Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Just what do people think about biotechnology? The European Commission
has asked 12 800 people across Europe how they feel about it. Those who
said they knew most about biotechnology also said they thought it was risky.
All of those surveyed said they had far more confidence in what environmental
and consumers’ groups had to say about biotechnology than in what they were
told by governments or industry.

Thirteen questions on biotechnology were included in the first of the
twice-yearly Eurobarometer surveys. The survey results will be published
later this month.

Only half of the people questioned thought biotechnology would improve
life. Solar energy, computers, telecommunications and new materials all
scored higher; only space exploration scored lower. A tenth of all respondents,
and 20 per cent in Holland and Denmark, thought biotechnology would make
things worse.

The Germans, Danes and Dutch scored themselves highest in their understanding
of biotechnology. They also perceived the most risk. ‘The more they know,
the less they like it,’ said an official at the Concertation Unit for Biotechnology,
which organised the survey. Britain was the exception; it scored fourth
highest in understanding biotechnology, and third lowest in perceiving risks,
just above Spain and Portugal.

Not everyone was sure what biotechnology was, however. A sample of people
who were asked about ‘genetic engineering’ perceived greater risks and fewer
benefits than those asked about ‘biotechnology’.

People were also asked whether biotechnology was ‘linked’ to a number
of fields. The right answer in all cases was yes. A third of Danes said
biotechnology is not linked to diagnosing cancer, and between 10 and 20
per cent said no to such things as ‘improving traditional methods of cross-breeding
plants and animals’ and ‘producing new kinds of organisms using hereditary
information from other species’.

People were then told of seven fields of research, among them that ‘scientists
are trying to use biotechnology . . . in order to make plants more useful’,
to ‘clean up oil slicks’ and ‘to improve human health’. They were asked
whether each of the seven fields should be encouraged, whether it ‘may involve
risks to human health or the environment’, and if it ‘needs to be controlled
by the government’.

Fewer than half thought biotechnological research on farm animals ‘to
make them resistant to diseases, or grow faster’ should be encouraged. A
third thought applying biotechnology to animals ‘to develop life-saving
drugs or study human diseases’ was morally acceptable, ‘provided the animals’
welfare is safeguarded’, but 20 per cent said it was morally wrong, and
27 per cent said governments should decide each case. Only 13 per cent thought
such work justified ‘some animal suffering’.

The other six areas of research were approved by more than half the
respondents. But the same people said there were risks. While 95 per cent
approved of making microorganisms ‘clean up oil slicks’, 58 per cent thought
the research was risky. Research ‘to improve the quality of food and drink’
was approved by 65 per cent, while 72 per cent said that it was risky.

More than 90 per cent of respondents called for government control in
all seven areas of research given. Yet only 7 per cent said they trusted
public authorities to give accurate information. Only 1.3 per cent of people
surveyed said they most trusted industry to provide them with ‘the truth
about biotechnology’. Environmental organis ations were trusted by 23 per
cent, and consumer organisations by 27 per cent. Universities were trusted
by 17 per cent.

The survey cost the unit £105 000. The unit is meant to monitor
developments in biotechnology, encourage small firms, coordinate European
and national programmes, and ‘increase public awareness and understanding
of biotechnology’.

Staff outside the unit say that this is not scientific research and
should not be paid for out of the Commission’s limited research funds. Staff
at the biotechnology unit say the survey will allow them to focus public
education campaigns on areas where there is a lack of understanding.