Engaging the South African public on Biotechnology

PUB: Strategic operating context

Cape Biotech EcoBio Plant Bio NRF SAASTA NBN Biopad Gov Depts Investors End users Public & public opinion PUB, one of six “Biotechnology Instruments” in South Africa…

PUB: A dynamic and innovative public communication programme aiming to: increase broad public awareness and clear, balanced understanding of the scientific principles and potential of biotechnology & related issues; and create meaningful opportunities for public dialogue and debate around biotechnology and its applications within our society to enable informed decision making.

SAASTA Mandate To promote public awareness, appreciation and engagement of science, engineering and technology (SET). SAASTA is the official vehicle for facilitating the promotion of SET in SA society, and was incorporated into the NRF in December 2002 South African Agency of Science and Technology Advancement (SAASTA), a Business Unit of the National Research Foundation (NRF)

STRATEGIC APPROACH S CI E N C E MI S SI O N S MI S SI O N S MuseumZooObservatory SCIENCE AWARENESS PLATFORM EDUCATION SCIENCE COMMUNICATION School science support Science materials Communication of research to public audiences Science and the media SET Careers KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENTKNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT

Why a PUB Programme?  Recommendation of SA National Biotechnology Strategy (along with 5 other biotech instruments);  Government commitment to & investment in biotechnology;  The public’s right to know;  SAASTA: promote awareness, public understanding & appreciation of SET; and  High levels of ignorance of SA public (PUB survey).

PUB History & Budget  End 2002R1,500,000 planning/stakeholder consultation  2003/4: R5,000,000 launch & implementation  2004/5: R5,000,000 full implementation  2005/6: R3,500,000 full implementation  Continued funding subject to review Continual public & stakeholder feedback/input throughout

Guiding principles  Provide factual, balanced, credible information on biotechnology;  Transparency, accountability & “clean” links;  Biotechnology per se - not just GM;  Engagement & dialogue;  Use of non-jargon language that is easy and accessible to all;  Innovative, creative communication;  Actively involve the stakeholder, science & media communities, both nationally and internationally.

Challenges  Diversity of South Africa in language and culture (literacy);  Transformation issues (gender, M&S…);  Very wide mandate: all biotechnology to all South Africans;  Remaining neutral, factual & credible;  Current confusion & polarization over specific biotechnology areas e.g. GM;  Biotechnology terminology: translation & “translation”; and  Capacity constraints (human & financial).

Science Communication & PUB Team  Science Communication Manager (50% PUB)  Project Coordinator (50% PUB)  Media Coordinator (20% PUB)  Editor/Writer (10% PUB)  Web administrator/graphic designer (20% PUB)  PUB Project officer (100% PUB)  Grants Project Officer  Administrative officer (50% PUB)  PUB Intern (until end March 2006) Capacity (human & budgetary) constraints Coordinating/facilitating role & outsourcing calls Total capacity=3 All biotech for all South Africans

The “science” of science communication Cognitive-deficit model (one-way communication) Interactive model (two-way communication) Downward transmission from scientist to citizen Dialogue between scientist and citizen Science is seen as coherent, objective, unproblematic and well-bounded Science has problematic boundaries and may not always be able to provide answers with certainty Science is central to decisions about practical action in everyday life Science is often marginalised or peripheral when integrated with other relevant to everyday decisions Science is unencumbered by social and institutional connections Science is usually seen by laypeople as inseparable from its social and institutional connections Uptake of science is determined by intellectual ability (i.e. you have to be ‘clever’ to understand it) Uptake of science is influenced by trust in sources and openness in negotiations ‘Ignorance’ on the part of the public has to be remedied ‘Ignorance’ may sometimes be functional Unscientific behaviour results from failure to apply scientific knowledge People engage in opportunistic construction of practical knowledge well adapted to specific needs ‘Scientific thinking’ is the proper yardstick with which to measure ‘everyday thinking’ ‘Everyday thinking’ and knowledge in action are more complex and less well understood than ‘scientific thinking’

