Sub Groups

A note by:
Michele Corrado
Director, Social & Health Research
MORI

1. Relevant Research Studies
MORI's research on the environment began in the 70's, but saw real growth in the late 80's. It examined behaviour and attitudes to the environment - for NGOs, corporations and Government Departments. Most of this was general public work, and employed both focus group and quantitative methodologies. In addition to adhoc general public work, we have run an annual 'multi-client' general public survey (most years, since 1989) called 'Business & The Environment'. The sister study to 'B & E' has been 'Environment Journalists' a multi-client survey of the 20 or so leading Environment Correspondents and Editors, which has run most years since 1990.

In the late 80's and throughout the 90's our research extended internationally. An example of such a study is 'Public Attitudes Towards GM Food' - a six country (quantitative) European survey in late 1996, for Greenpeace International. This revealed the extent of opposition across these countries to GM food (59% opposed its development and introduction, 22% supported it; 67% said they would not be personally happy to eat it, 17% said they would.). The other characteristic of our work in the 90's was that it began to embrace the views of other stakeholders. For example: food and health industry representatives (looking at biodiversity), for WWF International; NGOs themselves (as respondents); journalists; and civil servants.

The late 90's, of course, saw the introduction of biotechnology as an issue. A quantitative study in 1998 for Genewatch 'Attitudes Towards Genetic Engineering' built on our earlier work for Greenpeace International, examining the degree of support for GM foods/crops. Seventy-seven per cent said there should be a ban on the growing of GM crops in Britain until their impact had been more fully assessed. A subsequent study for Greenpeace in 1999 examined views towards field trials, and revealed widespread opposition to the growing of GM crops, because of the possibility of contact with organic crops. Seventy-three per cent of the public said this. In the same year we explored views towards GM waste for Genewatch and found extensive support for tighter control of it; 83% believed that limits should be set on the release of GMMS (Genetically modified micro-organisms) in waste.

In 1999 for Novartis we looked at views towards 'Controversial Technologies'. This revealed that public support for controversial technologies in the Life Sciences may be increased if the public is given proof that those developments are necessary to achieve certain benefits. For example, support for genetic modification of animals increased from 16% to 37%, if it could be proved to be necessary in order to find a cure or vaccine for debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's. Similarly, support for genetic modification of plants (eg for food stuffs or crops) increased from 20% to 42%, if a cure or vaccine for Alzheimer's could be found in the process.

But the largest piece of work we have conducted on biotechnology has been 'The Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences', for the OST (in 1998/9)1. This employed 'novel' techniques: qualitative workshops; and a large, random survey of over 1,100 people from The Government's 'People's Panel'2. MORI, at this time, was conducting workshops for a wide range of (mostly Government) clients. Workshops, by virtue of the fact that they are longer, involve more people, allow for a mix of types and 'bus' people in from fairly long distances, allow for even greater participation and interaction than focus groups.

The OST workshops took place on paired Saturdays - to see what thoughts, if any, emerged between the two days. They took place in six locations in the UK (covering 123 respondents, over about a 7 hour period each Saturday. Participants debated the issues in large groups of twenty or so, and in mini-groups of about seven people each). The qualitative work fed into the design of the questionnaire for the random sample survey, but was also very much a piece of work in its own right.

As the title of the work suggests, the research was consultative - and in many senses. The first half-day of each workshop was entirely devoted to spontaneous issues (eg top of mind awareness of major scientific discoveries or developments). Therefore, participants had the opportunity to express their views in their own words, and without any prompting or stimulus materials. The aim here was to listen to respondents. This was then followed by the passing out of prompt/visual materials on various aspects of biotechnology, which people had the opportunity to study and respond to. Thus, at this stage they were consulting with each other and with the moderator. They were then asked to work in mini-groups to prepare their ideal mechanism for regulation of the biosciences. Between the two Saturdays, they could talk to other people, read or watch TV about the issues if they wanted to, or do nothing if they wanted to.

(Feedback from workshop participants was positive: it had given them the opportunity to debate issues which mattered to them. The science may not have been uppermost in their minds, but the social and ethical implications, the reasons behind developments, possible vested interests, and the need for information were important to them).

Another aspect of the consultation was the input from The Government's Advisory Panel - comprising representatives from industry (Zeneca and Sainsbury's), two NGOs (The Green Alliance and The Wellcome Trust), academia (University of East London), a Research Council (BBSRC), the media (Nature) and The Women's Institute.

This piece of work examined: the level and nature of people's awareness, issues arising from developments in the biosciences, knowledge of the oversight and regulatory process, issues to be taken into account in developments of the biosciences; and information that should be made available to the public.

(We have also recently conducted a survey of over 1,600 scientists for The Wellcome Trust on The Role of Science in Public Debate - to be published later this year).

2. Research Methods in this Field and Forms of Validation
MORI uses many approaches for its work. In the area of biotechnology we have used focus groups, workshops, in-depth interviews (telephone and face-to-face) and quantitative surveys.

