Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology

Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food-related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.

[1]  Richard Shepherd,et al.  Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics , 1997, Science, technology & human values.

[2]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[3]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[4]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  ASSESSING AND STRUCTURING ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GENE TECHNOLOGY IN FOOD-PRODUCTION - THE ROLE OF PERCEIVED ETHICAL OBLIGATION , 1995 .

[5]  Tomasz Twardowski,et al.  Biotechnology and the European public , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[6]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Rino Rumiati,et al.  EXPERTISE AND REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN RISK PERCEPTION : THE CASE OF ITALY , 1998 .

[8]  Wright,et al.  Risk Perception in the U.K. Oil and Gas Production Industry: Are Expert Loss‐Prevention Managers' Perceptions Different From Those of Members of the Public? , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

[10]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Sound science, problematic publics? Contrasting representations of risk and uncertainty , 2001 .

[11]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[13]  R Shepherd,et al.  Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  P. Slovic,et al.  FACTS AND FEARS: UNDERSTANDING PERCEIVED RISK.: P/3 , 1980 .

[15]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk , 2005 .

[16]  G. Rowe,et al.  Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality? , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  Helmut Jungermann,et al.  Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests , 1995 .

[18]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada , 1995 .

[21]  James Flynn,et al.  Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository , 1993 .

[22]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[23]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Rating the Risks , 1979 .

[24]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste , 1991, Science.

[25]  G. Gaskell,et al.  Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. , 1999, Science.

[26]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  The Allegedly Simple Structure of Experts’ Risk Perception: An Urban Legend in Risk Research , 2002 .

[27]  Trevor Kletz,et al.  Risk ‐ two views: the public’s and the experts’ , 1996 .

[28]  R Shepherd,et al.  What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  M. Siegrist.  The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Biotechnology in the public sphere: a European sourcebook. , 1998 .

[31]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[33]  B. Zechendorf.  What the Public Thinks About Biotechnology , 1994, Bio/Technology.

[34]  Douglas MacLean,et al.  Is Good News No News? , 1992 .