Public perception of

Biotechnology in

South Africa

Ben Durham

IFPRI May 2009

SA Biotechnology

2001 – SA National Biotechnology Strategy

2003 – Creation of 6 institutions as main agents of strategy

4 Innovation support centres

1 Bioinformatics Platform/Network

1 Public Understanding of Biotech programme

2004 - Public Understanding of Biotechnology Survey

2007/8 - Approx 16 technology platforms created

- Approx 100 projects

- 38 companies created through innovation centres

- Survey

2009/10 - Technology Innovation Agency (TIA)

- Centres of Competence

SA Biotechnology

Public Understanding of Biotechnology Programme

Why PUB?

Government strategy developing SA Biotechnology.

Recognize controversy regarding GM; Stem cells; cloning

Set up a Communication institution to promote factual, science-based

evidence regarding biotechnology.

• Not pro-biotech

• Develop credibility and trust

Biotech Survey 2007

2007 Survey based on revised list-based OECD Biotech definition.

•78 biotechnology active companies, including 38 core biotech

companies

•1542 biotech products/services

•Revenues >R767 million

•Jobs 2 051 (biotech specific); 72 800 (all)

•90% of companies <50 employees

•Geographical distribution

•Demographics

80.8%

Response

rate

DNA/RNA 41%

Protein 24%

Cell & Tissue 37%

Process 36%

Sub-cellular 10%

Bio-informatics 23%

Nano-biotechnology 8%

Environmental 18%

Other 6%

Proportion of

companies involved

in various

technologies

PUB Survey 2004

• High response rate (82% completed survey)

• Baseline to measure impact – not to substantiate specific

views;

• Knowledge, attitudes & judgments, trust;

• Mostly quantitative;

• Census enumerator areas/GIS – repeatable;

• Face to face interviews; &

• Language of choice.• Race: 76% black

• 12% white

• 9% coloured

• 3% asian

• Age: 29% 16-20

• 24% 21-25

• 26% 26-60

• 20% 60+

• 7000 people aged 16+ in 500 enumerator areas;

• Representative of total SA adult population of 29

million;

• Gender: 46% male & 54% female

• 53% formal urban; 35% tribal; 9% informal urban;

4% rural;

PUB Survey 2004

Attitude

45

23

31

Negative Positive Indifferent

Knowledge25

75

Informed Uninformed

What do you think about biotech…

“Fake goods that come with Nigerians &

Chinese”

“something to do with brains”

“Weapons of mass destruction”

“something to do with cars”

PUB Survey 2004

34

27

14

11

9

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Negative,

Uninformed

Indifferent,

Uninformed

Positive,

Uninformed

Negative,

Informed

Positive, Informed Indifferent,

Informed

Po

pu

lati

on

an

d S

eg

men

tati

on

%

PUB Survey 2004Employment Status - Uninformed

2122

23

16

22

18 19

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

Total Indifferent,

Uninformed

Negative,

Uninformed

Positive,

Uninformed

Unemployed Permanent

Employment Status - Informed

2119

21

16

22

20

25

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Total Indifferent,

Informed

Negative,

Informed

Positive,

Informed

Unemployed Permanent

25% informed75% uninformed

Survey sampleEmployment

Average Houseshold Income -

Uninformed

R 4,244.46

R 1,966.73R 2,768.98

R 7,423.16

-1002

9000

Total Indifferent,

Uninformed

Negative,

Uninformed

Positive,

Uninformed

Average HH income

Average Housheold Income - Informed

R 4,244.46 R 4,454.19

R 6,436.43

R 9,898.96

-2

10000

Total Indifferent,

Informed

Negative,

Informed

Positive,

Informed

Average HH income

Household

income

PUB Survey 2004

Ethnicity- Uninformed

73

82 80

67

9 11 9 73 1 2 3

11

2 6

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Total Indifferent,

Uninformed

Negative,

Uninformed

Positive,

Uninformed

Black Coloured Asian/Indian White

Ethnicity - Informed

73 77

65

40

9 7 612

3 5 6 511 9

20

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Total Indifferent,

Informed

Negative,

Informed

Positive,

Informed

Black Coloured Asian/Indian White

25% informed75% uninformed

Survey sample

Ethnicity

PUB Survey 2004Source of information - Uninformed

22

14

21

26

20

16

23

30

15

20

16

1111

5

12 1210

24

64

109

13

9

4 3 421 1 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Total Indifferent,

Uninformed

Negative, Uninformed Positive, Uninformed

Universities

Media

SA Government

Environmental groups

Dont know

Consumer organisations

Religious organisations

Industry (Private sector)

Knowledge - Like to get information - Informed

22

31 3134

20

13

22

12

1518

15

7

11

4

9

23

10 9

5

2

10

4

10 10

4

10

4 313

03

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Total Indifferent, Informed Negative, Informed Positive, Informed

Universities

Media

SA Government

Environmental groups

Dont know

Consumer organisations

Religious organisations

Industry (Private sector)

UNINFORMED

INFORMED

Where would like to get info

PUB Survey 2004

=>Vote for continuation

Which biotechnology practices should stop or continue?

17

2221

13

62

49

55

61

22

30

2425

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Food (Bread & cheese) GM crops - pest

resistent

Medicines Biodegradable plastics

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

ses

Stop

Continue

Don't Know

PUB Survey 2004

3

1

9.5

21

1

3

1

1

21

15.6

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

Percentage of respondents

Pesticide content

GMO content

Fat content

Health benefits

Grown locally

Country of origin

Certified organic

Irradiation

Ingredients

Other

Don't know

Desired information on food labels 51% don’t read

food labels

PUB Survey 2004

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

All media

TV

Radio

Magazines & newspapers

Internet

Other sources

Not interested

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

Sources of biotechnology information

Principles

• Biotech is more than GMO’s (& be inclusive)

• GMO’s =>Polarized debate

• +ve attitude links with higher lsm; income;

education.

• Important to focus on positive features:

– Health benefits

– Environmental benefits

– Job creation

– Sustainable livelihoods

• SA strategy for public awareness

Conclusions

• Engagement, not information

• Biotech – creating jobs

– Exploiting South African ideas

• Case studies - moving from a purely abstract approach (cloning/GM/stem cell) to more relevant SA examples.

• Key message:– Responsible biotechnology

– But fine to provoke discussion with controversy

• Government biosafety – promoting transparency; public access; decision justifications

PUB Approach

Public Understanding of Biotechnology (PUB) Programme

Media

Responding to media (accuracy & balance); coordinating media; monitoring media

Developing biotech material – tv; thought pieces; posters; cartoons; articles

Training journalists – media round tables on SA relevant topics

Training researchers – workshops and one-on-one’s

Drama – audience participation plays

Exhibitions – Science Festival; Bio2Biz; INSITE

Conferences/seminars/workshops

Website

Curriculum development

Survey

BIC Approach

Biotechnology Innovation Centres (funding innovation projects & platforms)

Promote their biotech activities

Marketing managers

Launches of companies/platforms/products (often with Ministerial support)

Bio2Biz

Regional Fora (quarterly events)

Promotional material

Press