- Email: [email protected]
Biotechnology's issue of public credibility
435 forum
8 Goodacre, R., Kell, D. B. and Bianchi, G. (1992) Nature 359, 594 9 Goodacre, R., Kell, D. B. and Bianchi, G. (1993)./. &i. Food Agric. 63, 297-307 10 Goodacre, R., Neal, M. J., Kell, D. B., Greenham, L. W., Noble, W. C. and Harvey, R. G. (1993)./. Appl. Bacteriol. 76, 124-134 11 Goodacre, R., Howell, S. A., Noble, W. C. and Neal, M.J. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. (in press) 12 Goodacre,t/.. (1994) Microbiol. Eur. 2, 16-22 13 Goodacre, R., Neal, M. J. and Kell, D. B. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. (in press) 14 Konstantinov, K., Chuppa, S., Sajan, E., Tsai, Y., Yoon, S. and Golini, F. (1994) Trends Biotechnol. 12, 324-333 15 Kell, D. B. (1987) in: Biosensors; Fundamentals and Applications (Turner, A. P. F., Karube, I. and Wilson, G. S., eds), pp. 427-468, Oxford University Press 16 Kell, D. B. and Davey, C. L. (1990) in: Biosensors:A PracticalApproach (Cass,A. E. G., ed.), pp. 125-154, IRL Press at Oxford University Press 17 Hams, C. M., Todd, R. W., Bungard, S.J., Lovitt, IL W., Morris,J. G. and Kell, D. B. (1987) Enzyme Microb. Technol.
9, 181-186 18 Kell,D. B., Markx, G. H., Davey, C. L. and Todd, lq,.W. (1990) Trends Anal. Chem. 9, 190-194 19 Boulton, C. A., Maryan P. 8. and Loveridge, D. (1989) Proc. 22nd European Brewing Convention, Ziirich, Switzerland, pp. 653q561, European Brewing Convention 20 Ferns, L. E., Davey, C. L. and Kell, D. B. (1990) Eur. Biophys.J. 18, 267-276 21 Markx, G. H., Davey, C. L. and Kell, D. B. (1991)J. Gen. Microbiol. 137, 735-743 22 Austin, G. D., Watson, IL. W.J., D'Amore, T. (1994) Biotechnol. Bioeng. 43, 337-341 23 Markx, G. H. and Kell, D. B. (1990) Biofouling 2, 211-227 24 Salter, G.J., Kell, D. B., Ash, L. A., Adams, J. M., Brown, A. J. and James, R. (1990) Enzyme Microb. TechnoL 12, 419-430 25 Davey, C. L., Peqaloza,W., Kell, D. B. and Hedger, J. N. (1991) World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 7, 248-259 26 Peqaloza, W., Davey, C. L., Hedger, J. N. and Kell, D. B. (1991) World.]. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 7, 260-268 27 Peqaloza, W., Davey, C. L., Hedger, J. N. and Kell, D. B. (1992)_/. Sci. FoodAgric. 59,
Biotechnology's issue of public credibility T h e b i o t e c h n o l o g y industry c o n tinues to grow globally, with n e w products and n e w scientific achievements in its laboratories (and those o f its affiliated scientists in academia) a regular occurrence. H o w e v e r , surveys o f the general public in countries where the industry's products and services are to be produced or sold indicate that there is httle trust in either the industry or in the governmental organizations responsible for regulating it. This sweeping conclusion (which is subject to myriad qualifications inherent in reading public-opinion polls across national borders) can be drawn from the results o f a poll a requested by the C o m m i s s i o n o f the E u r o p e a n U n i o n (EU) in its 12 m e m b e r countries ('Eurobarometer 39.1'), and a series2 o f surveys in 10 other countries ('International Bioethics Survey'), predominantly in the Pacific R i m . In addition to India, Russia and Israel, the International Bioethics Survey included Australia, H o n g Kong, Japan, N e w Zealand, The © 1994, ElsevierScience Ltd
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. T h e conclusion o f these surveys was re-inforced by the findings o f three North American surveys 3-s. W h i l e the questions asked, and the responses received, o n the topic o f trustworthiness were n o t identical across the five sets o f surveys, the message was surprisingly similar across national lines, with some notable exceptions. European opinions T h e question posed by the European Commission (EC) poll is shown in Box 1. In n o E U country did more than 2% of those responding select 'Industry': as the one source in which they would have most confidence, and that percentage was only reached in Ireland, Spain and the U K . The other nine countries all showed percentages of 1% in that category. W h e n asked about additional sources o f information that they w o u l d trust, 'Industry' responses rose to an average o f 6%. As for confidence in 'Public Authorities' to tell people the truth
227- 235 28 Fehrenbach, P,., Comberbach, M. and Pjtre,J. O. (1992)J. Biotechnol. 23, 303-314 29 Beving, H., Eriksson, L. E. G., Davey, C. L. and Kell, D. B. Eur. Biophys. J. (in press) 30 Cerckel, I., Garcia, A., Degouys, V., Dubois, D., Fabry, L. and Miller, A. O. A. (1993) Cytotechnology 13, 185-193 31 Degouys, V. et al. (1993) Cytotechnology 13, 195-202 32 Pethig, R. and Kell,D. B. (1987) Phys. Med. Biol. 32, 933-970 33 Davey, C. L., Davey, H. M. and Kell, D. B. (1992) Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 28, 319-340 34 Davey, C. L., Davey, H. M., Kell,D. B. and Todd, R. W. (1993) Anal. Chim. Acta 279, 155-161 35 Kell, D. B. and Davey, C. L. (1992) Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 28, 425-434
Douglas B. Kell Royston Goodacre Mark J. Neal Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, UK SY23 3DA.
