Comparative Research on Biotechnology and the Public · 2015. 8. 11. · 6 Comparative Research on Biotechnology and the Public Report to the US - EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research

1

Comparative Research on Biotechnology and the Public

Report to the US - EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research

Convenors

Toby Ten Eyck (Michigan State University)George Gaskell (London School of Economics)

May 2003

2

Contents

Contributors 4Preface 5Executive Summary 61 Introduction 102 Policy Trajectories 12 2.1 Policies and Agencies 14 2.2 Policies and Social Movements 16 2.3 Policies and Science 18 2.4 Policies and Lay Audiences 193 Media Trajectories 24 3.1 Audiences 26 3.2 New Media 27 3.3 The Flow of Information 28 3.4 The Transatlantic Divide(s) 314 Opinion trajectories 32 4.1 Ethical Concerns 34 4.2 Trust and Accountability 355 Biotechnologies to Come 38

3

6 Measurement Issues 40 Some General Considerations 40 Researching Public Opinion 43 Researching the Media 45 The Analysis of Policy 48References 51

4

Contributors

United States

Vincent Amanor-Boadu Kansas State UniversityMark Chong Cornell UniversityDavid Cleveland University of California at Santa BarbaraSharon Dunwoody University of WisconsinRachelle Hollander National Science FoundationKatherine Krolikowski University of California at BerkeleyJulia Moore Woodrow Wilson International Center and National Science FoundationMelissa Pollak National Science Foundation Susanna Priest Texas A&M UniversitySusan Sechler Rockefeller FoundationPaul Thompson Michigan State University

Canada

Edna Eisendel University of CalgaryMichael Mehta University of Saskatchewan

Mexico

Amanda Galvez National Autonomous University of Mexico

Europe

Richard Braun Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, European Federation of BiotechnologySuzanne de Cheveigne CNRS: ParisBernhard Gil University of MunichJuergen Hampel Technology Assessment Centre: Baden WurtembergMaurice Lex DG Research: European Commission, BrusselsMichael Siegrist University of ZurichHelge Torgersen Austrian Academy of Science: Vienna

5

Preface

These proceedings summarize discussions during the US-EC Workshop on Com-parative Research on Biotechnology and the Public supported by the US-EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research. The workshop was held in Baltimore at the Tremont Plaza Hotel on April 10-11, 2003. The workshop focused on social implications of biotechnology, with an emphasis on public opinion. Participants included academic researchers and representatives from regulatory agencies and foundations from North America and Europe.

This workshop report includes recommendations for future directions of research on policy decisions, media discourse, and public opinion as these relate to the social landscape of biotechnology. It is hoped that the discussions summarized in this document will serve as a catalyst to foster new levels of cooperation and collaboration between US and EC social and behavioral scientists as well as sci-entists involved in biotechnology research.

The views expressed in this document are those of the workshop participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or governments.

Mary E. Clutter, US Chairperson Christian Patermann, EC Chairperson US-EC Task Force US-EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research on Biotechnology Research

6

Comparative Research on

Biotechnology and the Public

Report to the US - EC Task Force on Biotechnology

Research

Innovations developed through biotechnology have been both lauded and disdained by scientists, regulators, reporters, and other various individuals and groups within society. These debates have affected the rates at which new applications are being developed and presented to the public, giving both opponents and proponents reason for continuing to engage in forward-ing their claims. The stakes in this debate are high enough that disputes have moved beyond local contexts to the global level, as national govern-ments at odds with one another develop policies which support their own views and argue that the policies of other governments infringe on interna-tional trade and are illegal. Proposed legal actions aimed at settling inter-national trade disputes have been only one of the outcomes of the differing opinions among the various actors.

This report is the outcome of a day-and-half workshop focused on some of the social issues discussed above, with an emphasis on public opinion. Participants included academic researchers and representatives from regula-tory agencies and foundations from North America (the US, Canada, and Mexico) and Europe (the UK, Austria, France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, and Switzerland). Supported by the US-EC Task Force on Biotechnol-ogy Research and funded by the National Science Foundation and the EC, workshop participants discussed the development, maintenance, and implementation of research agendas on the topics of policy decisions, me-dia discourse, and public opinion as these relate to biotechnology, as well as a discussion on future trajectories of biotechnology. This report can be considered a road map for future research in areas of the social dimensions of biotechnology, and help to shape how researchers, funding agencies, and others think about the public and biotechnology.

The topics discussed within this report are embedded within a few key con-cepts including the roles played by actors with vested interests in biotech-nology, the flow (or lack thereof) of information between these actors, and the dynamics of the global marketplace. The resources that are available to these actors are highly regarded and finite. Each public arena that carries the debate has a limited carrying capacity, so only certain topics and voices are heard. These public arenas are characterized by gatekeepers who watch the flows of information, whose attention, in turn, is sought by other actors (both within and outside the biotechnology debate). The market-place also has a limited carrying capacity, and competitors seek advantages within policy/regulatory frameworks and consumer opinions. Those cham-pioning products developed through biotechnology must compete with others whose livelihoods depend on processes such as organic agriculture, traditional medicine, and local production and manufacturing.

Innovations developed through biotechnology have been both lauded and

Executive Summary

7

POLICYMEDIA

OPINIONTRAJECECTORIES

8




Research

Each of the following sections contains numerous insights and questions regarding the topics that were discussed. We have kept theoretical perspec-tives to a minimum. The group and convenors concluded that no one over-arching perspective would be useful in such a situation, that different disci-plines would bring their own approaches to the issues, and such an effort could be attenuated if we argued for certain perspectives which are familiar to only one or two disciplines. Instead, efforts were aimed at construct-ing interesting and provocative questions which could be used to develop research agendas, granting opportunities, and applied programs aimed at better understandings of the biotechnology debate. One possible approach to providing theoretical frameworks to this report is to provide a forum for theorists who may or may not be working in the area of biotechnology to construct approaches to the viewpoints expressed within this text.

This report should be approached with the understanding that each issue overlaps the others, and that efforts are made to incorporate the various topics within any research trajectory interested in understanding biotechnol-ogy and the public. For example, ethical issues have been used by various groups to either challenge (e.g., will developing countries become more dependent on multinational corporations from developed countries if agri-cultural biotechnology is adopted by a large number of farmers?) or support (e.g., can a technology which promises higher agricultural yields be stopped when hunger is experienced by millions of people every day?) biotechnol-ogy. It then becomes a question of who gets to set the ethical standards for making decisions regarding new and/or existing applications. Scientists, ethicists, church leaders, and lay consumers may all feel their ethical views are appropriate, and it is an invasion if another group is telling them they are wrong. Another aspect of this debate is the role of NGOs in the decision-making process. What are the roles and influences of environmental and consumer organizations in the policy making process? If various applica-tions of biotechnology are considered to be risky, who should be involved in the assessment, management and communication of that risk? Another important component is the media. Should an effort be made to coordinate reporting in various countries? Do reporters have an obligation to give time/space to all parties interested in voicing their opinions? Should new media (e.g., Internet) be studied in the same way as traditional media, and are the effects on the audience the same? Are we gaining new insights into how members of the general public construct opinions regarding new technolo-gies, or do we need to develop new ways to approach public opinion? Are new or promised biotechnologies different from those which have already been introduced?

To approach any of these questions, as well as those posed within the main body of this report, with the theoretical and methodological tools offered by one discipline is bound to fail in elucidating the complexities of the social aspects of biotechnology. Workshop participants strongly encouraged joint research efforts which span disciplines and perspectives, bringing together experts from the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. It is only through such efforts that progress will be made in understanding public opinion.

9

Summary of key questions

Numerous topics were discussed, leading to a long list of questions that need to be addressed. We have sum-marized a few of the key questions below.

Policy trajectories – The focus of these sessions was to think about how policies are constructed, maintained, and challenged. Four sets of actors and their relation-ships to policies were discussed – agencies, social movements, science, and lay audiences.

How can the degree of transparency within the deci-sion-making process be measured?

How do the various actors involved in policy decisions gain, maintain, and lose legitimacy among the public?

What role does science play in policy decisions?

Do linkages which exist between government agencies promote or hinder the policy making process?

Media trajectories – These sessions discussed the role of the media in shaping public opinion. The four focal points were audiences, new media, the flow of infor-mation, and the transatlantic divide(s). Here are four key questions from these sessions.

Are audiences given the chance to be proactive in the information process?

Will differential access to new forms of media have an impact on public perceptions of biotechnology?

What are the best approaches to investigating the role of gatekeepers in the flows of information between research centers, governments, reporters, activists, and audience members?

Does the transatlantic divide describe a real social phenomenon or simply fit current journalistic practice?

Opinion trajectories – Again, four groups formed to discuss issues related to public opinion. The first two (ethical concerns and trust and accountability) are treated similarly to the above sessions. The latter two (biotechnologies to come and measurement issues) are considered to be issues which incorporate aspects of public opinion, as well as other concerns.

Which groups are in a position to set ethical standards?

What is meant by trust, and who is in a position to say which actors are to be trusted?

Will new applications of biotechnology face the same problems as those that have already been introduced (e.g., environmental concerns, ethical concerns, eco-nomic concerns)?

Are there measurement tools that are particularly suited for investigating the processes of policy, media, and public opinion trajectories?

10




Research

The genetic foundation of life on earth offers both opportunities and pitfalls for those involved in genetic engineering. Some hail the ability to work on the genetic codes within and between species as one of the greatest scientific achievements, while others fear it is the beginning of the end of humanity. It is unlikely the debates and polemics will end in the foresee-able future, as applications of genetic engineering range from the manipula-tion of one-celled organisms, to restructuring the foods we eat, to growing human tissues in large animals. The repercussions of both successes and failures will be felt in political circles, financial markets, scientific labora-tories, newsrooms, universities, and amongst the wider public. Research on the social aspects of genetic engineering (or biotechnology) has been in progress for the past three decades. Yet many feel it is time to take stock and to consider the development of new tools and directions to extend this work. On April 10th and 11th, 2003, a workshop focusing on these issues was held in Baltimore, MD. The workshop was sponsored by the US-EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research, established under an Administrative Arrangement between the two parties in 1990. The present workshop was conceived at the 12th annual meeting of the Task Force held in Brussels in June of 2002. Funds from the National Science Foundation and European Commission supported scholars from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Europe to participate in the workshop.

It was determined, based on preliminary studies and discussions among participants, that three areas should be discussed at the workshop – policy trajectories, media trajectories, and public opinion trajectories. Within each of these trajectories, groups were formed to discuss future directions of research to help better understand the social landscape of biotechnology. The reports from each of these groups follow. The concluding chapter is a methodological addendum, written primarily by workshop co-convenor George Gaskell.

1

Introduction

11

12




Research

2

olicy TrajectoriesPaul Thompson and Helge Torgersen began the session by reviewing the history of legislation on biotechnology. They identified some of the areas in which policy has had an impact, for example, the protection of biodiversity, as well as some of the decisions that have (or have not) been made within the various political bodies involved in developing and implementing legis-lation. These introductory presentations helped to frame discussions in four working groups on the intersections between policies and agencies, policies and social movements, policies and science, and policies and lay audiences.

