www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

When it comes to forming opinions on controversial scientific issues,
Americans show a strong deference to the views of the scientific community,
according to a study co-authored by a University of Wisconsin-Madison
researcher by Dennis Chaptman .
Dominique Brossard, an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and
Mass Communication, says a random survey of 1,500 New York state residents
shows they lean heavily on scientists as they form opinions on agricultural
biotechnology.

In fact, for many citizens, deference to scientific authority serves as a
convenient shortcut that replaces information from mass media or a technical
knowledge of issues such as genetically engineered foods.

"We trust scientists to the point that we defer to them," says Brossard, who
conducted the study with Matthew C. Nisbet, an assistant professor of
communication at American University. "And that raises the question: We want
to trust scientists - but do we want citizens to go so far as to blindly
defer to experts?"

Brossard says the American educational system is where citizens learn to
lean heavily on the scientific community for answers on science policy.

"Transmitted to citizens by the educational system and popular culture,
deference to scientific authority ? means that when science controversies
do occur, deference likely generates among Americans an almost natural
pro-science or pro-technology view," according to the research, published in
the spring 2007 International Journal of Public Opinion Research.

There are factors, however, that compete with Americans' trust in science,
she says, including environmental orientations and religious values. For a
number of issues, religious perspectives are likely to compete strongly with
deference to science - as has been shown in debates over issues such as
embryonic stem-cell research and evolution, she notes. But Brossard adds
that a green orientation has not become part of the social fabric here as
strongly as it has in western Europe.

Brossard says the study raises some concerns for citizens as they weigh
scientific issues.

"Let's not forget that technical innovations have not only scientific
consequences, but ethical, legal and social implications. It's not
necessarily good for citizens to think that scientists should have the final
say," she says. "Scientists are good at what they do. But how much trust is
too much trust?"

Brossard notes that few citizens have the motivation or ability to go beyond
deference toward scientific authority when judging the potential of new
technologies. With this in mind, scientists need to make sure the use the
trust granted them responsibly when engaging the public on controversial
science.

[www.news.wisc.edu]