Memorandum from Professor Nick Pidgeon,
University of East Anglia
Written by Professor Nick Pidgeon, Mr Wouter
Poortinga and Professor Tim O'Riordan, University of East Anglia
BACKGROUND
1. Our research is concerned with public
attitudes to technological issues (risk perception)[1]
alongside methods for communicating risk information to people
(risk communication)[2]
This has involved work on a range of environmental, health and
other technological controversies. The work currently forms one
part of the Understanding Risk programme[3]a
major research initiative based at University of East Anglia and
funded by a core grant from the Leverhulme Trust as well as grants
from the "Science in Society" programme of the Economic
and Social Research Council.
2. Risk perception and communication research
is a well-established field of social science inquiry, dating
back to work in the mid 1970s in both Europe and North America
on public attitudes to nuclear power. Over time that research
has broadened to include attitudes to a wide range of potential
technological and health risks, including in the last 10 years
work in Europe on attitudes to biotechnology (including GM Food
and Crops).
3. Risk perception work has two main methodologies:
quantitative survey work on the one hand and more qualitative
work on the other. The advantage of quantitative surveys is that
they allow opinion to be canvassed across a broad and representative
sample of the population. They also permit trend analysis (ie
of changes over time) and comparative analysis (eg of differences
in opinion between countries) using a range of well-established
quantitative indicators. The disadvantage of quantitative surveys
is that they are only as good as the questions asked, which may
not always be the right ones for the issue at hand. Qualitative
research on the other hand is more flexible, in depth and deliberative—sometimes
involving input from scientific witnesses or experts—and
of necessity conducted with very much smaller samples brought
together in focus groups, a consensus conference or citizens'
jury. Qualitative research has the considerable advantage of permitting
a much closer view of how people interpret and debate a topic,
as well as the analogies they bring to bear to understand what
might be an unfamiliar topic in science and technology such as
GM Food. Our own view is that in order to fully understand the
nuances underlying attitudes to a complex issue such as GM Food
data from both approaches is needed.
ATTITUDE RESEARCH:
GENERAL FINDINGS
ON TECHNOLOGY
AND RISK
4. A first general finding of risk attitude
research is that it is a misnomer to talk of "the public"
as if this is a single undifferentiated entity. In reality civil
society within Britain today comprises a myriad of attitudinal
positions, cultural diversity and interests in relation to risk
issues as much as to any other important topic.
5. A second clear finding is that—despite
what is often assumed—concerns about risk do not stem from
any simple deficit of knowledge about the science or an "ignorance"
of uncertainty and probability. The House of Lords "Science
and Society" report of 2000[4]makes
clear that the traditional one-way deficit model of science communication
is now discredited, and that scientists and government alike must
embrace a wider two-way dialogue with society about risk and its
acceptability.
6. Research has also shown that "public"
concerns about risks are often based upon a range of sensible
arguments, which often take into account a range of factors not
ordinarily incorporated into traditional risk assessments. In
particular:
(a)
a range of qualitative characteristics of the hazard;
eg whether a risk is seen as personally controllable or not, the
perceived catastrophic nature of "worse case" accidents,
perceived lack of knowledge about future impacts;
(b)
a range of more generic concerns about the governance
of science and technology: eg whether the responsible decision
maker and/or regulation is both competent and trustworthy (including
instances of past failure of regulation); whether those who benefit
impose risks on others, coupled with fears about the globalisation
of risks; and concerns about the ability of scientists to control
the unintended consequences of complex and rapidly moving scientific
enterprises;
(c)
the historical context within which a new hazard
arises; eg current concern in the UK about GM Food has arisen
in the light of other well publicised difficulties about food
risk, and in particular that of BSE;
(d)
media reporting (which research shows is complex)
and the activities of the various civil interest groups which
can at times attenuate, and at others amplify, a range of these
"non-risk" aspects[5]
7. Equally, what is also clear from three
decades of research is that a potential risk with a very clear
and visible personal benefit (eg medical applications of biotechnology,
mobile telephones) will be more acceptable to people than one
which does not have such a visible benefit. Equally, a risk is
sometimes less acceptable where the benefits are believed to go
to others but the risks to ourselves.
