The Biotech Debate: Using the Public Relations Classroom as a Forum to Assess Changes in Attitude

Transcription

1 The Biotech Debate: Using the Public Relations Classroom as a Forum to Assess Changes in Attitude Michelle O'Malley, Assistant Professor Kansas State University 105 Kedzie Hall Manhattan, KS omalley@ksu.edu Tom Kelleher, Assistant Professor University of Hawaii 2550 Campus Road, George Hall 309 Honolulu, HI tkell@hawaii.edu Abstract Public relations students at Kansas State University and the University of Hawaii participated in a collaborative project that was designed to have students develop a public relations issue statement for their assigned client. Student attitudes were assessed before, directly following, and seven weeks after completion of the project. The students were randomly assigned to groups and to an organic or biotech client (treatment). Participants attitudes about using agricultural biotechnology to reduce the need for pesticides, to improve nutritional content, to improve taste in food, to increase crop yield, and to solve problems related to overpopulation in the Third World were measured with four-item scales. Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a seven-point response scale with statements that biotech is useful for society, is risky for society (reverse coded), is morally acceptable, and should be supported. Responses to these four items were combined to create the dependent measures. The 2(KSU/ Hawaii) x 2(GMO/Organic) x3 (Time) model was analyzed with repeated measures ANOVAs. There was a significant interaction effect for time and treatment for reducing the needs for pesticides, increasing crop yield, and improving taste. A main effect was found for the treatment effect on need for pesticides and crop yield. For crop yield, an interaction effect between time and school also was found. Students' perceived understanding of biotechnology was also measured and showed significant increases from T1 to T3. 344

2 Introduction Food biotechnology is an important part of agriculture. How to ensure that the world has enough to eat while reducing pesticides and considering ethical/moral issues regarding this technology has led to a heated scientific debate in which food and agricultural scientists are on both sides of the issue (Juanillo, 2000). While developed countries most likely will decide whether or not biotechnology will continue to be funded and accepted, developing countries, the ones who have the most to gain or lose from this controversy, will have very little to say about the issue (Frontline/NOVA, 2001). Although the biotechnology debate has been most visible in Europe, audiences in the United States are now taking greater interest. Activist organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and the Humane Society have staged events at grocery stores and food processing manufactures to show their support for non-biotech or non-transgenic food products. Food processing and food service companies such as Frito-Lay, Gerber and McDonald's also have joined the debate by refusing to buy genetically modified crops. These organizations have raised the salience of the debate with Americans by attracting the attention of news media (Frankenfood Frenzy, 2000). Hallman & Metcalf (1995) found mass media to be the main source of public information about biotechnology. The authors went on to say that although American consumers don't necessarily believe the press, they still rely on news media for their information. Gaskell, Bauer, Durant & Allum (1999) argue that press coverage differences explain why European consumers engage in much more heated debate regarding biotechnology than American consumers. Differences in news coverage of biotechnology issues may be attributed to the potentially greater news value of these issues in Europe, where social concepts of food are much different than the American "out of the box" mentality. Gaskell et al. (1999) also suggest that Europeans generally place less trust in regulatory procedures and hold a higher level of knowledge regarding agricultural procedures than Americans. In the United States, news media receive much of their material from organizations public relations departments. Sigal (1973) studied 1200 New York Times and Washington Post front pages and found that 58.2 percent of the stories came through routine bureaucratic channels (official proceedings, news releases, and conferences or other planned events). Coverage and framing of the biotechnology debate therefore may well result from how well public relations officers view and understand the debate. Purpose The purpose of this research project was to assess attitude change before, immediately after and seven weeks after a class project in which students developed a public relations issue statement dealing with the biotech/organic food debate. Methods Three senior-level public relations classes (N=55) from two different universities participated in this project. Students were randomly assigned to groups of four, with the exception of one group that had only three members. Each group was then randomly assigned to either a fictional organic papaya commission that does not support transgenic organisms or a fictional papaya commission that does support transgenic organisms. Two sections of the same class taught by the same instructor from Kansas and one class from Hawaii participated 345

