Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Abstract

A paper by the Sciencewise-ERC subgroup on GM dialogue September 2011 Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement 2 of 63 Foreword This is a review, conducted on behalf of the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre (Sciencewise-ERC), of the lessons learned from the short history of public dialogue exercises about genetically modified crops and food. These exercises have been one polite and structured aspect of a broader, noisier public debate about Genetic Modification (GM). Taken together, the lessons from these dialogue exercises – each of which began with its own set of motivations and institutional interests – tell us a great deal about the contours of public concern and the best ways of beginning such discussions. This report does not comprehensively map public opinion, which is neither fixed nor homogenous, but it does reveal the directions that public discussions have taken in the past. The themes that have defined public concerns, from which policymakers should seek to learn lessons, can be seen at different levels. There are concerns that are to do with the particularities of genetic modification of plants, and there are higher-level concerns about the way that science and innovation in general are governed that cannot be ignored. Crucially, the debate about GM is not just a debate about the risks of a particular technology. It is also a debate about the future of food, agriculture and the global economy. The substance of this report comes from work conducted by Andrew Acland, Suzannah Lansdell and Diane Warburton for Sciencewise-ERC. Taken together, the messages they have unearthed provide a clear sense of the issues and values that public groups consider important. Some messages have been clearly heard; some have proven more challenging for scientists and policymakers to make sense of. But perhaps the most important political message is that all of these themes were articulated during the first UK public dialogue ever conducted on GM – the consensus conference on plant biotechnology in 1994. This highlights the major lesson of this report – that public dialogue does not take place in a political vacuum.

Full text

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
1 of 63
Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
A paper by the Sciencewise-ERC subgroup on GM dialogue September 2011

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
2 of 63
Foreword
This is a review, conducted on behalf of the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre (Sciencewise-
ERC), of the lessons learned from the short history of public dialogue exercises about genetically
modified crops and food. These exercises have been one polite and structured aspect of a
broader, noisier public debate about Genetic Modification (GM).
Taken together, the lessons from these dialogue exercises – each of which began with its own set
of motivations and institutional interests – tell us a great deal about the contours of public concern
and the best ways of beginning such discussions. This report does not comprehensively map
public opinion, which is neither fixed nor homogenous, but it does reveal the directions that public
discussions have taken in the past. The themes that have defined public concerns, from which
policymakers should seek to learn lessons, can be seen at different levels. There are concerns
that are to do with the particularities of genetic modification of plants, and there are higher-level
concerns about the way that science and innovation in general are governed that cannot be
ignored. Crucially, the debate about GM is not just a debate about the risks of a particular
technology. It is also a debate about the future of food, agriculture and the global economy.
The substance of this report comes from work conducted by Andrew Acland, Suzannah Lansdell
and Diane Warburton for Sciencewise-ERC. Taken together, the messages they have unearthed
provide a clear sense of the issues and values that public groups consider important. Some
messages have been clearly heard; some have proven more challenging for scientists and
policymakers to make sense of. But perhaps the most important political message is that all of
these themes were articulated during the first UK public dialogue ever conducted on GM – the
consensus conference on plant biotechnology in 1994. This highlights the major lesson of this
report – that public dialogue does not take place in a political vacuum.
The framing and design of attempts to engage the public in such a contentious area demand
careful thought. Policy-makers should look back and learn from previous dialogue exercises,
while appreciating that contexts change. And they should remember that they and their
institutions are the vital other half of the conversation. Public dialogue can be a powerful way of
opening up a constructive discussion about new technologies. But if it is used disingenuously, to
stifle broader debate, it is likely to backfire. Building on the lessons in this report, policy-makers
must look carefully at questions of how to engage the public, but they must also ask themselves
why they want to.
In their 2009 report on food security, the Royal Society reiterated the need for public dialogue on
the future of food production, and recommended that such dialogue should “start with the problem
that needs to be addressed, i.e. food security, rather than presupposing any particular solutions”.1
Perhaps the most constructive way to have a dialogue about GM is not to start by talking about
GM. The Research Councils‟ new Grand Challenge programme on Food Security could be one
opportunity for an open discussion covering some aspects of GM, alongside its alternatives.
However, Research Councils are not the only public bodies with an interest in this area.
Dr Jack Stilgoe, Senior Research Fellow, Exeter University, chair of the Sciencewise ERC
subgroup on GM dialogue
1 Royal Society, 2009, Reaping the benefits, Science and the sustainable intensification of global
agriculture, London, Royal Society

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
3 of 63
Executive Summary
Background to the report
This paper reviews previous exercises in public and stakeholder engagement on issues related to
GM and its application. First, all relevant engagement activities and sources were identified. Then
any relevant documentation and evaluation material was then reviewed, and key messages and
lessons on methods were identified and summarised.
Purpose of engaging
Conclusions on the „success‟ of past exercises are inseparable from their varied purposes. The
appropriate methods for engaging the public are identified once the purpose of the engagement is
clear. Different decision making bodies, and different policy decisions, will have different needs
from public engagement.
As such, before designing a public or stakeholder engagement process, it must be clear what
purpose the engagement is being designed to fulfil. Once the purpose is decided, the process,
design, commissioning body, material and language used to describe the engagement must be
consistent with this.
Public views
The work exploring public views reviewed here does not paint a simple picture of public opinion,
the diversity of which is impossible to capture. There is no evidence of overwhelming intrinsic
opposition to GM. Public concerns are conditional. They tend not to be expressed in terms of „yes‟
or „no‟ but in terms of „yes, but…‟ and „no, but…‟ Concerns can be described at different levels,
ranging from those that are specific to GM technologies to those that are about the governance of
science and innovation in general:
1. Safety – The entry point for many people‟s understanding of new technologies is the question
of risk. Much of the public debate about GM food focussed on this controversy to the
exclusion of other issues. Public groups do indeed express concern about the potential
hazards of GM food, but these concerns are the start of the discussion rather than the end.
2. Novelty – The context for many people‟s discussion of risk is the question of how new these
new technologies are. GM aroused public suspicion with a familiar pattern in which the
technologies‟ benefits were advertised as brand new but risks were seen as conventional and
well-understood. Clear and comprehensive labelling and independent information are
consistently highlighted as essential.
3. Sustainability, uncertainty and ignorance – People are clearly concerned that new
interventions in complex ecosystems challenge scientific understanding. Do proponents of
GM technologies know as much as they claim about environmental impacts, or are there
areas of substantial ignorance that aren‟t being acknowledged? The perceived
„unnaturalness‟ of GM technologies is one common manifestation of such concerns.
4. Socioeconomics – GM technology is not just seen as an intervention into just the food chain,
nor just the environment. Public dialogue exercises bring to the surface a recognition that GM
technologies also present economic issues. Questions about intellectual property, patenting
and the livelihoods of developing country farmers therefore become important.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
4 of 63
5. Governance and regulation – At the broadest level, people lack confidence in the ability of
scientists, companies and governments to understand and regulate the myriad possible
implications of new science and technology.
Uncertainty complicates how the public approaches the subject and encourages a default
scepticism about the wisdom of accepting GM. The 'need' for GM was also questioned given the
potential risks and the availability of other options to solve specific problems. The use of GM in
the developing world is seen as a specific issue, although there were mixed views on the need for
and value of GM in that context.
The risks to the environment and biodiversity from GM crops were very widespread concerns and
there were suspicions that the development of GM was being led largely by industry and other
commercial interests rather than to meet needs and serve the public good.
Government, rather than the private sector, was seen as appropriate to lead development and
ensure robust regulation of these technologies although there was some distrust of government
and multi-national companies, especially around willingness to listen to public worries.
Process of engaging
Public engagement activities around contentious issues such as GM often start from a position of
mutual suspicion between those involved. However, in spite of initial (and sometimes continuing)
suspicions about balance and bias, there is evidence that trust can be built between public,
stakeholders and commissioning bodies if the process is seen to be impartial, honest, open,
transparent and well run.
Where policy influence is an intention of the process, it is important for policy-makers to make
clear what policies can be influenced by the engagement and what cannot. Ideally, this would
mean explicit links to formal policy-making processes, in terms of where and how the results of
the public engagement will be used. Clearly different policy decisions related to GM will be at
different stages of development and will have different needs from public engagement.
Ultimately, unless engagement is to proceed in an antagonistic mode, the issues need to be
framed and described in a way that commands stakeholder confidence. The more controversial
the issue the more important it is that the convening body for any engagement exercise is
perceived to be independent. An antagonistic mode is not inevitable. Public and stakeholder
engagement could, for example, be focused on a joint endeavour to identify the full range of
possible policy options, examining the constraints and conditionalities around each, and helping
policy-makers to find a way through the conflicting pressures and uncertainties.
There are a variety of public engagement methods available, which can be described in terms of
three modes: Transmit, Collaborate or Receive. All engagement is likely to include elements of
each mode, but will typically predominate in one. Our judgment is that GM includes issues that
would make predominantly Collaborate and Receive modes most appropriate, and the methods
associated with them, depending on the purposes of engagement around specific issues.
Regardless of mode, sufficient attention must be given to engaging stakeholders, in advance of
forming plans for public engagement.
During this, uncertainties, whether due to lack of data, information, different interpretations, clarity
about others' intentions, or about circumstances beyond any stakeholder's control must be
specified and reduced where possible, or managed if not.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
5 of 63
Future plans
Any future engagement process has the potential to receive significant media attention and thus
raise the public profile of GM and related issues. Negative press coverage could represent a
threat to the engagement, or even harm the credibility of the policy-making process. The risk of
negative coverage is likely to be enhanced should the engagement lack a clear and widely
understood purpose, not be planned or commissioned transparently, or not command the
confidence of a broad enough range of stakeholders.
Sciencewise-ERC stands ready to discuss more tailored advice to public bodies looking to include
public and stakeholder engagement in developing their policy on issues related GM and its
application.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
6 of 63
1. Introduction
1.1 Funded by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, the Sciencewise Expert
Resource Centre (SW-ERC) provides advice, resources and support to Government
Departments, agencies and other public sector bodies to commission and use public
dialogue to inform policy decisions which involve science and technology. The SW-ERC
also provides co-funding to Government departments and agencies to develop and
commission public dialogue activities. More information can be found at www.sciencewise-
erc.org.uk.
1.2 Following the cancellation of the planned 2009/10 public dialogue, Food: the use of GM,
launched by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the SW-ERC Steering Group established a
sub-group to review previous exercises in public and stakeholder engagement on issues
related to GM and its application. This was in response to the announcement by David
Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, that the FSA‟s planned dialogue would not
continue in its current form. 2
1.3 The membership of the sub-group is as follows:
 Dr Jack Stilgoe (chair), Senior Research Fellow, Exeter University
 Professor Andy Stirling, Director of Science, Science Policy Research Unit,
University of Sussex
 Sir Roland Jackson, Chief Executive, British Science Association
 Diane Warburton, Evaluation Manager, Sciencewise-ERC
 Andrew Acland, Dialogue and Engagement Specialist, Sciencewise-ERC
 Suzannah Lansdell, Dialogue and Engagement Specialist, Sciencewise-ERC
1.4 This paper sets out the conclusions of the group and suggests possible ways to involve
stakeholders and the public on this issue in the future.
1.5 The group's conclusions draw largely on the work by Diane Warburton in reviewing written
reports and evaluations of previous public and stakeholder engagement activities, including
public opinion surveys, on GM and GM-related issues; and by Andrew Acland and
Suzannah Lansdell in reviewing the lessons from the most recent plans by the FSA for a
public dialogue on GM foods.
1.6 The aim of the documentary review was to undertake a practical analysis designed to draw
out from previous engagement exercises the key messages from the public and key
lessons from the engagement methods used, and to present these lessons in ways that
could inform any future planning of public engagement initiatives on these topics. The first
step of the review was to identify all relevant engagement activities and sources, with
advice from group members, Research Councils UK, individual Research Councils
(particularly BBSRC and EPSRC), the relevant UK government departments, and the
Scottish Government. Relevant documentation was obtained and reviewed, and key
messages and lessons on methods were identified and summarised; all sources reviewed
are identified, and findings summarised, in Annex B.
1.7 The group found little material to include on the evaluation of communication and
information provision on GM and related issues. The bulk of this review therefore
concentrates on two-way modes of public engagement.
2 http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=415513

