engaging the south african public on biotechnology
TRANSCRIPT
Engaging the South African public on
Biotechnology
PUB: Strategic operating context
CapeBiotech
EcoBioPlantBio
NRF
SAASTA
NBN Biopad
Gov Depts
Investors
End users
Public & public opinion
PUB, one of six “Biotechnology Instruments” in South Africa…
PUB: A dynamic and innovative public communication programme aiming to:
• increase broad public awareness and clear, balanced understanding of the scientific principles and potential of biotechnology & related issues;
and
• create meaningful opportunities for public dialogue and debate around biotechnology and its applications within our society to enable informed decision making.
SAASTA Mandate
To promote public awareness, appreciation and engagement of science, engineering
and technology (SET).
SAASTA is the official vehicle for facilitating the promotion of SET in SA society, and
was incorporated into the NRF in December 2002
South African Agency of Science and Technology Advancement (SAASTA),
a Business Unit of the National Research Foundation (NRF)
STRATEGIC APPROACHSTRATEGIC APPROACH
SSCICIEENNCCEE
MIMISSSISIOONNSS
MuseumMuseum ZooZoo Observatory
SCIENCE AWARENESS PLATFORM
EDUCATION
SCIENCE
COMMUNICATION
School science support
Science materialsCommunication of research to
public audiences
Science and the media
SET Careers
KKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGEE
MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT
Why a PUB Programme? Recommendation of SA National
Biotechnology Strategy (along with 5 other biotech instruments);
Government commitment to & investment in biotechnology;
The public’s right to know; SAASTA: promote awareness, public
understanding & appreciation of SET; and High levels of ignorance of SA public (PUB
survey).
PUB History & Budget
End 2002 R1,500,000 planning/stakeholder consultation
2003/4: R5,000,000 launch & implementation 2004/5: R5,000,000 full implementation 2005/6: R3,500,000 full implementation
Continued funding subject to review
Continual public & stakeholder feedback/input throughout
Guiding principles Provide factual, balanced, credible information on
biotechnology; Transparency, accountability & “clean” links; Biotechnology per se - not just GM; Engagement & dialogue; Use of non-jargon language that is easy and
accessible to all; Innovative, creative communication; Actively involve the stakeholder, science & media
communities, both nationally and internationally.
Challenges Diversity of South Africa in language and
culture (literacy); Transformation issues (gender, M&S…); Very wide mandate: all biotechnology to all
South Africans; Remaining neutral, factual & credible; Current confusion & polarization over specific
biotechnology areas e.g. GM; Biotechnology terminology: translation &
“translation”; and Capacity constraints (human & financial).
Science Communication & PUB Team Science Communication Manager (50% PUB) Project Coordinator (50% PUB) Media Coordinator (20% PUB) Editor/Writer (10% PUB) Web administrator/graphic designer (20% PUB) PUB Project officer (100% PUB) Grants Project Officer Administrative officer (50% PUB) PUB Intern (until end March 2006)
Capacity (human & budgetary) constraints
Coordinating/facilitating role & outsourcing calls
Total capacity=3
All biotech for all South Africans
The “science” of science communicationCognitive-deficit model (one-way communication)
Interactive model(two-way communication)
Downward transmission from scientist to citizen
Dialogue between scientist and citizen
Science is seen as coherent, objective, unproblematic and well-bounded
Science has problematic boundaries and may not always be able to provide answers with certainty
Science is central to decisions about practical action in everyday life
Science is often marginalised or peripheral when integrated with other relevant to everyday decisions
Science is unencumbered by social and institutional connections
Science is usually seen by laypeople as inseparable from its social and institutional connections
Uptake of science is determined by intellectual ability (i.e. you have to be ‘clever’ to understand it)
Uptake of science is influenced by trust in sources and openness in negotiations
‘Ignorance’ on the part of the public has to be remedied
‘Ignorance’ may sometimes be functional
Unscientific behaviour results from failure to apply scientific knowledge
People engage in opportunistic construction of practical knowledge well adapted to specific needs
‘Scientific thinking’ is the proper yardstick with which to measure ‘everyday thinking’
‘Everyday thinking’ and knowledge in action are more complex and less well understood than ‘scientific thinking’
Information
& dialogue
Biotech in the mass media
Capacity building & networking
Themes:
Science & media interaction:•Media roundtable•Expert list•Media skills•Responsible reporting
Biotech media service:•Media monitoring/analysis•Responses/alerts•Press statements•Targeted eds & ads
•Website•Produce/distribute printed materials•Radio & TV products•Basic biotech WS•Science theatre•Innovative grants•Help desk•Public perceptions
•Role model campaign•Biotech careers•Public events/exhibits•Networking
Strategic objectives:
How: Capacity building
•Interactive exhibits
•Public/academic events
•Educator workshops
•Communication training for scientists & journalists
•Role models & career profiling
Exhibits: static & interactive
•DNA 50
•GM
•Forensics
•Cloning
•Biotech careers & role modelling
How: Communication tools
•Science drama
•Targeted educational resources & “kits”
•Role models
•Competitions
PUB Teaching Modules
Biotechnology & biodiversity; Complementary, empowering
tool; Specifies teaching outcomes; Targets Grd 9-12 & caters for range of abilities; Includes local (SA) examples; Educator training ensures skills to teach biotech
content correctly & confidently; Pilot involving 2 workshops per district in Free
State in October 2005 (350+ Gr 10 Educators); Awaiting endorsement from National DoE following
pilot evaluation; Piloting in other Provinces.
