On the basis of the study Biotechnology and the European Public the objectives of this project were:
The work programme included:
This project was carried out in the framework of an international research group (Concerted Action) supported by the EU Commission (DG XII). The Austrian part was carried out in close co-operation between the ITA and the Department of Social and Economic Psychology, Institute of Pedagogics and Psychology of the University of Linz.
The gate/resonance model provides an analytical frame for the description of technology conflicts. It offers an analytical scheme to conceptualise the interaction between public opinion, interest representing organisations, the media and the political system. The model distinguishes structural elements, functional elements and processes. Structural elements are the public with sub-publics and representational fields, the regulatory system with its institutions, intermediary organisations representing interests and bridging the gap between the public(s) and the regulatory system, the regulatory space and the media that mirror and participate in interest conflicts. Functional elements are resources, which enable intermediary organisations to convey interests to regulation, and filters that prevent information overflow within regulatory institutions: the gate as a formal function selects information according to statutory criteria, detectors according to usefulness for the institution. Processes described are the movement of issue fields due to re-interpretation; resonance, the tuning-in on issue interpretation among different actors; mobilisation, the generation of political pressure through resonance; and policy change through the abolishment of established interest and actor equilibrium due to mobilisation and ensuing gate failure. The model is applied to the example of biotechnology conflicts.
The 1999 European sample survey of public perceptions of biotechnology reveals widespread opposition to genetically modified (GM) food in much of Europe, but public attitudes to medical and environmental applications remain positive. Two additional conclusions can be drawn: i) if an application of biotechnology has no clear benefits, it is unlikely to receive public support; ii) that so many, even among the supporters of biotechnology, should be troubled about its implications for the "natural order" suggests that the next stages in international debate and decisionmaking must go beyond evidence based on solely scientific risk.
01/1999 - 12/2000