Team:Manchester/knoledgetest

‘Public Attitudes To Science and the Knowledge Deficit Assumption: How To Avoid A Crisis Of Confidence’

Introduction

It is widely believed that there is a lot of hostility between scientists and non-scientists (often generalised under the term “the public”). In some cases this is true. One only has to look at the Monsanto-driven GM food crisis of the late 90s/early 00s to see the effects large biotechnology companies can have on developing countries, and the tension this can cause. But where does the public truly stand on issues of science, in particular synthetic biology? Is there is a division of opinion between scientists and non-scientists; why is it there, and how scientists approach this issue?

On first glance, the current level of support for synthetic biology is looking bleak. A 2011 study carried out by the UK Government Department for Business and Skills showed that just 8% of the British public felt informed about synthetic biology (much lower than issues such as climate change, which scored 75%)[1]. You could be forgiven for thinking that synthetic biology is a PR disaster waiting to happen: an ethical minefield that scientists can’t help the public traverse. However, let us not jump to conclusions. Of the modest portion of Brits who said they had heard of synthetic biology, a third believed the benefits of synthetic biology would outweigh the risk, 12% thought the opposite, and the remaining 55% were unsure.

A modest start then, but still a long way to go in terms of mass public acceptance. In order for scientists to get the public to strongly support synthetic biology, a careful approach must be taken in regards to science communication. One very important factor to consider is the knowledge deficit assumption.

Knowledge Deficit Assumption: How To Avoid A Synbio Disaster Disaster

The knowledge deficit assumption is the concept that the public won't accept new technologies because they do not have sufficient fundamental scientific knowledge to understand them [2]. If somebody does not accept a new technology or idea, it must therefore be because they do not know science. It produces a linear model of acceptance, suggesting that more teaching leads to more acceptance. This model is flawed on two main levels:

Issue 1: Experts vs Non-experts: Mexican Monsanto Maize Mayhem

Firstly, it establishes a hierarchy of ‘expert’ and ‘non-expert’. This leads to the idea that if scientists are experts and the public is not, only the opinion of the scientist is a valid one. Of course, a scientist who has spent years working on a project is going to know plenty about their field of study, there is no doubt about that. However this expertise can give a very narrow scope in the grand scheme of things. A researcher can spend a lot of time agonising over each tiny detail of their project; such as product yield, kill switches or containment. What they may not consider are some of the social implications that the public would raise.

A good example of this comes from a case study carried out in Mexico in 2004 [2][3]. The study was investigating the effects of a recent cross-contamination between Monsanto-brand transgenic maize grown in the USA and native maize growing in Mexico. This was a big deal, as Mexico is the main source of all genetic diversity of maize crops, with a population that gets 80% from its nutrition from maize products. GM maize was already banned by the Mexican government, so this cross-contamination was serious business. A study was carried out by the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). At a meeting between the scientists and the local campesinos, the scientists presented lots of technical data in an attempt to reassure the locals that there is no reason to be concerned. There was no evidence of any adverse effects on the maize, and no reason to suggest that the problem would escalate. However, despite solid scientific backing, their attempt to calm the locals fell on deaf ears. Mexico has been cultivating maize for over 6000 years [4], and so it is deeply ingrained within Mexican culture. The campesinos gave passionate speeches, fearing a change in their livelihood and their future. The scientists, acting in the way the knowledge deficit model would suggest, though the locals had just simply misunderstood what they were saying. The issue was not that the public had ignored the science. The issue was that the scientists had ignored the concerns the locals actually had. This leads nicely in to the second major issue with the knowledge deficit assumption:

Issue 2: Knowledge Doesn’t Necessarily Equal Power