BIOTECHNOLOGY PUBLIC AWARENESS SURVEY FINAL REPORT
Research conducted by
July 2001 L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
0
Millward Brown Australia
Background In July 1999 Millward Brown Australia (MBA, formely YCHW) was commissioned by Biotechnology Australia to benchmark Australian attitudes to biotechnology and genetic engineering. In August 1999, 14 focus group discussions were conducted with the general public, scientists and farmers. These groups provided an emotional or image based dimension to the attitudes towards biotechnology and the genetic modification and labelling of food. In March 2001, prior to repeating quantitative tracking research on Australian attitudes to and awareness levels of, biotechnology and associated applications MBA completed qualitative research with the Australian public. In May 2001, MBA undertook another phase of tracking research to largely replicate and build upon the initial benchmarking study undertaken in 1999 by MBA. In June 2001, based on the findings of the tracking research and statistical analysis of the data, MBA conducted a comprehensive phase of qualitative research with the Australian public, in both metropolitan and regional/rural locations. The aim of this research was to assist in the development of the next phase of Biotechnology Australia’s communication strategy covering three years from July 2001.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
1
Research Methodology -- Overview
PHASE PHASE1: 1:NEW NEWISSUES ISSUESQUALITATIVE QUALITATIVE
Four Fourfocus focusgroups groupswith withadults, adults,totodevelop developan anunderstanding understandingofofthe theissues issuesthat thatmay mayhave haveemerged emerged since sincethe thebenchmark benchmarktracking trackingstudy studywas wascompleted completedinin1999. 1999. To Toensure ensurerelevant relevantissues issuesremain remainand andare areincorporated incorporatedinintotothe thesurvey surveyinstrument. instrument.
PHASE PHASE2: 2:GENERAL GENERALPOPULATION POPULATIONSURVEY SURVEY
AAnational nationaltelephone telephonesurvey surveyofof1001 1001adults adultstotoreplicate replicatethe the1999 1999MBA MBAGeneral GeneralPopulation Populationstudy study totoenable enablemonitoring monitoringand andevaluation evaluationofofthe theeffectiveness effectivenessofofthe theinitial initialtwo twoyears yearsofof the theBiotechnology BiotechnologyAustralia Australiapublic publicawareness awarenessprogram programthrough throughcomparative comparativeanalysis. analysis.
PHASE PHASE3: 3:MESSAGE MESSAGEDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENTQUALITATIVE QUALITATIVE
Nine Ninefocus focusgroups groupswith withadults adultstotoassist assistininthe thedevelopment developmentofofthe thenext nextphase phaseofof Biotechnology Australia’s communication strategy covering the three years from Biotechnology Australia’s communication strategy covering the three years fromJuly July2001. 2001.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
2
Key Findings Phase 1: New Issues Qualitative BIOTECHNOLOGY IS A COMPLEX INTIMIDATING SCIENTIFIC TOPIC Most respondents claimed that biotechnology is a complex scientific topic that they did not really know very much about or really understand--that is, most respondents felt intimidated by the topic. Consequently most respondents reported having an uncertain and cautious attitude toward Biotechnology; they claimed that they did not know enough about this complex topic to feel comfortable expressing an opinion.
BIOTECHNOLOGY IS OUT-OF-CONTROL AND BEYOND CONTROL! Generally most respondents felt that Biotechnology is changing at such a rapid pace that developments can no possibly be anticipated or legislated against. In addition, it was generally felt that the wishes of Australian society and government are insignificant compared to the international financial and political power of the large multinational companies driving biotechnological innovations. Most important Biotechnological issues tended to be related toward a lack of understanding and negative attitudes toward the issue on a very general level. That is, very few respondents sited more specific issues that relied on a deeper understanding of biotechnology and related issues (such as, Stem Cell research, gene therapy, etc) on an unaided basis as important issues.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
3
Key Findings Phase 1: New Issues Qualitative CURRENT BIOTECHNOLOGY ISSUES OF CONCERN In addition to the issues presented on the previous page this qualitative research suggested that the following were currently the most important biotechnology issues: !
The feeling that not enough is known about this complex and intimidating issue but, “I feel like I should know”.
!
Misunderstanding of biotechnology causing many focus group participants to attribute recent disasters to biotechnology, for example, the general belief that it caused the recent outbreak of foot and mouth in England and Mad Cow disease.
!
Negative perceptions: !
It is unnatural—“we should not be playing God”.
!
It does not necessarily make things better—“A step backwards at an unknown price”.
!
Biotechnology is out-of and beyond legislative control and in the hands of large profit driven multinational companies.
!
Fear of unknown long-term consequences.
!
Dissatisfaction with extreme and unbalanced media reporting of the issue.
!
Genetic modification of food, specifically the general belief that most food sold in Australia is already GM.
!
The impending cloning of humans. That is, most respondents believed that human cloning is a reality. “They say they’ve never cloned people but how do we know.”
" These findings were used to design a battery of questions which were added to the General Population Survey to determine how reflective these focus groups were of the general Australian population.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
4
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey AUSTRALIANS HAVE MAINTAINED THEIR INTEREST IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Since 1999 Australians have maintained their interest in science and technology (81% in 2001 vs 78% in 1999). Although not to a significant level, throughout the findings Income and education play a slight roll in peoples differing perceptions of science and technology. That is, the higher the household income or the higher the level of education the more likely the respondent was to be extremely or very interested in science and technology. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RATE HIGHER THAN GM FOODS AND CLONING AS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CONCERNS When rated against Pollution, Greenhouse, and Nuclear Waste, GM Foods and cloning were considered of least concern. In terms of the populations mindset of scientific concerns - they are not the most salient and prominent. However that is not to say that the issues become a concern and prominent once prompted (e.g. through media reports).
Science and Technology Concerns Impact more tangible. Have been issues for longer. 100
The percentage of respondents who rated each of these areas as the most important concern facing society today were as follows: Pollution 29% Nuclear Waste 24 Greenhouse 23 Cloning 13 GM Foods 11
29
27
% 23
0
23
24
27
22
22
27
5
13 11
16
12 23
30
14 7
17
16
11
11
Pollution
GreenHouse
Nuclear Waste
Fifth
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
11 14
Fourth
Third
30
GM foods
Second
First
41
Cloning
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS When compared to fibre optics, biotechnology and gene therapy, cloning and genetic engineering remain the two scientific developments people felt they knew the most about. The majority of the Australian population (55%) felt that they could explain cloning to another person.