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
7 of 63
1.8 In the context of public and stakeholder engagement, we have used „public‟ to mean any
group(s) of the general public brought together, participating or responding as individuals.
We have used „stakeholders‟ to mean organisations, spokespeople or individuals taking
part who have a prior, established interest in the issue at hand.
1.9 To date the majority engagement, and wider public debate, on GM has focused on GM
crops or GM in the food system. As such, this review is most relevant to future debate on
these issues. However, we recognise that GM technology has much wider potential
application. Furthermore, even within the food system, GM is a multifaceted issue covering
at least research, agriculture, trade and consumer policy with local, national and
international considerations. As such, we have taken a deliberately broad definition of what
counts as a „GM issue‟ and also included some evaluation of engagement on distinct, but
similar, issues where relevant.
1.10 Conclusions on the „success‟ of past exercises are inseparable from their varied purposes.
This paper is written to reflect that many different motivations for engagement on the
various issues related to GM and its application exist and, as such, there is no one solution
to GM and public engagement.
1.11 Given the breadth of issues and policy contexts, this review has not extended to
international attempts at public engagement with GM issues. As plans for any future
engagement are developed, and the policy context of the engagement is clearer, relevant
international examples should be considered.
1.12 This paper is intended as a general review. It does not seek to provide a definitive
conclusions as to what public engagement is possible as significant uncertainty remains;
what is possible is contingent on the complex and specific policy and political conditions
within which any engagement will occur. Indeed, there are circumstances when certain
kinds of engagement are unlikely to be possible. If relevant bodies are looking to engage
the public with issues related to GM, Sciencewise-ERC can develop advice tailored to their
expressed purposes.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
8 of 63
2. Lessons from previous experience of public and stakeholder engagement on GM
Please see Annex B for further detail on individual exercises, and the lessons learned from each.
Throughout we have referenced examples of engagements which have demonstrated each
lesson. Of course, given the complex context within which engagement is set, this is not to say
that taking these on board will, by default, lead to a successful engagement in future.
Different public engagement methods achieve different outcomes.
2.1 The appropriate methods are identified once the purpose of the engagement is clear; form
follows function. For example:
2.2 Well-designed and carefully structured discursive dialogue methods allow public
participants (usually specially recruited) to move relatively quickly from little or no
knowledge of, or opinions on, the topic, to understanding the key issues of even complex
scientific and technological developments and come to a view3.
Discursive dialogue enables the public to take on new information, have time to discuss and
reflect, and develop their own thinking. Policy-makers and scientists have often been
surprised at how quickly this understanding can be achieved. In this way, public views are
allowed to develop and shift, and conclusions can be reached on specific issues, relatively
simply and easily. Policy-makers have found this type of exercise particularly effective in:
 getting beyond vested interests and enabling debate with members of the public
without polarisation and acrimony
 providing useful insights and information on detailed policy issues, from public
comments and from their questions
 fully understanding the considered and informed views of the public, why they are
held and how strongly
2.3 Open meetings, online and written consultations, publicised widely and/or as part of other
activities and programmes, allow those with an existing interest or knowledge of the topic to
get involved and air their view4. Policy-makers also find this approach useful as it:
 opens up the process to wide public scrutiny and comment
 enables those with particular interests to formally present their views
 allows for free and wide access to the process
 can reach large numbers of people (depending on the topic and the methods used).
Overcoming distrust
Public engagement activities around contentious issues such as GM often start from a position of
mutual suspicion between those involved.
2.4 Suspicions might be that the engagement is designed to 'sell' a particular technology to the
public (by manipulating or limiting the information that is provided), hidden agendas, bias
from the commissioning body, or that the decision has already been made and the
engagement is designed simply to 'rubber stamp' that decision and have no real influence.
3 Examples of his type of dialogue given in Annex B include the UK National Consensus Conference on
Plant Biotechnology, The Citizen Foresight on the Future of Food and Agriculture, the Industrial
Biotechnology dialogue, the Consumer Views on GM Food, and the Synthetic Biology dialogue
4 For example, GM Nation? and Consumer Views on GM Food.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
9 of 63
These suspicions are likely to be deepened if potentially negative aspects of the technology
are not presented as fully as the positives5. Furthermore, participants have expressed
scepticism about the influence of the engagement they were involved in6.
2.5 Public participants, stakeholders and others involved are highly aware of issues of fairness,
balance and bias in the engagement processes. Questions were raised about the credibility
of the design and running of the processes (including recruitment of participants,
arrangements with delivery contractors)7.
However, in spite of initial (and sometimes continuing) suspicions about balance and bias,
there is evidence that trust can be built between public, stakeholders and commissioning
bodies if the process was seen to be impartial, honest, open, transparent and well run8.
2.6 Consistent with a body of literature and guidance on public dialogue, techniques used
successfully to tackle suspicion and distrust include:
 The purpose and nature of the process being clear from the outset, and the language
used to describe the process being consistent with the purpose9.
 Where policy influence is an intention of the process, clear statements by policy-makers
about what policies can be influenced by the engagement and what cannot. Ideally, this
would mean explicit links to formal policy-making processes, in terms of where and how
the results of the public engagement will be used.10
 In the case of GM, at the very least there needs to be a clear statement of what
government is minded to do about GM11 and what remains open for public and
stakeholders to influence
 Direct personal involvement by policy-makers in the design and delivery of the
engagement activities, including attending events in person. Scepticism about the value
and influence of a process can be overcome if policy-makers participate and are seen to
respond12.
 Sufficiently diverse perspectives on the issues included in the engagement activities, both
pro- and anti- the topic, with information and involvement from a range of types of sources
(e.g. academic, government, industry, NGO)6. Negative implications and consequences
of the technology, potential or known, need to be articulated explicitly. Without this, the
process is less likely to be seen as fair and trustworthy and thus participants won‟t engage
fully and the results not be representative of the full range of views.
5 As found in the evaluation of the Industrial Biotechnology dialogue
6 For example, in GM Nation?
7 For example, at the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology and the Synthetic
Biology dialogue (at the reconvened meeting).
8 For example, at the Industrial Biotechnology dialogue
9 This worked well in the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology and The Citizen
Foresight on the Future of Food and Agriculture.
10 A criticism of the most recent dialogue on GM Food was that this element was lacking, which was felt to
have contributed to suspicions amongst some stakeholders about the purpose of the process.
11 The most recent public dialogue about nuclear energy used a similar approach on the advice of a
process designer that starting with a blank sheet would not be considered credible.
12 This worked well in the Industrial Biotechnology and the Synthetic Biology dialogues.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
10 of 63
 Independent convening, design, delivery and facilitation of the engagement13.
 Participant control of the conclusions from the engagement. Several initiatives have
provided opportunities for participants to write up the conclusions themselves, and
sometimes present those in person to key policy-makers, independently from the
commissioning body for the engagement6.
 Maximising transparency and openness, for example by publishing all information
provided to participants, and lists of experts involved; publishing the results of the
engagement; opening meetings to public audiences; publishing the responses of the
commissioning body to the results of the engagement14.
 The scale and diversity of public participants, alongside the depth of the process, affects
the credibility of the results for policy-makers and for public participants. A small but
diverse group considering issues in depth over time can be as credible as large numbers
of participants15, especially if policy-makers are involved first hand to hear the public
discussions.
 A clear response by the policy-making body to the conclusions of the public
engagement16, identifying and explaining: those issues raised by the public that have or
have not been taken into account in policy development; and how issues that were not
directly relevant to the policy-making body have been dealt with (e.g. passed on to the
appropriate body).
Framing and commissioning
2.7 How the process is framed and what can be influenced come together in deciding the
purpose and nature of the process. Because the issue is so polarised between those for
and against GM, the likelihood is that stakeholders and publics alike will consider any
engagement process to be essentially adversarial and the outcome distributive: pro vs. anti;
who is right vs. who is wrong; and ultimately whose interests and opinions should prevail.
This is not inevitable. Public and stakeholder engagement could, for example, be focused
on a joint endeavour to identify the full range of possible policy options, examining the
constraints and conditionalities around each, and helping policy-makers to find a way
through the conflicting pressures and uncertainties.
2.8 Ultimately, unless engagement is to proceed in an antagonistic mode, the issues need to be
framed and described in a way that commands stakeholder confidence. The more
controversial the issue the more important it is that the convening body for any engagement
exercise is perceived to be independent. There is an inevitable tension between an exercise
having a credible policy influence, and the convening body being independent. As a
minimum, the project needs to be steered by an independent oversight mechanism that has
the trust and confidence of stakeholders.
13 The Industrial Biotechnology and the Synthetic Biology dialogues both commissioned independent
contractors for the design, delivery and facilitation; the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant
Biotechnology and The Citizen Foresight on the Future of Food and Agriculture did the same and also
had independent convenors.
14 All four initiatives identified in footnote 11 had elements of these activities
15 For example, the Foresight project had 12 participants, the Consensus Conference had 16, and the IB
dialogue had 24.
16 For example, the Synthetic Biology dialogue included detailed written responses to participants from the
CEOs of the two Research Councils.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
11 of 63
2.9 Engagement exercises need to be commissioned by a body with competence for the
subjects in which public participants are interested – if regulatory questions are of primary
interest, public engagement by research funders will have limited value.
2.10 The role of shared or separate uncertainties in causing conflict in any context is usually
under-estimated because major stakeholders may be reluctant to admit any absence of
control. Uncertainty has many forms. It can be caused by a lack of data and information. It
can stem from different interpretations of data or difference in the value placed on different
data. There can also be uncertainty about others' intentions, or about circumstances
beyond any stakeholder's control. What ever its source, uncertainty generates fear and
anxiety. This can cause hostility towards others and create more uncertainty about others'
intentions and values. Progress towards resolution of other issues is always difficult and
sometimes impossible until uncertainties are specified and reduced where possible, or
managed where not.
Working with stakeholders
As described above, although the focus in the initiatives covered in this paper is on public
engagement, stakeholders are an important part of the consideration.
2.11 The desire to include and work with NGOs to develop, design and deliver public
engagement has been common to many of the initiatives covered below, but this has not
been without problems. Different NGOs represent a wide diversity of views (pro and anti-
GM, for example), so several NGOs may need to be involved. More practically, many NGOs
have to work with scarce resources that may not stretch to upstream issues where the
social and ethical implications are not clear and the topic is not yet a priority for them.
Arguably, GM is no longer an upstream issue.
2.12 Time is needed to build appropriate stakeholder relationships to provide credible
foundations for public engagement, leading to better quality processes and greater
acceptance of the results. A diverse group of stakeholder formally involved through advisory
or oversight groups had worked well, as had specific investment in building stakeholder
relationships (individually and as a group) early on17.
2.13 Relevant stakeholders include internal colleagues, and associated agencies, as well as
external bodies. Planning for public engagement could include identifying key stakeholders,
including those directly responsible for the policy area under discussion, those with an
interest (current or future), and those who may need to respond to associated issues (e.g.
regulatory bodies).
2.14 The involvement of scientists and other experts in providing information to the public
engagement activities needs to be carefully managed. Face to face workshops and
interactions between the public and scientific experts work better than filmed or video
presentations, although video ethnographies showing scientific methods have worked well.
Scientific experts taking part in public engagement processes need advice and guidance on
their role, and briefing on how public engagement works and what it is for.
Practical issues
The evaluations provide many lessons for the design and delivery of public engagement activities.
2.15 Time is needed to enable public participants to take in and understand the basic information
they have to deal with on complex technological subjects such as GM, and then to
17 This worked well in the Citizen Foresight on the Future of Food and Agriculture, and the Industrial
Biotechnology dialogue.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
12 of 63
formulate views and conclusions on subjects they may never have thought about before.
Reconvened meetings, with some but not too much time in between meetings, worked well
to achieve this.
2.16 Sufficient resources need to be allocated to the engagement process at the start. Having to
get additional resources during the process can cause tensions as well as delays.
2.17 For discursive dialogue, there is a balance to be struck between effective, high quality
dialogue processes that have the potential for timely policy influence, and participant control
of the agenda.
Clarity about specific aims and objectives, the rationale for the design of the process and
openness to changing the design of the process to reflect participants' concerns and
priorities can help manage this balance.
2.18 Whatever the convening process, there needs to be a single person in a senior role, who
understands process issues, is perceived to be impartial, and can respond rapidly and
authoritatively to comment and criticism from any direction.
Outcomes
Each public engagement process of the sort outlined here will have immediate and longer-term
outcomes, in terms of spreading public awareness and understanding as well as policy influence
(where that is the purpose).
2.19 Public participants report many benefits from taking part in deliberative dialogue initiatives,
where they have a chance to learn new information and come to conclusions that are
reported to others, and most are keen to be involved again. This interested group is a
resource that could be valuable in future.
2.20 Although public participants may enter public engagement activities initially with no strong
interest in the topic, strong views often emerged once they engaged with new information
and discussion with other participants.
2.21 Attitudinal research regularly highlights a desire for more authoritative/trustable information
on controversial areas of science. The experience of public engagement on GM suggests
that more information leads to stronger and more polarised views (both pro- and anti-GM),
rather than to a universally more positive view of GM.18
This undermines assumptions in the 'deficit model' of public understanding of science that
suggests that more information necessarily brings greater trust and acceptance of scientific
and technological development. When considering how views change through public
engagement, it is worth noting that the number of participants directly involved in all
reviewed public engagement exercises has generally been relatively small and always a
small proportion of the national population.
3. Considering options for future public and stakeholder engagement on GM
3.1 One approach used by Sciencewise when considering possible forms of public and
stakeholder engagement is to use the Transmit-Collaborate-Receive model19 developed to
help Government departments analyse their engagement requirements. This model
identifies the predominant mode of engagement that best matches the purpose or purposes
18 Eurobarometer Survey, see p18
19 http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/all/files/2010/10/PE-conversational-tool-Final-
251010.pdf

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
13 of 63
envisaged. In reality, all engagement is likely to include elements of each mode, but
illustrative examples on engagement predominating in one mode are provided.
3.1.1 The Transmit mode is relevant when the motivation is to inspire, inform, change, educate,
build capacity and involvement, or influence the decisions of others. As discussed in 3.2,
influencing decisions of others is not a trivial matter. Predominantly transmit mode
engagement includes information campaigns, newsletters, media engagement or websites.
This mode is appropriate when there is very little room for others to influence the
Government‟s policy or practice because one or more of the following conditions is true:
 Quick, decisive action is required e.g. a temporary solution is required.
 There is a high level of certainty and little controversy with regard to the Government‟s
position on the issue and/or what it wants to achieve.
 The Government has all the knowledge/power/autonomy to make something happen
alone.
 Unpopular actions have to be taken and there are no alternative options (e.g. the
Government has a clear/strong existing position on an issue, which is unpopular).
 When there are other important issues to be dealt with other than the one in dispute
(e.g. there are other priority issues that have more important outcomes at stake and/or
require greater resources/attention).
 A body wishes build support for a given technology or policy, in advance of any
announcements.
 To explain the rationale behind a chosen policy, counter misconceptions about it and
build support for it.
 A convening body, such as Government, is not convinced of the value or feasibility of
other public engagement modes, or feels previous attempts at engagement have been
damaging
 Government considers it has a clear democratic mandate to act on an issue.
3.1.2 The Collaborate mode is relevant when the objective is to consider, create or decide
something together. This mode is appropriate when there is a need for deep understanding
of difficult decisions: involvement and buy in to the process by key stakeholders both
ensures decisions are well informed and reduces opposition to them. Predominantly
collaborate mode engagement includes consensus workshops, negotiation or mediation.
It is appropriate when:
 The Government‟s position affects a number of others quite substantially and it needs
to understand their interests in order to give robust advice or take difficult decisions.
 The issue is complex and the Government itself contains a range of views, with no
clear consensus position.
 Other key stakeholders are also trying to influence decisions, perhaps in other
directions, and a collective voice, if it can be achieved, will be more powerful than
individual voices.
 Those the Government wants to influence are equally or more powerful or influential
and the Government needs to work closely with them over time rather than send them
information or advice from afar.
 There is need to build relationships with key stakeholders for later use.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
14 of 63
3.1.3 The Receive mode is relevant when the motivation is to use the views, skills, experience,
and knowledge of others, including the public, to inform decisions. Predominantly receive
mode engagement includes polling, attitudinal surveys, feedback forms and citizens juries.
It is appropriate when:
 Public views on an issue, and any recent changes in them, need to be understood in
advance of policy decisions being taken.
 Public views on an issue need to be measured in one or more contexts.
 Public knowledge, perspectives and values can add to the evidence being considered
in decision-making
 Public reactions to a reasonably developed policy need to be gauged, informing its
subsequent presentation.
 A wide range of perspectives is required to ensure a holistic approach to decision-
making.
3.2 Using this model our judgment is that GM includes issues that would make appropriate both
the Collaborate and Receive types of engagement, and the methods associated with them,
depending on the purposes of engagement around specific issues. We do not rule out the
use of Transmit mode, and attitudinal surveys regularly highlight a desire amongst members
of the public for more information. Public bodies may wish to satisfy that desire. However,
experience of previous engagement suggests that public and stakeholder views are not
reliably or predictably changed by the provision of more information (one plausible
motivation for a purely transmit mode).
We suggest this mode is unlikely to qualitatively change the nature of debate on the issue
and is most likely to be relevant subsequent to the use of the other modes, as part of a
Collaborate or Receive process, or as a consequence of their failure.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
15 of 63
3.3 We can envisage that the purposes for public engagement on any GM issue could range
from the following:
3.4 Whether the predominant mode of engagement on any single issue is Collaborate or
Receive, the overall flow of public and stakeholder engagement could be as follows:
1. Interested body initiates exercise by bringing together Government and key
stakeholders in a collaborative planning process, including face-to-face
workshops, to agree how GM should be discussed, including:
 what issues are salient and how they should be framed;
 who should be involved in discussing what; and
 what uncertainties need to be resolved prior to, or through the process of,
further engagement;
culminating in:
 a Forward Process Plan.
2. From out of this planning process there also needs to emerge a Steering Group
with a dedicated Secretariat and resourcing for the Forward Process Plan.
3. The first task for the Steering Group will be to work up the details of the Forward
Process Plan, including an initial communication programme setting out plans
and inviting involvement on different issues through different engagement
methods depending on the nature of the issues and the purpose(s) of
engagement on them.
3.5 Given the degree of conflict over GM, and past experiences of public engagement on
the subject, the nature of any and all future engagement on GM will need to be
negotiated with key stakeholders if they are to perceive it as credible and sustainable.
We therefore recommend that firm plans should be decided subsequent to such
discussions and to the planning process and workshops suggested above. It should be
recognised that, depending on the framing and purpose of the engagement, some
stakeholders may be unwilling to take part. This will, in turn, affect which engagement
modes are possible or desireable.
To describe the
issues,
uncertainties
and possible
areas of
common ground
to help policy-
makers craft
policy that would
command as
much support as
possible (mainly
Receive but with
some elements
of Collaborate)
To discover
current
stakeholder
and public
attitudes to
GM (using
Receive
methods)
To facilitate
dialogue among
stakeholders and
the public, with the
aim of narrowing
areas of difference
and disagreement
to help policy-
makers craft
policy and consult
the public on the
options that
emerge (some
Collaborate
leading to
Receive)
To mediate
regulatory
negotiation
among
government and
stakeholders,
and consult the
public on the
options and
possible
consequences
of what results
(Collaborate
leading to
Receive)

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
16 of 63
3.6 We also emphasise that the planning process, including the planning workshops, is long
enough to review in depth the scope of the process and to identify a sequence of Task
Groups to address specific issues, such as uncertainties or possible regulatory frameworks,
to build stakeholder confidence in the framing and salience of the process.20
4. Additional points and principles
The Subgroup has discussed a range of further points and principles that should be kept in mind
during any engagement processes that address GM.
4.1 As a sponsor of public engagement, Government faces a difficult balancing act between the
need to ensure stakeholder confidence in an independent convenor and the need for
decision makers to be active participants in the process.
4.2 Whatever the role it adopts, the Government should declare in advance what its
commitment to openness and listening is and report back on how it has used the results of
any engagement.
4.3 The process of designing public and stakeholder engagement should pay attention not just
to past experience of engagement on GM, but also to the wider governance processes
around such exercises.
4.4 It is essential that the definition of what issues are included or out of scope is discussed
during process planning and framing; a unilateral approach to framing will undermine
stakeholder confidence.
4.5 Any public and stakeholder engagement process should include regular evaluation
exercises and a willingness to adapt in the light of new knowledge or public or stakeholder
needs and interests.
4.6 It is clear that any future engagement process has the potential to receive significant media
attention and thus raise the public profile of GM and related issues. Negative press
coverage could represent a threat to the engagement, or even harm the credibility of the
policy-making process. The risk of negative coverage is likely to be enhanced should the
engagement lack a clear and widely understood purpose, not be planned or commissioned
transparently, or not command the confidence of a broad enough range of stakeholders.
Any engagement must be able to clearly articulate an answer to each of these.
20 This approach was used in the British Nuclear Fuel Ltd (BNFL) National Stakeholder Dialogue conducted
by The Environment Council between 1998-2004. This was the longest, most wide ranging and thorough
process of its kind undertaken in Europe in the nuclear sector.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
17 of 63
Annex A: Characteristics of GM as an engagement issue
The purposes of this table are to set out the characteristics common to most issues considered
for stakeholder or public engagement, to assess what makes the GM issue particular or unique,
and to describe the implications for engagement.
Characteristic
Assessment of GM
Implications for engagement
Stakeholders:
numbers
interested/
engaged
GM elicits views from a wide range
and high number of stakeholders
effectively multiplied by nuanced
views within stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder engagement may
mean coalescing and
representation of stakeholder
groups to make engagement
manageable.
Public dialogue affected by need
to gain support for materials from
diverse stakeholder groups.
Frames:
numbers/
agreement on
Stakeholders approach GM from
many angles and with many different
interests, from enthusiasm for the
scientific and commercial possibilities
to concern about the possible impacts
on organic farming, biodiversity,
consumer interests, health,
agricultural economics, global trade
issues and many others. Nuanced
views also increase number of
possible frames. Agreement fairly
solid within yes/no frames i.e. the
reasons people currently support or
oppose GM may vary, but they tend to
be on one side or the other. This
could change with different framings.
The complexity of GM stems in
part from the number of ways the
issues can be framed – i.e. „what
GM is about‟.
Stakeholder engagement would
need to negotiate framing and
terms of reference as pre-
condition for success.
Public engagement complicated
by the same factor: any results of
limited credibility unless valid
framing and support materials
agreed by stakeholders.
Context:
stability/evolution
of policy
environment
There has been perceived uncertainty
about GM policy. And, like all
uncertainty, this has allowed rumour,
speculation and perceived
opportunities to influence what is „up
for grabs‟. This can create great
opportunities for conflict but also for
constructive dialogue as there is also
much to lose.
Starting with a blank sheet is not
credible so either stakeholder or
public engagement will require
some indication of current
thinking plus clear identification of
where influence is possible.
Stakes:
what is at
risk/benefit for
stakeholders/
public
Stakes high on all sides – e.g.
 Biotech investment /profit loss
 Organic farming investment/
status loss
 Biodiversity loss
 Consumer choice
While the issue is mature, the stakes
are still fresh because
benefits/disbenefits still not fully
understood.
High stakes will make it difficult
for parties to enter engagement,
though opposing stakeholders
have more to lose than supporter
stakeholders, especially if latter
believe tide is running their way.
Engagement may work better
if/when opposers believe best
option is to shape via regulation
because outright opposition
unlikely to work.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
18 of 63
Public engagement unlikely to
generate much excitement unless
to endorse stakes negotiated by
stakeholders.
Uncertainty:
among
experts/public
Uncertainty is major element of
complexity with many aspects of the
issue hotly contested even among
experts. There are different views on
and interpretation of data, values and
intentions (three prime types of
uncertainty) means cross-domain
uncertainty conflict is pervasive (i.e.
people refuting arguments in one
domain by citing uncertainty in
another).
Neither serious stakeholder nor
public engagement will be
possible until key uncertainties
have been reduced or working
assumptions agreed.
Identification and management of
uncertainty would be a natural
first stage in stakeholder
engagement.
It will be difficult to agree
materials for public engagement
without similar process among
key stakeholders.
Awareness:
current public
awareness/likely
ability of
stakeholders to
generate further
interest
Sophisticated stakeholder
understanding of many aspects.
Public awareness more narrowly
focused on health/environmental
aspects and currently low to dormant.
Issue generates extremely high media
attention and consequently public
awareness easily raised.
Further direct action by stakeholders
likely depending on how issues
evolve.
High profile issue for many
stakeholders means high entry
threshold to dialogue – they will
need to be convinced they have
more to gain than lose through
dialogue with „the enemy‟.
Public engagement probably
limited to attitudinal research on
specific aspects or value/priority
trade-offs (but may be difficult to
get stakeholder support for
framing)
Feelings:
breadth/intensity
People generally feel more strongly
about potential losses than potential
gains. GM touches many things that
people care about losing:
 What we eat
 Our freedom to choose what we
eat
 What is „natural‟ (always evokes
visceral feelings)
 Personal and ethical values
 Concerns about environment
 Concerns about irreversible loss
 Concerns about public risks for
purely commercial gain.
Very strong feelings among some
stakeholders on both sides of the
debate about the integrity and
motivations of their opponents
may limit their willingness to enter
dialogue.
Relatively low public interest,
compared to late 90s, means
feelings less high unless
provoked.
Maturity:
age/polarisation
Established issue with entrenched
stakeholder positions. Public less
aware and less polarised currently
As above, may make some
stakeholders reluctant to enter
engagement. Public engagement
not so affected though agreeing
materials may be.
Proximity:
In policy terms, GM agriculture in the
Stakeholders will calculate