Regarding validation, one should continually strive to aim to validate one's work. Independent evaluation is part of that.

In MORI's work for the OST, we had an independent evaluator - Professor Alan Irwin from Brunel University, who observed some of the workshops and the interpretation from them. While much of his feedback to the OST was positive he noted, for example, that one workshop respondent was opposed to biotechnology but that the research was concerned with its regulation. This pre-supposed that biotechnology was going to continue to take place. To some extent, the 'catch all' question asked at the end of the workshop feedback questionnaire captured this response when it asked 'Is there anything else that you would like to say about the biosciences?' It is essential to give respondents this opportunity to express their true feelings.

At one workshop location we filmed participants' responses3 - so that they could be fed back directly to the Advisory Panel. However, we found that this in itself affected the way that some people responded, so filming was not used for the next Saturday.

Transcripts were prepared for all workshops - and made available to all members of the Advisory Panel, who were therefore able to draw independent conclusions.

But no matter how many measures are taken to obtain independent assessments, this still begs the question as to whether what respondents say is what they actually believe, or what they will do. The acid test is to be able to compare what people say with what happens in the real world - whenever that opportunity arises. (An environmental example would be for Local Authorities to see how many people use their recycling boxes, and to compare this with the percentage of people that say they or their household does so).

It's also key to know whether respondents understand what is being asked (a particular challenge for questions about biotechnology), and whether the questions - in a qualitative or quantitative setting, have meaning and relevance to them and their lives. This is where we feel spontaneous questions can play a part - where respondents can answer in their own words, and where the language they use can be used in information programmes, and for questionnaire construction.

Sharing information with peers is also valuable. This can enable a comparison of results from a variety of sources. MORI shares the view of the AEBC that a network would enable exchange of ideas (and results, we would add), and of George Gaskell at LSE that an annual meeting could help explore potential synergies.

3. Relationship Between MORI's Research and that of Others

Most of MORI's work on biotechnology has focussed on public awareness and behaviour; attitudes towards: regulation, trust in institutions and individuals; and preferred forms of information.

Rather like George Gaskell's work at LSE, we employ several different methods, instead of focussing entirely on qualitative or quantitative research.

We have not (yet) conducted a systematic analysis of media content (unlike George Gaskell and others), though did list the main news coverage which took place throughout the MORI/OST and other projects. MORI's media evaluation subsidiary test Research has the experience and skills to build on this.

We have also (like other contributors to this seminar) conducted some work on risk - for example a major survey for The Cabinet Office in 1999 on risk-taking behaviour and attitudes, which covered many areas including food and health.

4. Insights Arising from MORI's Research4

That the public does not need to know much about the science (and may not want to know) in order to express their opinions;

Many tend to be cautious, if not fearful, about the unknown. Their concerns are not entirely focussed on the way science is moving (eg fears about humans being cloned); they also want to know why certain developments take place (eg Why was Dolly cloned?) and look both at the cost, and the cost/benefits of such developments. They also question the profit motive of companies.

Safety is an issue of paramount importance to the public. More work is needed on how much risk they are prepared to take, if a development can lead to a potential benefit. The 'health' pull is strong. If a development can lead to advances in human health, they are more inclined to support it.

Scientific developments which the public is most likely to feel have been beneficial to society are health-related ones: 'Development of new medicines', 'Transplants' and 'Cures for illnesses'. In contrast, few feel that
'Cloning/Dolly the sheep', 'Genetically modified food' or 'Genetic modification of animals and plants' have been beneficial to society.

Trust in doctors generally is high5, and remains so when the public is asked who they trust to make decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences, and (at a separate question) to provide honest and balanced information about biological developments and their regulation. However, trust in industry, government and the media (on both these questions) is relatively low.

The public wants more groups to play a role in regulation , than government, scientists and an Advisory Body. They call for the general public themselves, environmental groups, and a 'lay'6 as well as an expert Advisory group to be involved - in addition to the government and scientists.

Providing information is key. The public wants, and expects, to be informed -ahead of developments taking place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1The full report on this study is available from: www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/index.htm

2'The People's Panel is run by MORI for The Cabinet Office. As its name suggests, it comprises a panel of people - that can be approached to conduct surveys, workshops, focus groups or other forms of interview. It was recruited for research to inform public policy. It comprises 5,000 UK adults aged 16+ and is representative of the population in terms of age, gender, region and a wide range of other demographic indicators. The original members of the Panel were recruited during Summer 1998. Since then we have carried out two 'top-up' recruitment exercises to replace 1,000 members, and recruited an additional 830 Panel members from ethnic minority communities. Any publicly funded body may use the Panel (on a payment basis).

3With their prior permission.

4Much of these insights have come from MORI's large study for OST 'The Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences' . This can be downloaded from: www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/index.htm

5Despite 'Shipman', which we know from MORI's work for The BMA. (Harold Shipman was a Manchester GP who is now a convicted serial killer of some of his patients).

6Comprising people of different viewpoints.