Manipulating Genes or Public Opinion?

950908892 ｍ｡ｾｩｰｵｬ｡ｴｩｮｧ Genes or Public Opinion? The Australian public has embraced genetic engineering, or so a recent Government survey of public attitudes would have you believe. However, Richard Hindmarsh, Geoffrey Lawrence and ]ariet Norton have taken a closer look at the survey and concluded that it both misinformed respondents before eliciting their opinions and that respondents' answers were further skewed towards the "positive" by how the questions were framed. O . pinion polls about attitudes to technological change provide information that gov- ernments and companies value. Dr Joyce Tait (1990) of the UK's Open University asserts that the aim of research on attitudes relevant to the biotechnology industry should be to improve the understanding among industrialists, regulators and the public of issues surrounding new biotechnology developments. We agree with Tail. From this perspective we evaluate a recent - but somewhat controversial - Aus- tralian public opinion poll on genetic engineering. The study is controversial because of strong local criticism by both the Australian Gen-Ethics Network and Lowe (1995), and because its results contradict findings from overseas research. The biotechnology industry journal Australasian Biotechnology recently reported that Senator Chris Schacht, the federal Minister responsible for harmonising Australia's gene technology legislation nationwide, had welcomed the findings of a survey of public opinion funded by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology (D1ST). The survey, carried out by Dr Jonathon Kelley, Director of the International Social Science Survey (1555) at the Australian National University, reported that a majority of the Australian public supported the use of genetic engineering to develop new medical treatments, healthier foods and improved pestresistant crops (D1ST 1994). "The survey offers confidence to industry that, with appropriate product labelling, most Australians will welcome the use of gene technology to address current health, agricultural, learn that Australian school science teachers and students "have had limited exposure to the modern biology behind gene technologies food and environmental chal- and thus are in a poor position to address the more complex social issues that will increasingly arise". Such assessments are underscored lenges:' Schacht agreed in a press release. The neutrality of such observations is, however, open to question (D1ST is a significant fund er and promoter of genetic engineering R&D in Australia), and there are other indicators that raise concern. ParadOXically, in the same issue of Australasian Biotechnology we learn that "relatively little effort has been made by media groups, Or by relevant industry, government or school organisations, to provide the educational background required for the community to assess this technology in their own right" (Bittisnich and Smith 1995). We also by an DECD survey that in 1992 reported a publicly perceived need for education programs in gene technology. Such findings seriously question the ability of the average Australian to reach an informed opinionabout the social benefits of genetic engineering (which the survey outcome implies) or about the many risks of that technology. Significantly, in his review of 26 sur:- veys on biotechnology, Zechendorf (1994) concluded that knowledge, risk perception and ethical views search, Vol. 26, No. 4, May 1995 117 all influence the acceptability of biotechnology. Another reason we may question the survey findings is that the biotechnology industry worldwide has perceived for some time that the final barrier to the wide!>cale release into the environment of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) and the diffusion of novel foods and drugs into -the·marketplace is the consumer. With a host of critics concerned about the new technology, and especially its commercialisation phase, developers recognise the necessity of winning consumer Britain 1988). Conce'ms existed about animal cell experimentation and about releasing GEOs, while medical applications were most acceptable. . In 1990, a comprehensive survey undertaken by New Zealand's Department of Scientific and Industrial Research found that while most of the public (73%) was familiar with the term genetic engineering. only a minority (20%) could explain it (Couchman & Fink-Jensen 1990). Of those familiar with the term, 57% considered it a worthwhile area for research, but at the same time 56% had concerns about its applications. Why were the Australian approval ratings so high compared with overseas trends, including those of New Zealand? acceptance. In this context, opinion polls Can either indicate a serious public image problem, or validate and legitimise genetic engineering. Overseas surveys support the view that the industry has many detractors, yet the recent Australian survey suggests that respondents strongly endorse biotechnological developments. Overseas Surveys In 1978, the Commission of the European Communities polled attitudes related to scientific and technological developments, including genetic research. Only 33% of respondents thought that genetic research was worthwhile. In 1987, the US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) surveyed US public perceptions of biotechnology, its risks as well as its benefits. The Office suggested the public had mixed - and sometimes contradictory - views about biotechnology. The result was tempered (as are all the surveys on this subject) by low levels of public awareness and knowledge about biotechnology/ genetic engineering (Hoban et al. 1992). In a 1988 UK survey, in response to an open-ended question about the meaning of biotechnology, even those aware of the term answered vaguely (Research Surveys of Great 11 8 Search, Vol. 