RESUMO
Science communication is a widely debated issue, particularly in the field of biotechnology. However, the views on the interface between science and society held by scientists who work in the field of emerging biotechnologies are currently insufficiently explored. Therefore filling this gap is one of the urgent desiderata in the further development of a dialogue-oriented model of science-public interaction. Against this background, this article addresses two main questions: (1) How do the persons who work in the field of science perceive the public and its involvement in science? (2) What preferred modes of communication are stressed by those scientists? This research is based on a set of interviews with full professors from the field of biotechnology with a special focus on synthetic biology. The results show that scientists perceive the public as holding a primarily risk-focused view of science. On the one hand, different forms of science communication are thereby either seen as a chance to improve the public acceptance of science in general and one field of research in particular. On the other hand, the exchange with the public is seen as a duty because the whole of society is affected by scientific innovation. Yet, some of the stakeholders' views discussed here conflict with debates on public engagement in technological innovation.
Assuntos
Biotecnologia , Prova Pericial , Comunicação , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Opinião PúblicaRESUMO
Synthetic biology is currently one of the most debated emerging biotechnologies. The societal assessment of this technology is primarily based on contributions by scientists and policy makers, who focus mainly on technical challenges and possible risks. While public dialogue is given, it is yet rather limited. This study explores public debates concerning synthetic biology based on a focus group study with citizens from Austria and Germany and contextualises the analysed public views with content from policy reports and previous empirical studies on public engagement. The findings suggest that discussants favoured a gradual implementation process of synthetic biology, which is receptive to questions about the distribution of possible benefits. The discussed topics correspond in many ways with content from policy reports and former investigations, yet the emphasis of the discussions was different for many aspects.
RESUMO
Cohort studies and biobank projects have led to public discussions in several European countries in the past. In Germany, many medium-sized studies are currently running successfully in terms of respondent rates. However, EU-wide research on general public perceptions of biobanks and cohort studies have shown that Germany is among those countries where people express the highest reluctance for providing body material and other data for research purposes. Because of early efforts of the just-initiated German National Cohort Study, we are able to begin to investigate in greater detail how various groups of people across Germany reflect and discuss the ongoing implementation of cohort studies and biobanking in Germany. Our research is based on 15 focus group discussions in four German regions, as well as on Eurobarometer poll data on biobanking.
Assuntos
Bancos de Espécimes Biológicos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Ética , Feminino , Grupos Focais , Alemanha , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Percepção , Privacidade/psicologia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
This article examines public perceptions of biobanks in Europe using a multi-method approach combining quantitative and qualitative data. It is shown that public support for biobanks in Europe is variable and dependent on a range of interconnected factors: people's engagement with biobanks; concerns about privacy and data security, and trust in the socio-political system, key actors and institutions involved in biobanks. We argue that the biobank community needs to acknowledge the impact of these factors if they are to successfully develop and integrate biobanks at a pan-European level.
Assuntos
Bancos de Espécimes Biológicos , Opinião Pública , Bancos de Espécimes Biológicos/organização & administração , Segurança Computacional , Termos de Consentimento , Coleta de Dados , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , PrivacidadeRESUMO
During the past decade, biobanks have been the focus of broad attention due to their potential value for scientific research and public health. China has recently made a significant investment in biobank research. Public attitudes towards biobank issues such as consent and privacy are key factors in their development. A number of studies about the public perception of biobanks in Western countries have been conducted, but little is known about the public perception of biobanks in China. This study shows that the public perception of medical research (e.g., with biobanks) is undergoing fundamental transformation in China that is yet to be acknowledged by the public authorities.
Assuntos
Bancos de Espécimes Biológicos , Grupos Focais/métodos , Opinião Pública , Pesquisa Biomédica , China , Humanos , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Privacidade , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
This paper surveys the current state of knowledge about the relationship between different national publics and biobanks, how different publics perceive biobanks, and which issues are identified as important by various stakeholders. We discuss existing studies and emerging governance strategies dealing with the biobank-publics interface and argue that the search for phantom (biobank) public(s) is on, but still much needs to be done. We argue that the existing data originate in a relatively few regions, among them Northern Europe, the United Kingdom, and in certain U.S. states and are often based on survey research with small samples and short questionnaires. Combined usage of qualitative and quantitative methodology in studies is still rare though of great importance in order to investigate distributions of public opinion and also to be able to explain these patterns. Many important questions in the relationship between publics and biobanks are unexplored, or the existing data are inconsistent.