Since 1999, the awareness of cloning (Not heard of 5% vs 2%) and biotechnology (heard of but know little about 57% vs 67%) has increased significantly. However, biotechnology and gene therapy remain the two scientific areas the Australian population are the least familiar with; only 16% of the population felt that they could explain biotechnology to another person and only 17% felt that they could explain gene therapy to another person.
Knowledge of Scientific Developments Higher perceived understanding of cloning relative to other developments 1999
51
44
41
This is consistent with the focus group findings in which respondents claimed these to be complex topics they did not understand. 16
2001
5
51
8
57
2
Cloning
Genetic Engineering 6
26
% 80
60
40
Not heard of
20
0
55 57
Fibre Optics
17
Biotechnology
16
36 55
%
0
Heard but know little about
27
67
29
Gene Therapy 100
43
20
16
54 40
60
17 80
100
Could explain to others Significant difference at 95% confidence
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
6
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey MOST SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS ARE SEEN TO IMPROVE OUR WAY OF LIFE IN NEXT 20 YEARS The majority of the Australian population believe that fibre optics and gene therapy will improve our way of life in the next 20 years. Whereas just half feel as positive towards Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. However, since, 1999 there was a significant increase in the perception that genetic engineering (42% vs 51%) will improve “our way of life” in the next 20 years. Perceptions of the future impacts of all other developments have remained stable since 1999.
Future Impacts of Scientific Developments
The majority of the population (56%) felt that cloning would make things worse for the Australian population in the next 20 years. This was consistent with the focus group findings in which respondents expressed strong concern for the impact and role of cloning especially of humans.
Higher Concern over cloning 1999
2001 Fibre Optics
76
Gene Therapy
Just under a third (28%) of the Australian population felt they did not know what the future impact of biotechnology would be. Again this is consistent with the cautious attitude of focus group respondents toward biotechnology.
35
n=895
20
n=1127
n=1154
34
13
100
63
56 4
58 80
60
21
8 40
20
0
Improve
% No effect
51
19
Cloning
%0
28
60
n=825
16
n=935
14 n=983
56 40
Makes things worse
n=703
26
7
11 20
17
6 7
58
Genetic Engineering
42
n=818
6 10
66
Biotechnology
5 2 17
80
100
Don’t know
Significant difference at 95% confidence
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
7
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey AWARENESS & ATTITUDE TOWARD GENE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS In the General Population Survey respondents were asked to rate different applications of gene technology on a number of dimensions. INCREASED AWARENESS OF GENE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS The majority of the Australian population claim to be aware of these applications. Awareness of the use of human genes in medicines and vaccines remains the exception as only 47%, of the Australian population reported that they are aware of this application.
Awareness of Gene Technology Applications
Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in awareness of: ! Using human genes in animals for growing organs (81%vs 86%); ! Testing embryos for pre-disposition to disease (70% vs 79%).
Except for Medicine, awareness is high overall 1999 0
Since, 1999 there has been a significant decline in the awareness of the use of gene technology in food and drink production (77% vs 73%). Possibly due to the fact that media reports have been dominated by other applications of gene technology such as cloning.
19
81
1 16
83
2 1
Awareness of the application of gene technology to make plants more pest resistant and using human genes in medicines and vaccines has remained relatively stable since 1999.
2001
27
Testing Embryos for Pre-disposition to Disease
46
52 80
60
40
20
Human Genes in Medicines and Vaccines 0
%0
% Yes
No
81
18
1
79
20
1
47 20
1
26
73
Gene Technology in Food and Drink
77
13 1
86
Making Plants more Pest resistant
70
23
1 100
Human Genes in Animals for growing organs
2
51 40
60
80
100
Don’t know Significant difference at 95% confidence
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
8
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey MOST APPLICATIONS PERCEIVED AS USEFUL FOR SOCIETY The majority of Australian’s describe most applications as “useful for society”, however ‘human genes in animals’ and ‘gene technology in food & drink’ were not as strongly perceived as useful. Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in the number of respondents describing making plants more pest resistant a useful application for society. Since 1999, there has been a significant decrease in the number of respondents describing using human genes in animals for growing organs as a useful application for society. This is emerging as a prominent issue amongst the Australian population. While focus group respondents report a vague understanding of the role of gene technology in medicine it is rated overall as the most useful application for society
Useful Application for Society
.
Lower level of agreement in ‘Human genes in animals’ and ‘GT in food & drink’ 2001
1999
84 87
43
41
77 3
Human Genes in Medicines and Vaccines
45 6
41
43
44
56 2
Testing Embryos for Pre-disposition to Disease
3 8 7
40
5 9 9
37
43
74
41
70 66
31
11 11 5
Making Plants more Pest resistant
29
9 15 6
Human Genes in Animals for growing organs Gene Technology in Food and Drink
20 14 15 5
46
% 100
80
60
40
20
Definitely agree
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
9
0
-20
-40
13
23
5 15
23
86 82
42
78
41
67
44
20
37
57
%
-60
Tend to Agree
5 16
45
-60
Tend to Disagree
-40
-20
0
20
Definitely Disagree
40
60
80
Don’t know
100
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey MOST APPLICATIONS RATED AS RISKY FOR SOCIETY Overall the majority of Australian’s describe all applications of gene technology as “risky for society”. Using human genes in animals for growing organs (75%) and using gene technology in food and drink production (73%) are the two applications perceived to be the most risky by the Australian public. Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in the number of respondents agreeing that using human genes in animals for growing organs (75% in 2001 and 66% in 1999) and gene technology in food and drink production are risky applications for society (73% in 2001 vs 67% in 1999).