about biotechnology, the percentages were relatively higher, with an average o f 5% o f individuals surveyed choosing this category as the most reliable source o f information, and 17% including it a m o n g other sources that they w o u l d find credible. T h e greatest confidence in governmental authorities was found in D e n m a r k (18% o f respondents listed these as the most trusted source, and 45% considered them as another trusted source), and the least confidence was found in Italy (2% and 10%, respectively). In w h o m did the Europeans surveyed have m o r e trust o n issues o f b i o t e c h n o l o g y and genetic e n g i n eering, y o u ask? E n v i r o n m e n t a l organizations (30% o f individuals surveyed listed these as the most trusted source, while 61% w o u l d consider them as another trusted source), c o n s u m e r organizations (26% and 55%, respectively), and schools/universities (16% and 39%, respectively) ranked first, second and third in order b y significant margins in composite averages o f the 12 countries (Ref. 1, Appendix 2, Table 4.2.2, p. 25). Greater confidence in India, Israel and Thailand T h e citizens o f the primarily Pacific R i m countries surveyed using TIBTECHNOVEMBER1994 (VOL 12)
436
biotopic Box 1. Eurobarometer 39.1 - Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans Think of It in 1993 a Question 13, page 5:
'Now, I would like to know which of the following sources of information you have confidence in, to tell you the truth about biotechnology/genetic engineering, a) Please select from this list the one source you would have most confidence in. (Show Card - One Answer Only). b) Indicate also which other sources you would trust to tell you the truth about biotechnology/genetic engineering. (Several Answers Possible) - Consumer organisations - Environmental organisations - Animal welfare organisations - Political organisations - Trade Unions - Religious organisations - Public authorities - Industry - School or University - DK [Don't Know]' aCommission of the European Union, INRA (Europe), European Coordination Office, Brussels, Belgium, October 1993.
Box 2. Bioethics for the People by the People a Question 29, page 247:
'Suppose that a number of groups made public statements about the benefits and risks of biotechnology products. Would you have a lot of trust, some trust, or no trust in statements made by..? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.
Government agencies Consumer agencies Companies making biotechnology products Environmental groups University professors Medical doctors Farmers or farm groups Dietitians or nutritionistg
aDarryl R. J. Macer (Eubios Ethics Institute, TsukubaScience City, Ibaraki 305, Japan) 1994, as part of the International Biotethics Survey.
Table 1. International Bioethics Survey results on groups most trusted a Countries
Australia India Israel Japan New Zealand Russia Thailand
Groups Medical doctors
University professors
Consumer agencies
Dietitians/ nutritionists
Environmental groups
30% 48% 46% 12% 33% 55% 60%
30% 38% 42% 12% 25% 35% 42%
13% 23% 28% 12% 24% 33% 43%
21% 40% 6% 24% 25%
20% 47% 54% 15% 21% 53% -
aCountrypercentage totals may exceed 100%.
