minol

© 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 1129

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1129–1140 DOI 10.1002/biot.200700163 www.biotechnology-journal.com

1 Introduction

Today, the Internet is so omnipresent as a medium of com-munication that one easily could believe that it alwayshas been this way. In fact, the Internet first reached themasses in the middle of the 1990s, previously havingspent decades accessible only to a very limited number ofusers as an elite system for data transfer in universities.Then, in combination with easily operable software fromNetscape, the additional protocols and extensions devel-

oped by Tim Berner-Lee paved the way for the Internet tobecome a channel of mass communication. Through themedium of the Internet, the quantity and bandwidth ofactive, communicating agents of science information hasbeen raised sharply. In addition to established sciencemedia organisations and higher research and educationinstitutions, other individuals and entities counted todayamong publishers and authors include scientific soci-eties, science centres, museums, public education initia-tives, individual scientists, NGOs and laypersons from thebroadest variety of social contexts.

The formats offered by Internet-based media for sci-ence communication directed towards the general publicinclude conventional forms of print and broadcasting aswell as Internet-specific media, e.g. information portals,e-zines, forums, podcasts, news feeds, SMS alerts, videoand audio clips, webcasts and weblogs (see box). Thesenew media partly enhance the interactive character ofcommunication and facilitate the expression of users’opinions on topics (weblogs, forums), and are able to raisethe speed of dissemination of information (i.e. to maintain

Review

Portals, blogs and co.: the role of the Internet as a medium ofscience communication

Klaus Minol1, Gerd Spelsberg2*, Elisabeth Schulte1 and Nicholas Morris1

1Genius GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany2TransGen Wissenschaftskommunikation, Aachen, Germany

While the use of the Internet for the exchange of scientific data was characterised by exclusivityduring its pioneer era, the active employment of the medium today, by a broad social spectrum ofusers in the exchange of information, for dialogue and in the accumulation of knowledge, displaysan almost unbounded inclusion. Blogs and online encyclopaedias based on the ‘Wikipedia’ mod-el have contributed to the formation of a marketplace in which the free expression of opinions andthe relaying of information occur. Counted among the ideas which have been popularised in thewake of this phenomenon, “lay journalism” and the “wisdom of the masses” are seen to be inte-gral to the new ‘web 2.0’. Consequently, the ever-increasing information disseminated in the webhas been diluted in quality and authenticity, resulting in the presentation of new challenges to on-line science journalism. In reference to the public debate surrounding green gene technology, thecommunications platform bioSicherheit.de, which receives more than one million visitors per year,will be examined as an example of an agent that retrieves and mobilises information on biologicalsafety research and that successfully has established itself as an intermediary between the scien-tific community and the broader public.

Keywords: Biosafety research · Genetically modified organism · Internet · Science communication · Web 2.0

Correspondence: Dr. Klaus Minol, Genius GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Str. 7,64293 Darmstadt, GermanyE-mail: [email protected]: +49-6151-8724041Web: www.genius.deE-mail: [email protected]*Additional corresponding author: Gerd Spelsberg

Abbreviations: EU, European Union; GM, genetically modified; GMO, GMorganism; URL, uniform resource locator

Received 31 July 2007Accepted 31 July 2007

1129_1140_200700163_Minol.qxd:BIOT_2006 30.08.2007 13:16 Uhr Seite 1129

BiotechnologyJournal Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1129–1140

1130 © 2007 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

a ‘live’ character, for example through SMS alerts, pod-casts, webcasts and news feeds).

The resulting conclusions are obvious: formal and in-formal communication within the scientific communityincreasingly is overlaid with science communicationwhich occurs in the public sphere and which, further-more, is increasingly influenced by non-scientists. Con-sequently, it has become increasingly difficult to distin-guish between ‘correct’ and ‘false’ information, or be-tween reliable, structured data and random information.Many offers of information are tinted strongly by personalinclinations, derived either from the intent of the author orof the institutions with which he or she is associated. Thesituation is complicated further by the fact that websitesoffer an increasing quantity of information for which theoriginal authors are no longer able to be determined.

In this transformed communication landscape, evenscientists often are unable to determine whether all sci-entific information has been validated internally beforebeing shunted towards the broader public. Effectively, therules of conventional scientific publishing – including therule of peer review – have been waived in the Internet. Inthe following text, therefore, an attempt is made to pro-vide a closer analysis of the new character of the web.

