Sub Groups

Dr Lynn Frewer
Consumer Science Section, IFR

1. Scope and character of recent relevant research studies

Understanding the social context of genetic modification has been an area of research within IFR since the early 1990s. Initial research focused on public perceptions and attitudes in relation to GM, but has subsequently broadened to examine GM in the context of broader risk management issues.

Thus research has directed effort towards understanding risk perception and communication, and public perspectives associated with risk management policy and regulatory issues. The research program aims to develop rigorous theoretical approaches to understanding the psychology associated with different potential hazards such as genetic modification, and provide information forming the basis of development of best practice in risk communication. A particular emphasis within the risk communication research has been on the communication of uncertainty arising as part of the process of risk analysis. Emphasis has also been placed on the role of risk communication in the context of risk management and regulation. This includes the understanding of processes that inform wider policy issues such as those associated with public confidence in regulatory mechanisms put into place in order to protect the public. Research directed towards understanding the determinants of public trust both in risk management processes, and information provided by different sources, has been subject to systematic empirical investigation. Other research has focused on understanding public preferences for different risk mitigation priorities, and this has initiated new research into how people's value systems influence their preferences for different styles of regulation. Research into developing targeted information strategies, which take due account of the ethical and social issues that may arise from post-genomic research, is currently an area under development.

2. Preferred research methods.

A variety of research methods have been applied to understanding key research questions. These have included theoretical approaches embedded in social psychology (for example, the Elaboration Likelihood Model, and the Theory of Reasoned Action), combined qualitative and quantitative methodologies (repertory grid or means-end chain analysis combined with quantitative survey methods), focus groups, polarised focus groups, etc. Research has also utilised the Social Amplification of Risk Framework to evaluate changes in public attitudes. Research into effective public consultation has involved the development of evaluative criteria and their validation using a case study approach. More recently, approaches traditionally used within political science and history of medicine (archive analysis, interpretive observation), and economics are being applied in collaborative projects.

The methods described have all been applied (but not exclusively) to research associated with understanding risk management and genetic modification.

3. Relationships

Strengths in our research lie in our ability to work closely with those with either a social science or natural science background. In part, this reflects our physical institutional location as well as "consumer science" being a key component of the Framework 5 programme, which facilitates opportunities for collaborations between social and natural sciences within Europe.

A major weakness is integrating the conclusions of our research with those in natural or physical science disciplines, in order to identify cohesive policy outputs. Whilst the reasons for this failure of integration merit research themselves, in the meantime it would be useful to develop short terms approaches to developing more effective dialogue between people with different theoretical perspectives, particularly where these perspectives are drawn from a very broad disciplinary background. I have concerns that social science is regarded as a "bolt on" to natural science research programmes, rather than an integral part of the overall research process. How might more explicit and fruitful integration be managed?

4. Insights (questions arising?) from research of particular relevance to the seminar.

Trust. Our research shows that the relationship between trust in institutions and bodies (in the providers of information) has very little influence on risk perceptions associated with (for example) genetic modification. Similarly, trust in institutions does not influence whether or not people want information from them. This implies that resources should be directed towards communication rather than increasing trust.

Variations in public preference for regulatory approaches. This varies with hazard type, and tends to be greater for technological hazards particularly if people have concerns about potential for negative environmental impact. At the present, a small majority are in favour of "precautionary approaches", although a substantial minority express a preference for "informed choice" to be adopted. What are the implications for risk policy under these conditions?

Public consultation. Current approaches (including "novel" methods like consensus conferences and citizens juries) do not effectively involve under-represented groups in the policy process, despite best intentions to do so. How might this problem be addressed?