The history of policies focused on biotechnology in various countries has recently turned on a distinction between those countries which use a precautionary principle approach and those that use a substantial equiva-lence approach. The former, which is often linked to the European Union, is based on the idea that all new products entering the marketplace should be rigorously tested. The latter, often linked to the United States, is based on the notion that if a new product is substantially similar to an existing product (e.g., protein content in traditional and genetically modified corn), no new tests need to be undertaken. Applied to international trade, such distinctions are problematic, as one country says that a new product must be tested while the other contends that it is the same as older, accepted products. One country says a new product must be labeled; another not. The public becomes aware of such debates through the mass media, and concern and agitation may follow.

The ideas presented in the next four sections stem from discussions be-tween individuals from various parts of North America and Europe; indi-viduals who live and work under different political regimes. The ability to move beyond these concerns to engage in lively and insightful dialogue is evidence that others can do the same.

13

14




Research

2.1 Policies and Agencies

Agencies may be structured into three distinct groups: governmental agen-cies, intergovernmental agencies and non-governmental agencies. Govern-mental agencies are responsible for developing and implementing policies under the laws and regulations of their jurisdictions. They include such bodies as the US Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Agri-culture, European Food Safety Authority, and the European Commission. Intergovernmental agencies include the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO/UN), World Health Organization (WHO) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These organizations draw their authority from the consent and consensus of their member countries. Non-governmental agencies are organizations with spe-cific interests made up of members of specific segments of civic society.

Governmental and intergovernmental agencies make policies by developing and implementing them within their domains of influence. Non-govern-mental agencies do not make public policies but may influence the public policy development and implementation process by bringing their demo-cratic and other resources to bear on the policy-making institutions. They may also influence behavior among their members and supporters by pro-viding them with information. This behavioral change can exert significant pressure on the public policy-making process. Thus, the policy drivers of public policy-making agencies may lie outside the primary domain of those agencies. This is no less true for biotechnology policies, especially those related to food and food ingredients.

Biotechnology policies are multifaceted and research should recognize this characteristic. They encompass health, trade, science and technology, social welfare, cultural and many independent or inter-related variables. To this extent, it is important for research to include questions about the interactions of these different policies. To avoid negative effects and inter-actions, it is important for cross-disciplinary research to be a fundamental component of policy development and analysis. What may seem appropri-ate to economists may violate social sensitivities that may be invisible as they view the problem as an economic one. Similarly, the sensitivities of a sociologist may exact such economic cost as to make the solution impracti-cal. The power of cross-disciplinary research lies in enhancements in defi-nition, perception and assessment of situations and hence, the development of more encompassing policies.

Such multidisciplinary work has the potential to enhance policy makers’ realization that biotechnology, like all complex adaptive systems, is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. A better understanding of the effects of policy and policy changes may help to minimize unexpected consequences.

The differences in government and legal structures and institutions across different jurisdictions exacerbate the complexity of biotechnology. For example, many scholars with interest in the issues surrounding agencies

2

15

and biotechnology policy do not fully understand the multilevel structure of the EU governance system. Likewise, the role of the US legal system in the risk-mitigating process may not be sufficiently incorporated into analyses of the biotechnology policy issues. Since these factors define the paradigms or thinking struc-tures of policy makers from different jurisdictions, they do influence international biotechnology negotiations. Enhancing their understanding can bring increased clarity to these negotiations, allowing negotiators more successfully to address outstanding policy issues.

Agencies should be willing to distinguish philosophies or worldviews from scientific facts. For example, while substantial equivalence has been treated as a scientific fact, it involves a philosophical perspective. The precautionary principle and risk/benefit analy-sis are also ideologies, which encompass a certain approach to novel items. Proponents of these ap-proaches seek legitimation through science, but both must become aware of the philosophical choices that underlie this debate. By clarifying the “facts” from philosophical perspectives, we are better able to un-derstand the factors that trigger risk concerns and call for risk analyses associated with certain products or situations.

The role of agencies in policy making and the impact of policies on agencies are complex. Embedded in this complexity, for example, is the trust that different pub-lics develop in policy-making agencies as a result of public participation or non-participation in the policy development process. How these publics understand and evaluate the merits of policy-making agencies and their policies are intertwined in this complexity. A better understanding of the issues, roles, potential outcomes and strategies to achieve them among policy makers and the publics they serve will be helpful in building better public perception. The process of in-creased understanding should begin with strengthened inter-disciplinary and international conversations and research.

We may summarize the policies and agencies discus-sion into three principal questions for developing research initiatives:

1. How do we study the complex effects of policies affecting biotechnology?

2. What are the similarities and differences among international value judgments and value orientations on decision-making, and how are these linked to the construction of institutions and agencies involved with biotechnology policies?

3. How do different publics understand and evaluate the merits of public agencies and biotechnology poli-cies?

We have already emphasized the need for cross-disciplinary research initiatives to fully understand the issues underlying these questions. For example, studying the effects of policies requires social scien-tists to bring different theoretical and methodological perspectives together with natural scientists focusing on the relationships between biotechnology products, people and the environment. Value judgments and value orientations are influenced by the philosophical and moral affiliations of individuals and the cultures of the organizations in which they operate. No one theory or method is capable of addressing all the is-sues involved in the development, implementation, and interpretative processes associated with policy decisions. We will be more successful assessing the differences and similarities if we understand the underpinnings which accompany all these processes. Research teams need to include organizational behav-iorists or psychologists as well as ethicists, sociologists and economists. Together, cognition and perception theorists and practitioners and sociologists as well as scientists doing work in policy development can illuminate how the different publics make sense of biotechnology policies and the agencies that develop and implement such policies.

Researchers and academics with interests in this area may start initiating cross-disciplinary projects and developing their teaching and student development programs to reflect these initiatives. By infusing future researchers with a systemic approach to assessing policies and agencies, academia can create a new way of looking at these issues. This will include helping agencies to develop better policies by increasing their understanding of the needs of publics. It will enhance the understanding of the different publics by commu-nicating policies in language which is appropriate to their levels of understanding, interests, and needs.

16




Research

2.2 Policies and Social Movements

A publication concerning the state of the art of research on social move-ments (Rucht 1991) stated that since the 1960s, “many advanced Western countries experienced waves of various protest activities and social move-ments.” (Rucht 1991:9) As common characteristics of these social move-ments, Rucht names “their quest for more political participation and auton-omy, their critique of centralized and bureaucratized apparatuses, and their skepticism about a one-sided concept of progress which stressed economic growth while ignoring its negative side effects.”

These new social movements - Luhmann (1998) describes them as protest movements - came about when new problems became salient and led to public reactions. Following Luhmann (1998), social movements can be un-derstood as reactions of the societal periphery against societal centers. So-cial movements express themselves as defenders of societal values against the functional logic of societal subsystems whose functioning would lead to disturbances of society. This is a reason why such societal subsystems usually lead to the emergence of social movements, which have their own center of gravity, like economic or regulatory systems.

The general idea of social movements is to influence policy outcomes using channels and methods different from those of traditional policy decisions, interest representation groups (e.g., lobbyists), political parties and elec-tions. Such activities form a set of linkages between concerns with collec-tive expressions, to protest activities, to influence policy changes. In order to be able to organize a protest, organizational structures must be considered, or, as Luhmann (1998) points out, social movements discharge organization. Nevertheless, NGOs are usually closely connected to the people whose in-terest they represent and they are closely related to a specific issue or topic, for which they have been founded.

This understanding of the interrelationship between policies and social movements has a series of implications:

The formation of NGOs is a result of a bottom-up process.

NGOs are related to defined and definable groups whose interests are represented by the NGO.

The formation of NGOs is typically short-term and single-issued rather than long-term and multi-issued.

NGOs are reactive – they protest against ativties of central societal actors.

NGOs define themselves as defenders of general societal values.

•

•

•

•

•

2

17

Social movements can only impose pressure on the regulatory system when a mobilized mass basis, supported by the media, is created. This indicates that the criticized functional systems will lose either legitimacy (political system) or economic control (eco-nomic system with consumer-boycotts etc.).

This pattern, that societal concerns are leading to protest activities which have to be structured and or-ganized to be able to transport inputs to the regulatory system is not obsolete, but it only partially explains the activities and structures of social movements and the interaction of social movements and policies.

“New” social movements have existed for more than twenty years, though some that fit this description are even older. Different from the traditional understand-ing of social movements, where the “moving” char-acter is in the core of the analysis, the differentiation process of social movements raises new questions for the understanding of the interrelationship of social movements and policy outcomes. Some of these social movements have experienced transformation process-es which make them a new type of interest represent-ing organization.

These structural differentiations also have implica-tions for the relation between social movements and society. In the traditional understanding of NGOs and NGO activities, where NGOs are organizations driven by the uneasiness of the public, the need for stability of the resistance of social movements has led to the institutionalization of resistance and in consequence to the formation of NGOs – the NGO is a manifesta-tion of the social movement. But this analysis describes only parts of the development of NGOs -- their start-up phase. Recent developments highlight that this is a simple approach, and that this visible mass support is not necessary anymore. It is replaced by other strategic resources, from media reports to direct contact with political actors.

Dimensions to conceptualize these differentiation processes are:

Organization (spontaneous move-ment vs. institution)

•

•

Regional orientation (Not In My Back-Yard [NIMBY] vs. globalization)Content (issue development vs. issue-adopting)Authenticity (against industry vs. camouflage)Access (exclusion vs. inclusion in neo-corporatist structures)Impact channel (protest activities vs. incor-poration in decision making processes)Basis (mass membership or mass mo-bilization vs. small networks)Time perspective (reactive vs. pro-active)Legitimacy (unproblematic vs. contested)

We cannot apply combinatorics to develop a typol-ogy of social movements since most of the categories would be empty. At the same time, if dichotomies were developed using the above descriptors, we can see that the left side of the dichotomies reflect the “traditional” new social movements, while the right side reflects modernized social movements with more continuity, internal structures and higher complexity.

While there is a large amount of research done on social movements in the traditional understanding, we have only limited insights into the functioning of modern variations of social movements and in their interrelation with political and economic institutions. In a traditional understanding, it is the pressure from the streets which is urging actors to change their agendas. A prominent example is Brent Spar1, but also the increasing attention to ecological problems as a consequence of the increasing importance of ecologi-cal movements. In order to avoid conflict and threats to legitimacy, political and economic actors have to react to public pressure.

The question becomes whether this quasi-physical model of pressure and reaction is an adequate descrip-tion of the interaction between regulators and social movements. There is still a lack of research regarding whether the state is active or passive when faced with pressure from social movements. In another field of interaction between social organizations and the regu-latory system, the neocorporatist paradigm (Streeck 1999) emphasizes the constitutive role of the state in the formation, continuation and strengthening of non

•

•••

•

•

••

1 Brent Spar was an oil rig which the Shell Oil Company had decided (and been granted permis-sion) to sink in the North Sea. Greenpeace and other environmental groups were able to reverse this decision.

18




Research

governmental organizations. It may be that the development of working relationships with NGOs creates the possibility of reducing conflicts with government agencies, hence allowing biotechnology to develop (Jasanoff 1995).

Research questions:

For social movements which do not follow the traditional model of mass movements and mass mobilization the question of legitimacy arises. How can an organization, which is not the outcome of a broad social movement - but an organization apart from that - manage to be seen as a legitimate actor representing societal interests?