TIBTECH NOVEMBER1994 (VOL 12)
a questionnaire developed by Darryl Macer (University o f Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan), were presented with a slightly different question (Box 2). In the seven countries in the International Bioethics Survey where the public was questioned in addition to high-school, university, and medical students (Australia, India, Israel, Japan, N e w Zealand, Russia and Thailand), biotechnology companies received the highest 'no trust' ratings o f all categories in every country except Thailand (where farmers or farm groups were trusted even less). The highest positive ratings ('lot of trust') of the industry in this survey came in India (21%) and Israel (20%), the other countries ranging from 4% in Australia to 8% in Thailand. As for trust in the government agencies, the situation vaned widely among countries. In India (25%), Israel (24%) and Thailand (33%), there was a 'lot of trust' in statements on biotechnology from government agencies, with the other four countries ranging from 5-8%. Yet, the percentages indicating 'no trust' in such government-agency statements were only slightly lower than the percentages previously cited as having 'no trust' in industry statements. The highest 'no confidence' vote in this category came from Russia, where 56% of the respondents said that they did not trust their government on this topic, followed by Japan (44%), N e w Zealand (43%), Israel (38%), and Australia (31%). Only in Thailand did a total of 96% o f the respondents say that they either had a lot of trust or some trust in their government's statements on biotechnology. The groups most trusted by the members of the public questioned in these polls varied not only by country, but also by the percentage o f trust shown in each category among the countries. The results are shown in Table 1 (1Kef. 2, Table 21, p. 212). L o w confidence levels in the USA and Canada In the USA, a survey 3 was conducted in 1986 for the Office o f Technology Assessment o f the US Congress to examine similar attitudes, with specific reference to genetically altered organisms in agricuhure. T w o relevant questions were asked (Box 3). The three groups that interviewees would be most likely to believe on this topic are university
437
biotopic scientists (19%), public-health of_ ficials (15%) and environmental groups (10%). The top three groups whose statements would definitely not be believed are the news media (16%), the company making the product (15%) and local officials (9%). United States agency statements would definitely be believed by 9% of those surveyed, and deftnitely not be believed by another 6% (Ref. 3, Table 69, p. 109). This response would appear to show a fairly credible result for US federal agencies, until one considers another question asked in the survey, which pits the credibiliW of governmental agencies against that of environmental groups (see Box 3). A majority, 63% of those polled, said that they would trust the national environmental group risk assessment over that of the US agency (26%), with 11% saying either that it depended on the circumstances, or that they were unsure (Refi 3, Table 70, p. 90). A similar result was found in a 1992 study 4 conducted by Hoban and Kendall on attitudes to food biotechnology. Respondents were asked a question (Box 4) similar to that used later in the Macer study described above. In this study, dietitians and nutritionists were viewed as the most trustworthy, with over a third of the respondents indicating that they had 'a lot of trust' (and another 58% indicating 'some trust') in this professional group. The other three groups that people had a lot of trust in were farmers and farm groups (27%), university professors (26%), and environmental groups (24%). Only 7% would have a lot of trust in federal government agencies, with 16% saying that they would have no trust in statements by such agencies. Over one-fifth of the respondents said that they would have no trust in State government agencies, but the most negative responses were reserved for industry sources, with 31% of respondents saying that they would not trust companies making biotechnology products, and 27% feeling the same way about food processors and manufacturers (Ref. 4, Figure 10, pp. 52-53). A survey5 commissioned by the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology in 1993 reached similar conclusions when asking a similar question (see Box 5). The groups with the highest level of trust on biotechnology
Box 3. New Developments in Biotechnology - Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnologya Question 40, page 109: 'How likely would you be to believe statements about the risk of such a product [genetically altered organism] made by [name of group]? Would you definitely believe them, be inclined to believe them, be inclined not to believe them, or definitely not believe them?'
Question 41, page 109: 'Suppose a Federal [US] agency reported that the use of a genetically altered organism did not pose a significant risk to your community, but a national environmental group said it did pose a significant risk. Would you tend to believe the Federal agency or the national environmental group?' aus CongressOffice of TechnologyAssessment,OTA-BP-BA-45,USGovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
Box 4. Consumer Attitudes about Food Biotechnologya Question 28, page 80: Suppose that a number of groups made public statements about the benefits and risks of biotechnology products. Would you have a lot of trust, some trust, or no trust in statements made by: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.
[US] Federal government agencies Farmers or farm groups Companies making biotechnology products Food processors and manufacturers Environmental groups County extension agents Dietitians or nutritionists State government agencies University professors
aT. J. Hoban and P. A. Kendall, Project Report #91-EXCA-3-0155, US Department of Agriculture.
Box 5. Final Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes Toward Biotechnology Questions 48-59, pages 12-16: We would like to know how much trust you would place in statements made by groups who might speak on biotechnology. On a scale where 0 means you have no trust and 10 means you have complete trust, how would you rate persons with the following identity: -
The Canadian Institute of Biotechnology Farmers or Farm Groups Companies making Biotechnology products Consumer Associations An association representing the Biotechnology Industry A Scientist from a Biotechnology Company A Scientist from a University Doctors or Nutritionists Environmental Groups A [Canadian] Federal Government Regulator The Media Church Groups or Religious Leaders'
aDecima Research, Ottawa, Ontaria, Canada, 1993. TIBTECHNOVEMBER1994(VOL12)
438
biotopic questions were doctors/nutritionists (mean value 6.6), university scientists (6), farmers/farm groups and environmental groups (5.9), and consumer associations (5.8). The groups with the lowest level of trust were (Canadian) federal government regulators and the media (4), companies making biotechnology products and church groups/religious leaders (4.3), and an association representing the biotechnology industry (4.7) (R.eE 5, Fig. 8, p.18). Sophisticated readers o f publicopinion polls know that the key to understanding the answers is to read the exact questions asked, and that is why I have burdened readers with the language of the questions in each of these polls. The question remains, however, as to the significance, if any, of all of these polls. What does it all mean?
