This paper analyzes the study of the public perception of biotechnology, comparing different studies made on the European and the Spanish national levels. It aims at testing the applicability of these kinds of studies, and describes some of their limits. The analysis shows clear ambivalence in the public response to distinct applications of this technology, pointing out the crucial differences between general moral valuation and attitude towards specific products. Taking into account this difference appears fundamental for the design of future perception studies able to more accurately reflect public understanding.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
and C. Moreno, J. L. Luján, and L. Moreno, La Ingeniería Genética Humana en la Prensa. Análisis de Contenido de ABC, EL PAÍS y LA VANGUARDIA (1988-1993) (Madrid: IESA Working Papers, 1996).
2.
and the ambivalences of the European public perception of biotechnology and genetic engineering are analyzed in the article by the Biotechnology and the European Public Concerted Action Group in “Europe Ambivalent on Biotechnology,”Nature387 (1997): 845-847.
3.
and L. Moreno, “La Opinión Pública y los Avances en Genética,” in Genes en el Estrado, ed. D. Borrillo (Madrid: CSIC 1996).
4.
Luján, et al., La Biotecnología y los Expertos: Aproximación a la Percepción de la Biotecnología y la Ingeniería Genética entre Colectivos de Expertos; and Moreno, “La Opinión Pública y los Avances en Genética.”
5.
M. Bauer and I. Schoon, “Mapping Variety in Public Understanding of Science,”Public Understanding of Science2 (1993): 141-155.
6.
The Southern European average is that of Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece; the European average corresponds to the 12 Community countries in 1993.
7.
Luján , et al., Technology in Society, pp. 335-355.
8.
W. J. M. Heijs , C. J. H. Midden, and R. A. J. Drabbe, Biotechnology: Attitudes and Influencing Factors (Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology, 1993).
9.
IESA, Biotecnología y Opinión Pública en España.
10.
Studies pointing to this include the different Eurobarometers, and R. Grove-White, et al., Uncertain World (Lancaster: Lancaster University, 1997).
11.
This study was carried out in 1996; see J. Atienza and J. L. Luján, La Imagen Social de las Nuevas Tecnologías Biológicas en España (Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 1997).
12.
see European Opinions on Modern Biotechnology, Eurobarometer 46.1 (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1997).
13.
Using modern biotechnology in the production of foods to, for example, make them higher in protein, increase their shelf-life, or change their taste; taking genes from plant species and transferring them into crop plants to make them more resistant to insect pests; introducing human genes into bacteria to produce medicines or vaccines, for example to produce insulin for diabetics; developing genetically modified animals for laboratory research studies, such as a mouse that incorporates cancer-causing genes; introducing human genes into animals to produce organs for human transplants, such as pigs for human heart transplants; and using genetic testing to detect diseases we might have inherited from our parents, such as cystic fibrosis, mucovisciosis, or thalassemia.
14.
and L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd, “Public Concerns in the UK about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefits, and Ethics,”Science, Technology and Human Values22 (1997): 98-124.
15.
Another important point to consider is the general ambivalence of the citizens of many industrialized countries towards science and technology. Many people show confidence in the need for and usefulness of science and technology, while at the same time expressing reserves regarding its negative effects. Research shows that in the European Union most citizens hold such an ambivalent stand, combining relative high levels of both confidence and reserve, see J. D. Miller, R. Pardo, and F. Niwa, Percepciones del Público ante la ciencia y la tecnología (Bilbao: Fundación BBV, 1998). This situation helps explain the apparent contradiction between, for instance, positive valuation of certain research and development activities, on one hand, and negative attitudes towards products, on the other; the general scientific-technological optimism trait of public opinion might influence the positive moral valuation of scientific-technological processes in general, while the concurrently expressed reserves show up in the negative assessment of the usefulness of certain concrete products.
16.
P. Sandberg and N. Kraft, eds., Fast Salmon and Technoburgers (Oslo: National Committee for Research Ethics, 1997) (http://www.etikkom.no/NENT/).
