Content uploaded by Wolfgang Wagner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wolfgang Wagner on Apr 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
printed: 23.09.2002
In G. Gaskell, et al. (Eds.), Biotechnology - the making of a global controversy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2002).
Pandora’s Genes -
Images of Biotechnology and Nature in Europe
1
Wolfgang Wagner, Nicole Kronberger, Nick Allum, Suzanne de Cheveigné, Carmen Diego,
George Gaskell, Marcus Heinßen, Cees Midden, Marianne Odegaard, Susanna Olsson, Bianca
Rizzo, Timo Rusannen & Angela Stathopoulou
WORD COUNT: 12,408
RUNNING HEAD: Pandora’s Genes
Pandora’s Genes - 2 -
Pandora’s Genes - Images of Biotechnology and Nature in Europe
1 Introduction
Why do some Austrians, when asked to talk about biotechnology, conjure up images of
children being carried to term by genetically modified pigs in place of human mothers? Why do
Swedes associate biotechnology with the monster bull ‘Belgian Blue’ even though this breed of
cattle is not a product of biotechnology but of traditional breeding methods? Citizens of all
different European countries express the concern that industrial biotechnology involves playing
God by tampering with nature. Nature, the argument goes, will eventually strike back with
unforeseen consequences. Be it monster bulls, playing God, or other associations the public
might have with modern biotechnology, these images are the fundamental bases upon which
public rejection and acceptance are based.
When a new technology enters the marketplace of everyday life, it frequently creates
ambivalent feelings among the general public. On the one hand, technologies are meant to make
everyday chores easier and life more comfortable. On the other, many technologies, and
particularly radically new ones, involve operations which are underpinned by complex scientific
achievements. This was the case with satellite-related space technology in the fifties, with nuclear
energy technology in the sixties, and it is the case with biotechnology’s use of genetic
manipulation to tailor the properties of living organisms in the nineties. An in-depth
understanding of the science involved, however, is not the prime interest of the majority of the
general public, and rightly so.
But if an understanding of the scientific basis of a technology is not necessary, people
wishing to assess the value of a new technology will nevertheless have to struggle in
comprehending what its effects will be. This is especially the case with modern biotechnology
because it so profoundly impinges upon everyday life. It has, for instance, led to the introduction
of crops and foodstuffs which are, or will be, offered on supermarket shelves to ordinary people
who have only the vaguest understanding of industrial genetics. Moreover, people’s own bodies
might eventually be subjected to genetic tests and cures, and there are even experts who - for
Pandora’s Genes - 3 -
whatever reasons - talk of producing clones of humans, who might one day be an individual’s
closest relatives.
This struggle for understanding may occur at different levels. Some people, i.e. the more
scientifically literate ones, might read the relevant columns in newspapers or buy and consult
professional literature on the topic. This is the straightforward way. However, the proportion of
people who have at their disposal the necessary educational resources, or the time, required for
such study is unlikely to be very high. Hence, many people need to resort to other means of
understanding, most commonly those governed by common sense.
The present chapter attempts to highlight some of the modes by which everyday people
arrive at a common sense understanding of modern biotechnology. This is rarely if ever an
individual’s achievement, but rather the result of collective processes beyond the individual’s
realm of influence; and it involves events at the level of policy making and implementation,
extended media discourse, as well as conversations in everyday life.
Such complexity requires a conceptual model which is capable of integrating social as well
as individual processes, such as social representation theory (Bauer & Gaskell, 1999; Jodelet,
1989; Moscovici, 1984; Wagner et al., 1999). When a new phenomenon, such as modern
biotechnology and its products, appears to threaten a social group’s normal course of practice, it
needs to be collectively coped with in both material and symbolic terms (Wagner, 1998).
‘Material coping’ involves technical and, to some extent, legalistic measures that are aimed at
containing the potential risks implied by the novel technology. ‘Symbolic coping’ refers to the
naming of the new phenomenon, and attempts to understand its qualities and consequences. In
other words, this involves assigning the phenomenon a place in the symbolic universe of
everyday thinking and common sense. Symbolic coping results in a social representation: an
ensemble of beliefs, images and feelings about a phenomenon which is shared by the members
of a social unit.
A social representation of biotechnology, for instance, will rarely if ever be veridical in the
sense of scientific correctness. Rather than serving a scientific understanding, the beliefs and
images that constitute a representation are products of personal and media discourse which
Pandora’s Genes - 4 -
unfold in the course of symbolic coping and serve the purpose of everyday communication.
Representations straddle the interface between the individual and the collective because they are
generated in collective discourse and their elements are shared to a large extent by the individuals
of the group concerned.
Representations that comprise attitudes, beliefs and feelings are frequently structured in a
pictorial way. Using images and metaphors is one way of symbolically coping and involves
attempts to understand an unfamiliar object in the light of a more familiar one. In this view,
images are not just a matter of illustrative words, but rather a way of understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Images not only
describe the object and its features, but are also interpretive and evaluative. Thus, a well-suited
metaphor is "good to think with" (Wagner, Elejabarrieta & Lahnsteiner, 1995). Such images are
not a property of the individual mind but are frequently shared by a group or society when
addressing an object. Their use is automatic and effortless and they are no longer perceived as
illustrations of the unfamiliar but as the object itself. They appear as pictures, text or talk in
personal and collective discourse.
2 Overview and Method
Asked about what comes to mind when thinking about modern biotechnology, Austrians,
Britons, Dutch, Finns, Germans, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Portuguese and Swedes show
distinct patterns of response. These responses were categorized according to content and
evaluative tone, then cross-tabulated and correspondence analysed. In this sample of European
nations, the evaluative tone of respondents ranges from neutral (Germans) to negative and/or
ambivalent (Austrians, Swedes) to distinctly positive (Italians and Portuguese) (Figure 1).
Figure 1
People from countries with a more negative evaluation also raise moral concerns in their
responses. While agricultural, medical, economic and fertilisation issues are common to all
countries, the more negative or ambivalent respondents are, the more they also mention the
possibility of monsters being created by applying biotechnology (Sweden, Finland and Austria).
Pandora’s Genes - 5 -
Similarly, the more neutral the respondents, the more likely they are to think in terms of food
issues (Norway, Germany). A belief in the potential for biotechnology to foster progress is
expressed by the positively inclined Italians, Greeks, Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, by UK
respondents. In general, it appears that the less people know about biotechnology (DK
responses), the more a country’s population seems to assume a positive attitude towards this
technology.
Figure 1 can only give a sketchy overview of the situation in Europe.
2
Results presented in
the following sections will fill in this sketch with an in-depth analysis of discourses from diverse
sources in six European countries.
Method. The aim of analysing different data corpora from Austria, France, Germany,
Great Britain, Norway and Sweden is to address the following questions: what is the public
perception of biotechnology? And, what attitudes, images and linguistic repertoires guide
thoughts on and discussions of this topic?
The qualitative data analysed in this chapter comprise a representative survey in various
European countries (Eurobarometer 46.1) where open-ended answers to the question “What
comes to your mind when you think of modern biotechnology?” were collected. Data was also
gathered via focus-groups and in-depth interviews, which provided extensive verbal responses
about different aspects of biotechnology.
Besides being categorised (see Fig 1), the survey data for each country were subjected to
separate ALCESTE analyses (Reinert, 1983, 1990, 1998; Kronberger & Wagner, forthcoming.
See Appendix). Interview and focus group data were only available for Austria, Great Britain and
Sweden. Data from the first two countries were classified using ALCESTE, while data from
Sweden were analysed according to the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Working with different sets of qualitative data we faced the problem of depicting and
comparing complex repertoires of arguments. Thus, in order to ensure an intelligible
presentation of the data, we decided to focus upon similarities and differences with regard to the
contents of national discourses rather than quantitative or methodological aspects. Beginning
with the classification results for the open question responses, the dominant representations in
Pandora’s Genes - 6 -
different countries are described and discussed. The answers to the open question are short and
include the most salient aspects of the topic. It is not surprising, of course, that many aspects
mentioned in these associations also occur in the more in-depth discourses of the interviews and
focus groups. Therefore the results of the latter data sources are used to complement the results
of the open question.
3 Discursive Frames
3.1 Overview
Table 1 gives a very general overview of the discursive classes found in the responses to
the open question from Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Norway and Sweden.
3
One has
to keep in mind that the presence or absence of a discourse in a category of the table does not
mean that this aspect is not mentioned in a country, but rather that it is not mentioned frequently
or explicitly enough to form its own class. It is also possible that one class comprises two or
even more categories of the table (if this is the case, it is listed in between the two relevant
categories).
