|
Expertise, Trust, and Communication about Food Biotechnology
By John T. Lang, Karen M. O'Neill, and William K. Hallman, Rutgers University
Experts typically presume to speak with authority about complex concerns, such as agricultural biotechnology. Research indicates, however, that the effectiveness of risk communication depends on perceptions about the trustworthiness of the institutions and experts providing information. This article explores how experts from a range of food-associated professions and institutions perceive their own roles in communicating about biotechnology. Most of the respondents rated scientists and other experts are most likely to tell the truth about biotechnology, but many felt that members of the public were most influenced by the mass media and by critics of biotechnology.
In the United States, bioengineered grains are prevalent in the food supply, but bioengineering remains poorly understood by the public. Scientists and other experts with a stake in food technology have often suggested that public fears about bioengineering would be overcome if members of the public were given more information. Although there is some empirical support for this belief, a careful review of the existing literature finds the relationship between knowledge and approval of genetically modified (GM) food to be weak and the direction ambiguous. Moreover, communication about risk involves more than simply transmitting scientific information, and communicators need to consider organizational, contextual, and situational factors that shape reactions to perceived risks.
In studies of reactions to risks, scholars increasingly cite the importance of trust in institutions and experts. Studies of the general population in the United States and Europe show that trust in information about genetically modified foods depends on the source. For example, large-scale survey research in the European Union indicates higher public confidence in doctors, university scientists, and non-governmental organizations (e.g., consumer and environmental organizations) than in governmental actors. Similar rankings are found in a survey of American consumers.
Most of the existing research on hazard-related trust focuses on the trust ordinary people invests in elites and experts. There are undoubtedly several reasons for this, from theoretical imperatives to the methodological truism that ordinary people are more numerous and often easier to recruit into studies than elites. But this focus presents certain problems for both theory and practice. Ultimately, the sources these experts rely on and endorse as trustworthy have an advantage in influencing consumer opinion. So, who are the experts' experts? And whom do the experts present to the public as trustworthy?
Expertise, Technology, and Trust
One goal of this research is to consider how experts assess their own roles in debates about food biotechnology. Although the term expert includes a variety of actors, expertise in the United States usually centers on scientists and members of the professions. Scientists and professionals construct their authority in a given realm by applying specific methods of inquiry, by restricting entry to their profession through educational and testing requirements, and by creating ideologies that justify their professional methods and goals.
For a time in the United States, scientists who developed biotechnology techniques presumed to speak as the chief experts on food biotechnology (Priest, 2001). Hannigan argues that the apparent acceptance of biotechnology by food scientists in the United States meant that few experts acted as public critics of this technology during its early years. More recently, a variety of critics have emerged to question the now well-established use of bioengineered products. Under these circumstances, the roles of experts have become more complicated. Given this, we propose two possible types of responses, one asserting the authority of experts and another expressing the idea that experts should work to de-mystify the technology for the public and to earn the public's trust.
Although researchers have documented a general decline in the privileged position of scientists and professionals, it is also true that some experts have managed better than others to establish and retain prestige and privilege. Even though the authority of experts is not assured particularly during times of controversy experts might remain confident in asserting that members of the public should continue to trust them for information. We expect respondents who identify with this role to state that members of the public should trust experts to digest and present information about biotechnology or even assert that consumers have been prone to irrational reactions to biotechnology.
On the other hand, some experts might now believe that instead of acting as unquestioned authorities, experts should work to de-mystify biotechnology. Political activism in recent medical and scientific controversies-such as those concerning AIDS research or suspected cancer clusters-has often been coupled with skepticism about the priorities and authority of scientists. Within academia, the field of science and technology studies (STS) has attempted to deconstruct scientific authority by examining the mundane procedures of laboratories and other research sites. Studies also indicate that professionals have been losing prestige as they lose autonomy due to market pressures, legal constraints, and a general decline in trust in institutions. Some observers even question whether intellectuals and professionals have distinctive skills and personal qualities.
Experts with this attitude might believe consumers should trust experts, but they may also accept that consumers will derive moral principles and other values from a variety of institutions. We expect respondents who identify with this role to state that members of the public are capable of understanding research findings and other relevant information, that experts should work to make such information readily available, or that experts must accept the influence of non-scientific institutions on debates about technology.
Because the public lacks the means by which to assess complex technologies, trust in abstract systems, experts, and institutions will ultimately determine the success or failure of any communication about food biotechnology by critics or proponents. Biotechnology began as a field with a clear set of experts, namely those scientists who created the technology itself. As others join the debate, expertise is being redefined. This study will identify some of the concerns that motivate experts in a changing field as they attempt to redefine their authority.
Methods
Because expertise is changing in this field, it would be inappropriate and perhaps impossible to define and randomly sample a universe of experts to identify beliefs that can be generalized to all experts. We therefore took a purposive sample, identifying an initial list of potential respondents from a membership listing of a regional industry trade association (the Eastern Perishable Products Association), an internet search for public media contacts for industry groups, and listings of academic contacts.
Helping to ensure diverse opinions and expertise, a range of respondents were solicited, including academics, consumer organization staff and executives, farmers and farmers' advocates, food industry staff and executives, government officials, members of the media, and restaurateurs. This sampling technique recruited opponents and promoters of biotechnology, although we did not explicitly sample on the basis of these opinions.
Researchers recruited participants through letters of introduction followed by phone calls. In all, 176 letters of introduction were sent. Contact could not be made with 112 individuals due to out-of-date contact information or unreturned phone calls. Of the 64 individuals successfully contacted, 14 (22%) refused and 50 (78%) completed a telephone interview, yielding an overall response rate of 36% from the original pool of 176 individuals. The interviews were conducted by three interviewers over the course of five weeks, from May 10, 2002, to June 17, 2002, and ranged in length from nine to ninety minutes. Interviewers were randomly assigned to respondents. Each interviewer held at least a master's degree and received extensive training on qualitative interviewing techniques and on the specific interview schedule.
Three fourths (74%) of the sample was male. Respondent ages ranged from 26 to 73 with a median age of 50. Almost half of the respondents (48%) had a graduate degree, an additional 18% had attended graduate school, and another 20% had a college degree (86% of the sample). Nearly half (46%) had more than 20 years of work experience, and 30% had between 10 and 19 years of experience. The prevalence of highly educated men with lengthy work experience appears to reflect the demographics of those whom the industry has recognized as experts.
next page...
|