Risky Application for Society Most application are seen as having some risk, moreso for ‘Human Genes in animals’ and ‘GT in food & drink’ 1999 39
66
27
67
33
2001 Human Genes in Animals for growing organs
19 7 7
29
23
55
Gene Technology in Food and Drink4
32
31
23
86
Human Genes in Medicines and Vaccines
6 8
63
32
31
23
86
Making Plants more Pest resistant
28
24
13 5
Testing Embryos for Predisposition to Disease
29
80
60
40
20
Definitely agree
10
8 15
34
%
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
33
63
57 100
3 8 14
0
-20
-40
75
44
73
23
23
39
62
6 13
19
22
40
62
7 12
21
23
37
60
%
-60
Tend to Agree
42
-60
Tend to Disagree
-40
-20
0
Definitely Disagree
20
40
60
Don’t know
80
100
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey MOST APPLICATIONS RATED AS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR SOCIETY Overall the majority of Australian’s describe most applications as “morally acceptable” for society. The one exception is using human genes in animals for growing organs where only 47% of the Australian population agree that this is a morally acceptable application for society. Using human genes in medicines and vaccines (75% agree) and making plants more pest-resistant (72% agree) are perceived to be the two most morally acceptable applications for society. Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in the perception that the following applications are morally acceptable: # Making plants more pest resistant (20 vs 29%) # Using human genes in medicines for vaccines (22 vs 29%) # Testing Embryos for Pre-disposition to Disease (20 vs 25%)
Morally Acceptable Application for Society Lower acceptability for ‘GT in Food & Drink’ and ‘Human Genes in Animals’ 2001
1999 46
68
44
64
62 56
Human Genes in Medicines and Vaccines
20 13 16 8
Making Plants more Pest resistant
44
18 16 16 7
36
20 17 21 6
Gene Technology in Food and Drink
% 100
80
60
40
20
0
Definitely agree
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
11
-20
5 8 13
29
46
75
5 12 12
29
43
72
13 15
25
Testing Embryos for Pre-disposition 6 to Disease
20 15 12 5
49
69
22 12 12 8
-40
Human Genes in Animals for 8 growing organs %
-60
Tend to Agree
-60
Tend to Disagree
7 16
22
-40
-20
18
18
22
16 0
Definitely Disagree
65
40
59
41
31 20
47 40
60
Don’t know
80
10
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey AWARENESS & ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GENE TECHNOLOGY IN MEDICINE ARE MIXED Awareness of cloning is the highest. Only 2% of the Australian population claim that they have not heard of cloning and 55% claim they could explain it to others. In addition to the high awareness, overall, the Australian population had the most negative attitude toward cloning (56% claiming it would make things worse in the next 20 years). Compared to the other GT applications it would appear that Australians understand cloning, however, focus group respondents tended to have a superficial understanding. While respondents understood cloning involved making an identical copy they did not understand the process; why scientists are interested in research in this area or many potential benefits. Awareness of gene therapy is low. Almost, one third (29%) of the Australian population claim that they have not heard of gene therapy, and only 17% felt that they could explain it to others. However, 66% of respondents felt that gene therapy would improve “our way of life” in the next 20 years. Awareness of the use of human genes in medicines and vaccines was also low (47% of the Australian population have heard of it). The majority of the Australian population report that: using human genes in medicines & vaccines (86%) and testing embryos for predisposition to disease (82%) are useful applications for society. Awareness of using human genes in animals for growing organs is high (86% have heard of it). However, there has been a significant decline in the percentage of Australian’s describing the use of human genes in animals for growing organs as a useful application for society (23% in 2001 vs 29% in 1999). This suggests that a lower awareness of gene technology applications in medicine that are perceived as being more beneficial (such as gene therapy and the use of human genes in medicines and vaccines) and higher awareness of applications perceived as risky (such as cloning and the use of human genes in animals for growing organs) maybe influencing perceptions of gene technology in medicine overall.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
12
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey CONTRARY ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CONSUMPTION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD Just under half the Australian population (49%) report that they would eat foods that have been genetically modified. Even more of the Australian population (60%) report that they would eat foods that have been genetically modified to be healthier and use genetically modified medicines. Contrary to this somewhat positive attitude toward the use of genetically engineered food is a significant decline in the percentage of Australians who would eat foods that have been genetically modified to taste better (43% in 2001 vs 51% in 1999). This is most likely related to the significant increase in the agreement that gene technology in food and drink production is a risky application for society (73% in 2001 vs 67% in 1999). The focus group discussions suggest that the source of these contrary attitudes maybe the general misunderstanding of what is “genetically modified food”. Many respondents were under the perception that when it comes to agricultural products there is organic and there Contrary attitudes toward GM food is everything else. 1999 Respondents were generally concerned that the natural state of “everything else” has been modified either with hormones, pesticides, fertilisers, or genetically. Many respondents assumed that the process of changing the natural state in any of these manners is genetic modification. It was the general belief of respondents that unless a food product was marked as organic then that product was genetically
12
24
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
13
60
Use GM medicines
64
100
44 80
60
40
20
Yes
No
20
6
52
40
60
6
14
45
43
0
0
26
49
Eat foods that have been GM to taste better
51
35
60
Eat foods that have been GM
6
This lead to the general perception (supported by the survey data) that there is widespread distribution and consumption of GM foods in Australia. On a negative note focus group respondents expressed concern over the long-term effects of the use and consumption of GM food.
2001
Eat foods that have been GM to be healthier
5
80
Don’t know
A misunderstanding of “GM food.”
100
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey In the General Population Survey respondents were asked to rate the the modification of genetic material in: !
human cells;
!
plant cells with other plant genetic material; and
!
plant cells using animal genetic material.
SOME INCREASES IN AWARENESS OF APPLICATIONS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in awareness of the modification of genetic material in: !
Awareness of Applications 1999
Human cells (some understanding 27% in 2001 vs 20% in 1999); and in 1
!
Plant cells using animal genetic material (some understanding 14% in 2001 vs 9% in 1999). However, note that the majority of respondents (64%) had “not heard of” this application.
1
38
19
100
42
45
1
60
In human cells
20
15
40
20
0
0
Some understanding
14
Heard the words
40
Not heard of
60
3
2
2
64
20
20
18
42
39
Plant cells using animal genetic material
9
27
44
27
Plants with other plant genetic material
35
75
80
2001
80
100
Don’t know
Significant difference at 95% confidence
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
14
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey Acceptance of Applications
DECLINE IN ACCEPTABILITY OF THE GENETIC MODIFICATION OF HUMAN CELLS & IN PLANT CELLS USING ANIMAL GENETIC MATERIAL
This is consistent with general concern regarding these applications expressed in the focus groups. 2001
1999
While there has been a significant increase in awareness, since 1999, there has also been a significant decline in the ratings of the modification of genetic material as acceptable or providing benefits for Australian in: ! Human cells (acceptance 44% in 2001 vs 51% in 1999); and in; ! Plant cells using animal genetic material (acceptance 31% in 2001 vs 51% in 1999.
n=748
9
n=979
n=298
41
6
27
5
80
40
20
0
0
Yes
This suggests that there is a potential relationship between perceived benefits of an application and its acceptance. The more perceived benefits the more likely the application is to be accepted.
