Public, Industry Agree on Biotech

The most important message for biotechnology in the new Office of Technology Assessment's study of public perceptions of the biotechnology industry is that knowledge dispels concern. Based on a nationwide probability sampling conducted last fall by Lou Harris & Associates, the study finds that nearly half of American adults describe themselves as very interested, concerned and/or knowledgeable about science and technology. It also reveals that fully 80 per cent of the American public expects that they, or a member of their family, will benefit from developments in this area in the next 20 years. In fact, two-thirds of the U.S. public feels that genetic engineering will make life better for all people. What is the object lesson here? That our chief critic is a dog who has seen his day? That an enlightened electorate has somehow been won over? That despite constant efforts by some to create fear and spread doubt, the potential benefits of biotechnology in health care, agriculture and the environment are widely perceived by a clear-eyed public? Well, not quite. What does come through is that a properly informed public is most likely to accept some risk. When it is explained that genetically engineered organisms can significantly increase farm production, a majority would be in favor of their use, even when there is a one-in-a-thousand chance of losing some lo cal species of plant or fish. But, the same is not true if the risk is unquantified. Right now, figures indicate that the vast majority of the public would favor small-scale environmental application of genetically engineered organisms, but less than half would support large-scale use. But then, all the public debate has been over test plots of less than an acre. When the data are in hand and industry is ready for the next stage of application, it seems a reasonable conclusion that a public informed that safety and environmental factors have been properly considered by appropriate government officials will be ready for this step. The argument for biotechnology goes more smoothly in the area of health care, but one must exercise caution in how the question is put. Forty-two percent of the public say it's morally wrong to manipulate human cells, but a great many more would favor doing so to prevent children from inheriting a fatal disease (84 percent) or to cure such a disease (83 percent). In fact, 78 percent are willing to have genes corrected to prevent the appearance of a serious genetic disease later in life. The public seems to be ahead of the scientific community in its willingness to accept germ cell correction of potentially fatal genetic defects so that these defects are not passed on to future generations. One disturbing result of the OTA study is the revelation that decades of bureaucrat bashing have had an effect. The public is more likely to put its faith in risk assessment done by universities than by the government, and more likely to take the word of environmental groups than that of federal agencies. Industry and the public benefit when the government imprimatur is held in high regard and signifies that the public health, safety and the environment are being properly protected. Two conclusions of the study ring like clear bells. Most Americans agree that un justified fears of genetic engineering have seriously impeded development of valuable new drug therapies, and most agree that the expected benefits of biotechnology are sufficient to outweigh the risks. This is what we in the industry have been saying all along. But it's nice to be agreed with by a majority of the public, especially when that agreement is documented by OTA, an arm of Congress. Godown is president of the Industrial Bio technology Association, 1625 K St., N. W, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036.

Public, Industry Agree on Biotech

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of