The public debate on new technologies such as genetic engineering or 5G mobile communications is often conducted emotionally. Current surveys encourage this by stirring up fears instead of enabling an objective consideration of risks and benefits. One example of this is the environmental indicator, a survey conducted by the Federal Statistical Office (FSO) on the subject of hazards. Using simplistic questions, it generates distorted perceptions. In an article on the progressive Agrarwende.ch platform of the Eco-Progressive Network association, social scientist Angela Bearth addresses the issue.

In the BfS survey, Swiss people were asked about their attitudes towards genetic engineering, nuclear power and mobile phone antennas. It is striking that over 50 per cent of those surveyed rate mobile phone antennas as «rather dangerous». This is despite the fact that more than half of the population undoubtedly uses mobile phones intensively every day. The assessment is even more negative when it comes to «genetic engineering for food production» and the «use of chemical crop protection». However, the results convey a very negatively distorted picture of the population's actual risk behaviour.

Possible benefits are ignored

The way the questions are phrased is to blame. This was also the problem with the BfS survey. Bearth cites the example of the question: «How dangerous do you think genetic engineering is?» With questions like this, many studies already focus on risk perception instead of asking a neutral question. In Bearth's view, this already implies that there is a risk. The result: respondents are tempted to give one-sided answers.

The social scientist criticises this approach and emphasises that such questions do not adequately reflect the complexity of the topic. They would completely ignore the weighing up of possible risks and personal or social benefits. Instead, negative feelings are evoked in the respondents due to certain associations, which makes an objective dialogue considerably more difficult.

For Bearth, there is no question that surveys must simplify complex issues. Nevertheless, in a democratic society, consumers should also be given the chance to see possible advantages. «Surveys on new technologies should do justice to the complexity of the initial questions regarding the regulation of gene technology», Bearth clarifies in her article.

In such studies, it is often forgotten that every risk also has a twin: the benefit. Innovative technologies are developed and used to fulfil a specific purpose – to provide a concrete benefit. However, if surveys focus exclusively on fears, the benefits are suppressed. As Bearth further explains, it is known from psychology that people tend to fall back on simple rules of thumb when forming opinions when faced with uncertain decisions. If the respondents know little about a topic, they are guided by associations. Bearth explains the phenomenon as follows: «When asked whether they would prefer a normal or a genetically modified potato, most people choose the ‹normal› potato because the term genetic engineering triggers a vague unease or because they imagine a ‹Frankenstein potato›.»

Surveys must do justice to the complexity of the topic

According to the social scientist, good surveys should therefore be based on two principles. The first principle is that the way the question is asked should not influence the answer. Instead of asking about the assessment of the risks of genetic engineering, more neutral questions such as «What is your opinion on the use of genetic engineering in agriculture?» should be used.

The second principle is that respondents must understand the purpose of the questions. Providing them with background information can help to ensure that answers are not based solely on vague associations. If survey participants are aware of the specific benefits, they are more willing to accept a certain degree of uncertainty or risk. Angela Bearth writes: ‘We know from research that people are willing to accept a small degree of uncertainty or risk if they see a relevant benefit.’

A recent survey by the research institute gfs.Bern on genome editing confirms this assessment. While only 18 per cent of respondents were immediately in favour of genome editing, acceptance rose to over 80 per cent when the technology was used to breed resistant potato or apple varieties or to reduce the use of crop protection in agriculture. The sudden increase in approval is clear evidence that a specific benefit leads to a more nuanced opinion.

In conclusion, it can be said that surveys that focus purely on fear do not reflect the actual will of consumers. To achieve this, a weighing up of the concrete benefits and risks of several technologies must always take place. Surveys should support this process instead of hindering it. A balanced approach can promote an objective dialogue and avoid an emotionalised debate.