How do these organizations organize, cooperate, use IT to mount cam-paigns, and effect change?

What is the relationship between public opinion and NGO campaigns?

What are the roles of the state in the formation, continuation, and the strengthening of social movements/NGOs, as well as their collapse?

What will happen to social movements when products with consumer-obvious benefits emerge?

Is there a convergence between social movements and traditional interest representing organizations in the ways, strategies and channels they use to convey their agendas into policy processes?

2.3 Policies and Science

A linkage between politicians and technocrats has long characterized the public sphere of many countries. This tie between science and policy can be both positive and negative when a technology becomes controversial. Policymakers are expected to promote progressive inventions and safeguard the public. Scientists must also be aware that their careers are shaped and protected by policies, and that disagreements with these policies can lead to legitimation crises for both scientists and policymakers. While this linkage is important to understand, we must also shed light on the linkage with the third component of the public sphere – lay citizens. In government struc-tures where citizens are expected to vote, decisions can be made to elect officials who are for or against a specific technology, a certain policy, or have connections to certain industries or scientists. Public outcry can affect funding decisions, and scientists are expected to be held accountable for their research. These concerns led to the following set of questions.

2

19

At the interface of science and the public:

What are the characteristics of “good” science, and in what contexts does its use have social legitimacy?Do differences exist between how scientists and the public represent science? If differences do exist, can these gaps be narrowed?

At the interface of science, law, and regulation:

How should regulation deal with issues regarding lim-its of scientific knowledge?

How do scientists deal with uncertainty?

How do legal systems deal with uncertainty?

How can conflicts of interest in advisory committees be studied?

How can the concepts of uncertainty and risk be clari-fied and distinguished from one another?

The issue of public versus private funding of science:

Have issues of public versus private funding of science had an impact on policy, on science itself, and public perception?

Who benefits?

Who is left out?

The issue of sustainability in policy formation:

At what stages in the policy process would public participation be most useful?

To what extent does the public feel the system is dynamic and democratic with regards to policy deci-sions?

To what extent does policy making deal with issues of trust and legitimacy?

What are the costs of a lack of consumer confidence?

•

•

•

•

Does the public feel it will be given a choice to participate in the making of policy and/or within the marketplace?

Do members of the public feel these processes are clear, open and transparent?

Comparative studies:

What can we learn from the various strategies that have been implemented in different regions?

Can we evaluate the impact of some of the strategies (e.g. “consensus conferences”) across regions?

2.4 Policies and Lay Audiences

Science is changing rapidly. Biotechnology, nanotech-nology, and information and cognitive science (NBIC) are converging. Over the past two decades basic definitions and terminology familiar to scientists and the public, and traditionally used in surveys and poll-ing, have shifted. And fresh vocabularies and sets of issues are constantly entering the biotechnology policy discourse.

Development of biotechnology policy also is fast paced, complex and increasingly global. Everyday it seems that new policy actors and a diverse array of private-sector groups enter the arena. The informa-tion revolution of the past decade has increased and changed the nature of biotechnology information available to professional and lay audiences alike, and complicated communication and interaction between policy-makers, stakeholders and the public.

In addition, the IT revolution has raised expectations among many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and interested individuals of a greater democratization of the biotech policy-making process. It has resulted in oftentimes grudging acceptance by policy elites of the need for greater decision-making transparency and stakeholder input.

Finally, novel mechanisms have arisen to engage lay audiences in and to help decision-makers shape biotechnology policy. These include citizen juries, dialogue programs among so-called stakeholders,

•

20




Research

consensus groups, and government-run national public dialogues. All create the need and opportunity to ask more sophisticated research questions, and demand the use and development of more advanced quantitative and qualitative assessment methods.

Focal points for consideration

In addition to the challenges noted above, research into biotechnology policies and lay audiences has highlighted -- and examined in new ways -- a core set of societal issues relevant to many other areas of physical and social sciences, and to the nature of present-day governance. These core issues should continue to help shape and drive the research agenda for the future, and include:

Trust in government and decision-makers: Eroding public trust in govern-ment has complicated the policy process, especially in the area of biotech-nology. It has conferred on NGOs a new authority, particularly in Europe. It has increased the need for effective dialogue between the science community and the public, and magnified the impact of policy missteps and communication blunders by scientists, industry and the media. The future biotechnology research agenda needs to continue to gauge the level of public trust in government, and in related policy-influencers like indus-try, scientists, NGOs, and journalists. It also should explore more deeply what affects public confidence or trust in those sectors. This could include multidisciplinary efforts to measure the influence of specific information, of new and old media, of particular regulatory steps, of new scientific develop-ments, and of accidents or perceived missteps.

Shared values: In what appears to be an increasingly complex, technologi-cally high-speed world, lay audiences look to others for advice, recommen-dations and direction based on a sense of shared values. Politicians in the US frame public debates not in terms of policy specifics but in the language and context of family values, traditional American values, economic com-petitiveness in a global market and religious values. In Europe, more and more public discourse is focused on environmental principles, animal rights, human rights, and ethical questions. Over the past ten years, citizen at-titudes toward biotechnology often depended more on whose values are applied and on who decides which values will be applied to policies and commercial actions than on science. Concern over common values and how perceptions of shared values affect the opinions of key groups and the general public toward biotech policies should remain an important element in future research.

Sustainability and safety: Biotechnology research draws on a large body of work focused on public perceptions of risk and risk management. But the biotech debate particularly has highlighted growing public anxiety over long-term sustainability questions, over government and industry protec-tions against worse case scenarios, over the commercialization of science, over the negative and unintended consequences of modern science and

2

21

technology, and over winners and losers in risk-benefit equations. Future lay audience and policy research should continue to track public attitudes toward bio-tech benefits and risks. It also should study the impact of perceived sustainability and safety issues on public attitudes toward biotechnology. And it should explore and compare those factors which may -- or may not -- address public concerns over safety and sustainability.

Choice: In the 1930s when the diffusion of innovations model was first described, elites assumed that the ulti-mate acceptance of a new technology was involuntary and inevitable. The only question was how quickly or slowly consumers would adopt it. Today, a social shaping model is challenging the diffusion of innova-tions model. In no small part because of the debate over biotechnology, notions about the acceptance of technology among the public have changed. While genies may not easily go back into bottles, present day consumers –- with a growing expectation of maximized individual choice and public consultation in decision-making –- can make a new technology’s dissemination difficult, expensive, and problematic. The role played in biotechnology policy formation by public perceptions of individual consumer choice -- and of the degree to which technology acceptance or adoption is perceived as voluntary -- should be an ongoing area of interest and study.

Transparency: “Openness” and “transparency” have entered the public discourse over biotechnology with a vengeance. What these buzzwords mean to the public -- theoretically and in real-world policy practice -- should remain an important part of the research agenda.

Research questions:

Taking into account the above challenges and focal points, a future research agenda for biotechnology policies and lay audiences could include:

What role do lay audiences play in public policy, and how do we measure their impact on biotechnology policy?

Has our definition of what constitutes “lay public” become too narrow? If so, how should our definitions be changed or expanded?

Farmers are critical actors in the biotechnology policy process. But they have been underrepresented in at-titudinal studies, particularly farmers in the developing world. How should this gap be addressed?

How “global” is the lay or general public? How relevant is our understanding of public perceptions of biotechnology risk in one set of countries to under-standing the views of lay audiences in other regions of the world? How much do we know about the way the public copes with fear or perceptions of risk? And what do we know about the role specific policies play in assuaging or heightening those fears?

Communication between policy-makers and the public is not one-sided. How do we better document and appreciate that dynamic?

The media, driven by new technology and market factors, are changing dramatically. What impact do the access to and use of new media have on public attitudes toward biotechnology? Are these new media an important factor in public information gathering and in changing public perceptions?

How does the changing nature of science impact lay attitudes? How salient are questions of who pays for research, and who polices it? Who decides the nature and direction of research, and who picks the ultimate products for commercialization?

Is science convergence – i.e. the convergence of nano-technology, biotechnology, information and cognitive science – pushing technology to where the current generation can no longer be reassured or optimistic about its impact on and consequences for society, the environment, the economy, etc.? What can we learn about biotechnology through comparisons of public perceptions of other well-established or emerging technologies?

If there are gaps between the science community and lay public, what are the best and most effective ways of bridging those gaps? How do governments, indus-try, and NGOs establish more effective dialogue?

How can the inattentive public be engaged in a dia-logue or information process? Should that be a goal, or should specific policy input largely be derived from

22




Research

“agents” of the public or so-called stakeholders? Where and how do these stakeholders or agents derive authority, and do they genuinely reflect public viewpoints? Should a group or individual’s level of interest or willingness to engage in an issue give a lay agent standing or authority? What encourages or incites public engagement? How are public values integrated into the innovation process?

In addition to providing lay audiences with new data and information and with new ways of distributing information, do new information technolo-gies create new elites and new change agents? How do or can these new technologies enable greater public participation in policy discourse and decision-making? Do these new media result in increased knowledge and better public understanding of science and biotechnology issues?

What kinds of information are necessary for the public to engage effec-tively in policy debate? How do you promote public learning? What data or information sources are most important in shaping lay attitudes toward biotechnology policy? How does the timing of new information introduced into public discourse influence policy debates? Does increased public knowledge result in greater public acceptance of biotechnology?

Are the “myths” about the media and science correct – e.g. science news will not sell newspapers or advertising; the amount of mainstream media coverage of science is declining; scientists are bad media communicators; and media coverage of science is most often inaccurate and sensational?

What role do ethics and values play in shaping lay attitudes toward biotech-nology? Is public trust or confidence dependent on shared values? What is the difference between confidence and trust? What inspires public trust, and what diminishes it? Can regulation inspire trust? If so, what specific regulatory features engender trust or confidence? Does the source of scien-tific research behind regulation affect public trust?

Does openness and transparency in government, science, NGOs and indus-try build public confidence and trust?

What role does direct product benefits play in encouraging technology adoption or acceptance, mitigating fear about risks, and shaping regulation?

What part does consumer choice have in promoting technology acceptance or adoption? How do consumer preferences, needs and attitudes in the developed world influence the developing world, and vice versa?

Methods and tools:

Several issues related to methodology and tools arose from the group’s list of research questions. An overarching one was whether the social science community has the tools required to meaningfully observe the welter of conditions that impact public attitudes toward policy. Other issues included:

2

23

How do we make the trade-off between the need for ongoing monitoring of particular public attitudes and trends, and the view that the research and method-ologies employed to date to study lay audiences and biotechnology policies have not sufficiently captured larger attitudinal patterns and factors behind the trends, idiosyncrasies, and anomalies in the current data?

Biotechnology science, policy-making and public attitudes are dynamic not static. How do you best monitor and measure a constantly changing, moving research target?

Given the importance of developing country attitudes toward biotechnology, what are the practical and methodological barriers to expanding this research, es-pecially in rural areas of the developing world? What are the problems involved in comparing these new results with data in North America and Europe? Par-ticularly, what are the differences in risk perceptions between lay publics in the developed and developing world as they relate to biotechnology?