Philosophers may argue among themselves as to whether trustworthiness or veracity is an ethical principle derived from the obligation to respect individual autonomy, or rather some independent ethical obligation or virtue 6. It does not take a philosopher, however, to understand at least some of the implications of this polling data. Throughout the world (excluding Latin America, Africa and the portions of Europe, the Middle East and Asia not discussed), governmental regulators and biotechnology company or industry sources had far less credibility or trust than did environmental organizations, medical doctors, university professors, dietitians or nutritionists and consumer organizations. Publichealth officials and farmers or farm groups also were highly praised in the US and Canadian studies. There is an interesting conclusion drawn in the E U study: 'Regardless of the nationality and the application of biotechnology/genetic engineering in question, demand for governmental
control of the various applications is massive' ([LEE 1, p. b). In Europe, at least, if these polls accurately reflect public opinion, there is at once a demand for greater governmental control of all forms ofbiotechnology, balanced against a correspondingly low level of trust in those same governmental regulators, which is only exceeded by the public's distrust of the biotechnology companies themselves. Yet, there is no immediate explanation for the high confidence in governmental regulators in such diverse countries as Denmark, India, Israel and Thailand; or the trust placed in statements from the biotechnology industry in India and Israel. Clearly, there is food for thought here. The messages of individual biotechnology companies or sectors of the industry apparently are not seen as credible by the various publics involved, nor is there widespread trust (except in a few nations) in governmental regulators. Future debates about biotechnology, therefore, are more likely to be influenced by groups who are seen as less selfinterested and more credible. It is also possible that when governmental regulators are seen as acting as 'industry cheerleaders' (as has been suggested in the behavior of certain present and former officials in the USA), this only exacerbates their loss of credibility. Finally, there may have been more successful efforts at public education and involvement in countries such as Denmark, which could explain the popular confidence in their national regulation of biotechnology. The European Federation of Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology are holding an international conference on 21-22 November 1994, in The Netherlands. This meeting is devoted to exploring the implications of such public perceptions and the factors influencing them. It will feature not
only an analysis of numerous opinion polls and research studies, but also the various strategies in Europe devised and implemented by individual companies, government boards, and professional and industry groups to address these issues. This conference may provide more insights into the dynamics of public opinion, and the degree to which governmental regulators and the biotechnology industry have been found equally lacking in credibility. Unless this process is reversed, the industry and the various governments will suffer from a reluctance on the part of the public to invest private or public funds in biotechnology and to permit the continued research and development ofbiotechnology products. Thus, its importance cannot be overstated. References 1 Commission of the European Community (1993) Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans Think About It in 1993 Eurobarometer 39.1 2 Macer, D. R.J. (1994) Bioethicsfor the People by the People, Eubios Ethics Institute (PO Box 125, Tsukuba Science City, Ibaraki 305, Japan) International Bioethics Survey 3 US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1987) New Developments" in Biotechnology-Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, OTA-BP-BA-45, US Government Printing Office 4 Hoban, T. J. and Kendall, P. A. (1993) Consumer Attitudes About Food Biotechnology, Project Report #91-EXCA-3-0155, US Department of Agriculture 5 Decima Research (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) (i993) Final Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology 6 Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (1989) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (3rd edn), pp. 307-308, Oxford University Press
Les R o t h e n b e r g Leslie Steven Rothenberg - A Professional Corporation, Bioethics Consulting, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-3226, USA. e-maih intemet '[email protected]'
The Hague, The Netherlands, 21-22 November 1994 Public understanding and acceptance of biotechnology is the key to its future in Europe. This Europe-wide meeting will debate: • Public perception and the factors influencing it from the findings of survey and research approaches • The issues and viewpoints of the industries, the researchers, the regulators, and the consumer, disability, environmental and animal-welfare organizations • The different forms of public relations and dialogue, and their effectiveness For further details contact: D. Bennett, Secretary Task Group on Public Perception of Biotechnology, Cambridge Biomedical Consultants, Schuytstraat 12, 2517 XE Den Haag, The Netherlands. Tel. and Fax: 21 70 3653857