How: Mass Media & “round table”
How: Website & Helpdesk: www.pub.ac.za
303,977 unique visits to date (since Sept 2003) and 1,934,136 accesses
Engaging the public on GMOs Basics first (cells, DNA, genes…):
Resources (posters, kits, cartoons, teaching modules) Basic Biotech workshops Advertorials (i.e. paid media space) Media responses to misinformation – when possible Help desk enquiries GM advertorial (in process) Documenting the development of the GMO act (in process)
Do not prescribe a particular view – instead encourage dialogue & discussion based on all the facts – both benefits & risks, so people can make their own informed decision;
Public info needs –What the public want to know rather than what you want them to know.
Public debate v consensus: polarizes the issue further. Why not aim for consensus in the middle ground?;
Challenges to GMO engagement High levels of ignorance/lack of knowledge
amongst South Africans –have to educate & raise awareness first;
Polarization of the GM issue globally (which side are you on?);
Contradictory claims adding to the confusion; Consuming, hi-input issue & keeping up-to date
full time job… Complexity & vastness of GM issue - ONE
biotech issue of “ALL Biotech to ALL South Africans”
Public perceptions of Biotechnology
Why measure public perceptions? Baseline to measure impact of activities; To monitor trends over time; Generate internationally complementary &
comparative data; Lack of comprehensive & less biased
surveys undertaken in SA to date; Identify gaps and information needs;and Enable tailoring of messages for specific
audiences on biotech.
PUB/HSRC Survey (2004/5) High response rate (82%); Baseline to measure impact – not to
substantiate specific views; Knowledge, attitudes & judgements, trust; Mostly quantitative; Census enumerator areas/GIS – repeatable; Face to face interviews; and Language of choice.
Sample specifics 7000 people aged 16+ in 500 enumerator areas; 53% formal urban; 35% tribal; 9% informal
urban; 4% rural; Race: 76% black
12% white9% coloured3% asian
Gender: 46% male & 54% female; Age: 29% 16-20
24% 21-2526% 26-60 20% 60+
Knowledge
8/10 do not know or have knowledge about biotechnology (GM, GE or cloning);
What do you think about biotech…
“Fake goods that come with Nigerians & Chinese”
“something to do with brains”“Weapons of mass destruction”
“something to do with cars”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Per
cen
tag
e o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Ordinary &GMtomatoes
contain genes
Eating GM fruitmodif ies your
genes
Yeast brew edin beer is living
Detect Dow nssyndrome inpregnancy
GM animalslarger than
ordinary animals
Can put animalgenes in plants
True/false on factual knowledge
TRUE
FALSE
Don't Know
GM foods in South Africa GM foods on sale in SA?
66% Don’t knowmaize, apples, milk/dairy, tomatoes, fruit & vegetables
Ever eaten GM foods? 62.5% Don’t know
11.5% Yes26% No
Reasons for negativity?53% no one good reason
15% unhealthy for humans11% violates religious/ethical principles
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Biotechnology Genetic engineering Genetic modification Cloning
Attitudes towards biotechnology: the great undecided
Undecided
Positive
Negative
Vote for continuation despite lack of knowledge
Which biotechnology practices should stop or continue?
17
22 21
13
62
49
55
61
22
30
24 25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Food (Bread & cheese) GM crops - pest resistent Medicines Biodegradable plastics
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
ses
Stop
Continue
Don't Know
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Per
cen
tag
e o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Healthier Cheaper More envirofriendly
Tastier Eat eggs ofchickens fed
Behaviour: Would buy GM maize if...
Agree
Disagree
Don't Know
22.69
10.42
10.63
15.64
3.72
20.77
1.42
10.46
4.24
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percentage of respondents
Universities
Consumer Organizations
Environmental Groups
Government
Religious Organizations
Media
Industry
Don't know
None
Info
rmat
ion
So
urc
e
TRUST: Who is trusted as truthful information source for biotechnology?
Food labels 51% don’t read food labels – those who do
usually (23%) are more negative; Higher LSM groups more likely to read
food labels (37%) compared to moderate (21%) LSM groups;
Low percentage want GM info on labels but could be included in 21% for more ingredient info.
3
1
9.5
21
1
3
1
1
21
15.6
22
0 5 10 15 20 25
Percentage of respondents
Pesticide content
GMO content
Fat content
Health benefits
Grown locally
Country of origin
Certified organic
Irradiation
Ingredients
Other
Don't know
Desired information on food labels
Conclusion
If one is educated, has some form of income, has access to the internet and to reading material, is of a particular race group – then one tends to be more negative about biotechnology or have more
factual knowledge of it&
Very few people very negative
How can people have opinions on something they know nothing about?
Thank you!
www.pub.ac.za