Taking a look at the table, it can therefore be seen that, in different countries, similar
aspects of biotechnology are mentioned. However, at the same time, these are addressed with
differing emphasis and intensity. There is only one discourse class that is clearly country-
specific, that being the Swedish association of biotechnology with the ‘monster bull’, Belgian
Blue.
Insert Table 1 here
On a general level, we find that people interpret the survey question in two different ways.
The two central questions – implicitly posed and explicitly answered by the respondents –
produce different frames in which the topic of biotechnology is addressed. First, there is the
question "What is biotechnology?". Answers to this question produce statements that are not
primarily evaluative, but rather descriptive. This is a form of "knowledge discourse", that is,
Pandora’s Genes - 7 -
descriptions of what respondents believe biotechnology to involve. The second question focuses
on an evaluation of biotechnology ("is biotechnology good or bad?"). This latter question can be
answered according to different concerns: a "moral discourse" evaluates biotechnology
according to ethical standards (“is it morally acceptable?”), whereas a "risk/danger discourse"
considers the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the potential benefits and dangers of
applying genetic engineering (“Will it have salutary effects for us?”). These, spontaneously
emerging, evaluative discourses show that, in the public view, biotechnology is not only an issue
that must be understood, but also one that has to be integrated into an existing evaluative
framework.
Of course, there is no clear distinction between descriptive or evaluative in the responses.
Nonetheless, a certain emphasis on one or the other, when people are talking about
biotechnology, is discernible. Some respondents evaluate biotechnology in general terms, while
others refer to specific aspects and contents of this new technology (which can, nevertheless, be
depicted in a more or less evaluative tone).
Different countries reveal differing emphases on these descriptive and evaluative aspects.
In the Austrian and Swedish samples, for example, more than 50% of the statements (for
Austria, even more than 70%) can be judged as primarily evaluative in nature. These are
countries in which the public had been exposed to a high level of public discourse prior to the
Eurobarometer survey (see Figure 2).
Insert Figure 2 here
In Austria, for example, a country in which media coverage started late in comparison to
other countries, a people's initiative in early 1997 obliged the public to consider the ‘pros’ and
‘cons’ of biotechnology even though few had a profound knowledge of the subject (see Figure
1). In most of the other countries, respondents highlighted different applications of
biotechnology, such as food, medicine or reproduction more frequently and in a more
differentiated way than, for example, the Austrians did in 1996.
4
Pandora’s Genes - 8 -
In the following section, different kinds of discourse on biotechnology will be described.
After taking a look at representations of what biotechnology constitutes, different ways of
evaluating biotechnology are discussed. Then, the most salient fields of application in public
discourse (medicine, food, reproduction and xenotransplantation) will be presented by
considering evaluative as well as metaphorical forms of addressing the topic.
3.2 What Europeans Associate Biotechnology with
When asked what comes to mind when thinking about biotechnology, a range of
respondents in all countries described what they took this term to mean. These statements
represent a thumbnail sketch of biotechnology by referring to this topic as an action (scientific
research) as well as by mentioning objects and domains of application. When biotechnology is
interpreted in terms of research, statements tend to be of a general nature, related to scientific
investigation and developments, and are frequently expressed in the form of optimistic views of
science and new technologies. Biotechnology conceived as manipulation/alteration is taken to
imply the modifying, manipulating and cloning of plants, animals and humans. The most salient
objects discussed in this context are fruit and vegetables (with tomatoes being prototypical), but
also animals and children. As a result of this scientific manipulation, respondents imagine the
products to have become “bigger” and “artificial” in contrast to “natural” products which are
free of genetic interference. The manipulation of plants, animals and humans is associated with
specific domains of application, with food and medicine being the most commonly cited in all
countries. The fields of reproduction and embryology are less frequent associations, but still
represent salient topics in relation to biotechnology in most of the countries studied. Of course,
the descriptions of biotechnological applications in the different domains also comprise
evaluative (moral as well as risk related ) aspects.
On closer inspection one can see that this descriptive "knowledge" need not correspond
with scientific definition. Examples such as "with the help of wind and solar energy as well as
with hydroelectric power plants one can provide jobs and preserve nature" (AT, 006405)
5
or
"biotechnology also comprises winning new food stuffs out of the sea, plankton and the like"
Pandora’s Genes - 9 -
(GE, 1367) suggest that a term like "bio"-technology evokes certain images even in people who
lack knowledge about its technical use (see the category "Guessing" in Table 1). To some of the
respondents the word biotechnology seems to be connected with environmental responsibility
and scientific progress, that is, with being in harmony with nature ("bio"); and for some the term
"bio" refers to pesticide-free agriculture. For others, biotechnology, even when poorly
understood, is situated within an optimistic view of science and technology: "things to do with
the vegetable kingdom; food and cloth textiles; growing tomatoes in fluid rather than earth;
trying to grow food in space or those sort of conditions" (UK, 2219).
Another group of respondents admits to not having any idea about biotechnology at all. It
is not a topic of salience or interest for them. Furthermore, a small percentage of respondents
simply repeats technologies mentioned in the preceding question of the survey without referring
to biotechnology in a specific sense (category "Echo" in Table 1).
3.3 How Europeans Evaluate Biotechnology
Optimism. Table 1 shows that there is relatively little unquestioning acceptance of
biotechnology in the countries covered by this analysis. Although there are optimistic
evaluations concerning biotechnology in most of the countries, only in France does one find a
considerable percentage of people favouring biotechnological developments, generating its own
class of statements such as "improvement of the life of the individual, health, better living, better
food and better aging" (FR, 542).
Ambivalence. This discourse depicts biotechnology as a new technology that can, to
some extent, improve our way of life, but is nonetheless risky and dangerous for mankind. "I
think that's good, there are so many people in the world that want to live and to be well-fed, but
the control of biotechnology must be increased" (GE, 3240). People fear that the new
possibilities offered by biotechnology could be exploited by unscrupulous and irresponsible
people, and they are therefore concerned about the "proper" application of this scientific
knowledge: "Biotechnology is positive but it should be dealt with in a responsible way. It can
improve a lot but applied by the wrong hands it is dangerous" (GE, 0285). Therefore a strong
Pandora’s Genes - 10 -
demand for control, delimiting activities in relation to biotechnology by legal as well as moral
standards, is expressed. "I think man has got to conserve and preserve with technology the skills
he has been given. It has to be used properly, not abused. He can just as easily destroy as create"
(UK, 0227).
Rejection based on risk. This discourse involves worrying about the future effects of
genetic engineering in terms which suggest these to be far-reaching, incalculable and risky: "the
risk is too big because one cannot estimate the consequences" (GE, 1269), "very dangerous
subject they're getting into. It will create more problems than it will solve" (UK, 0300) or "we
will poison ourselves altogether, nobody knows what will happen, unfortunately one can't do
anything against this" (AT, 016701). Although most of the time potential consequences are not
explicitly identified, the consequences of biotechnology are judged to be dangerous in nature.
The respondents frequently view themselves to be in the hands of science, industry and politics
without having any power themselves. This discourse involves a clearly negative evaluation of
biotechnology.
An image that illustrates this fear of conjuring up a scenario beyond our control is that of
Goethe's literary figure of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. This image is most frequently invoked in
France: "It's playing the Sorcerer's Apprentice, it is necessary to elaborate some ethics before
doing it practically" (FR, 260); "Mad cows, considering animals as things, the pride of humans
playing the Sorcerer's Apprentice" (FR, 937). The wish to make life easier by using only a little
known (magic or scientific) formula, it is asserted, may end up producing unexpected and
uncontrollable results and, ultimately, chaos. In one scenario, this involved the "uncontrolled
spreading of artificial life" (NW, 362). According to this picture, scientists are seen as powerful
on the one hand (like the apprentice they have the necessary information at their disposal) but
lacking the master's wisdom to apply their knowledge in a useful and responsible manner. On a
less literary level, statements such as the following refer to the same concern: "they just make
experiments all the time and destroy earth, it would be better [if] they would spend the money in
a more useful way" (AT, 006403); "I think that there are already enough bad inventions in this
world that we aren't able to control anymore like the hydro- or the atom bomb. I think this is a
Pandora’s Genes - 11 -
field we can't estimate the risks, we should not give these inventions like computer-machines too
much power over us" (GE, 1100). This fear of creating far-reaching problems, without being
able to handle them, is also expressed by a further reference, this time to Greek mythology's
Pandora: "it raises a whole Pandora's box of medical and ethical questions" (UK, 2048).