Box: a selection of new internet tools that influence the interactivity and speed of the information flow as well as the availability of information

The term e-zine refers to an Internet portal in the style ofa magazine. It offers comprehensive editorial content,which, as a rule, is composed by professional journalistsand authors and contains such items as magazine arti-cles, opinions (columns), interviews with prominent per-sonalities, etc.

In appearance, the e-zine is based on the classical period-ical magazine (illustrated magazines, specialist and pop-ular periodicals), although community functions such asevaluation systems and commentary functions common-ly are implemented.

Podcasting refers to the production and offer of mediafiles (as audio or as video podcast, also known as vodcast)on the Internet. This portmanteau word is coined from theterms ‘iPod’ and ‘broadcasting’. An individual podcast istherefore a series of media contributions (episodes) thatmay be received automatically through a feed (mostlyRSS).

One may view podcasts as radio or television transmis-sions that may be consumed irrespective of broadcasttimes.

A webcast is similar to a television broadcast in aim but isconceived particularly for the Internet medium and alsooutpaces television by facilitating interaction. Pro-grammes offer mostly live content, but most streams alsoare available later as recordings. Originally, webcasts sim-ply were transmissions streamed through the Internet.The content type of webcasts is more likely to be of a di-dactic or scientific nature rather than for entertainment.

A weblog (English hybrid of the words ‘web’ and ‘log’,commonly abbreviated to ‘blog’) is a digital journal. It iswritten on the computer and is published on the WorldWide Web. Commonly, a blog is “endless”, i.e. is a long,inversely chronological list of entries, which periodicallyare wrapped up. It may be seen therefore as a websitewhich, in the ideal case, incorporates a content level only.For the publisher (‘blogger’) and his or her readers, a blogis an easily manageable medium for the presentation ofaspects of one’s own life and of opinions, often on specif-ic groups of topics. When expanded, it may also serve theexchange of information, thoughts and experience as wellas communication and, therefore, is very comparable withan Internet forum.

2 Web 2.0 – New senders conquer the Internet

The most current topic of discussion is the ‘web 2.0’, anew generation of Internet which has substantiallychanged the rules of play for this medium. Its novelty liesin the fact that it is no longer merely a storage space forinformation that may later be retrieved but, instead, hasbecome a global system for the processing of data, i.e. aplatform. Arbitrarily, the data already present in the Inter-net may be combined and expanded, and use of such datahas been made largely independent from the type of ter-minal, which may be a computer or a cell phone. Further-more, a very particular change has taken place: web 2.0has become a ‘read-write-web’. A vision is becoming realthat had already been postulated in the 1930s by BertoltBrecht in regard to the medium of radio [1]. The Internetcurrently is being transformed from a tool of distributionto a tool of genuine communication, with which knowl-edge may also be generated. Often, a highly specialisedreadership is gathered by online encyclopaedias and,foremost, by blogs with monothematic discourses on theperils of particular technical gadgets or on knotty techni-cal language. This readership voluntarily disseminates in-formation and develops solutions. In such cases, an ideal



Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 1129–1140 www.biotechnology-journal.com

becomes reality: that of collectively being able to conductand compile research irrespective of geographical limits.An example of specialised competence is the English-lan-guage “Scientific Activist” web log [2].

2.1 The masses express themselves – and transform journalism

The quantity of writers is increasing exponentially. Spe-cialising in blogs, the search engine Technorati [3] cur-rently observes approximately 25 million websites.Roughly 70 000 new blogs are opened every day, with cir-ca 700 000 new contributions published therein. The jour-nalist Dan Gollmor has designated as the avant-garde of anew civil movement that dismantles old media monopo-lies and establishes a plurality of opinion. In the Internet,engaged amateurs are able ‘in dialogue’ to develop anddisseminate news. Gillmore titles this new form of com-munication and exchange as “grassroots journalism bythe people, for the people” [4].

