Public Perceptions On the Technological Frontier David Rejeski Director, Foresight and Governance Pr

1
Public PerceptionsOn the Technological
FrontierDavid RejeskiDirector, Foresight
and Governance ProgramWoodrow Wilson
International Center for ScholarsOpportunities
and Challenges in the Emerging Field of
Synthetic BiologyNational Academies, Royal
Society, OECDWashington, DCJuly 10, 2009
2
Three Goals
1. Review some of the initial research findings
on public perception of synthetic biology
(including comparisons between US-UK research and
earlier work on nanotechnology).
2. Share some observations about the social
context and challenges as synthetic biology moves
forward.
3. End with some near-term needs.
3
U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology
Quantitative Study The first representative
national phone survey of 1,003 US adults
nationwide conducted on August 20-25, 2008by
Peter D. Hart Research Associatesat the request
of the Wilson Center Qualitative StudyTwo
focus groups sessions conducted in Baltimore
(Maryland) on August 6, 2008 among (18-65)
adults one focus group among women, one among
men from a relatively large diversity of
social, religious background
4
U.S. Public Awareness of Synthetic Biology In
both focus groups and the phone survey, 70 of
participants had heard nothing at all about
synthetic biology How much have you heard
about synthetic biology?
Synthetic What?
Heard a lot (2) or some (7)
Not sure
Heard nothingat all
Heard just a little
5
U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic Biology
Despite their lack of knowledge, 70 of the phone
survey participants gave a personal description
of synthetic biology and 66 ventured an opinion
on the risk-benefit tradeoff. Will potential
benefits of synthetic biology outweigh its
potential risks?
Risks versus Benefits
Benefits will outweigh risks
Not sure
66
Benefits risks will be about equal
Risks will outweigh benefits
6
U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic
BiologyWhat would you say are some of the major
benefits of synthetic biology? Which applications
do you think is most promising?
What Applications Matter Most?
Overall Rankings of Potential Applications of
Synthetic Biology(Values Reflect Number of
Participants in Each Group Who Valued the Given
Application the Most)
7
Comparison of U.S. and UK Public Perceptions
Synbio Applications Matter! Similar Enthusiasm
for biofuelsUSSounds great, good deal,
biofuels, I love that.I really like the idea
of generating, constructing a bacteria to
generate hydrogen.I like, about the biofuels,
how they said it produces cleaner fuelsThat
could be good as far as going greener for the
environment.That bacteria generating
biofuels would be fantastic.UKWe picked
biofuels, basically because we felt it would have
the biggest world impact of the four, because of
the global concern about fuels in general and the
CO2 emissions that it would actually save.It
will have the biggest impact on individual users.
I know the anti-malarial drug is fantastic but it
only will hit three or four million people,
whereas theres millions and millions of car
drivers.
8
U.S. Public Perceptions of Synthetic
BiologyWhose job should it be to regulate or
manage the risks associated with synthetic
biology?
Oversight
Best Approach to Managing the Risks Associated
with Synthetic Biology (Values Reflect Numbers
of Participants in Each Group in Favor of
Described Approach)
9
Comparison of U.S. and UK Public Perceptions
What about Regulation?Similar views on the
best way to manage synbios governance ? No ban
but government regulation with checks and
balances and independent science
involvement.USI feel federal government
its the best approach because I dont agree with
banning it the technology.I think they
scientists should be part of the team because
they bring so much knowledge and
understanding.UKWe didnt think that any
needed to be stopped, but the huge benefits also
carry great risks . So wed definitely want to
have very tight safety and control
regulations.Were not scientists. Its really
what its trying to do, the benefits and how its
trying to solve problems around the world thats
of interest to me, rather than the nitty gritty
of the science.
10
Comparison of U.S. and UK Public Perceptions
Recommendations?Similar recommendations to
scientists and policy-makers ? Openness and
transparency increase public trust. USI think
its exciting. I think it has a lot of
potential, and we should continue to pursue it.
But in doing it, all of these concerns need to be
considered. And then the developers reaction to
them and how theyre going to deal with it,
whether its communication or regulation, needs
to be clearly displayed. You got to have some
support from everybody, and I dont hear it here.
Theres a lot of caution. UK Open dialogue,
highlighting the benefits and also highlighting
the risksWe felt that a lot of people close
down, again because of the bad press about GM
crops, and people need to think more about the
positives rather than the negatives. Its just a
case of listening and understanding.
11
Public Expectations for Oversight
(For Nanotechnology) There was little public
support for - A moratorium on research and
development - Self-regulation
When asked How can public confidence in
nanotechnologies be improved? people converged
around three recommendations