ATTITUDE RESEARCH:
SPECIFIC FINDINGS
ON GM FOOD
RISKS
8. Turning to the specific issue of GM Food,
the combined evidence indicates that attitudes towards this issue,
and the more general issue of "biotechnology", are complex.
If one asks about different applications of biotechnology (medical,
crops, food), attitudes differ with the application. In particular
people are typically more positive about medical (red) than agricultural
(green) biotechnology, and more positive when asked about GM "Crops"
compared to "Food".[6]
9. Nor is GM Food an issue that is at the
very top of everyone's list of everyday worries. In a nationally
representative 2002 survey we found that, while of moderate importance,
it was still ranked 24th in importance in a list of 25 issues
including personal (Your Health, Partner and Family, Your Privacy),
social (Law and Order, Environmental Protection) and hazard (Radioactive
Waste, Genetic Testing) issues.[7]
10. However, quantitative survey evidence
also indicates considerable concern about GM Food when respondents
are prompted about this. In terms of levels of overall concern,
one can identify three very approximate groups amongst the "general
public":
— First, there is indeed a sizeable
proportion of the UK population, which can vary between one third
and one half, depending upon the question asked, with negative
attitudes and who see very significant risks attached to GM Food
and very few benefits.
— Second, there is an ambivalent group
(up to about 50% of the population) who hold significant concerns
about the technology but are also prepared to accept that GM Food
offers at least some benefits alongside any potential risks.
— And third, there is a smaller group
(10-20%) who see few risks and some benefits and hence are generally
more positive about GM food.
11. The existence of considerable levels
of ambivalence about GM agriculture is also confirmed in recent
qualitative research conducted in both Europe and the UK.[8]
Ambivalence can arise because people see a range of positive and
negative aspects of a technology, because the information they
have is conflicting or uncertain, or because of doubts about the
trustworthiness of arrangements for regulating the technology.
12. In terms of balancing risks and benefits,
in our 2002 survey fully 40% felt that the risks of GM Food outweighed
the benefits, while only 16% that the benefits outweighed the
risks (the remainder were neutral or didn't have an opinion).[9]
13. In summary—the distribution of
attitudes currently across the UK towards GM Food is predominantly
sceptical: showing considerable ambivalence but in addition being
heavily skewed towards the negative.
14. The specific issues that seem to be
driving concerns about GM Food are as follows:
— Worries about the long-term unknown
health impacts of eating GM Food and any consequent risks to future
generations ("we are all being placed in a big experiment").
— Concerns about the unanticipated
impacts of GM Food and Crops on the environment.
— Ethical concerns about scientists
"tampering with nature", which can range from a general
unease about current developments in biotechnology, through to
a much more fundamental ethical or religious objection.
— Distrust of risk regulation and of
biotechnology scientists and technologists, particularly where
too much influence from the biotechnology industry is suspected.
This finding should not be interpreted as a general loss of faith
in science—where trust in scientists and science in the
abstract remains high on current poll evidence.[10]
— Concerns about the distribution of
risks and benefits. Specifically, an "unknown" risk
to the consumer (and family) with no obvious benefit, combined
with the belief that current benefits go primarily to global-scale
businesses associated with the biotechnology industry.
— A perceived lack of personal and
social control over the introduction of the technology. Hence
a strong current desire for all GM Food products to be labelled,
coupled with beliefs that the UK will be unable to resist wider
European and International legislation on the issue.
— The historical context of multiple
food scares in the UK, coupled with extensive media reporting
of scientific disputes over the issue.