The media researcher Aaron Delwiche has investigat-ed the role played in the media by amateur journalistsamong the bloggers [5]. He was unable to find clear em-pirical evidence that such activity is already taking placeon a widespread scale. Largely, a strong distinction re-mains between press and blogs among the subjects ofthematic focus. However, through his research Delwichealso perceives evidence of increasing influence exertedby the blogger-scene on the media world and, in discus-sion, arrives at the following conclusion: “Attempts at am-ateur journalism constitute only a small part of the overallblogosphere, but they have demonstrated their ability toaffect the flow of information between traditional journal-ists and audiences. From the standpoint of agenda set-ting, the most important thing about web logs is the waythat they bridge these components of our public sphere.”

In a publication entitled “The End of Mass Communi-cation?” [6], Chaffee and Metzger argue that new mediatransform the assumptions of traditional communicationstheory. They propose that “…the key problem for agenda-setting theory will change from what issues the media tellpeople to think about to what issues people tell the mediathey want to think about”.

It may also be expected that the web 2.0 will have anincreasing influence upon journalism in general andthereby also a particular influence upon science journal-ism. In this context, the web 2.0 causes certain uneasewithin the media sector, in which the question must beasked of whether, how, and in what way the profession re-sultantly will change. How must journalists react to thenew media? Should the content of relevant web logs beprinted? This already takes place: for example, in 2005 af-ter the devastating tsunami in the Indian Ocean, excerptsfrom victims’ journals appeared in the feuilleton of a Ger-man daily newspaper. Should journalists instead becomeproactive and seek dialogue with their audience or with

bloggers? Early evidence of support for this potentialcame from a survey among Dutch online journalists in1999: 69% of these new media professionals agreed to theproposition that a strong interactive relationship with theaudience is an essential building block for any news site[7]. In some German newspapers (for example, in theFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is distributedthroughout Germany), science editors currently are ex-perimenting with such interaction under the titles of “par-ticipative journalism”, “citizens’ journalism” or “open-source journalism”. These transitional forms betweenconventional media and the Internet remain at an earlystage of development. Ultimately, such experiments anddalliances must be tested within the framework of socialdiscussion, since neither print-based journalists nor ac-tive internet users may isolate themselves indefinitely –all participants share a current reality and, necessarily, ex-ert reciprocal influence thereby. The potentials (and pit-falls) of open-source journalism therefore should be ex-plored instead of discarded.

2.2 Does the web 2.0 produce relevant content?

In this context, scientists and professional science jour-nalists must pull another question to the fore: in what waywill the ‘lay journalism’ cultivated by the web 2.0 alter thequality of scientific news, and how reliable will thesources and content of news in the Internet remain? In thefirst phase of the Internet until the 1990s, web users al-most exclusively found sites, which stemmed from re-search institutions that were publicly financed and, in themajority, oriented towards the natural sciences. As a rule,such web profiles had neither commercial interests noreditors with time to chat or to blog. Essentially, the pri-mary interests of their operators then were derived fromthe relatively simple desire to heighten acquaintancewith their work within the already-existing social systemof science.

In a contribution by Ulrich von Rauchhaupt to theFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 28 January 2007, thequestion is asked of “how much wisdom” there could pos-sibly be in the web 2.0, since discussion in the Internet isconducted not only by a “licensed elite, to whom respon-sibility has been ceded” but also ever-increasingly by“anyone capable of operating a browser”. Reference ismade to randomness, idiosyncrasy and redundancy incountless Internet forums and blogs.

To pursue this question, one must first seek modelsthat either already exist or that are possible in principleand that provide order, relevance and correctness amongthe innumerable contributions in the Internet. Two prin-ciple mechanisms that may be capable of doing so are of-ten cited: the models ‘eBay’ and ‘Wikipedia’.

The auction portal eBay is commonly known to beused for the acquisition and sale of movable goods – but,additionally, also generates knowledge. Through the mas-




sive integration of data from bidders on the value of of-fered goods, a statistical determination of prices resultsthat obeys the rules of supply and demand and that alsonecessarily approximates the realities of a market econo-my. However, the problem becomes more complex whenaddressing knowledge that does not originate at theagents in the Internet – such as is the case with scientif-ic knowledge and the social discussion that surrounds it.The concept commonly mentioned in this context is the‘Wikipedia model’.

