Where significant scientific and social uncertainty is involved in risk issues the role of science within society has become a major issue of policy analysis and renewed political debate. Recent events such as the European BSE crisis, the September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States, the Foot and Mouth and MMR triple vaccine controversies in the UK, as well as emerging concerns about future developments in nanotechnology, demonstrate that risk issues maintain the capacity to engage the media, varied ‘publics’, and policy makers alike. It is clear that the meanings that different actors place upon risk controversies are framed by a dynamic interaction between, firstly, the political and governmental context of the specific issues involved, and, secondly, the varied standpoints and attitudes adopted by individuals and groups within social settings. As many of the above examples illustrate only too well, one consequence of such a dynamic is that ‘perceptions of risk’ hold very real political, economic, and health consequences for individuals and society (Pidgeon, Kasperson & Slovic, 2003). In addition, interpretations of the role of science and governance in a modern society provide grounds either for public motivation to adopt, or resist, the behavioural and policy changes that might be necessary to adapt to a variety of contemporary risk phenomena.
An emerging view from academic research, and one which underlies the current research project, is that new models of science governance are required, involving innovative social and institutional solutions which reach far beyond attempts to promote better ‘communications’ about the science of hazards and risk assessment. For example, research broadly within the area of science and technology studies has indicated the inadequacies of the simple deficit model of science communication and the ‘public understanding of science’ (Irwin & Wynne, 1996; Grove White et al, 2000). In parallel, risk researchers have noted how one-way ‘risk communication’ has failed to resolve many risk controversies (Fischhoff, 1995), and that after three decades of fragmentation in the fields of risk perception and its communication (Royal Society, 1992; Pidgeon & Beattie, 1998) the time is right to develop a genuinely new and integrated theoretical approach to risk, science and governance referenced to its appropriate societal and institutional contexts.
In relation to UK risk policy a number of recent reports have highlighted the need for fundamental changes in the relationship between science, risk policy / regulation, and the public (Phillips, Bridgeman & Ferguson-Smith, 2000; Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, 2002). As the House of Lords report on Science and Society (2000) succinctly puts it:
‘Scientists and regulators have to understand the public as much as the public need to have confidence in science’
We would concur that a sensitivity and awareness needs to be developed amongst scientific experts and policy makers of the diverse ways in which multiple ‘publics’ construct notions of risk, science and governance in ways which are relevant to, and meaningful for, their everyday lives. A first step - although by no means the only step - in making such a connection is to conduct detailed empirical work on how contemporary public attitudes and discourse towards science, governance and risk interact. This need forms the primary motivation for the current research project.
The survey has produced an extremely rich dataset exploring the five target risk cases on a wide range of risk-related themes, many of which hold important lessons for risk policy. The current report highlights a relatively small number of the descriptive findings of the study (see the Technical Report for a more detailed account of these results: Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2003a). However, the basic dataset allows for more detailed statistical analyses focussing on the five risk cases, as well as the relationships between risk judgements and various topics covered by this study. The broad scope of the study means that a very wide range of data has been produced, and through this various specific hypotheses will be systematically tested during 2003 and beyond. As noted above, we also aim to make comparisons with other data sets produced by other researchers, and to track public perceptions of the five risk cases. This may be of special importance for researchers seeking to explore the impacts of new governance initiatives, such as the recently organised public debate on genetically modified food and crops