Abstract: . . .  1 AEBC/01/21 AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION FUTURE WORK AND MEETINGS Note by the Secretariat Introduction. 1. This note is intended as background for the discussions about future  . . .
. . .  tools should be employed in connection with decisions about commercialisation of GM crops, following up recommendation 10 in the ‘Crops on Trial’report about the need for a wider public debate about the future role of GM crops in UK agriculture . One of the aims of the public attitudes group in the next few months will be to consider different methods of public engagement, e.g. how different methods work, how they compare in costs, what new light they shed at the end . . .
. . .  that there is no interaction in this style of communications – we may be involved in a debate on the television, but this is a very limited sense of interaction and one designed more for entertainment than for true engagement. I understand communications to be what Citigate do for us. Page 8 8 ANNEX B AEBC group membership at September 2001 Group Liability Animals Public Attitudes/ . . .
. . .  groups (Kent Farmers etc) and policy bodies eg local ethical committees. When we meet in London we could invite the head offices and would probably want to have one-to-one meetings on an annual basis with the key players eg big three environment groups, consumer groups, farming groups and industry bodies. Such a programme ensures that we are doing what is necessary and at the same time makes it clear to the interest groups where and when the opportunities are for them . . .
. . .  consensus – the qualitative research work we are doing on animals is about identifying and understanding difference. It is set up in such a way that we end up with a picture of the variety of perspectives that people have on animals and biotechnology . This is important because it ensures that in doing our work we don’t caricature the public view, putting everyone in one box. This work won’t tell us how many people hold each of Page 6  . . .
. . .  always understand why they are being invited to contribute and what the limits of their participation are going to be. Page 7 7 I would suggest that we need to have such a discussion about the way the Commission wishes to interact with the public in the generality of its work and establish the right instruments for such engagement. We also need to have such a discussion in the context of each sub-group/project to design appropriate techniques . . .
--3000,6,250,3223,19883