Team:BCCS-Bristol/Human Practices/Marketing Campaign/Public Perception

From 2010.igem.org

Revision as of 10:56, 14 October 2010

An understanding and consideration of the public perception of our work is crucial to the success of advancements in synthetic biology. Successful and positive public relations are vital to ensure that our research and its applications are not dismissed in amidst sensational reporting, or under- or over-played causing mistrust or fear. Ultimately, without public support and education, products and services built using this new technology may not be developed and released for use, forfeiting a multitude of potential benefits.

Directly as a result of the human practices section of the iGEM competition, much data has been collected gauging public opinion. This, combined with other studies, indicates the status of the field in the public consciousness and highlights work that needs to be done to educate and inform people further.

As the purpose of our public information leaflet is to consider the effect on local communities to the release of our organism, we have attempted to glean a better understanding of the opinions held by non-experts, by also considering the role of the media in scientific reporting. By identifying approaches taken by the media that have caused controversy in the past, we hope to construct clear and truthful materials to inform and interest the public in the wider synthetic biology debate.

Further research could be conducted into the genetic modification debate, of which we have only scratched the surface, exploring other nationalities’ viewpoints, regulations and activist groups. We also acknowledge that the surveys conducted by the many iGEM teams were done so in different countries and cultures and of different levels of scientific understanding: from the general public to lecturers and professionals, however they have provided an insight into the varying opinions.

iGEM survey analysis

There are some recurring themes in the conclusions drawn by iGEM teams that have conducted surveys of public opinion. Questions posed by many different teams have explored public and scientific opinions of synthetic biology and its implications, and they have made recommendations based on their findings. Issues have been identified by previous teams when presenting synthetic biology and research to people uninvolved in iGEM, and a summary of the 2005-2008 team findings has been produced by the Valencia 09 team (REF).

Some of the issues relevant to our campaign are listed and considered here, as the main purpose of our approach is to produce a careful response to public opinion whilst providing information about the potential of our synthetic biology research.

More public information is needed

Further motivating our advertising approach, several teams have concluded that more public information is required, justifying alternative methods for public engagement.

• ‘there should be more information for the general public about new technologies’, (Valencia 09)
• general public knowledge of science is democratically necessary for ethical decision making’ (Heidelberg 08)

These conclusions suggest that public information at present is not sufficient, but also that to make good decisions, the public need to be involved, as a stakeholder, and as such they need to be well informed to make the best decisions possible.

Additionally, the synthetic biology community has been found to be majority supportive for public information. TUDelft 08 found that 61% of the community agrees that scientific advances should be communicated to society. Our campaign is designed such that our own team can bring our research into the public domain, communicating fairly and openly the potential uses (and challenges) of the field, and also providing further reading.

This willingness on the part of the synthetic biology community to engage with the public could indeed enhance the image of the field as a whole. Valencia 09 observed a trend for ‘people with a greater awareness of synthetic biology [to] believe that it is potentially more beneficial and less dangerous than uninformed people’. This suggests a more favourable response from the public when more information has been made available to be considered.

RESPONSE
Teams are concluding that there is a need for more public engagement of science, and synthetic biology in particular. This directly motivates our advertising campaign as a tool for introducing the public to the many possible avenues of research. By explicitly addressing the motivation for the research, the potential benefits of technologies being developed, and the regulations in place, we hope to encourage informed debate.