Are the attitudes of urban elites overrepresented in defining public debate and shaping policies? How do the differences in biotechnology definitions, language and diction affect country and regional comparisons of public attitudes? How is long-term attitudinal research impacted by the changing nature of biotech-nology and by shifts in biotechnology definitions and terms?

What kinds of qualitative research methods are necessary to measure and examine meaningfully the dynamics of larger policy-making and attitudinal change? How do we “scale up” the attitudinal re-search to match the size, scope, and complexity of a local, regional, national and international biotechnol-ogy communication and policy process? How does society ultimately mark when it achieves what John Durant describes as “socially sustainable” science and technology policy?

Is the research agenda in this area overly centered on measuring lay attitudes toward biotechnology and not focused enough on what constitutes good pub-lic policy practices? Are there value-orientations in which this research agenda is grounded?

New mechanisms for public involvement in biotech-nology policy are being used throughout Europe and North America – e.g. citizen juries, national debates, state and national referenda, consensus conferences, dialogue groups. How do we track and measure their impact on lay audiences and on policies? Do NGOs or other surrogates for the public become “infected” by these processes and less representative of the at-titudes and concerns of the mass or general public? Why are some NGOs trusted more or less than others?

Recommendations:

The potential policies and lay audience research agenda is large, and there was considerable agreement that the next phase of research needed to include a significant component that reflected the complexity of the issue and the social dynamics of policy deci-sion-making. In particular, this involves evaluating emerging public participation models – e.g. consensus conferences, citizen juries, dialogue groups, state and small nation referenda (e.g. Oregon and Switzerland)– and measuring their impact and their transferability to other countries and regions.

Over the longer-term, as methodologies improve and as opportunities arise, more research should be focused on assessing the impact and role of national and international-scale public participation efforts. These include such programs as the government-spon-sored, countrywide genetically modified food (GM) public debate and dialogue currently being managed by Britain’s Agriculture and Environment Biotechnol-ogy Commission (AEBC), and the US Food and Drug Administration’s series of regional public meetings (plus solicited written comments) on food developed through biotechnology held in 2000.

24




Research

Edna Eisendel of the University of Calgary and Suzanne de Cheveigne of CNRS, Paris, opened the session on media trajectories with discussions of how the media operate, how they amplify (or nullify) risks, and how to measure media impact. Given media’s role in disseminating information concerning new technologies, the efforts some groups give to shaping infor-mation campaigns, and the various ways audiences interpret information, these insights were helpful in focusing the group discussions.

It is important to note that new technologies, such as biotechnology, are discussed mainly in the media while individuals within the general public have little experiential knowledge to draw from concerning these issues. Studies of the media in the US, Canada, and fourteen European nations show that while a majority of articles concerning biotechnology are positive, this is often based on the topic. In other words, biotechnology as it relates to medicine (or genetics in the solving of crimes) often enjoys favorable coverage, while other topics, such as food biotechnology, are more likely to elicit negative commentary.

In addition to the differences between topics which fall under the biotech-nology umbrella, only a limited number of sources are given the opportu-nity to voice their opinions in the mass media – even more so when looking at the opinion leading press. Sources are often from one of three or four organizations – big business, government, or the criminal justice system. These institutions often have a specific agenda with regards to a new tech-nology, and if other voices are not given an opportunity to be heard, then the dialogue is only partial.

The following reports build on these concerns.

3

Edna Eisendel of the University of Calgary and Suzanne de Cheveigne of

edia Tra jectories

25

26




Research

3.1 Audiences

Research on media audiences needs to ask new questions that reflect new understanding of the diversity of both media and audiences, complexity of media-audience interactions, the role of exogenous forces (e.g. globaliza-tion, scientific knowledge) on both, and the potential for combining quanti-tative and qualitative research.

This session focused on audiences for biotechnology communications and addressed five major areas, which are described below, with some exam-ples. The first two address questions that have been common in research on public perceptions of biotechnology, but new lines of inquiry are proposed. The following three areas address questions which deserve more research attention.

How does the media affect audiences? This includes both direct and indi-rect effects. What are the relationships among audience consumption of media information, audience attitudes, and audience behaviors? What is the relationship between the quantity of media messages and media content in affecting audiences? What is the role of types of media not well-studied to date, e.g. TV, books? How can audiences become better educated to increase their ability to process information? A good case study might be how the media covered the breach of regulations for controlling gene flow from third generation TGVs (transgenic crop varieties) in November 2002, and how this affected audience perception of third generation TGVs and of their regulation.

How do audiences affect the media? What are roles of special audiences, e.g. corporate interest, in generating capital? How do audiences (which are often treated as monolithic entities) get divided, e.g. into ethnic groups or immigrant populations, by programmers, and how do these sub-populations affect the media? Do audiences affect media through civic associations, NGOs, environmental groups, etc., and how is the Internet used in this process? How do scientists as audience members use and affect the me-dia? How do activities of media consumers, like letters to the editor, affect media-reporting? How do the media monitor their relationship with their audiences?

While the first two categories reflect the way questions about public percep-tions of biotechnology have often been framed, this is an arbitrary divi-sion. Since causality can go in both directions simultaneously, we have to ask, what is the interaction between media and audience? How do vested interests (biotech industry, governments, NGOs, civic associations, financial consultants, etc.) choose the media from which they obtain information, and how does this affect these media? What is the relationship between the ven-ture capitalist audiences and business page media? What is the relationship between farmers and agricultural media? What is the relationship between immigrant audiences and media that target them? What is the relationship

3

27

between business media and business community? A useful case study might investigate how Spanish lan-guage media covered the arguments about introgres-sion of imported gm varieties in Mexican maize, and how was that coverage similar to and/or different from coverage in English language media? To what extent do audiences search out or at least receive information about biotechnology from media outside their region, nation, or continent?

What are the important forces that affect both media and audiences? To what extent do forces of economic globalization affect the variation among as well as within audiences? How do media and audiences un-derstand important differences between Third World and industrial world risks and benefits of biotechnol-ogy? How do international organizations, movements, etc. affect these variations? How does the dependence of biotechnology on venture capital affect corporate interest and behavior in influencing media? What are media sources of information on biotechnology, how do they choose them, and how do they use them dif-ferently? For example, how is scientific information valued and processed by the media, and by audiences? To answer questions about public perceptions of biotechnology that are more complicated than many of those that have been asked, we need to develop and use new methods, including an emphasis on qualita-tive methods, and enhance the relationship between quantitative and qualitative methods.

3.2 New Media

The relative youth of the Internet means that scholars have not yet subjected this new information channel to the kind of systematic study that has fostered our cur-rent understanding of more traditional channels such as newspapers, television, and interpersonal commu-nications. Thus, embedding new media in a proposed research agenda on behalf of better understanding public perceptions of biotechnology means asking a number of basic questions about the role of the Inter-net in communication processes. We pose some of those questions below.

We need to understand better the interactions be-tween users and the structure of the new media

landscape. The Internet brings with it some radically different structures, and those structures will require different levels of activity and evaluation on the part of users. For example:

Anyone with the appropriate hardware and software can create a Web site. Since those technical needs are relatively modest -- compared to the cost of starting a newspaper or magazine, for instance -- the World Wide Web offers a landscape that is not as sensitive to the current distribution of power that drives the spread of resources in other domains. A glitzy site may just as easily be the work of a single individual as the product of a major media organization or a large scientific organization. How, then, do users negotiate a landscape where traditional evaluative methods do not work well? What sorts of evaluative strategies do individuals construct to make sense of the welter of sites available to them on any one topic, in this case biotechnology?

Search engines have become major arbiters of site access, particularly when users employ key words or otherwise seek novel resources. How is the search process constructed by the dominant search engines, such as Google? More specifically, are certain kinds of Web sites privileged by any particular search engine, and how does that preference affect user awareness of biotechnology sites?

The interactive potential of the Internet offers a struc-ture that can provide user feedback to “official” infor-mation products, often in real time. Traditional chan-nels such as magazines, TV stations and newspapers have long given lip service to audience feedback, but such feedback is provided long after the stories have been written and reported. Users have little impact on the product. New media channels, conversely, can theoretically permit feedback almost instantaneously. If new media channels are truly interactive—that is, if they encourage users to engage in “meaning-making” along with the information producers themselves—then there is the potential for a very different user role. How, then, has user access to information changed the story construction process itself? Do users react to information on biotechnology sites and, in the process of doing so, actually influence the nature of what is provided by those sites?

28




Research

We need to better understand the byproducts of increased user control over new media information products. The concept of user control is both much touted and much maligned in new media studies. If a user has control over how s/he is exposed to information, then what kind of information-ingestion process will any one individual take, why, and to what effect?

For example, recent work shows that—as expected—individuals who ex-plore information on Web sites engage in selective scanning: attending to some parcels of information rather intensively while ignoring others. What does selective scanning do to the process of learning information made available on biotechnology Web sites?

Media effects research has long shown that individuals with strong beliefs about a topic or issue will employ information primarily to reinforce those beliefs. Will the Internet make that selective process even more pro-nounced?

We need to better understand the impacts of new media on audiences. Risk communication researchers have built a fairly robust literature that in-dicates that individuals seek to employ specific communication channels for specific purposes. For example, people will resist seeing media accounts as telling them anything about their personal risk situation and would prefer to rely on interpersonal sources for such information instead. Where does the Internet fit into that litany of perceived purposes? Will individuals be willing to view the Internet as an interpersonal channel—thus employing it for important, personal risk judgments—or will they insist on viewing the In-ternet as a mediated channel, good for learning about the world “out there” but irrelevant to their personal needs?

Traditional mediated information channels have always provided informa-tion at times set by the channels themselves—the morning newspaper, the evening TV news broadcast. Since individual information needs rarely co-incide with these set times, much information provided by the mass media is, essentially, wasted. The Internet, in contrast, is positioned to provide individuals access to information when it is needed. Studies show that individuals do indeed go to the Internet when they have a real-time informa-tion need. The question for future scholars is how well does this provision work? Do individuals seek distinct types of information about, say, biotech-nology, and are they able to find sites that provide it?

3.3 The Flow of Information

The arenas which have brought the debates over biotechnology to the public each have limited carrying capacities. Newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and other forms of mass communication have only so much space or time to relate issues deemed newsworthy to their audiences. Information available on biotechnology (or genetic engineering) that fills many scientific journals, conferences, and personal conversations is deemed

3

29

inappropriate for attention in the mass media. The flow of information deemed appropriate is controlled by many people and organizations, including scientific organizations, universities, individual scientists, report-ers, editors, and consumers. For example, a scientist working on a new cloning technique may refrain from telling about her work because the scientific journal in which she is hoping to publish her findings has a pol-icy that if any information is given prior to appearing in the journal, it will not be accepted. The university for which she works does not consider news cover-age acceptable for tenure, so she waits for the journal to review her piece. After it has been published in a scientific journal, a reporter may find it too technical or uninteresting to take the time to write a story about it in a local newspaper, or once a story is written the editor of the newspaper may feel it is inappropriate for readers. If the story does happen to be written and ap-proved, there is no guarantee that readers will take the time to read it, especially if it is printed in the middle of a section.

