What do people mean when they speak of “messing with nature” ?

1. What do people mean when they speak of “messing with nature”? Anne Katrin Schlag MPhil/PhD Social Psychology London School of Economics

2. Presentation outline • Introduction to the concept of “messing with nature” in relation to technological risk perception • Objectives and methodology of the present study • Some words on the data analysis • The results of the correspondence analyses • Discussion with a focus on “the natural” vs. “the unnatural” • Conclusions and avenues for further research

3. Introduction • GM foods are the most rejected biotechnological application in all surveys (Wagner, Kronberger, Gaskell et al, 2001) • From a purely scientific perspective, this is difficult to understand • Social research shows that lay people’s representations of GM food are influenced by a range on “non-scientific” factors, such as trust and values • One significant non-technical concern is the perception that GM is “messing with nature” and is “unnatural” • Empirically, Sjoeberg’s (2000; 2002; 2003) studies show “tampering with nature” as important dimension for technological risk perception • As such, risk perceptions of GM are partly driven by notions of what is seen as unnatural about this technology

4. Nature, culture and biotechnology • Moral issues and value-based perceptions of what is natural and unnatural are increasingly recognised as important in shaping public attitudes to GM (Gaskell, Allum and Bauer, 2000) • This is unsurprising as biotechnology has the potential to change “our nature”, i.e. our DNA structure • In turn, this may lead to a fundamental shift of the traditional boundaries of nature and culture • Biotechnology puts the known cultural categories in questions- what is a human being, what is nature, what is culture? • By offering new ways of categorising the world, biotechnology questions our ideas about the boundaries between what is natural and unnatural (Gaskell and Bauer, 2001)

5. Objectives • Research has so far failed to investigate these issues in depth- the notion that “GM is unnatural” usually presents the culmination of an argument against GM • We aim to provide a more detailed examination by looking at what lies behind this rather ambiguous construction • What to people mean when they judge GM to be “unnatural”? • The objective is to provide a comparative judgement by contrasting GM against other food and nature related “objects” and thus to provide a frame of reference • What are the likely anchors and frames people use to make the judgement that GM is “messing with nature”?

6. Method • Free associations task • In contrast to most previous research on “nature”, this method allowed participants to construct their own definitions of nature • Administered via the Internet • Split ballot design • Participants were asked to write down what comes to their mind in relation to the stimulus words a) food in general and GM food, and b) natural food and natural things • For each stimulus word, participants were also asked to rate their associations on a seven-point scale from very positive to very negative

7. Participants • Internet sampling is limited as random sampling is not possible- even an online directory would not capture all the public • Convenience sample of 188 participants, predominately students • Mean age 27 years (SD 7.7 years) • Two thirds of participants were female, on third male

8. Data analysis • Preparation and “cleaning” of data in EXCEL and SPSS as suggested by Wagner (1997) • Correspondence analysis (Greenacre and Blasius, 1994) to show which associations are relatively more strongly associated with which rating • Exploratory technique for analysing multi-way frequency tables • Aims to convert a table of numbers into a plot of points, usually on two dimensions, i.e. to represent the data in a low dimensional space so that it is easier to identify the key features • Relative relationships between row and column category can be assessed according to the proximity of their profile points on the biplot

9. Row and Column Points Symmetrical Normalization 2 association rating very negative natural disasters sky love 1 sunshine earth smiles very positive family recreation eating health air life sex 0 Dimension 2 (29%) people positive green cotton emotion -1 rocks neutral death negative -2 dirt -3 -1 0 1 2 3 Dimension 1 Results: Biplot natural things • Some key points: • Mainly very positive representations • States of nature • Nature and activities • Nature and people • Nature as life-giving • ‘Eating’ is a natural thing • Significant symbolic and affective • dimensions Dimen- sion 2

10. Row and Column Points Symmetrical Normalization 2 association mcdonalds rating very negative 1 fresh my garden homemade de-naturalised foods health taste fairtrade very positive purity harmony organic Dimen- sion 2 positive 0 culture as nature intended straight from farmer rare not processed farming -1 expensive neutral negative cooking -2 vegetarian -3 -1 0 1 2 3 Dimension 1 Results: Biplot natural food • Some key points: • Mainly positive associations • Naturalness of food related to ways of • food production • Contrast between traditional and modern • production methods • Idealisation of natural foods • Purity and harmony- how food “ought to be” • Implies a value orientation and moral • judgement

11. Row and Column Points Symmetrical Normalization 2 very negative association rating fat 1 taste relaxation social event home satisfaction organic pleasure health culture very positive family energy nutrition Dimen- sion 2 0 life positive meal neutral essential hunger cooking -1 diet negative -2 risk of weight gain -3 -1 0 1 2 3 Dimension 1 Results: Biplot food in general • Some key points: • Mainly positive associations • Food and activities • Food and people • Socio-cultural significance of food • Food as life-giving • Importance of ‘health’ for all three • stimulus words

