Science and technology issues are just too complex, according to results a new survey from North Carolina State University - when it comes to public issues pertaining to science and technology, "talking it out" doesn't seem to work.
The more people discuss the risks and benefits associated with scientific endeavors, the more entrenched they become in their viewpoint and the less likely they are to see the merit of other viewpoints, says Dr. Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication at NC State
"This research highlights the difficulty facing state and federal policy leaders when it comes to high-profile science and technology issues, such as stem cell research or global warming," says Binder. "Government agencies view research on these issues as vital and necessary for the country's future, but building public consensus for that research is becoming increasingly difficult."
The authors set out to see how people talk about risks associated with unfamiliar science and technology issues. "Most people, when faced with an issue related to science and technology, adopt an initial position of support or opposition," Binder says. "Our results demonstrate very clearly that the more people talk about divisive science and technology issues, the less likely the two camps are to see the issue in the same way. This is problematic because it suggests that individuals are very selective in choosing their discussion partners and hearing only what they want to hear during discussions of controversial issues."
The authors focused on public debate related to the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), which the federal government discussed building in one of six sites around the country. Some members of the public opposed building a facility housing highly infectious animal diseases in their community. The six proposed sites were Athens, Ga., Manhattan, Kan., Plum Island, N.Y., Butner, N.C., Flora, Miss., and San Antonio, Texas. Manhattan was ultimately selected as the site for the NBAF.
They conducted surveys of residents living near the proposed sites to collect data on people's perceptions of the potential risks and benefits associated with NBAF. Specifically, the survey results showed that, among people who opposed the facility, the more an individual discussed the issue with other people in their community, the more firmly entrenched he/she became in his/her perception of greater risks and fewer benefits.
Conversely, among those who supported the facility, increased discussion led to an increased perception of benefits and a decreased perception of risks.
"This work will likely inform future decision-making on how federal agencies engage the public in regard to large-scale research initiatives," Binder says.
This research was done as part of an overarching grant project funded by the National Science Foundation.
Citation: Andrew R. Binder, Dietram A. Scheufele, Dominique Brossard and Albert C. Gunther, 'Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility', Risk Analysis published online : 29 OCT 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.x
The more people discuss the risks and benefits associated with scientific endeavors, the more entrenched they become in their viewpoint and the less likely they are to see the merit of other viewpoints, says Dr. Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication at NC State
"This research highlights the difficulty facing state and federal policy leaders when it comes to high-profile science and technology issues, such as stem cell research or global warming," says Binder. "Government agencies view research on these issues as vital and necessary for the country's future, but building public consensus for that research is becoming increasingly difficult."
The authors set out to see how people talk about risks associated with unfamiliar science and technology issues. "Most people, when faced with an issue related to science and technology, adopt an initial position of support or opposition," Binder says. "Our results demonstrate very clearly that the more people talk about divisive science and technology issues, the less likely the two camps are to see the issue in the same way. This is problematic because it suggests that individuals are very selective in choosing their discussion partners and hearing only what they want to hear during discussions of controversial issues."
The authors focused on public debate related to the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), which the federal government discussed building in one of six sites around the country. Some members of the public opposed building a facility housing highly infectious animal diseases in their community. The six proposed sites were Athens, Ga., Manhattan, Kan., Plum Island, N.Y., Butner, N.C., Flora, Miss., and San Antonio, Texas. Manhattan was ultimately selected as the site for the NBAF.
They conducted surveys of residents living near the proposed sites to collect data on people's perceptions of the potential risks and benefits associated with NBAF. Specifically, the survey results showed that, among people who opposed the facility, the more an individual discussed the issue with other people in their community, the more firmly entrenched he/she became in his/her perception of greater risks and fewer benefits.
Conversely, among those who supported the facility, increased discussion led to an increased perception of benefits and a decreased perception of risks.
"This work will likely inform future decision-making on how federal agencies engage the public in regard to large-scale research initiatives," Binder says.
This research was done as part of an overarching grant project funded by the National Science Foundation.
Citation: Andrew R. Binder, Dietram A. Scheufele, Dominique Brossard and Albert C. Gunther, 'Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility', Risk Analysis published online : 29 OCT 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.x
Of particular concern is the part saying "This work will likely inform future decision-making on how federal agencies engage the public in regard to large-scale research initiatives......."
Excuse me?
We the people tell the government.....not the other way around!
Far be it from me to side with the Tea party and that nonsense, but the fact remains that we the people cannot allow government to adopt this attitude and dictate our future to us. That is unacceptable to virtually all Americans and one of the reasons such a drastic change was made in government just a couple days ago.