Do Irish people trust scientists?

A recent survey estimating the public trust in scientists and other professions makes for interesting reading but it is not without its flaws.

In a survey of just over 1,000 Irish adults, 61% said that they trusted scientitsts to tell the truth.
On the other hand, 16% said they felt that scientists would not tell them the truth.

The results come from a Millward Brown/Lansdowne survey conducted between February 9th and 3rd March, 2011 and released by the Medical Council today.

Doctors were found to be the most trustworthy profession in the country, according to the survey, with 88% of respondents saying they would trust a doctor to tell them the truth.

Teachers (79%), Professors (72%), Judges (71%) all scored relatively highly with TDs (12%), Pollsters (25%) and Business Leaders (27%) bringing up the rear of the poll.

The poll makes an interesting, although probably not intentional distinction between scientists (61%) and scientists working in academia (which must make up at least part of the score for Professors; 72%).

Does the conferring of the title 'Professor' immediately make you more trustworthy as a scientist in the eyes of the Irish public?

It would be useful, in future surveys of this nature to look at the difference between industry and academia in terms of science. For instance, teachers scored 79% trustworthiness in this survey, and at least a portion of them must also be trained scientists.

The findings reflect earlier studies across Europe which show that individuals trust scientific information they recieve from 'academic' scientists more than that which they get from 'industry' scientists.

Whatever the usefullness of such a survey, it is to the advantage of science that scientists continue to communicate with the general public in a truthful and meaningful way. Maybe then we'll beat those doctors!

Source: Medical Council

Assessing Risk: GM, Food Safety and Science in Europe

Recent revelations from WikiLeaks show that the US government was deeply concerned about opposition to GM crops in Europe back in 2007. However, a recent poll suggests that just 8% of European consumers believe it is the most important food safety concern.

When respondents to the Eurobarometer survey (pdf) were asked to explain, in their own words, what possible problems or risks they associate with food and eating, there was no single, widespread concern that was cited by a majority of respondents. 

The survey found that the presence of chemicals (such as pesticides, herbicides, etc.) in the food was the concern most cited (19% of respondents). Food poisoning was the second most frequently cited (12%), followed by diet-related diseases (10%), lack of freshness (9%), the presence of food additives (9%), with other issues such as the traceability of food and ‘BSE’ (‘mad cow disease’) also being mentioned.

Eight percent of the respondents throughout the 27 EU member states spontaneously (i.e. without prompting) cited GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) as a problem or risk associated with their food. A similar percentage of respondents “Didn’t know” of any potential risks and 9% said they could think of no problem associated with their food.

When specifically asked about  genetically modified organisms, the percentage of respondents worried about GMOs in their food ranges from under half of the sample in Ireland (46%), Sweden and UK (both 48%) up to 81% in both Greece and Lithuania. Overall 66% of the total EU respondents said they were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about GMOs in their food. This ranked in fifth place when compared to 16 other possible risks that respondents were specifically asked about.

In fact, GMOs in food and drink was a topic found to fit into the “Medium Levels of Worry” list in the survey, alongside such topics as the quality and freshness of food; the welfare of farmed animals; and the risk of food poisoning.

The survey also found that European consumers are almost evenly divided over whether they believe scientific advice on food related risks is independent of commercial or political interference.  The results pose interesting questions for scientists across Europe, particularly in light of the WikiLeak revelations.

Just 47% of respondents agreed that such scientific advice was “independent of commercial or political interests”. A significant minority of 41% of consumers disagreed on this point.

The survey found that consumers felt most confident about information regarding food safety that they obtained from health professionals (84% totally confident) and family and friends (82%). 73% of consumers were totally confident about such information being provided by scientists. In contrast, 19% of respondents were “not very confident” in information of this type from scientists and 4% were “not at all confident”.

The highest levels of total confidence in scientists were in the Czech Republic (87%) and Finland (86%) with the lowest levels of confidence in Germany and Slovenia (both 65%). The EU average was 73%.

While a high level of trust in scientists appears to exist across Europe on this issue of food safety, the results should be seen in light of findings published in June (pdf) of this year where 53% of Europeans felt that because of their knowledge, scientists “have a power that makes them dangerous”.

Consumers appear to be reluctant to rely on the media for information about food safety, with 48% of respondents citing mainstream media (TV, newspapers, etc.) as a source of information they would have confidence in, compared to “the internet” which was a trusted source of information on food safety for 41% of respondents. 

