Engaging the South African public on Biotechnology

1. Engaging the South African public on Biotechnology

2. PUB: Strategic operating context

3. PUB, one of six “Biotechnology Instruments” in South Africa… Gov Depts NRF SAASTA NBN Cape Biotech EcoBio Plant Bio Biopad Investors End users Public & public opinion

4. PUB:A dynamic and innovative public communication programme aiming to: • increase broad public awareness and clear, balanced understanding of the scientific principles and potential of biotechnology & related issues; • and • create meaningful opportunities for public dialogue and debate around biotechnology and its applications within our society to enable informed decision making.

5. SAASTA Mandate To promote public awareness, appreciation and engagement of science, engineering and technology (SET). SAASTA is the official vehicle for facilitating the promotion of SET in SA society, and was incorporated into the NRF in December 2002 South African Agency of Science and Technology Advancement (SAASTA), a Business Unit of the National Research Foundation (NRF)

6. Museum Zoo Observatory STRATEGIC APPROACH KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SCIENCE MISSIONS SCIENCE AWARENESS PLATFORM SCIENCE COMMUNICATION EDUCATION Science and the media School science support Science materials Communicationofresearch to public audiences SET Careers

7. Why a PUB Programme? • Recommendation of SA National Biotechnology Strategy (along with 5 other biotech instruments); • Government commitment to & investment in biotechnology; • The public’s right to know; • SAASTA: promote awareness, public understanding & appreciation of SET; and • High levels of ignorance of SA public (PUB survey).

8. PUB History & Budget • End 2002 R1,500,000planning/stakeholder consultation • 2003/4: R5,000,000launch & implementation • 2004/5: R5,000,000 full implementation • 2005/6: R3,500,000 full implementation Continued fundingsubject to review Continual public & stakeholder feedback/input throughout

9. Guiding principles • Provide factual, balanced, credible information on biotechnology; • Transparency, accountability & “clean” links; • Biotechnology per se - not just GM; • Engagement & dialogue; • Use of non-jargon language that is easy and accessible to all; • Innovative, creative communication; • Actively involve the stakeholder, science & media communities, both nationally and internationally.

10. Challenges • Diversity of South Africa in language and culture (literacy); • Transformation issues (gender, M&S…); • Very wide mandate: all biotechnology to all South Africans; • Remaining neutral, factual & credible; • Current confusion & polarization over specific biotechnology areas e.g. GM; • Biotechnology terminology: translation & “translation”; and • Capacity constraints (human & financial).

11. Science Communication & PUB Team • Science Communication Manager (50% PUB) • Project Coordinator (50% PUB) • Media Coordinator (20% PUB) • Editor/Writer (10% PUB) • Web administrator/graphic designer (20% PUB) • PUB Project officer (100% PUB) • Grants Project Officer • Administrative officer (50% PUB) • PUB Intern (until end March 2006) Total capacity=3 All biotech for all South Africans Capacity (human & budgetary) constraints Coordinating/facilitating role & outsourcing calls

12. The “science” of science communication

13. Information & dialogue Themes: • Biotech in the mass media Capacity building & networking Strategicobjectives: • Role model campaign • Biotech careers • Public events/exhibits • Networking • Website • Produce/distribute printed materials • Radio & TV products • Basic biotech WS • Science theatre • Innovative grants • Help desk • Public perceptions • Science & media interaction: • Media roundtable • Expert list • Media skills • Responsible reporting • Biotech media service: • Media monitoring/analysis • Responses/alerts • Press statements • Targeted eds & ads

14. How: Capacity building • Interactive exhibits • Public/academic events • Educator workshops • Communication training for scientists & journalists • Role models & career profiling

15. Exhibits: static & interactive • DNA 50 • GM • Forensics • Cloning • Biotech careers & role modelling

16. How: Communication tools • Science drama • Targeted educational resources & “kits” • Role models • Competitions

17. PUB Teaching Modules • Biotechnology & biodiversity; • Complementary, empoweringtool; • Specifies teaching outcomes; • Targets Grd 9-12 & caters for range of abilities; • Includes local (SA) examples; • Educator training ensures skills to teach biotech content correctly & confidently; • Pilot involving 2 workshops per district in Free State in October 2005 (350+ Gr 10 Educators); • Awaiting endorsement from National DoE following pilot evaluation; • Piloting in other Provinces.

18. How: Mass Media & “round table”

19. How: Website & Helpdesk: www.pub.ac.za 303,977 unique visits to date (since Sept 2003) and 1,934,136 accesses

20. Engaging the public on GMOs • Basics first (cells, DNA, genes…): • Resources (posters, kits, cartoons, teaching modules) • Basic Biotech workshops • Advertorials (i.e. paid media space) • Media responses to misinformation – when possible • Help desk enquiries • GM advertorial (in process) • Documenting the development of the GMO act (in process) • Do not prescribe a particular view – instead encourage dialogue & discussion based on all the facts – both benefits & risks, so people can make their own informed decision; • Public info needs –What the public want to know rather than what you want them to know. • Public debate v consensus:polarizes the issue further. Why not aim for consensus in the middle ground?;

21. Challenges to GMO engagement • High levels of ignorance/lack of knowledge amongst South Africans –have to educate & raise awareness first; • Polarization of the GM issue globally (which side are you on?); • Contradictory claims adding to the confusion; • Consuming, hi-input issue & keeping up-to date full time job… • Complexity & vastness of GM issue - ONE biotech issue of “ALL Biotech to ALL South Africans”

22. Public perceptions of Biotechnology

23. Why measure public perceptions? • Baseline to measure impact of activities; • To monitor trends over time; • Generate internationally complementary & comparative data; • Lack of comprehensive & less biased surveys undertaken in SA to date; • Identify gaps and information needs;and • Enable tailoring of messages for specific audiences on biotech.

24. PUB/HSRC Survey (2004/5) • High response rate (82%); • Baseline to measure impact – not to substantiate specific views; • Knowledge, attitudes & judgements, trust; • Mostly quantitative; • Census enumerator areas/GIS – repeatable; • Face to face interviews; and • Language of choice.

25. Sample specifics • 7000 people aged 16+ in 500 enumerator areas; • 53% formal urban; 35% tribal; 9% informal urban; 4% rural; • Race: 76% black 12% white 9% coloured 3% asian • Gender: 46% male & 54% female; • Age: 29% 16-20 24% 21-25 26% 26-60 20% 60+

26. Knowledge • 8/10 do not know or have knowledge about biotechnology (GM, GE or cloning); • What do you think about biotech… “Fake goods that come with Nigerians & Chinese” “something to do with brains” “Weapons of mass destruction” “something to do with cars”

28. GM foods in South Africa • GM foods on sale in SA? 66% Don’t know maize, apples, milk/dairy, tomatoes, fruit & vegetables • Ever eaten GM foods? 62.5% Don’t know 11.5% Yes 26% No • Reasons for negativity? 53% no one good reason 15% unhealthy for humans 11% violates religious/ethical principles

30. Vote for continuation despite lack of knowledge

33. Food labels • 51% don’t read food labels – those who do usually (23%) are more negative; • Higher LSM groups more likely to read food labels (37%) compared to moderate (21%) LSM groups; • Low percentage want GM info on labels but could be included in 21% for more ingredient info.

35. Conclusion If one is educated, has some form of income, has access to the internet and to reading material, is of a particular race group – then one tends to be more negative about biotechnology or have more factual knowledge of it & Very few people very negative How can people have opinions on something they know nothing about?

36. Thank you! www.pub.ac.za