At Wikipedia, simultaneously the most prominent ex-ample and the foremost symbol of web 2.0, it may be ob-served with particular clarity that users of the Internethave become agents themselves: they create their owncontent. Passive consumers become highly active pro-ducers. This ‘folk’ encyclopaedia is an open project ofgrass-roots democracy, accessible to everyone. Severalthousand individuals across the world regularly post con-tributions that include technical and scientific themes.The English-language version currently contains 1.8 mil-lion contributions, and in Germany alone 500 new contri-butions are written daily.

At Wikipedia, the ‘corrective mechanism’ or ‘qualitycontrol’ results from the supplementation, or correction, ofexisting contributions by other authors. Any user is ableto participate in this process – which is the second, fun-damental mechanism of quality control in the Internet.With Wikipedia as an example, the web 2.0 demonstratesa further essential characteristic titled “collective intelli-gence” by many authors. This “wisdom of the masses”may often prove to be quicker and more current, deeperand – through many links – broader than conventional ar-ticles, textbooks or research projects. Questions are askedand answers are given on topics determined by the inter-est of individuals rather than by preordination through in-stitutions. The popularity of the medium may be under-stood as being based on this sheer fact.

In the case of popular factual issues, such as thenames of countries in the European Union or the birthdate of Bertolt Brecht, the large number of contributionssuffices as a safeguard: for purely statistical reasons, con-tributions with incorrect answers will be in the minority.Such a principle also operates on a higher level in the In-ternet and certainly helps to minimise the errors of indi-vidual authors. Through evaluation of the content of web-sites or blogs by counting the numbers of links in the In-ternet which lead to them – a simple, popular principleused by search engines such as Google or Yahoo – ‘un-popular’ websites, which may owe their unpopularity totheir being faulty, are disfavoured.

However, in regard to quality control, the Wikipediamodel has obvious points of weakness. The “wisdom ofthe masses” cannot be guaranteed in every case:1. Contributions on a particular topic must be provided

in the majority by experts. However, this may neitherbe verified nor expected. Furthermore, particular

themes may be treated preferentially by a minoritywhose basic philosophy disproportionably influencestext content.

2. Definite answers must exist for specific questions.Particularly in most cases of scientific questions; how-ever, no single answers exist that may be squared bystatistical processes involving the majority of users.Collective intelligence may only be an appropriate cor-rective mechanism for cases in which empirical evi-dence, through scientific knowledge, is not only quan-titatively sufficient but also socially accepted.

2.3 What role does the scientific system still play in web 2.0?

The journalist Ulrich von Rauchhaupt [8] draws an impor-tant conclusion from the limited quality control of web 2.0:on the one side, the web 2.0 is one of the most powerfulinstruments that may be used to make knowledge gener-ally accessible. In the history of humankind to date, it isthe most comprehensive information system to have ex-isted. However, the web 2.0 remains pointless without ascientific system working towards it. Continuously,providers of information will be needed who do not obtaintheir information anonymously but instead through pro-fessional work and preparation. Their efforts in their re-spective fields must be transparent and proven and, in thecase of academics for example, may include such qualifi-cations as doctorates, peer-reviewed publications, pro-fessorships or Nobel prizes. Without such support, theweb 2.0 will suffer a loss of content despite an ever-grow-ing number of published contributions. It is not enoughfor contributions merely to attain a high degree of socialrelevance: these indeed may be self-invoked through thesystem-immanent agenda-setting of the web 2.0. Sciencecommunication above all must tap primarily scientificsources.

Jaron Lanier, a well-known theoretician of the digitalfuture, is also pessimistic when ruminating on the collec-tive wisdom of the Internet. The Internet certainly hasgenerated wonderful ideas of democracy, openness andthe equality of rights and responsibilities for all [9]. How-ever, belief would be misplaced in a wisdom of the mass-es that supposedly finds its perfect expression in the In-ternet. Particularly, the view which maintains that realityand importance reside exclusively in the collective en-tirety – as opposed to residing in the individual personwith individual ideas and opinions – points already to-wards totalitarianism. In the Internet, debates on political,social and scientific issues largely are conducted anony-mously or by individuals who conceal themselves behindinvented identities. Lanier states: “An invisible person isinvulnerable. In contrast, you only obtain truth with re-sponsibility.”