• Greater transparency and disclosure
• 2. Pre-market testing
• 3. Third-party testing and research

Results from 30 hours of focus groups conducted
by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies
between 2005 and 2007.
12
Some Challenges
The name synthetic biology can be a liability.
When the name is bad, things tend to get worse.
When the name is good, things tend to get
better. Al Ries and Jack Trout Positioning
The Battle for Your Mind, 1981
Definitions?
The playing God issue.
No communication or public engagement strategy
(by the scientific community, industry, or
government).
13
High Potential for Risk Amplification
The global H1N1 pandemic raises public anxiety of
biological issues and threats.
Good science journalists are becoming an extinct
species greater potential for ill-informed,
sensationalistic coverage.
U.S. NGOs are engaged early on synbio (could push
back on the science and its applications).
The American public has experienced repeated
failures of government regulation and oversight
spanning food, drugs, consumer products, and
finance trust gap.
14
The Trust Gap
Confidence in Each to Maximize Benefits
Minimize Risks of Scientific/Technological
Advancements
USDA
FDA
EPA
Businesses/companies
From Public Awareness of Nanotechnology What
do Americans know? Who do they trust? Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies, 9/2007,
www.nanotechproject.org
15
New Opponents?
Inversion of the Leiserowitz effect (found by
Kahan et al)1
Anthony Leiserowitz labeled as environmental
risk naysayers a segment of U.S. society whose
members are disproportionately white and male,
politically conservative, and highly religious.2
1. Kahan, D. et al Risk and Culture Is
Synthetic Biology Different? Cultural Cognition
Working Paper 29. 2. Leiserowitz, A.A. American
risk perceptions Is climate change dangerous?
Risk Anal. 25, 1433-1442 (2005)
16
Polarization?
Kahan, D. et al (2007). Affect, Values, and
Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions An Experimental
Investigation, Cultural Cognition Project
Working Paper 22.
17
Messengers for Synthetic Biology?
18
Which Messengers?
?
Scientists, policymakers, and others interested
in promoting enlightened public evaluation of the
best available information on risks should take
affirmative steps to create a deliberative
climate that neutralizes biased assimilation and
polarization.
19
Near-Term Needs
Need more applied research on public attitudes
and perceptions, including international
comparisons (and we need it soon).
Based on research, need a public communications
and engagement strategy one that scales.
Risk research and analyses of regulatory
adequacy.
More international cooperation.
20
We tell ourselves stories to live. Joan Didion
21
ReferencesHart Research Associates (2008),
Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology
and synthetic biology. Available at
http//www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/
6019/hart_final_re8706b.pdf Kahan DM et al.
(2009), Risk and Culture Is Synthetic Biology
Different?, in Harvard Law School Program on Risk
Regulation Research Paper No. 09-2. Available at
SSRN http//ssrn.com/abstract1347165 Pauwels
E, Ifrim I (2008), Trends in American and
European press coverage of synthetic biology
Tracking the last five years of coverage, in
Synbio 1 (Synthetic Biology Project, 2008).
Available at http//www.synbioproject.org/process
/assets/files/5999/synbio1final.pdf Scheufele
DA et al. (2008), Religious beliefs and public
attitudes towards nanotechnology in Europe and
the United States. Nature Nanotech. 361,
1-4.MethodologyPauwels E, Ifrim I (2008),
Trends in American and European press coverage of
synthetic biology Tracking the last five years
of coverage, in Synbio 1 (Synthetic Biology
Project, 2008), p. 25-26.Hart Research
Associates (2008), Awareness of and attitudes
toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology, p.
1-2.