No
57
20
40
n=789
n=333
13
60
80
100
Don’t know
Benefits of Applications This suggests that there is a potential relationship between perceived benefits of an application and its acceptance.
The decline in acceptability of the modification of these applications in the survey data is consistent with focus group respondent’s general concern regarding these applications and as described by the focus group respondents the increased extreme negative media reporting of these applications.
2001
1999 n=748
n=979
Many focus group respondents felt that their understanding of gene technology overall and of the specific applications was based primarily on media reports which they felt were not particularly credible because of the often extreme, unbalanced information presented on the topic.
n=298
8
4
27
20
36
80
Plants with other plant genetic material
40
20
15
35
0
0
No
25
74
Plant cells using animal genetic material
56
60
55
In human cells
76
8
100
65
Yes
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
6
19
31
n=703
14
42
75
Plant cells using animal genetic material
51
60
44
Plants with other plant genetic material
68
44
100
In human cells
51
20
Don’t know
20
14
35
40
30
60
80
12
n=703
n=789
n=333
100
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey OVERALL CONCERN ABOUT GENE TECHNOLGY The majority (80%) of Australian’s express at least some level of concern regarding the use of gene technology. However this concern is: !Relatively low. When rated against Pollution, Greenhouse, and Nuclear Waste, GM Foods and cloning were considered of least concern. !Not high enough or seen to be personally relevant to motivate active investigation of information on the subject. GENE TECHNOLOGY ISSUES Consistent with the initial focus groups, the general population survey showed that the majority of the Australian population agree that: !“Many processed foods in Australian supermarkets may contain ingredients produced using gene technology” (73%); !“It is difficult to understand gene technology because of extreme media reporting of the issues” (64%); !Screening for genes which may cause diseases that have no cure or effective treatment may lead to discrimination” (59%). While 36% of the Australian population agreed that “the cloning of humans can not be stopped”, another 34% of the population neither agreed or disagreed suggesting that they are unsure about this issue. Gene Technology Issues While the level of certainty regarding the role of GT in “Mad Cow disease and Foot ‘N Mouth”, is somewhat lower than what was expressed in the focus groups (11% of the Australian population agreed). The fact that the 17% did not know is consistent with the general attitude of concern regarding this issue expressed in the focus groups.
Consistent with qualitative except for ‘Mad Cow’ disease GT can provide cures and treatments for diseases Processed foods in Australian supermarkets may contain ingredients produced using GT It is difficult to understand GT because of extreme media reporting Screening for genes which may cause incurable diseases may lead to discrimination
The cloning of humans can not be stopped Also, the majority of Australians are unsure (47% neither agreed or disagreed) or did not know (19%) whether “there are no fresh fruit and The risks of GT outweigh the benefits all research and development should be stopped vegetables produced in Australia using gene technology.” For example, many focus group respondents citing a recent 60 Minutes Mad Cow and Foot ‘N Mouth occurred because of GT program were also under the impression that along with tomatoes that There are no fresh fruit & vegetables produced in Australia using GT now have fish genes, most other fruit and vegetables have been genetically modified. Neither Agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
16
28
58
1 53 5
18 411 2 10
55 47 42 29
17 5
23
44
17 6
22
67
7 3 13 4 6 9 27 8 16
Disagree
34
24 47
38 47
Strongly Disagree
3 25 28 17
5 17 19
Don’t Know
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey GENERAL CONCERN REGARDING REGULATIONS OF GENE TECHNOLOGY Overall the Australian, population appear to be concerned about regulations of gene technology. This was clearly demonstrated in the general population survey which showed that the majority of the Australian population feel that: “It is not worth putting special labels on GM foods” (90% disagree); ! “Gene technology is so complex that public consultation is a waste of time” (72% disagree); ! “Current regulations are sufficient to protect people from any risks (60% disagree); ! “Irrespective of the regulations scientists will do whatever they like” (56% agree); and ! “We have to accept some degree of risk if it enhances Australia’s economic competitiveness” (56% agree); ! Since 1999, the number of Australian’s agreeing that “only traditional breeding methods should be used to change hereditary characteristics of plants and animals” has declined significantly (25% vs 22% definitely agree). Since 1999, the number of Australian’s agreeing that “current regulations are sufficient to protect people from any risks” has declined significantly (9% vs 5% definitely agree).
Regulations of GT 2001
1999
Again, the overall concern expressed by the general population regarding the regulation of gene technology is consistent with focus group respondents perception that “biotechnology is out of control and beyond control!” Most focus group respondents felt that biotechnology is changing at such a rapid pace that developments can not possibly be anticipated or legislated against. In addition, it was generally felt that Australian society and government are powerless compared to the international financial and political power of the large multinational companies driving biotechnological innovations. A key component of concern was the perception that there are no or adequate controls over the process, motivations and outcomes of the development and application biotechnology and gene technology in Australia.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
17
55
30
25
23
17 6
Irrespective of the regulations scientists will do whatever they like
53
25
28
26
14 7
Only traditional breeding methods should be used
54
18 16
36
46
27
18 9 20
9
37
54 12
16
Current regulations are sufficient to protect people from any risks
%
60
40
20
0
-20
Definitely agree
-40
-60
-80
-100
Tend to Agree
%
-100
Tend to Disagree
28
17
1It is not worth putting special labels on GM foods
77
43
3
64 -80
-60
19
31
25
3
21
17
23
17
5 18
-20
0
56
32
32
Definitely Disagree
46
39
7 18
55
56
27
29
26 -40
34
22
24
19
5
3 Religious organisations need to have their say Gene technology is so complex that public consultation is a waste of time
27
8 15
We have to accept some degree of risk if it 3 enhances Australia’s economic competitiveness
27
17 23
29
3 16
49
25 23 10
20
40
Don’t know
60
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey GENE TECHNOLOGY ISSUES MOST ASSOCIATED WITH CONCERN Regression and correlation analysis were conducted to determine which statements regarding gene technology were most closely associated with overall concern about gene technology. Overall from this analysis it was found that amongst all the statements: !