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
19 of 63
the issue‟s
closeness to
market/personal
impacts
UK is moving beyond the purely
research stage but is not yet an
embedded feature of our lives like, for
example, nuclear power.
This means that stakeholders on both
sides have all to play for. On the
business side, for example, there are
huge commercial (biotech) incentives
to „win the argument for GM‟, but
those opposed still have realistic
chances of stopping further
development or market entry.
whether they have more to gain
or lose by entering engagement.
Current stand-off benefits
opponents while frustrating
supporters. Refusal to enter
engagement could result in
unilateral decisions which
opponents then unable to
influence.
Power:
types/differences
and role of power
Commercial/financial power vs. ability
to raise media interest/command
public sympathy.
 Sector dominated by multinational
companies, which are often
perceived to have high influence
on governments/ supply chains
etc; but
 Issue agenda often set by
opposed stakeholder groups with
ability to generate media interest
Commercial/financial power
imbalance perhaps less than
commonly perceived due to
media sympathy for anti-GM
case.
Power varieties and differences
should not inhibit engagement
but may affect trust, perceptions
etc
Trust:
degrees of trust
and mistrust
Opposed stakeholders mistrust
government (perceived to be
influenced more by commercial than
public interest).
Public lack of trust in government over
food issues (e.g. BSE/Foot and
mouth) easily exploited by
media/stakeholders
High levels of mistrust may
indicate need for confidence
building measures by convener of
stakeholder engagement,
probably around status of end
results. A focus on reducing
uncertainty and discussing issues
as objectively as possible would
also help.
May be difficult to find a convener
trusted by all.
Relationships:
among
stakeholders and
with potential
conveners
Some mutual respect among
opposing scientists; very poor
between stakeholders further apart on
yes/no spectrum.
Poor prospects for success but
probably not unworkable given
confidence building measures
(see above).

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
20 of 63
Annex B: Examples of public engagement on GM and GM-related issues
1. Introduction
The Sciencewise-ERC Steering Group GM sub-group agreed on 10 February 2011 that it would be useful to review previous
public engagement activities on GM and GM-related issues, and to summarise the lessons learned.
The aim of this review was to focus on some key public engagement activities in this field, and provide a very concise and
practical summary of what has happened and what can be learned from evaluations and other reviews of this work. It was not
expected that the review would be comprehensive, or that it would provide a detailed or theoretical analysis.
The key issues and lessons to emerge from the evaluations and other reviews of public engagement initiatives covered in this
are contained in the main paper. Although specific criticisms of methods were made in the evaluations reviewed, none of these
initiatives was so flawed that the credibility of the results was undermined. There is therefore a valuable set of data from these
earlier initiatives that can be built on in terms of public views and values.
In terms of the public engagement methods used, it is interesting to note that many of these initiatives, especially the early ones,
were driven at least as much by methodological experiment as seeking the most appropriate method for the topic of GM (e.g.
consensus conferences, citizen foresight, the ethical matrix were all used). There is therefore also a valuable foundation of
practical experience of different public engagement methods to build on in future planning.
This annex is in four parts:
• A summary of the public views as measured by the reviewed exercises (section 2)
• A table summarising public engagement activities (section 3)
• A table summarising stakeholder engagement activities (section 4)
• A table summarising public opinion polls and attitudes surveys (section 5)

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
21 of 63
2. Summary of public views as measured by the reviewed exercises
The key issues for the public involved in the public engagement activities on GM and GM-related issues were, in summary, as
follows:
• GM was seen as 'unnatural' and therefore controls, safety, testing, caution, unease and avoidance of risk (especially to the
environment and food safety) were key issues.
• The 'need' for GM was questioned and was seen as not having been demonstrated, especially given the potential risks and
the availability of other options to solve specific problems.
• The risks to the environment and biodiversity from GM crops were very widespread concerns, even among those who had
fewer worries about the 'food safety' aspects of GM.
• There were suspicions that the development of GM was being led largely by industry and other commercial interests purely
pursuing a profit motive, and seeking to advance scientific and technological development for its own sake, rather than to
meet needs and serve the public good.
• Robust and independent regulation and control were core and repeated concerns although without stifling development for the
public interest (e.g. medical). There was very little trust in voluntary or self-regulation systems to monitor and control the
development of these technologies.
• Clear, meaningful, accessible, impartial and comprehensive labelling and independent information were consistently
highlighted as essential.
• There was not overwhelming intrinsic opposition to GM. Opposition focused more on specific uses and products and the need
for strong control and regulation (including international / global regulation).
• There were seen to be special issues around the use of GM in the developing world, although there were mixed views on the
need for and value of GM in that context.
• Government, rather than the private sector, was seen as appropriate to lead development and ensure robust regulation of
these technologies to maximise social benefits and ensure public control. There was little support for the early
commercialisation of GM.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
22 of 63
• In spite of demands for Government to take a lead in regulation, there was widespread distrust of government and multi-
national companies, especially around the willingness and capacity of government either to listen to public worries or to
control developments being made by private companies.
• Research funding decisions and scientific developments needed to take account of social values, ethical issues, potential
impacts and the significance of the work
• Patenting arrangements were questioned. There was a sense that these needed to be sufficient to provide return on
investment without being too broad; and needed strong legislation to monitor and enforce
• Further and continuing public and stakeholder engagement was needed at numerous different stages as the technology
progresses and not just 'end of pipe'.
• The public are supportive of the national interest, including in the UK's global economic position, especially around Britain
being a leader in new science and technology leading to new jobs
• Medical developments resulting from new technologies were greeted with more enthusiasm than others (e.g. food).
The key issues to emerge from the opinion polls described here mirrored the findings on the issues above but also identified
some different issues, depending on the focus of the poll and the questions asked. It would be interesting for a fuller review to
analyse in more detail the framing and wording of polling questions used. Points included:
• There was a relatively high level of knowledge and awareness of GM and the issues surrounding it, compared to other food
technologies, although there was a lack of knowledge about the availability of GM food, and potential long term risks. There
were also relatively high levels of interest in the subject.
• The public saw GM as 'fundamentally unnatural' and, overall, they were wary, uneasy and uncertain about food technologies,
and were unconvinced of the benefits.
• Until very recently, opposition to GM has always been greater than support (opposition usually more than double) throughout
the polls. For example: in 2003,13% support compared to 36% opposition; in 2008, 18% agreed that the advantages of GM
outweighed the dangers, while 31% disagreed; also in 2008, 19% agreed Britain should grow GM to compete with the rest of
the world, 41% disagreed. However, the Public Attitudes Survey 2011 showed that respondents thought the benefits of GM
crops outweighed the risks: 33% said benefits outweighed the risks; 27% said the risks outweighed the benefits - a +6%
balance in favour of GM. This was the lowest net benefit score of all the contentious issues tested in the survey, lower than
nuclear (+16%) and animal experimentation (+19%).

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
23 of 63
• Knowledge and awareness affected opinions. For example, the Eurobarometer (2010) found that those who had more
knowledge of GM before the survey were less positive about the technology (in terms of future development of GM foods and
food safety) than those who knew less.
• The latest Eurobarometer on biotechnology (2010) shows that the UK public are more positive about GM and gene transfer
technologies than the EU average on almost every issue (details below).
• Women and older age groups tended to be more negative about GM than other groups; although younger age groups, while
less concerned about food technologies generally, are the least positive about GM.
• Those who were positive about GM cited benefits for society that outweighed the risks, and trust in the motivations of
producers and regulators. Those who were not positive cited health and environmental risks, risks of tampering with nature,
long term safety, the ethics of the process of genetic modification, unintended consequences and scepticism about the
motivation of producers and regulators. There was no consensus on where trusted information might come from.
• Recent surveys provide more detail of public views on the boundaries to acceptability of GM, particular in relation to horizontal
and vertical gene transfer in plants (e.g. Eurobarometer 2010). Vertical gene transfer (e.g. from an ancestor plant) was largely
acceptable; horizontal gene transfer (e.g. from a bacterium or animal) was far less so.
The extent to which similar concerns and attitudes recur in the polls and surveys reviewed suggest there is a good foundation of
knowledge about public views on which to base planning for future public engagement.
However, polls and surveys are not predictive. They simply provide a snapshot of views at a particular moment in time and in
answer to specific questions. For example, FSA polls in 2000 to 2002 showed very low levels of concern about the safety of food
with GM ingredients: concern dropped from 27% being concerned in 2000 to 23% in 2002. And there was a decrease in concern
about GM food generally from 43% in 2000 to 36% in 2002. From these figures, the significantly negative public reactions to GM
during the GM Nation? debate later in 2002 could not have been predicted.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
24 of 63
3. Public engagement activities
The table below presents the public engagement initiatives on GM and GM-related issues in roughly chronological order, earliest
first. The initiatives covered are, in summary:
• UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology, 1994
• The Citizen Foresight on the Future of Food and Agriculture (Citizen GMO UK), 1998
• Bioremediation technologies public and stakeholder dialogue, 2001
• BBSRC public communications activities around GM, 1995 - 2002
• GM Nation?, 2002 - 2004
• Consumer views on GM food, 2002 - 3 (Food Standards Agency)
• Industrial biotechnology dialogue, 2008 - 2009
• Future Foods, 2009
• Public dialogue on synthetic biology, 2009 (Royal Academy of Engineering)
• Synthetic biology public dialogue, 2009 (EPSRC / BBSRC)
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
UK National Consensus
Conference on Plant
Biotechnology
• Timescale: 1994
• Budget: approx £86,000,
funded by BBSRC
• Commissioned by:
BBSRC and the Science
Museum
• Aim:
To contribute to informed
public debate about
science and technology,
and to contribute a lay
perspective to public
policy-making and
Key stages:
• Planning between BBSRC and Science
Museum began late 1993
• Panel recruited and started work
September 1994
• Consensus conference held in public over
three days in November 1994
Key activities:
• Discussions between BBSRC and Science
Museum about potential to develop the
Danish model of the consensus conference,
to contribute to the developing field of the
public understanding of science
• Identified field of biotechnology as an area
where scientific and industrial significance
is combined with social and political
The final report from the panel included the
following:
• Conference conclusion was "New
technology is welcome, provided it is
properly regulated and controlled".
• "Overall, safety is a prime consideration"
• "The impact of plant biotechnology on the
environment is extremely difficult to predict.
This difficulty was reflected by
disagreement between the experts whom
we chose to consult."
• "Clear, meaningful labelling is required" on
products produced by genetic engineering;
information for consumers needs to be
"impartial and responsible".
• "The organisation of a consensus
conference is an exercise in the
management of anxiety"(p77)
• These types of engagement depend for their
success on their perceived credibility. "It is a
good principle for organisers that they
should do nothing that might damage their
consensus conference's credibility in the
eyes of sceptical onlookers." Aim should be,
and be seen to be, to facilitate "an open and
unconstrained enquiry by a genuinely
independent lay panel", so needs to be
transparent (i.e. open to scrutiny by third
parties).
• Lay members were very aware of the
sensitivities around issues of fairness,
balance and bias. They were constantly
asking questions about the procedures of

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
25 of 63
decision making about
science and technology,
through the mechanism
of a consensus
conference.
Subject chosen by
BBSRC and Science
Museum
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
Public Participation in
Science. The role of
consensus conferences
in Europe, edited by
Simon Joss and John
Durant. Science
Museum, 1995. ISBN 0
901805 85 8 (Several
chapters)
UK National Consensus
Conference on Plant
Biotechnology 1994.
Final report of the lay
panel. From the archive
of the National Centre for
Biotechnology Education
(NCBE):
www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/
ncbe
/gmfood/conference.html
'Consensus conference -
"worth every penny"', by
Professor Tom Blundell
in BBSRC Business
newsletter, January 1995
'United Kingdom: From
"Public Understanding" to
"Public Involvement",
Chapter 10 of
Participatory Technology
sensitivity; then focused on plant
biotechnology.
• Established steering committee of six
people from academic social science,
consumer affairs, biotechnology industry,
journalism and parliamentary affairs,
chaired by John Durant of Science Museum
• Full time project manager and professional
facilitator appointed (to work with the panel)
• Advertised in regional newspapers to
recruit the lay panel; 341 people responded
• Applicants then sampled to achieve a
typical cross-section of the public by age,
gender, socio-economic status and
educational level; then screened to ensure
no existing close involvement with plant
biotechnology
• 16 panel members appointed (8 women
and 8 men)
• Panel sent initial pack of information
prepared by the NCBE, University of
Reading
• Panel attended two preparatory residential
weekends in September and October 1994
• Agenda for first weekend set by steering
committee, then agenda and choice of
speakers passed to the panel for the rest of
the process
• Panel identified seven questions, for each
of which they sought information and took
evidence. The questions were on risks /
benefits, impact on consumers, impact on
environment, moral / ethical issues,
patenting, international development and
regulation.
• "The panel felt that there is a moral
obligation on producers to label foods which
incorporate these genes", i.e. genetic
material transferred from one species to
another, and "sections of the community will
intuitively feel that plant biotechnology is
morally wrong"
• There needs to be a re-examination of
several areas of patenting: "Current
patenting procedure appears to be both a
risky and inadequate method of dealing with
the issues raised by plant biotechnology"
and "It is therefore important to ensure that
patents are not granted which offer too
broad a scope. ... If patenting is to continue
then protective legislation must have teeth."
• There needs to be consideration of how
plant biotechnology might be used in the
developing world: "public funding and
partnership are keywords in the global
issues"
• "The work of multi-national companies
should be scrutinised after they have been
given approval by a regulatory authority to
commence commercial production and
operation. This should ensure respect for
local farmers and their crops, and the
setting up of local research projects for their
needs"
• "Regulatory control in the UK is among the
most stringent; however there is still room
for improvement. ... An independent
ombudsman for monitoring investigative
action should be appointed."
• "Effective international control, while difficult
to achieve, would be ideal"; "an
international bonding and registration
system should be introduced"
• "The procedures of modern biotechnology
the conference, identity and backgrounds of
the experts. They were highly politically
literate in those terms.
• As a result, the panel insisted on no-one
from the organisers being present while
they were compiling their final report. They
accepted help from an editor and secretary
who had not been involved up to that point.
• Factors for success were, firstly, that it was
run competently and impartially, as a
serious contribution to the public debate
and, secondly, that there must be a
willingness on the part of other agencies
and institutions to accept consensus
conferences as legitimate contributions to
the political process.
• Role of panel needs to be clear:
environmental lobby cast doubt on the
panel's credibility. Panel was clear: "The
whole idea of consensus is to reach
agreement as to the way the general public,
of whom the panel were 'representative',
would wish the research to proceed and, if
necessary, be controlled." Not to come to
decisions or make technical judgements.
• Consensus is not easy to achieve
• Not enough time overall. The time needed
to write the report was insufficient and
reduced discussion significantly on some
issues. And there should have been more
preparatory time, possible one additional
weekend.
• There were real benefits for participants:
they gained new skills and enjoyed taking
part.
• The evaluator concluded that "In terms of
its actual organisation and the involvement
offered, it was judged by the majority of

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
26 of 63
Assessment. European
Perspectives, by S. Joss
and S. Bellucci, 2002.
Published by University
of Westminster and
Swiss Centre for
Technology Assessment.
ISBN 0 85374 803 9
Evaluation:
• Evaluated by Simon
Joss, now Professor at
University of
Westminster, and
Director of Research in
the School of Social
Sciences, the Humanities
and Languages.
• Funding for evaluation
through Simon Joss's
doctoral research at
Imperial College from
Swiss National Science
Foundation
• Consensus conference took place over
three days in central London in November
1994
• Conference was chaired by Peter Evans,
BBC radio science presenter, and attended
by audiences of 200 - 300 people each day,
including media
• 1.5 days of evidence from 22 expert
witnesses with a wide range of
backgrounds, and cross-examination by the
panel
• On the afternoon of the second day, the
Panel retired to write their report
• The panel presented and debated their
report on the third and final morning of the
conference
• Formal responses were given by two MPs
(from different parties), a representative of
the United Nations Environment
Programme, and others
• The panel report was then widely
disseminated. The Science Museum printed
and distributed several thousand copies,
POST did a briefing for MPs on the
conference. There was extensive media
coverage including national newspapers,
TV and radio.
must have new regulations which are fair to
primary producers, developers and end
users ... Government should be
encouraging controlled research in the
public sector to maximise benefits to all,
rather than leaving it to the private sector
whose interest will lie with the profits."
• "Biotechnology could change the world, but
in order for it to be used effectively -
maximising benefits and minimising risks -
we also need to adapt social and economic
structures to take account of the changes it
might produce."
participants to have been successful,
though a number of specific criticisms were
made" (Joss 2002, p147).
• The evaluator identifies two main
disadvantages under which the conference
operated. The first was a conceptual link to
the 'deficit model' (so the process design
was based on the assumption that lack of
public appreciation of and trust in science
could be remedied with appropriate
educative measures). The second was that
the conference was outside the (formal)
policy-making process. (Joss 2002, p146)
• There were also accusations that two
committee members had tried to exclude
anti-biotechnology voices as experts
briefing the panel and taking part in the
conference, and a more general pro-
biotechnology stance in the commissioning
bodies. The panel was sensitive to these
issues, and sought to distance themselves
from the facilitator and organisers (see
above), and explicitly stated its
independence at the beginning of their final
report.
• The evaluator stated that "The conference
had no visible, direct impact on public
policy- and decision-making on plant
biotechnology, although it attracted wide
interest among those involved in relevant
policy-making, including politicians, civil
servants and experts ... The conference's
main impact was more indirect, on the
conceptual - methodological level in that it
contributed to a wider debate within the
scientific community, academia, amongst
policy- and decision-makers and social
commentators" (Joss 2002, p144).