Ideological Rejection. This discussion, one which has clearly emerged in all the
countries covered by this analysis, judges biotechnology against the background of general
thoughts, values and assumptions about the nature of man and his relationship with his
environment. The cultural practices of science and technology are perceived as tools that help
man to shape nature according to his own ideas. Regarding biotechnology, this discourse
therefore deals with the question of whether or not man should be permitted to interfere with the
“natural” harmony of nature. Many respondents, in all countries, think that genetic engineering
constitutes an inappropriate tinkering with life and, more specifically, with the meaningful order
of nature in which every species has its place and its purpose and where natural boundaries
should not be transgressed by unnatural means: "I'm against genetic engineering. If nature
would have wanted any changes it would already have done so itself. Any interference in natural
developments brings about risks that can't be estimated by anybody" (GE, 2466).
Statements like this are predicated on a view of nature as an organism with its own laws
and rhythms and, therefore, one that can never be totally predictable or controlled. An important
dimension here is time; nature is associated with slow continuous development and man is
posited as interfering with this "natural" evolution: "it is scary, the development is too fast" (SW,
890245), "they should go more slowly and think about the consequences" (SW, 050585). This
view of biotechnology, as a development that proceeds too fast, is stressed most commonly by
Swedish respondents.
The idea of nature as some kind of "living being" is conceived in two ways: as a
sagacious, benevolent being on the one hand, and as a wild force that will take revenge on the
other. It is wise, many assert, to live in "harmony with nature", or to live "within" nature. From
this point of view, biotechnology and its applications are perceived as a harmful intervention into
natural processes. Therefore, one must expect nature to "hit back" and take revenge: "When man
Pandora’s Genes - 12 -
interferes too much in nature it always comes back like a boomerang" (GE, 1290), "Tampering
with nature can be at the present, but it will hit back at us in a couple of years" (NW, 716). In
countries like Austria and Germany respondents frequently accompany their rejection with an
imperative to "stop", prompting statements such as "one should leave everything as it is, one
should leave nature alone" (AT, 009607) or "the manipulating of normal things should be
stopped" (GE, 3009).
This "interfering with nature" discourse also appears in the interview and focus group
data. A morally challenging point which emerges here is that biotechnology not only allows the
modification of plants and animals, but also the manipulation of a very special kind of "nature":
the nature of being human. One has to note the double interpretation of "man" used in this
discourse. On the one hand, "man as scientist" is seen as actively shaping nature and, on the
other, "man" is considered to be the object of that manipulation. The moral concern, therefore, is
man interfering with human nature. This means not only modifying specific human
characteristics like intelligence, physical appearance and ageing, but also altering the very
essence of what it is to be human. Respondents anticipate this bringing about an unpredictable
change in the nature of human life. For example, with the introduction of cloning, biological
fathers or mothers will become superfluous. To be born as a result of a scientist's intervention
impacts upon human dignity and, according to many, contravenes any moral sense of "good and
right": "Humans originate in humans according to a development which cannot be planned. If
anybody could determine what I will become, then I would have the impression I lack something
of being human" (AT, focus group). As will be seen later in this chapter, questions of how
biotechnology might undermine the essence of being human also extend to such issues as the
importance of a "natural" end to life and concerns about human uniqueness.
After all, this notion of man "designing" man contradicts the claim that there are things
that only a "god" can do: in this view, man is able to do god-like things now. This is generally
judged to amount to the grossest impudence, a conviction usually expressed in the form of the
persuasive image of man "playing god". This also appears in the open question data: "it is this
manipulation of man, it is this alteration of nature. This is an interference in Creation, man plays
Pandora’s Genes - 13 -
god" (AT, 008002). In this view, scientists and industry are consistently viewed as playing with
our lives. In accordance with the metaphor of the sorcerer's apprentice, they are viewed as doing
something that they are not entitled to do. But while the apprentice's impatience to do things
before he has the requisite knowledge to do so is viewed as dangerous (because of the potential
for bringing about an uncontrollable situation), the wish to "design" and to determine the world
like a god is judged as morally unacceptable: "I'm fearful about it, it's in men's hands the use to
which it's put, it could be a tool of the devil apprehension to do with altering the genetic make up
in humans" (UK, 2295).
In this context, people involved in genetic research and industry are not considered to be
acting responsibly, but rather to be thoughtlessly following their – mostly egoistical – desires for
power and economic gain: "We've already come to know different technologies, modern ones
like nuclear energy, the atom bomb, chemical weapons, weapons in general - did this improve
human life? For some few who make profits out of that, totally neglecting the suffering of
innocent people. With biotechnology it will be the same because again there will be some
powerful people taking advantage in an unscrupulous way" (GE, 3338).
4. Domains of application
4.1 Fighting diseases
Medical application is one of the most common references to biotechnology appearing in
the public discourse of most countries. The potential for biotechnology to help cure hitherto
incurable diseases is generally judged to be an important potential improvement. Unsurprisingly,
biotechnological applications in relation to medicine are evaluated in a mostly positive tone:
"curing diseases" (AT, 008806), "fighting hereditary diseases, early diagnosis of diseases" (GE,
0190), "development of new drugs for control of cancer, arthritis and other diseases" (UK,
0061).
In this domain, the image of "progress" clearly emerges. Diseases like cancer and AIDS
are frequently cited by respondents expressing the hope that biotechnology will provide new
Pandora’s Genes - 14 -
remedies. "For coping with diseases like Aids, BSE and cancer technologies like that are really
necessary and must be encouraged" (GE, 1028). Only a few negative consequences of applying
biotechnology to the domain of medicine were mentioned.
"I'm for genetic engineering because my wife suffers from cancer and maybe they will
find new remedies against diseases like that" (GE, 1099). It is not surprising that personal
suffering and the hope for medical advances encourage the endorsement of this aspect of
biotechnology. Interestingly, this positive evaluation changes to ambivalence when different
potential medical applications are distinguished. An Austrian interviewee stated: "... the term ‘for
medical purposes’ is a very vague one because being able to cure cancer is different from
surgery for cosmetic purposes and is different from breeding perfect humans" (AT, focus
group). This more differentiated discourse takes place in interviews and focus groups and only
to a small extent in the context of answering the open question. Surprisingly, however, medical
applications involving reproduction and xenotransplantation are more commonly discussed as
moral than as medical questions.
4.2 Unnatural Food
The food discourse occurs in the context of evaluating the advantages and disadvantages
of genetically manipulated (GM) food. The validity of applying genetic manipulation techniques
to food is often assessed by opposing the consumer’s and producer’s points of view. On the
producer's side it is suggested that GM food is easier, more efficient and more profitable to
grow. More frequently, however, responses are framed around the supermarket consumer
shopping for the best quality produce, and making decisions as to what constitutes healthy, good
food. Respondents, therefore, mainly refer to characteristics of the products, invoking words
such as ‘better’, ‘cheaper’, ‘bigger’ or more ‘beautiful’, as well as having a longer shelf life.
The disadvantages of GM food mentioned focus on the effects of genetic food manipulation for
humans as well as for the ecosystems. Generally speaking, the French, British, German and
Norwegian discourses on GM food are expressed in a fairly neutral, sometimes ambivalent tone,
while evaluations in Austria and Sweden are rather negative. The Swedes stress potentially
Pandora’s Genes - 15 -
negative consequences for the biological diversity of plants and animals. Respondents from
Austria and Germany more frequently assume that eating GM food is unhealthy and that it will
bring about new diseases and allergies, or produce resistance to antibiotics.
An important issue from the consumer's point of view is that of having a choice of which
products to buy and to eat: "I don't buy it anymore because now I know that it is genetically
modified rape. I tried it, it had a good taste, but I won't buy it anymore" (AT, focus group). This
is a question of labelling, and comes down to the fear of not being able to determine whether or
not a product is genetically modified. The feeling of being denied the ability to chose results in
statements such as that expressed by the Swedish media in which GM food products are
referred to as "leaking uncontrollably over the borders", "Gene food sneaking into the shelves"
or "Mixing modified and natural beans so that we will not know".
As mentioned above, the objects of genetic manipulation that appear most conspicuously
in the public discourse are fruit and vegetables, with tomatoes as the ideal-type. These new
products are imagined to be "bigger”, "unnatural" and "artificial”, in contrast to “natural”
foodstuffs that have not been genetically manipulated: "giant fruit, bigger potatoes, cattle with
more meat, wheat yielding more flour" (GE, 0454), "manipulated giant tomatoes, ... artificial
colours, artificial children" (GE, 0453). The paradox in this image is that those products
artificially produced by genetic manipulation are not conceived of in their own terms, but as
products whose inherent characteristics have been intensified: "making tomatoes rounder -
apples larger and greener" (UK, 0034); "sugar-beets were genetically modified, the proportion
of sugar is increased" (GE, 1194). Less frequently, people mention fruit and vegetables that have
been visibly altered: "I know they can make tomatoes of all colours, as big as pumpkins and
melons" (FR, interview), "A tomato that is a mixture of tomato and potato and that tastes like a
banana" (FR, interview), "square tomatoes" (AT, 001204).