3 in this study. The first two classes (one from Kansas and one from Hawaii) were integrated so that each assigned group of four included two students from each school. The third class s groups consisted of all Kansas students. Fourteen groups in total participated in this exercise. Students were asked to identify issues that the target audience would be concerned with, then to choose the strongest message strategy to overcome or enforce these issues. The assigned target audience was residents of Hawaii ages The participants were expected to gain an understanding of their product (organic or biotech papayas) and their competition's product (organic or biotech papayas) to better position their client. This assignment was worth 20% of the final grade in all classes. All participants were given a pre-test, post-test and another post-test seven weeks after completion of the project. Instrument. Attitudes toward biotechnology were measured based on response items developed by Gaskell, et al. (1999) and Irani, Sinclair, & O'Malley (in press). For each item (to reduce the need for pesticides, to improve nutritional content, to improve taste in food, to make food last longer, to increase crop yield, and to solve problems related to overpopulation in the Third World), subjects indicated their agreement or disagreement with statements that the potential application was (1) useful for society, (2) risky for society (reverse coded), (3) morally acceptable, and (4) should be supported. A scale was created for each application by calculating a mean for the four seven-point items (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The instrument also included questions designed to assess perceived knowledge of how food is grown and produced, understanding of science, and understanding of technology. Means were calculated using seven-point items for each. Research Questions and Hypothesis:. RQ 1-5: Based on their assigned condition, how will participants attitudes about using biotechnology to 1) reduce the need for pesticides, 2) improve nutritional content, 3) improve taste in food, 4) increase crop yield, and 5) solve problems related to overpopulation in the Third World change from Time 1 (pre-test) to Time 2 (immediate post-test) to Time 3 (seven weeks later)? H1: Participants' perceived knowledge of biotechnology will increase from T1 to T3. Results Before testing the hypotheses, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on each of the scales. As expected, the items for each dependent measure all factor loaded on one scale. Means, standard deviations and Chronbach's alphas for reliability are reported in Table 1 below. Table 1. Chronbach's Alpha Reported for Dependent Measures at T1, T2, and T3 Variable T1 Alpha T2 Alpha T3 Alpha Reducing need for pesticides Improving nutritional content Improving the taste of food Increasing crop yield Solves the Third World's food problems Understanding food production

4 A 2x2x3 (school - KSU or Hawaii), (treatment - organic or biotechnology), (time - T1, T2, and T3) repeated-measures test was conducted for each of the five research questions. RQ1: How will attitudes change about using biotechnology to reduce the need for pesticides"? The 2x2x3 repeated measures analysis revealed an interaction effect between treatment and time. The interaction was significant, d.f.=2, F=5.42, p=.01 and 2 =.20. The quadratic model had the best fit. The main effect for the treatment was significant, d.f.=1, F=4.22, p=.04, while time was not significant, d.f.=2, F=.83, p=.44. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2 below. Table 2. "To Reduce the Need for Pesticides" Descriptive Statistics KSU GMO Mean S.D KSU Organic Mean S.D Hawaii GMO Mean S.D Hawaii Organic Mean S.D RQ2: How will attitudes change about using agricultural biotechnology to improve the nutritional content of foods? No interaction or main effects were found. See Table 3. Table 3. "Nutritional Content of Food" Descriptive Statistics KSU GMO Mean S.D KSU Organic Mean S.D Hawaii GMO Mean S.D Hawaii Organic Mean S.D

5 RQ3: How will attitudes change about using agricultural biotechnology to improve the taste of foods? Time and treatment had a significant interaction: d.f.=2, F=4.66, p=.01 and 2 =.13. The quadratic model fit best. There was no main effect found for either time or the treatment levels. See Table 4 for descriptive statistics. Table 4. "To Improve Taste" Descriptive Statistics KSU GMO Mean S.D KSU Organic Mean S.D Hawaii GMO Mean S.D Hawaii Organic Mean S.D RQ4: How will attitudes change about using agricultural biotechnology to improve crop yield? Like the previous test, this test showed no three-way interactions. However, two, two-way interactions were found. The first, treatment and time, was significant: d.f. =2, F=3.98, p=.03, 2 =.15 with a linear model providing the best fit. The second significant interaction was with time and school: d.f.=2, F=3.84, p.=03, 2 =.10, with a linear model again providing the best fit. In the between-subject effects, another interaction found between treatment and school: d.f.=1, F=4.45, p=.04, 2 =.11. A main effect also emerged for school: d.f.=1, F=5.85, p.=.02, 2 =.09. Means are listed in Table 5. Table 5. "Improve crop yield" Descriptive Statistics KSU GMO Mean S.D KSU Organic Mean S.D Hawaii GMO Mean S.D Hawaii Organic Mean S.D

