Engaging the South African public on Biotechnology

Engaging the South African public on Biotechnology

SAASTA Mandate

• To promote public awareness, appreciation and engagement of science, engineering and technology (SET).

• SAASTA is the official vehicle for facilitating the promotion of SET in SA society, and was incorporated into the NRF in December 2002

Why a PUB Programme?

• Recommendation of SA National Biotechnology Strategy (along with 5 other biotech instruments);

• Government commitment to & investment in biotechnology;

• The public’s right to know;

• SAASTA: promote awareness, public understanding & appreciation of SET; and

• High levels of ignorance of SA public (PUB survey).

PUB History & Budget

• End 2002 R1,500,000 planning/stakeholder consultation

• 2003/4: R5,000,000 launch & implementation

• 2004/5: R5,000,000 full implementation

• 2005/6: R3,500,000 full implementation

• Continued funding subject to review

Guiding principles

Challenges

• Diversity of South Africa in language and culture (literacy);

• Transformation issues (gender, M&S…);

• Very wide mandate: all biotechnology to all South Africans;

• Remaining neutral, factual & credible;

• Current confusion & polarization over specific biotechnology areas e.g. GM;

• Biotechnology terminology: translation & “translation”; and

• Capacity constraints (human & financial).

Science Communication & PUB Team

• Science Communication Manager (50% PUB)

• Project Coordinator (50% PUB)

• Media Coordinator (20% PUB)

• Editor/Writer (10% PUB)

• Web administrator/graphic designer (20% PUB)

• PUB Project officer (100% PUB)

• Grants Project Officer

• Administrative officer (50% PUB)

• PUB Intern (until end March 2006)

The “science” of science communication

Information

• Information

• & dialogue

How: Capacity building

Exhibits: static & interactive

How: Communication tools

PUB Teaching Modules

• Biotechnology & biodiversity;

• Complementary, empowering tool;

• Specifies teaching outcomes;

• Targets Grd 9-12 & caters for range of abilities;

• Includes local (SA) examples;

• Educator training ensures skills to teach biotech content correctly & confidently;

• Pilot involving 2 workshops per district in Free State in October 2005 (350+ Gr 10 Educators);

• Awaiting endorsement from National DoE following pilot evaluation;

• Piloting in other Provinces.

How: Mass Media & “round table”

How: Website & Helpdesk: www.pub.ac.za

Engaging the public on GMOs

• Basics first (cells, DNA, genes…):

• Resources (posters, kits, cartoons, teaching modules)
• Basic Biotech workshops
• Advertorials (i.e. paid media space)
• Media responses to misinformation – when possible
• Help desk enquiries
• GM advertorial (in process)
• Documenting the development of the GMO act (in process)

• Do not prescribe a particular view – instead encourage dialogue & discussion based on all the facts – both benefits & risks, so people can make their own informed decision;

• Public info needs –What the public want to know rather than what you want them to know.

• Public debate v consensus: polarizes the issue further. Why not aim for consensus in the middle ground?;

Challenges to GMO engagement

• High levels of ignorance/lack of knowledge amongst South Africans –have to educate & raise awareness first;

• Polarization of the GM issue globally (which side are you on?);

• Contradictory claims adding to the confusion;

• Consuming, hi-input issue & keeping up-to date full time job…

• Complexity & vastness of GM issue - ONE biotech issue of “ALL Biotech to ALL South Africans”

Public perceptions of Biotechnology

Why measure public perceptions?

• Baseline to measure impact of activities;

• To monitor trends over time;

• Generate internationally complementary & comparative data;

• Lack of comprehensive & less biased surveys undertaken in SA to date;

• Identify gaps and information needs;and

• Enable tailoring of messages for specific audiences on biotech.

PUB/HSRC Survey (2004/5)

• High response rate (82%);

• Baseline to measure impact – not to substantiate specific views;

• Knowledge, attitudes & judgements, trust;

• Mostly quantitative;

• Census enumerator areas/GIS – repeatable;

• Face to face interviews; and

• Language of choice.

Sample specifics

• 7000 people aged 16+ in 500 enumerator areas;

• 53% formal urban; 35% tribal; 9% informal urban; 4% rural;

• Race: 76% black

• 12% white

• 9% coloured

• 3% asian

• Gender: 46% male & 54% female;

• Age: 29% 16-20

• 24% 21-25

• 26% 26-60

• 20% 60+

Knowledge

• 8/10 do not know or have knowledge about biotechnology (GM, GE or cloning);

• What do you think about biotech…

• “Fake goods that come with Nigerians & Chinese”

• “something to do with brains”

• “Weapons of mass destruction”

• “something to do with cars”

GM foods in South Africa

• GM foods on sale in SA?

• 66% Don’t know

• maize, apples, milk/dairy, tomatoes,

• fruit & vegetables

• Ever eaten GM foods?

• 62.5% Don’t know
• 11.5% Yes
• 26% No

• Reasons for negativity?

• 53% no one good reason

• 15% unhealthy for humans
• 11% violates religious/ethical principles

Food labels

• 51% don’t read food labels – those who do usually (23%) are more negative;

• Higher LSM groups more likely to read food labels (37%) compared to moderate (21%) LSM groups;

• Low percentage want GM info on labels but could be included in 21% for more ingredient info.

Conclusion

• If one is educated, has some form of income, has access to the internet and to reading material, is of a particular race group – then one tends to be more negative about biotechnology or have more factual knowledge of it

• &

• Very few people very negative

• How can people have opinions on something they know nothing about?

Thank you!

• www.pub.ac.za