26, No. 4, May 1995 In 1991, in another European poll (which measured overall "awareness" at 58.4%), some 50% of those sampled thought biotechnology/ genetic engineering would help improve.their lives (INRA 1991). Yet the results also suggested that as people gained more awareness about the technology the less they liked it. This was certainly the conclusion of Sharma (1991) and Almas and Nygard (1993). Finally, a poll conducted in Canada in 1993 concluded that public attitudes were still in their early stages of formation, and that the public was largely uncertain about what to expect from this technology (WaIter 1994). Tait (1994) also found that "the ordinary member of the public in Britain has yet to make up his or her mind about biotechnology...". The relevant point about these survey results is that surveyed populations have been ambivalent about the benefits of biotechnology/genetic engineering when surveys have presented risks as well as benefits. With the Australian survey, however, there was apparently only one result with a less than 70% approval rating (the so-called "improved tomato", which had 63% approval). Why were the Australian approval ratings so high compared with overseas trends, including those of New Zealand? In order to evaluate this, let us consider the framing of the DisT/ISSS survey. The Australian Survey We first note that we are only looking at recently released results. It was unfortunate not to have more comprehensive data to evaluate. Given that such data have not been available, our evaluation must, of necessity, be of a preliminary nature. In the survey, the concept of genetic engineering was first introduced. It read: Genetic engineering is a new way to create new products. Sdrntists can use grnetic rngineering on plJlnts or animals to change things like their siu, colour or taste. They do this by moving a grne from one kind of animal or plant to another, or by turning a gene off. Recently, sdrntists Juzve nwdt an improved variety of t01t1Jlto tJuzt has a better texture, costs Ｌｳｾ and might make a valuable export. They turned off one of the genes, which would otherwise have made the tomato go mushy. After careful study, a gDlm7lment regulJltory committee believts that the new tomatoes are safe. Most sci-entists agree. But a few are worried and some nationwide environmental groups say the tomatoes might be dangerous and sho'fId be banned. A statement then followed which read: Most people have not heard much about genetic engineering. We just want your opinion, your best guess. The 1275 respondents, a subset of a wider sample drawn randomly from the electoral register, were then asked to respond to some spe.cific questions by way of a Likerttype scale, which indicates agreement or disagreement with each question on a measure of intensity: • "A very good idea" • /lA good idea" • "Mixed feelings, hard to say" • "A bad idea" • "A very bad idea". Table 1 shows the questions and results. Each question was introduced by the general one of: "Here are some other things that scientists might make with genetic engineering..." Table 1. DIST/ISSS survey questions and results Scenario Product Medical Food and Agriculture A treatment that would save the lives of people.who have blood cancer Overwhelming support (94%) A genetically engineered drug that lowers blood pressure better than other drugs, reducing the risk of heart attack Overwhelming support (93%) Leaner, healthier pork (assuming it is clearly labelitid,· so you can decide for yourself whether to buy it Or not Strong majority favourable (72%) Healthier cooking oil and margarine, with mOre of desirable unsaturated fats and fewer of the undesirable fats Overwhelming support (82%) If clearly labelled, are these new [transgenic) tomatoes a gooo idea or a bad idea? Majority favourable (63%) Genetically engineered cotton that resists insect chemical pests - this could greatly reduce the use of pesticides Overwhelming support (93%) Genetically modified viruses to protect farm crops attacking insect pests, such as beetles and locusts Strong majority in favour (73%) Modified viruses to control imported animal pests (such as rabbits or feral pigs) by preventing them from breeding' .' Strong majority in favour (74%) Manipulating Responses In survey ｱｵ･ｳｾｩｯｮ ｡ ｲ･ｳＬ Result (wording by ISSS) the infar· mation provided to respondents and the na ture and order of questions is vitally important. In this instance the information heavily favoured a biotechnological future, offered no alternatives, and ignored other aspects of genetic engineer- In using the example of the engineered tomato, it is projected ·positively to "have better texture, cost less and might make a valuable export" in contrast to tomatoes that "go mushy". The impression is that these new tomatoes have been released in Australia. They have not. But in the USA, where trans- trial in Australia, not for commer· cial production, and the National Food Authority has not conSidered it. Why some environmental groups want the toma to banned is not explained, and seems to depict environmental groups as extremist, unrealistic or unreasonable. How- A questionnaire of this sort given to largely uninformed respondents is not the correct way to gain information on public opinion. ing. In the introduction's first sentence, "Genetic engineering is a new way to create new products," use of the word "new" twice is suggestive of the "modem" and of progress. The second and third sentences suggested tha t genetic engineering is the moving or turning off of genes. It appears to indicate that genetic engineering is movement from one type of animal to another type of animal, or from one plant to another. Transgenic plants and animals are not mentioned, and it appears to overlook the fact that genetic engineering is an experimental science, still at a very early stage. genic