Shineha - Gaps in attitudes towards science and technology between scientists and the public
1 like451 views
This document summarizes a study that examined gaps in attitudes toward stem cell research and regenerative medicine between scientists and the public in Japan. The study found that while scientists want to inform the public about scientific aspects of the topics, the public is more interested in how risks will be managed, how the technology will impact society, and issues of responsibility and regulation. The study also found that scientists have a relatively low awareness of social and policy aspects of regenerative medicine. It concludes that communication and policy need to consider these gaps and that education and support for scientists to discuss societal implications could help address some of the challenges around public engagement.
Shineha - Gaps in attitudes towards science and technology between scientists and the public
- 1. Gaps in attitudes toward science and technology between scientists and the public: The case of stem cell research and regenerative medicine Ryuma Shineha, Ph.D. (Seijo University) Yusuke Inoue, Ph.D. (University of Tokyo) Tsunakuni Ikka, Ph.D. (NCNP) Atsuo Kishimoto, Ph.D. (University of Tokyo) Yoshimi Yashiro, Ph.D. (Kyoto University) Sep 21th 2016, OECD BluSky Ⅲ Conference @ Ghent
- 2. 1st: 1996 2nd: 2001 3rd: 2006 4th: 2011 5th: 2016 Science Communication in Japanese Science Policy “Science and Technology Basic Plan” • Emphasis of accountability • Start of change of funding system from General University Fund to Direct Governmental Fund • Institutional change of university • Encouraging scientists’ outreach activity • Increase of Café Scientific around 2004 (however, as actual situation, many of them were just lecture with drinking…) • Several trials of dialogues on controversial issues • Emphasis of mutual dialogue • Public Engagement in S&T policies • Treatment of ELSIs • Risk communication • Toughness of deficit model Since around 2000, Japanese S&T policy has emphasized scientists’ activities on science communication and PE…however ?
- 3. Japanese context of SCR and RM (Shineha et al. 2010; Shineha 2016; Timothy et al. 2016) • Breakthrough of iPS cell • High recognition of iPS and RM among the public • Hype and “perifelalization of ELSIs” in media • National promotion and increase of funding • Easing of regulation • First in human: clinical trial using iPS cell
- 4. Research Question of this study And STI Policy What is for STI policy? • Communication between scientists and the public become important theme in STI policy. >> Understanding of differences of interests between scientists and the public is one of the key factors for effective communication. • Reflective examination of Science policy on communication between science and society. 1. Comparison of gap of interests between and the public 2. To examine differences in attitudes between scientists and the public to media coverage and social aspect of SCR and RM. 3. To identify the challenges faced by scientists regarding participation in communication activities.
- 5. 2191 responses of the public monitors (Oct 2015 to Nov 4th 2015) - Recognition of RM keywords and situations - Topics they want to know - Case of human-animal chimera embryo - Media usage - Opinion about media discourse on RM 1115 responses of stem cell scientists of JSRM members (Dec 24 2015 to the end of Mar 2016) - Topics they want to inform to the public - Case of human-animal chimera - Recognition of social aspect of RM - Opinion about media discourse on RM - Motivations, hurdles, measures for promotion of communication Description of questionnaire Questionnaire are designed to compare attitudes of the public and stem cell scientists toward science communication concerning stem cell science and regenerative medicine. >> What scientists would like to inform? vs What the public would like to know?
- 6. （%） ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Which topics do you want to know / to inform? Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 • The public have interests in what will occurred and risk management after the appearance of RM >> Information sharing and regulation should be designed, considering this difference.