Interestingly, the report shows that when consumers hear news about unsafe or unhealthy food, 25% of them worry about the problem but ultimately don’t do anything about it, by changing diet, etc. Approximately another quarter ignore the news story and do nothing about it. 

The most common reaction (approx one third of respondents) was to avoid the food mentioned for a while, but then return to eating it. Just one in ten said that they permanently changed their eating habits in response to a news story.

The results of this survey indicate that, while GMOs are a concern for European consumers, they are by no means at the top of the list when it comes to concerns about food. Europeans appear to be much more worried about, what we might call ‘traditional’ food concerns like food poisoning and pesticide residues, than the presence or absence of genetically modified organisms in the food chain.

Despite some misgivings, scientists are seen by European consumers as being the third most trustworthy grouping from which to obtain food-safety information. This makes the need for scientists to communicate effectively about the issues involved in food safety all the more important.

55% of public say scientists must communicate more

According to a new Eurobarometer report published this week, nearly 80% of Europeans say they are interested in scientific discoveries and technological developments, compared to 65% interested in sport.

57% think scientists should put more effort into communicating about their work and 66% believe governments should do more to interest young people in scientific issues. Europeans overwhelmingly recognise the benefits and importance of science but many also express fears over risks from new technologies and the power that knowledge gives to scientists.

For example, a massive 58% of respondents at the EU level agreed with the statement that "we can no longer trust scientists to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues because they depend more and more on money from industry". This figure falls to 36% when responses from Ireland only are considered. Given the Irish government's decision to reduce the amount of exchequer funding available to scientific research, in favour of more input from industry, it begs the question: will the Irish and European public be happy about this? Perhaps not, given the results of this survey, but they are hardly likely to demand higher taxes to pay for purely government sponsored science either.

53%: "scientists have a power that makes them dangerous"Worrying too is the agreement of 53% of the European respondents (46% of Irish respondents) with the statement that, because of their knowledge, scientists "have a power that makes them dangerous". Not potentially dangerous, mind you, but just dangerous, full stop!

Interestingly, when asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that we depend too much on science and not enough on faith, 29% of Irish respondents agreed. This was down significantly from 41% when this survey was last taken in 2005. Is this an indication of the increased secularisation of Irish society?

With regard to the communication of science, 57% of EU respondents (55% of Irish respondents) felt that scientists do not put enough effort into informing the public about new developments in science and technology. When the data is closely analysed, we see that those respondents who feel that they are not informed at all about scientists feel that scientists themselves are not making enough effort to communicate the message about science.

16%: "newspaper journalists best equipped to communicate science"The majority of EU citizens (63% of respondents) felt that scientists working at a university or government laboratories are best qualified to explain scientific and technological developments. Just 32% of respondents felt that scientists working in industry were best placed to explain these developments. 16% of respondents felt that newspaper journalists were best equipped to discuss such developments.

Research, Innovation and Science Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said: "The success of the Europe 2020 Strategy depends on cutting edge science to keep Europe competitive. In turn, that means ordinary Europeans need to back science and keep the pressure up on government and on industry to invest in it. These results show a very high awareness of the importance of science. But they also show that both politicians - like me - and scientists themselves need to explain better what we are doing and why."

Overall, the survey shows that European citizens are fairly optimistic about science and technology - 75% of respondents agree or tend to agree that thanks to science and technology there will be more opportunities for future generations. However, there is a shift towards scepticism compared to the 2005 survey. Judging by the results of this survey, this scepticism could be reduced by more scientists, in particular those in academia, making an even greater effort to communicate their work to the general public.

As Peter Fiske wrote in Nature earlier this year: "Scientists must communicate about their work — to other scientists, sponsors of their research and the general public...searching for opportunities to give talks and lectures — and seeking audiences that are outside one's immediate sphere of scientific influence at, for example, science museums or local civic organizations".

"scientists must communicate about their work" - Peter Fiske"Many scientists are incredulous at how little the general public knows about science and technology" says Fiske, "but scientists do little to address the gap in understanding. Most think that their successes in the lab are manifestly evident, making education about the value of their work unnecessary. Few ever communicate with their elected officials. With the public footing most of the bill, this misguided belief seems naive and undermines those who campaign for more funding.

"Excellent work is a prerequisite for career progress, but is not sufficient by itself. Broadcasting one's accomplishments and exercising the 'active voice' in all aspects of one's work is the best way to earn notice, gain recognition and make the public at large aware of the value of the scientific enterprise."

The full Eurobarometer report (pdf) can be viewed here.

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian.co.uk Science Blog.