A topic that is regularly associated with biotechnology in several countries is that of
nuclear energy and radioactivity (the two issues seem to be perceived as similar because in both
cases the technology involved is potentially dangerous, and may have incalculable effects).
People in different countries talk of "irradiated" food: "fear of BSE and irradiated vegetables"
Pandora’s Genes - 16 -
(GE, 0242), "Nature should be left alone, otherwise we'll soon have the atom bomb in our
vegetables" (AT, 015202). Understood in metaphorical terms, statements like these express a
perception of biotechnology as something dangerous and threatening. And, as was the case with
GM fruit and vegetables above, irradiated food is understood as an extreme form of the original
product.
In addition, biotechnology is sometimes associated with hormones. This is most typical
among Norwegian respondents: "disturbance in animals' growth hormones" (NW, 004),
"messing with the hormones in food production" (NW, 149). Hormones are most often
mentioned when respondents are referring to the size of manipulated objects. This is not
surprising since one of the first biotechnological applications of which the Norwegian heard was
the implantation of growth hormones in salmon, an important Norwegian export product. In
terms of public perception, genes and hormones are conceptualised in similar ways: both are
small and invisible, and seem to provide a sound, scientific basis for understaing otherwise
inscrutable aspects of organismic biology.
Although the molecular alterations are invisible to the human eye, GM food is perceived as
having been changed from its natural to an unnatural and artificial state. The ubiquitous
opposition of "natural" and "artificial” subsumes two of the themes within the discourses of
health and illness (Herzlich, 1973) as well as discussions of biotechnology: first, the association
of ‘artificial’ products with an "infringement of the natural state" (p.32); and second, the notion
that this infringement has connotations of "heterogeneity”, or the introduction of foreign
elements into nature. Moreover, if taken a little further, these heterogeneous elements may be
interpreted as pollution, and this explains the use of ‘unnatural’ and ‘unhealthy’ as
synonymous in some countries. The representation of the products of biotechnology as big,
beautiful, but at the same time artificial and unnatural products (prototypically the tomato),
containing heterogeneous elements, is expressed in Picture 1, taken from an Austrian newspaper.
INSERT Picture 1 here (Tomato Photo)
Pandora’s Genes - 17 -
Similar representations are discernible with respect to the manipulation of animals. As was
the case with manipulated fruit and vegetables, GM aninals are imagined to be bigger whilst
being, at the same time, unnatural. A typical association among the Swedish public is that of
biotechnology and the "Monster Bull Belgian Blue",
6
a cattle breed that has no connections
with genetic engineering from a scientific point of view. Nonetheless, 10% of the Swedish
respondents refer to this "giant bull" when thinking of biotechnology. In the public mind, the
Belgian Blue is a living embodiment all the characteristics attributed to GM creatures: it is big
and monstrous on the one hand, but weak, bizarre and unnatural on the other. This image of the
Belgian Blue was also reported extensively in the Swedish mass media, attention being focused
on the breed's physical characteristics, such as its giant body with large muscles, weak legs and
small internal organs, together with its calving problems (see Picture 2). Only a few days before
the survey, the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published a story with the headline “Calf
slaughtered with chain saw—inside the cow”. Similar descriptions are provided by respondents
in the survey: "I think about the Belgian Blue - monster bulls which must be delivered by sawing
the cow in half" (SW, 980247).
Insert Picture 2 here (Belgian Blue)
Images like the "monster bull" Belgian Blue or the "mad cows" (BSE), neither of which
issues are directly related to biotechnology, nevertheless occur in the public discourse and
provide persuasive images informing the public’s perception of the new technology. The fact
that cattle are "mad", "degenerate" and "bizarre" is perceived to be a result of breeders striving
for better profits whilst paying insufficient regard to the limits set by nature. Mad cow disease is
frequently quoted when respondents are referring to the unpredictable risks of applying genetic
manipulation. This image recurs when respondents talk of scientists, industrialists and political
authorities, which are viewed as failing in their duty to protect their country's citizens:; "I do not
agree with it at all, we wouldn't have had BSE if they hadn't bloody well interfered. No, it's just a
feeling of interfering, you can't alter nature without paying for it. Nature always balances" (UK,
2404). (Accoridng to the logic of the images discussed in the evaluative discourses this could be
Pandora’s Genes - 18 -
conceived in terms of the plagues coming out of Pandora's box, as well as a first sign of Nature's
revenge).
4. 3 Testing and Designing Humans
Upon being asked to think about biotechnology, a significant proportion of respondents
mentioned aspects of reproduction and embryology. This domain is less frequently associated
with biotechnology than either food or medicine, but is still of remarkable salience. Interestingly,
as far as the public is concerned, this discourse is separated from, rather than connected to, the
medical context. (Table 1 shows that in most countries the medical discourse is separated from
the others; the vocabulary and associations employed in talking about reproduction are more
similar to those used in discussing food.)
The most frequently mentioned reproductive associations involve "artificial fertilisation"
and "test tube babies"; yet neither of these are directly related to biotechnology in the current
understanding. Yet, these images are well suited for encapsulating a whole set of concerns
relating to both technology and the creation of life. The image of a baby created in a test tube
captures the "unnatural" and "artificial" character of biotechnology. Statements like "artificial
children" (GE, 0453), "the lady having a baby from her dead husband's sperm" (UK, 0213) or
"a woman who had eight babies" (UK, 0429) all depict putatively "unnatural" aspects of human
reproduction. In this way, the stress on the ‘unnatural, weak or bizarre’ products of the genetic
manipulation of food and animals are recapitulated in the discourse surrounding the possibility
of human genetic manipulation. This gives rise to such remarks as "test tube babies are often
handicapped" (GE, 0453), "it will lead to manipulation and the creation of degenerate species,
both humans and plants" (SW, 462362) or "it frightens me, all the horrific changes we could do
with it; we could end up making little monsters" (UK, 2047).
Besides the "test tube babies", there are other images that contrast reproductive
applications of biotechnology to "natural births". An Austrian image mentioned during the
interviews involves a pig carrying a child (the pig is styled as a "loan mother"). Here
biotechnology is seen to offer those mothers who want to preserve their bodily youth and beauty
Pandora’s Genes - 19 -
the possibility of having children without the burden of a pregnancy. The sarcastically uttered
statement "my mother the pig" (AT, focus group) can be understood in the double sense of
imagining a child being confronted with a mother-pig (what defines being a mother? who will be
the biological mother then? pig or human?) as well as judging a mother who would do such a
thing as morally unacceptable.
In the same way as depicted in the "interfering with nature" discourse, the topic of an
"unnatural" beginning of life (whether being "produced" in a test tube, originating from
conserved sperm of an already dead person or being carried to term by a pig) is morally
challenging since it questions the "nature" of being human and therefore also the social identity
of human beings. Furthermore, there is the topic of cloning, a practice viewed as a very special
kind of reproduction. As mentioned earlier, cloning makes it unnecessary to have both a
biological father and mother. Indeed, the possibility of asexual reproduction prompts people to
wonder why there should be men and women at all: "it must not go so far because then we don't
need males and females anymore, no, I'm against that. Natural reproduction, at least this should
be true. I'm very much against that" (AT, focus group).
Genetic engineering in relation to reproduction is also often perceived as a matter of life
and death, with genetic engineering being seen as a tool with which to select those humans
beings considered worth living and eliminating those that are not. This discourse is embedded in
a general discussion about abortion and focuses on genetic engineering as enabling the early
diagnosis of illnesses and handicaps: "terminating pregnancy if foetus has illness" (UK, 2397),
"they will use their knowledge to do abortions also with small defects" (SW, 462362). In the
interviews, this discourse focuses on moral questions along the lines of: What makes a life
worth living? What are we doing when we abort a child diagnosed as handicapped? Is the
prevention of suffering a justification for overriding an organism’s ‘right to live’?
This moral discourse is embedded in a subjective context of personal involvement. The
questions are not dealt with in a general or a neutral way, instead they tend to elicit a personal
point of view: a concrete decision framed in terms of "What would I do?". In Great Britain and
Austria these discussions can mostly be traced back to interviews with women; and involved the
Pandora’s Genes - 20 -
issues, practical and ethical, that would inform their decisions when faced with the possibility of
genetic screening and other biotechnological applications. Being a moral issue, motives and
interests are of crucial importance; and because a moral conflict is often involved in deciding in
favour of a single option, evaluations are generally ambivalent. In this case, the moral concern is
a matter of life and death, and more specifically it is the right of humans to decide about the lives
of others. Furthermore the discussion deals with the question of what defines a "good" life, for
parents as well as for children; and which forms of interfering with the "natural" processes of
living and dying are morally legitimate?