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
27 of 63
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
The Citizen Foresight on
the Future of Food and
Agriculture (Citizen GMO
UK)
• Timescale: 1998
• Budget: unknown
• Commissioned by:
Genetics Forum, and run
by the University of East
London's Centre for
Governance, Innovation
and Science
• Aim: The aim of the
citizens' panel was to
consider the future of
agriculture and food
production from their
viewpoint as citizens.
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
'United Kingdom: From
"Public Understanding" to
"Public Involvement",
Chapter 10 of
Participatory Technology
Assessment. European
Perspectives, by S. Joss
and S. Bellucci, 2002.
Published by University
of Westminster and
Swiss Centre for
Technology Assessment.
ISBN 0 85374 803 9
• Potential sources for
further information:
Key stages:
• Recruitment of citizens' panel from early
spring 1998
• Ten panel meetings during spring 1998
• Media event to present the panel's report in
summer 1998
• Panel report launched in January 1999 at
an event of the Parliamentary Environment
Group and report disseminated to other
parts of government
• Final report published in March 1999
Key activities:
• Recruitment of panel: 2,000 names were
selected at random from the electoral
register in Brighton (where the panel was to
be held). Participants were offered £150 to
take part. About 200 people responded to
the invitation letter (with no information
about the subject to be discussed), and a
short questionnaire to find out level of
education, newspapers read, recent
employment etc. 12 people were selected.
• A project manager was appointed to run
the whole initiative.
• A stakeholder panel of seven members
was appointed to advise the project
manager and involve the relevant
stakeholder interests in the initiative: the
Consumers Association, the John Innes
Centre, the National Famers Union,
Sainsbury's, the Soil Association, the
Transport and General Workers' Union and
Whole Earth Foods.
• There is no information in the source used
on the public's conclusions on the issues.
The only information on public views found
is provided below.
• The initial brainstorming session identified
an extensive list of options for the future of
agriculture including gene modification,
chemical pesticides and organic farming,
local food processing, packaging use and
importing food products.
• The second brainstorming session on
assessment criteria against which to
consider the options led to an equally
extensive list including taste, shelf-life and
nutritional content of food, effects on the
natural and human environment, producer
diversity and the ethics of working
conditions.
• There was no formal evaluation, but Simon
Joss (who evaluated the consensus
conference above) has reviewed the
process. His conclusions are as follows:
• The aim was to define the issues for the
citizens panel very broadly: around the
future of agriculture and food production
rather than just genetic modification.
However, in practice, "this initiative was
essentially about assessing public
perceptions on GM food". (p 153)
• "Overall, there was no visible impact on
policy-making. Of the various government
departments, the Department of the
Environment (whose minister met the
citizens‟ panel) reacted the most positively,
according to the project manager, saying
that the panel‟s call for more transparent
and open regulation was in line with the
Department‟s position in favour of
stakeholder involvement. The OST was
apparently relieved that the panel had not
rejected GM food research outright. The
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
was said to have shown no interest in the
final report." (p152)
• The reasons Joss gives for the lack of policy
impact included that this was an initiative of
the Genetics Forum, and "may well have
been perceived from the outside as part of
the Genetics Forum's campaigning
activities." (p153) The citizens themselves
were initially wary that there was a hidden
agenda although, after discussion, they
endorsed the proposed process.
• Another reason for lack of policy impact was
seen to be "the fact that the citizen foresight
was not linked to the relevant policy-making
processes", and that "there was no public

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
28 of 63
Dr Andy Stirling,
University of Sussex,
was an adviser to the
project on the
methodological design,
especially the initial
brainstorming and the
resulting multifactor
analysis method.
Dr Tom Wakeford, now
University of Newcastle,
was on the management
committee of Genetics
Forum and proposed the
approach to assessing
public perceptions on GM
food used here. He was
commissioned to develop
an alternative method
from the initial plans for a
public opinion survey,
and acted as project
manager and process
facilitator.
• An expert panel of 11 members was
established to give feedback on and to the
citizens' panel. This expert panel included
expertise in biotechnology research,
farming, regulation and social sciences.
These experts were selected by the
stakeholder panel.
• Seven expert witnesses were identified to
give presentations to the citizens' panel
and answer the panel's questions. The first
four witnesses were selected by the
stakeholder panel; the citizens' panel then
requested three additional witnesses on
pesticide residues in foodstuffs.
• The citizens' panel met for 10 weekly 3-
hour meetings over a 15 week period in
spring 1998. The meetings were held in
evenings to minimise disruption to panel
members' work / lives.
• The first citizens' panel meeting
brainstormed options for the future of
agriculture, and the second meeting
brainstormed criteria against which they
wanted the options to be evaluated.
• The expert panel was then asked to review
the citizens' panel options and criteria, to
establish the extent to which there was
common ground among the experts.
Disagreements were noted and fed back to
the citizens' panel, and used as
background in subsequent meetings.
• The following citizens' panel meetings
consisted of one witness presenting
information to the panel, and then
questions and discussion.
• Following evidence from the last witness at
meeting 8, the panel began to prepare their
findings and report; meeting 9 continued
the drafting and the 10th meeting made
access to the proceedings".
• However, there was some evidence that the
citizens' panel report did have some impact
on the members of the stakeholder panel
and their organisations, as they committed
themselves to providing written responses
to the report. The effects on internal policy-
making as a result are not known.
• According to the evaluator, this 'citizen
foresight' approach "arguably represents an
improvement of the citizens' jury method, on
which it was based, in that the citizens'
panel was given more opportunity to define
the agenda, formulate questions and write
the conclusions" (participant control of the
agenda is often taken to be good practice
according to some academic evaluation
criteria). Also, the approach was designed
to fit in better with participants' everyday life
(evening sessions rather than several full
days).
• However, "by closing the process off to the
wider public and only allowing media
access at its conclusions, a connection with
wider public sphere discourses was less
apparent than in the case of publicly held
citizens' conferences" (p154).

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
29 of 63
final revisions on the final draft.
• A media event in London was organised
and funded by the Genetics Forum, at
which the citizens' forum and stakeholder
forum met for the first time. The final report
of the citizens' panel was published and the
stakeholder panellists were invited to give
their reactions (not having seen the report
in advance).
• The citizens' panel report was launched in
January 1999 at an event of the
Parliamentary Environment Group.
• A meeting with the Minister of State for the
Environment was organised to discuss the
findings with the citizens' panel and
Genetics Forum.
• Several government departments were
sent the report at this stage.
• A final report was published in March 1999.
That report included the citizens' panel
report, the stakeholder panel's responses
and a description of the method.
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
Bioremediation
technologies public and
stakeholder dialogue
• Timescale: 2001
• Budget: unknown
• Commissioned by:
BBSRC
• Aim:
To explore ways to
Key stages:
• One year study involving five focus groups
and a final reconvened workshop
Key activities:
• Methodology was intended to map the
issues raised by the use of bioremediation,
explore issues as defined by the
stakeholder groups, and to explore the
contribution of the Ethical Matrix
Case study in Ethical Matrix identifies the
following as the messages from the focus
groups:
• Very precautionary approach needed to the
use of GMOs for bioremediation
• The 'need' for GMO use was discussed and
"participants perceived only a limited
requirement for GMO bioremediation
applications for specific persistent
pollutants."
Case study in Ethical Matrix identifies the
following as the lessons on the methods:
• Over 85% of participants felt the ethical
matrix positively aided the discussions, with
other participants expressing a neutral view
on its use
• The ethical matrix clarified the issues, both
conflicts and concords, in order to allow
policy-makers a greater confidence in their
decision-making and to facilitate defensible
biotechnology assessment procedures.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
30 of 63
improve communication
and engagement with
stakeholders (including
the public)
To examine the use of
the Ethical Matrix as a
tool to aid the
management of issues
raised in the research
and technology
development process
To explore public and
stakeholder views of
issues on the issues of
bioremediation
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
Ethical Matrix. Manual,
by Ben Mepham,
Matthias Kaiser, Eric
Thorstensen, Sandy
Tomkins, Kate Millar.
Published by LEI, The
Hague. February 2005
Exploring issues raised
by Bioremediation
Technologies:
Stakeholder dialogue and
the use of the Ethical
Matrix. Presentation by
Dr Kate Millar to the
Science Communication
Conference, May 2002
• Bioremediation was defined as "the use of
micro-organisms and plants to detect,
degrade or remove environmental
pollutants from soil, water or air". Included
use of bacteria, plants and micro-
organisms including GM plants and micro-
organisms.
• The Ethical Matrix is an analytical tool
developed by Professor Ben Mepham to
"help decision-makers reach sound
judgements or decisions about the ethical
acceptability and/or optimal regulatory
controls for existing or prospective
technologies in the field of food and
agriculture". It applies a set of three
principles (wellbeing, autonomy and justice
/ fairness) to a set of interest groups,
resulting in a matrix for deliberation and
reflection.
• Five focus groups:
• an NGO group (of 5 participants)
• a national women's organisation (7
participants)
• an industry and regulator group (11)
• two general public groups (8 each)
• Pre-meeting briefing documents on
bioremediation and the Ethical Matrix
• Presentations within the groups to
introduce the technology and the
methodology
• Discussion within the groups. Participants
mapped the potential impacts (positive and
negative) of the technologies, and then
considered whether the application of the
technology might infringe or respect the
principles of the matrix. Participants also
considered the types of formal and informal
policies that might enhance respect for the
ethical principles for the specific interest
group.
Kate Millar presentation identifies the
following messages from the public:
• Questioned the need to explore / invest in
GM technology, as there were numerous
naturally occurring organisms that could be
harnessed
• No intrinsic objections to the use of GM
technologies; majority wished to explore the
acceptability of each option on a case by
case basis
• All the groups considered the difficulties of
trading off safety uncertainties against the
potential environmental benefits these
technologies offer
• The NGO group was concerned that
industrial polluters would continue to pollute
on the grounds that these biological
methods could be applied to clean-up
contamination at a later stage.
• The final workshop concluded that:
• There needed to be a parallel assessment
process alongside research and
technology development programmes,
that the life cycle of a technology needed
to be understood, and that the public
bodies responsible at various stages
needed to be identified to ensure that
wider social and ethical issues are dealt
with in a coherent manner.
• A clear view of 'joined up' technology
management was needed
• Issues should be addressed as the
technologies develop rather than dealt
with as 'end of pipe' application issues.
• Rather than being restrictive, feedback
indicated that the framework was well
received by the study participants.
• "All participants who commented also felt
that it was important that research bodies
and funders are involved in broad
stakeholder engagement programmes. A
number of participants commented on the
need to initiate early engagement
programmes in order to maintain
confidence in the research funding
strategies and research management."
• Over 60% of all participants commented on
the value of the day, exercise or process.
Conclusions (from Kate Millar presentation)
include:
• Specific areas of concern that can be
incorporated into research programmes
• Issues that encourage collaboration across
Research Council initiatives
• Responsibilities to ensure joined up
governance of biotechnology development
and application
• Concepts of need appear to modulate
research acceptability
• Early engagement fosters a greater sense
of 'ownership' of technology and outcomes.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
31 of 63
• Final workshop, with representatives of
each focus group plus additional
participants
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
BBSRC public
communications
activities around GM
• Timescale: 1995 - 2002
• Budget: unknown
• Commissioned by:
BBSRC
• Aim: Various
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
Information provided
direct by BBSRC (Monica
Winstanley, Head of
External Relations)
Key stages:
• 1995 - 2002
Key activities:
• 1995: New Technologies in Food and
Farming. Display developed jointly
between BBSRC and the Women's
Farming Union (WFU) and presented at
seven agricultural shows during 1995
• 1996: Food for our Future. BBSRC co-
hosted with the Food and Drink Federation
(FDF) and the Science Museum a national
review conference on Food and Modern
Biotechnology, and co-sponsored the
Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food -
Coming to the Market conference with the
Centre for Agricultural Strategy.
• 1996: Biotechnology and the Food
Chain. Interactive exhibition, at which the
public could meet and talk with experts in
regulatory, commercial and ethical aspects,
presented at the Royal Show
• 1996: BBSRC sponsored the WFU
Annual General Meeting where
researchers spoke on GM, food choice and
The issues raised in the public engagement
activities were not recorded or reported in
detail.
There were no formal evaluations of these
activities, However, feedback from BBSRC
was that the public were primarily interested
in issues around regulation and
commercialisation. These, being outside of
BBSRC's remit, were hard for BBSRC to
respond to and continued public engagement
on the research was thus seen as less
valuable.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
32 of 63
perception including attitudes to GM
• 1997-8: Future Foods. BBSRC, MAFF
and FDF co-sponsored an interactive
exhibition which subsequently toured five
other venues (after the Science Museum)
in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
• 1997: Want to know more about GM
foods? Touring display developed with
WFU which toured eight agricultural shows
• 1998: Ingeneious. Interactive display on
the science, applications, regulations and
issues arising from GM. Information
provided and visitors able to record their
own views. Launched at the Royal Show
then toured other venues including
Edinburgh International Science Festival in
1999.
• 1999: Science Week. Four science,
engineering and technology week activities
sponsored by BBSRC involved
demonstrations, seminars and public
discussions around GM.
• 1999: GM Crops and the Countryside.
Display at the Royal Society Summer
Science Exhibition.
• 2000: Gene Flow. BBSRC web-based
consultation on the BBSRC-NERC funding
initiative for research into gene flow in
plants and micro-organisms. Outreach
publicity included media releases and direct
mailings to environmental campaign groups
and consumer groups.
• 2002: Food and the Future. BBSRC,
Times Higher and British Nutrition
Foundation jointly supported a public
meeting on food technology at the Royal
Institution.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
33 of 63
Plus various publications on food,
biotechnology and GM.
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
GM Nation?
• Timescale: 2002 - 2004
• Budget: originally
£250,000; doubled in
February 2003 to
£500,000.
Final costs were
£511,500 for the public
debate programme
(including analysis of
results), plus £138,500
support costs (including
Steering Board and
planning meetings,
website, final report);
total costs therefore
£650,000
• Commissioned by:
Secretary of State for the
Environment
• Aims:
• To promote an
innovative, effective
and deliberative
programme of debate
on GM issues, framed
by the public, against
the background of the
possible commercial
production of GM crops
in the UK and the
options for possibly
Key stages:
• Launch announcement in July 2002
• Final report of the dialogue published
September 2003
• Publication of government response to the
dialogue March 2004
Main activities:
• Independent Public Debate Steering Board
(PDSB)
• 9 large focus groups (8 with public, 1 with
stakeholders) to frame the issues for the
public debate
• 6 Tier 1 open public events: major national
meetings organised by the PDSB executive,
with over 1,000 participants
• About 40 Tier 2 public events: meetings
organised by local councils and national
organisations and supported by the PDSB
executive with between 30 - 200
participants
• Over 600 (about 629) Tier 3 public events:
local meetings organised by community
groups
• 10 'narrow but deep' group meetings :
reconvened focus groups with 77 citizens
selected to provide demographic
representation; each group met twice with
The DTI report on the findings of the debate
concluded that the seven key messages from
the public were:
1. People were generally uneasy about GM
both in terms of the technology
(environmental impacts, safe to eat) and
more generally: views varied in intensity
but those who felt there were more risks
than benefits outweighed the reverse in
every section of respondents to the
debate.
2. The more people engage in GM issues,
the harder their attitudes and more intense
their concerns. Contrary to some
expectations, more knowledge seemed to
increase concern about the level of
knowledge about the long term effects of
GM.
3. There was little support for early
commercialisation. Further trials and tests,
firm regulation and demonstrated benefits
plus clear answers to risks were sought.
4. There was widespread distrust of
government and multi-national companies.
There was a strong and wide degree of
suspicion of the motives, intentions and
behaviour of those taking decisions about
GM. Suspicion focused on Government
having made a decision already, with
inadequate knowledge, and the motivation
of multinational companies to profit
alongside their perceived power to
From evaluation report and papers, issues
with the implementation of the debate
process included:
• There were problems with governance
leading to public cynicism of likely
influence of the debate (e.g. role and
activities of PDSB and government). The
evaluator recommended a fully
independent executive for such a complex
process.
• Participants found the events were well-
run, enjoyable and allowed people to have
their say, but there was not sufficient time
for discussions. There were complaints
about resource availability and short notice
for events. Local (Tier 3) meetings more
popular (and trusted) than regional events.
The extent of deliberation in the process
overall was limited.
• The participants not representative of UK
population (e.g. they had higher
educational levels).
• Evaluation polls showed that public opinion
is not a unitary whole, but is fragmented,
with ambivalence co-existing with outright
opposition. This led the evaluators to
question the interpretation of the results of
the GM Nation? debate.
• The information system for the dialogue
was variable. The elicitation of ways
publics frame GM-related issues was
good. However, the production of stimulus

