Testing biotechnology opinion, and an invitation to give yours
Date: 31.8.2006
Four years ago, the European Commission launched its 'Life sciences and biotechnology - a strategy for Europe' action plan. Now, at the half-way point of the eight-year strategy, the initiative is up for review.
To comment on the biotechnology proposals, published in 2002, submissions must arrive by 30 September 2006. Comment is open to all. Meanwhile, Eurobarometer has published the second part of its survey into attitudes to biotechnology; the first part was published in May. The survey used input from approximately 1,000 respondents in each of the 25 Member States to give a detailed account of attitudes.
In 2002, the EU's 30-point action plan committed the EU to pushing the field of biotechnology. This included increasing understanding of biotechnology and developing a skilled workforce, as well as both attracting and retaining established researchers.
The plans also included the development of an infrastructure around biotechnology. For example, ensuring that there are enough legal professionals with biotechnology expertise, developing systems for intellectual property, money for start-ups, and ensuring governments are involved, were prioritised. Specific actions looked at genetically modified organisms (GMOs), ensuring they are labelled and researched properly, and at how biotechnology could help the developing world.
Now, after four years, many of the action plan points will have been achieved, others will not have started, and others still may be some way to meeting their objectives. Progress is now open to public consultation.
Giving a flavour of where the recommendations may go, the EU's statistical group, Eurobarometer, has published the second part of its investigation into EU-wide attitudes to biotechnology. Previous surveys were carried out in 1991, 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2002, while this survey looks at attitudes in 2005.
Overall, opinion is increasingly positive towards biotechnology, with EU citizens feeling better informed, and trusting the biotechnology industry more. In fact, when there are tangible benefits, citizens are willing to take risks with technological innovations.
The ethical component is not yet fully resolved. 'While the majority are willing to delegate responsibility on new technologies to experts, making decisions on the basis on the scientific evidence, a substantial minority would like to see greater weight given to moral and ethical considerations in decision taking about science and technology and to the voices of the public,' reads the report.
Biotechnology is broadly supported in medical and industrial sectors, but not in agricultural sectors, showing continuing concern over GMOs. People want to know more about the risks and benefits of stem cell research, 'A utilitarian approach [...] informs their generally supportive view of this technology,' reads the report.
Overall, citizens believe that the case for GMOs is not yet proven, and opposition to GMOs does not indicate a general opposition to science and technology - far from it.
The survey compared and contrasted four different technologies - nanotechnology, pharmacogenetics, gene therapy and GM foods. Overall, the strongest support was for nanotechnology, followed by pharmacogenetics, with support - but with some perception of risk for - gene therapy, and finally a negative, risky perception for GM foods.
Generally, people are disinclined to buy GM foods. However, attitudes are not uniform throughout the EU. Only in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Czech Republic and Lithuania does the number of supporters of GM foods outnumber the opponents.
However, the situation is highly complex. 'It appears that once a threshold for minimal acceptability is reached, people are inclined to find a number of reasons acceptable for buying GM foods,' reads the report.
Support for Industrial biotechnology was high, with more than 70 per cent of respondents supporting schemes to develop biofuels or bio plastics. There is considerable support for stem cell research (65 per cent support) - and the more controversial embryonic stem cell research (59 per cent). Interestingly, in those countries where support for embryonic stem cells is lowest - in the Baltic States, Slovenia, Malta, Ireland and Portugal, one-third of respondents said they 'don't know'.
For stem cell research, Europeans want to know more about consequences of research - what the research could mean for society - not about the research itself. The majority of Europeans in fact, are happy to let scientific 'experts' decide on the best course of action for governance of science and technology - showing a high degree of trust in scientific researchers.
Compared to the previous survey, in 2002, respondents felt more knowledgeable about science and technology, and gave more correct answers in a 'quiz' on science and technology. In a direct comparison, science and technology was rated by respondents as slightly less interesting or engaging than politics, although there is a correlation between the two subjects.
To sum up, the survey identified four groups or 'types' of European citizens - the 'active', the 'attentive', the 'spectator', and the 'unengaged'.
The 'Active' European (12 per cent of the population) will go out of his or her way to find out about biotechnology, and may have even attended a public meeting on the subject. The 'Attentive' European (14 per cent) will follow the stories through the media with interest, and may have some background knowledge. The 'Spectator' (33 per cent) may follow stories and may have talked about biotechnology. Finally, the 'Unengaged' (41 per cent) do not follow biotechnology in the media, and may not have heard of particular subjects, and do not have any background knowledge.
The young have different opinions to the old - the 15-25 age-group is more likely to eat GM foods, but talks less about politics and is less concerned with health. Women generally score slightly lower then men - except on issues relating to pregnancy. However, women with more education are less likely to fall into either the 'attentive' or 'active' group types. The reasons for this are not clear, and require more research.
Finally, Europe, the US and Canada show surprisingly few differences in attitudes. Europeans have marginally more faith in nanotechnology than either Americans or Canadians. However, Europeans and Canadians are far less enthusiastic than the Americans about GM foods.
'Life sciences and biotechnology - a strategy for Europe' was launched to navigate Europe between frontier and applied science. Europe is thought to be on the brink of a biotechnology revolution, and the strategy aims to take Europe there. Is it working? Should the focus change? You can comment on the strategy, and make your voice heard.
"Source":[ http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=26136]