A topic related to abortion is that of biotechnology enabling the selection of human for
certain attributes: "makes a woman have a boy or girl if she wants it, there could be production
of babies by test tube creation, it's a lot of rubbish" (UK, 0489); "Not good: making children in
tubes and sorting the children according to if they are good or bad" (NW, 174).
The images of "perfect children", "humans made-to-measure" or "designer babies"
suggest that parents (or scientists) can choose from a "catalogue" of characteristics for their
offsprings’ attributes, for example, physical appearance and intelligence. This kind of discourse
also links the "production" of humans, equipped with certain features, to financial and economic
factors. An English interviewee imagines a future scenario of buying children in shops: "I mean,
you just visualise, you know, the typical child, saying 'where are we going to get the baby from',
do you go to Marks & Spencer, eventually you're going to be able to do that" (UK, focus
group). Clearly, the buying of children contradicts any sense of "normal" birth.
Moreover, imagining some kind of industry "producing" babies implies that people will
have to pay for what they order: "But to be able to go one step and choose your blue eyed, blond
haired, intelligent child, is going to come down to money because you're going to have to pay
somebody because it's not a necessity" (UK, focus group). This impinges upon another moral
issue: not everybody will be able to afford this, and new social injustices will consequently arise.
Of course, the "designing" of babies is not far away from creating humans for specific
purposes. When discussing cloning, emphasising the possibilities and dangers of the new power
relations that might emerge from this, science fiction scenarios are often depicted: "This is the
Pandora’s Genes - 21 -
story with these subhuman creatures, cloning human robots being cloned from some physically
extraordinary humans but provided with less intelligence, so they can do dangerous jobs" (AT,
focus group). Huxley's "Brave New World" is sometimes mentioned in this context. Images are
commonly invoked that involve subhumans and supermen, of armies only bred to fight, or living
machines created to do dirty jobs. An association with eugenics is frequently cited. And it is far
from surprising that in some countries the name "Hitler" is stronglt associated with cloning:"it's
frightening, in the end they will manage to do what Hitler failed to do" (UK, 2208). This raises
fundamental questions: What should one be allowed to manipulate and where should the line be
drawn? And, who should make this sort of decision?
4. 4 Monsters and matters of life and death
An application only rarely mentioned in the open question data is animal-human-
transplantation. This – at least in 1996 – is not a salient association in relation to biotechnology
for most respondents. During the interviews, the topic was introduced by the interviewer
whenever it was not mentioned by the interviewees themselves. It is interesting to note that the
issue is discussed only marginally in relation to medicine. Here the motive of "rescuing human
life" is of crucial importance. But, above all, the issue evokes divergent moral questions.
The topic of xenotransplantation stimulates fantasies about combining the body parts of
different species, and thereby constructing monsters. This discourse deals with the "natural"
make-up of beings, as well as with the "natural" borders among species "mice with an ear on
their back, pigs with two more ribs" (GE, 0208), "pigs with cows' heads" (GE, 0227).
7
In the public mind, the aim of xenotransplantation to provide healthy organs is visualised
in terms of an image of "spare parts": "If we accept that we're going to breed a spare parts bin,
do we accept that it is right to take those parts and put them into anything we so desire, be it a
human being, another animal, whatever?" (UK, focus group). Animals are no longer perceived as
living organisms but rather as sets of body parts that can be combined in different ways. But this
raises the question of whether such organisms should still be considered to be living beings, or
just machines: "We produce living machines, and this must be rejected" (AT, focus group).
Pandora’s Genes - 22 -
The idea of animals providing "spare parts" is also extended to humans (for example
human beings without a head existing to provide organs and body parts): "and then they will
take 'inferior' humans, they will say that they are a bit handicapped but they have a healthy heart,
and so on, it will go on like this only for the reason that we can live eternally" (AT, focus group),
"I don't like genetic engineering, I don't want to end up with other people's bits of body" (UK,
0070). People come to think of human and animal "monsters", and the idea of mixing different
humans or combining the parts of humans and animals seems to infringe upon "natural"
boundaries.
In the interviews, this topic is also discussed as an issue of animal welfare. Respondents
question the ethics of breeding, manipulating and slaughtering animals for the purpose of curing
disease and prolonging human life. Genetic engineering is here posed a matter of life and death
for humans as well as for animals. Most of the time, the motive of "rescuing human life" is
acknowledged as an important value that should be endorsed; but the problem with
xenotransplantation, in the respondents' view, is that saving the life of a human demands the life
of an animal. In a broader sense, the discourse also deals with the topic of organ donation in
general. Respondents refer to the fact that an individual continuing to live with an implanted
organ always demands the death of another (whether this is an animal or a person dying in an
accident). The discourse therefore focuses on questions such as the following: Is human life
worth more than that of an animal? Why not breed and slaughter animals with the purpose of
obtaining organs? After all, we do so for the purpose of producing meat. Which is more morally
acceptable: waiting for a 17-year-old motorcyclist to die or using a pig as a "spare parts bin"?
Xenotransplantation is viewed as a tool for prolonging human life by delivering healthy
organs. A belief that emerged in the Austrian interview data is that everybody has the right to live
his or her "whole" life. That is, when the "natural" lifetime of an individual is threatened by
illness, or by other factors, then help should be available. This subsumes the motive of wanting
to be immortal or "forever young", a dream that some feel might be realised once we are capable
of "producing" new young and healthy organs, and of using animals as "spare parts bins". But,
the fulfillment of this extreme form of the wish is considered morally unacceptable. At this point,
Pandora’s Genes - 23 -
the question concerns the proper limits of xenotransplantation: Do we have the right to deny
help to an ill person if this technology could be developed and employed? What is the difference
between implanting an organ into a 50-year-old or into an 85-year-old person? More
fundamentally, when is a person old enough to die? And who should make the decision on this
question?
Generally speaking, respondents’ evaluations change when different motives and
perspectives are considered. The motive of curing disease and enabling individuals to live
"normal" lives of "normal" length is generally considered in a positive light. The wish to be
“forever young”, however, is considered egoistical and unacceptable. Having animals to, as it
were, pay for our sins (our unhealthy way of life) is also considered to be improper. But if our
life is in danger, not through our own fault, but because of an "unjust" illness, then the case is
different again.
Like any moral discourse, the discussion focuses upon "limits": What is the difference
between having a new set of artificial teeth and having a new heart grown in a pig? What is the
difference between receiving a donor heart from a person who died and one from a pig? What is
the difference between thinking of organs bred in animals and breeding them in humans? What
is still acceptable and what is not?
5 "National" Images
Figure 3 shows the associations between different countries and the typical images evoked
by biotechnology. Generally speaking, one can see that there are rather few country-specific
images, a major exception being the "Belgian Blue" which is a typically Swedish association.
Most of the images, though, are located around the centre of the graph and occur in most, or all,
of the countries. The general (moral) images of "interfering" or "tampering" with nature, life and
humans are central and ubiquitous. These are images that refer to biotechnology in general and
do not explicitly identify specific objects of manipulation. As mentioned above, this "interfering
with nature" discourse occurs in all six countries: it depicts biotechnology as an unwise, harmful
or dangerous interference into nature and life.
Pandora’s Genes - 24 -
INSERT FIGURE 3 here
Most of the images are mentioned in every country studied, and the national variation
comprises respondents placing different emphases on the various domains of application.
Images concerning food more frequently occur in Germany and Austria (tomato, big, artificial,
giant, durable, etc.); Swedish respondents more often refer to animals (Belgian Blue, spare-parts,
monster); whereas the domain of reproduction and embryology is more frequently mentioned by
British and French respondents (test tube babies, in vitro fertilisation, designer babies).
Comparisons to literary scenarios such as Huxley's "Brave New World" or Goethe's "The
Sorcerer's Apprentice" are mainly drawn by French respondents. Norway, being located in the
center of the graph, does not show any special association with any of these diverse forms of
application.