The following statements relating to benefits and risks of GT and its regulation and control are more associated with people’s degree of concern about GT, than the statements about the use of GT in society.
People were more concerned about the use of gene technology if: People were more concerned about the use of gene technology if: !they agreed that only traditional breeding methods should be used… !they agreed that only traditional breeding methods should be used… !they disagreed that current regulations are sufficient … !they disagreed that current regulations are sufficient … !they !theydisagreed disagreedthat thatwe wehave havetotoaccept acceptsome somedegree degreeofofrisk riskfrom fromGT… GT… !they disagreed that it's not worth putting special labels on GM foods... !they disagreed that it's not worth putting special labels on GM foods... !they !theyagreed agreedthat thatthe therisks risksofofgene genetechnology technologyoutweigh outweighthe thebenefits… benefits…
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
18
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey GENDER DIFFERENCES IN CONCERN Men appear to have a marginally more legalistic approach to their concern about GT than women, given that their concern is more likely to be associated with regulation and discrimination. Although the these statements show similar association with concern for both men and women, there are several small but notable differences: For women concern is more (negatively) associated with, “we have to accept some risk from GT”, and “many processed ! foods … contain ingredients produced using GT” than for men For men concern is more (negatively) associated with “current regulations are sufficient and “screening for genes … may ! lead to discrimination” than for women.
GENDER THE MAJOR DISCRIMINATOR OF CONCERN Demographically, the major discriminator of concern is clearly gender. However, there is some suggestion, albeit weak, that some of the following may also be discriminators (note that these demographic variables are not statistically significant predictors of concern): Country vs. city (especially country WA vs. Perth) ! Older vs. younger people ! Those not in full-time work vs. those in full-time work ! Those who have been educated beyond primary school vs. those who have not ! Those who have had some secondary education vs. those who have not ! Those with lower household incomes (especially those under $70k vs. those $70k+) !
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
19
Key Findings Phase 2: General Population Survey LOW AWARENESS OF REGULATORS OF GENE TECHNOLOGY The Office of Gene Technology Regulator had the highest level of unaided awareness (11%), this is a significant increase in unaided awareness since 1999 (7%). Aided awareness of the Office of Gene Technology Regulator however is the lowest (15%) of any regulator, this is a significant increase in aided awareness since 1999 (10%). The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (93%) had the highest aided awareness. The majority of Australians reported that they would trust the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (86%), Office of Gene Technology Regulator (73%); the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority (73%) and the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (59%). The high level of trust in the regulators would seem to contradict the finding that the Australian population is concerned about the regulation and control of gene technology. However, both the quantitative (unaided awareness figures) and qualitative research showed that the Australian population do not believe the regulators are actually doing anything to control or manage gene technology. That is, they trust the regulators, but are not aware of what they are doing to control the issue.
THE INTERNET SEEN AS THE MOST LIKELY SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON GENE TECHNOLOGY Just under half the Australian population (48%) are interested in seeking further information on gene technology. Television and newspapers remain popular sources of information (78% and 76%) respectively. This is followed by radio (28%), science/academic magazines (20%) and the Internet (20%). However, the majority of respondents describe the Internet (53%) as where they would be most likely look for further information on biotechnology, this was followed by libraries (33%) and science and academic magazines (14%). The CSIRO remains the most trusted source of information on gene technology (39%) this is a significant increase since 1999 (30%).
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
20
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development ATTITUDES TOWARD GT APPLICATIONS Attitudes toward the use of each of the different gene technology applications were explored in the Message Development qualitative research. In general, in discussing their attitudes toward gene technology in general and the specific applications respondents usually referred to the following factors.
CONTROL CONTROL
MOTIVATION/ MOTIVATION/ OUTCOME OUTCOME
ETHICAL ETHICAL
PROCESS PROCESS
UNETHICAL/ UNETHICAL/ RISKY RISKY
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
HARMLESS HARMLESS
21
HARMFUL HARMFUL
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development ATTITUDES TOWARD THE MOTIVATION & OUTCOME OF GENE TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS In general, respondents evaluated the merits of each application by determining if the motivation behind it’s use, development and outcome are ethical or unethical. In general, applications which were developed with an aim to help improve human health or the quality of human life were described as ethical. In general, applications which were seen to be developed for corporate profit or for scientific career advancement were seen to be unethical. Many respondents were under the impression that large companies (usually pharmaceutical or agricultural) are developing gene technology for profit. In general applications which were not seen to benefit humanity in a practical but most importantly ethical manner were considered negativity. For example, applications which offered only cosmetic benefits were perceived as particularly negative by most respondents.
MOTIVATION MOTIVATION&& OUTCOME OUTCOME
ETHICAL ETHICAL
IMPROVE/SAVE IMPROVE/SAVE HUMAN HUMANLIFE LIFE
USEFUL USEFUL PRACTICAL PRACTICAL
UNETHICAL UNETHICAL
FINANCIAL FINANCIALOR OR SELF SELFPROFIT PROFIT
RISKY RISKY
TRIVIAL TRIVIAL
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
22
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development ATTITUDES TOWARD THE GENE TECHNOLOGY DEVELPOMENTAL PROCESS In general, respondents evaluated the merits of each application by determining if the developmental process was harmful or not harmful. In general, applications which were developed using a process which were controlled and did not harm humans, animals and the environment were seen to be acceptable. Conversely, the development of applications through harmful processes were typically seen as unacceptable. Respondents, tended to be split in opinion as to the role of animals in the developmental process. That is, some respondents thought that developing applications to save or improve human life was more important than the whether the developmental processes was harmful. Other respondents felt that harming animals regardless of the outcome was unacceptable. Most respondents were concerned that the long-term unforeseen negative consequences of these applications are not understood.
DEVELOPMENTAL DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS PROCESS
Most importantly many respondents felt that the gene technology developmental process is too rapid and that new applications are introduced without being subject to long-term research. HARMLESS HARMLESS
HARMFUL HARMFUL UNCONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED
LONG LONGTERM TERM RESEARCH RESEARCH
CONTROLLED CONTROLLED
SLOW SLOW
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
23
NO NOLONG LONG TERM TERM RESEARCH RESEARCH RAPID RAPID
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development ETHICAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE USE (OUTCOME) OF MODIFYING GENETIC MATERIAL IN HUMAN CELLS The survey data showed that there has been a significant decline in perceptions of acceptability (44% in 2001 and 51% in 1999) and benefits (55% in 2001 and 65% in 1999) associated with this application. Exploration of modifying genetic material in human cells in the focus groups suggest that acceptability of this issues is centered around concerns regarding how this application could be used; the outcome. If this application was able to improve human health then this was felt to be an ethical and acceptable application. However, many respondents were concerned that this application would be used for cosmetic purposes respondents tended to feel that this is unacceptable for the following reasons: !
