Paper
AEBC 05/07
A Report on a Deliberative Public Engagement Exercise concerning Non-food Agriculture for the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
Prepared by
Corr Willbourn Research and Development
150 Waterloo Road London SE1 8SB
CWR&D Job No. 887
15 March 2005
Page No
1. Background 4
2. Project objectives 5
1. Method 7
2. The Sample 8
3. Recruitment criteria 9
4. Timing and Personnel 10
5. Research materials 10
1. Some comments on the sample 18
2. Knowledge about and attitudes toward Non-food agriculture at the beginning of the deliberative process 19
3. Contextual issues raised by the case studies 27
4. Deliberation around the six key frames 45
5. The key issues 47
6. The public’s criteria 62
7. Attitudes toward biotechnology 64
Appendices
Appendix 1 - The Research brief
Appendix 2 - The recruitment questionnaire
Appendix 3 - The discussion guides
Appendix 4 – The Case Studies
Appendix 5 – The Research Materials
Appendix 6 – Stakeholder Participation
The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC, hereafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) is looking at the role biotechnology could play in the development of Non-food agricultural products. It intends to explore public opinion about Non-food agriculture and the use of biotechnology, and assess the degree to which existing legislation is appropriate for regulating biotechnology in this area.
Deliberative research is required to inform this process by canvassing public opinion on applications of modern biological science to Non-food agriculture and by facilitating deliberation on issues, aspirations and concerns arising from such potential applications.
Government policy towards sustainable agriculture is creating a momentum for a range of Non-food uses of crops. A number of benefits are cited, particularly in the potential of these crops to play a role in meeting significant societal needs such as:
§ Renewable energy provision to reduce reliance on non-renewable fossil carbon sources
§ Cleaner manufacturing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
§ Novel methods of production for therapeutics making cures for pernicious diseases more widely available at lower cost
§ Support for the rejuvenation of the rural economy, and particularly the ability to create much needed “value added” opportunities for conventional farmers currently producing commodity crops
§ Diversification of agriculture in the UK countryside.
However, for each potential application, alternative approaches may exist that could achieve the same or similar benefits. For example, reducing energy consumption and improving efficiency of use would also reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, in creating these benefits using Non-food agriculture, there is potential for a significant alteration in the pattern of land use in the UK. This could lead to issues of:
§ Unknown effects on biodiversity (both positive and negative)
§ Changes to the appearance of the UK countryside
§ Judgements around when land should be preserved for maximising food production rather than addressing these alternative needs
§ Necessity to consider both intermediate term and long term requirements made of agriculture.
In many of the examples of Non-food uses of crops, there is the possibility (and in some cases an existing reality) that the speed of delivering these products to market, and the efficiency of action of these products, could be enhanced by the application of biotechnology, defined in its broadest sense which includes genetic modification (GM) but also other genomic and molecular biological techniques.
The project had two sets of objectives, the first to produce qualitative research findings and the second to facilitate and report on deliberation.
Research Objectives
§ To discover the social, political, ethical, economic, environmental, and health and safety criteria that people consider relevant to Non-food agriculture
§ To discover which of the above criteria are considered relevant to potential future applications of biotechnology in this arena
§ To explore whether the public holds different attitudes towards the application of biotechnology in food and in Non-food crops
§ To explore whether the public’s attitude to the application of biotechnology varies according to the stage of the production process at which it is utilised
§ To explore public attitudes towards, and mechanisms of, balancing and assessing risks and benefits in the biotechnology arena.
Deliberative Objectives
§ To facilitate a general discussion about attitudes to Non-food agriculture, so that participants identify the issues that they see arising from Non-food agriculture, the potential applications of biotechnology and their associated questions, aspirations and concerns
§ To facilitate access by participants to information about Non-food agriculture and potential biotechnology applications, initially by means of examples provided by the Commission
§ To facilitate access by participants to information about potential societal, economic, health, safety and environmental benefits and disadvantages of Non-food agriculture and associated biotechnology, and to information about potential alternatives that could be pursued by society to deliver similar outcomes, and the benefits and disadvantages of the latter
§ To explore and discuss any conditionality that participants might place on their acceptance of particular applications of biotechnology
§ To facilitate discussion and deliberation about societal, economic, health, safety and environmental concerns and aspirations concerning Non-food agriculture and associated biotechnology.
A four-phase process was employed to answer the project objectives.
Phase 1 followed recruitment of qualifying participants, and comprised benchmarking of current knowledge and attitudes of Non-food agriculture via two open-ended and one closed question. Participants were then provided with three non-food agriculture case studies – Energy crops - Short Rotation Coppice Willow and Poplar, Dental Caries and Packaging Materials (bioplastics). Copies of all the case studies employed in this study will be found in appendix 4.
