International Advanced Course: Strategic Communication & Applied Ethics in Nanobiotechnology
Focus workshop Warsaw: Summary Statement
Document Actions
Summary Statement
Specific recommendations from the workshop for who should communicate with the public and how are to be interpreted from the local perspective. In this context, two preliminary points that underlie the biotechnology debate in Poland need to be mentioned.
Discussion Topics- Poland and the European Union. Membership in the EU is a priority for Central and Eastern European policies, and this involves acceptance of European legislation like Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, and participation in activities related to the Biodiversity Convention and the Biosafety Protocol.
- The Act on the deliberate release of GMOs. The Polish Commission on Genetically Modified Organisms is working on an amendment of the Act on the release of GMOs. Decisions taken here will influence communication policies.
Who should communicate with the public?
Emphasis was put on the need to create channels of communication through which objective information is made accessible to the public, and in which a number of groups play a role. Possible options were identified and discussed. It should be noted that if these groups are meant to act as amplifiers for disseminating information, then it is first of all important that the actors themselves possess the skills and knowledge needed to perform this role. What is needed is a process of 'teaching the teachers'.
Media
The media received much attention throughout the discussion, and they undoubtedly play an important role in communicating with the public. Media coverage of biotechnology tends to be negative however, and opinions differed on whether this group is best suited to impart information on biotechnology to the public. The reason for negative media coverage was ascribed firstly to journalists lacking a basic knowledge of the science, and second, from a commercial point of view, to the fact that news articles involving ‘bloodshed’ are generally thought attractive to readers.
It was however argued that the media could deliver an important contribution to disseminate objective information. To this end, a number of conditions should be met, such as the willingness of journalists to become acquainted with the science, the availability of easily accessible and objective information, and a levelling of vocabulary between scientists and journalists.
Scientists
Since scientists are believed to be authoritative, the possibilities for them acting as a channel for communication were regarded as promising. First of all, as scientists act as advisors to regulatory bodies, they have an important role to play in biotechnology policy development. Furthermore, scientists form a well-informed group imparting objective information.
A number of difficulties however were considered: the language that scientists use is not generally understood by the public, scientists are sometimes believed to be outside of society, and the concerns of scientists do not always coincide with the concerns of the public. Moreover, for scientists to engage in communication with the public, there is little or no professional recognition. The resources to facilitate scientists’ communication activities are scarce, and other kinds of recognition of such activities are missing. It was recommended that public communication should be made a prerequisite for funding, thereby stimulating scientists to embark on such activities.
Politicians
Politicians were mentioned as important stakeholders in the debate. Since it is the politicians who decide on policy, it is vital that this group has easy access to objective information. Participants mentioned both the role of politicians as the decision makers concerning laws and regulations, which impacts the development of biotechnology, and their role as facilitators of communication activities, providing the resources for such activities.
It is noteworthy to mention in this respect that there is no Polish translation of the word ‘lobbying’. To express this meaning in Polish a whole sentence is needed. This is indicative of the fact that this is a novel concept.
Church
The influence of the church on the public is believed to be quite strong, specifically to the Polish perspective. The church reaches many people from the pulpit, and the views expressed by the church on these matters will directly influence the public.
How should we communicate?
Different views and suggestions on how to successfully engage in communication surfaced. First, the use of clear and understandable language was seen as a prerequisite for success; the use of high-level language might lead to misunderstanding, and communicators should avoid jargon, clarify theoretical terms, and learn how to use simple language.
Second, an important factor is to impart objective knowledge. The public have a right to their own opinion, and therefore need to be informed impartially.
A good way of ensuring both conditions is working with well-known people who are knowledgeable; the public will listen and trust the information to be objective. As a very succesful example of these points the Science Festival in Warsaw was mentioned.
Acceptance of biotechnology will be dependent on the public’s basic understanding of the processes involved and their conviction of the utility of the technology. Practical examples of the advantages that biotechnology can bring are a good way of interesting the public. The key word in all this is involving the public ('Tell me - and I forget; teach me - and I remember; involve me - and I learn').
Constructing successful channels of information implies getting different groups to work together. Scientists would serve as the source of information, and the dissemination of this information could proceed through the media. Apart from academics and media it was stated that sociologists and psychologists should decide how to create the right ‘information packages’.
Focus workshop Warsaw: Images