This example highlights the many obstacles that prevent open communication between regulators, scientists, granting agencies, journalists, and audienc-es. Some are intrinsic to the communication process, such as different languages, different cultures, and the geographical distances between groups. Other obstacles are developed and maintained by the groups themselves to prevent unwanted messages from reach-ing certain audiences. Traditional communication research has focused extensively on agenda-setting by the mass media. Surprisingly, there has been very little research on how the mass media agenda is set by corporate public relations, lobbying efforts, media ownership and consolidation, source dependency, and so on. The focus of this session was to think about how some of these barriers could be overcome.

Three key areas were investigated – the creation of new knowledge by researchers, better communication between scientists, and how science becomes public knowledge. Each of these areas will be discussed below.

One of the main concerns with information flows is how researchers choose their research projects and how this choice is influenced by the funding agen-cies, whether public or private. Public funding agen-

cies such as the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health will strive to choose the most original and promising projects, but these agen-cies are not free from outside pressures and research fashions. Their support is often not long term from the perspective of the researcher. Most industrial stake-holders have even more short-term research agendas. Given the need to produce profitable goods, industry has adopted the model of quick turnaround on scien-tific and technological endeavors. This leads to pursu-ing products and services which can be researched, patented, and marketed quickly.

Questions to be asked include:

On what criteria do funding agencies and industry base their decisions in developing research priori-ties and supporting or encouraging basic research? Is there social support for developing a more long term view and promoting more discussion about new knowledge among the public, legislators, scientists and engineers, and funding agencies? What role does forecasting play in developing research priori-ties? What is the role of the various actors in forecast-ing? What are the reasons given for pursuing certain research trajectories? What does the role of continuity in funding play in research agendas?

A second area of concern centers on communication between scientists. The current system of peer-re-viewed publications and the reward structure around it often lead to scientists being unwilling to share information with colleagues. A scientist or labora-tory which feels it is closing in on an important new discovery or invention is often rewarded for keeping that information secret instead of sharing. This seems to be gaining even more momentum as more scientists seek patents for their work. Once a patent is given, other scientists may avoid that area of research as the rewards for work in that area may be less extensive than work in other areas. This can lead to under-development of various scientific and technological agendas.

Some scientists who are genuinely interested in com-municating science to the public through the mass media approach communication from the standpoint of being an advocate of a particular technology or technological application. In other words, they are

30




Research

more interested in “selling science” than engaging in a true dialogue with their stakeholders. Paul Slovic and others have shown that this type of com-munication is almost invariably destined for failure.

Some questions to ask in this area:

Both scientific publications and the patenting process have gatekeepers, but for different reasons. How do these processes impact information flows? Would international harmonization of rules open information channels? Is there a way to make patenting more equitable, user-friendly and harmo-nized? How does the material transfer system complicate the free flow of scientific information? What can be done to foster scientist communication that is based less on outcome (i.e. achieving pre-set agendas) and more on process (i.e. reaching shared understandings)?

While communication scholars interested in the communication of science often focus only on the mass media, we cannot overlook public presenta-tions of science. A great deal of work has been done on the role of the mass media in informing the public about science and technology, as well as the barriers which exist between scientists, journalists, and the public. This includes a lack of knowledge about each other, a lack of interest in the work of others, and a lack of trust that is needed to follow each other’s work. While some surveys show scientists are more trusted than the media, most lay consumers only hear scientific information from media sources. This is a matter of trusting the message (the scientist) but not the messenger (the media), which highlights the complexity of both audience interactions with the media and measuring these interactions.

The flow of information to audiences can become problematic before it ever reaches the audience. Work on the relationships between news organiza-tions and sources has shown that the limited carrying capacity of the former has a great deal of influence on the latter. Source organizations know that reporters have too much information and sources must find ways to gain their attention. Reporters, on the other hand, know that certain groups and individuals are more “newsworthy” than others, and give some of these sources a greater opportunity to shape the news. This kind of relationship can stem flows of information as some groups must seek extravagant ways to gain attention, while others know they can stop certain information from reaching the public. These power relations and the effect on the news are targets for more research.

Research questions in this area:

What roles do professional public relations play in the dissemination of news? What criteria are used to choose sources to speak on behalf of or against science? What elements of science and technology are deemed more newsworthy? Are there intrinsic characteristics of the scientific endeavor (and scientists) that block science communication to the public? Would awareness of the need to communicate to the public open more

3

31

channels of communication? Why is communica-tion needed between scientists and the public? Can the language barriers between these two groups be overcome? How do media deal with contrary scien-tific stances and scientific uncertainty? Can popular science communication by professional scientists be rewarded? How is the media agenda in relation to bio-technology coverage set by different actors and forces? How do we increase acceptance within the scientific community of science popularization efforts?

These three areas and the questions posed are only a preliminary view of identifying issues concerning the flows of information which shape the debate around biotechnology, as well as other scientific endeavors. It is key that these be pursued not to end the debates which will inevitably rise from science, but to give the different sides a better understanding of the relevant issues and a more civil comprehension of differing attitudes.

3.4 The Transatlantic Divide(s)

A great deal of attention has been given to the differing levels of acceptance toward biotechnology in North America and Europe. These perceived differences have led to strained relations among national govern-ments to the point of the Bush Administration initiating legal actions within the World Trade Organization against the European Commission. The Europeans, on the other hand, argue it is not the role of the US to tell them what they want, and that the regulatory frame-work for the authorization of genetically modified foods is their choice. A number of explanations have been given to account for these differences, including different styles of media and reporting, differences in culinary practices, anti-Americanism and anti-Europe attitudes, and technophobia on the part of Europeans. Each of these attitudes seems to be a construct of vari-ous groups instead of an effort to gauge the gap and study its existence using scientific tools. This leads to the following questions.

Public opinion surveys show a wide range of views on biotechnology in different countries in Europe. In fact, some EU countries have a higher degree of acceptance than countries in North America. Is the transatlantic divide a media construct or a true reflection of public opinion?

Do mass media outlets approach technological issues differently in the various countries? In addition, is biotechnology considered a technological issue within all media organizations?

Do journalists and editors monitor reporting by foreign news organizations? If so, who is the leader on tech-nological issues?

Do news organizations tend to treat foreign interests as anti-home country interests? What are the most news-worthy aspects of a technology that is being debated between countries?

Which linkages between news organizations and source organizations (such as industry, political bodies, activists, etc.) are developed, maintained, and strength-ened, and which ones are terminated or ignored over these issues?

Journalists, like scientists, policymakers, and others, seek to produce products that people will buy. If the news organization feels that anti-foreign sentiments are more salient than technical issues, it is likely the former will be emphasized over the latter. Research focused on media practices must keep this in mind.

32




Research

Presentations by Susanna Priest (United States), Edna Eisendel (Canada), George Gaskell (Europe), Amanda Galvez (Mexico) and David Cleveland (farmers in Mexico) highlighted the complexities of the term “public opin-ion.” First, publics are differentiated. Different countries in Europe have differing opinions about biotechnology. Farmers in Mexico take a differ-ent stance on transgenic crops compared to university scientists. Opinion towards biotechnology may be related to many personal and social charac-teristics including religious beliefs, gender, economic status, and the number of science classes taken at college. In addition, are people with little or no interest in biotechnology willing to complete a survey about this topic?

A growing body of literature on public understanding of science points to the fact that people are often misinformed on some aspect of complex sci-entific issues, often fitting the information they do have into value structures which support their ways of thinking. Some issues which are not felt to be pertinent will often be ignored, while other issues which are felt to be per-tinent will not be considered important by source or media organizations; therefore, little information from these organizations are forthcoming. With new technologies, some thought must be given to the notion of whether or not lay members of the public have enough information to make informed decisions. If it is felt that preliminary opinions are important, researchers should make this clear when publishing their data – that the public is still learning about the issues.

It is also important to understand that what researchers think is right and what audience members think is right may be different, and it is a tenu-ous position to take a moral stance on the superiority of a value statement when one is concerned with the marketplace. Researchers may feel that the public is misinformed, but if they are behaving in a certain way within the marketplace (or polling booth), that must be taken into consideration and reported accurately.

4

Presentations by Susanna Priest (United States), Edna Eisendel (Canada),

pinion tra jectories

33

34




Research

4.1 Ethical Concerns

The fact that mainstream US attitudes toward biotechnology do not nec-essarily include “ethical concerns” does not mean that they do not exist but that their mostly utilitarian values are already integrated into existing regulations. Other ethical concerns embedded in groups such as European, Japanese, other regions, and marginalized people within the US have to be addressed as well. More research is needed to discern and address these “ethical concerns” - to this point they are involved and intermingled in the notion of ‘risk,’ but seldom clearly identified.

What is meant by “ethical concerns?”

In public debates “ethical concerns” are often opposed to “cost/benefit anal-ysis” or a “pure science approach.” From an academic point of view both of these approaches involve ethical values: Cost/benefit analysis tries to get at the economic well being of a group or nation. As such, economic well being may have positive implications for the realization of human values such as health, safety, security, freedom, and democracy. The “pure science approach” always implies human values. It may aim at the protection of hu-man health and the protection of the environment. This form of regulation usually implies that the values of “freedom of scientific investigation” and “freedom of business enterprise” are respected as much as possible; i.e. that human health and the protection of the environment are balanced against these other values. These implied ethical values may be addressed as “utili-tarian values.” Therefore “ethical concerns” usually refer to values other than the utilitarian values which are implied more or less in normal political and administrative procedures.

From their proponents “ethical concerns” are often seen and propagated as “overriding concerns” which should relegate all other concerns to second-ary status. From the perspective of an academic and more distant observer, many actors may propagate “overriding concerns” which usually differ from one another. Thus the problem of conflicting values arises anew. The search for consensus on value preferences will certainly not be easier if some actors are given the chance to propagate their concerns as “overrid-ing.”

“Ethical concerns” are coming up more often in various international arenas. This is particularly true in Europe and Japan (and other Asian arenas). While ethical concerns which are culturally dominant in the US - mostly utilitarian values such as human health and direct impacts on the environment - are already addressed in the international regulations on biotechnology, at least implicitly, other ethical concerns may play an important role in other cul-tures - such as European or Asian cultures - e.g. integrity of species, shape of the countryside, traditional life forms etc. Utilitarian goals in economics or science may benefit some groups more or maybe to the exclusion of others; some scientific goals may aim to achieve economic ends (not only better

Comparative 4

35

health and a cleaner environment). These problems are not addressed in international regulations, and there-fore have to be made explicit in international arenas - as “ethical concerns” or “other legitimate factors.” Other nations may not have the resources and the bar-gaining power to articulate them in international fora vis-a-vis the US.

Research questions: More research is needed on the validity and reliability of survey questions. What does the public denote with terms such as “risk” or “ethical concerns”? There are several hints that the public considers “risk” on a much broader range of issues and concerns than scientists and regulators. For the public, “risk” may have more or less the same meaning as what scientists and regula-tors call “ethical concerns”. These notions should be studied in qualitative in-depth interviews, focus groups, and experimental tests to supplement survey research. Thus, we should be able to develop better survey questions and give more precise interpretations of responses.

More comparative work is needed in cross-cultural perspectives: Which ethical concerns exist in different countries - the US, the EU, but also in other parts of the world? Which ethical concerns exist in different groups - in different migrant groups, gender groups, professional groups, socio-cultural clusters?

