Abstract
Public acceptance or rejection of new technologies such as Genetically Modified foods is one of the most pressing issues on today’s science policy agenda. Media framing of a debate is of course crucial in managing impressions of scientific developments, and journalists are often criticised for presenting scientific debates in unhelpful ways. However justified such charges might be, the media also works with the images the scientific community provides for them. To some extent, public perception of such scientifically and politically charged issues turns on the way scientists present the inside of the scientific community to the outside world. This project investigated how different research cultures in Britain and Sweden influenced the way in which research on Genetically Modified Food was displayed to the world outside the laboratories. Special attention was given to how scientists thought dissenting experts should be handled , and how this subsequently impacted on scientists' practices and shaped the image of the field as a whole.
Britain has over the last few years been shaken by a number of scientific 'affairs' where debates over contentious research have been played out before the media. These debates have been characterised by clearly defined 'insiders' and 'outsiders', the latter disowned by their previous research communities. In Sweden on the other hand, there is a tendency to draw the boundaries around the scientific community more widely and thereby include sceptical scientists, making the debate an internal issue.
The research found that the interviewed scientists in Britain and Sweden constructed and managed dissent in different ways. Their differing perceptions of both dissenting scientists and the larger scientific community fed through to practices in, and presentation of, the respective communities. British scientists operated with firm boundaries between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ and were of the opinion that controversial scientists needed to be placed outside the community so as to not gain scientific legitimacy. British interviewees also viewed institutional control procedures as a means of protecting individual scientists from a potentially hostile larger scientific community, and paid close attention to how material was presented so as to not draw criticism. Swedish interviewees viewed control procedures as clumsy bureaucracy that risked impinging on the Swedes’ favoured work organisations, in which provisions should be made for all members to ‘have their say’. Swedish scientists’ perception of controversy as a process made them prone to adopt an inclusive strategy to protect the collective, so as to not ‘make’ adversaries that would threaten their former community.
The boundaries for what counted as accepted behaviour for a scientist, ‘the right to be wrong’, thus appeared to be drawn differently amongst scientists from different (national) research cultures. This is highly interesting, if more narrowly confined boundaries potentially increases the likelihood of scientific controversies moving into a public domain, as the ousted scientists are forced to seek new audiences for their claims. A Swedish ‘big tent’ strategy, in which room is made for marginal views, could potentially serve to diminish the risk of all-out battles between scientists in the full glare of mass media.
Project description
Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with some 30 molecular biologists and biochemists in two countries, Britain and Sweden. Within this sample, three types of workplaces were included – universities, research institutes and private industry. Each interview lasted for about 1,5 to 2,5 hours and revolved around themes such as work practices, different procedures imposed from management or funding bodies and how they are handled, input to and development of research strategies, management styles, relationships to colleagues, causes and effects of controversies in the GM arena, perceptions of conditions of employment (e.g. ‘job security’), perception and handling of contentious data, and rating and accreditation within the workplace.
Relevance to user groups
The research should be a valuable input to the ongoing discussion over the public image of science and the impact of work practices on this image. One aim of the project is to promote critical reflection by scientists and science organisations about the conditions under which scientific work is conducted. By feeding the analysis back to scientists, the research will facilitate discussion within the scientific communities of both countries about the effect of funding and employment conditions on their capacity to act independently and contribute to new, more democratic, policy forums. The research isan especially important input to the scientists working in GM related fields, but the results can easily be extended to concern many fields where contentious scientific research is carried out.
Contribution to programme
The research makes a significant contribution to understanding how differences in how dissent is handledwithin a potentially contentious scientific field canshape the public representation and perception of the science itself. It is important to investigate how scientific expertise is influenced by different working conditions. These are especially important in contentious research fields, as these circumstances have the potential to shape the debate.
The comparative nature of the research promotes a better understanding of the experiences of other countries and of the role of British and international science and technology in their socialand political development.
The research also provides a basis for evaluating approaches to the management and communication of science. The findings of the research will be presented to policymakers and science representative bodies, thus extending the potential for the research to influence the governance policies and practices in the field of bio-science. The interactive strategy will also further the understanding of the value of social analysis of science within the communities that are the foci of our studies.