- 7. Which point do you think important for public acceptance of RM? 55.7 50.5 33.5 32.2 27.1 24 23.2 21.9 14.7 1.8 57.6 35.4 28.1 23.2 17.7 17.1 20.6 36.3 55.0 2.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Whether experts can deal with risks and accidents or not Whether society can prevent abuse and misuse by regulation or not Seriousness of potential risks and accidents Clarification of responsibility and liability Credibility of actors of research acitivities such as university, government, companies, and so on. Predictability about what will be occurred by RM in the future Event probability of potential risks and accidents Whether RM is necessary to the society or not Scientific validation Interesting or nor from scientific perspective The public (n=2133) Scientists (n=1110) ** ** ** ** ** ** ** （%） Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 • Although scientists think scientific validation and possibilities of RM is important for public acceptance, the public regard responsibility and risk management as important point in an accidental case. >> Clarification of ex-post handling >>Vision of future society with responsible scheme on RM
- 8. About making human-chimera animals for organs • Although over 70 % of the public respondent have supportive attitude toward RM, they avoid to agree with making human-animal chimeric embryos for organs… • It seems to be difficult to get general consent, considering this trend…At least, there are necessity to think more appropriate scheme of informed consent, including broad consent or multilayered consent a. Support for making human-animal chimeric embryos for making organs a1, General public. a2, Researchers. (Inoue Y, Shineha R, Yashiro Y. Cell Stem Cell, 19(2), 152-153, 2016)
- 9. Scientists’ recognition on social aspects of RM (a) Response of scientists to “Do you know Regenerative Medicine Three Acts?” (b) Responses of scientists to “Do you know a case fatal clinical accident of administration of stem cell?” (n=1110) (n=1110) Is it enough ratio as scientists’ recognition of research policy and social aspect of RM?
- 10. Summary of results • Communication and related policy should be conducted considering gap of attentions and interests between scientists and the public. - Although scientists want to inform scientific content, the public has interest in what will be occurred, responsible regulatory framework, clarification of liability, etc… - Scientists’ recognition of social aspects of RM remained at low level. • Several ELSI case request scientists’ careful discussion. - Issues on IC and regulation: difficult of general consent in sensitive case • Media as main information source of RM and scientist’s negative image - In some case, press releases of institution has reinforced sensationalism (Sumner et al. 2014). • Hurdle of communication of scientists and issues on science policy - Evaluation scheme on scientists’ communication activities... How to make and share imagination of the society with RM? STI Polices related to engagement, communication, etc should take these points into consideration,,,
- 11. Implications for STI policy, particularly focusing on scientists… Knowing social aspects of S&T Topics which the public want to know Many things for consideration Education for RRI • Competency of responsible scientists • Understanding of social aspects of RM Community and Institution • Thinking and sharing impacts of RM • Media communication not reinforcing hype… S&T Policy • Evaluation system • Higher education • Clarification of liability, etc Making imaginary of society with RM Responsibility and liability What will be occurred? Scientific validation ELSIs etc…
- 12. ANNEX
- 13. Attitudes toward media discourses and their effect on social agenda General public Scientists Yes Yes and No No Yes Yes and No No Media coverage is accurate 40.8 49.5 9.7 21.8 38.8 39.6 Media coverage is objective 36.4 50.3 13.2 20.8 32.4 46.7 Media coverage is well balanced 16.2 63.0 20.8 8.3 35.1 56.6 Media coverage is biased 18.9 58.8 22.3 55.7 28.4 15.9 Media coverage is creditable 32.4 50.0 17.6 13.7 43.8 42.5 Media coverage have enough amount of information 14.5 44.1 41.3 7.5 23.2 69.4 Public opinion is greatly influenced by media coverage 75.8 18.7 5.5 92.9 5.2 2.0 Anxieties of the public toward RM are fueled by sensational media coverage 35.0 44.8 20.3 37.7 26.7 35.5 People can make a choice information on RM appropriately 20.4 46.8 32.9 3.8 17.0 79.1 The public usually does not swallow sensational media coverage 35.2 42.2 22.6 10.1 26.4 63.5
- 14. What is important information resource of RM? （%）
- 15. ** * ** ** ** Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Scientists’ motivation to participate in communication
- 16. （%） ** * ** * Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Hurdles for participating in communication with the public Issues related to S&T policy: place and system on communication
- 17. （%） Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 ** ** * Measures for encouraging scientists’ participation in communication Decreasing hurdles concerning time, place, and evaluation system
- 18. What is your interests about donation of your sample? （%） ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 • Trust of primary doctor • What will be occurred and how samples will be used? • Protection of individual information • Although scientists worry about pain of harvesting, interests of the public relatively low.