Information & dialogue Biotech in the mass media Capacity building & networking Themes: Science & media interaction: Media roundtable Expert list Media skills Responsible reporting Biotech media service: Media monitoring/analysis Responses/alerts Press statements Targeted eds & ads Website Produce/distribute printed materials Radio & TV products Basic biotech WS Science theatre Innovative grants Help desk Public perceptions Role model campaign Biotech careers Public events/exhibits Networking Strategic objectives:

How: Capacity building Interactive exhibits Public/academic events Educator workshops Communication training for scientists & journalists Role models & career profiling

Exhibits: static & interactive DNA 50 GM Forensics Cloning Biotech careers & role modelling

How: Communication tools Science drama Targeted educational resources & “kits” Role models Competitions

PUB Teaching Modules  Biotechnology & biodiversity;  Complementary, empowering tool;  Specifies teaching outcomes;  Targets Grd 9-12 & caters for range of abilities;  Includes local (SA) examples;  Educator training ensures skills to teach biotech content correctly & confidently;  Pilot involving 2 workshops per district in Free State in October 2005 (350+ Gr 10 Educators);  Awaiting endorsement from National DoE following pilot evaluation;  Piloting in other Provinces.

How: Mass Media & “round table”

How: Website & Helpdesk: 303,977 unique visits to date (since Sept 2003) and 1,934,136 accesses

Engaging the public on GMOs  Basics first (cells, DNA, genes…): Resources (posters, kits, cartoons, teaching modules) Basic Biotech workshops Advertorials (i.e. paid media space) Media responses to misinformation – when possible Help desk enquiries GM advertorial (in process) Documenting the development of the GMO act (in process)  Do not prescribe a particular view – instead encourage dialogue & discussion based on all the facts – both benefits & risks, so people can make their own informed decision;  Public info needs –What the public want to know rather than what you want them to know.  Public debate v consensus: polarizes the issue further. Why not aim for consensus in the middle ground?;

Challenges to GMO engagement  High levels of ignorance/lack of knowledge amongst South Africans –have to educate & raise awareness first;  Polarization of the GM issue globally (which side are you on?);  Contradictory claims adding to the confusion;  Consuming, hi-input issue & keeping up-to date full time job…  Complexity & vastness of GM issue - ONE biotech issue of “ALL Biotech to ALL South Africans”

Public perceptions of Biotechnology

Why measure public perceptions?  Baseline to measure impact of activities;  To monitor trends over time;  Generate internationally complementary & comparative data;  Lack of comprehensive & less biased surveys undertaken in SA to date;  Identify gaps and information needs;and  Enable tailoring of messages for specific audiences on biotech.

PUB/HSRC Survey (2004/5)  High response rate (82%);  Baseline to measure impact – not to substantiate specific views;  Knowledge, attitudes & judgements, trust;  Mostly quantitative;  Census enumerator areas/GIS – repeatable;  Face to face interviews; and  Language of choice.

Sample specifics  7000 people aged 16+ in 500 enumerator areas;  53% formal urban; 35% tribal; 9% informal urban; 4% rural;  Race:76% black 12% white 9% coloured 3% asian  Gender: 46% male & 54% female;  Age:29% % % % 60+

Knowledge  8/10 do not know or have knowledge about biotechnology (GM, GE or cloning);  What do you think about biotech… “Fake goods that come with Nigerians & Chinese” “something to do with brains” “Weapons of mass destruction” “something to do with cars”

GM foods in South Africa  GM foods on sale in SA? 66% Don’t know maize, apples, milk/dairy, tomatoes, fruit & vegetables  Ever eaten GM foods? 62.5%Don’t know 11.5%Yes 26%No  Reasons for negativity? 53% no one good reason 15% unhealthy for humans 11% violates religious/ethical principles

Vote for continuation despite lack of knowledge

Food labels  51% don’t read food labels – those who do usually (23%) are more negative;  Higher LSM groups more likely to read food labels (37%) compared to moderate (21%) LSM groups;  Low percentage want GM info on labels but could be included in 21% for more ingredient info.

Conclusion If one is educated, has some form of income, has access to the internet and to reading material, is of a particular race group – then one tends to be more negative about biotechnology or have more factual knowledge of it & Very few people very negative How can people have opinions on something they know nothing about?

Thank you!