Search

When people respond to questionnaires, they may construct preferences using various sources of information available, even questions within the questionnaire. An experimental approach with a representative sample of the Swiss population was applied to investigate how stable attitudes towards biotechnology are and which criteria people use spontaneously to evaluate and categorise biotechnology applications providing as little information as possible. A free card-sorting task using risk as a criterion versus not imposing a criterion was applied. Data were analysed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) and were represented in a cognitive map. Results of our experimental manipulation suggest that people’s preferences for biotechnology applications are relatively stable. Different sorting instructions did not result in different cognitive maps. Results suggest, therefore, that participants’ evaluations are not strongly influenced by criteria used in a questionnaire. The descriptions of the applications seem to be more crucial.

In 2005, Swiss citizens endorsed a moratorium on gene technology, resulting in the prohibition of the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops and the growth of genetically modified animals until 2013. However, scientific research was not affected by this moratorium, and in 2008, GMO field experiments were conducted that allowed us to examine the factors that influence their acceptance by the public. In this study, trust and confidence items were analyzed using principal component analysis. The analysis revealed the following three factors: "economy/health and environment" (value similarity based trust), "trust and honesty of industry and scientists" (value similarity based trust), and "competence" (confidence). The results of a regression analysis showed that all the three factors significantly influenced the acceptance of GM field experiments. Furthermore, risk communication scholars have suggested that fairness also plays an important role in the acceptance of environmental hazards. We, therefore, included measures for outcome fairness and procedural fairness in our model. However, the impact of fairness may be moderated by moral conviction. That is, fairness may be significant for people for whom GMO is not an important issue, but not for people for whom GMO is an important issue. The regression analysis showed that, in addition to the trust and confidence factors, moral conviction, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness were significant predictors. The results suggest that the influence of procedural fairness is even stronger for persons having high moral convictions compared with persons having low moral convictions.