1. Investigating PUS in the context of genetic patents Integrating ’deficit’ intuitions in a ’contextual’ approach Morten Andreasen, BioCampus and Dept. of Sociology, The University of Copenhagen

2. Overview 1.The two models of PUS 2.Knowledge, attitude and identity 3.Proposed interview set-up for the study of PU gene patents 4.Experience with interview set-up

3. The two models of PUS: The deficit model “Can we now freely commit crimes on the assumption that a jury of Big Brother-watching Sun-readers will reach the verdict uncontaminated by the facts of the case?” (Prof. Richard Dawkins, The Guardian, 24th September 2000) ”The feeling that you should not be able to patent DNA molecules lies in a false understanding of what a patent is” (Bo Hammer Jensen, head of patent task force, Union of Biotech companies in Europe, EuropaBio)

4. The two models of PUS: The deficit model Judgment of public reluctance: - people should understand science like scientists, but don’t: they have no scientific knowledge and are unable to make an objective assessment e.g. of risk Explanation of how people in fact understand science: - the same way as scientists: they gather scientific knowledge and strive to make objective assessments - ”to know science is to love it” ”a common sense idea among policy makers” (Allum, Boy, Bauer, 2002) Knowledge matters

5. The two models of the PUS: The contextual model People are always the best judges of S&T activities, no matter their state of technical informedness Proof: whatever situation we analyse, people turn out to be reasonable People evaluate science in several ways, applying various kinds of knowledge (e.g. Wynne 1992) Different perspective implies different standards Knowledge deficiency – local/particular and general social and cultural knowledge about science as well as other things

6. Understandings and knowledges – knowledge and attitudes Technical knowledge tends to produce polarisation (Eurobarometer 58.0) ”General technology optimism” stronger correlated with positive attitudes than knowledge level (Pardo et al. 2002) Knowledge tends to ”activate” basic views (Frewer 1998) Knowledge about cloning made most people more sceptical (e.g. Wellcome Trust 1998) Controversy over technology characterised by a difference between those who see technology as the solution and those who see it as the problem (Nelkin 1995)

7. The role of knowledge Controversy as an expression of disagreement between different value systems or identities (e.g. Wynne 1996; Ravetz and Funtovics 1992) -How do different identities react to ”fact”? Douglas (1992): risk perception as reflection of social identity -Worldviews/’risk cultures’ -Not just value differences: diverging beliefs diverging expectations Example: is nature robust or fragile? Example: is the gene ”just” a chemical or ”something more”? Is a gene a discovery or an invention?

8. Investigating attitudes and knowledge 1.Explore the relationship between identities and knowledge - sensitivity to different people’s different interpretation of science, including its definitions, norms, facts, intentions, methods and social and cultural roles (etc.) 2.Explore the way in which knowledge is ’dealt with’ by different identities Explorative qualitative interviews – focus on informants’ understandings (rather than mine) Discourse analysis – focus on social structure, truth in brackets Group discussion – study worldview ’struggle’ Interventionist design – study ’knowledge practice’

9. Method -Discoursive changes during cognitive progression -Wellcome Trust 1998: Public Perspectives on Cloning - people react to content by introducing context - knowledge as process instrument -Interviews interspaced by knowledge provisions - Basic and ’extended’, plural account of ”what gene patents are” Interview 1 Basic knowledge Interview 2 Perspectives Interview 3

10. Experience My own experience (GM crops): -few misunderstandings -new knowledge often is adapted to worldview -the way in which discourse changes upon provision of knowledge points to group memberships/identities as important E.g. people’s reaction to knowledge followed expressions of diverging values: Knowledge comforting: freedom/strict regulation vs. Knowledge viewed with suspicion: solidarity/distrust regulation