Additionally, insecurity is promoted by the fact thatthe web 2.0, at least in individual cases, is actively used




for manipulation. Wikipedia contributions from represen-tatives of the German parliament have been altered ten-dentiously, and political advertisements have been in-serted into Wikipedia pages [10]. Already a reality in therealm of politics, such actions naturally may be expectedalso in others areas with high social relevance, such asscientific journalism.

The problem may be thus formulated: how will infor-mation be transferred from science to the web 2.0 in anappropriate manner? Only in the fewest cases do scien-tists themselves possess sufficient time and resources tomaintain a continuous channel of communication withthe Internet public. Such projects as the nano2hybridsmay be counted among the few exceptions to this rule.Key scientists involved in this European research projectproduce video diaries and post these, along with blogs oftheir work and lives, on a dedicated web site. The videodiaries may also be extracted through the popular‘YouTube’ website and, therefore, are on view on one ofthe most widely embraced websites of the present [11].

An option for such a scientific-social bridge is repre-sented by information portals of which the editors receiveinformation directly from scientists. In return, scientistsreceive the opportunity to review the editorial processingof their information as it is directed towards specific tar-get groups. Through this collaboration, a reliable offer ofinformation is established for web-users that can providea citable and fact-based point of entry to deeper discus-sion in the web 2.0. To date in Europe, only a limited num-ber of such theme-specific information portals exist thatoperate according to this system (examples: GMO-Com-pass – consumer information on GM food and feed,www.gmo-compass.org; GMO-Safety – information plat-form presenting results of biosafety research on trans-genic plants; www.gmo-safety.eu, Scitizen – an open sci-ence news source by scientists and journalists, www. scitizen.com). In the following segments, the basic edito-rial characteristics of such a “bridge portal” are explainedusing the example of the German information portalbioSicherheit.de (www.biosicherheit.de; English-lan-guage version: GMO-Safety.eu /www.gmo-safety.eu), anInternet platform used in the dissemination of knowledgeobtained through safety research on transgenic plants.

3 Public debate on the biosafety of GMOs

To categorise the tasks and field of communication of theGMO-Safety Internet portal, it is helpful at this point tooutline the European context of the debate on green genetechnology.

In 1996, the first genetically modified (GM) crop wascultivated commercially in the USA. Currently, GM cropsare grown on more than hundred million hectares world-wide, although the cultivation of GM plants remains verylimited in Europe. Only in France and Spain is genetical-

ly modified Bt maize grown on comparatively large fields,but contribute to a total European area of less than 100 000hectares. In Germany, for example, the area percentage ofBt maize is less than 0.1%, i.e. less than 3000 hectares [12].To date, no GM crops besides Bt maize are cultivatedcommercially within the European Union (EU) [13].

3.1 Public opinion towards green gene technology

The situation outlined above is based strongly upon thenegative attitude of the European consumer: although 10years have passed since the beginning of commercial cul-tivation, the European public sphere largely remains char-acterised by significant resistance to green biotechnolo-gy.

The complicated consumer attitude is reflected inpolls contracted by the European Commission [14, 15].Europeans indeed are becoming increasingly optimisticabout biotechnology, as has been the trend in the EUsince 1999 (Fig. 1). Support especially is strong for med-ical applications of biotechnology, provided that clearbenefits for human health are recognisable. Many Euro-peans also support “white” biotechnology, i.e. industrialbiotechnological applications: as examples, the surveyaddressed ethanol fuel production, biodegradable plas-tics, and transgenic plants developed to produce phar-maceuticals. Even the controversial field of stem cell re-search is widely supported in Europe, provided that it istightly regulated. According to the study, confidence inthe EU’s regulation of biotechnology also is on the rise.

Nonetheless, Europeans’ purchasing attitudes remainunchanged – particularly in regard to the distaste for GMfood. Even the recent overhaul of the regulatory frame-work for GMO authorisation and labelling in the EU hasbeen unable yet to effect more local acceptance of foodmade from genetically engineered plants. A tendency ofsteady decline in support for GM food between 1996 and2005 may be discerned (Fig. 2). Apparently, most con-sumers have difficulty in seeing clear benefits associatedwith genetically engineered crops. At the same time, the

Figure 1. Trends in optimism for biotechnology for selected Europeancountries (1991–2005) [15]. 1:Spain; 2:France; 3:United Kingdom; 4:Germany; 5:Denmark




public is clearly concerned about potential risks to humanhealth and the environment.