tomatoes have been released, they cost more - not less - than normal ones. The words used in the sixth sentence reinforce the positive view of genetic engineering. Here, the government is described as having done a "careful study" and that scientists agree that the new tomato is "safe". What is not revealed is that the government's Genetic Manipulation Advisori Committee (GMAC) has long been criticised (e.g. Hindmarsh 1990) as a virtual in-house peer review committee, comprised predominantly of bioscientists. Furthermore, GMAC has only considered the novel tomato for a small scale field ever, overseas surveys show that people think environmental groups are more likely .to tell the truth about genetic engineering than government regulators Or industry (e.g. INRA 1991). Clearly, it would help the proponents' case if environmentalists are cast in a dubious light. In the DISTJISSS introduction, environmental groups join the "few" scientists who are worried. - the minority. As a result, before respondents may reply to questions, the information they receive is loaded towards the "authoritative" view that both government and most scientists understand the new geneti- Search, Vol. 26, No. 4, May 1995 119 cally engineered products to be safe and that few people are in opposition. Finally, the final statement, assuming that new products will be "clearly labelled, so you can decide for yourse1f". The result in both The DIST/ISSS survey is open to the criticism that the results reflect what has been promoted within the questionnaire. ant cotton requires the introduction of a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium, and that insect resistance to Bt may result from its widescale use. As well, much research has centred upon engineering herbicide resistance into crops, which may result in the increased - rather than reduced - use of herbicides. Herbicide-tolerant crops' were not referred to. "most people have not heard much about genetic engineering," and that all that is wanted is the respondent's "best guess", contradicts a basic assumption of survey research: that respondents have the information the researcher requires. Yet respondents are unlikely to be well versed in genetic engineering. The use of biased statements to inform them contravenes two other cases was a favourable majority. The questions neglected to reveal that the draft policy of the National Food Authority is that generally it will not require the labelling of genetically engineered foods or food products. There was no followup questio,! to gauge respondents' attitudes to unlabelled products. The question also used the word "healthier" to emphasise the bene- - Finally, the entire content of the questionnaire (from what we can gauge) is loca ted in a generally positive framework. The actual nature of genetic manipulation used in each case is not elaborated upon and respondents must assume it is of the sort described in the introduction. The absence of labelling is not mentioned and respondents are given to understand that all products will be fully labelled, allowing consumers to make informed choices when buying goods. Respondents were not told the truth. Discussion basic assumptions: that the research situation does not influence the respondents' answers, and that the process of answering questions does not change the respondents' beliefs. In addition, in sequencing survey questions, the usual form is to start with the most general questions and move gradually into more specific areas. However, the first two questions asked talk about a treatment to save lives and a "better" drug for lowering blood pressure. They failed to mention the potential dangers of using novel gene products. Respondents, unsurprisingly, gave overwhelming support. The third question mentioned "leaner, healthier pork". As with the question on the new tomato, this question asked for a response 120 Search, Vol. 26, No. 4, May 1995 fits of new products, while there was no mention of disadvantages. As well, the questions did not alert respondents to the type of genetic manipulation used. Respondents were unaware that the new ｴｲ｡ｮｳｾ genic pork may result from the insertion into pigs of extra pig hormone genes and a human promoter gene to regula te production of the growth hormone, or tha t the rotting process has been stopped in the tomato so that it may never properly ripen. The question on genetically engineered cotton that "resists insect pests" implies that this product will "greatly reduce the use of insecticides". Again, unsurprisingly, the result was overwhelming support. Not mentioned is that insect-toler- The central characterisitics of balanced biotechnology/genetic engineering surveys overseas have been the respondents' low knOWledge of the subject and an ambivalence about the benefits of biotechnology / genetic engineering. These characterisitics, coupled to the "relevant" local findings of Bittisnich and Smith (1995), the OECD (1992), the New Zealand poll (Couchman & Fink-Jensen 1990) as well as the activities of genetic engineering campaigners on both sides of the fence, suggest that this should be the same for Australia. For D1ST/ISSS to imply otherwise suggests some potential bias, created by common problems in "public opinion" surveys on controversial areas. These problems include: • questions being put to people with little or no knowledge of the issue being investigated • little or no effort made to distinguish between those respondents who give little thought to the subject and those who carefully weigh up their answers • different interpretations by different respondents. Yet there are well known ways of addressing such problems in survey construction. Genetic engineering is a highly controversial issue and technical process. Attempts to understand peoples' views towards it demand a very carefully considered approach. The lack of in-depth questions and explanations of genetic engineering in the DlST /1555 questionnaire would have led many respondents to believe there were no controversial issues or that, if controversial issues existed, there would be few problems. A questionnaire of this sort given to largely Uninformed respondents is not the correct way to gain information on public opinion. The DlST /1555 survey is open to the criticism that the results reflect what has been promoted within the questionnaire. Other methodologies provide more knowledge and insights into peoples' attitudes on controversial issues. For example, both Denmark. and the UK have held "consensus conferences" where a volunteer lay panel is given information about bioteChnology, with all the positions in the debate out in the open, so that areas of concern and ｾ｡