15. Equally, and as described above, the
evidence also suggests that many people are fully able to appreciate
that GM agriculture holds the possibility of future benefits for
consumers, the environment and people in developing countries
but only if trustworthy mechanisms for the governance and monitoring
of the technology can be found (eg there exists a high desire
for independent regulation of the technology).
IMPLICATIONS OF
THE FARM
SCALE TRIALS
16. Clearly it is too early to judge the
direct impacts of the farm scale trial results and their reporting
in the media on current public attitudes. That will require longer-term
research and evaluation. However, I offer the following very brief
comments, drawing upon the material summarised above.
17. It is unlikely that we shall be able
to separate the initial impacts of the farm scale trials on attitudes
from those of the GM Nation? Public Debate, the OST Science Review
and the Cabinet Office Cost-benefit Study, all of which have appeared
within a very short period of time.
18. Regarding awareness of the farm scale
trials, and based upon research on other science and technology
issues, it would be very surprising to find a high level of knowledge
of their existence or precise outcomes amongst the general population.
19. It is clear that the trial results have
the potential to touch directly upon several of the issues which
currently drive public concerns. In so far as they are perceived
as suggesting significant environmental harm, and "interference"
with nature with no clear benefit (see para 14 above) their outcomes
have the potential to reinforce the existing public scepticism
about GM Food (para 13 above).
20. A consistent response in surveys of
attitudes to biotechnology is a desire for more information on
the topic (and this was one of the key outcomes of the GM Nation?
Public Debate) 11. The existence and outcomes of the farm scale
trials are likely to make a more positive long-term contribution
in this regard.
21. Whatever contribution the farm scale
trials ultimately do make to public discourse about GM Food and
Crops they are unlikely to resolve the more fundamental unease
about the governance of the technology—something which the
results of scientific trials or the provision of mere information
alone cannot address.
December 2003
11 DEFRA (2003). GM Nation? The Findings of the
Public Debate. HMSO.
1 See Pidgeon, NF et al (1992). Risk perception.
Ch 5 of Risk Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of
a Royal Society Study Group, London, The Royal Society. Back
2
See Pidgeon, NF, Kasperson, RK and Slovic, P (2003) The Social
Amplification of Risk. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Back
3
The Understanding Risk programme brings together a team
of experienced researchers in the investigation of the nature
of risk attitudes, risk governance and public engagement in contemporary
Britain. The team is drawn from Cardiff University, Brunel University
and the Institute of Food Research. Details of the research programme
may be found at: www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur Back
4
House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Report
on Science and Society. HL Paper 38, February: Westminster. Back
5
See Petts, J, Horlick-Jones, T and Murdock, G (2001) Social
Amplification of Risk: the Media and the Public, HSE Books,
Sudbury. Also chapters in Pidgeon et al (2003) note 2. Back
6
For poll evidence from Eurobarometer see eg Gaskell, G, and Bauer,
MW (2003) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy,
London, Science Museum. Back
7
Details of the 2002 survey can be found in Poortinga, W &
Pidgeon, NF Public Perceptions of Risk, Science and Governance.
Main Findings of a British Survey on Five Risk Cases (Technical
Report). Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk, January 2003
(copies of this report can be downloaded from the "Latest
News" field of www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur) Back
8
See Grove-White, R, Macnaghten, P, Mayer, S and Wynne, B (1997)
Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public
Attitudes in Britain, Centre for the Study of Environmental
Change, Lancaster; Marris, C, Wynne, B, Simmons, P, Weldon, S,
et al (2001) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology
in Europe (PABE) Final Report to the European Commission FAIR
CT98-3844 (DG12-SSMI) (see www.pabe.net) Back
9
For the 2002 survey n= 295 see Poortinga and Pidgeon footnote
7. This result was replicated in our larger nationally representative
survey (n=1363) conducted in August of 2003. Back
10
See Poortinga and Pidgeon footnote 7. Also OST/Wellcome (2002)
Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and
Public Attitudes to Science in Britain. HMSO. Back
| 