6 RQ5: How will attitudes change about using biotechnology to solve problems related to overpopulation in Third World countries"? No interaction or main effects were found with this dependent measure. See Table 6 for the descriptive statistics. Table 6. "Solve Third World Problems" Descriptive Statistics KSU GMO Mean S.D KSU Organic Mean S.D Hawaii GMO Mean S.D Hawaii Organic Mean S.D H1. Participants' perceived knowledge of biotechnology will increase from T1 to T3. Means are presented in Table 7. Pairwise tests from T1 to T2, T2 to T3, and T1 to T3 were conducted. For the pairwise t-test of T1 and T2, t(-4.46, 51), p.=.00. For the pairwise t-test of T1 and T3, t(-3.74, 46), p.=.00. Although no significant differences were found between T2 and T3, the significant increases from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3 generally support this hypothesis. Table 7. Perceived Knowledge of Biotechnology N Mean SD Time Time Time Discussion The results showed that the message frames identified by Junallio (2000) and Gaskill et al. (1999), and indeed the ads from WhyBiotech.com (2002), such as "better nutrition" and "help solve problems related to overpopulation in Third World countries" meant little to students in either the pro-biotech or the pro-organic condition. Although the means were somewhat positive for both of these scales, the project didn't persuade the participants. One possible explanation is that nutritional problems are not readily apparent to these college students in the U.S., where we have enough to eat and obesity is on the rise (CDC, 2002). However, the message frame of "reducing the need for pesticides" as a reason for agricultural biotechnology was not accepted by those students whose client was the organic papaya commission. This attitude lasted for at least seven weeks, barely regressing toward the mean. Students were supposed to understand their competition (the other side of the issue) in order to write their client's issue statement, and the pesticide issue is one that 349

7 biotech/transgenic proponents have deemed as good for the environment. While the students who had a GMO-based organization as their client bought this line, students who had an organic papaya commission as their client did not. Perhaps the most interesting result was the interaction effect of school and condition with regard to crop yields. The differences in schools probably can be traced to the differences of economic structure between Kansas and Hawaii. The students at Kansas State University tend to be from small towns where production agriculture is the economic backbone of the community. Unlike Kansas, tourism is the chief employer and economic draw for Hawaii. This could mean that crop yield could affect many of the KSU students' family incomes, whereas crop yields mean much less to the Hawaii students. However, the treatment effects still hold true. The Hawaii students who had biotechnology as their client supported biotechnology more than the students who had organic commission as their clients. In other words, if students do not have any prior experience with the subject at hand, they were more likely to agree with the position consistent with the condition in which they were placed. The intended goal of this project was for students to think about the issues at hand. As PR practitioners, they will be influential in public decisions as important as whether or not biotechnology will continue to be funded by the United States in years to come. Therefore they need to understand all sides of such issues -- the positive, the negative, and the yet-tobe-decided. This requires careful consideration. Yet whether biotechnology is a positive force or not, the students didn't appear to be thinking for themselves, which is quite bothersome. Educational Importance Again, this project was designed to help non-agricultural students understand some of the issues involved with food biotechnology. In terms of teaching, the results indicate how important the opinions of the professors may be. In this example, both professors had both groups of students who are unfamiliar with the technology and to some extent (Kansas students) the product. To this end, when we ask students to students to consider issues by taking a given side (even if the side is randomly determined), we influence their attitudes toward the subject. While this can be a positive endeavor, educators need to be cautious and aware of the potential outcomes. References Center for Disease Control Available: 12 February "Frankenfood" Frenzy Reason Online. [online]. 13 January Available: Gaskell, G., M. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. Allum Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S., Science, 16 July, 285: Hallman, W. and J. Metcalfe Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology: A survey of New Jersey residents. [online]. USDA National Agricultural Library. Available: Frontline/NOVA (23 April 2001)."Harvest of Fear" Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Transcripts available online: Hoban, T Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum, [online]. Available: 350

8 Irani, T., J. Sinclair. And M. O'Malley (in press) The Importance of Being Accountable: The Relationship Between Perceptions of Accountability, Knowledge and Attitude Toward Plant Genetic Engineering. Science Communication. Juanillo, N.K The risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology: Can scientific and public talk meet? American behavioral Scientist. 44(8) pp Sigal, L. V Reporters and Officials. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company. WhyBiotech.com [online].Available: 12 February