The acceptance of GM foods in Europe also has shift-ed significantly over the years. After a period of risingscepticism from 1996 to 1999, an increase in support wasobserved in the 2002 study. Since 2002, support for GMfoods has taken another downturn. For an increasingnumber of people, the perceived risks of GM food out-weigh the benefits.

The survey also questioned participants on the cir-cumstances under which they would choose to buy GMfood (Fig. 3). The results showed that benefits for humanhealth would be the forerunning reason to opt for GMOs.Reduction of pesticide use appeared to be another impor-tant factor that would motivate European consumers tochoose a GM product. Most respondents, however,claimed that ‘saving money’ would be inadequate as thesole reason for choosing GM products. Furthermore, au-thorisation by European authorities was not seen by mostEuropeans as a sufficient reason to sample GM foods.

3.2 Societal value perceptions are decisive

Approval of new technologies and innovation certainly isto be detected by polls conducted in the EU, but this atti-tude remains unapplied to foodstuffs. The mere mentionof ‘biotechnology’ in the context of GM foodstuffs pro-vokes radically different acceptance values and percep-tions. Clearly, the category ‘foodstuff’ activates a differentvalue pattern as does ‘technical innovation’. Foodstuff is

more likely to be assigned to the category of ‘nature’ andnot to those of ‘science’, ‘technology’ or ‘innovation’. Inthe case of green gene technology, such considerationsalso play a large role: its use of research and breedingtechniques on plants – including gene-technologicalprocesses – is met by the majority of polled individualswith acceptance, and is considered as positive. Nonethe-less, this acceptance vanishes in all EU countries – albeitwith recognisable changes of accent – when confrontedwith GM food (Fig. 4).

4 The contribution of biosafety research to safeinnovations

The approval, and prerequisite safety evaluation, of trans-genic products by competent authorities must be per-ceived clearly as separate to biosafety research.

4.1 Approval procedure

The approval of transgenic products in the EU only cantake place subsequently to comprehensive risk assess-ment derived from a clear concept. Principally, and forevery transgenic product (i.e. ‘event’), risk estimationbased upon scientific knowledge, plausible assumptionsand scenarios is conducted, and experiences are won instep-by-step procedures upon the relevant GMO. In a suc-cession of experiments (in laboratories, greenhouses,small- and large-scale field releases, and traffic), the se-curity measures are reduced incrementally. Each steponly may be undertaken when the previous step hasshown to hold no risks for human beings or the environ-ment. The approval requirements for a new GM productdemand that the product be exactly as safe as a compa-rable conventional product according to the current stan-dard of knowledge. Such requirements apply to the con-duct of a new product in the environment as well as in re-gard to its effects upon the health of human beings andanimals.

Proof of safety must be provided by the applicant and,on the basis of the submitted certificates, an ensuing

Figure 2. Support for GMfood in EU-15 countries(average 1991–2005) [15].

Figure 3. Reasons for buying or notbuying GM foods [15].




safety assessment is conducted by independent expertpanels [competent national authorities, European FoodSafety Authority (EFSA)]. Applicable guidelines for safetyassessments have been formulated among others by theFAO [16], OECD [17] and the EFSA [18].

Nonetheless, approval procedures and the decisionsmade by the responsible agencies remain unaccepted bylarge segments of the European public (i.e. consumers,the media, various other agents). Particularly, NGOs suchas Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or GM Watch con-sider the applied approval procedures to be faulty. There-fore, despite the legal-administrative framework and elab-orate safety assessments, a public belief persists that GMproducts are neither safe nor investigated. The reasons forthis are complex, and include:– A loss of trust in science, particularly in socially con-

troversial areas. In a survey, for example, 26% of Euro-pean citizens named environmental organisationswhen asked whom they most trusted to tell the truthabout GM crops. Only 6% named universities, 4% na-tional public authorities and 1% industry [19].

– The low transparency of decision procedures of theEU.

– A politically based depreciation of expert opinions. Forexample, during approval processes of GM products,judgements submitted by the responsible GMO pan-els of the EFSA are regularly ignored by voting repre-sentatives of EU Member States in the Council of Min-isters. As a result, scientific assessments and the re-sulting recommendations of the EFSA have never re-ceived the qualified majority among Member Statesthat is necessary for their implementation.

