Biotechnology: An Overview

Biotechnology Policy Public Perception, Participation, and the Law

Judith R. Curry, attorney, Arlington, VA.

Biotechnology is not new. In its broadest sense, the term simply means the application of living organisms to improve, modify, or produce industrially important products or processes. Micro-organisms have been used for centuries in the production of foods, beverages, and other fermented substances. In the past century, they have been used to produce antibiotics, enzymes, and amino acids. And genetic engineering, the biological technique which includes artificial selection for desired traits in plants and animals, has been in use in agriculture since the turn of the century. Beginning in the 1950's, research in biotechnology led to the development of techniques such as artificial insemination, superovulation and embryo transplant in animals, and hybridization in plants. All were valuable contributions to the advance of agricultural science.

It is only in the past 10 to 15 years, however, that the discovery of techniques such as rDNA (sometimes referred to as genetic engineering) and cell fusion have provided the tools to manipulate organisms at the molecular and cellular level, improving the ability, speed, and efficiency of producing desired alterations in hereditary traits. In addition to helping to answer questions about basic biological functions, the new developments in biotechnology are expected to increase productivity of plants and am-coals significantly and to lower costs of production.

At the same time, biotechnology and particularly genetic engineering has the capacity to arouse considerable tension and divergence of viewpoints on issues of ethics, health, and environmental safety. Public participation through regulatory efforts and litigation, as well as less visible involvement, has played a significant role in shaping governmental policies relating to research in biotechnology. This article discusses the causes of some of the public concerns surrounding biotechnological research and the governmental and judicial responses to the causes and concerns.

Public Perception of Biotechnological Research

National surveys were conducted in the early 1980's with the objective of ascertaining the public perception of biotechnology. Cambridge Reports, Inc., reported the following results of surveys conducted in 1982 and 1983:

About one-half of the people surveyed either hadn't heard the phrase genetic engineering or wouldn't guess what it meant;

Of those who had heard of private corporations getting into the field of genetic engineering or biotechnology (roughly 40 percent), and who were willing to take a position as to whether this was good or bad, positive sentiments outweighed negative by almost two to one;

Respondents with higher income levels and higher levels of education, were more likely to expect major benefits from genetic engineering than those with lower incomes and less education;

When respondents were asked what they thought of when the term DNA was mentioned, 63 percent didn't know; 2 percent gave an accurate definition; and 2 percent said it was "poison."

Also in 1982 and 1983, Yankelovich, Skelly, and White surveyed the general public with regard to perceptions about genetic engineering. The results showed the following:

The percentage of the general public believing that the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the risks increased from 31 percent in 1981 to 39 percent in 1982;

Sixty-two percent of the public were very or somewhat concerned about genetic engineering in 1982.

In January 1986, Cambridge Reports, Inc., again conducted a survey asking whether respondents had heard or read anything about rDNA or genetic engineering. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed responded that they had heard or read something; 46 percent had not heard or read anything; and 4 percent were not sure. Of those who had heard or read something, only 5 percent were very familiar with the terms and 19 percent were somewhat familiar. Those respondents who had heard or read something about rDNA or genetic engineering were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: The development and use of genetically altered organisms create a potentially serious environmental and public health threat that outweighs the social and economic benefits such organisms may produce. Forty-one percent of the respondents agreed with the statement; 34 percent didn't know; and 25 percent disagreed.

This survey data suggests several things: 1) Real public concerns about biotechnological research, particularly in the area of genetics, persist today;

2) a relatively small fraction of the American public is fully informed about genetic engineering in particular, and about biotechnology in general; 3) public knowledge of biotechnology has increased little since the early 1980's; and 4) the more informed the public, the more likely it is to view genetic engineering favorably rather than unfavorably.

Factors Influencing Public Perception

Terminology. While the public is somewhat better informed about biotechnology than it was a decade ago, there still exists a vast comprehensibility gap between laboratory scientists and the average U.S. citizen. This is due, in part, to the complex and technical nature of the subject itself. But it also may be attributed to the use of imprecise terminology by scientists and research administrators when addressing the public on issues about biotechnology and science in general.

It is important for scientists and technicians to understand that certain words or phrases they use every day may have certain science fiction-like connotations for the average person. After all, it has not been such a long time since the idea of cloning was considered by the average American to exist only in the imaginations of science fiction writers and movie producers. For them, the cloning of genes, a basic technique of rDNA technology, can be confused with the cloning of individual human beings. Because language influences perception, the problems caused by multiple connotations attached to terms used by scientists are significant.

News Media. The news media have consistently and enthusiastically reported developments in biotechnology often with front page stories. One positive result is that the public has become increasingly aware of activity in this area. But journalists, however objective, must be selective in deciding which stories are reported and in determining which facts are newsworthy. News reports that emerge from this editing process necessarily present only part of the picture. In addition, the need to generate interest in reading the story or watching the newscast may, to some degree, override the journalist's concomitant dedication to objectivity and comprehensive reporting. Consequently, the general public's understanding of the phenomena described in these reports may be somewhat limited.

Religion and Ethics. Finally, religion and ethics play an important role in determining the acceptability of biotechnology by the public. This is true particularly when genetic engineering of higher life forms such as animals is at issue and, to a much larger degree, when the question of manipulation of human genes is involved.

One reason that the technology has aroused such strong emotions in this area is that the capability to alter the hereditary material of animals and human beings implies a responsibility which, it is argued, was heretofore entrusted to someone with greater reliability than human beings. This issue, of course, could be discussed without end; here, however, only a few comments are offered.

First, there are inherent difficulties in distinguishing between that basic research in genetic engineering conducted for future application to animals and that for application to humans. Because genetics is basic to all living organisms, techniques applicable to lower forms of life are theoretically applicable to higher forms as well, including human beings. For example, in vitro (outside the body) fertilization and embryo transplants were used and perfected in farm animals long before application to solve the reproductive problems of humans. Basic techniques, such as gene isolation, provide the basis for genetic research both in animals and human beings.