IBTECHNOVEMBER1994(VOL 12)
8 Goodacre, R., Kell, D. B. and Bianchi, G. (1992) Nature 359, 594 9 Goodacre, R., Kell, D. B. and Bianchi, G. (1993)./. &i. Food Agric. 63, 297-307 10 Goodacre, R., Neal, M. J., Kell, D. B., Greenham, L. W., Noble, W. C. and Harvey, R. G. (1993)./. Appl. Bacteriol. 76, 124-134 11 Goodacre, R., Howell, S. A., Noble, W. C. and Neal, M.J. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. (in press) 12 Goodacre,t/.. (1994) Microbiol. Eur. 2, 16-22 13 Goodacre, R., Neal, M. J. and Kell, D. B. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. (in press) 14 Konstantinov, K., Chuppa, S., Sajan, E., Tsai, Y., Yoon, S. and Golini, F. (1994) Trends Biotechnol. 12, 324-333 15 Kell, D. B. (1987) in: Biosensors; Fundamentals and Applications (Turner, A. P. F., Karube, I. and Wilson, G. S., eds), pp. 427-468, Oxford University Press 16 Kell, D. B. and Davey, C. L. (1990) in: Biosensors:A PracticalApproach (Cass,A. E. G., ed.), pp. 125-154, IRL Press at Oxford University Press 17 Hams, C. M., Todd, R. W., Bungard, S.J., Lovitt, IL W., Morris,J. G. and Kell, D. B. (1987) Enzyme Microb. Technol.
9, 181-186 18 Kell,D. B., Markx, G. H., Davey, C. L. and Todd, lq,.W. (1990) Trends Anal. Chem. 9, 190-194 19 Boulton, C. A., Maryan P. 8. and Loveridge, D. (1989) Proc. 22nd European Brewing Convention, Ziirich, Switzerland, pp. 653q561, European Brewing Convention 20 Ferns, L. E., Davey, C. L. and Kell, D. B. (1990) Eur. Biophys.J. 18, 267-276 21 Markx, G. H., Davey, C. L. and Kell, D. B. (1991)J. Gen. Microbiol. 137, 735-743 22 Austin, G. D., Watson, IL. W.J., D'Amore, T. (1994) Biotechnol. Bioeng. 43, 337-341 23 Markx, G. H. and Kell, D. B. (1990) Biofouling 2, 211-227 24 Salter, G.J., Kell, D. B., Ash, L. A., Adams, J. M., Brown, A. J. and James, R. (1990) Enzyme Microb. TechnoL 12, 419-430 25 Davey, C. L., Peqaloza,W., Kell, D. B. and Hedger, J. N. (1991) World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 7, 248-259 26 Peqaloza, W., Davey, C. L., Hedger, J. N. and Kell, D. B. (1991) World.]. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 7, 260-268 27 Peqaloza, W., Davey, C. L., Hedger, J. N. and Kell, D. B. (1992)_/. Sci. FoodAgric. 59,
Biotechnology's issue of public credibility T h e b i o t e c h n o l o g y industry c o n tinues to grow globally, with n e w products and n e w scientific achievements in its laboratories (and those o f its affiliated scientists in academia) a regular occurrence. H o w e v e r , surveys o f the general public in countries where the industry's products and services are to be produced or sold indicate that there is httle trust in either the industry or in the governmental organizations responsible for regulating it. This sweeping conclusion (which is subject to myriad qualifications inherent in reading public-opinion polls across national borders) can be drawn from the results o f a poll a requested by the C o m m i s s i o n o f the E u r o p e a n U n i o n (EU) in its 12 m e m b e r countries ('Eurobarometer 39.1'), and a series2 o f surveys in 10 other countries ('International Bioethics Survey'), predominantly in the Pacific R i m . In addition to India, Russia and Israel, the International Bioethics Survey included Australia, H o n g Kong, Japan, N e w Zealand, The © 1994, ElsevierScience Ltd
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. T h e conclusion o f these surveys was re-inforced by the findings o f three North American surveys 3-s. W h i l e the questions asked, and the responses received, o n the topic o f trustworthiness were n o t identical across the five sets o f surveys, the message was surprisingly similar across national lines, with some notable exceptions. European opinions T h e question posed by the European Commission (EC) poll is shown in Box 1. In n o E U country did more than 2% of those responding select 'Industry': as the one source in which they would have most confidence, and that percentage was only reached in Ireland, Spain and the U K . The other nine countries all showed percentages of 1% in that category. W h e n asked about additional sources o f information that they w o u l d trust, 'Industry' responses rose to an average o f 6%. As for confidence in 'Public Authorities' to tell people the truth
227- 235 28 Fehrenbach, P,., Comberbach, M. and Pjtre,J. O. (1992)J. Biotechnol. 23, 303-314 29 Beving, H., Eriksson, L. E. G., Davey, C. L. and Kell, D. B. Eur. Biophys. J. (in press) 30 Cerckel, I., Garcia, A., Degouys, V., Dubois, D., Fabry, L. and Miller, A. O. A. (1993) Cytotechnology 13, 185-193 31 Degouys, V. et al. (1993) Cytotechnology 13, 195-202 32 Pethig, R. and Kell,D. B. (1987) Phys. Med. Biol. 32, 933-970 33 Davey, C. L., Davey, H. M. and Kell, D. B. (1992) Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 28, 319-340 34 Davey, C. L., Davey, H. M., Kell,D. B. and Todd, R. W. (1993) Anal. Chim. Acta 279, 155-161 35 Kell, D. B. and Davey, C. L. (1992) Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 28, 425-434
Douglas B. Kell Royston Goodacre Mark J. Neal Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, UK SY23 3DA.