Anti-GM campaigners can't have it both ways

British scientists are to set up a 1,000-square-metre plot of genetically modified potatoes in Norfolk. The potato plants have been genetically modified by scientists at The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL) to be resistant to "Late Blight" which is caused by a fungi-like organism called Phytophthora infestans.

The experiment is designed to tell whether GM potato plants that are resistant to late blight in vitro (that's in the laboratory) are also resistant to the pathogen in vivo (i.e. in the field), where there are a much larger number of different strains of P. infestans. If a fully resistant potato variety can be found, it could at least put a dent in the estimated £3.5 billion worth of losses that the disease causes worldwide every year.

Much of that cost is related to the use of fungicides - chemicals used to control fungi or fungi-like organisms. (By the way, although it's most appropriate to refer to P. infestans as a "fungi-like organism" and not as a fungi, the difference is very minor and one with which we need not concern ourselves here.)

Professor Jonathan Jones of TSL explains: "We have isolated genes from two different wild potato species that confer blight resistance Similar genes are found in all plants, and we are now testing whether these ones work in a field environment to protect a commercial potato variety, Desiree, against this destructive potato disease".

The group of scientists screened about 100 different wild species of Solanum, the grouping of plants to which potatoes belong and identified just a handful that were resistant. The next step was to isolate genes and insert them into the commercially available potato variety Desiree. Watch a video of the process here.

The modified plants can now recognise the onset of late blight attack and can trigger the plant to switch on its own defence mechanisms. By switching on these plant-based defences, it may drastically reduce the levels of fungicide which need to be applied.

Despite this good news, anti-GM campaigners have once again come out against such trials. Kirtana Chandrasekaren, Friend of the Earth's Food Campaigner accused the British government of "wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by forging ahead with unnecessary and unpopular GM trials.
"We can feed a growing global population without trashing the planet or resorting to factory farms and GM crops - the Government must help farmers shift to planet-friendly farming" said Chanrasekaren.

Dr. Helen Wallace of the campaign group GeneWatch also called the trial a "waste opf public money" and suggested that "it is possible to breed blight-resistant potatoes using conventional methods, so there is no need to use GM technology".

"anti-GM campaigners need to make a choice"What Dr. Wallace and the campaign groups fail to grasp is that it has been nearly 160 years since the end of the Irish Potato Famine when one million people died of starvation and further one million people emigrated to survive. In those 160 years of conventional breeding, a tiny handful of varieties have been produced with full resistance to the pathogen and their propagation has been severely limited by consumers opting for older, more familiar varieties.

So, anti-GM campaigners need to make a choice. Either we stick with existing varieties and pump millions of tonnes of fungicides into them every year or we opt for a slightly modified version of a commercially relatively successful variety which can defend itself from late blight, reducing fungicide use significantly in the process. The campaigners can't have it both ways.

A previous post on this blog also dealt with the issue of consumer acceptance of GM crops.

Cork Science Lectures

For a number of years now, the Science Public Lecture Series at University College Cork has been organised by that college's Public Awareness of Science Office headed up by the well known academic and columnist William Reville.

This year is no different, with the lecture series having kicked off on the 6th of January. The lectures are an exciting opportunity to listen to experts speak on a variety of important scientific topics with lectures designed for a public audience.

Topics range from the Big Bang Theory to 'The God Delusion'. Admission is free and lectures are open to everyone!


6th January~ Mr. Noel Brett~ The Problem with Mathematics

13th January~ Ms. Claire Feeley~ The Cinema as Laboratory

20th January~ Prof. J. Ray Bates~ The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming

27th January ~ Prof. Paul McSweeney~ From Molecules to Milk

3rd February~ Dr. Edmond Byrne~ Change or Collapse? Transforming Society and the New Engineer

10th February~ Dr. Dylan Evans~ Risk Intelligence- How expert gamblers can teach us all to make better decisions

17th February~ Dr. Sharon Murphy~ Ethics, Technological Interventions and End-of-Life Choices

24th February~ Dr. Fatima Gunning~ What Lies Beneath? How photonics can save the internet from the bandwidth crunch

3rd March~ Dr. Cormac O'Raifeartaigh~ The Big Bang, the Large Hadron Collider and the God Particle

10th March~ Joe Egan ~A Theological Critique of 'The God Delusion'

All of the lectures take place in Boole 4 lecture theatre in the Boole Lecture Theatre Complex on the UCC campus at 8pm.
Further information: http://understandingscience.ucc.ie