Investigation: How the public’s perception of gene technologies has evolved
Synthetic biology is considered a relatively new field of science and with this comes a mixture of public perceptions varying from outright fear to interest regarding its novelty. The applications of synthetic biology continue to penetrate various fields, from biotech, medical applications, sustainability to decreasing resource dependency. With a wide branching range it can be difficult to assess and view how the research is impacting people; as clearly this can happen in a variety of ways. Being a cutting edge field of research also engages the public’s imaginations from its potential uses. Some of these may enter the realm of science fiction, and any new discoveries that are made can be circulated by the media and filter into popular culture.
Given the bidirectionality of influence between science and society we decided to investigate public perceptions on gene technologies. We began by interviewing a psychologist from the University of Warwick, John Pickering, then we assessed the historic literature on the subject, before conducting our own survey during an outreach session in ThinkTank Museum in Birmingham, UK.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interview: Insights synthetic biologists should consider whilst interacting with the public
John Pickering, Psychologist, University of Warwick, 27/08/2015
We wanted to hear about what the current opinions and ethical debates surrounding synthetic biology and gene technologies were in order to frame our investigation. So, after a little research, we found Warwick’s own John Pickering, a psychologist whose interests lie in cognitive science and transhumanism - the belief of improving the human condition beyond its current physical and mental limitations. .
After introducing ourselves, the iGEM competition and Brixells - our project - we had an immediate insight generated from our resident psychologist:
“The thing that I find interesting that’s missing, and this is not an accusation, but it’s fear; people are very afraid. A fear of monstrous things being cooked up in the laboratories which will turn out to be biologically dangerous and perhaps morally unacceptable”
This insight helped us design our investigation into the public’s perception of gene technologies; it ensured we included preparing for the ‘fear’ response that members of the public may exhibit and informed us of what thoughts and concerns the public may have.
We then moved on to discuss possible applications of our tool to which we had another insight:
“You’re researching a tool, and the thing about tools is you don't know who is going to use it for what. Once you make something and release it, it ceases to be your property; you lose control over it”
This is rather significant, and with iGEM this is often an issue that is thought about regularly - for instance, the implementation of ‘kill switches’ or ‘switch off’ genes once a microorganism with a useful trait leaves the specific area where it is beneficial for society.
A concluding significant insight also sparked thoughts about how we present our data and findings whilst writing press releases or interacting with the public.
“If they mention the long term implications to the media – immediately those long term implications are brought much much closer to home you know. We’ve got to be careful about the language that we use to ensure that people don't take away too much”
For researchers, all of these considerations are worth bearing in mind. This was incredibly useful for our investigation into public perceptions as it provided an insight into the current perceptions.
Key messages:
“I like the idea of a wiki, it's what science should be, it's real sharing, you might find that somebody the other side of the world can recognise value in something that you do.” John Pickering, Psychologist, University of Warwick, 27/08/2015.
“Highly protected... [corporate research] is actually not very good science because if you protect research you shield it from scrutiny; for instance other teams might spot something wrong or might help develop it”
“If they mention the long term implications to the media – immediately those long term implications are brought much much closer to home you know. We’ve got to be careful about the language that we use to ensure that people don't take away too much”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An examination of the literature on perceptions of gene technologies
Following our discussion with John we decided to research the literature regarding the the public’s distrust of gene technologies in the past few decades. For instance a paper examining results from two major studies found that Europeans had a “deeply rooted” negative views of foods that had undergone genetic modification [1].
We also found peer reviewed evidence that the source of information was critical in determining the public’s opinion on genetic modification. For instance, an institution that ranks low in public trust had to have highly persuasive information in order to influence opinion on the matter [2].
Key findings for researchers:
- The public feel excluded from the world of science and unable to have any influence.
- In 2010, a very large majority (83%) of Europeans had never heard of synthetic biology.
- 87% of those surveyed about synthetic biology felt uninformed about the technology generally to answer questions about the benefits and risks.
Take away: communication and outreach are integral in retaining the public’s trust in scientists.
Surveys conducted in the last five years found these common opinions from participants;
1) Synthetic biology is both exciting and scary
2) There is a need for rules and regulations that can keep up with the rate of development in the area.
3) Synthetic biology could lead to an offence against nature
4) It is looked on positively as something that could provide many solutions to current major issues – particularly in the field of medicine and in replacing finite materials eg fuels.
5) It is not always certain that the intentions of scientists are good, and there is concerns of misuse eg bioterrorism
6) Synthetic biology could go really well or lead to some disasters
Another critical finding was that the public feel excluded from the world of science and unable to have any influence. This is important for synthetic biologists as consideration must be taken when taking into account the wider implications of their work. This also informed our decision to focus our energy on outreach programs.
A poll about attitudes to science held in 2010 asked about the risks and benefits attached to synthetic biology, to which 35% of the public responded that they didn’t know enough to answer the question, with 87% feeling uninformed about the technology generally. [3]
Europe-wide polling in 2010, showed that a very large majority (83%) of Europeans had never heard of synthetic biology. [3]
There is increasing interest in synthetic biology from the public, and also increasing trust in the activities of scientists, the motives of the institutions that provide the funding and the government’s part in regulating the activities. However, the main public message is of uncertainty. They do not feel that they are well enough informed or have access to enough information to form strong opinions about synthetic biology.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our survey assessing the public’s current perceptions of gene technologies and bio-technologies
Informed from our preliminary research and our interview we modelled our survey on a previous survey in order to see what the current public opinion regarding gene technologies is. We were also interested to assess what influence source of information had on an individual’s views as well as the influence of age on opinion.
We conducted our survey at the ThinkTank Museum in Birmingham, UK. We were situated in the ‘Talking Point’ where we could discuss, debate and question the ideas around synthetic biology with both younger and older members of society.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Where do people access information on synthetic biology?
Proportional breakdown of where our participants access information on synthetic biology.
Our survey determined that the most common source of information on synthetic biology came via school and further education.
This may be unsurprising that a science topic is most widely shown in an academic and pedagogic setting. It is also interesting to note the second main area of gaining information is from the Internet.
As the global access to the internet has been continuously growing, more people than ever can now access information from what is perceived as one of the most democratic forms of mass media. The internet changes the speed of sharing information and has changed communication at an incredible pace.
The depiction of synthetic biology in some of these media forms such as books, newspapers and t.v warrant further investigation. For instance, we did not clarify whether the information was by educational sources such as popular science books or documentaries, or from fictional sources.
Our Methodology
We asked people’s opinions on these statements;
- Biotechnology will be good for our society in the long term, regardless of what some people say now.
- The risk from biotechnology is small compared to other risks we face today.
- Biotechnology will benefit people like me in the next five years.
- Any attempt to modify the genes (characteristics) of plants or animals is ethically and morally wrong.
A scale spanning from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’ was assigned to each question with a number scoring pattern. These scores were then added together and a mean was determined to give an overall opinion score that could then be compared with the source of information or the age of participants.
How does the source of information influence the the opinion score?
We aimed to assess the link between source of information and influence on opinion of gene technologies and biotechnologies.
School or further education ranked the highest positive perception of biotechnology and synthetic biology. This was closely followed by newspaper and TV Whilst internet had an overall lower score, and from books gave a minus score, meaning participants mostly disagreed.
As in an academic setting the uses and applications of biotechnology may be stressed, and give a myth-busting of any misunderstandings this may not be surprising to gain.
We also found that there was a relationship between source of information about synthetic biology and views on synthetic biology.
We found that there was a loose correlation between age and opinion of biotechnology.
A word map depicting the most popular words people associated with synthetic biology.