about biotechnology, the percentages were relatively higher, with an average o f 5% o f individuals surveyed choosing this category as the most reliable source o f information, and 17% including it a m o n g other sources that they w o u l d find credible. T h e greatest confidence in governmental authorities was found in D e n m a r k (18% o f respondents listed these as the most trusted source, and 45% considered them as another trusted source), and the least confidence was found in Italy (2% and 10%, respectively). In w h o m did the Europeans surveyed have m o r e trust o n issues o f b i o t e c h n o l o g y and genetic e n g i n eering, y o u ask? E n v i r o n m e n t a l organizations (30% o f individuals surveyed listed these as the most trusted source, while 61% w o u l d consider them as another trusted source), c o n s u m e r organizations (26% and 55%, respectively), and schools/universities (16% and 39%, respectively) ranked first, second and third in order b y significant margins in composite averages o f the 12 countries (Ref. 1, Appendix 2, Table 4.2.2, p. 25). Greater confidence in India, Israel and Thailand T h e citizens o f the primarily Pacific R i m countries surveyed using TIBTECHNOVEMBER1994 (VOL 12)
436
biotopic Box 1. Eurobarometer 39.1 - Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans Think of It in 1993 a Question 13, page 5:
'Now, I would like to know which of the following sources of information you have confidence in, to tell you the truth about biotechnology/genetic engineering, a) Please select from this list the one source you would have most confidence in. (Show Card - One Answer Only). b) Indicate also which other sources you would trust to tell you the truth about biotechnology/genetic engineering. (Several Answers Possible) - Consumer organisations - Environmental organisations - Animal welfare organisations - Political organisations - Trade Unions - Religious organisations - Public authorities - Industry - School or University - DK [Don't Know]' aCommission of the European Union, INRA (Europe), European Coordination Office, Brussels, Belgium, October 1993.
Box 2. Bioethics for the People by the People a Question 29, page 247:
'Suppose that a number of groups made public statements about the benefits and risks of biotechnology products. Would you have a lot of trust, some trust, or no trust in statements made by..? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.
Government agencies Consumer agencies Companies making biotechnology products Environmental groups University professors Medical doctors Farmers or farm groups Dietitians or nutritionistg
aDarryl R. J. Macer (Eubios Ethics Institute, TsukubaScience City, Ibaraki 305, Japan) 1994, as part of the International Biotethics Survey.
Table 1. International Bioethics Survey results on groups most trusted a Countries
Australia India Israel Japan New Zealand Russia Thailand
Groups Medical doctors
University professors
Consumer agencies
Dietitians/ nutritionists
Environmental groups
30% 48% 46% 12% 33% 55% 60%
30% 38% 42% 12% 25% 35% 42%
13% 23% 28% 12% 24% 33% 43%
21% 40% 6% 24% 25%
20% 47% 54% 15% 21% 53% -
aCountrypercentage totals may exceed 100%.
