Claire Marris

A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm

This paper seeks to compare two frameworks which have been proposed to explain risk perceptions, namely, cultural theory and the psychometric paradigm. A structured questionnaire which incorporated elements from both approaches was administered to 129 residents of Norwich, England. The qualitative risk characteristics generated by the psychometric paradigm explained a far greater proportion of the variance in risk perceptions than cultural biases, though it should be borne in mind that the qualitative characteristics refer directly to risks whereas cultural biases are much more distant variables. Correlations between cultural biases and risk perceptions were very low, but the key point was that each cultural bias was associated with concern about distinct types of risks and that the pattern of responses was compatible with that predicted by cultural theory. The cultural approach also provided indicators for underlying beliefs regarding trust and the environment; beliefs which were consistent within each world view but divergent between them. An important drawback, however, was that the psychometric questionnaire could only allocate 32% of the respondents unequivocally to one of the four cultural types. The rest of the sample expressed several cultural biases simultaneously, or none at all. Cultural biases are therefore probably best interpreted as four extreme world views, and a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies would generate better insights into who might defend these views in what circumstances, whether there are only four mutually exclusive world views or not, and how these views are related to patterns of social solidarity, and judgments on institutional trust.

Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths

There is no doubt that genetically modified organisms have a notoriously bad reputation in Europe. The anti‐GMO lobby accuses proponents of this technology of pushing the introduction of GMOs into agriculture without adequately considering health and environmental risks. The pro‐GMO camp charges its opponents with blowing potential risks out of proportion in order to manipulate public opinion against this new technology. During this mutual finger pointing, both sides have taken to blaming the public for a lack of understanding. Indeed, one often hears claims that: ‘The media is to blame for the “hysterical” coverage of the issue’, or: ‘The problem is that the public does not understand the science behind biotechnology’, or: ‘Public acceptability will improve as soon as consumers see direct benefits’. A typical demonstration of these arguments was made recently in this journal by Robert Marchant (Marchant, 2001). But this is not an isolated example; in the course of my research on the sociology of risk, I am constantly confronted with such perceptions about the public. However, these views—although prevalent among stakeholders in the GMO debate—are not supported by many years of social science research. I choose to call them ‘myths’ to indicate the fact that they appear so ‘evident’ that no further substantiation seems to be needed. These myths are not restricted to the ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ GMO camps. Both sides, with minor exceptions, tend to share the same misconceived view about public understanding. Both believe that ignorance is a key problem, and develop strategies to ‘educate the public’—even if the content of that ‘education’ is different. Both sides think that direct benefits to the consumer are a central determinant of public acceptance; thus the ‘pros’ seek to communicate the benefits, whilst the ‘antis’ try to demonstrate that these benefits will not be realised or that they …

Science and governance in Europe: Lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology

Amid a wider debate over the European Unions democratic deficit, ‘science and governance’ has attracted particular attention. Science and technology have become a special problem because they are routinely cited as an objective basis for policy. Through dominant models of science and technology, policy frameworks serve to promote and conceal socio-political agendas, while pre-empting debate on alternative futures. Technological-market imperatives are invoked to mandate a single path towards economic survival. Expert advice is implicitly equated with ‘science’, in turn invoked as if scientific knowledge were a value-neutral basis for regulatory decisions. This has led to a legitimacy crisis. As governments search for a remedy, rhetorics of openness have been tagged onto the dominant models, rather than superseding them. Consequently, underlying tensions emerge within proposed reforms, as illustrated by the case of agricultural biotechnology. If the aim is to relegitimise decision-making, it will be necessary to change the institutions responsible for promoting innovation and regulating risks, in particular their preconceptions of science, technology and public concerns. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The 5' flanking region of a barley B hordein gene controls tissue and developmental specific CAT expression in tobacco plants.

The 549 base pairs of the 5′ flanking region of a barley seed storage protein (B1 hordein) gene were linked to the reporter gene encoding chloramphenicol acetyl transferase (CAT). The chimaeric gene was transferred into tobacco plants using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. CAT enzyme activity was detected in the seeds, but not in the leaves, of the transgenic plants. Furthermore, enzyme activity was found only in the endosperm, and only from fifteen days after pollination. In contrast, the constitutive 19S promoter from cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) directed the expression of the CAT gene in the leaves as well as in both the endosperm and embryo and at all stages in seed development.

Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France

Cultural Theory, as developed by Mary Douglas, argues that differing risk perceptions can be explained by reference to four distinct cultural biases: hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, and fatalism. This paper presents empirical results from a quantitative survey based on a questionnaire devised by Karl Dake to measure these cultural biases. A large representative sample (N = 1022) was used to test this instrument in the French social context. Correlations between cultural biases and perceptions of 20 social and environmental risks were examined. These correlations were very weak, but were statistically significant: cultural biases explained 6%, at most, of the variance in risk perceptions. Standard sociodemographic variables were also weakly related to risk perceptions (especially gender, social class, and education), and cultural biases and sociodemographic variables were themselves inter correlated (especially with age, social class, and political outlook). The authors compare these results with surveys conducted in other countries using the same instrument and conclude that new methods, more qualitative and contextual, still need to be developed to investigate the cultural dimensions of risk perceptions. The paper also discusses relationships between perceptions of personal and residual risk, and between perceived risk and demand for additional safety measures. These three dimensions were generally closely related, but interesting differences were observed for some risk issues.

Open engagement: exploring public participation in the biosciences.

Over the past few decades, numerous initiatives have sought to engage members of the public in decisions concerning bioscience and biotechnologies as early as possible in the development of scientific research, based on the belief that such participation is in the public interest. What these initiatives hope to achieve, however, varies with the motivations for seeking public input. In some cases, they reflect the belief that citizens who will be affected by decisions have the right to participate in those decisions, especially when the research is funded by their tax contributions (this would be what social scientists term a normative justification). In other cases, they reflect a desire to reduce conflict, help (re)build trust, and smooth the way for new innovations (in other words, the reason is instrumental). And in still others, they reflect the assumption that such participation from people who will use and/or be affected by a technology will raise questions about the real-life functioning of developments when they leave the laboratory, perhaps leading to innovations that perform better in complex real-world conditions, or that may be more socially, economically, and environmentally viable (we could term these “substantive justifications”)

Disentrenching Experiment The Construction of GM—Crop Field Trials As a Social Problem

The paper investigates how field experimentation of genetically modified crops became central to the French controversy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in recent years. Initially constructed in the 1980s as a cognitive endeavor to be preserved from lay interference, field trials of genetically modified crops were reconceived as “an intrusion in the social space,” which had to be negotiated with actors from that space. In order to analyze this transformation, the authors suggest that it is necessary to develop an interpretive framework that combines theoretical perspectives from science and technology studies and the sociology of social problems, and emphasizes the importance of the way in which actors compete in a heterogeneous public space, to put forward alternative framings of problems. The authors present a detailed analysis of the interactions and conflicts between actors in diverse social arenas in order to better understand the dynamics of this sociotechnical controversy.

Interactive Technology Assessment in the Real World Dual Dynamics in an iTA Exercise on Genetically Modified Vines

Participatory Technology Assessment (pTA) initiatives have usually been analyzed as if they existed in a social and political vacuum. This article analyzes the linkages that occur, in both directions, between the microcosm set up by a pTA exercise and the real world outside. This dual-dynamics perspective leads to a new way of understanding the function and significance of pTA initiatives. Rather than viewing them as a means to create the ideal conditions for real public debate, they are viewed here as an additional public arena in which sociotechnical controversies are played out. This perspective is developed from the analysis of an interactive technology assessment exercise conducted by the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, on the topic of genetically modified vines.

Synthetic Biology and Biosecurity: Challenging the “Myths”

Synthetic biology, a field that aims to “make biology easier to engineer,” is routinely described as leading to an increase in the “dual-use” threat, i.e., the potential for the same scientific research to be “used” for peaceful purposes or “misused” for warfare or terrorism. Fears have been expressed that the “de-skilling” of biology, combined with online access to the genomic DNA sequences of pathogenic organisms and the reduction in price for DNA synthesis, will make biology increasingly accessible to people operating outside well-equipped professional research laboratories, including people with malevolent intentions. The emergence of do-it-yourself (DIY) biology communities and of the student iGEM competition has come to epitomize this supposed trend toward greater ease of access and the associated potential threat from rogue actors. In this article, we identify five “myths” that permeate discussions about synthetic biology and biosecurity, and argue that they embody misleading assumptions about both synthetic biology and bioterrorism. We demonstrate how these myths are challenged by more realistic understandings of the scientific research currently being conducted in both professional and DIY laboratories, and by an analysis of historical cases of bioterrorism. We show that the importance of tacit knowledge is commonly overlooked in the dominant narrative: the focus is on access to biological materials and digital information, rather than on human practices and institutional dimensions. As a result, public discourse on synthetic biology and biosecurity tends to portray speculative scenarios about the future as realities in the present or the near future, when this is not warranted. We suggest that these “myths” play an important role in defining synthetic biology as a “promissory” field of research and as an “emerging technology” in need of governance.

Five rules of thumb for post-ELSI interdisciplinary collaborations

In this paper we identify five rules of thumb for interdisciplinary collaboration across the natural and social sciences. We link these to efforts to move away from the ‘ethical, legal and social issues’ framework of interdisciplinarity and towards a post-ELSI collaborative space. It is in trying to open up such a space that we identify the need for: collaborative experimentation, taking risks, collaborative reflexivity, opening-up discussions of unshared goals and neighbourliness.