Project: Archive of Agricultural Genetic Engineering and Society CenterInterviewee: Margaret Mellon, Science Policy ConsultantInterviewers: Matthew Booker, Alison Wynn, and Brad HerringVideographer: Brad HerringInterview Date: September 5, 2014Location: D. H. Hill Library, North Carolina State UniversityLength: 1:20:52Learn more at https://go.ncsu.edu/AAGESSEE FULL TRANSCRIPT AT: https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/files/2017/09/Mellon_Margaret_20140905_Transcript_Final.pdf00:04 - This is Matthew Booker. It's the fifth of September 2014. We're interviewing Margaret Mellon. Could you tell us your name, your institution or your current place of work, and your role.00:42 - And what does that look like in practice? I mean what is it actually that you do if you were to explain to somebody in a practical sense.01:57 - So that's a range of skills, clearly, in your answer there and so before I ask you specifically how you got all of those, is this what you wanted to be when you grew up and what did you imagine yourself being?02:48 - So how did you end up going into these careers?07:43 - What do you think your most important contributions have been to your fields?08:57 - When and how did you get interested in genetic engineering and biotech?10:52 - And why do you think this technology matters? What's at stake?12:54 - Is there a particular controversy or episode that you've been involved with related to genetic engineering that you think is most interesting to think about or that might reveal some of those tensions?18:22 - So you've described an interesting conjunction there of thinking scientifically, being loyal to scientific facts. And at the same time recognizing the kinds of pressures that exist in the world of economics and agriculture, which is a fundamental business in this country. As a scientists then, who has chosen to operate in the world of policy, how do you negotiate that tension between those two worlds? And what I mean by that, is that you usually think of scientists as sort of objective, as faithful to their results, the kind of loyalty to a particular method, and who are careful to make claims only based on what their evidence what their facts suggest. But policy is about values and it's about futures as much as it is about past results, right? So what about those moments when there's scientific uncertainty, in your opinion, but there's immense pressure for new technology, when you feel you do not have enough info to move forward. Do you have an example you might provide for that? Or is that too much?24:21 - So that wonderful comment makes me think about the allies and the opponents that you've had at the Union of Concerned Scientists over the years. And your approach is clearly based on your allegiance to scientific evidence-You’ve been very clear about that. But the word "we" that you used I think refers to you and your team at the Union of Concerned Scientists—But there's a broader community of people who've used other kinds of arguments. Some of them quite unscientific arguments or emotionally based appeals who you might have found on your side in some of those arguments. And those folks have gotten a lot of attention and maybe even some of the successes of the opposition—How did that feel and how did you work with those people? Did you respect those people? How did you handle that as a scientist?29:22 - So on that same vein, were there opponents, people on the other side of the issue, whom you particular respected or whose approach you respected?34:30 - You just described a--over the course of the last few minutes--a really interesting and I think profoundly ethically based idea of the process by which decisions should be made. And I’d like to draw you out about that a little bit. Because I think what you said earlier on is that you saw yourself as having a role. You and your team. And they were part of a larger set of interests, if I can apply that word--and that all of those interests deserved to be a part of the conversation. And so I wonder if you could flesh that out a little bit for people outside of your own self. What--how do you think decisions ought to be made about genetic engineering in particular, but more broadly about biotechnology or about agriculture in our society. 39:33 - So, what do you think fundamentally is wrong with the process then around regulating or deciding, asking the right questions, these pieces that you describe?42:41 - So I would like to ask you a few kind of big picture questions. Some of which speak to your experience with the field and your interest with the history of genetic engineering. And so one is what you think are the most important drivers of the field of genetic engineering and agriculture today. What do you think is really driving the efforts to push the technology in new directions? What's back of these shifts?45:21 - So what do you see as the future of agriculture in, say, 20 years?