12. Row and Column Points Symmetrical Normalization association rating future 2 neutral Dimen- sion 2 1 science exploitation unhealthy profit dangerous not necessary very negative big unnatural contamination 0 positive uncertainty tasteless multinational companies progress environmental risks negative unknown long-term consequences helping third world very positive government lies Greenpeace potential benefit -1 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Dimension 1 Results: Biplot GM food • Some key points: • Comparatively negative • associations but progress in • general viewed positively • Characteristics of GM contrast • starkly with those of other foods • Unnatural vs. as nature intended • Contamination vs. purity • Tasteless vs. tasty • Exploitations vs. fair trade • No food-related associations • GM foods anchored in science • rather than socio-culturally

13. Discussion • Associations to nature and food have many commonalities being rated very positively and comprising a range of social dimensions- GM food offers a stark contrast • Contrasts between natural foods and GM food show that the way of food production rather than end product per se is significant decision point when judging a food to be “unnatural” • Eating is considered a natural activity- by being unnatural, GM disturbs this natural order of things and may signify danger • Being represented as a product of science rather than of nature contributes to GM being perceived as “unnatural” • Nature is represented as pure and harmonious- GM is regarded as contaminating which may upset this balance, putting the world as known at risk

14. The natural vs. the unnatural • GM food characteristics contrast with those of other food products • Strikingly, for all other stimulus words, ‘health’ is an important association signifying that health is natural, and food in general is associated with being healthy- but GM is ‘unhealthy’ and ‘unnatural’ • The perceived unnaturalness of GM thus is a challenge to what people think food “ought to be”, to its natural state • “The unnatural” is a characterisation of those situations that are other than normal in some negatively evaluated way- counter to a framework of normative assumptions • On the one hand, the naturalness of food is associated with harmonious relations between humanity and nature • On the other hand, the unnaturalness of GM food is the result of humanity “messing with nature” through the application of science

15. The natural vs. the unnatural (cont.) • Judgements about the unnaturalness of food are not simple assessments of the essence of food- rather, they are evaluations of the relationships between humanity, society and nature • Concerns about the unnaturalness of GM may be seen as a way of expressing values and as a symbol of wider social concerns • Saying that GM is unnatural is an ethical and moral judgement, a common socially constructed anchor for understanding GM food risk which helps to draw the boundaries of acceptability • Provides a basis for separating the “good” from the “bad” • Identifying the natural with the “good” is reassuring in our complex and uncertain world

16. Nature vs. technology • The lack of commonalities of associations to GM food and the other stimulus words shows how these constructs are represented as contrasting realms • Perceived dichotomy between technology (i.e. GM food) and nature • GM viewed as being distinct from nature With reference to Luhmann (1993): Nature is what emerges and passes of its own accord. Technology is a state deviating from what nature would have brought forth itself. Nature might fail to achieve its state of perfection if disturbed- but a technology can exist or not. • In this way, it makes sense for lay people to resist the application of GM technology to our foods.

17. Conclusions • The representation of GM as unnatural is the result of social and societal norms and values rather than any scientific information • Hence an in-depth understanding of the science of GM is insufficient to resolve the controversy about GM- lay concerns about nature, food and GM cannot easily be put in scientific terms • Both food and nature are social and representational, rather than solely material, issues because of what they signify to people • In this way, social representations theory (Moscovici, 1984) provides a useful challenge to the dichotomy between nature and society by showing that (and how) lay people’s understandings of food and nature are, at least in part, socially constructed

18. Avenues for further research • Because nature has to be viewed as being symbolically constituted rather than “given”, it implies that previous approaches to nature (e.g. from environmental psychology) are inadequate to investigate what people really mean when they speak of “messing with nature” • As such, nature and naturalness in general have been insufficiently researched, not just in relation to risk perception • The present findings highlight the need for a more social psychological approach to “nature” that can incorporate the symbolic and affective dimensions of the concept • Thus there is a need to further investigate these issues to move beyond the exploratory results of the present study.

19. References Farr, R. and Moscovici, S. (1984) (Eds.) Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. and Bauer, M. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology,18, 935-8. Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M. (2001) (Eds.) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum. Greenacre, M. and Blasius, J. (1994). Correspondence analysis in the social sciences. London: Academic Press. Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A sociological theory. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Inc. Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. Farr and S. Moscovici (Eds.) Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sjoeberg, L. (2000). Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research,3,353-367. Sjoeberg, L. (2002). Attitudes towards technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35,379-400. Sjoeberg, L. (2003). Distal factors in risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 6,187-212. Wagner, W. (1997). Word associations in questionnaires. Papers in Social Research Methods (Qualitative Series). London: London School of Economics, Methodology Institute.