What do the differences and similarities in imagery among these countries mean? It must
be noted that, in this context, images or metaphors constitute not only means of expressing ideas,
but they also function as socio-cognitive devices that help to organize the understanding of a
phenomenon. Because they are metaphorically structured on a cognitive level, the manifestations
of imagery in language use are also metaphorical. For example, in all six languages we find a
range of respondents describing biotechnology as "interfering", "messing", "tinkering" or
"tampering" with nature or life. On a more general level, all these statements express the concept
"biotechnology is a (harmful) intervention". This rather general concept can be understood as an
image schema that structures the perception as well as evaluation of the issues in question. The
concept therefore delimits all the possible interpretations of this technology by focusing on
some aspects and neglecting others. From this point of view, it is unlikely that biotechnology
would be evaluated as something beneficial that will improve our quality of life. But the image
schema are flexible enough to allow the expression of various evaluations: "interfering" implies
a certain degree of neutrality, whereas "messing" and "tampering" are clearly negative.
However, respondents in all of these countries employ very similar images of
biotechnology. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that, because of the limited number of
Pandora’s Genes - 25 -
organizing concepts, biotechnology discourses are heavily circumscribed.
8
These organizing
ideas "establish a range of possible patterns of understanding and reasoning. They are like
channels in which something can move with a certain limited, relative freedom." (Johnson, 1987,
p. 137). Yet, although the number of interpretations of biotechnology available in the public
discourse may be delimited, within the limits of any structuring concept there is a measure of
freedom or variability of understanding that is heavily context-dependent. The concrete words
and images which are used to allude to these underlying schemas will be mainly determined by
local, historical and personal contexts.
These contexts determine which images are most salient for the public in thinking about a
topic like biotechnology. Thereby the images stem from different sources: first, there are current
images like BSE or the Belgian Blue that reflect actual discussions in political, social and
everyday life in different countries. Second, there are historical references to the past, such as to
Hitler and the Nazi-regime. Third, people may refer to mythology or literature, in this case in the
form of Frankenstein, Brave New World, Pandora's box or The Sorcerer's Apprentice. And,
finally, there are images that cannot be linked to any of the sources mentioned, but that grasp the
essence of biotechnology with everyday words like "artificial food", "interfering with nature" or
"designing babies".
It is clear that underlying concepts and feelings can be expressed by reference to a wide
range of current images. Thus, the idea that manipulated objects are bigger, but unnatural and
bizarre, can be articulated in terms of mad cows or a mouse with a human ear on its back. But
individuals can also draw upon mythology and literature, invoking fantastic monsters or
Frankenstein. The importance of local context is especially clear in the case of Britons citing
mad cows and the Swedes tending to think in terms of the monster bull Belgian Blue, even
though both groups of respondents were expressing their concern that biotechnology may bring
about bizarre, weak and unwell animals. Considering the media attention BSE was receiving in
Britain at the time, that the association was made is far from surprising. The cattle breed Belgian
Blue was an even more localised issue (with only a few Norwegian respondents also citing it),
Pandora’s Genes - 26 -
but since the import of 25 Belgian Blue bulls to Sweden in 1995 this topic had attracted a lot of
attention in Swedish media which referred to them as "monster-bulls".
Likewise, an historical reference to Hitler can express the same fear of authoritarianism as
quoting Huxley's "Brave New World". Clearly, different images can stand for similar concerns;
the concrete words and terminologies used can only be understood as being largely derived from
the speaker's context.
6 The general semantics of biotechnology discourse
There seem to be two global representations of biotechnology in which the different
images are organised: one recapitulates the theme of mankind's progress in overcoming natural
obstacles and the other involves man’s unwarranted interference with nature.
6.1 Fighting enemies of mankind
Discourses that express a positive evaluation of biotechnology frequently focus on a war
metaphor that depicts the modern world as confronting a range of dangers that must be
ameliorated. In this view, biotechnology is a weapon that helps in the "fight" against diseases,
such as cancer or Aids, as well as world hunger. This discourse emphasises progress, the
creation of a better world. Nature represnts a complex set of mechanisms that can be
incrementally better understood, and its more pernicious aspects overcome. Accordingly, the
manipulated object recieves little attention, and this discourse is able to draw upon few, if any,
images.
6.2 Tailoring living nature: Fake life
Biotechnology seems to offer the possibility of creating and fashioning a world according
to human plans and ideas ("designer babies", "humans made-to-measure"); humans are
considered able to imitate the Divine ("man plays god" and "interferes with Creation"). But
respondents believe that it would be unacceptable for mankind to do so; man, it is claimed, is not
Pandora’s Genes - 27 -
entitled to interfere with nature in this way. For this reason, comments on biotechnology are
couched in terms of irresponsible "playing", "tampering", "messing" and "tinkering" with
Nature. According to this view, the expected result must be an ultimate loss of control, with
mankind being exposed to chaos and the suffering implicit in references to the Sorcerer's
Apprentice and Pandora's box.
Notions of human interference into "living nature" subsume several different themes.
First, interference with respect to upsetting the natural balance and harmony of ecological
systems. This presupposes an anthropomorphic image of nature: since biotechnology is
"harming nature", it will eventually "hit back" and "take revenge". Second, interference that can
lead to mankind itself becoming ‘de-naturalized’ because of the possibility of "unnatural birth"
("test tube babies", "artificial fertilisation", "in vitro fertlisation", "designer babies", "pig as loan
mother", "buying babies"). These technologies are seen as allowing "unnatural lifetimes"
("eternal living"), and made possible by the use of living "spare parts", this is perceived to
imperil the uniqueness and value of being human ("producing life", "mass production of
babies", "armies breed to fight", "Brave New World"). Finally, biotechnological interference is
seen to represent a threat to "natural" social orders and social justice, respectively (Hitler, Brave
New World, living machines doing dirty jobs, subhumans and supermen).
From this perspective, there are a variety of different potential outcomes of
biotechnological intervention, and these relate to different conceptions of Nature; though in all
cases, modifying nature means that the result is, by definition, no longer "natural", it becomes
“artifical”. But what does this nature "made" by man look like?
Fruit and vegetables are characterised as being "bigger", "more beautiful", "more durable"
and yielding "more profits"; manipulated humans are supposed to be "more beautiful", "perfect",
"super-intelligent", "geniuses" or "supermen". In this way, certain desirable attributes of living
beings are magnified. Where tomatoes are just "redder" and apples "greener", the modification
is perceived in a way analogous to the fairy tale notion of the most tempting apple, for example,
containing the poison. The manipulated food is depicted as aesthetically pleasing but artificial,
unhealthy or toxic ("radiated food", "chemical food", "messing with hormones of animals").
Pandora’s Genes - 28 -
Even where there is no evidence of the modification of food, respondents consider it possible
that the food could have been insidiously altered; and concerns are expressed that it is
impossible to determine whether or not a product is genetically manipulated ("gene food
sneaking into the shelves"). The tempting, desirable results of biotechnology bring with them
invisible dangers, and the "natural-looking unnatural" is viewed with either suspicion or
ambivalence.
Where the results of manipulation are easy to percieve, i.e. where the results are bizzare or
defective, respondents think in terms of the unintended and incalculable side-effects of
biotechnology. The danger of inadvertently creating organisms (plants, animals and humans)
that are degenerate, bizarre, weak or ill ("Monster", "Frankenstein", "mad cows", "monster bull",
"handicapped children") rises to the fore. This is also the case for applications of biotechnology
in which normal traits are exaggerated and the attributes of different kinds of organism are
combined ("mouse with human ear", "pig with a cow's head", "tomato with banana taste").
Biotechnology, and especially cloning, are viewed as enabling the "production" of life by
humans. Images such as "artificial life", "living machines", "human robots", "producing life" and
animals as "spare parts bin" all depict "unnatural life", that is, a form of life that is
simultaneously real and fake. Any modification of the nature of life raises a paradox, since the
very essence of natural life is held to be that it cannot be ‘made’. The images employed express
a feeling of unease, embodying the notion that although it might appear to constitute life, life
manufactured by humans cannot be real.
6.3 Conclusion
The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk (1987) views the modern world since Copernicus as
characterised by not only a cosmological, but also an epistemic shock. Since then, he argues, it is
clear that what we see and what comprises reality can no longer be considered synonymous. The
dilemma is that when we believe that we are seeing the sun rising, the sun is not actually rising,
and the earth can no longer be viewed as the centre of the universe. The modern corrolary of this
is that it is necessary to suppose a world that is not as we perceive it, but that there is a
Pandora’s Genes - 29 -
disjunction between the world and our perceptions of it. More and more, our knowledge
depends on the information produced using technical apparatus and not on our own perceptions.
Nowadays, we live in a world full of invisible radiation, ozone and toxic chemicals. This is our
"real" life and equally there is no doubt in the public mind that genetic manipulation exists and
that it alters the objects to which it is applied. The same certainty is conferred to this notion as
was enjoyed by witchcraft in former times: in both cases, the arguments are scientifically
justified (Luhmann, 1991). In this sense, biotechnology is just one of many scientific or
technological facts that cannot be perceived directly but which must be dealt with.
