Australasian Biotechnology (backfiles) AusBiotech ISSN: 1036-7128 Vol. 9, Num. 2, 1999

Public perceptions of biotechnology: Towards a dialogue

The recent Australian Consensus Conference on genetically modified foods (Conference, 1999) has again raised the issue of public understanding and awareness of gene technology and, more especially, ways in which community groups can contribute to policy formulation in this vital area.

There have been Australian surveys of public opinion in this area; for example, see: Kelley, 1995; Norton, Lawrence & Wood, 1998a, 1998b. Such surveys can provide some useful information, but they suffer from a number of problems we have highlighted (Davison et al, 1997):

• they often assume people are primarily consumers, rather than citizens;
• they assume people are `homogenous' rather than diverse;
• they often assume a `cognitive deficit' model in which adults need to have a deficiency remedied; and,
• they assume a politically neutral view of science.
• These assumptions, in our experience, are not always valid.

Our research (Barns, 1995; Schibeci et al, 1997; Schibeci & Barns, 1998) was driven by the long term goal to develop processes by which community groups can contribute to policy formulation in areas with a strong science/ technology dimension. This project is part of our continuing program in the Public understanding of science and technology. The public perceptions of biotechnology component of the project explored attitudes to gene technologies of specific `interested publics' in qualitative detail. It employed methodologies which assume these publics are not passive receivers of information, but active agents whose response to gene technology communication is strongly influenced by their own `life world' situations and by their background attitudes to the credibility of information emanating from scientific and commercial organisations.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of this project, and particularly the potential of this approach for increasing the possibilities for dialogue among experts, community groups and policy makers.

Method

We developed three sets of stimulus materials or `cases' to use in individual interviews and focus groups. The three cases were: MacGregor's7 tomato, pST (porcine somatotropin)- treated pork, and the use of somatic cell gene therapy for cystic fibrosis. The case studies for the project were selected to allow for analysis of differences and similarities in perspectives on issues relating to plants, animals and humans.

For each `case', we developed stimulus material on a HyperCard database (`stack') which contained various categories of gene technology information about each case. For the two genetically modified foods (tomato, pork), we developed ten categories of information: science, marketing, business, ethics, politics, human health, environmental impact, regulation, history and production. The stack was used to help adults articulate their views about genetically modified foods. We interviewed a sample of adults, individually, before and after they browsed through the stack.

The categories of information in the cystic fibrosis case reflected the different nature of this case; they were: business, community education, ethics, the future, medical procedures, politics, regulation, science, and, social justice/ privacy. We also shifted from individual interviews to focus group interviews, because of the opportunities focus groups provided for discussion of the relevant issues, in addition to the articulation of individual views.

We followed up our focus groups in the cystic fibrosis case in 1997 by organising a `communication workshop' between seven `experts' and members of the relevant community groups (Schibeci et al, in press). 

Sample results

It is difficult to summarise the rich data provided by participants in our project. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify themes which emerged in the discussion.

One issue which emerged was that of labelling foods. Many of our participants believed it was important for people to know if foods were genetically modified or not. Another was the issue of `altering nature', a theme is revealed in many surveys on biotechnology. This concern was exacerbated, in the eyes of some participants, by what they saw as the profit motive which was driving research and development in gene technology. An interesting finding was that even when participants were positive about gene technology, there were concerns about perceived long term consequences for human health.

Four themes emerged in the genetic medicine case. The first was clinical considerations. Do people have the right to privacy about genetic information? Do family members, among others, have a right to know? Can and should insurance companies have access to genetic information? A second theme was legislative concerns. Who will impose regulation/controls? Will regulations/controls be voluntary or compulsory? A third theme was research priorities. Who will benefit from gene technology given financial limitations? What does it replace? The final theme was ethical and wider considerations. What gene intervention is off limits? Who sets the end? What are the limits of testing? Are science and technology running ahead of ethics?

One of our major goals in this project was to explore the more general orientations and concerns of ordinary people which lay behind their views on specific technical developments. It was for this reason that we used the more conversational focus group approach which enabled participants to express and develop not only their views on the particular gene technologies in question but also the broader life world concerns that shaped them. The people who contributed to this project were all particularly aware, in the cystic fibrosis case, of the challenge of the experience of people's suffering which developments in genetic medicine promise to alleviate. Thus no one was opposed in an unqualified way to the developments raised. However neither were people unqualified in their support. They were aware of the complexity of the issue and thus were ambivalent to the core technical developments and were concerned with the wider ramifications and contextual issues. It is of course difficult to generalise on the views expressed by groups of people in conversation. We are mindful that the transcripts of these conversations are only `snapshots' and often reflect the dynamics of a particular group of people struggling to work their way through complex technical issues.

In this project we found that the use of more discursive focus groups opened up a quite rich level of interest and insight on the part of lay people, something which is usually marginalised. The focus groups provided a forum for discussion within which people were able to articulate their inarticulate views, demonstrating the value of conversation. A strong feature of the responses was the ambivalence all groups had towards the new gene technologies - an ambivalence which reflected their awareness of the complexity of the issue. In particular most were very aware of the obvious and immediate benefits that the technology could bring, yet all were also aware of the possible `down-sides'. Of course these focus groups brought together people of relatively like minded positions on the specific issues. It is a bigger challenge of course to enable or facilitate effective communication between people thinking within conflicting frames - and in particular between lay and expert frames.

References

Barns, I. 1995 . Manufacturing consensus? Reflections on the U. K. National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology. Science as Culture. 5 (23) , 200-217.

Conference 1999 The website with information on the Australian Consensus Conference is: http://www2.abc.net.au/science/slab/conconf/

Davison, A., Barns, I., and Schibeci, R. A. 1997 Problematic publics: A critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values. 22 (3), 317-348. 

Kelley, J. 1995 . Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering: Australia, 1994. Canberra: Biotechnology Section, Australian Department of Industry, Science and Technology.

Norton, J. Lawrence, G. & Wood, G. 1998a The Australian public's perception of gnetically-modified foods. Australasian Biotechnology, 8 (3) , 172-181.

Norton, J. Lawrence, G. & Wood, G. 1998b The Australian public's perception of gnetically-modified foods: Methodology. Australasian Biotechnology, 8 (4) , 241-2.

Schibeci, R. A., Barns, I., Shaw, R. & Davison, A., (1999) Perceptions of genetic medicine: An experiment in expert-community interaction. Journal of Medical Ethics. in press

Schibeci, R. and Barns, I. 1998 Gene technology communication: Facilitating public deliberation of pST gene technology. Science Communication. 20 2 , 204-226.

Schibeci, R., Barns, I., Kennealy, S. and Davison, A. 1997 Public attitudes to gene technology: the case of the MacGregors7 tomato. Public Understanding of Science. 6, 167-183. 

Copyright 1999 Australian Biotechnology Association Ltd.