This paper reports the pilot phase of a three-year project, `Public perceptions of biotechnology', conducted in Perth, Western Australia. The purposes of this pilot investigation were (1) to develop a computer-based method for investigating public perceptions of biotechnology, and (2) to report the perceptions of four `interested publics' about the Flavr Savr™/MacGregor's® tomato, a genetically engineered tomato. By `interested publics' we mean members of groups who are not experts in the field, but have an interest because of their membership of the group. We developed a computer-based database of information about this tomato to stimulate, in interviews, respondents' articulation of their knowledge and perceptions of biotechnology. The database was a multimedia package, based on a HyperCard stack on a Macintosh PowerBook 180C, with information about the tomato in ten different categories. The data suggest that our methodology has the potential to provide a fruitful approach to exploring the background knowledges and perceptions of different publics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Regulating biotechnology in agriculture. APHIS home page on World Wide Web.
2.
Both the design and results of many of the surveys continue to be hotly debated. See the debate over the recent DIST survey in Australia (for example, letters to the Editor, Search, September 1995, p.251).
3.
Davison, A. , Barns, I., and Schibeci, R.A., in press, Problematic publics: critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values
4.
Couchman, P.K. , and Fink-Jensen, K., 1990, Public attitudes to genetic engineering in New Zealand. DSIR Crop Research, September, No. 138.
5.
Kennedy, M.J. , 1991, The evolution of the word biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology, 9, July, 218.
6.
Bud, R. , 1993, The Uses of Life: a History of Biotechnology (New York: Cambridge University Press).
7.
Rifkin, J. , 1991, Biosphere Politics: A New Consciousness for a New Century (New York: Crown Publishers).
8.
Hindmarsh, R. , and Hulsman, K., 1992, Gene technology: the threat or the glory. New Scientist, 25 April, p.4.
9.
Australian Science and Technology Council , 1993, Gene Technology: Issues for Australia (Canberra: Australian Science and Technology Council), Occasional Paper No. 27.
10.
See Love, R., 1992, The public perception of risk. Prometheus, 10(1), 17-29.
11.
Canter, L.W. , Nelso, D.I., and Everett, J.W., 1992-3, Public perception of water quality risk: influencing factors and enhancement opportunities. Journal of Environmental Systems, 22(2), 163-187.
12.
Science and Public Policy, 1996, 23(3): special issue on biotechnology risk regulation in Europe.
13.
See Plein, L. C., 1991, Popularising biotechnology: the influence of issue definition. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(4), 474-490.
14.
Wynne, B. , 1991, Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1), 111-121.
15.
Lave, J. , 1988, Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Everyday Life (New York: Cambridge University Press).
16.
Candy, P.C. , 1989, Constructivism and the study of self-direction in adult learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 21, 111.
17.
Layton, D. , Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., and Davey, A., 1993, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science (Nafferton, East Yorkshire: Studies in Science Education).
18.
Dornenburg, H. , and Lang-Hinrichs, C., 1994, Genetic engineering in food biotechnology. Chemistry in Industry, 4, July, 506-510.
19.
Hoban, T.J. , and Kendall, P. A., 1992, Consumer Attitudes about the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production. Report for USDA (Department of Agriculture) Extension Service (Washington, DC: USDA).
20.
Calgene Fresh Inc. , 1994, Flavr Savr™ promotional material.
21.
Hoban, T. , 1994, Consumer awareness and acceptance of Bovine Somatotropin, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Unpublished manuscript.
22.
For example, see: Eco-consumer, 1995, BST: US consumers oppose it, Europe bans it, Canada exposes company bribery. February, p.3.
23.
Van Brunt, J. , 1992, The battle of engineered tomatoes. Bio/Technology, 10, July, 748.
24.
Van Brunt, J. , 1992, The battle of engineered tomatoes. Bio/Technology, 10, July, 748.
25.
Olempska-Beer, Z. S. , Kuznesof, P. M., DiNovi, M., and Smith, M. J., 1993, Plant biotechnology and food safety. Food Technology, December, 67.
26.
Australian Science and Technology Council , 1993, Gene Technology: a Paper Prepared by an Independent Working Group by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) for Consideration by the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council at its Ninth Meeting (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service), p. 16.
Redenbaugh, K. , Hiatt, W., Martineau, B., Kramer, M., Sheehy, R., Sanders, R., Houck, C., and Emlay, D., 1992, Safety Assessment of Genetically Engineered Fruits and Vegetables: a Case Study of the Flavr Savr Tomato (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press), p. 18.
29.
Redenbaugh, K. , Hiatt, W., Martineau, B., Kramer, M., Sheehy, R., Sanders, R., Houck, C., and Emlay, D., 1992, Safety Assessment of Genetically Engineered Fruits and Vegetables: a Case Study of the Flavr Savr tomato (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press), p. 25.
30.
New Scientist, 28 October 1995, p. 53.
31.
A sample card, in the category of health, reads: Human health aspects of genetically modified food include both safety concerns and possible nutritional benefits. It has been said that the bottom line in terms of safety is that: without the backlog of experience that anchors most judgements about food safety, the behaviour of some natural toxins, hormones and pesticides in new untried genetically engineered configurations may well be difficult to predict and possibly harmful. This is the view of a regular writer in the industry journal Biotechnology, who considers that the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC) agrees with this view; the Council considers that the risk is scientifically manageable and that industry can monitor itself. Not everyone agrees. Another card, in the area of environment, reads: Is it safe to release genetically modified organisms, such as the tomato? There are two opposing views, with many people in the middle ground, on the risks of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment. Industry's general position is that gene technology food crops will be a part of a shift to sustainable agriculture, with the potential to feed the world as the population continues to balloon. They contend that the risks can be evaluated and adequate safety measures put in place. Opponents dispute this and suggest that gene technology is being sold as a high-tech `quick-fix'; as one more `techno' solution to our social and environmental problems. After all, few would argue that there's enough food to feed the world now; they would claim that it is politics and wars that cause most starvation and suffering.
32.
Richards, T. , Richards, L., McGalliard, J., and Shamrock, B., 1992, NUDIST 2.3 User Manual (Melbourne: Replee/La Trobe University).
