How do people in the European Union (EU) really feel about biotechnology? That there is evidence of a widespread lack of trust in public authorities to effectively deal with biotechnology concerns is not in question. Nor is the fact that public confidence in emerging applications of biotechnology cannot be taken for granted. What is of interest is what these specific concerns are, and who exactly people do trust to alleviate them.

A recent Eurobarometer survey carried out across the EU by a team working as part of a Concerted Action of the European Commission (administered on behalf of DGXII Research & Development), found that large sections of the public are "deeply ambivalent about much of modern biotechnology". There is general support for "traditional" medical applications, but fewer approve of the use of transgenic animals for research, or for uses such as the transplantation of organs into humans (xeno-transplantation).

While knowledge is conventionally considered crucial for support of science and technology - the more informed the public is, the more likely new technologies are to be accepted - the survey found the opposite to be true in the case of biotechnology. Although knowledge of basic biotechnology has increased, optimism about its contribution to a better way of life is low. In terms of perceived risk, people see all biotechnology applications as potentially useful, but those involving crop plants, food production, and the uses of transgenic animals described above, do raise questions. The results across six applications - genetic testing, medicines, crop plants, food production, research animals, xeno-transplants - suggest that perceptions of usefulness, riskiness and moral acceptability could be combined to shape overall support. Firstly, usefulness is a precondition of support. Secondly, people seem prepared to accept some risk as long as there is some perception of usefulness, and no moral concern. Lastly, and crucially, moral doubts act as a veto, regardless of how people feel about use and risk.

This finding - that risk has less influence than moral acceptability in shaping public perceptions - holds true in each EU country across all six applications, and has profound implications for policy-making. Policy debates have generally centred on the potential risks to the environment and/or public health. If, however, people are more swayed by moral considerations, public concern is unlikely to be alleviated by technically based reassurances and/or regulations designed to avoid harm.

It is precisely because of risk and safety issues that biotechnology is so extensively regulated in Europe. Interestingly, when people were asked which bodies were best placed to regulate, more on average preferred international organisations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organisation to either their own national or pan-European bodies. Self-regulation by scientific bodies also rated highly. These results confirm the trend of an increasing lack of confidence in national political institutions. Importantly, they also demonstrate that biotechnology has trans-national consequences that national bodies are powerless to influence. It has been said that trust is a functional substitute for knowledge so, in situations of uncertainty, lack of trust could become an important determinant of the way issues are viewed.

Views across Europe differ on a national basis, where it seems that the countries in which biotechnology is best established are among the least supportive, whereas others in which it is in its infancy are the most supportive.

Contact: G Gaskell, Department of Social Psychology, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. E-mail: gaskell@lse.ac.uk

FOOD TODAY 08/1998