Ethical concerns should be studied in the following areas:

public surveys and media content analysis

political arenas

regulations and regulators’ discussions

explicit or implicit guidelines of good ethical practice for different groups (science, industry, NGOs and the media)

correspondence (or non-correspondence) of concerns expressed by lay people and the more explicit ethical reasoning of professional ethicists.

•

•

•

•

•

Longitudinal studies should be supported to observe the development of reactions within a certain social constituency (group, country, region etc.). Longitudinal studies are often the only way to establish causal links, because other studies produce mere statistical correla-tions; e.g. if you would find a correlation between ethi-cal concerns and strict regulations in one country, you can never be sure whether the strict regulations are the consequence of the ethical concerns or vice versa, un-less you study this problem over a longer time period to see which phenomenon emerges first - indicating a cause - and which emerges second - indicating the consequence.

4.2 Trust and Accountability Trust and accountability are frequently used, yet poorly understood, concepts. Trust implies a willingness to make oneself vulnerable to another by delegating cer-tain functions to individuals or organizations in order to achieve mutual goals. Trust reduces complexity and uncertainty when it is high, and creates anxiety or anomie when it is low. Since trust is usually given to an actor based on incomplete (or even absent) informa-tion, an assessment of trustworthiness is likely to be a function of informal and formal accountability mecha-nisms. In an informal sense, accountability implies that social sanctions can be directed towards actors that fail to meet the expectations of others. Such sanctions vary in their degree of intensity and duration, based on the nature of the relationships between actors, the serious-ness of the situation (e.g., consequences, reversibility, alternative courses of actions, etc.), and cultural/sub-cultural differences. By contrast, formal accountability mechanisms include legally sanctioned audits, market mechanisms, regulations, and a range of criminal and civil code provisions.

Trust is often difficult to build, yet easy to destroy. By its very nature, trust falls along a continuum and is distributed accord-ing to the following considerations:

Trust is higher when values are shared. This provides a basis for compar-ing outcomes with expectations.

•

•

36




Research

Trust is higher when intentions are known and un-derstood, and when actors are consistent with their roles (e.g., consider cognitive dissonance).

Trust is higher when individuals, or organizations, have the competence to carry out assigned tasks.

Trust is higher when such tasks can be verified independently in a transparent environment (e.g., when accountability exists).

Trust and accountability have always been key ingredients of a healthy, democratic society. Both of these concepts have links in the literature on “social capital” and “social cohesion.” In short, social capital refers to the density of social networks (and the sharing of values amongst actors) that enables collective action. The fostering of social capital requires relatively high levels of trust and sound mechanisms for ensuring accountability. Social cohesion is a measure of how tightly coupled, robust and unified a community is across a set of indicators. A community with a strong sense of identity and shared goals is considered to be more cohesive than one without these qualities. A cohesive community is also able to buffer more effectively changes resulting from realignments of international actors, national priorities, local political climates, economic upturns or downturns, and the introduction of technologies like biotechnology.

•

•

•

Comparative 4

37

Modern biotechnology is a transformative technol-ogy that poses several regulatory and non-regulatory challenges to state, industry, scientific, and civil society actors. Since biotechnology is now being interrogated within the public sphere, it is necessary for those who study public perceptions of technology to better con-ceptualize and operationalize both trust and account-ability.

Research questions:

Why are there such startling differences between North Americans and Europeans when it comes to trusting different ac-tors in debates on biotechnology?

How can new technologies (e.g., nanotechnology) affect trust?

•

•

What impacts do new regulations (or approaches like the precautionary approach) have on trust?

How do reconfigurations of triple helix ac-tors (e.g., state, university, industry), due to research and innovation agendas, affect trust?

Social scientists need to consider the role of trust in society. Most of the debates on biotechnology focus on risks and benefits. The risk agenda is often domi-nated by natural scientists, while the benefit agenda appears to be owned by economists and corporate interests. A new area of inquiry, provisionally called trust assessment, may be another entry point for the social sciences in these complex debates.

•

•

38




Research

The analysis presented here is based on the general experience obtained through the recent history of biotechnology development: since the com-mercialization of recombinant growth hormone and of recombinant chymo-sin.

A first step in analyzing the biotechnologies to come requires an assess-ment of the current situation. In particular, the social landscape surrounding the development of biotechnology includes issues that may impact upon the development of future biotechnologies, and the research lines that will probably influence biotechnology in the years to come.

Environment

An issue that affects many biotechnologies is which type of funding is go-ing to dominate: private or public funding. Many applications are prone to be abandoned due to their low “market value”. This might apply to the so-called “orphan products,” as well as biotechnology products for use in less developed countries. In this context, public versus private funding is a significant issue. Public involvement in future decisions is vital for the ac-complishment of certain goals that require biotechnology as a tool.

As noted in prior sections of this report, there is a need for studies to un-derstand the meaning of risk, when it is more a perceived risk than a real or scientifically demonstrated one, including assessment of public interest regarding new developments.

Environmental influences will also include regulatory factors, national differences, issues of international harmonization of regulatory systems, recognition of cultural limits, and intellectual property rights for traditional knowledge in forms of hard and soft protection. Other legitimate factors include socio-economic and food safety concerns, now discussed in Codex Alimentarius for example. 5

The analysis presented here is based on the general experience obtained

Biotechnologies to come

We could differentiate these issues more by separating those applications which are regarded as food and non-food, and those which may be avail-able in the short term, as compared to those that may be available in the next five to ten years. Forecasting, however, is complex and problematic. We feel that the above applications are plausible and are being worked on, or other areas which are being explored will likely lead to work in these areas.

39

Biotechnologies to come

The discussion identified the urgent need to boost public funds for plant breeding. No other kind of institution is going to deal with the development of plant varieties appropriate for the agricultural systems in less developed countries and for the resolution of problems that are not marketable, similar to “orphan products”.

Pharmaceuticals production using

genetically modified (GM) plants

Industrial produc-tion using GM plants, animals and microbes

Production of nu-traceuticals via ge-netically modified organisms (GMOs)

Modification of nutrient content

in GM plants

Genetic testing and diagnosis

Application of somatic-cells lines

Use of stem cells from embryonic

origin

GM animals (somehow still in the future as commercial products):

Xeno transplants

Future applications:Bioremediation using GM

plants and microbesGene therapies using somatic

cellsNanotechnology

Neuronal devices as a possible post-genetic

paradigmGerm lines

“Pharming”Growth

Disease vector control

New developments that are likely to have future impacts and raise ethical issues are:

Control of various

pests

40




Research

The group identified three areas of research for consideration – the study of public opinion, media, and law and politics. Broadly speaking, while the concepts and methods for the study of public opinion and the media are relatively well established, there is a need to develop more sophisticated tools for the analysis of policy making.

Some general considerations

On the need for methodological pluralism:

There was support for methodological pluralism and research which bridges the rather stale debate about the merits and demerits of the quantitative and qualitative traditions. Methods of research should be selected to be appropriate to the research question(s) and to the intended respondents. To approach social research with an entrenched position that all questions are best answered by a single method, be it surveys (quantitative) or some form of interviews (qualitative) is simply not the way forward. The method-ological tail should not wag the research dog, so to speak, and the endless epistemological posturing about the ‘one best’ research method should be relegated to history.

Furthermore, it was argued that what may be needed is research that com-bines different methodological approaches. The complex questions raised in the area of ethical, legal and social implications of technologies call for sophisticated research designs, with complementary insights coming from different methodological perspectives.

On the value added of comparative research:

Drawing on a good deal of personal experience the group welcomed the US-EC Task Force on Biotecnology Research encouragement to support comparative research. With a focus on the social, legal and ethical implica-tions of science and technology, multinational and comparative research has a number of advantages.

First, as was seen in the 1990s, the publics of member states of the Euro-pean Union and North America had rather contrasting views about different applications of biotechnology. In part, these may be attributable to cultural-ly specific conceptions of risks and benefits. It is also likely that they reflect wider legal, historical and cultural forces that shape the development of new technologies, their regulatory arrangements and public opinion.

6

Measurement Issues

41

Will Improve

No EffectMake Things Worse

Don’t Know

WILL THE FOLLOWING IMPROVE OUR WAY OF LIFE IN THE FUTURE, MAKE IT WORSE, OR MAKE NO DIFFERENCE?

Solar Energy?

Information Technology?

Biotechnology?

Nanotechnology?

Nuclear Energy?

47.8%15.3%

30.3%6.5%

33.6%

11.6%

2.5%

1.9%

52.2%

68.8%

87.7%

88.7%

3.6%

11.3%

4.2%

2.3%

10.6%

8.3%

5.5%

7.1%

more charts on page 50

SOURCE: National Science Foundation Award #0115380; Principal Investigator: Toby Ten Eyck; Institution: Michigan State University. Science & Engineering Indicators, 2004, Chapter 7. See also Ten Eyck, Toby A., George Gaskell, and Jonathan Jackson. 2004. “Seeds, Food, and Trade Wars: Public opinion and policy responses in the USA and Europe.” Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 10:259-267.

Use of modern biotechnology in the production of foods, for example to make them higher in protein, keep longer, or improve the taste.

Using genetic testing to detect diseases we might have inherited from our parents such as cystic fibrosis.

Introducing human genes into animals to produce organs for human transplants, such as into pigs for human heart transplants.

Taking genes from plant species and transferring them into crops to decrease the use of pesticides and increase food output.

Cloning human cells or tissues to replace a patient’s diseased cells that are not functioning properly, for example in Parkinson’s disease.

Using genetically modified organisms in soaps and detergents to make products less damaging to the environment.

Bar chartsHeard of Question?Is it a Risk? Definitly AgreeIs it a Risk? Tend to AgreeIs it a Risk? Tend to DisagreeIs it a Risk? Definitly Disagree

Legend:

42




Research

Second, a single nation study runs the risks of parochialism. This can lead to two effects. On the one hand, conclusions about the likely causes of certain effects may result from a single country study, which a comparative perspective would show to be invalid. And on the other, the implications of genomics or nanotechnology are not confined to national boundaries. In a global world issues soon become internationalized, such that what is hap-pening in country X cannot be appreciated out of the context of what has happened and is happening in countries Y and Z.

Third, the results of comparative research offers the opportunity for na-tional decision making to be informed by the experience of other countries, whether that experience is taken as an example to follow or one to avoid.

Fourth, the emerging importance of international systems of regulation needs research of a comparative nature. For example, research on the im-plications of the envisaged international standards for risk assessment under consideration by the Codex Alimentarius Commission would necessitate a comparative perspective.

Finally, comparative research is better equipped to offer relevant insights into some of the complex and unresolved issues of modern science and civil society, questions of risk and uncertainty, public accountability and of public representation in regulatory debates.

Implications for research funding:

Those seeking and funding comparative research need to acknowledge the vital importance of face-to-face collaboration between the researchers in the different national settings. There is a limit to what can be achieved by mediated communication, whether e-mail or telephone. All phases of research, from developing concepts and methods, to operationalization, data analysis and, in particular, interpretation, greatly benefit from the op-portunity to exchange and explore ideas in person. Equally, it is by meeting and talking that the researchers begin to identify and appreciate differences in the national contexts that bear upon the research questions and the find-ings. The amount of contact varies with the research strategy – it is prob-ably the case that qualitative approaches require more personal interactions than quantitative. Nonetheless, personal contacts in the form of periods of exchange should be seen as a normal component of comparative research studies, irregardless of the research tools being used.