!
The potential to limit individuality. Respondents were concerned that there would be increased social pressure for people to be modified cosmetically to conform to narrow commercially defined definitions of beauty. It was felt that this application could be used to change or select cosmetic features there was potential for this to be abused in an extreme and dangerous way.
!
Like cosmetic surgery this would be expensive and available only to the wealthy.
!
There are currently no controls over how this application is used or developed.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
24
MOTIVATION MOTIVATION&& OUTCOME OUTCOME
ETHICAL ETHICAL IMPROVE/SAVE IMPROVE/SAVE HUMAN LFE HUMAN LFE
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL CONFORMITY CONFORMITY
UNETHICAL UNETHICAL UNNECESSARY UNNECESSARY COSMETIC PURPOSES COSMETIC PURPOSES
EXPENSIVE EXPENSIVE INFORMATION INFORMATION
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development ETHICAL CONCERNS INFLUENCING NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE MODIFICATION OF GENETIC MATERIAL IN PLANT CELLS USING ANIMAL GENETIC MATERIAL The General Population Survey suggest that attitudes toward the modification of genetic material in plant cells using animal genetic material have declined significantly since1999 (31% in 2001 and 51% in 1999). Ethical concerns regarding this application appear to be influencing the negative perceptions. !
Respondents were most concerned by this application. They felt that combining plant and animal genetic material unnatural and disturbing. Interfering with nature in this manner was seen to be dangerous and unethical by many respondents.
!
Most respondents felt that this application raised very difficult, complex, disturbing and unanswerable ethical questions, the most obvious one being; “What is it an animal or a plant?”
!
Furthermore most respondents could not see any benefit or any strong reasons to use or develop this application.
!
Many respondents were also concerned about the issue of harming animals in the collecting of animal genetic material in the process.
!
!
MOTIVATION MOTIVATION&& OUTCOME OUTCOME
DEVELOPMENTAL DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS PROCESS
UNETHICAL UNETHICAL UNNATURAL & UNNATURAL & DISTURBING DISTURBING
LONG TERM LONG TERM UNFORSEEN UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES
The long term unforeseen consequences of this application were considered particularly dangerous. The majority of respondents felt their needed to be strict control (which is currently lacking) over development of this application.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
25
COMPLEX COMPLEX DISTURBING DISTURBING UNANSWERABLE UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS QUESTIONS
DANGEROUS DANGEROUS INTERFERENCE INTERFERENCE WITH NATURE WITH NATURE
DEVELOPMENTAL DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS PROCESS TOO RAPID TOO RAPID
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development USING HUMAN GENES IN ANIMALS FOR GROWING ORGANS RAISES MANY COMPLEX ETHICAL CONCERNS There has been a significant decline in the percentage of respondents rating this as a useful (23% in 2001 and 29% in 1999) and morally acceptable (16% in 2001 and 20% in 1999) application for society. On a contrary note there appears to be a significant decline in the perception that this is a risky application for society. !
Concern for animal rights, which were seen to be violated by this application, were highlighted by most respondents in the focus groups as a reason for disapproving of this application.
!
Other respondents felt this is not necessary as humans can be used as organ donors.
!
Many respondents felt that the combination of animals and humans was was unnatural and disturbing.
!
Respondents generally felt that this application could be used to extend human life spans which raises many complex and disturbing questions about human life.
MAKING PLANTS MORE PEST RESISTANT FELT TO BE AN ACCEPTED AND ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE Perceptions toward making plants more pest-resistant through gene technology seem to have improved since 1999. Perceptions that this is a useful application for society (37% in 2001 vs 31% in 1999) and this is a morally acceptable application for society have increased significantly since 1999 (29% in 2001 vs 20% in 1999). In addition, perceptions that this is a risky application for society have declined significantly since 1999 (22% in 2001 vs 31% in 1999). Most focus group respondents felt that the genetic material of plants were already being modified with other plant genetic material. That, this is an accepted and established agricultural practice in Australia. Most focus group respondents felt that the use of biotechnology in agriculture could potentially enable the more efficient production of food, that could in turn address starvation in 3rd world countries.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
26
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF GM FOOD APPEAR TO BE INFLUENCING PERCEPTIONS OF GENE TECHNOLOGY IN FOOD & DRINK PRODUCTION Since 1999, there has been a significant increase in the number of Australians who feel that using gene technology in the production of food and drink is a risky application for society (73% in 2001 vs 67% in 1999). Qualitative exploration into attitudes toward GM food and this application found: !
Many respondents were under the perception that when it comes to agricultural products there is organic and there is everything else. Many respondents therefore thought that much of the food and drink they currently consume is genetically modified. It was felt strongly by most respondents that food that has been genetically modified should be labeled
!
Most respondents were concerned about the long term effect of consuming food and drink that has been genetically modified. It was felt not enough long-term research has been conducted.
HEALTH BENEFITS OF USING HUMAN GENES IN MEDICINES & VACCINES ARE EASILY IDENTIFIED Attitudes toward the use of human genes in medicines and vaccines appear to have improved since 1999. !
Exploration of this issue in the focus groups suggest that as the health benefits associated with this application are easily identified respondents were generally positive toward its use. That is, as respondents generally assumed that this application could improve or save human life and were therefore positive toward this application of gene technology.
!
In addition several respondents thought that as diseases are becoming more resistant to current medication, development of new medicines such as this has become necessary.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
27
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development HEALTH BENEFITS OF TESTING EMBRYOS FOR PRE-DISPOSITION TO DISEASE ARE EASILY IDENTIFIED Attitudes toward the use of genetic tests to determine if human embryos have a genetic pre-disposition for serious disease appear to have softened somewhat, since 1999. There has been a significant decline in the percentage of respondents who definitely agreed that this is a risky application for society (23% in 2001 vs 31% in 1999) and an increase in the number who definitely agreed it is a morally acceptable application (29% in 2001 vs 22% in 1999). !
