Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: May 2013

4 - The public's view of science


Why take the public seriously?

The focus in this chapter is on public perceptions of science, taking biotechnology and the life sciences as an exemplar. From almost its outset in 1974, with the application to patent recombinant DNA, biotechnology has been understood as having far-reaching implications for the lives of us all. In 1975, scientists agreed at the Asilomar Conference in California to a voluntary moratorium on their research, such was the scale of their concern about the potential and unknown health and safety issues associated with this new technology. But the economic benefits of biotechnology soon became its focal point, and the moratorium was soon lifted. In 1979 a European Community report entitled The Biosociety described biotechnology as central to economic competitiveness in subsequent years. But even at that time, the European public was uneasy and troubled by the idea of gene technology. As Mark Cantley, then a senior member of the European Commission, wrote, ‘what the sector ignored above all was public perception . . . the public were learning to see gene technology, genetic engineering, biotechnology and so on as a single, vague and disquieting phenomenon’ (Cantley 1992). A Eurobarometer survey in 1979 found that 49 per cent of the European public saw genetic research as an unacceptable risk and a similar percentage thought the same about ‘synthetic food’, or what we now call GM food (Gaskell 2004).

However, the early warning signals from the public went unheeded. In the 1990s, the life sciences project, embracing medical, pharmaceutical, industrial and agri-food technologies based on recombinant DNA, took off led by European and North American multinational companies. They based their strategy on the market model of innovation, depicted in Figure 4.1 (Gaskell 2008). Here success in the process of innovation is contingent on gaining the support of the regulators and the market forces.

Key resources
Gaskell, G.Stares, S.Allansdottir, A. 2010
US National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators
de Leeuw, E.Hox, J.J.Dillman, D.A. 2008 International Handbook of Survey MethodologyLondonTaylor and Francis
Bauer, M. W.Allum, N.Miller, S. 2007 What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agendaPublic Understanding of Science 16 79
Beck, U. 1992 Risk Society: Towards a New ModernityLondonSage
Cantley, M. 1992 Public perception, public policy, the public interest and public information: the evolution of policy for biotechnology in the European Community, 1982–92Durant, J.Biotechnology in Public169LondonScience Museum
Douglas, M.Wildavsky, A. 1982 Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental DangerBerkeley, CAUniversity of California Press
Durant, J.Bauer, M. W.Gaskell, G. 2000 Two cultures of public understanding of science and technology in EuropeDierkes, M.von Grote, C.Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology131AmsterdamHarwood Academic Publishers
Durant, J.Evans, G.Thomas, G. 1989 The public understanding of scienceNature 340 11
Ellsberg, D. 1961 Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axiomsQuarterly Journal of Economics 75 643
European Commission 2010 Commission Recommendation on Guidelines for the Development of National Co-Existence Measures to Avoid the Unintended Presence of GMOs in Conventional and Organic CropsBrussels
Gaskell, G. 2004 Science policy and society: the British debate over GM agricultureCurrent Opinion in Biotechnology 15 241
Gaskell, G. 2008 Lessons from the bio-decade: a social scientific perspectiveDavid, K.Thompson, P. B.What can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology237LondonAcademic Press
Gaskell, G.Allum, N. 2001 Sound science, problematic publics? Contrasting representations of risk and uncertaintyNotizie di Politeia XVII 13
Gaskell, G.Stares, S.Allansdottir, A. 2006 Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and TrendsA report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research
Gaskell, G.Stares, S.Allansdottir, A. 2010 Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change?A report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research
Globe and Mail 1999
Horst, M. 2007 Public expectations of gene therapy: scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenshipScience, Technology and Human Values 32 150
Jaeger, C. C.Renn, O.Rosa, E. A.Webler, T. 2001 Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational ActionLondonEarthscan
Kahneman, D.Tversky, A. 1979 Prospect theory: analysis of decision under riskEconometrica 47 263
Mejlgaard, N.Stares, S. 2010 Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenshipPublic Understanding of Science 19 545
Michael, M.Brown, N. 2005 Scientific citizenships: self-representations of xenotransplantation's publicsScience as Culture 14 39
Miller, J. D. 1983 Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical reviewDaedalus29
Renn, O. 1998 Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challengesJournal of Risk Research 1 49
Royal Society 1999 Science, Technology and Social ResponsibilityLondonRoyal Society
Rozin, P.Spranca, M.Krieger, Z. 2004 Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicinesAppetite 43 147
Schuman, H.Presser, S. 1981 Questions and Answers in Attitude SurveysNew YorkAcademic Press
Tetlock, P. E. 2002 Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutorsPsychological Review 109 451
von Grote, C.Dierkes, M. 2000 Public understanding of science and technology: state of the art and consequences for future researchDierkes, M.von Grote, C.Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology341AmsterdamHarwood Academic Publishers