Focus workshop Brussels: Summary Statement

Summary Statement

A wealth of information on biotechnology has become available to the general public through communication activities during the last fifteen years or so. However, public opinion surveys still show that public understanding is generally low, a large majority say that they do not feel adequately informed, and there is a sense of mistrust of those in the biotechnology field, particularly where food supplies are concerned.

During the workshop, it was suggested that the question of 'Who should communicate with the public and how?' should not be addressed without examining the questions of why and what we should communicate. When considering the first question, we are drawn to the fact that there can be different and often conflicting aims and motives for embarking on such activities, as well as differences in the subject material used to achieve these ends. It should be recognized that it’s not just the ‘facts’ that determine views on biotechnology; moral, social, political, religious and economic aspects have to be taken into account.

The prevailing ‘deficit model’ of communication assumes that promoting acceptance of biotechnology is achieved by providing the information necessary for a balanced understanding. It also construes communication as a one-way process, where the aim is to ‘get the message across’. New modes of communication are required, which take into account the fact that biotechnology does not exist in isolation.

“Why should we communicate?”

• There is a shared belief that biotechnology communication is both necessary and beneficial, and that any progress depends on the availability of information, exchange of opinions, and  restoration of trust. Two-way communication is needed to bridge the gulf between experts in the field and the general public and to increase mutual understanding of the issues and viewpoints.  
• It is important to reach agreement on the information available and what can be concluded from this information. This depends on personal and cultural systems of belief and interpretation. In the case of biotechnology, this concerns deep value issues, and it should be realised that some stand as non-negotiable conditions in the debate. The factors involved in individual risk-benefit evaluations play a great role in the debate. Communication offers an opportunity, if not to reach consensus, at least to contextualise and quantify the different factors that determine such evaluations.  
• Especially in the food area, the biotechnology controversy forms part of a broader debate in which a variety of ideas of naturalness and traditional and regional forms of production oppose technological advances in the food production process. Finding a successful approach to the biotechnology controversy could serve as a ‘lightning rod’ which points the way for dealing with different but related issues. 

“What should we communicate?”

• Perception of risk and a sense of lack of control are crucial factors withholding the public from readily accepting developments in biotechnology. It is therefore required both to create the conditions which make informed risk-benefit comparison possible, and to express a coherent model for policy making. The actual risk might not be the crucial indicator, but rather the question of who decides that the risk should be taken. It is the deep value issues that lie behind these questions which are the determinants. Surveys and public consultation exercises have shown that a process of informing about the risks and possibilities of biotechnology on the one hand fosters perceptions of risk, but at the same time increases preparedness for acceptance. 
• The debate needs to be based on sound, rational foundations. Rationality requires taking account of different forms of argument and evidence, scientific and non-scientific.  There may be competing interpretations of this evidence, which have to be balanced in order to create a dialogue that is based on shared knowledge about what is going on. This is necessary in order to clarify the long-term goals and values required to create continuity in the discussion. 
• The willingness, or need, to acquire specific information depends on a person’s proximity to a situation. Public engagement activities therefore need to situate biotechnology developments within the scope of personal experience by explaining the ways in which issues are relevant to individuals.

“How should we communicate?”
If the goal is to create a mode of communication through participation, then the creation of incentives for participation from all sides is important. This requires:

• The willingness to listen to and learn from other viewpoints, and recognition of the non-scientific values and concerns that play a role. 
• Incentives for engaging in communication and recognition of practical and attitudinal disincentives for those in the biotechnology field. 
• The creation of well-established channels of information that are easily accessible by the public, by building and maintaining close relations with journalists, teachers and policy makers. Constraints such as editorial policies, work and competing pressures, and lack of recognition and/or reward for these activities need to be addressed. 

Possible  ways forward
The views that arose from this discussion indicate possibilities for future action. The final report from this workshop will be distributed to appropriate members of the European Commission, the European Parliament, national government officials, scientific societies and research institutions, companies active in the field, and the media. What is important, is its impact on encouraging, supporting and leading people in the kinds of approaches discussed here. Individual and collaborative efforts are needed, which create a new mode of communication. This might take the following forms:

• A formal or informal Network of Excellence under the European Commission’s 6th Framework Programme, bringing together pan-European academic and industry scientific organisations, government, public interest organisations (environmental, consumer and genetic disability), teachers and the media. 
• Specific Support Actions or Co-ordination Actions under FP6 work programmes in “Structuring the ERA", "Science and Society", "Food Quality and Safety" and "Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health", aimed at:
  • Encouraging, supporting, training and rewarding communication and public engagement activities by scientists in academia and industry.
  • Reinforcing the collaborative efforts of the various stakeholders and networks.
  • Creating the conditions for stepping up the dialogue by promoting discussion and acceptance of different viewpoints.
  • Increasing the awareness of needs and constraints in communication activities.
  •  Defining measures of success and long-term goals for the communication process.
  • Researching and accepting the non-scientific values that play a role in the debate.
• The establishment of a communication advisory panel of the European Commission, analogous to existing scientific advisory panels.

Focus workshop Brussels: Images

• participants
• more participants
• Dr. B Marantelli (Monsanto) & Mr. L. Consoli (Greenpeace)
• Dr. A. Vassarroti (EC) and Mr. S. Hogan (EC)