On research topics:

While genomics and biotechnology are a current preoccupation for obvious reasons, a program of research for the coming five years should not ignore other developments in science and technology. New developments in the area of informatics and nanotechnologies are likely to raise issues in the category of ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social implications.

6

43

Social scientific research can offer a valuable foresight function; identifying and mapping the contours of is-sues before they become intractable and conflictual.

Researching public opinion

a) Quantitative Approaches

The traditional approach to public opinion is the social survey. Supported by sampling theory and a long his-tory of research on non-sampling issues, for example on question wording, context effects, mode of inter-viewing etc, the closed question format of the social survey dominates public opinion research. Surveys provide information about the distribution of opinions, attitudes, knowledge, past behaviors and behavioral intentions amongst a public. Survey data opens up a range of opportunities for bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Thus, data from a single survey can be used to model the structure of public opinion, and to assess the relations between different indica-tors. How do socio-demographic characteristics relate to perceptions? Is knowledge related to behavior and attitudes? Do some people express more trust than others and how does this relate to attitudes, etc.?

Perhaps too often, survey data does not go beyond simple univariate statistical analyses (percentages or mean scores for each question) with the occasional cross tabulation based on the standard socio-de-mographic indicators of age, gender and education. Given the considerable expense of collecting data from a national sample, this is a lost opportunity. To learn that 40% think ‘X’, 45% think ‘not X’ and 5% say ‘Don’t know’ does not advance things to any great de-gree. Researchers and funding bodies need to ensure that proposals have sufficient funds and expertise to exploit survey data to the full.

There are good and bad surveys, perhaps one should say more and less interesting. The less interesting pro-vide no more than news items – 50% of people have never heard of rDNA and the like. This is an ephem-eral finding of relatively little consequence or inter-est. Survey results do not speak for themselves, they are not meaningful in the way the measurements of, for example, length or temperature are. Survey data need to be interpreted within a broader framework, based either on social scientific theory and research or

other relevant information. Without such contextual information surveys do not advance the understanding of the dynamics of public opinion or make much of a contribution to policy discussions.

Beyond the single survey two other valuable op-portunities arise. One is seen in the development of time series data. While the single survey provides a snapshot at a particular moment in history, time series data provides something akin to a moving image. Just as technologies, particularly new ones, develop and change over time, as do media coverage and policy re-sponses, public opinion also evolves. The evolution of public opinion in relation to new technologies may be evidenced in changes in a number of indicators – the percentage of people who are aware of it, knowledge about it, media exposure, personal experience, opin-ions and attitudes etc. In combination such measures can be combined into useful ‘science indicators’. Time series survey data that can shed light on the develop-ment of public opinion is of considerable theoretical and practical relevance.

We have already noted the virtues of comparative research. Indeed, cross national and comparative research using quantitative survey data is well estab-lished in political science, sociology and other social sciences. But a number of caveats are in order. Such research proceeds on a number of assumptions, often untested. While the number 5 can be reasonably as-sumed to mean the same thing in Kananaskis, Ken-tucky and Kensington, when that 5 represents the an-swer ‘strongly agree’ to the statement ‘GM food poses risks to ordinary people’, it is heroic to assume that the question means the same thing to people in Canada, the US and the UK. The connotations of GM food and of risk may well differ in different national contexts. While in these three countries most people speak more or less the same language, that tells us nothing of non-English speakers or what happens when a ques-tion is translated, etc. While statistical techniques are available to check some of these problems post hoc, there is a need for more methodological research on comparative analyses of quantitative data.

b) Qualitative Approaches

Survey research provides information on the distribu-tion of opinions and attitudes, captured in closed ques-

44




Research

tions with fixed response formats. Qualitative research is directed towards other complementary objectives. In essence qualitative research seeks to find out what lies behind judgments such as an opinion or an attitude. What ideas, worldviews, symbols and metaphors -- what may be termed ‘currents of opinion’ -- make up the person(s) commonsense which provides the resources for judgments on particular issues. Thus whereas a survey plugs into surface responses, qualitative research gets beneath the surface to explore the depths. And as such, while a social survey may cover six to eight questions in one minute, qualitative research takes more time. In part this is because commonsense is part of the taken for granted – it is some-times so obvious to the respondents that they see no need to explain it.

In qualitative research there are broadly two traditions – individual, or depth, and group, or focus group, interviewing. Individual interviewing is chosen to explore personal histories, choices and decisions. Group inter-viewing is chosen to explore social or collective lay knowledge and the ways in which such lay knowledge or understanding is produced. Ques-tions often arise about the reliability and validity of qualitative research. While many survey researchers believe that surveys reveal the ‘truth’, quali-tative research is sometimes thought to reveal more about the researcher’s prejudices and opinions than those of the interviewee. But like surveys there are good and less good practices in qualitative research. Procedural clarity in terms of detailed descriptions of the selection of respondents, the interview guide, the transcription of interviews and the mode of analysis is a first step towards quality assurance. And the proof of the method is in the insights and sometimes surprises that it throws up. Qualitative research can be stand-alone, or it can be conducted as a part of the process of survey design, or following a survey to explore questions and issues that are outside the scope of the survey data.

There are some excellent examples of qualitative research in the areas of genomics and biotechnology. These report on the nature of public con-cerns, the role of dominant and less dominant hopes and fears about new technological developments, lay understandings of genetic transmission of diseases etc. Some studies have taken a comparative national perspective, finding that across different cultures largely similar concerns are articulated, albeit drawing upon different local exemplars.

In the hands of skilled practitioners, qualitative research can be very reveal-ing and informative and have as much relevance to policy issues as any survey.

Lying between the traditional survey and qualitative interviewing are tech-niques of free association. Respondents in either a survey or an interview are asked a question along the following lines “What comes to mind when you think about genetic engineering, what is sometimes called genetic modification?” Or it might focus on, say, nanotechnology. The resulting as-sociations, some three to seven words, phrases, analogies or metaphors can be very informative. If nothing else it is a reminder to the researcher that

6

45

his or her interests are not shared by all respondents. Using such a question with the focus on biotechnology I recall one respondent saying it was something to do with exhaust emissions from jet planes!

A relatively recent development to support qualitative research is a set of computer assisted analytic tech-niques. At the basic level these automate what any qualitative researcher would have done in the past with cards, highlighters etc. The advantage is that the programs systematize the procedures. Beyond this there are word association programs which locate groups of related words and give insights into the structure of meanings associated with the target word. Such programs do not replace the sociological imagi-nation, but neither do statistical programs. All social research relies in great part on the sensitivity, imagina-tion and sophistication of the researcher.

To conclude, there are a variety of techniques for the description of public opinion. The question to ask is not whether one should use a quantitative or qualita-tive approach, but rather what will be lost if only one of these techniques is employed to study research questions.

Researching the media

Historically in Western democracies, freedom of speech covers utterances and conversations, a sub-category of which are the rather unusual conversations of the social research interview. Another part of the public sphere, the mass media of communication is protected by freedom of the press. Yet, many believe that the media are highly influential in shaping public opinion, and when they do not like what they see or read in the media, level accusations of media bias. Others, while accepting the above, go one step further and try to use the media to achieve particular ends, as seen in the practices of public relations and spin doctoring. The paradox is that freedom of the press is welcomed as long as it voices opinions in line with the powerful interests in society, and since the pow-erful interests do not always concur, then the media will always be under threat. This, however, is not the place to question whether rights or freedoms without responsibilities are sustainable.

But it raises an issue that is often posed of social scientists. What is the real impact of the media on public opinion and policy making? This is not an unreasonable question to ask. Yet, after almost 50 years of so-called media effects research there are no unequivocal answers and many communication researchers have given up attempting to research it. Part of the reason is that the question implies a passive and homogeneous audience, which absorbs media messages as if by osmosis. A successful campaign is one in which the message is best designed to get through the membrane of public consciousness. The problem is that audiences are active, they may attend to the media but they interpret and re-present media contents in the light of prior information, interests etc. Alternatives to the simple direct effects model propose that the media has more subtle effects. So theorists talk of cultivation, agenda setting and other ways in which the media shape rather than control public opinion. Thus, while there is an assumption of some form of media effects, it is now assumed that this is a highly complex process.

Without a doubt the mass media are a key informa-tion source for the public about new developments in science and technology. Very few have had first hand access to any of the applications of modern biotech-nology. What people know comes from mediated sources – sometimes conversations with others, but more frequently from television, press, radio, films, books and the Internet. At present it is television and to a lesser extent the press that have the widest audiences and as such these two sources have been researched the most. However, it is probably the case that the written media (press) have been more researched than the visual media (television). This is for pragmatic reasons with some external justifica-tion. Access to televisual material is very costly, while most of the newspapers can now be accessed via CD rom or the Internet for a modest price. Focusing on newspapers is justified as they are claimed to be the ‘opinion leaders’ in society and within reporting circles. What is in the newspapers today, particularly on matters of science and technology, may feed into tomorrow’s television coverage. Whether this is true or not, it provides a rationale for media analysis that is feasible within the usual constraints of research fund-ing. But it also reflects the fact that the social sciences are more at home, in an analytic and methodological

46




Research

sense, with the written text than with images and text. Researching images is still under development.

Media research is concentrated on the analysis of opinion leader media on the assumption that these are opinion leaders also for the other types of me-dia, such as the European tabloids, it is an empirical question as to whether this is a valid assumption. Given the linkages between print-media (tab-loids) and commercial television channels, sometimes owned by the same company, the tabloids may be increasingly more influential than assumed according to the traditional elite opinion leader concept.

As with public opinion there are both quantitative and qualitative approach-es to empirical research on media coverage.

a) Quantitative analysis of the media

In quantitative analysis of the media two key indicators are measured; intensity and content. Intensity, or volume of coverage, of an issue is used as an index of salience or importance – higher coverage is taken to indi-cate relevance, even controversy. Content is analyzed to assess the way in which the media presents or frames an issue. In such analyses there is an emphasis on time series data which may reveal changing levels of intensity and the content of coverage, which can then be linked to public opinion, and key developments in and around the issue in question, including new developments and policy initiatives.

Intensity as an index of salience

Using key words to search on-line media databases, the absolute number of articles published in each month/year in the selected newspapers is established. The key words need to be carefully selected and pilot tested to ensure that all relevant articles are identified. If biotechnology were to be the general area of interest the key words might include DNA, genetic*, genome, cloning and GM. Bauer shows that media coverage of biotechnol-ogy in the elite European press was virtually zero in 1973, grew steadily to 2000 articles in 1996/7, and then jumped to between 5 and 6000 for the rest of the 1999s. Early results suggest that the intensity peaked in 2001 and since then has shown a small decline. It is likely that the surge in cover-age in 1996/7 is related to the arrival of the first GM soya into Europe in the autumn of 1996 and then to the announcement of ‘Dolly the sheep’ in February 1997.