TIBTECH NOVEMBER1994 (VOL 12)
a questionnaire developed by Darryl Macer (University o f Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan), were presented with a slightly different question (Box 2). In the seven countries in the International Bioethics Survey where the public was questioned in addition to high-school, university, and medical students (Australia, India, Israel, Japan, N e w Zealand, Russia and Thailand), biotechnology companies received the highest 'no trust' ratings o f all categories in every country except Thailand (where farmers or farm groups were trusted even less). The highest positive ratings ('lot of trust') of the industry in this survey came in India (21%) and Israel (20%), the other countries ranging from 4% in Australia to 8% in Thailand. As for trust in the government agencies, the situation vaned widely among countries. In India (25%), Israel (24%) and Thailand (33%), there was a 'lot of trust' in statements on biotechnology from government agencies, with the other four countries ranging from 5-8%. Yet, the percentages indicating 'no trust' in such government-agency statements were only slightly lower than the percentages previously cited as having 'no trust' in industry statements. The highest 'no confidence' vote in this category came from Russia, where 56% of the respondents said that they did not trust their government on this topic, followed by Japan (44%), N e w Zealand (43%), Israel (38%), and Australia (31%). Only in Thailand did a total of 96% o f the respondents say that they either had a lot of trust or some trust in their government's statements on biotechnology. The groups most trusted by the members of the public questioned in these polls varied not only by country, but also by the percentage o f trust shown in each category among the countries. The results are shown in Table 1 (1Kef. 2, Table 21, p. 212). L o w confidence levels in the USA and Canada In the USA, a survey 3 was conducted in 1986 for the Office o f Technology Assessment o f the US Congress to examine similar attitudes, with specific reference to genetically altered organisms in agricuhure. T w o relevant questions were asked (Box 3). The three groups that interviewees would be most likely to believe on this topic are university
437
biotopic scientists (19%), public-health of_ ficials (15%) and environmental groups (10%). The top three groups whose statements would definitely not be believed are the news media (16%), the company making the product (15%) and local officials (9%). United States agency statements would definitely be believed by 9% of those surveyed, and deftnitely not be believed by another 6% (Ref. 3, Table 69, p. 109). This response would appear to show a fairly credible result for US federal agencies, until one considers another question asked in the survey, which pits the credibiliW of governmental agencies against that of environmental groups (see Box 3). A majority, 63% of those polled, said that they would trust the national environmental group risk assessment over that of the US agency (26%), with 11% saying either that it depended on the circumstances, or that they were unsure (Refi 3, Table 70, p. 90). A similar result was found in a 1992 study 4 conducted by Hoban and Kendall on attitudes to food biotechnology. Respondents were asked a question (Box 4) similar to that used later in the Macer study described above. In this study, dietitians and nutritionists were viewed as the most trustworthy, with over a third of the respondents indicating that they had 'a lot of trust' (and another 58% indicating 'some trust') in this professional group. The other three groups that people had a lot of trust in were farmers and farm groups (27%), university professors (26%), and environmental groups (24%). Only 7% would have a lot of trust in federal government agencies, with 16% saying that they would have no trust in statements by such agencies. Over one-fifth of the respondents said that they would have no trust in State government agencies, but the most negative responses were reserved for industry sources, with 31% of respondents saying that they would not trust companies making biotechnology products, and 27% feeling the same way about food processors and manufacturers (Ref. 4, Figure 10, pp. 52-53). A survey5 commissioned by the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology in 1993 reached similar conclusions when asking a similar question (see Box 5). The groups with the highest level of trust on biotechnology
Box 3. New Developments in Biotechnology - Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnologya Question 40, page 109: 'How likely would you be to believe statements about the risk of such a product [genetically altered organism] made by [name of group]? Would you definitely believe them, be inclined to believe them, be inclined not to believe them, or definitely not believe them?'
Question 41, page 109: 'Suppose a Federal [US] agency reported that the use of a genetically altered organism did not pose a significant risk to your community, but a national environmental group said it did pose a significant risk. Would you tend to believe the Federal agency or the national environmental group?' aus CongressOffice of TechnologyAssessment,OTA-BP-BA-45,USGovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
Box 4. Consumer Attitudes about Food Biotechnologya Question 28, page 80: Suppose that a number of groups made public statements about the benefits and risks of biotechnology products. Would you have a lot of trust, some trust, or no trust in statements made by: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.
[US] Federal government agencies Farmers or farm groups Companies making biotechnology products Food processors and manufacturers Environmental groups County extension agents Dietitians or nutritionists State government agencies University professors
aT. J. Hoban and P. A. Kendall, Project Report #91-EXCA-3-0155, US Department of Agriculture.
Box 5. Final Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes Toward Biotechnology Questions 48-59, pages 12-16: We would like to know how much trust you would place in statements made by groups who might speak on biotechnology. On a scale where 0 means you have no trust and 10 means you have complete trust, how would you rate persons with the following identity: -
The Canadian Institute of Biotechnology Farmers or Farm Groups Companies making Biotechnology products Consumer Associations An association representing the Biotechnology Industry A Scientist from a Biotechnology Company A Scientist from a University Doctors or Nutritionists Environmental Groups A [Canadian] Federal Government Regulator The Media Church Groups or Religious Leaders'
aDecima Research, Ottawa, Ontaria, Canada, 1993. TIBTECHNOVEMBER1994(VOL12)
438
biotopic questions were doctors/nutritionists (mean value 6.6), university scientists (6), farmers/farm groups and environmental groups (5.9), and consumer associations (5.8). The groups with the lowest level of trust were (Canadian) federal government regulators and the media (4), companies making biotechnology products and church groups/religious leaders (4.3), and an association representing the biotechnology industry (4.7) (R.eE 5, Fig. 8, p.18). Sophisticated readers o f publicopinion polls know that the key to understanding the answers is to read the exact questions asked, and that is why I have burdened readers with the language of the questions in each of these polls. The question remains, however, as to the significance, if any, of all of these polls. What does it all mean?