ｩ｣･ｲｰ｡ tion may be realistically identified and assessed. The promotion of the DlST /1555 results through the news media has demonstrated the danger of not heavily qualifying the results of social research. Headlines such as "Gene technology wins over majority" (Weekend Australian, 18 February 1995) suggest objective survey methodologies and unambiguous support by the public. Yet, on both . counts, major concerns exist. Similarly, it is misleading for media reports to speak of future products being "correctly labelled" if there is contrary evidence. Conclusions Unqualified promotion of the Australian survey results, which contradict trends overseas, suggests that DIST may be seen to be abrogating its responsibility to the public by uncritically promoting the acceptance of genetic engineering and its products. Our view is that the Australian study both misinformed respondents before eliciting their References opinions, and that respondents' answers were further skewed towards the "positive" by how the questions were framed. It· is inappropriate for a government department to spend taxpayers' money to elicit responses, especially to such a controversial technology as genetic engineering. A promotjonal ca.mpaign aimed a t "selling" genetic engineering- bi Ahnas, R and Nygard, B. (1993) EuroPean Values and the New Ｚｳｴｩｧｯｬｮｨｾｴｯｩｂ Post Materialism or a New Arena for Rural-Urban Conflict? Paper presented to the XVth European Congress of Rwal Sociology, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2-6 August..__ Bitlisnich, D. and Smith, G. (1995) Teaching and learning gene technology in Aus-tralian schools. AustraListizn Biotechnology 5, 16--1? . .... __ Commission of the European Communities (978) Inquiry on Public Attitudes to Science. European Coordination Office, Brussels. Couchman, P. K. and Fink·Jensen, K. (1990) Public AttitutUs to Genetic Engi· neering in New Zealand. DSIR Crop DIST's survey was designed to support gene technology information activities and ｡ｳ ｩｳｾ in planning the public consultation phase of the proposed gene technology Research Report No. 138. DSIR Crop Research, Christchurch. DlST (1995) Canberra Roundup. Aus- tralasian Biotechnology 6, 46. Hoban, T., Woodrum, E. &. Czaja, R. (1992) Public ·opfMJsition to genetic engineering. Rural Sociology 57, 476--493. Hindmarsh, R. (1990) Biotechnology: Is the green movement meeting the ｬ･ｧｩｳｬ｡ｴｩｯｮｾ challenge? Habitat Australia 18, 9-12. INRA (1991) Opinions of Europtan, on Biotechnology in 1991. Report misleading the public is not needed, especially as DlST's survey was designed to support gene technology information activities and assist in planning the pUblic consultation phase of the proposed gene technology legislation. DlST has allocated $250000 over this year and the next to a Gene Technology Information Unit, which will carry out this work with an emphasis on improving gene technology communica tion. Among other things, this would be targeted to "swiftly respond to any inaccurate and alarmist reports occurring in the media, and provide balanced, informed input"! Indeed, what is urgently needed is the dissemination of balanced information about genetic engineering, but the DlST /1555 survey has indicated that it would be appropriate for the information to come from a variety of different sources. This would enable consumers themselves to reach considered opinions about the new technology, its uses and products. This would surely improve understanding among industrialists, regulators and the public about the many issues surrounding new biotechnology developments, and assist everyone to respond. undertaken on behalf of the Commision of the EC. European Coorsination Office, Brussels. . Lowe, 1. (1995) Was gene survey engineered? New Scientist, 18 February, 49. DECD (1992) Public Information/Public Education in Biotechnology: Results of an DEeD Survey. 1992 Group of National Experts on Safety in Biotechnology. OEeD, Paris. OTA1l987) New Develapmmts in Biotechnology: Public PercqJtions of Biotechnology. OTA, Washington. Research Surveys of Great Britain Ltd, (1988) Public Perception of Biotechnology: Interpretive Report. RSGB Ref. 4780 March. Sharma, V. (1991) Public images of biotechnology. Today's Life Science. December, pp. 1Q-13. Tait, J. (1990) NIMBY and NIABY: Public perceptions of biotechnology. In: P. Wheale and R. McNally (eds.), The Bio-Rroolution: Cornucopia or Pandora's Box? Pluto Press, London Tail, J. (1994) Public opinion (letter to the editor). Bio/Tet:hnology 12, 1048. WaIter, R. (994) Executive Summary: Canada's Attitudes Toward Biotech Canadian Institute of Biotechnology, Ottawa. Zechendorf, B. (1994) What the public thinks about biotechnology, Bio/Tedmology ＮＵＷｾ ＸＬＲＱ Richard Hindmarsh is a Research Fellow at the Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University. Geoflrey Lawrence is a Professor 01 Sociology at Central Queens· land University. Janet Norton is a PhD student and Research Assistant at Central Queensland University. Search, Vol. 26, No. 4, May 1995 1 21