublic perceives to be the risks ofnanotechnology.
Collection of scientific data and factson potential hazards does little to calmthe fears of the public, as experiences ofsilicone breast implants and Bt corndemonstrate. Even scientific evidenceshowing that there is little or no harmfrom a particular technology does not put an end to public controversy. It is public attitudes and reactions toperceived, not actual, risks that tip thebalance of public acceptance or rejectionof new technologies. Why is this so?
Statistics about risks — as assessed byscientific methods — do not necessarilyguide the public towards rationaldecisions (P. Slovic, Science 236, 280–285;
1987). Slovic and his colleagues haveshown over the past three decades thatnon-technical people tend to overestimatethe risks of activities that are unfamiliarto them, that may threaten futuregenerations, and that have vivid historicalassociations, such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
The nanotechnology community isunderestimating the importance ofperceived risks — and the distinctionbetween these and real risks — and their implications for progress.
In 2002, the US National Nano-technology Initiative awarded only$280,000 — 0.04% of its budget of $697million, to study the social and ethicalimplications of nanotechnology. None of this money was allocated to studyingrisk perception.
The longer the nanotechnologycommunity waits to address publicconcerns, the more entrenched riskperception will become in the public’sminds. It is up to us to take notice andassess funds accordingly.Emmanuelle SchulerCenter for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University,6100 Main Street, Houston,Texas 77005-1892, USA
than 15 million people depend on coffeedirectly or indirectly. In Central America,540,000 coffee workers lost their jobsbetween 2000 and 2002 because of lowcoffee prices. Efforts to reduce poverty are being seriously hampered by such awidespread crisis.
One rarely acknowledged victim ofthe coffee crisis is research, for whichfunding has been reduced. At Cenicafé,the National Coffee Research Centre inColombia, for example, the workforce wasreduced from 436 in 1988 to 169 in 2001,with further cuts in 2002. Research oncoffee harvesting, processing, pest anddisease control, post-harvest storage andmycotoxins, among others, is essential for the continued production of high-quality coffee. It is imperative for coffeeresearch to be maintained, yet such efforts appear to be lost in the currenteconomic crisis.
One mechanism for maintainingcontinuity in coffee research globallywould be the creation of an internationalcoffee-research development programmewithin one of the 16 centres operatingunder the auspices of the ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural
correspondence
NATURE | VOL 425 | 25 SEPTEMBER 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 343
Global project needed to tackle coffee crisisA sharp drop in coffee prices has caused widespread suffering and hindered research.
Research (CGIAR). A similar programmehas already been set up for banana andplantain within the International PlantGenetic Resources Institute. A coffeeequivalent would coordinate global effortsin research, training, data-gathering anddatabase management, and would reportresults, serving all coffee-producingcountries. Global research priorities couldbe coordinated through the programme,minimizing duplicated research andmaking more efficient use of scarcecoffee-research funds. The programmeshould also aim to facilitate developmentof research-based solutions to majorproduction and quality problems, withsmallholders in developing countries asthe primary focus. Its structure should benon-bureaucratic, rapid-response, flexibleand adaptable.Fernando E. Vega*, Eric Rosenquist†,Wanda Collins‡*Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, US Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Research Service,Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA†National Program Staff, USDA, ARS, Beltsville,Maryland 20705, USA‡Plant Sciences Institute, USDA, ARS, Beltsville,Maryland 20705, USA
© 2003 Nature Publishing Group