Philosophers may argue among themselves as to whether trustworthiness or veracity is an ethical principle derived from the obligation to respect individual autonomy, or rather some independent ethical obligation or virtue 6. It does not take a philosopher, however, to understand at least some of the implications of this polling data. Throughout the world (excluding Latin America, Africa and the portions of Europe, the Middle East and Asia not discussed), governmental regulators and biotechnology company or industry sources had far less credibility or trust than did environmental organizations, medical doctors, university professors, dietitians or nutritionists and consumer organizations. Publichealth officials and farmers or farm groups also were highly praised in the US and Canadian studies. There is an interesting conclusion drawn in the E U study: 'Regardless of the nationality and the application of biotechnology/genetic engineering in question, demand for governmental
control of the various applications is massive' ([LEE 1, p. b). In Europe, at least, if these polls accurately reflect public opinion, there is at once a demand for greater governmental control of all forms ofbiotechnology, balanced against a correspondingly low level of trust in those same governmental regulators, which is only exceeded by the public's distrust of the biotechnology companies themselves. Yet, there is no immediate explanation for the high confidence in governmental regulators in such diverse countries as Denmark, India, Israel and Thailand; or the trust placed in statements from the biotechnology industry in India and Israel. Clearly, there is food for thought here. The messages of individual biotechnology companies or sectors of the industry apparently are not seen as credible by the various publics involved, nor is there widespread trust (except in a few nations) in governmental regulators. Future debates about biotechnology, therefore, are more likely to be influenced by groups who are seen as less selfinterested and more credible. It is also possible that when governmental regulators are seen as acting as 'industry cheerleaders' (as has been suggested in the behavior of certain present and former officials in the USA), this only exacerbates their loss of credibility. Finally, there may have been more successful efforts at public education and involvement in countries such as Denmark, which could explain the popular confidence in their national regulation of biotechnology. The European Federation of Biotechnology Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology are holding an international conference on 21-22 November 1994, in The Netherlands. This meeting is devoted to exploring the implications of such public perceptions and the factors influencing them. It will feature not
only an analysis of numerous opinion polls and research studies, but also the various strategies in Europe devised and implemented by individual companies, government boards, and professional and industry groups to address these issues. This conference may provide more insights into the dynamics of public opinion, and the degree to which governmental regulators and the biotechnology industry have been found equally lacking in credibility. Unless this process is reversed, the industry and the various governments will suffer from a reluctance on the part of the public to invest private or public funds in biotechnology and to permit the continued research and development ofbiotechnology products. Thus, its importance cannot be overstated. References 1 Commission of the European Community (1993) Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans Think About It in 1993 Eurobarometer 39.1 2 Macer, D. R.J. (1994) Bioethicsfor the People by the People, Eubios Ethics Institute (PO Box 125, Tsukuba Science City, Ibaraki 305, Japan) International Bioethics Survey 3 US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1987) New Developments" in Biotechnology-Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, OTA-BP-BA-45, US Government Printing Office 4 Hoban, T. J. and Kendall, P. A. (1993) Consumer Attitudes About Food Biotechnology, Project Report #91-EXCA-3-0155, US Department of Agriculture 5 Decima Research (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) (i993) Final Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology 6 Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (1989) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (3rd edn), pp. 307-308, Oxford University Press
Les R o t h e n b e r g Leslie Steven Rothenberg - A Professional Corporation, Bioethics Consulting, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-3226, USA. e-maih intemet '[email protected]'
The Hague, The Netherlands, 21-22 November 1994 Public understanding and acceptance of biotechnology is the key to its future in Europe. This Europe-wide meeting will debate: • Public perception and the factors influencing it from the findings of survey and research approaches • The issues and viewpoints of the industries, the researchers, the regulators, and the consumer, disability, environmental and animal-welfare organizations • The different forms of public relations and dialogue, and their effectiveness For further details contact: D. Bennett, Secretary Task Group on Public Perception of Biotechnology, Cambridge Biomedical Consultants, Schuytstraat 12, 2517 XE Den Haag, The Netherlands. Tel. and Fax: 21 70 3653857
IBTECHNOVEMBER1994(VOL 12)