4.2 Biosafety research

Safety research sponsored, for example, by the EU Com-mission and individual Member States must find its placein an area of conflict, i.e. between science-based regula-tion and approval on the one hand and the absence of so-cial acceptance on the other. Such research is conductedindependently of the businesses involved in the commer-cial development of GM crops and, in the past quarter-century, has played a key role in accompanying the de-velopment and dissemination of modern biotechnology

products and applications in health care, agro-food andthe environment. The benefits of GM crops are becomingclear but, as always with innovations, the precautionaryapproach demands that uncertainties and conjecturalrisks be addressed by corresponding research. Fed intoregulatory and risk management policies, growing practi-cal experience and the results of research have both facil-itated safe innovations. Research results can resolve un-certainties and provide a sound basis for risk manage-ment and science-based regulation [20].

GMO safety research has been supported in succes-sive EC-sponsored Framework Programmes from 1985 tothe present day. Eighty-three projects and 477 teams havebeen supported with more than 87.5 million euros [21].Since the end of the 1980s, the Federal Government ofGermany has sponsored biological safety research, in-cluding more than 300 projects, with more than 95 millioneuros.

5 Communication GMO biosafety: Challengesand constraints

The biological safety research sponsored by the Germangovernment for the past 20 years has focused most re-cently on GM plants.

In the responsible ministry, the Federal Ministry forEducation and Research (BMBF), it was decided in 2001for the first time to accompany a ministry-financed re-search programme with professional communicationsmanagement. The core of this collaboration has beenformed by the Internet platform bioSicherheit.de, whichwent online in 2002 and has been available in Englishsince 2006.

Together with supplementary communications meas-ures, this Internet platform is aimed at bringing the re-sults of safety research on GM plants into public discus-sion more vigorously. In light of sustained social contro-versy on the topic of green gene technology, the commu-nication of research results remains a difficult task which,furthermore, is influenced by various and contradictoryintentions:

Figure 4. European attitudes to three applications of biotechnology [14].




– On the one hand, the goal exists of presenting cir-cumstances and research in such a manner that theinterested public may understand their relative objec-tives as well as the findings that result. However, pub-lic knowledge – for example, on basic principles of bi-ology and agriculture – is low. A context is lackingwithin which individual data may be integrated.

– On the other hand, widespread scepticism towardsthe products of green gene technology can be ex-plained not only as emanating from a deficit of knowl-edge but also as the expression of a deep conflict ofvalues within society. The successful closure of pres-ent gaps in public information and knowledge wouldnot lead automatically to a transformation in the cli-mate of public opinion [22].

Communications strategies towards green gene technol-ogy must address divergent challenges: the communica-tion of knowledge through clear and understandable de-piction of science-oriented principles is essential, but isinsufficient on its own to reach the public or to influencethe discussion held in its arena.

5.1 The dispute about green gene technology: A conflict of values

The debate on the release and cultivation of GM plants,and on the safety of products made from these plants, hasbeen conducted for years without having led to a gener-ally acceptable result. This debate mirrors a deep conflictin regard to modernisation: the discussion surroundingGM plants in agriculture and in the food industry may beseen as a current point of its crystallisation. Controversialissues include the following:– Recombination technology is not seen as a modern

molecular procedure that may be applied to plantbreeding in a similar manner to other agriculturalmethods but, instead, as the expression of an oppor-tunistic relationship with nature and, as such, worthyof refusal – at least in the context of individual nutri-tion.

– The release of GM plants is perceived against thebackground of a stasis-oriented understanding of na-ture: changes in (agro-)ecosystems are not held to bethe expression of a natural and evolutionary dynamicbut, instead, to be a menace and peril to that which al-ready exists.

– In public perception, the application of agro-genetechnology leads to the loss of “traditional” values (e.g.naturalness, inherited tradition, self reliance). In con-trast, the “modern” values associated with gene tech-nology (e.g. scientific control, goal rationale, efficien-cy) are more likely to be perceived negatively, partic-ularly in the context of foodstuffs and nutrition.

