The role of means and goals in technology acceptance

Abstract

What do the public think of modern biopharmaceuticals and why? How do we ensure that the technology to derive drugs from genetically modified organisms is publicly acceptable? Rafael Pardo and co‐authors probe public views of modern drug discovery and production.

Decomposing the effects of time on the social acceptability of biotechnology using age-period-cohort-country models

“…Therefore, tackling the social acceptability of genetically modified organisms (GMO), and more generally biotechnology-based food, is of major importance (see also Dannenberg, 2009), especially to design the governance regimes in order to adequately handle uncertain and unknown effects of new technology (Kvakkestad and Vatn, 2011). On this subject, we find mixed results in the literature: does the change come from, as certain authors believe, the emergence of a population that is better educated or more informed about the different technologies (Sturgis et al, 2005) or increased confidence in the different participants in the debate and notably environmental associations (Huffman et al, 2004;Pardo et al, 2009;Priest et al, 2003;Rousselière and Rousselière, 2010)? Perhaps, the change is caused by more citizen implication in the debate, leading to less support of modern genetic applications (Knight and Barnett, 2010), or by a youth that has a greater tendency to favor the adoption of new technologies (Gaskell et al, 2011;Knight and Barnett, 2010).…”

“…The different studies carried out on the social acceptability of biotechnology all underline that the absence of perceived utility is one of the determining factors of the opposition to biotechnologies regardless of the field of application (e.g. Amin et al, 2014;Auer, 2008;Einsiedel and Medlock, 2005;Gaskell et al, 2004Gaskell et al, , 2011Klingeman and Hall, 2006;Marris, 2001;Pardo et al, 2009). Pardo et al (2009) underline, for example, a greater acceptance of genetically modified (GM) plants for obtaining medication or treatments to fight deadly diseases (average approval of 6.8/10), illnesses affecting children (6.4), the effects of aging (4.2), or to obtain cosmetic products (3.4).…”

“…Amin et al, 2014;Auer, 2008;Einsiedel and Medlock, 2005;Gaskell et al, 2004Gaskell et al, , 2011Klingeman and Hall, 2006;Marris, 2001;Pardo et al, 2009). Pardo et al (2009) underline, for example, a greater acceptance of genetically modified (GM) plants for obtaining medication or treatments to fight deadly diseases (average approval of 6.8/10), illnesses affecting children (6.4), the effects of aging (4.2), or to obtain cosmetic products (3.4). The development of ornamental horticulture biotechnologies, in other words the use of biotechnologies in an explicitly leisure activity context, is highly controversial (Alston et al, 2006;Auer, 2008;Klingeman and Hall, 2006).…”

“…On the contrary, Joly and Marris (2003) highlight the specific structure of the debate within each country. As far as pharmaceutical biotechnologies are concerned, Pardo et al (2009) underline the existence of major differences between countries, this time due to heterogeneity of perceptions regarding utility of these technologies. Concerning green issues (Clements, 2014), attitudes toward GM food are largely politically driven (Costa-Font et al, 2008).…”

A new era for plant biotechnology

“…Moreover, the plants were grown in open fields, therefore attracting the same criticisms as transgenic food crops. In fact, a recent study showed that the views of the public on pharming depended on the product and the means to produce it; the researchers found increasing acceptance if the plants were used to produce therapeutics against severe diseases and grown in containment (Pardo et al , 2009).…”