George Gaskell

Biotechnology and the European public

The latest European sample survey of public perceptions of biotechnology reveals widespread opposition to genetically modified (GM) food in much of Europe, but public attitudes to medical and environmental applications remain positive.

Towards a paradigm for research on social representations

Based on Moscovici’s (1961) classical study on the cultivation of psychoanalytic ideas in France in the 1950’s and our own research on modern biotechnology, we propose a paradigm for researching social representations. Following a consideration of the nature of representations and of the ‘iconoclastic suspicion’ that haunts them, we propose a model of the emergence of meaning relating three elements: subjects, objects, and projects. The basic unit of analysis is the elongated triangle of mediation (SOPS): subject 1, object, project, and subject 2, captured in the image of a ‘Toblerone’. Such social units cultivate, that is produce, circulate and receive representation which may be embodied in four modes–habitual behaviour, individual cognition, informal communication and formal communication–and in three mediums–words, visual images or non-linguistic sounds. We propose an operational definition of a ‘social representation’ as the comparison of four characteristics of communication systems: the content structures (anchorings and objectifications; core and peripheral elements), the typified processes (diffusion, propagation, propaganda etc.), and their functions (identity, attitude, opinion, resistance, ideology etc.), within the context of segmented social milieus. Seven implications for research on social representations are outlined: (1) content and process; (2) segmentation by social milieus rather than taxonomies; (3) cultivation studies within social milieus; (4) multi-method (mode and medium) analysis; (5) time structures and longitudinal data; (6) the crossover of cultural projects and trajectories; (7) the disinterested research attitude. This ideal type paradigm leads to an operational clarification to identify new research questions, and to guide the design and evaluation of studies on social representations.

A theory of risk colonization: The spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk

Abstract Explanations of the growing importance of risk to regulation identify three processes; the need to respond to newly created and discovered risks; the growth of regulatory frameworks; and the use of the risk instrument as an organizing idea for decision-making in modernity. Synthesizing these explanations, we propose a theory of risk colonization. We introduce a distinction between societal and institutional risks, the former referring to threats to members of society and their environment, and the latter referring to threats to regulatory organizations and/or the legitimacy of rules and methods of regulation. We argue that pressures towards greater coherence, transparency, and accountability of the regulation of societal risks can create institutional risks by exposing the inevitable limitations of regulation. In the first stage of risk colonization, framing the objects of regulation as ‘risks’ serves as a useful instrument for reflexively managing the associated institutional threats. This can be followed, in a second stage, by a dynamic tension between the management of societal and institutional risks that results in spiralling feedback loops. The very process of regulating societal risks gives rise to institutional risks, the management of which sensitizes regulators to take account of societal risks in different ways. We discuss links between this theory and the concept of governmentality and conclude with some speculations about the possible positive and negative consequences of risk colonization.

Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States

This paper compares public perceptions of technologies in the United States and Europe. Asked whether nanotechnology will improve our way of life, 50 percent of the US sample say “yes” and 35 percent say “don’t know.” The European figures are almost the mirror image, 29 percent saying “yes” and 53 percent saying “don’t know.” People in the US are also more optimistic than Europeans about eight more familiar technologies. We suggest that people in the US assimilate nanotechnology within a set of pro-technology cultural values. By contrast, in Europe there is more concern about the impact of technology on the environment, less commitment to economic progress and less confidence in regulation. These differences in values are reflected in media coverage, with more emphasis on the potential benefits of nanotechnology in the US than in the UK. Finally, we speculate on possible futures for the reception of nanotechnology in the US and Europe.

The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences

Since 1991, the triennial Eurobarometer survey has assessed public attitudes about biotech and the life sciences in Europe. The latest 2010 Eurobarometer survey on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology (http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf), based on representative samples from 32 European countries, hints at a new era in the relations between science and society. We see less criticism of technology based on distrust in government and industry; more enthusiasm for novel technologies; and a more sophisticated appraisal of what technologies offer in terms of benefits, safety and sustainability. Europeans want regulation in the public interest and want a voice in such regulation when social values are at stake; we highlight an emerging European landscape of social value differences that shape peoples views of technologies.

Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation

This article examines public perceptions of biobanks in Europe using a multi-method approach combining quantitative and qualitative data. It is shown that public support for biobanks in Europe is variable and dependent on a range of interconnected factors: people’s engagement with biobanks; concerns about privacy and data security, and trust in the socio-political system, key actors and institutions involved in biobanks. We argue that the biobank community needs to acknowledge the impact of these factors if they are to successfully develop and integrate biobanks at a pan-European level.

Young People's Ownership and Uses of New and Old Forms of Media in Britain and the Netherlands

Using data obtained in a national survey carried out in Britain (N = 1309) and the Netherlands (N = 1355), this article compares British and Dutch children and young people aged 6-17 with respect to: (1) the availability of different media in childrens homes, and particularly in the childrens own room; (2) the amount of time spent on different media; and (3) the gratifications associated with the use of different types of media. Attention is paid to new forms of media (electronic games and the personal computer) as well as old forms of media (print media and television and video). Cross-national similarities and differences in ownership and uses of media are established, both for the whole 6-17 age group and for subgroups formed in terms of gender, age and socioeconomic status. Special attention is devoted to points where British children and young people are clearly differentiated from their Dutch peers.

Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?

George Gaskell and colleagues designed, analysed and interpreted the Eurobarometer 73.1 on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology as part of the research project Sensitive Technologies and European Public Ethics (STEPE), funded by the Science in Society Programme of the EC’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7).

Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters

To ensure that biobanks reach their full potential, better engagement of the public is needed. The authors argue that the principle of reciprocity should be at the core of these efforts.

The construction and function of vivid memories

An explanation is proposed for the processes underlying particularly vivid recollections so called “Flashbulb Memories”. According to our proposal, these memories, which often include seemingly inconsequential details, develop in two stages. The first stage labelled chaotic creation involves the person having difficulty storing the event within an existing memory structure and therefore, in order to encode it, having to create a structure without much appropriate knowledge. This results in inconsequential details being given key roles in the memory structure. The second stage relates to the memory’s value for social identity. Memories which are valued and which contribute to social identity maintain a vivid quality.