Content analysis

Classical content analysis is the typical technique used for the analysis of media content. This allows for systematic and replicable comparisons on the basis of a coding frame. It is a practical way of analyzing large amounts of material, and it is sensitive to symbolic material, albeit through a process of simplified interpretation. The key steps in classical content analysis are

6

47

the sampling of materials, development of a cod-ing frame, coding, analysis and interpretation. It is perhaps worthwhile to outline some of the issues in sampling and coding frame development. Sampling

As noted above the volume of media coverage on biotechnology reached thousands of articles per year in Europe. Clearly it would be beyond any reason-able resources to analyze the whole set, and indeed it would be a waste of resources. Hence, as with public opinion surveys a systematic sample is taken from which conclusions may be generalized to the popula-tion. One way of sampling media coverage is to start with the population of articles identified in the inten-sity index (see above). A number of sampling criteria may be used including random, random within a spe-cific period e.g each year, every nth article, the choice of which depends on the research questions and the resources available.

The coding frame The nature of the coding frame is dependent on the research questions and the theoretical framework within which the media analysis is placed. As an example consider Bauer (2001). Set in the context of Gamson and Modigliani’s work on media fram-ing the coding frame contains some 30 categories. This include codes concerning article size, position, authorship, the content in terms of topic and themes, actors mentioned, and attributed consequences in terms of risks and benefits, evaluative tone – posi-tive, neutral or negative and frames such as process, ethics, runaway, nature/nurture, public accountability and globalization2. The more interpretation that a particular code requires the more likely is it that coder unreliability will be a factor; hence it is necessary for coders to meet and discuss operational criteria and to conduct an inter-coder reliability analysis3. With an established coding frame and trained coders all the selected articles are coded – normally on the basis of code mentioned or code not mentioned. The data are then inputted into an appropriate statistical analytic program for analysis.

This form of media analysis is well able to identify longer term trends in media intensity and in coverage

of an issue. It shows how the media reportage on a topic such as biotechnology evolves and develops over time. How, for example, red (medical) and green (agricultural) biotechnologies are framed, what are the typical risk and benefit scenarios and how these change over time. But quantitative analysis is not well suited to the more fine grained and detailed analysis of a particular event, in which the nuances in cover-age may be the focus of a research interest. For such questions a more qualitative approach is required and these are seen in what is generically termed ‘discourse analysis.’

b) Qualitative analysis of the media

By contrast to quantitative analysis, discourse or qualitative analysis is based on a much smaller media corpus – probably no more than 20-50 articles. These are likely to be concentrated on a particular issue – the reception of Dolly the sheep, the announce-ment of the completion of the human genome, and so forth. The analysis, while based on the text of the article, the headline and accompanying pictures, aims to get behind the text, so to speak. It is assumed that language is not simply a neutral means of conveying information or reflecting the world as it is, but rather that language is a means for constructing reality, and that all understandings are influenced by historical and cultural features.

Within the generic category of discourse analysis there

2The following are the descriptions for the frames:Progress -- celebration of new development, breakthrough; direction of history; conflict between progressive/conservative-reactionary.Economic prospect -- economic potential; prospects for investment and profits; R&D arguments.Ethical - - call upon ethical principles; thresholds; boundaries; distinctions between acceptable/un-acceptable risks in discussions on known risks; dilemmas. Professional ethics.Pandora’s Box -- [likely before the event] call for restraint in the face of the unknown risk; the ‘opening of flood gates’ warning; unknown risks as anticipated threats; catastrophe warning.Runaway -- [likely after the event] fatalism after the innovation; having adopted the new technol-ogy/products, a price may well have to be paid in the future; no control any more after the event.Nature/nurture -- environmental versus genetic determination; inheritance issues.Public accountability -- call for public control, participation, public involvement; regulatory mechanisms; private versus public interests; openness of procedures; transparency; justification of procedures.Globalization -- call for global perspective; national competitiveness within a global economy; opposite: splendid isolation.

3This is an issue which needs further theoretical and philosophical analysis. Based on Garfinkel’s work on coding medical records, it is known that various readers can interpret the same informa-tion differently. By training coders to think alike, is this a better reflection of how the general audience is interpreting information?

48




Research

are a number of established procedures useful for media and other textual analysis. These include some which focus on the style and structure of the argument presented – rhetorical and argumentation analysis; others on symbolism and issues of power – semiotic analysis, and others on the con-struction of meanings through analogies, metaphors and implicit knowledge – qualitative textual analysis, for want of a better term.

Choices between these differing approaches may as much reflect the researcher’s theoretical interests as the nature of the research question un-der investigation. As Diana Rose notes “there can be no perfect reading of the text. The point, then, is to be explicit about the theoretical, ethical and practical grounds of the technique and open up a space where the work itself can be debated and judged.”

And in opening up such spaces there are many fascinating examples of discourse analyses on media coverage across a wide range of issues. While science and technology in the media is relatively under-researched by the discourse fraternity, this is an area that could well be encouraged.

The analysis of policy

There are different traditions for the analysis of policy processes. One tradi-tion refers to scientists with a training in political science or legal studies. Experts in the field include Jasanoff (Harvard), Vogel (Berkeley) and Hood (Oxford). On the whole this is an area for the cognoscenti akin to anthro-pological ethnography. The cognoscenti do not seem to write about the methodology of policy analysis, in the sense of ‘how to do it’. But within the wider definition of methodology that includes analytic concepts and frameworks for analysis some themes can be identified.

Another tradition refers to political sociology, where policy is seen as a subsystem of society (Luhmann) and where scientists use similar methods as in other areas of social sciences. An early example of this understanding of policy study is the work of Barnes and Kaase on “Political Action.”

Working in the first paradigm, Jasanoff illustrates some of the goals of policy analysis in a chapter in a book edited by Bauer. Regarding the development of regulation on biotechnology she poses the following questions: have accounts of risk differed cross nationally, conditioned by varying socio-po-litical influences? Are there observable differences in regulatory responses to biotechnology, and if so can these be traced to differences in national traditions of legal and administrative decision making, and how does the process of constructing risks of biotechnology for regulatory purposes affect the opportunities for public participation and protest?

Jasanoff goes on to explore the contexts behind the adoption of product based and process based regulation in the US and Europe respectively, an issue that Mark Cantley comments upon in his paper on the history of bio-technology regulation in Europe. Jasanoff’s third question concerning op-

6

49

portunities for public participation and protest comes close to one of the themes of the Baltimore meeting – the links between policy and public perceptions. Perhaps the question could be broadened out to ask; under what conditions and in what ways does policy contribute to the shaping of public perceptions and, conversely, under what circumstances and in what ways do public perceptions impinge on the policy process?

This is a question addressed, in part, by Hood and colleagues in an analysis of policy responses to a number of public issues (e.g., BSE and radon gas) in the UK. Their model is based on the notion of risk regimes. A regime involves policy making, monitoring and enforcement. Regimes may be characterized on a series of dimensions, including institutional arrange-ments (adversarial v. consensual), rules (formal v. informal, thresholds for different risks) and culture & politics (the philosophy of regulation, ways of imple-menting rules and levels of stakeholder involvement). Any regime exists in a wider context and looking at UK risk regimes they show that the key external drivers are market failure, interest group pressures and public opinion.

Vogel argues that the contemporary troubles over biotechnology regulation in Europe are rather similar to those experienced in the US some 20 years ago, a point that is also made by Paul Thompson. Currently, Europe is working through the trauma of creating new institutional arrangements and of establishing their legitimacy, while the US, after a period of inter-insti-tutional conflict and tension has achieved a relatively stable set of institutional arrangements.

Other social scientists deal with problems of mass pro-test and mobilization (Rucht), on issues such as voting behavior and similar topics. These rely on empirical approaches common to many of the social sciences. In this form, policy analysis is closely related to media analyses and the analyses of public opinion. While the first understanding addresses the relationship of policy with legal structures, the second understanding reflects the relationship between policy making and society.

There are notable differences in the assumptions underlying policy analytic studies. At one extreme the ‘realists’ document and describe what actually (so

to speak) happened. This might include for example, trigger events, actors involved, policy initiatives and outcomes etc. At the other extreme are the social constructivists, with a focus on what lies behind the surface features. On the assumption that risk identifica-tion, assessment and management are all socially con-structed and potentially contested issues, the question becomes whose interests are served by particular defi-nitions and by certain representations of the evidence etc. Somewhat crudely, these two approaches might be seen as right and left wing approaches to under-standing the policy process.

These approaches tend to regard the policy process as a black box, the focus of investigation is inputs (trig-gers, actors and pressures) and outputs (regulations). However, the policy process in the regulatory system needs to be studied in a more sophisticated way. Systematic interviews with actors and documentary analysis are important tools of research to deal with these topics.

Research questions:

The group felt that there is a need to develop tools to understand the processes of policy making in a comparative context. Such an endeavor might start off with a conference/workshop on the current state of the art.

On specific research questions it was thought that a comparative analysis of regulatory/legal systems in terms of their impact on risk definition, regulation and acceptability would be of interest. For example, with an “arm’s length” system of government between federal branches of government, adversarial legalism as an approach to clarifying regulatory issues is more prevalent in the US. In Europe, state institutions are more powerful and the judicial system less involved in the formation of regulation.

Another problem is the relationship between public opinion and policy making. Here a number of ques-tions need further research:

What is the relationship between arguments used by the public and arguments used in political negotiation processes?

•

50




Research

What is the frame of the regulatory discourse (is it different from the frames of public discourses as analyzed with focus-group research?)

What characterizes the decision making process. This is more than regulatory outcomes and legal traditions. It is a methodological problem to get appropriate informa-tion which enables scientists to study these processes.

The globalization of political processes, e.g. biotechnology regulation is dependent not only on what happens in national parliaments but also on the supra-national and international context becomes increasingly impor-tant. So policy analysis becomes more and more multi-level policy analysis where actors and decision making processes on national, European/US and international (WTO) levels need to be studied. This means that policy studies in the field of technology are necessarily international studies which require research at the location of the European Commission, the European Parliament or the WTO. Finally, to get a better understanding of policy processes, policy analysis needs to go beyond the political system as such, to include a consideration of the key intermediate organizations, the media, and the public(s).

•

•

6

continued from page 41

Hardly Any of the Time

Most of the Time

Some of the Time

Do you find yourself interested in science Information?

Do you feel informed by science Information?

Do you read news about science?

Are you confused about science information?

13.8%

40.1%45.4%

67.8%

46.5%

69.6%24.8%

40.1%

26.8%

5.5%

13.3%

5.4%

51

References

Jasanoff, Sheila 1995: Product, process, or programme: three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. P. 311-331 in: M. Bauer (ed.): Resistance to new Technology. Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Luhmann, Niklas 1998: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. 2 Volumes. Frankfurt/Main, suhrkamp.

Rucht, Dieter (ed.) 1991: Research on Social Movements. The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA. Frankfurt/Main, Campus; Boulder, Co., Westview.

Streeck, Wolfgang 1999: Korporatismus in Deutschland. Zwischen Nationalstaat und Europäischer Uni.

52

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations ex-pressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not neces-sarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Published by:

The National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Blvd.Arlington, VA 22203

book design: James Caras NSF/DAS/IDB/DPS

Documents

Comparative Research on Biotechnology and the Public · 2015. 8. 11. · 6 Comparative Research on Biotechnology and the Public Report to the US - EC Task Force on Biotechnology Research