viewpointviewpoint The role of means and goals in technology acceptance A differentiated landscape of public perceptions of pharming Rafael Pardo, Margret Engelhard, Kristin Hagen, Rikke Bagger Jørgensen, Eckard Rehbinder, Angelika Schnieke, Mariana Szmulewicz & Felix Thiele ost pharmaceuticals are either agriculture or medicine. In light of the often explanatory variables. Finally, we included chemically synthesized small mol- hostile public reaction to other applications a number of specific scenarios for our inter- Mecules or are derived directly from of biotechnology, a better understanding of viewees to consider: various plants and natural sources such as plants and human the public’s views and attitudes to pharm- their mode of cultivation—open fields, con- blood. An increasing number of drugs com- ing might help to guide the interaction of the tainment, confinement—and the types of prising recombinant proteins, anti bodies research community and industry with the animal and medium—such as milk, egg, and nucleic acids are also produced in public at large. urine and blood—in which the protein or living organisms that have been geneti- drug is produced. cally engineered for the purpose (Walsh, …a better understanding of the 2006). In parallel to this growing market of early two decades ago, Dancker so-called biopharmaceuticals (Lawrence, public’s views and attitudes to D. L. Daamen and co-authors (1990) 2007; Ledford, 2006), research has focused pharming might help to guide Npostulated that general attitudes on the development of improved produc- the interaction of the research towards science and technology are unstable tion platforms, notably genetically modi- community and industry with and weak theoretical constructs. Although fied plants and animals. Recombinant the public at large these are assumed to have a universal scope, bio pharmaceuticals have, for example, been they nevertheless fail to aggregate and expressed in maize kernels, tobacco leaves, account for the public’s views on a range of goat’s milk and chicken eggs (Giddings Here, we present public perceptions of disparate scientific areas. Analyses, accord- et al, 2000; Dove, 2000). The production plant and animal pharming in 15 advanced ing to this line of reasoning, should focus on of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins industrial societies—12 European countries an intermediate level between views on sci- in higher organisms is termed ‘pharming’, plus Israel, Japan and the USA—that repre- ence at large and specific scientific develop- a portmanteau of pharmaceuticals and sent a spectrum of social values and socio- ments, namely clusters or subsets of science farming, which reflects the combination of economic conditions (for full details, see that share several attributes, such as repro- ‘red’ (biomedical and/or pharmaceutical) supplementary Methods online). Previous ductive technologies, computer and com- and ‘green’ (agricultural and/or food) bio- social research into pharming has been lim- munication technologies or nuclear energy. technology. The idea behind pharming is ited to qualitative analyses or surveys of In turn, the literature on attitudes towards that it will enable the faster, more flexible regional samples in the USA, which have biotechnology has shown that a distinction and cost-effective production of pharma- focused largely on public attitudes to “plant must be drawn between the two subsets of ceuticals compared with current synthetic molecular farming” (Kirk & McIntosh, 2005; ‘green’ and ‘red’ biotechnologies, as these production processes. Einsiedel & Medlock, 2005; Nevitt et al, tend to meet with opposing public percep- The use of recombinant DNA technol- 2006; Knight, 2007). By contrast, our study tions—negative and positive respectively ogy to alter organisms for a specific pur- was designed with a broader scope in terms (Gaskell et al, 1997; Frewer et al, 1997; pose has raised its fair share of controversy. of the societies studied, sample size (1,500 Fischhoff & Fischhoff, 2001; Sturgis et al, While initial public resistance to producing respondents in each country) and coverage 2005; Pardo & Calvo, 2006). bio pharmaceuticals in lower organisms has of both plant and animal pharming. We also Pharming is situated somewhere between largely disappeared—for instance, synthe- used a more complex and robust set of met- the red and green groups of technologies, sizing human insulin in bacteria—there is rics through which to assess views and atti- and might elicit both positive and negative still considerable opposition to genetically tudes, taking multiple measures of both the responses. Our study therefore addresses the modified higher organisms and their use in dependent (‘support of pharming’) and crucial question of whether we are facing a ©2009 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION EMBO reports VOL 10 | NO 10 | 2009 1069 science & society viewpoint single, undifferentiated and holistic evalu- Table S2 online). Although this suggests that contrast, the views that animal pharming is ation of pharming, or potentially varied, in the trade-off between means and ends “playing God”, will “transmit diseases from nuanced and plural perceptions. Indeed, the perceived utility has a significant role, animals to humans”, is a “product of the the results show that even a biotechnology the correlation matrix indicates that many arrogance of scientists” and that this area is subset such as pharming elicits markedly other evaluative angles reinforce or diminish a “product of the interests of a small number different responses from the public, depend- the level of support. The perception that the of pharmaceutical multi nationals” display ing on both the goals and the specifics of the technique is of interest to a few multinational relatively low levels of correlation with means—that is, the types of animal being companies is, however, weakly correlated support for animal pharming (supplemen- used, the medium in which the drug is pro- with pharming support and in contrast with tary Table S2 online). Trust in the regulator, duced, the plants used and where these the genetic modification of food crops, does although it reaches the mid-point or above plants are grown. This highly differenti- not seem to influence the public’s perception in six out of 15 countries, is significantly ated landscape of perceptions of pharming of pharming. lower than in the case of plant pharming has important implications for how those (supplementary Table S5 and Fig S3 online). working in the field engage with the public Pharming is situated somewhere As the mean values of virtually all evaluative (Knight, 2006). criteria in most countries indicate a conver- The public tends to approach pharm- between the red and green gent negative view of animal pharming, this ing like any new and complex subject: by groups of technologies, and translates into a low level of support in spite using different evaluative perspectives simul- might elicit both positive and of the perceived usefulness (supplementary taneously (Pardo et al, 2002). Our study negative responses Table S6 and Fig S4 online). sought to explore these perspectives, from the Reservations about biotechnology are abstract—pharming for unspecified biomedi- considerably attenuated or even dispelled cal goals—to a more specific set of scenarios The means and ends trade-off falls in contexts where two conditions are met. that ranged from fighting critical diseases to towards the side of acceptance when plants First, the development in question is geared treating minor ailments and cosmetic appli- are being genetically modified to obtain towards achieving biomedical goals: health cations. In addition to these two perspectives, pharmaceutical drugs. The dominant view is is among the most prized desires of the pop- we explored how two types of variable affect that this is a “useful” technique that should ulation. Second, it does not involve the utili- public attitudes towards pharming. The first be “supported” and although it is perceived zation of animals, save for a few exceptional concerned specific attributes relating to the as going “against nature”, it is not consid- cases. This condition highlights the different bio technology being considered: is it useful, ered to be either “immoral” or “reckless”. status accorded to plants and animals in moral, reckless, natural, risky; does it involve Perceptions of “risk” are more divided. The most societies, which generates starkly con- ‘playing God’, ‘scientific arrogance’, the majority do not believe that plant pharming trasting attitudes towards the modification of interests of pharmaceutical multinationals; for pharmaceuticals is a product of the “arro- their genetic blueprints. in the case of animal pharming, is it incom- gance of scientists” (supplementary Fig S1 patible with the dignity of animals or does it and Table S3 online), and they trust the laws ften the arguments for and against cause animals to suffer? The second assessed and controls established by each country’s biotechnology remain relatively the influence of more abstract factors such government to regulate it (supplementary Oabstract and tend to be defined as individual worldviews, including percep- Fig S2 and Table S4 online). by the trade-off between the type of goals tions of nature and values, scientific knowl- As with plants, public perception of pursued, biomedical in our case, and the edge and trust in the scientific community the usefulness of animal pharming shows methods applied—genetic modification