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
34 of 63
proceeding with this.
• Through the debate,
provide meaningful
information to
Government about the
nature and spectrum of
the public‟s views,
particularly at grass
roots level, to inform
decision-making.
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
A Deliberative Future?
An independent
evaluation of the GM
Nation? Public Debate
about the Possible
Commercialisation of
Transgenic Crops in
Britain, 2003, by the
Understanding Risk team
(UEA with Cardiff and
Brunel universities and
IFR Norwich), Feb 04.
Authors led by Tom
Horlick-Jones.
GM Nation? The findings
of the public debate. DTI,
September 2003.
The GM Debate. Risk,
politics and public
engagement, by Tom
Horlick-Jones et al,
Routledge, London 2007.
ISBN 978-0-415-39322-5
time between meetings
• Estimated total of 20,000 individuals taking
part in events
• 36,557 individuals completed the feedback
questionnaire in the debate toolkit (available
online and at meetings)
• The debate website received over 2.9
million hits and 24,609 unique visitors
between 1 June and 16 July
• Over 1,200 letters and emails were
received
promote their own interests over the wider
public interest.
5. There was a broad desire to know more
and for further research to be done. 'Facts'
were sought to resolve the disputes
between different parties, and wanted
confidence in the independence and
integrity of information about GM. Felt no-
one knows enough and more research
needed.
6. Developing countries have special needs.
Different sections of the respondents
disagreed over whether there may or may
not be benefits to developing countries.
Here there were felt to be better ways to
promote development than GM.
7. The debate was welcomed and valued:
"Although there was a widespread
suspicion that the debate's results would
be ignored by government, people in all
parts of the debate were glad that it
happened." (p8)
materials ("bland and unsatisfactory") and
of the final report were cause for concern.
The production of final report was "over-
hasty and under-resourced".
• The debate was insufficiently resourced in
terms of time, money and expertise. Need
to access additional budget half way
through created tensions and delays.
• There was a failure to engage the broad
mass of hitherto disengaged members of
the lay public
• Beyond the formal evaluation, GM Nation?
has come to be seen in some circles as a
disastrous public engagement exercise,
hijacked by a polarised debate in various
ways. Avoiding the same experience has
become a priority for public policy-makers
since. However, others see GM Nation? as
a success in that it did have a significant
impact on public policy, and did engage
very large numbers of members of the
public.
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
35 of 63
Industrial Biotechnology
dialogue
• Timescale: 2008 - 2009
(4 months)
• Budget: £110,000
• Commissioned by:
Commissioned by the
Industrial Biotechnology
Innovation and Growth
Team (IB-IGT) within the
Department for Business,
Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform
(BERR), now the
Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills
(BIS); with Sciencewise-
ERC
• Aim:
To establish public views,
aspirations and concerns
regarding the use and
potential development of
Industrial Biotechnology
(IB).
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
Public perceptions of
Industrial Biotechnology.
Opinion Leader for BERR
and Sciencewise.
February 2009.
Evaluation of BERR's
public dialogue on
perceptions of industrial
biotechnology. Final
report, by Kathryn
• Key stages:
• Main dialogue activities took place in 2008
• Final project report published in February
2009
• Evaluation report published June 2009
Key activities:
• Biotechnology uses biological systems of
living organisms, including genetically
modified organisms, to modify products or
processes for new uses.
• A multi-stakeholder Project Advisory Group
was convened, made up of Government,
industry and NGO representatives. The
group met to discuss the objectives for the
work and oversee the information public
participants would need in order to begin to
debate the issues.
• Two citizens‟ group meetings were held, in
Manchester and London, with 24 people
taking part in each (total 48 participants). At
this stage, the groups met for an evening
and one full day. Participants were given
basic information about IB and had time to
read, question and discuss what
biotechnology is, how it works and the
potential of new IB applications.
• The first session ended with participants
identifying the questions and knowledge
gaps that they felt should be addressed at
the next meeting.
• The Project Advisory Group met to discuss
the outcomes of the citizens‟ group
meetings and offered guidance on the
agenda for the next meetings.
From the project report, the key messages
from the public were around the following
issues:
• Public perceptions were informed by
attitudinal and contextual factors including
concern about the economic climate,
climate change, levels of understanding
about science and technology and levels of
trust in government and industry
• There is some uncertainty and fear of the
unknown which is compounded by "a
pervading mistrust of government and
industry who are not felt to be working in
the public interest. „Profit‟ or anything
associated with industry are viewed with
great suspicion and there is little faith that
the Government will effectively resource the
control and monitor industry."
• "People are supportive of „the national
interest‟", and "protective of the UK‟s
position in relation to global economies and
interests".
• Participants were excited about the potential
for alternatives to fossil fuels (once
understood issues), Britain being a leader in
new science and technology especially
given potential impacts on jobs.
• IB was "perceived as potentially offering
'hope' to some of the key challenges the
world faces, provided the implications are
properly managed and IB is adopted on a
larger scale."
• "Processes which are efficient, produce little
or no waste and use sustainable or
renewable feedstocks are very much
welcomed."
• "There was particular excitement around
medical advancements which could bring
The evaluation report identifies benefits for
those involved including:
• Policy-makers valued the role of the
dialogue in bringing different interests in the
policy-making process together, including
the private sector meeting with the public.
• Participants gained from the process: 100%
of public participants said they had learnt
something they didn‟t know before. 29%
said they wanted to learn more. In addition,
49% of public participants at the first event
and 100% of those at the second event said
they had changed their views as a result of
taking part
• The dialogue stimulated interest in IB
among some participants that continued
after the events, and they found out more
and discussed what they had learnt within
their own social circles
• Participants trusted that policy-makers were
listening to their views. More than half
thought the Government would take the
public‟s views into account. Just over half
said that being involved had boosted their
trust in the Government‟s decision about
these issues
• The project enabled experts to hear public
views, fears and aspirations first-hand. It
also provided opportunities for scientists to
develop communication skills and to try out
messages directly with the public, therefore
gaining instant feedback.
• The experience helped some expert
speakers overcome fears of public hostility,
to the extent that they were more willing to
take part in similar events in the future.
The main lessons identified by the evaluation

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
36 of 63
Rathouse Social
Research, June 2009
• 24 participants were reconvened from the
first meetings (12 from each location) to
take part in a two-day deliberative
workshop.
• Participants heard evidence from 18
different experts in policy, bioplastics and
polymers, speciality chemicals and bio-
refineries. Experts came from a mix of
academic bodies, industry, government
bodies and NGOs.
• Participants had the opportunity to ask
questions of the experts before going into
their own discussions to develop their
conclusions.
• The two-day meeting ended with an
interactive session where participants
presented their views to interested
stakeholders, the IB-IGT, BIS and the
Sciencewise-ERC.
The evaluation report concluded that there
were impacts from the project including:
• The results informed the IB-IGT action plan
for the industry to 2021, and led to a
specific recommendation for further public
and stakeholder engagement in the future
• The dialogue provided hard evidence of
public views and the values that
underpinned those views, which provided
insights to guide future work on IB and
enabled BIS to make better informed
decisions on policy relating to IB
• The dialogue led to BIS establishing a group
with Non Governmental Organisations
(NGOs) to look further at IB. The dialogue
process created a mandate and space for
this work, and started to build new
many benefits „for the greater good‟".
• "The main concern running through
deliberations on the different aspects and
applications of IB was the use of GM in any
application. ... Of key concern was the
natural/unnatural dichotomy which many
taking part struggled to reconcile".
• There were also "questions surrounding just
how „green‟ IB really is. Participants in the
research sought to understand the balance
and scale of its impact not just on climate
change but also on the physical
environment and ecosystems."
report were:
• A diverse group of interests was
represented on the Project Advisory Group.
The group provided information sources,
suggested expert speakers, oversaw the
accuracy of the information produced for
the public and provided a good breadth of
viewpoints on IB. As a result the information
was seen to be authoritative and credible
• Specialist stakeholder engagement
expertise was brought in at an early stage
to support and develop the Project Advisory
Group
• Participants were recruited to broadly reflect
the composition of the general public in
terms of gender, age, ethnicity, socio-
economic group and/or education, and work
status. This approach to recruitment was
seen to be sufficient to provide a diverse
range of views and therefore enhanced the
credibility of the project results with policy-
makers
• The information communicated to the public
participants was provided in engaging
ways. The range of methods helped to
encourage and maintain participant interest
and engagement throughout
• In order to discuss complex scientific issues
effectively, public participants need
sufficient background information and
sufficient time to explore issues in
appropriate depth. In this case, the two-
stage citizens‟ jury approach allowed
participants time to digest information, to
think and talk about the issues and to come
to conclusions
• It is important for the negative as well as
positive implications of a new technology to
be clearly articulated for the public. Without

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
37 of 63
relationships around policy development
• Government's decision to open up dialogue
with the public increased transparency
around a potentially highly contentious
subject. It also helped policy-makers
understand where they could use public
dialogue in the future
• The dialogue helped policy-makers
understand the level of public knowledge on
the subject, and therefore to better plan
future education work, formulate messages
and develop future communications
strategies. In the short term, the dialogue
provided an opportunity to spread
awareness and understanding about IB
this, public trust in the process can be
reduced, and the findings can be of less
use to policy-makers who want to know
public views of negative arguments.
• New ways need to be found to engage
NGOs who may not see the topic as an
immediate priority. It can be particularly
important to include NGOs among those
who provide input directly to the public
participants, to ensure there is an
appropriate balance of perspectives.
• It takes time to develop the individual
relationships that will encourage the
participation of key stakeholders in these
sorts of public dialogue projects
• Public participants often trust information
provided by independent scientists more
than information from Government or
industry. In this case, the experts involved
represented a mix of academic bodies,
policy-makers and the IB-IGT.
• It can be particularly valuable for policy-
makers to see and hear public discussions
first-hand, especially where decisions need
to be made in tight timescales and in
intensive processes of this sort.
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
Consumer views on GM
food
• Timescale: 2002 - 2003
• Budget: £110,000
• Commissioned by: Food
Standards Agency
Activities were as follows:
• Surveys. Questions on GM food in the
Agency‟s annual consumer attitudes
surveys (2000, 2001 and 2002). Questions
included concerns about the safety of GM
food (spontaneous and prompted).
• Focus groups that investigated people‟s
views of GM food in March and April 2002,
Overall trends and views, as summarised in
the FSA report, were (p2-3):
• Choice. Consumers wanted to be able to
make an informed choice between GM and
non-GM food. They also felt that it is
essential that labelling is clear and effective
– possibly by using a logo to allow GM
ingredients to be clearly identified.
There is only information on lessons from
some of the processes and methods used.
These include:
Citizens' jury:
• The members of the citizens' jury all
enjoyed the process and were confident
about the process including that they had
heard sufficient and informative evidence
from a varied and balanced range of

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
38 of 63
• Aim: Independent
assessment of people's
views, especially those
whose voices are not
often heard, on the
acceptability of GM food
and how this relates to
consumer choice.
Developed as an input
from the FSA to the
Government's GM
Nation? dialogue
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
Consumer views of GM
Food. The Food
Standards Agency's
contribution to the public
dialogue. FSA, London,
July 2003.
covering food safety, attitudes to GM food,
understanding of GM and information
known and needed.
• A citizens’ jury of 15 people from Slough
that met in a three-day event to investigate
the question „Should GM foods be available
to buy in the UK?‟ Opinion Leader
Research were commissioned to run the
jury and report. Session introduced by
Professor Kathy Sykes. Witnesses
presented evidence (and were questioned
by the jury) from a wide range of
organisations including Institute of Food
Research, Genewatch, US Food and Drug
Administration, Friends of the Earth,
Sainsbury's, New Scientist, Consumers'
Association, Aventis Crop Science and
Agricultural Biotechnology Council, and
Somerset County Council. All witness
presentations were published on the FSA
website as they took place, the citizens' jury
proceedings were broadcast live on the
internet and all evidence presented to the
jury was also published on the FSA
website. Issues considered included effects
on human health, potential changes to the
environment, opportunities and threats to
UK farming and the economy, potential
benefits and disadvantages to different
consumers, and issues on current and
future labelling of GM food. Three jurors
presented their findings to senior staff of
the FSA, watched by over 1,000 viewers on
the live Internet broadcast.
• Four discussion groups in Scotland with
young adults in tertiary education and
(separately) low income consumers. These
were commissioned by Food Standards
Agency Scotland (FSAS) and run by the
Scottish Civic Forum. 50 people took part.
An initial session used electronic
communications to qualitatively assess
people's existing knowledge on GM, and
• Benefits. Although some people considered
that GM could bring benefits in terms of
nutrition, quality and price, others
questioned whether GM food was
necessary given the choice of food currently
available. Some people felt that the UK
could be left behind technologically if GM
was developed in the rest of the world.
• Information and education. Most people
involved in the activities acknowledged that
there is little public understanding about GM
food. They welcomed the presentation of
basic facts and considered it important that
information should be unbiased and
accessible.
• Confidence in safety measures.
Consumers considered that further
information on the safety assessment
carried out on GM food needed to be made
publicly available and they wanted to know
more about the regulatory bodies
responsible for safety.
There continued to be concerns about who
to trust where there is uncertainty. The BSE
crisis had left some people with a distrust of
scientists and Government.
Some people also raised concerns about
how far genetic modification might be taken
in the future, particularly regarding GM
animals and the acceptability of transferring
genes from animals into plants.
• Monitoring of health effects. There was
recognition that GM food has been
consumed outside the EU for some years
with no suggestion of any health problems.
But there were concerns regarding the
potential long-term health effects of eating
GM food.
• Impact on the environment and
witnesses.
• All 12 of the citizens' jury members thought
GM a very important issue and that
citizens' juries were a good way of
involving the public in this sort of issue.
Four discussion groups in Scotland:
• It was more difficult than anticipated to
attract participants to the discussion
groups. There was one strongly hostile
response to invitations, but otherwise most
agencies contacted to promote the events
either did so enthusiastically or did not see
the topic as sufficiently interesting to
promote.
• Strong efforts were made to promote the
events, and offers were made to fund
travel, childcare, and organise minibuses
for groups. Despite this, there were
difficulties attracting interest to the initial
events, so modifications were made.
• The 50 people that did attend (the target
number), said they found the groups
interesting and challenging, and reported
being much better informed about the topic
as a result.
• People "welcomed the impartial and
informative format of the event that they
had attended". (p21)

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
39 of 63
their initial views on consumer choice.
There were also facilitated full plenary
sessions of the whole group, and small
group breakout sessions. Information was
provided through distribution of the FSA
booklet, an introductory briefing from Dr
Donald Bruce (working on the ethics of
technology), and FSA staff attended to
answer technical questions.
• A national schools’ debating
competition, the finalists of which debated
the motion „This house would eat
genetically modified foods'. The Agency
sponsored the Durham Union Society
Schools Debating Competition which had
been running for 14 years, and provided a
bursary to enable seven schools who would
not otherwise have taken part to attend.
The FSA set the motion which was debated
by four teams.
• School video. The FSA commissioned a
professional film maker to work alongside a
diverse group of students from a North
London secondary school to produce a
short video on GM foods. Using the
technical and editorial support from the film
maker, the students were asked to
represent the views of their peers on the
topic. The FSA supplied their booklet on
GM food, and students also used materials
from Consumers Association, the BBC,
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace
websites. The students also conducted a
survey of 53 of their peers.
• An open meeting of the Advisory
Committee on Novel Foods and
Processes. The second meeting of the
Committee, on 13 November 2002, enabled
the public to ask the Committee questions
from the floor (some submitted in advance).
There was then a discussion of the
implications of research into horizontal
biodiversity. These issues represented the
area of most concern in all the activities and
also worried people who were generally
receptive to eating GM food.
A particular worry was that once GM crops
were released into the environment, there
could be no turning back and that, in turn,
could restrict choice between GM and non
GM food through cross-contamination.
• Impact on developing countries.
Throughout these activities the issue of
developing countries came up regularly.
Again, there was a very wide range of views
as to perceived benefits in relation to
economic effects and negative impacts with
regard to sustainability.
Some other specific findings from the
different activities included the following, not
covered in the summary above:
• A majority (9 of the 15) members of the
citizens' jury concluded that GM food should
be available to buy in the UK; a "sizeable
minority" (6) felt that GM should not be
available (p15).
• The citizens' jury agreed unanimously on
some wider issues:
• more time is needed to understand the
long term implications of GM crops before
farmers start to grow them in the UK
• there is very little information available to
the public on GM, and they need to know
more about what GM is, what tests have
been done on safety, and about the
regulating bodies and their responsibilities
• there should always be a choice between
GM and non-GM, so labelling is extremely
important
• there are ethical issues about how far this
scientific process could be taken; there is
particular concern about genetically