Most focus group respondents saw this as a positive application. Many respondents felt that this testing of embryos in this manner was currently an option and already happening in some pregnancies.
!
How the test information was to be used appeared to have the strongest influence on perceptions of the acceptability of this application. Most respondents felt comfortable with genetic tests if the information was used to inform and help prepare parents deal with a child’s future illness. This, was generally felt to be an ethical use of the information provided by such tests.
!
Perceptions toward this application became emotional when respondents thought the information would be used to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy. Many respondents felt strongly that using information in this manner is an unethical and unacceptable use of this application. Religious beliefs were often highlighted to support this point of view.
!
Respondents also felt that the information could be mis-used for cosmetic purposes.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
28
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development
INCREASED INCREASED AWARENESS AWARENESS IRRESPONSIBLE IRRESPONSIBLE MEDIA MEDIA REPORTING REPORTING RAPID RAPID UNCONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED CHANGE CHANGE
ATTITUDES TOWARD GT IN MEDICINE Respondents were asked why they thought the 2001 General Population Survey indicated that there has been a decline in attitudes toward the use of some applications of gene technology in medicine since 1999. Overall participants felt this decline was related to: !
increased awareness via irresponsible commercial media attention toward the extreme and strange uses of biotechnology and gene technology. This was seen to be both in mis-reporting, negative reports or lack of reporting on issues.
!
A sense that this is an area changing rapidly in an uncontrolled manner.
However, respondents tended to believe that the main reason why attitudes toward the use of biotechnology in medicine have declined since 1999 because of the rapid and uncontrolled development of cloning, and especially the feeling that humans will soon be cloned.
CLONING CLONING
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
29
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development CONTROL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY A key area of concern that emerged at all three phases of the research was concern regarding the control of biotechnology and “gene technology” in Australia and internationally. Issues regarding the control of “gene technology were explored in the message development focus groups. Most respondents felt that biotechnology is changing at such a rapid pace that developments can not possibly be anticipated or legislated against. In addition, it was generally felt that Australian society and government are powerless compared to the international financial and political power of the large multinational companies driving biotechnological innovations. A key component of concern was the perception that there are no or adequate controls over the process, motivations and outcomes of the development and application biotechnology and gene technology in Australia.
Control of biotechnology AAREOCCURING REOCCURING THEME THEMEAT AT ALL ALLPHASES PHASES
This was particularly a concern for those applications which were seen to raise complex, and disturbing questions about human life.
TOO TOORAPID RAPID TO TOCONTROL CONTROL
The concern was that “nothing is being done to manage this”, the rationale for this belief was simple, “we would know about it if they were doing anything.”
MULTINATIONALS MULTINATIONALS TOO TOOPOWERFUL POWERFUL TO TOCONTROL CONTROL
This concurs with the low unaided awareness of regulators of gene technology found in the General Population survey.
NO NOCONTROL CONTROL OVER OVER PROCESS PROCESS MOTIVATION MOTIVATIONOR OR OUTCOMES OUTCOMES
“Nothing is being done to manage this, we would know about it if they were doing anything.”
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
30
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development GM FOOD A key area of concern that emerged at all three phases of the research was that most of the food currently sold in Australian supermarkets is already genetically modified in some manner. The focus groups clearly identified that the majority of respondents are confused by what is meant by the term “genetically modified food”, therefore education as to what is meant by this phrase is considered to be the most important information to communicate. That is, how is a food determined as GM? What is the specific criteria used to make this classification and what tests are conducted. Respondents requested that the following information also be communicated: !
GM Food
Information on the GM food research and development process. What research has been conducted on the effect of human consumption of GM food, especially what investigations have been conducted into the long-term effects. Who conducted the research.
!
Who is controlling GM food in Australia and internationally and how is it being controlled.
!
Where to go for further balanced information on the subject.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
WHAT WHAT IS ISGM GMFOOD? FOOD?
RESEARCH RESEARCH ON ON THE THEEFFECT EFFECT OF CONSUMPTION? OF CONSUMPTION?
WHO WHOIS IS CONTROLLING CONTROLLINGGM GM FOOD FOODIN INAUSTRALIA? AUSTRALIA?
31
THE THERESEARCH RESEARCH &&DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS? PROCESS?
WHERE WHERETO TOGO GO FOR FORBALANCED BALANCED INFORMATION? INFORMATION?
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development COMMUNICATION OF GM LABELLING Focus group respondents also felt that information on GM labeling should be communicated in simple, layman's terms. Respondents were concerned that if the information were presented in an overly scientific manner it would only serve to provide further confusion. Respondents made it clear the information should be presented in a balanced way which spells out the benefits and side effects. When asked how the information should be communicated to them many respondents suggested that they be informed via a multi-media educational advertising campaign.
From a multi-media perspective respondents suggested this information be communicated: !
On the packaging;
!
In a detailed and informative brochure sent to all homes or at the point of purchase;
!
In a print and TV advertising campaign; and
!
In a detailed web-site with links to other relevant trustworthy sources of scientific information.
Communication of GM labeling IN INENGLISH ENGLISH NOT NOTSCIENCE SCIENCE IN INAA BALANCED BALANCED WAY WAY ON ON PACKAGING PACKAGING BROCHURES BROCHURES AT ATP.O.S P.O.S &&TO TOHOMES HOMES
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
TRADITIONAL TRADITIONAL MULTIMEDIA MULTIMEDIA EDUCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ADVERTISING ADVERTISING
32
TV, TV,PRINT PRINT RADIO RADIO WEB-SITE WEB-SITE WITH WITH LINKS LINKS
Key Findings Phase 3: Message Development STRONG POSITIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE CSIRO At all phases of the research the CSIRO was described as one of the most trustworthy sources of information on gene technology and biotechnology. The main reasons for this perception was: ! ! ! !
Longevity, “the CSIRO has been there for years”; Financial and political independence; Expert knowledge; and For consistently providing reliable and balanced scientific research and information; “A center of scientific excellence”.
Respondents in all groups were highly distrustful of government and in particular the Federal Government as a source of information. This was because government at all levels was seen to be: Motivated by short-term goals and financial interests; and ! Lack of scientific knowledge. ! Generally the trustworthiness of the Office of Gene Technology Regulator was seen in an uncertain light because respondents were not familiar with this organisation.