Since Copernicus, modern life has been defined by scientific and industrial change
capable of profoundly altering the world, as well as by the emergence of world views in which it
is impossible to take anything for granted (Sloterdijk, 1987, p.63). The Copernical abolition of
obviousness in modern life has provoked counter-reactions that seek to restore a sense of
normality to the world. Thus, common sense is not concerned with making "models of reality"
available, but rather "models for reality" (Geertz, 1973, p.93). The invisibility of genetic
manipulations that might, nonetheless, bring about massive change is, therefore, countered with
attempts to impose upon it rigid classifications either good or bad and to practically handle it.
Visualising the new technology with the help of images brings about a socially shared truth in
which biotechnology is depicted in a way that helps to resolve the ambiguities surrounding the
new technology.
This understanding involves selecting descriptive categories. The central one, in the
present context, is that of Nature and its meanings. However, "Nature" is not a clear-cut, but a
rather ambiguous notion, that is employed by both supporters and opponents of biotechnology.
As has been seen, according to the optimistic view, Nature is a legitimate object for investigation
that will gradually reveal all of its secrets to scientific researchers.
A completely different understanding of Nature draws on the distinction between the
natural and the unnatural, or between the natural and the artificial. This opposition underlies
many of the images described in the context of moral evaluations and criticisms of
biotechnology, in which biotechnology is referred to as being in contradiction to Nature. In this
Pandora’s Genes - 30 -
case "Nature" provides the anchor for a diaphoric understanding of biotechnology. Contrary to
the common uses of metaphors, the basic concept of Nature does not provide a direct means of
understanding the new phenomenon, but does provide the basis for its rejection.
The dominant images of biotechnology represent attempts to construct a clear distinction
between the natural and the unnatural. But this drawing of boundaries goes further, and also
provides a basis for the separation of the good from the bad. In this modern world, in which
people know that "the natural" (in the sense of being "the orginial") can no longer exist,
identifying the ‘natural’ with the ‘good’ provides a reassuringly solid foundation for morality.
The normal (i.e. that which is taken for granted) is equated with the normative. Thus, because it
is usual for humans to originate by way sexual reproduction, this is seen as the way things must
be. This restores stability to the world and its "natural kinds".
While people in the six countries studied do not tend to use the term "unnatural" when
talking about medical applications, they do use it when discussing reproductive technologies.
This is because the latter seem to challenge a form of procreation that is taken for granted. Being
the result of the procreative act, and being oneself able to reproduce, have come to be part of the
definiton of being human. In a similar way, man's bodily integrity is considered to be challenged
by the transplantaion of organs from other species. In both respects, biotechnology is seen to be
capable of subverting both gender and generation relationships, and the idea of the limited
lifetime. Personal identity, the sense of uniqueness, are endangered, and life is demystified and
replaced by "artifacts". As with any artifact, there is a determined outcome, no variation and
chance ceases to be an important factor. Thus, with biotechnology, science seems to be on the
verge of abolishing the last "miracles" of life. People fear a cold, sterile future in which
everything that exists does so according to pre-ordained but worldly plans, a life that is fake
without fate. To repeat, the distinction between the natural and the unnatural is made
synonymous with the divide between the good and bad.
Potentially having the power to alter basic aspects of the material and social world also
implies that we will be forced into making decisions (Beck, 1986). After all, what is really more
desirable, blue or green eyes, fair or dark hair? We will need to establish the criteria upon which
Pandora’s Genes - 31 -
to base our decisions? But, being able to decide also implies a responsibility for that decision,
ushering new forms of guilt. In this future scenario, being ill or having some physical
imperfection would no longer be conceptualised in terms of a destiny that must be accepted, but
as an error of judgment.
Further, how can we be responsible for something for which we do not know the
consequences? Scientists, industrialists and politicians are not considered to be capable of
bearing these responsibilities. Instead, they are perceived as "playing god", striving to create a
new world out of genes, the building blocks of life. The public just wonders what sort of world
this "second Genesis"
9
will bring about.
Pandora’s Genes - 32 -
Methodological appendix
Method. ALCESTE investigates the distribution of vocabulary in data material
consisting of text (as in our case answers to an open question and interview transcriptions).
The method was introduced by Max Reinert (1983) and realises a descending hierarchical
classification. That is, ALCESTE separates classes of specific vocabulary that empirically co-
occur without regarding the meaning of the words. In a second step these semantical word
classes must be interpreted. To be able to trace back the vocabulary to its original context,
ALCESTE provides a list of statements associated with each class. This helps to check if the
interpretation of the single words is correct.
ALCESTE is a French program that can be used for analysing data of any language using
Latin letters. To yield more precise results it is advantageous to exclude words like articles,
prepositions, pronouns and conjunctions from analyses as well as to reduce plurals and
conjugations to the word's root form. For that purpose ALCESTE needs dictionaries of these
suffixes and function words. Since there are dictionaries available only for a few languages, the
working files of ALCESTE were modified by the authors to exclude a number of words
(articles, prepositions and the like) for all languages required.
In order to obtain reliable results, ALCESTE computes two analyses using statements
of slightly differing length. Only those statements that can be classified in a stable manner in
both analyses are used further on. A stability coefficient indicates the percentage of
statements that can be classified in a stable manner.
Datasets. The results presented in the chapter are based on two separate sets of textual
data for six European countries. These are single and focus group interviews on the one hand
and responses to a survey question on the other. The two datasets were collected as part of a
European Concerted Action research project, Biotechnology and the European Public.
The Eurobarometer survey (46.1.), which was conducted in each European Union
country in 1996, was based on multi-stage random sampling methodology. It provides a
representative sample of individuals aged 15 and over. In a face to face interview respondents
were asked the following question: ”Now I would like to ask you what comes to your mind
Pandora’s Genes - 33 -
when you think about modern biotechnology in a broad sense, that is including genetic
engineering”.
Interviews with single persons were conducted in Austria and France (data from the
latter country is integrated only to a small extent in this chapter) ; focus group interviews took
place in Austria, Great Britain and Sweden. It was not intended to obtain a representative
sample but to cover a wide range of perspectives on the topic of biotechnology. For that
reason, persons associated with different socio-demographic categories were recruited. The
interview questions covered the topics of medical applications, agricultural applications,
genetic manipulated food, transgenic animals, reproductive genetic technology, control, risks
and consequences of biotechnological applications. Data from Austria and Great Britain were
analysed by using ALCESTE while data from Sweden were analysed according to the
grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Table 2 shows the number of respondents to the open question for each country, the
number of responses analysed (for most countries, answers indicating "I don't know" were
excluded from the ALCESTE analysis) and the number of responses being classified in a stable
manner in the ALCESTE analysis. The stability of the results ranging from 70% to 85% stable
classified statements can be considered as satisfying for all countries. Table 2 furthermore
indicates the number of interviews and focus groups conducted in each country as well as the
stability coefficient for the ALCESTE analyses of the British and Austrian interview data.
insert Table 2 here
Pandora’s Genes - 34 -
References
Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm for research on social representations.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29, 163-186.
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Herzlich, C. (1973). Health and Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic
Press.
Jodelet, D. (1989). ‘Représentations sociales: un domaine en expansion‘. In: D. Jodelet (Ed),
Les représentations sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and
reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kronberger, N. & Wagner, W. (forthcoming). The Statistical Analysis of Text and Open-Ended
Responses. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Methods for Qualitative Analysis. London:
Sage.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Luhmann, N. (1991). Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R.M. Farr & S. Moscovici
(Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinert, M. (1983). Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: application a
l'analyse lexicale par contexte. Les Cahiers de l'Analyse des Données, 8 (2), 187-198.
Reinert, M. (1990). ALCESTE. Une méthodologie d'analyse des données textuelles et une
application: Aurélia de Gérard de Nerval. Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique, 26, 24-54.
Reinert, M. (1998). Manuel du logiciel ALCESTE (Version 3.2) [computer program]. Toulouse:
Pandora’s Genes - 35 -
IMAGE (CNRS-UMR 5610).
Sloterdijk, P. (1987). Kopernikanische Mobilmachung und ptolemäische Abrüstung. Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp.
Wagner, W. (1998). Social Representations and Beyond: Brute Facts, Symbolic Coping and
Domesticated Worlds. Culture & Psychology, 4 (3), 297-329.