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
40 of 63
gene transfer, and allergenicity and its
importance in the approval process for
novel foods. The Minutes of the Committee
form part of the overall FSA report on these
activities.
Throughout, the GM Public Debate Steering
Board was informed of the FSA activities.
modifying animals as well as crossing
barriers between animals and plants.
• The discussion groups in Scotland found
that, although GM was not a topic people
initially had a strong interest in, there were
strong views once the issue was raised.
Issues raised included:
• wide range of views on safety, and
particular concern about lack of evidence
and the need for long term testing
• wide range of views on choice, including
dangers for those with particular health
problems, the potential for it to be
impossible to avoid GM, and therefore
strong support for labelling.
• benefits were identified including reducing
allergies and pesticide use, and to science
and research in the UK; GM was not
perceived to offer benefits to Scottish
farmers, and there were mixed views on
the benefits for farmers in the Third World.
• concerns identified included gene transfer,
cross pollination and unwanted side
effects, and that GM was 'unnatural'; also
concerns that "greed was driving this
issue, with it benefiting producers over
consumers" (p21), and the long term
effects and where the technology might go
next
• strong support for finding out more, "in an
unbiased and accessible format" (p21),
and a general distrust of government on
the issue.
• The schools debate concluded:
• after the floor debate, the motion („This
house would eat genetically modified
foods') was passed by the majority of
students
• key themes from the schools debate were
the impact of GM food and crops on
consumers, the environment, farmers and
developing countries. The proposition
considered that GM foods should be

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
41 of 63
controlled in the same way as other foods,
that GM crops and food could benefit
society and that people should be free to
make an informed choice. The opposition
highlighted the potential health risks from
GM foods, the threat to biodiversity from
GM crops, and developing countries‟ lack
of need for GM food aid or crops. (p22)
• The survey for the school video found more
than double the number of negative
responses to positive ones. For example:
• 24 did not think GM food is safe; 12 did
• 29 did not agree with the genetic
modification of food; 10 did
• 27 said they would never eat genetically
modified food; 19 said they would.
• Far more saw GM foods as part of the
future (31) than did not (11) or were not
sure (11).
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
Future Foods
• Timescale: 2009
• Budget: unknown
• Commissioned by:
Science Museum, at the
Dana Centre
• Aim: Debate
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
www.danacentre.org.uk/e
vents/2009/01/22/482
• Single evening event at the Dana Centre,
London in January 2009
• Speakers included Rodomiro Ortiz,
International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Centre; Tim Lang, Professor
of Food Policy, City University, London;
Bob Watson, Defra Chief Scientific Adviser
• Facilitated by Ian Sample, Science
Correspondent, The Guardian
• Comments / debate continued on Dana
Centre website (still available in March
2011).
• Linked to Antenna exhibition at the Science
Museum, with website links on Pro GM and
No GM. Still open in March 2011:
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/futur
No information available
No evaluation found

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
42 of 63
efoods
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
Public dialogue on
synthetic biology
• Timescale: 2009
• Budget: unknown
• Commissioned by:
Royal Academy of
Engineering (RAEng)
• Aim:
To explore uninformed
and informed perceptions
of and attitudes to
synthetic biology in the
UK.
The objectives of the
project were to:
• determine public
awareness of synthetic
biology
• explore public
perceptions of synthetic
biology
• explore uninformed
and informed public
attitudes to synthetic
biology
• identify particular
hopes, expectations
and concerns relating
to the development of
the technology
Key stages:
• Exploratory dialogue activity with 16
members of the public attending two
evening meetings at the RAEng offices in
London in March and April 2009. Members
of the public taking part in this strand were
referred to as 'participants'.
• Telephone omnibus survey in April 2009 of
1,000 adults in the UK. Members of the
public taking part in the survey were
referred to as 'respondents'.
Key activities:
• Synthetic biology was defined as "an
emerging multidisciplinary research area
that is underpinned by both engineering
and science. It aims to design and engineer
biologically based parts, novel devices and
systems as well as redesigning existing,
natural biological systems.
• The dialogue was designed to complement
the Academy's inquiry into synthetic
biology, published in May 2009, which
recommended “an active and ongoing
public engagement programme must be
established which creates platforms for
various stakeholders and publics to share
their views on both the potential benefits of
synthetic biology and their concerns as the
technology develops”.
• The dialogue activity involved 16 members
of the public attending two evening
meetings of three hours each at the
• Awareness of synthetic biology in the UK
was low: none of the 16 participants had
heard of it; nor had two thirds of the survey
respondents.
• Creating life was seen as 'very futuristic',
'exciting' and 'more exciting than destroying
life' by most of the dialogue participants.
63% of survey respondents agreed with the
statement „creating new man-made micro-
organisms that will produce medicines or
biofuels should be supported‟, with a third of
those (33%) agreeing strongly.
• Survey respondents revealed an apparent
difference in attitude between the creation
and modification of micro-organisms. The
dialogue participants indicated that there
was more support for the creation of
completely artificial organisms, partially
because these were perceived to have less
chance of survival in the event of an
accidental release.
• Where support for the notion of creating
new life was shown, it was in the context of
micro-organisms which could be designed
to produce useful products. Dialogue
discussions indicated that one factor for this
support could be that these organisms were
not seen to be „alive‟. With regard to
creating or modifying higher-life forms and
humans by synthetic biology, the dialogue
participants were not at all supportive.
About four in ten (39%) respondents agreed
with the statement ‟The idea of creating
man-made micro-organisms is worrying‟.
Thus while there was a majority positive
response to the concepts of creating and
No formal evaluation found

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
43 of 63
• identify issues that
merit further research
and/or dialogue activity
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
Synthetic Biology: public
dialogue on synthetic
biology, by Suzanne King
and Tara Webster,
People, Science and
Policy Ltd. Published by
Royal Academy of
Engineering in June
2009.
ISBN: 1-903496-46-2.
This report is a mixture of
project report and a
methodological
summary.
RAEng. offices in London.
• The participants in the dialogue were
recruited from the Greater London area,
and the final group was selected to be as
diverse as possible in terms of age, social
class and ethnicity, given the small number
involved. The aim was not to find a
representative sample but to find a group of
people to begin exploring attitudes with.
The final group was 9 men and 7 women.
• The first meeting, in March 2009,
introduced ideas of scientific research and
explored initial attitudes to synthetic
biology. There were presentations from two
expert speakers who then joined the public
participants' discussions (in two small
groups) of the social and ethical
implications.
• An internet forum was set up between this
and the following meeting to encourage
continuing reflections. 12 participants used
the forum; six posted a comment or
question and one posted further
references.
• The second meeting began with
participants completing a questionnaire on
attitudes to scientific research, then most of
the rest of the session was in breakout
groups to discuss case studies illustrating
the science, potential applications and
industrialisation of synthetic biology
products, and to identify hopes,
expectations and concerns.
• There was also a telephone omnibus
survey of 1,000 adults in the UK, with three
questions and three attitude statements.
This quantitative survey was designed to
provide a representative early insight of
awareness and attitudes to synthetic
biology, at a national level, as well as to
modifying microorganisms to produce
medicines and biofuels, there was still some
concern over the technology.
• The dialogue participants were largely
supportive of the idea of micro-organisms
being engineered to live in controlled
conditions, such as vats to create products
like drugs or biofuel, and able to accept the
risks associated with the possibility of
accidental release. However, some were
extremely resistant to the concept of these
organisms being deliberately released into
the environment for bioremediation
purposes, because of the unknown
consequences.
• Participants wanted regulation but were
concerned that regulations should not stifle
development. Concerns were also raised as
to whether the Government could control
synthetic biology and especially whether it
could keep up with the speed of
development.
• Despite some hostility towards the idea of
patenting, there was a belief that investors
are entitled to a return on their time and
money. However, there was a sense that
there should be a balance between returns
on investment and social responsibility.
• The majority of participants prioritised the
development of biofuels over medical uses,
as this application was deemed to impact
on more people. The application with the
least support was development of synthetic
biology for bioremediation because it
involved deliberate release into the
environment.
• Control, safety, regulation and testing of
both synthetic biology production methods
and their products were seen as
paramount.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
44 of 63
provide context to, and verify, some of the
dialogue findings.
• Generally, it was expected that the media
would react negatively and participants
recommended that scientists work to raise
public awareness. They also thought it was
important for other members of the public to
keep an open mind and not be unduly
swayed by media reports.
• Government funding was thought to be
important, not only because participants
believed that this was a field worthy of
further development, but also because this
would give the Government influence over
developments.
• Overall, there were two main dimensions on
which participants views depended:
• trust in synthetic biologists to be in control
of the re-designed / created micro-
organisms
• the degree to which they felt the outputs
would be beneficial.
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from public views
Lessons from methods used
Synthetic biology
dialogue
• Timescale: 2009 - 2010
• Budget: £295,000 for
the dialogue; plus
£30,000 for follow on
work to embed the
results. Evaluation
£35,000
• Commissioned by:
EPSRC and BBSRC with
Sciencewise-ERC
• Aim:
Key stages:
• 2006 - 2008: internal BBSRC and
Research Council discussions on public
engagement around synthetic biology
• 2009: Steering Group for the dialogue
project established
• Summer 2009: tenders for the dialogue and
evaluation invited; contractors appointed.
• January 2010: Workshops with the public
started; three sets of workshops were held
(second set in February; third set in March),
followed by a reconvened final workshop in
May 2010
The evaluation report identified some issues
raised by those public participants as
particularly important for the final report.
There were concerns that science does not
listen to the public and that the public should
be more involved. Specific ideas that were
identified as needing to be strengthened in
the final report were global responsibility, who
would profit from new technology and how
benefits could be democratised, and security.
(Interim evaluation p20)
The final report published by BBSRC and
EPSRC, summarising the findings from the
dialogue, outlined the main messages from
the public as follows:
• A large number of small groups initially, and
effective sampling, enabled a valuable
range of views to emerge and helped
mitigate the risk of a minority of groups
where participants did not engage fully with
the issues
• Participants in the reconvened workshop
were interested in selection processes,
about the contractors and about how the
process was initiated. Early information on
these issues may help build trust earlier.
• Video ethnography (short films made by
scientists about how they work) was highly
effective and had a strong impact, however
videos of presentations were less effective

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
45 of 63
To allow the diverse
perspectives of a range
of UK residents to be
articulated clearly and in
public in order that future
policies can better reflect
these views, concerns
and aspirations.
• Evaluation / analysis
sources:
Synthetic biology
dialogue. Interim
evaluation report, by
Laura Grant and Bella
Williams, 29 July 2010
Synthetic Biology
Dialogue. Overview,
published by BBSRC,
EPSRC and
Sciencewise-ERC.
February 2011
Synthetic biology
dialogue. Follow up
evaluation report, by
Laura Grant and Clare
Gardiner, March 2011.
• June 2010: Report of dialogue launched
• October - December 2010: meetings with
government and parliamentary event
• February 2011: Embedding workshop to
reflect on the messages and lessons from
the process with science professionals
Key activities:
• In 2006, BBSRC led a cross-council
working group to establish Synthetic
Biology Networks to embed social science
in scientific research; the first working
group meetings were held in 2007.
• Synthetic biology had been identified as an
issue that raised ethical and other social
issues, including some similar to those
raised by genetic modification (GM); other
internal discussions concluded that public
engagement was necessary and public
dialogue suggested.
• During 2009, discussions continued
between BBSRC and EPSRC, and they
approached Sciencewise-ERC for funding
and advice.
• A Steering Group was established to
provide advice on public dialogue on
synthetic biology. It included experts from
the Royal Academy of Engineering,
Sciencewise-ERC, government, EPSRC
and BBSRC. Their role was to scope the
dialogue and examine what success might
look like. Several meetings were held
before the invitations to tender were
distributed (including a full day facilitated
workshop to tighten the remit of the group),
and then the group met again in May and
July 2010 to discuss the findings from the
dialogue and their implications.
• There was conditional support for synthetic
biology: there was great enthusiasm for the
potential of synthetic biology, but fears
about control, who benefits, health and
environmental impacts, misuse and
regulation.
• Overall, six key themes emerged, as
outlined below.
1 The Technology
• A tension exists over the application of
engineering principles to biological systems.
There is unease about living in a „synthetic‟
world where evolution was „speeded up‟
and biological parts produced on an
industrial scale.
• Creating life is considered acceptable when
balanced with the benefits of synthetic
biology and that this is done with humility.
2 Leadership and Funding
• Research Councils are seen to have a key
role. However, there is concern that funding
of „good science‟ focuses on technical
excellence and could sideline ethical
issues. The grants process needs reviewing
with more effective checks and balances on
applications.
• The public want the opportunity to feed in
their aspirations and concerns at an early
stage and for Research Councils to make
the science accessible.
• It is fundamental that Research Councils
appoint the right leaders, in the right place
and for the right reasons in relation to
synthetic biology development.
3 Responsibility
• Public influence on workshop design is a
valuable aspiration, although needs can be
anticipated to some extent to aid planning
• Public and expert participants valued face-
to-face interactions highly
• A greater focus on engaging ways to
communicate the scientific principles at the
core of synthetic biology may have
empowered public participants still further
• The focus group approach built trust
between participants, but starting in groups
of people with similar backgrounds may
have reinforced socially stereotypical
attitudes and therefore may have limited the
expression of some views
• The reconvened workshop was an effective
means of checking the dialogue findings
with public participants, although only a
relatively small number were able to be
involved in this case
• Research Councils and others should
remain realistic about the advantages and
limitations of dialogue. Articulating these
limits in balanced communications about
the dialogue will help avoid any criticism of
the method undermining the findings (for
example from perspectives that value
quantitative over qualitative approaches).
• Participants felt the process was worthwhile
and many were keen to remain involved in
dialogue about synthetic biology
• The extent to which participants feel their
views are listened to affects their perception
of the process
• Experts found their experiences worthwhile.
In particular, scientists were pleased that

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
46 of 63
• An Oversight Group was established to
widen the expertise available to the project.
This group included some Steering Group
members and also others including NGOs.
This group included differing strong views
on the issues and the dialogue design.
• The contractor carried out 41 telephone
interviews with synthetic biology
stakeholders, to guide the contractors
about the topic. Interviewees included
scientists and engineers, social scientists
and ethicists, religious and faith
representatives, Government, regulators,
funders, industry, NGOs and consumer
groups. The input from these interviews fed
into the development of information
materials for use with the public.
• Sixteen groups of ten participants each was
recruited across four locations in England,
Scotland and Wales. Each group had
specific separate demographic
characteristics (e.g. women, socio-
economic group AB, aged 18-34 etc).
• The public dialogue process was, in
summary:
• Workshop 1: The impacts of science ad
technology on everyday life, and
introducing synthetic biology. 2.5 hours,
with all 16 groups meeting separately.
• Workshop 2: Perceptions of synthetic
biology, how science gets done, and
regulation and funding. Full day session,
bringing together four of the original small
groups in four locations (so 40 participants
in each location). Methods used included
expert presentations, electronic polling,
actors (in roles such as scientist / engineer,
industry, NGO, social science), video
• There is a disconnect for scientists /
engineers between the unremarkable
nature of their own work and the
transformative nature of the field as a
whole. This highlights the need for
scientists to think more carefully about the
significance of their work, their motivations
for research and to develop greater
responsibility.
• People expect that some work in synthetic
biology will go wrong, so scientists /
regulators should not claim to know
everything. Scientists need more support in
understanding potential impacts and in
being more open about early research
findings.
4 Innovation
• There is a need for an alternative to the
„pipeline‟ model of innovation where ideas
are created in a lab, embedded in products
and distributed to consumers. The public
should be involved throughout, not just at
the end.
• The innovation process needs to be more
„thoughtful‟. Research Council leaders,
learned societies, universities and
Government should ensure research and
new developments are informed by social
values, not just led by technology.
5 Regulation
• Robust and independent regulation is key;
the public did not trust a voluntary or self
regulation system. There were concerns
over the ability of the current framework to
deal with novel organisms.
the public were broadly supportive of their
research
• Social scientists valued participating in a
process they might usually critique and the
opportunity to see some of the methods in
action
• Experts were conscious of their capacity to
introduce bias and some might have
appreciated more support or advice on this
ahead of the workshops
• A tool such as a short film giving an insight
into how dialogue works could be a useful
briefing aid for expert participants
• Encouraging experts to prepare plenary
input beforehand could limit the risk of
spontaneous misleading remarks
• The roles of experts and observers during
workshops (especially experts attending in
the capacity of observers) needs to be clear
• A less pressured timescale and/or more
effective planning overall may have allowed
exploration of further ways to include
industry and NGO voices (as well as
through the actors)
• Management and Oversight did not always
run smoothly, although impacts on the
dialogue workshops themselves were
modest
• The Oversight Group needed longer to build
trust. It would be useful to explore ways that
this group could have had greater
ownership over the dialogue principles,
which were passed on to the Oversight
Group from the Steering Group
• Diversity in the membership of the OG was
seen as a strength, but extra time and