EXPECTATIONS OF A GENE TECHNOLOGY REGULATORY BODY While respondents were not aware of a regulatory body being currently in place, they clearly defined the characteristics of a credible regulatory body as follows: Provide open communication of information; ! Have commercial financial & political independence; ! Be informed by and have access to representatives from a broad range of industries and independent expert knowledge; ! and Enable public involvement. !
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
33
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The methodology used at each of the three phases of research is detailed in the following.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
34
Research Methodology -- Design Overview PHASE PHASE1: 1:NEW NEWISSUES ISSUESQUALITATIVE QUALITATIVE
To Todevelop developan anunderstanding understandingof ofthe theissues issuesthat thatmay mayhave haveemerged emerged since the benchmark tracking study was completed in 1999. since the benchmark tracking study was completed in 1999. To ensure relevant To ensure relevantissues issuesremain remainand andare areincorporated incorporatedininto tothe thesurvey surveyinstrument. instrument.
PHASE PHASE2: 2:GENERAL GENERALPOPULATION POPULATIONSURVEY SURVEY
To Toreplicate replicatethe the1999 1999MBA MBAGeneral GeneralPopulation Populationstudy studyto toenable enablemonitoring monitoringand and evaluation of the effectiveness of the initial two years of the Biotechnology Australia evaluation of the effectiveness of the initial two years of the Biotechnology Australia public publicawareness awarenessprogram programthrough throughcomparative comparativeanalysis. analysis.
PHASE PHASE3: 3:MESSAGE MESSAGEDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENTQUALITATIVE QUALITATIVE
To ToAssist Assistininthe thedevelopment developmentof ofthe thenext nextphase phaseof ofBiotechnology BiotechnologyAustralia’s Australia’s communication strategy covering the three years from July 2001. communication strategy covering the three years from July 2001.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
35
Phase 1 -- New Issues Qualitative Research Four focus group discussions were conducted with tertiary and non-tertiary educated adults in Melbourne on April 27th and 28th, 2001. The groups were stratified by education as the 1999 benchmark study suggested that education played a role in perceptions of Biotechnology. The following table summarises when each group was conducted:
TUESDAY MARCH 27
WEDNESDAY MARCH 28
AGED 25-39 NON-TERTIARY EDUCATED
AGED 25-39 -TERTIARY EDUCATED
AGED 40-59 NON-TERTIARY
AGED 40-59 -TERTIARY EDUCATED
Participants of the focus groups were carefully recruited to ensure that, coverage of key demographic segments in the Australian community was achieved. That is; Gender Age
Males and Females; Young People - 18-25, Mid age group - 30-49, Older - 50 +;
Occupation
Professional, trades, semiskilled/unskilled; and
Education
Tertiary and non tertiary educated.
The groups ran for approximately 2 hours and respondents were paid a $50 incentive. The groups were conducted at MBA’s offices in Melbourne.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
36
Phase 2 -- General Population Survey Quantitative Methodology The survey methodology replicated that of the benchmark study conducted in 1999. A national CATI (computer aided telephone interviewing) survey of 1,001 people aged 18 years and over was conducted. To ensure the research sample included a representative sample of the Australian community: Telephone numbers were randomly selected; and Householders were asked to connect the interviewer to the person in the household who last had a birthday. The field work and data collection for the study was conducted between the 23rd April and the 6th of May 2001. NESB/Indigenous Australians As with the previous study the random telephone survey included English speaking respondents from a Non English Speaking Background (NESB), and those in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group, proportionally structured to reflect the natural composition of the Australian population as much as possible using a random telephone survey.
Survey Sample Profile Please find a profile of the survey sample in the section titled General Population Survey Sample.
Revisions to the Questionnaire After Phase 1 of the research (New Issues Qualitative) some revisions and additions were made to the questionnaire used in 1999. Changes are highlighted in the report of findings and have been detailed in correspondence to Biotechnology Australia.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
37
Phase 2 -- General Population Survey Data Weighting Survey results were projected to the latest available Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates utilising the discriminators of age, sex, area and location. This last factor ensures that surveys are representative of the entire population.
Statistical Analysis Statistical Analysis, specifically regression and correlation were conducted to investigate which statements regarding gene technology and demographics were most closely associated with concern about gene technology at Q16.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
38
Phase 3 -- Message Development Qualitative After the completion of the General Population Survey, qualitative research was conducted to: assist in the development of the next phase of Biotechnology Australia’s communication strategy; and explore the issues which were shown to be key drivers of concern overall with biotechnology in the General Population Survey. To ensure coverage of a broad cross-section of the Australian community, MBA conducted nine focus group discussions in the following rural and regional locations: Victoria Warrnambool New South Wales Sydney Queensland
Rockhampton
Western Australia
Perth
Both Victoria and New South Wales were selected as they are Australia’s two most populous states. Queensland was selected, primarily on the basis of the diversity of the population in terms of age, lifestyle and socio-economic status. Western Australia was selected as it provides an opportunity to canvas the attitudes and opinions of Australians living in the west. Participants were recruited to ensure that coverage of key demographic segments in the Australian community was achieved. !
Gender
Males and Females;
!
Age
Young People - 18-25, Mid age group - 30-49, Older - 55+;
!
Occupation
Professional, trades, semiskilled/unskilled; and
!
Education
Tertiary and non tertiary educated.
As the aim of these groups is to develop a communication strategy for Biotechnology Australia respondents were also recruited to be at least “somewhat” concerned regarding gene technology.
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
39
Phase 3 -- Message Development Qualitative The following table is a summary of the structure and location of the focus groups.
VIC WARRNAMBOOL
NSW SYDNEY
QLD ROCKHAMPTON
YOUNG PEOPLE 18-25
TERTIARY EDUCATED
NON-TERTIARY EDUCATED
TERTIARY EDUCATED
MID-AGE 30-49
NON-TERTIARY EDUCATED
TERTIARY EDUCATED
NON-TERTIARY EDUCATED
TERTIARY EDUCATED
OLDER PERSONS 55+
2
3
L:\Clients\Government\Dept Industry Science & Resources\32959 Biotechnology Public Awareness Survey\32959 Final Report A
2
40
WA PERTH
TOTAL
3
TERTIARY EDUCATED
4
NONTERTIARY EDUCATED
2
2
9