Phase 2 comprised four Workshops each lasting three hours. The first section of each workshop, approximately one hour in length, explored participants’ pre-existing knowledge and responses to the initial three case studies. The second section lasting approximately two hours involved a facilitated meeting between participants and several stakeholders. Details of stakeholder participation will be found in appendix 6. The final section of each workshop entailed orienting participants toward their own self-directed deliberation. Participants were also given five further case studies (HIV microbicides, Building Materials, Bioethanol, Phytoremediation of Organic Pollutants and Dutch Elm Disease Resistant Trees).
The style of facilitation employed in the sessions was very similar to that employed in the Foundation Discussion Workshops conducted for the AEBC by Corr Willbourn in 2002. The philosophical underpinnings of this approach were discussed in the Foundation Discussion Workshops Report and the reader is directed to that source for a fuller discussion – see, for example, http://www.gmnation.co.uk
Importantly, although our approach is informed by the non-directive facilitation methods developed by Carl Rogers and others [see for example Rogers(1965/2002), Client-Centered Therapy, Constable, London], we also draw upon Process-Oriented Psychology as developed by Arnold Mindell [see for example Mindell (1985), River’s Way, Arkana]. Thus, while participants are encouraged to meet and work with the material in their own way, and to draw upon their own lived world frames of reference, there were many occasions during the workshops, and subsequent seminars in phase 4 (see below) where either the facilitators directly, or indirectly (by requesting input from stakeholders), challenged participants’ pre-conceived notions or technically erroneous perceptions. This meant that participants were given the opportunity to revise their thinking in the light of further information or clarification of substantive points and not left to deliberate on erroneous notions. However, in line with non-directive facilitation theory participants were not co-erced into accepting any particular reading of the information, simply given access to wider frames of reference.
Phase 3 took place over about two weeks and consisted of participants’ independent research, discussion, reflection and deliberation on the issues. Each participant was provided with a folder for recording his or her deliberations.
Phase 4 consisted of each workshop being reconvened into two seminars. Thus eight seminars were conducted each lasting one and half hours. The seminars focused on participants’ deliberative activities and explored the conclusions, whether firm or tentative, they had come to. At the conclusion of phase 4 participants were invited to receive a copy of the draft report and comment on it if they so wished. The vast majority accepted the invitation to receive the report, although none did in fact respond with comments.
The sample was required to be indicative of a broad cross-section of the mainstream of the UK population. To ensure that the sample was a good cross-section, despite its relatively small size, we recruited via four broad lifestages and two broad socio-economic groupings. This sample construction has been used successfully on many previous projects and has been shown to provide a good understanding of the public's views and levels of engagement with numerous complex issues. It is also important to note that the general public sample comprised people who had no direct allegiance with, or connection to, agriculture or biotechnology. Hence they genuinely represented the mainstream of public opinion. The sample was as follows:
|
|
Scotland Urban,
Edinburgh |
Northern Ireland Rural Newtownards
(and surrounding areas) |
North
of England Semi-rural York
|
South
of England Urban/ Metropolitan Sutton,
Surrey. |
|
Phase 2 WORKSHOPS |
Workshop
1 ABC1 Half
- 18 – 24 Half
- 40 – 59 |
Workshop
2 C2DE Half
- 25 – 39 Half
- 60 -74 |
Workshop
3 ABC1 Half
- 25 – 39 Half
- 60 -74 |
Workshop
4 C2DE Half
- 18 – 24 Half
- 40 – 59 |
|
Phase 4 SEMINARS |
Seminar
5 ABC1,
18 – 24 Seminar
6 ABC1,
40 - 59 |
Seminar
7 C2DE,
25 - 39 Seminar
8 C2DE,
60 - 74 |
Seminar 9 ABC1,
25 - 39 Seminar
10 ABC1,
60 - 74 |
Seminar
11 C2DE,
18 – 24 Seminar
12 C2DE,
40 – 59 |
Workshops were recruited to have fourteen participants, and an equal number of men and women. In Workshop 2, one participant was unable to attend the first session and hence took no further part in the process. The total sample was therefore fifty-five participants.
§ All Workshops were be an equal mix of men and women (although none were partners)
·
Workshops will be recruited by broad lifestage:
·
18-24; the majority to have no dependent children
·
25-39; the majority to have dependent children
· 40-59; the majority to be parents of teenage families
· 60-74; the majority to be empty nesters.