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
47 of 63
ethnography (about scientists at work)
• Workshop 3: Potential applications
(medical, energy, environmental, crop /
food), social and ethical issues, the
boundaries of research. Also full day, and
also with expert presentations, video
presentations and electronic polling.
• A reconvened workshop was held in May
2010, to consider draft findings from the
project. Eight public participants, two from
each location, were involved. The
contractor presented the findings and there
were then opportunities for comment and
discussion.
• The project report was published on the
BBSRC and Sciencewise-ERC websites,
and BBSRC distributed hard copies to over
200 stakeholders.
• The report was launched at an event in
London in June 2010
• Dialogue findings were taken to the relevant
committees in BBSRC (Bioscience in
Society Panel) and EPSRC (Societal
Issues Panel) in Summer 2010
• The CEOs of BBSRC and EPSRC met in
October 2010 to discuss the dialogue. A
joint letter stating their planned responses
to the recommendations was also sent to
participants and stakeholders that month.
• The CEOs of the EPSRC and BBSRC sent
a letter to the Chief Scientific Advisor
outlining the public concerns around
regulation raised during the dialogue
• A Parliamentary Scientific Committee
meeting that focused on the dialogue was
held in December 2010 in Westminster
• International co-ordination and regulation to
control technology development and access
in global markets is a major challenge.
Controls need to mitigate deliberate misuse,
such as bioterrorism.
6 The Future
• The report had begun to identify key public
aspirations and concerns around synthetic
biology and had asked questions of those
developing the field. Research Councils
now had a duty to continue engaging with
participants and explain how some of the
conditions they have placed on the
research have been met.
resource is required to make any such
process inclusive
• More planning and direction from the
Research Councils on how the process
would be managed and the respective roles
in decisions would be valuable in future
• Committees tend to be conservative, how
does this link with innovation?
• Oversight Group members dedicated
considerable time to the dialogue, which
was valuable
• It is important to capture and share learning
among Research Councils and others about
the oversight aspect of the dialogue.
• Although there was reticence about
identifying actual policy influence, the
evaluation showed that the following
outcomes emerged following the dialogue:
1 Providing impetus for Research Councils to
take the public concerns about synthetic
biology to regulators via discussions with
the Chief Scientific Advisor
2 Catalysing and informing EPSRC‟s work on
responsible innovation by linking to the
dialogue through the Societal Issues Panel
3 BBSRC reviewing their approach to ethics
in grants as a direct result of the dialogue,
which in turn has created opportunities for
the public engagement team to collaborate
with colleagues that work on research
funding
• After the end of the dialogue, EPSRC
continued to pursue the regulatory aspects
and work around responsible innovation
which resonates with many of the issues
with synthetic biology and GM: a £60,000

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
48 of 63
• An embedding workshop for the synthetic
biology community was held in Bristol in
February 2011. The aim of the workshop
was to further explore the messages from
the dialogue, share best practice in public
engagement with synthetic biology and
begin to develop an action plan to embed
dialogue into the business of synthetic
biology research.
project was announced early in 2011 for a
six month scoping study.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
49 of 63
4. Stakeholder engagement initiatives
Only two stakeholder engagement initiatives were identified during this brief review, both run by The Environment Council:
• GM workshop for Sainsbury's, 1997
• National stakeholder dialogue on GM, 1999 - 2002
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from stakeholder views
Lessons from methods used
GM workshop for
Sainsbury's
Timescale: 1997
Budget: unknown
Commissioned by:
Sainsbury's
Aim:
Exploring issues around
GM, particularly around
where to start a dialogue
on GM
Information from:
Suzannah Lansdell and
Andrew Acland, who
worked with The
Environment Council on
these dialogues.
• A one-day workshop
• Independent convenors and facilitation by
The Environment Council (TEC) for
Sainsbury's
• Participants included biotech companies,
retailers, consumer groups and NGOs
None available
No evaluation. Feedback from SL and AA:
• Realisation for Sainsbury's that this was
not a simple subject
• How difficult it was to bring together the
huge range of stakeholders into what this
was aspiring to be (i.e. a national
dialogue), especially as they were very
reticent about meeting in the same room
together. This was at a time when GM was
a very high profile issue.
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Lessons from stakeholder views
Lessons from methods used
National stakeholder
dialogue on GM
Timescale: 1999 - 2002
• Four meetings arranged between Monsanto
and environment and consumer groups in
September 1999
• Feedback from environmental groups was
that there needed to be a moratorium on the
introduction of GMOs before there could be
dialogue.
No evaluation, but feedback from other
sources suggests the following:
• Media coverage (Big Issue, January 2000)

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
50 of 63
Budget: unknown
Funded by: Monsanto
Aim:
Exploratory talks to
consider the viability of a
National Dialogue on GM
issues.
Information from:
'Labour sues for peace on
GM foods', by Geoffrey
Lean. Independent on
Sunday, 10 October 1999
Monsanto Talks in Crisis',
by Andy Rowell, The Big
Issue, January 2000
Suzannah Lansdell and
Andrew Acland, who
worked with The
Environment Council on
these dialogues.
• Independent convenors and facilitation by
The Environment Council (TEC)
• Cabinet Office Minister indicated (October
1999) in a letter to TEC that the
Government was prepared to commit itself
to a dialogue and supported and welcomed
it. Government involvement initially
welcomed by environmental groups
including the Soil Association.
• TEC said that the "new dialogue is
designed to find common ground for the
basis of a different way of making
decisions, in which opposing parties define
the problem, reach agreement, and then
implement the solution, rather than the
Government making a decision, announcing
it, and then having to defend it".
• Planned to hold exploratory meetings
during October - November 1999, with the
aim of holding a large scale meeting in
Spring 2000.
• Initial explorations involved a wide range of
groups from Government departments,
NGOs and consumer groups, biotech and
retailers.
• In January 2000, it was reported that 16
campaign groups had withdrawn from the
process, including the Food Commission,
Friends of the Earth, GenetiX Forum,
GeneWatch UK, Greenpeace, The
Pesticides Trust, The Vegetarian Society
and the Women's Environment Network
• GeneWatch said "It's the wrong discussion.
People want to talk about food and
sustainable agriculture, not GMOs."
suggested that "multinationals are now
using dialogue as a new form of public
relations", as a "cynical PR exercise".
These suspicions led to no confidence in
the process from environmental and other
campaign groups.
• The process became untenable as a multi-
stakeholder dialogue as key groups
withdrew. The issue was so live that there
was more to be gained (for them) from
being outside the process, and continuing
with a dialogue while 'business as usual'
continued was too difficult for many
parties.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
51 of 63
5. Opinion polls and other public attitudes surveys / research on GM and GM-related issues
Five opinion polls and surveys have been identified for this review; these either focus exclusively on, or cover, GM and GM-related issues:
• GM Food and Crops opinion poll, 2002 and 2003 (part of GM Nation? evaluation)
• Food technologies, 2008 (Food Standards Agency)
• Exploring attitudes to GM food, 2009 (Food Standards Agency)
• Biotechnology, Special Eurobarometer, 2010 (European Commission)
• Public Attitudes to Science, 2011 (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills)
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Public views
GM Food and Crops
public opinion poll
Timescale: One poll in
2002 and one in 2003
Budget: unknown
Commissioned by:
Centre for Environmental
Risk, University of East
Anglia, with Cardiff
University and the Institute
for Food Research
Aim:
To assess wider public
opinion on GM issues as
part of the evaluation of
GM Nation?
Information from:
The GM Debate. Risk,
politics and public
engagement, by Tom
Horlick-Jones et al,
Routledge, London 2007.
ISBN 978-0-415-39322-5
• Two polls carried out by MORI as part of
the GM Nation? evaluation; in 2002 and
2003
• The 2003 poll reached 1,363 individuals
• In 2003, 40% found GM food fairly or very unacceptable. 27% thought GM food fairly or very
acceptable and 27% said that GM food was neither acceptable nor unacceptable.
• The evaluators compared poll results from 1996 to 2003, and found that both opposition and
support had fallen; more people had become more uncertain: those who neither opposed nor
supported GM food rose from 16% in 1996 to 39% in 2003.
• However, they concluded that public opinion about GM food seemed to be skewed towards
opposition: while about one third in 2003 (29%) indicated that GM food should be opposed,
only 9% said that GM food should be promoted.
• In addition, in 2003, while 13% supported GM food, 36% opposed it and 39% neither
opposed nor supported it. (p103)
• The poll in 2003 also found a relatively high degree of interest in the issue of GM food.
Although 30% said they were not very interested and 10% were not at all interested, a
majority (56%) said they were fairly or very interested in the issue. (p104)
• 94% felt that all food containing GM material should be labelled (p104)
• 79% agreed that biotechnology companies should be made liable for any damage caused by
GM products. (p104)
• Confidence in the Government's regulation of GM food dropped between 2002 and 2003. In
2002, 41% disagreed with the statement that 'the British Government adequately regulates
GM food'; this rose to 55% disagreeing in 2003. (p107)
• "Overall, our survey findings suggest that current UK 'public opinion' is not a unitary whole,
but fragmented with considerable ambivalence existing alongside outright opposition. Such
ambivalence means that while many people are prepared to endorse potential future benefits

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
52 of 63
of GM food and crops, there also exist widespread concerns about the technology." (p 98)
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Public views
Public attitudes to
Emerging Food
Technologies
Timescale: 2008 - 2009
Budget: £24,220
Commissioned by: Food
Standards Agency
Aim:
To consolidate knowledge
of public opinion on
emerging food
technologies, and to
identify any gaps in the
research that the FSA may
need or want to fill.
Information from:
An Evidence Review of
Public Attitudes to
Emerging Food
Technologies - Executive
Summary, by Brook
Lyndhurst. Published by
FSA, March 2009
• The review was to build on existing in-
house work by the FSA and focus in
particular on Genetically Modified (GM)
foods, novel food processes, food
irradiation, nanotechnologies, animal
cloning, functional foods and synthetic
biology.
• The evidence review was conducted as
outlined below:
• Search for relevant materials through on-
line sources, generating over 400
references that met the agreed criteria
• Prioritised sources to identify those to be
reviewed formally
• Reviewed and analysed 105 articles
• Discussions with a range of people
working in the field to ensure that the
most relevant materials had been found,
and that any research in the pipeline was
also identified.
• There was a large body of evidence on public attitudes to GM foods, but evidence on other
technologies was more limited.
• "Overall, the public was found to be wary, uneasy and uncertain about emerging food
technologies ... where technologies have many applications food is often seen as the least
acceptable (e.g. GM, cloning) and people often seem unconvinced of benefits"
• "Awareness of emerging food technologies is generally low ... The exceptions to this are GM
and cloning which most people have heard of, at least in the UK ... awareness certainly does
not mean that people feel confidence in their knowledge about these technologies."
• The factors seen as most important in shaping people's views were:
• weighing up risks and benefits, especially whether people feel they have any control over
their exposure to risks
• general attitudes such as towards science, health, nutrition, cultural values and world
outlook
• emotion, especially around language of 'naturalness'
• prior knowledge and information; more information can have both positive and negative
effects in terms of views, and certain sources are trusted more than others
• trust, with media, government and industry being least trusted; friends and family and
health professionals being most trusted.
• Values, attitudes, beliefs and experience were seen as better predictors of attitudes than
socio-demographics, although women were generally more concerned, less positive and less
likely to perceive fewer benefits in these technologies than men
• Attitudes had changed little between 1999 - 2008 (the period of the study), although there
had been some cycles of volatility. But overall, most people had remained neutral, undecided
and slightly wary.
• The researchers concluded "We would highlight the relationship between - on the one hand
- rational, scientific, factual, evidence-based perceptions and understandings; and emotional,
irrational, ethical, values-based perceptions on the other. In the context of public attitudes
towards novel food technologies both perspectives are real and valid - there is no right or
wrong per se. Any organisations wishing to pursue public engagement around novel food
technologies will need to respect this reality and adopt a neutral stance."
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Public views

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
53 of 63
Food technologies
• Timescale: 2008
• Budget: £89,590
• Commissioned by:
Food Standards Agency
• Aim:
To support the FSA
evidence base in relation
to food technologies
• Information from:
Food technologies.
Findings from the 2008
British Social Attitudes
survey, by Elizabeth Clery
and Rossy Bailey, National
Centre for Social
Research. Published by
the FSA in March 2010
• The annual British Social Attitudes (BSA)
survey covers British social, economic,
political and moral values. It is run by the
National Centre for Social Research
(NatCen), which publishes the findings
annually.
• The FSA commissioned a module of
questions in the 2008 BSA survey to
measure public attitudes to food
technologies, including GM food among
others.
• FSA questions were used in two of the four
approaches to the survey: a Computer
Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI)
interview (which was used with 2,250
people), and a self-completion booklet
(used by 1,986 people).
• The interviewing was mainly carried out
between June and September 2008.
• There was considerable diversity in public knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and decision-
making processes in relation to food in general and good technologies in particular. In
particular, women and older age groups had particularly negative attitudes and views.
However, other attitudes (e.g. to science and taxation) were also important. Public attitudes
to food technologies needed to be considered within a broad attitudinal and behavioural
context and not simply within a vacuum. Perhaps surprisingly: "The fact that younger age
groups tend to be less concerned about food technologies but are the least positive about
GM foods ... may also warrant further investigation" (p103).
• Objectively-measured levels of public knowledge of innovative food technologies varied
considerably. On a seven item knowledge test, 19% of respondents answered correctly on
less than three items, 45% answered three or four items correctly, and 36% answered five or
more correctly. Items on GM foods and microwaving were mostly likely to be answered
correctly.
• Over half (54%) agreed that research and development in food technology should be
supported, even if a lot of money would need to be spent. However, only one-tenth of these
(11%) strongly agreed. Public were much more supportive of research and development in
medicine (87% support).
In terms of GM foods:
• Few held strong attitudes to GM foods, with those who did express a definite view (albeit not
necessarily a strong one) tending to regard this technology negatively rather than positively:
18% agreed that the advantages of GM foods outweigh any dangers, while 31% disagreed.
• Attitudes to GM foods in particular situations were not always consistent, with views about
their production and availability in Britain clearly being influenced by factors other than
overall assessments of the worth of this technology. Only half as many respondents agreed
that Britain should grow GM foods to compete with the rest of the world (19%) as disagreed
(41% disagreed). However, attitudes were "often not strong or well-formed" (p87)
• Attitudes varied markedly among the public, with women, older age groups and those with
greater concerns and less knowledge about food technologies in general being more likely to
express a negative view. Less educated and socio-economically disadvantaged groups were
much less likely to have an opinion about this topic.
• Since the late 1990s, support for GM foods had not increased markedly, with the most
notable change being an increase in the proportion not holding a definite view, between
1999 and 2003. In more recent years, this trend has continued, with evidence of a slight
increase in public support for GM foods. However, 40% agreed it was important to them to
check whether foods contain GM ingredients, compared to 18% who disagreed.
• "Overall, public attitudes to GM food can be characterised by a lack of conviction, with only
minorities holding particular views on this issue, the balance of which tend to oppose this

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
54 of 63
technological innovation in the abstract, or their production or widespread availability in
Britain in practice." (p87)
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Public views
Exploring attitudes to
GM food
• Timescale: 2009
• Budget: £90,645.50
• Commissioned by:
Food Standards Agency
• Aim:
Qualitative study
designed to build on
previous FSA work (see
above). The study aimed
to:
• explore why people
hold particular views to
GM food
• better understand how
people's attitudes to
GM food are formed
• explore how people
weigh up the risks and
benefits associated
with GM food
• better understand what
causes people to be
indifferent to GM food
• explore the
circumstances in which
people change their
views.
• Information from:
Exploring attitudes to GM
food. Final report.
• Three stage process:
• 30 in depth interviews with BSA survey
respondents in two geographical areas to
explore what shapes attitudes to GM food
• Two deliberative workshops with
interview participants to further
understand what shapes attitudes and the
impact of information about GM food
• Six follow-up telephone interviews to
explore participants' experience of the
research process.
• There was a common perception that GM was widely available but there was little
knowledge about labelling requirements for GM food (p5)
• Positive attitudes to GM foods were articulated in terms of the perceived benefits of GM food
for society, that benefits outweighed the risks, and trust in the motivations of producers and
regulators. These views were underpinned by a positive attitude to science, in which science
was perceived to improve the quality of life, risk was an inevitable part of scientific progress
and regulators could be trusted to ensure that risks were carefully assessed.
• Negative attitudes were driven by concern about perceived health and environmental risks
and unintended consequences relating to GM food, and scepticism about the motivations of
producers and regulators. These attitudes were articulated in terms of lack of confidence in
the long term safety of GM food, concerns about the quality of GM products and the ethics of
the process of genetic modification. These were linked to sceptical or cautious views of
science, risks were less acceptable and the motives and effectiveness of regulation of new
food technologies was questioned.
• Those who were undecided cited a lack of personal knowledge, or lack of evidence about
GM; others not holding a view talked about GM food as a 'private' issue for individual
consumers, or it just was a low priority for them personally. The middle ground view was also
related to the perception that the decision to buy GM good was driven by pragmatic
considerations (e.g. cost), and by the belief that GM food would only be available to eat if it
was safe.
• The provision of information in the workshops increased the awareness of the potential
benefits of GM food among those who were initially undecided, resulting in more positive
views. The source of arguments was as important as the content for the public in weighing
up arguments: campaigning environmental groups were seen to have vested political
interests, and the food industry was seen to have vested economic interests. There was no
consensus on who would constitute a neutral source of information.
• Overall, attitudes became more positive over the course of the research. Those who were
initially positive indicated they were more convinced as a result of the information provided;
those who were more negative or undecided said the process had increased their awareness
of the benefits and dispelled their sense of GM as an unknown entity. However, there was no
change in overall attitudes. "Overall, perspectives on GM food from across the attitudinal
spectrum became more qualified and nuanced as people had become more aware of the
complexity of the debates on the subject." (p7).