Wagner, W. & Kronberger, N. (forthcoming). Killer Tomatoes! Collective Symbolic Coping
with Biotechnology. In K. Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.), Social Representation:
Introduction and Exploration. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wagner, W., Elejabarrieta, F. & Lahnsteiner, I. (1995). How the sperm dominates the ovum -
objectification by metaphor in the social representation of conception. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 25, 671-688.
Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Farr, R., Jovchelovitch, S., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Marková, I. & Rose, D.
(1999). Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2,
95-125.
Pandora’s Genes - 36 -
Table 1
Comparison of the analysis results of the open question responses
for six European countries
see next page
printed: 23.09.2002
WHAT IS BIOTECHNOLOGY?
FOCUS ON CONTENT
IS BIOTECHNOLOGY GOOD OR BAD?
FOCUS ON EVALUATION
COUNTRY
SPECIFIC
General
(rather neutral)
Specific: Domains of Application
(evaluation involved)
Positive Ambivalent Negative Evaluation Lacking knowledge
Research
(progress)
Manipulation/
Alteration Food Reproduction Medicine Good Good but risky
1
Risky/
Dangerous
2
expression
of fear
Interfering
with nature Echo
3
Guessing
4
Don't know
AUSTR
IA
Biotechnology is a scientific activity
applicated to plants, animals and humans
(food, reproduction, medicine)
(27%)
Good but risky/
dangerous
(fear)
(22%)
Unknown
effects/
dangerous
(16%)
Interfering
with nature
STOP!
(36%)
see
Interfering
with nature
see
unknown
effects
FRANC
E
Research
(11%)
Food/
Agricul
ture
(15%)
Reproduction
(2%)
Medicine
(14%)
Improve-
ment
(10%)
Dangerous/risky although
there can be good effects
(also morally dangerous)
(8%)
Fear
Against nature
(18%)
Echo
(3%)
Guessed
(16%)
Don't know
(3%)
GERM
ANY
Manipulation
of plants,
animals,
humans/
Agriculture
(16%)
Food
(also medicine and
reproduction)
(15%)
Medicine
(12%)
Good but risky
risky/dangerous
(fear)
(37%)
Interfering
with nature
STOP!
(11%)
see
Medicine
Good but risky
Don't know
(10%)
NORW
AY
Research
(8%)
Alteration of
plants,
animals,
humans
(21%)
Food
(8%)
Medicine
(14%)
Good but frightening
Unspecific worry
(22%)
Interfering
with nature
(10%)
see
Medicine
Good but frightening
Food and
Reproduction
(16%)
SWEDEN
Research
(19%)
Manipulation
of plants and
animals
(11%)
Food and
Reproduction
(7%)
Good if used the right way/
dangerous
(15%)
Fear
too fast
(19%)
Interfering
with nature
(21%)
Belgian Blue
(9%)
see
Research
UK
Food
(21%)
Reproduction
(7%)
Medicine
(21%)
Unspecific
worry/dangerous
(fear)
(16%)
Interfering
with nature
(18%)
see
Medicine
Don't know
(17%)
1
Good but risky: may have good effects but is risky and dangerous, therefore must be applied properly, demand for control
2
Risky and Dangerous: biotechnology is unpredictable and therefore dangerous, fear of loss of control
3
Respondents repeat technologies mentioned in the preceeding question ("telecommunication", "solar energy", etc.)
4
Associations evoked by the terms "bio", "gene" and "technology" (mostly positive: e.g. ecologically beneficial or optimistic view of science)
Numbers in parenthesis indicate for each country the percentage of responses being classified to a specific discourse
printed: 23.09.2002
Table 2
Main characteristics of datasets and results of analyses
France UK Sweden Germany Austria Norway
total number of responses (open
question)
1004 1074 1008 1990 1009 966
number of analysed responses to
open question
(statements indicating "I don't
know" excluded)
812 973 836 1990 814 730
percentage of stable classified
responses
(open question)
83% 76% 77% 76% 71% 70%
number of classes 10 6 7 6 4 7
number of interviews 20 - - - 18 -
number of focus group
interviews
- 5 2 - 7 -
percentage of stable classified
responses
(interviews and focus groups)
- 83% - - 75% -
Pandora’s Genes - 40 -
neutral
positive
ambivalent
negative
dk
progress
plants
nature
moral
monster
medi
human
food
fertility
fear
economic
animals
PT
UK
DE
GR
SE
NO
NL
IT
FI
AT
Correspondence analysis, canonical normalization
Explained variance =.41
1.0.50.0-.5-1.0-1.5
1.5
1.0
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
Figure 1
Pandora’s Genes - 41 -
AT
SE
FI
UK
PT
NL
LX
IR
FR
ES
IT
GR
DE
DK
BE
Average level of textbook knowledge
4.24.03.83.63.43.23.02.8
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
Figure 2
printed: 23.09.2002
playing god
chemical
POSITIVE
progress
Hitler
spare parts
monster
interfer-nature
NEGATIVE
super
Belgian Blue
DON'T KNOW
cancer
nuclear
tampering
AMBIVALENT
hormones
FEAR
artificial
big
allergy
tomato
beautiful
giant
durable
NEUTRAL
aids
interfer-life
interfer-human
soja
maize
interfer-Creation
MORAL
designer babies
in vitro
BSE
Sorcerer's Apprentice
test-tube-babies
god
Brave New World
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
-2.8 -1.8 -0.8 0.2 1.2 2.2
Figure 3
9/23/02
Picture 1
Photo in Austrian newspaper
NOTE: Reprinted from SALZBURGER NACHRICHTEN, March 19th, 1997. © Erwin Johann
Wodicka.
Images of Biotech 9/23/02- 46 -
Picture 2
Photo "Belgian Blue" (Source: Swedish Newspaper, ASK SUSANNA OLSSON)
Images of Biotech 9/23/02- 47 -
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1
Evaluations and topics mentioned by respondents from ten European countries when asked about
biotechnology.
NOTE: AT = Austria, DE = Germany, FI = Finland, GR = Greece, IT = Italy, NL = Holland, NO =
Norway, PT = Portugal, SE = Sweden, UK = United Kingdom.
dk = “don’t know”, human = “human monsters”, medi = “medical applications”, monster = “non-
human monsters”.
Figure 2
Scatterplot of European countries by average level of textbook knowledge and average level of having
heard or read about biotechnology.
NOTE: AT = Austria, BE = Belgium, DE = Germany, DK = Denmark, ES = Spain,
FI = Finland, FR = France, GR = Greece, IR = Ireland, IT = Italy, LX = Luxemburg,
NL = Holland, PT = Portugal, SE = Sweden, UK = United Kingdom.
Figure 3
Correspondence analysis of open question for countries, evaluative tone and images.
NOTE: Country names are in bold capitals, global categorisations are in capital letters, labels in
normal print indicate images refered to in the answers of respondents’ to the open question.
1
This chapter reports research which was conducted as part of the EU Concerted Action,
contract # BIO4-CT95-0043 (DG12-SSMA) granted to John Durant, Museum of Science and
Industry, London. The Austrian Research as well as the writing of the chapter was funded by
the Austrian Fonds zur Förderung wissenschaftlicher Forschung, # P11849 SOZ, granted to
Wolfgang Wagner.
Images of Biotech 9/23/02- 48 -
of data, but will be included in the following sections. Likewise, The Netherlands, Finland and
Greece were included in the categorization analysis, but will not be considered in the following
section due to missing content analyses.
3
One has to remember that we are dealing with different European languages here; differing
vocabulary and language use can have an impact on the construction of the word classes.
4
Note that the survey took place before intensive media coverage about cloning Dolly the
sheep started in 1997.
5
Throughout the text literal quotes of responses to the open question are marked by the
country code and the respondent's number. Statements from interviews and focus groups are
marked accordingly. The codes are: AT = Austria, FR = France, GE = Germany, NW =
Norway, SE = Sweden and UK = United Kingdom.
6
This cattle originated in central and upper Belgium and the breed was established in the early
20th century. There is a large proportion of muscle hypertrophy in Belgian Blue, which is
genetically inherited, this means that the animals are born with double thigh muscles which give
more meat and better productivity. Muscle hypertrophy also makes the internal organs of the
animal smaller and caesarean delivery is frequently called for.
7
Even though the human ear-bearing mouse was not a product of xenotransplantation.
8
It is interesting to note that many of the images described in this chapter also emerge as part
of the media discourse about Dolly the cloned sheep. Since the survey and interwiew data were
collected before coverage about Dolly started, it can be supposed that media and public
discourses are mutually determined. Media discourses equally reflect and influence public
opinions (Wagner & Kronberger, forthcoming).
9
This was the title of a recent Austrian radio transmission about biotechnology.