Most Midwest farm families raise genetically engineered crops, yet some of their city cousins are uncertain about consuming them. How come? In part, it is due to the fact that as farming becomes more complex, it also becomes increasingly challenging to communicate, particularly when the public is evermore distanced from the farm.

One of the issues that has suffered the most is that of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a study of opinion differences between scientists and the public. The largest discrepancy of opinions concerned the safety of GMOs. Of the scientists polled, 88% indicated that GMOs were safe to eat. Amongst the public, only 37% agreed.

This study reveals an underlying truth. The science of GMOs was evolving but the scientific communication about GMOs was not. The result of a lack of good science communication about GMOs caused a factual void. Society at large, as the Pew study shows, became increasingly suspicious of this issue. This was due in part to the complexity of GMOs, but also to misinformation, rumors and misunderstandings wrought by poor communication. The result has been unfortunate but understandable. Many consumers have adopted a self-protective attitude towards GMOs based on suspicion and fear.

To help fill this void and to better respond to public interest through improved communication, the Purdue College of Agriculture launched an initiative called The Science of GMOs, which can be found at www.ag.purdue.edu/gmos. This is a website with the sole intent of sharing scientifically sound, unbiased information on genetically modified organisms with the public. The content is generated by Purdue faculty and staff in the College of Agriculture with no outside funding. These researchers and professors range from entomologists to experts in botany all the way to molecular physiologists.

The project was developed for use by food consumers and the broader public. We were guided by three principles. The first was a simple but commonly overlooked communication principle: People do not listen to what you think is important, they listen to what they think is important. As such, we picked the questions the broader public were asking on GMOs and sought to answer them directly.

The second principle was to maintain an attitude of understanding and to view the public as an intelligent and rational audience who needs and wants sound information. People felt that their GMO questions and concerns were being ignored. As a result, they felt frustrated. This frustration led to, in certain cases, a sense that important issues were being hidden from them. With this lack of trust, we understood that it could take time to rebuild good communication and to get the scientific facts out there.

The third principle was to allow our audience to decide for themselves. The role of scientists is not to tell people what to believe. Once provided with sound information and analysis, people not only can, but should make up their own minds. It is not the place of science to dictate to others what they should or should not feel. On the contrary, it is our role to simply provide the best contextualized information and analysis, and allow others to draw their conclusions. As we say on the website, “Knowing more equips us to make the best decisions for ourselves and generations to come.” We do not tell anyone what their opinion should be regarding the use of GMOs.

The Science of GMOs incorporates three information formats: the written word, a summary graphic and a filmed interview with a scientist. The website answers the eight GMO questions shown below. Our hope is that this site will be an evolving resource to address GMO questions. As such, we hope to help clarify some of the concerns around GMO issues and to fill a bit of the communications void.