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
55 of 63
National Centre for
Social Research.
Published by FSA,
November 2009
• Lessons for future research on attitudes included:
• Engaging people with low levels of interest / ambivalent views requires clear
communication about the aims of the research during recruitment, and practical strategies
such as use of incentives, convenience etc
• Encouraging participation from those with sceptical views required transparency about the
research process, the value of their views and evidence of the robustness of the research
• Research design on complex scientific issues needs sufficient homogeneity in terms of
educational background but also diversity in attitudes in order to generate discussion
• Deliberative research on complex issues requires grappling with the tension between
providing balanced information and ensuring that the practical and intellectual demands on
research participants are reasonable.
• Policy implications from the research included:
• There was some public trust in official sources of information and communication but a
wish to know more about the interests of different sources in the GM debate
• People wanted more information about the extent to which GM food is available, the
potential long-term societal and personal impacts, and the potential consequences for
animal welfare. There was also a demand for clear and accessible information from a
range of different places, including supermarkets. There was a lack of information about
labelling and the current system was seen as confusing. There was widespread support for
the labelling of all GM products, including where GM is used as a processing aid or in
animal feed. The principles of transparency and consumer choice were clearly a priority for
people holding different attitudes and this shaped their view on labelling and regulation.
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Public views
Biotechnology.
Eurobarometer 2010
• Timescale: Fieldwork
January - February 2010;
report published October
2010
• Budget: unknown
• Commissioned by:
• Public opinion survey across 32 European
countries: the 27 member states of the EU,
plus five other European countries - two
candidate countries and the three European
Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries.
• Total of 26,671 interviews; 1,311 in the UK
• Methodology was face-to-face interviews in
people's homes
The survey covers much ore than GM (e.g. nanotechnology, animal cloning), and this
summary focuses only on those issues that specifically mention GM, or are directly related to
it. The key relevant points identified in the Executive Summary are that Europeans:
• are divided in their optimism about biotechnology and genetic engineering;
• do not see benefits of genetically modified food, consider genetically modified foods to be
probably unsafe or even harmful and are not in favour of development of genetically modified
food;
• do not see the benefits of horizontal gene transfer, have strong reservations about safety,
feel that special labelling of food products is necessary, and do not feel that it should be
encouraged;
• accept the potential benefits of vertical gene transfer, have some reservations about safety

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
56 of 63
European Commission's
Directorate General (DG)
for Research
• Aims: Public opinion
survey across Europe on
biotechnology
• Information from:
Biotechnology. Special
Eurobarometer 341 .
Wave 73.1. Conducted
by TNS Opinion and
Social, Belgium for
European Commission,
2010.
• Defined biotechnology as "any
technological application that uses
biological systems, living organisms or
derivatives thereof, to make or modify
products or processes for specific use."
This is the definition used by the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Ancient animal and plant crossbreeding is
seen to have changed with genetic
engineering which was "modifying living
matter in a targeted way beyond traditional
breeding techniques" including genetic
modification / manipulation (GM) (p4)
and the potential impact on the environment, feel marginally that it should be encouraged but
that special labelling of food products is necessary;
• believe that government should take responsibility for ensuring that benefits are for all, but
are not convinced that governments will act accordingly.
More detailed analysis is given below, including explanations of horizontal and vertical gene
transfer.
• A slim majority (53%) believed biotechnology and genetic engineering as a whole would
have a positive effect on their way of life in the next 20 years. 20% thought effects would be
negative, 7% thought no effects, and 20% did not know. The UK was close to the EU
average with 56% positive, 16% negative, 7% no effect and 21% don't know.
• Men were more likely to be positive about biotechnology and genetic engineering: 58% men
positive compared to 48% women. Women were more likely to say they didn't know: 24%
women said they did not know, compared to 16% men.
• 84% had heard of genetically modified foods. Again the UK was close to the EU average
with 89% having heard of GM foods.
• Of those who had heard of GM food, 66% had talked about GM food before and 38% had
searched for information on GM food. Here the UK response showed quite a lot fewer than
the EU average, with 57% saying they talked about GM food before and 26% saying they
had searched for information.
"The survey reveals an overall suspicion of GM foods among the European public" (p18).
However, the UK tends to be more positive about the technology than the EU average. More
details below.
• 70% agreed that GM food is fundamentally unnatural; only 20% disagreed. In the UK, 65%
agreed, and 23% disagreed.
• 61% agreed GM food made them feel uneasy; 29% disagreed. The UK was quite a bit more
positive about the technology than the EU average: 49% agreed GM food made them
uneasy and 39% disagreed.
• 31% agreed that GM food was good for their national economy; but 50% disagreed. Here,
the UK was much more positive about the technology than the EU average: 42% agreed that
GM food was good for the national economy and fewer (36%) disagreed.
• 54% agreed that GM food was not good for them or their family; 30% disagreed. Again the
UK was more positive: fewer (42%) agreed and more (36%) disagreed.
• Only 22% agreed that GM food was safe for their and their family's health; 59% disagreed.
Here too the UK was much more positive than the EU average: 33% agreed GM food was

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
57 of 63
safe although more (39%) disagreed. Awareness was an important factor here: across
Europe, 63% of those who had heard of GM before the survey voiced concerns about the
health effects, compared to 44% of those who had not heard of it before (p29)
• Only 21% agreed that GM food is safe for future generations; 58% disagreed. Yet again, the
UK was more positive about the technology: here 31% agreed and 39% disagreed.
• 23% agreed that GM food does no harm to the environment but 53% disagreed; 24% didn't
know. The UK was slightly more positive on this issue: although still only 25% agreed that
GM food does no harm to the environment, fewer (45%) disagreed but more (30%) didn't
know.
• 57% thought GM food benefits some people but puts others at risk; only 25% disagreed.
Here the UK was very similar to the EU average: 55% agreed and 21% disagreed.
• 43% overall agreed that GM food helps people in developing countries, and 37% disagreed.
The UK was much more positive: 59% agreed and only 24% disagreed.
• Only 23% agreed that the development of GM food should be encouraged; 61% disagreed.
The UK was significantly more positive: 35% agreed that the development of GM food should
be encouraged, and less than half (45%) disagreed. Although still more respondents in the
UK were against the development of GM food than supported it, the balance of opinion is
much closer than the EU average.
• Again, awareness clearly affects people's views. 64% of European residents who had heard
of GM food before the survey thought its development should not be encouraged, only 45%
of those who had not heard of it thought that. Here, increased knowledge of GM food seems
to have increased negativity toward future development.
The Eurobarometer included a series of questions on gene transfer, which provides valuable
information about public views on boundaries to acceptability, rather than simply positive or
negative responses to the technology.
'Horizontal' gene transfer is where genetic material is transferred from another, unrelated
organism (e.g. a gene from a bacterium or animal introduced into an apple tree, to make it
resistant to mildew and scab); 'vertical' gene transfer involved genetic material transferred
from a related organism, or an ancestor (e.g. a gene from wild / crab apples introduced into an
apple tree to make it resistant to mildew and scab). Both are considered forms of genetic
engineering.
• A large majority (72%) considered horizontal gene transfer to be fundamentally unnatural;
only 20% disagreed. The UK was very similar: 70% considered this unnatural; 21%
disagreed.

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
58 of 63
• 58% were uneasy about horizontal gene transfer; 34% were not uneasy. The UK was similar
again: 58% uneasy, 35% not uneasy.
• 43% agreed, and 45% disagreed, that horizontal gene transfer is a good idea. The UK was
more positive to this technology than the EU average: 52% agreed and 39% disagreed.
• Only 30% agreed that eating apples produced using this technology will be safe; 50%
disagreed. In the UK, 35% agreed and 39% disagreed.
• 43% agreed that horizontal gene transfer will harm the environment, 35% disagreed and
22% had no opinion. The UK is close to the EU average here, with 41% believing this will
harm the environment, 36% disagreed and 23% having no opinion. More women (46%) than
men (40%) agreed this will harm the environment.
• A large majority (83%) across Europe felt that products with horizontal gene transfer would
be like GM food and should be labelled; only 10% thought this was not needed. The UK felt
even more strongly in favour of labelling: 87% said labelling was needed; only 8% said it was
not needed.
The findings on 'vertical' gene transfer were quite different, and less negative:
• 63% agreed that vertical gene transfer will be useful; only 25% disagreed. The UK was even
more positive: 73% agreed this will be useful and only 18% disagreed.
• 40% of Europeans believed that vertical gene transfer will be risky, compared to 45% who
disagreed. The UK is close to the EU average: 40% agreed this will be risky; 47% disagreed.
• 30% agreed that vertical gene transfer will harm the environment, but 50% disagreed. The
UK here was slightly more positive: only 27% agreed this will harm the environment, and
54% disagreed.
• Nevertheless, 52% of Europeans thought that vertical gene transfer is fundamentally
unnatural, and 39% disagreed. In the UK, the balance of opinion is closer, with fewer than
half (48%) who felt this technology is unnatural, and 44% who disagreed.
• 40% said that vertical gene transfer made them feel uneasy, and 51% disagreed. Again the
UK is more positive about the technology: only 34% said this made them feel uneasy, and
44% disagreed.
• More EU respondents felt vertical gene transfer should be encouraged than not: 47% agreed
it should be encouraged; 38% disagreed. In the UK even more agreed with encouraging this
technology: 54% agreed it should be encouraged, and 33% disagreed.
• 72% of Europeans felt food produced using this technology should be labelled; only 20% did
not think this was necessary. In the UK, the views were very similar: 75% agreed this food

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
59 of 63
should be labelled, and 19% disagreed.
In terms of regulation and controls:
• 76% of Europeans felt decisions about biotechnology should be regulated by government.
The UK feels this slightly more strongly than the EU average: 81% felt government should
take this role.
Overall:
• There were strong feelings about biotechnology: 5% felt extremely strongly and 24% felt very
strongly; a further 45% felt somewhat strongly. Only 20% did not feel at all strongly, and 6%
did not know. The UK is very close to the EU average in terms of strength of feeling on the
issue: 5% felt extremely strongly, 23% very strongly, and 45% somewhat strongly; 19% did
not feel at all strongly, and 8% did not know.
In summary (quoted from survey Conclusion):
• The survey shows that, overall, Europeans do not see the benefits of genetically modified
food and consider these to be unsafe or even harmful. Europeans are not in favour of the
development of genetically modified food. (p 206)
• Europeans do not see the benefits of horizontal gene transfer and have strong reservations
about its safety. There is clear consensus that special labelling of food products is necessary
and that it should not be encouraged. (p206)
• On the other hand, respondents accept the potential benefits of vertical gene transfer.
Notwithstanding some reservations about its safety and the potential impact on the
environment, the tendency is that it should be encouraged although special labelling of food
products is considered necessary. (p206-7)
• Looking at the overall control and influence of biotechnology, Europeans firmly believe that
governments should take responsibility to ensure benefits for all but they are not at all
convinced that governments will act accordingly. (p208)
Name and basic data
Main activities and reports
Public views
Public Attitudes to
Science 2011
• Timescale: Research
October to December
2010; report published
Three stage methodology:
• Review of literature on attitudes to science
in the UK and internationally (published as
a separate report)
The survey covered much more than just GM. The points below also give a little background
to the specific findings on GM.
• 79% agreed that "on the whole, science will make our lives easier". However, fewer (54%)
agreed that "the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect" and 28% were
neutral, suggestion that "people do have concerns about the potential harmful effects of

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
60 of 63
May 2011
• Budget: unknown
• Commissioned by:
Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills
(BIS)
• Aims: To explore:
• what the public thinks
about science,
scientists, science
policy and science
regulation in the UK,
and why they think this
way
• how people engage
with science and their
views on public
consultation
• the perceived impact of
science on society, in
term of its impact on
entertainment and
culture, and on the
economy
• perceptions of science
as a school subject and
a career choice
• whether, and how,
public attitudes have
evolved since previous
PAS studies.
• Information from:
Public Attitudes to
Science 2011. Ipsos
MORI Social Research
Institute, for BIS.
Full and summary
• Face-to-face survey of 2,103 adults aged
16+, plus four sets of deliberative
workshops with members of the general
public
• Cluster analysis of the survey data,
followed by four discussion groups with
members of the public to explore the
emerging clusters qualitatively.
science" (p24). "Some scientific developments are more contentious than others, with GM
crops, the use of animals in research and nuclear power among the most contentious of the
issues explored" (p15).
• Concerns expressed included advancement of technology being too fast, recent scientific
advances too focussed on commercial gain rather than for the good of society, perceived
lack of regulation to combat vested interests in science, global inequalities, and labour
saving devices putting people out of work.
• There was a relatively high level of knowledge about regulation on one aspect of GM: 71%
correctly identified as true the statement that "you need a licence before you can plant
genetically modified crops in the UK" (p45).
• In addition, there were concerns about going against nature in discussions around GM crops
among other things; 56% in the survey agreed that "people shouldn't tamper with nature",
although this was much lower than in 2008 when 70% agreed. GM crops, nuclear power and
animal experimentation were the issues identified as being particularly contentious.
• The benefits of GM crops were seen overall to outweigh the risks: 33% in the survey said the
benefits of GM crops outweighed the risks and 27% said the risks outweighed the benefit - a
+6% net score in favour of GM. This was the lowest net benefit score of all nine contentious
issues tested by the survey, lower than nuclear (+16%) and animal experimentation (+19%).
• Differences by ethnicity emerged. Black people were more likely than average to think the
risks outweighed the benefits of GM crops (41% said the risks outweighed the benefits,
compared to the average of 27%). This was seen to reflect a more reserved attitude towards
science from this group.
• In general, those who felt informed about science tended to have more positive attitudes
towards science and scientists. However, on issues such as GM and animal
experimentation, "the people who feel more informed about these more contentious topics
tend to be more polarised in their views of the risks and benefits - this group is more likely
than average to think the benefits outweigh the risks and more likely than average to think
the risks outweigh the benefits." (p34). The report concludes that "a better informed public is
less likely to remain neutral on various science issues"; it quotes other research that
concludes that "knowledge makes the difference between attitudes and non-attitudes, and
not the difference between positive or negative attitudes".
• A segmentation model was used to analyse data based on identifying six clusters of
respondents. The third largest cluster (18%) were classed as 'Late Adopters' (p77-80).
These are mentioned in this summary because this group had the strongest views on GM.
Late Adopters were described as those whose interest in science began after school but
were now strongly interested in science and in becoming more involved in public consultation
on science. They were also characterised by their relatively strong environmental and ethical
concerns, and were more likely to be women, and younger (16-34 year olds). This group:

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
61 of 63
reports, published May
2011.
• were more likely to think the risks outweighed the benefits of GM crops: 35% compared to
27% overall
• GM (and use of animals in research) was raised spontaneously in the workshop with this
group, and participants felt that they should be getting more information on GM crops in
particular (p79)
• were more likely to want "scientists to spend more time than they do discussing the social
and ethical implications of their work with the general public" (80% compared to 65%
overall), and to think that "scientists should be rewarded for communicating their work to
the public (69% compared to 44% overall)
• they are less likely to get their science information from print newspapers (26% compared
to 38% overall), and are more likely to have internet access than average. They are also
more likely than average to download information or stream programmes and to visit social
networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter (46% compared to 38% overall);
engagement with this group was therefore suggesting as potentially benefiting from an
online element.
These reports also include valuable data on public attitudes to public consultation:
• There was a high degree of cynicism: half (50%) agreed public consultation events "are just
public relations activities and don't make any difference to policy", and almost half (47%)
thought they "are unrepresentative of public opinion". This cynicism is in line with the
previous two studies, so is consistent since 2005. However, the findings also show that the
public don't know much about public consultation, so "their cynicism may just reflect a
negative attitude towards something they do not understand, and anything associated with
Government in general" (report, p49). Young people (aged 16-24) tended to be less cynical
and more ambivalent about consultation.
• In addition, respondents did not feel that the public had much power over decision-making:
under two in 10 (14%) thought they "could influence Government policy on science and
technology if I wanted to"; seven in 10 (68%) disagreed.
• However, there was enthusiasm for more public engagement. Two-thirds (66%) agreed that
"scientists should listen more to what ordinary people think", and only just under one fifth
(17%) thought that "the public is sufficiently involved in decisions about science and
technology".
• When asked directly how involved they would like to be involved in public consultation on
science issues, half (50%) wanted to know that the public is being consulted, but not
necessarily be consulted themselves. Around three in 10 either wanted more of a say (21%),
or wanted to be become actively involved (7%), or were already actively involved (2%). Only
17% were not interested in public consultation on science issues, as long as scientists were
doing their jobs.
• The benefits of public consultation identified most often unprompted were personal benefits

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
62 of 63
(15% said it enabled the public to make more informed decisions about their lives, and 13%
said it enabled the public to judge science issues for themselves). Close behind (and
therefore the third most frequently cited benefit) was 'better decision making', identified by
12% as a benefit of public consultation.
• 73% thought "The Government should act in accordance with public concerns about science
and technology"; this figure has fallen by 6% since 2008. 64% said that "experts and not the
public should advise the Government about the implications of scientific developments", and
almost half (45%) agreed that "politicians should put scientific evidence above public opinion
when making decisions".

Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
63 of 63
Annex C: Food the Use of Genetic Modification – a brief account
1. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was asked to lead a public dialogue on food and the use
of genetic modification (GM) on behalf of the Government. This was supported by
Sciencewise-ERC, the UK national centre on public dialogue in policy-making involving
science and technology issues.
2. The FSA set up an independent steering group to shape and manage the public dialogue in
November 2009. The steering group was responsible for deciding how the work would be
carried out. The project aims and objectives, and the steering group's terms of reference can
be found at the FSA‟s project site, below.
3. Following the resignations of two members of the steering group in May 2010, Ministers in the
new Coalition Government were asked by the FSA if they wished the project to continue.
4. At the British Science Festival in September 2010, David Willetts, Minister for Universities
and Science, announced that the project would not continue in its current form. Stressing that
it is vital to engage people of all ages on scientific issues, he announced that Government
would instead take the opportunity to step back and review past dialogues on GM and other
areas of science. This would ensure Government understands how best to engage the public
over such issues.
Further information can be found at the following websites:
http://www.food.gov.uk/gmfoods/gm/gmdialogue/
http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/food-the-use-of-genetic-modification-a-public-dialogue