This conflict of values and its resulting perceptions forman essential framework upon which communication on

biological safety research must take place [23]. Commu-nication on this topic is also made difficult by the fact thatthe categories ‘safety’ and ‘risk’ are interpreted in differ-ing ways by laypeople (consumers) and experts (scien-tists). While the former infer safety from untreated statesand from natural, unmanipulated processes, the latter de-fine safety as the result of technical control and scientificpenetration. Communication on biological safety researchtherefore cannot be conducted under the assumption of agenerally accepted understanding of ‘safety’ and ‘risk’.

Bluntly: the social debate surrounding green genetechnology is conducted not on the basis of knowledgebut, instead, of valuations. Therefore, the importance androle of science is transformed:– The socially accepted power of determination attrib-

uted to science is limited. Science must compete with“post-material” definitions and value systems.

– Scientists cannot assume that their knowledge andpoint of view will be accepted unconditionally by thesurrounding society. On the contrary: natural scien-tists currently are experiencing a substantial loss oftrust and credibility [19, 24].

– The loss of trust and the decreasing power of determi-nation attributed to science are manifest foremost inpolitically and socially controversial fields – such asgreen gene technology. In such contexts, expertknowledge is used selectively: it is primarily acceptedwhen suited to pre-existing patterns of perceptionsand when seen as confirming pre-established valuesystems.

– ‘Internal’ scientific controversies, normally confinedto a single community, are subject to broader publicinterest in the case of socially controversial questionsand are amplified by the media. To the eye of a publicaudience, which lacks the possibility of placementwithin a technical context or of verification, it may ap-pear in each case that experts hold an excess of dif-fering and contradictory perspectives and assess-ments that nonetheless seem to be of equal rank. Thisimpression of arbitrariness results not only in a depre-ciation of expert knowledge but also enhances thebroad public perception that experts are more moti-vated by commercial factors than by interest in the ac-quisition of knowledge [25].

– The creeping devaluation of expert knowledge is ex-acerbated by the commingling of science and politics.Particularly in conflicts surrounding green gene tech-nology, one may notice that scientific facts are inter-preted politically. Political decisions, such as deci-sions by the EU Council of Ministers on the approvalof GM plants or GMO products, bypass scientific opin-ions generated by the responsible panels of experts –for example, of the EFSA. Conversely, to achieve bet-ter weighting in public debate, political assessmentsare often presented as scientifically secured conclu-sions [26].




6 Case study: Goals and basic orientation ofbioSicherheit.de

The public perception remains widespread that safety-re-lated knowledge on GM plants is insufficient and that,therefore, their commercial application is unjustifiable.Against this background, public receptiveness is highertowards information that strengthens, rather than weak-ens, risk-based reservations.

Communication on questions of biological safety can-not change this situation directly, and must assume ap-propriate goals under consideration of the contextual sit-uation. It will not be possible with PR concepts alone topenetrate the basic scepticism of large parts of the socie-ty towards green gene technology and to motivate thesetowards acceptance.

The communication strategy upon which the Internetplatform bioSicherheit.de is based is oriented towards thefollowing aims:– Differentiation and objectification of the public debate

on green gene technology– Greater public awareness of the research programme

on biological safety and the results of research projects– Greater weight for scientific perspectives and insight

in public discussion, as well as stronger presence ofscientific arguments in national and regional debateson GM plants and on the risks associated with theiruse

– Increased availability to the interested public of sci-entific knowledge relevant to the discussion of safety,and the dismantlement of barriers based on technolo-gy and language, i.e. easily findable, accessible andunderstandable offers of information

– Trust and credibility through transparency and attrac-tive presentation, as well as through recognition ofscientists as persons with convincing messages

– Transparency as a principle: safety research shouldbecome recognisable as an open process, in which allrelevant information is accessible freely. Openness,transparency and traceability are central require-ments for credibility

– Contextualisation of individual aspects of biologicalsafety.

The recipient of this offer of information is the broaderpublic, provided that interest exists in questions of greengene technology and the safety of GM plants. The infor-mation offered is understandable to interested users, in-cluding those with neither scientific nor previous knowl-edge.

Additionally, important target groups for bioSicher-heit.de include multipliers, such as journalists, teachers-in-training, teachers in continuing education, politicaldecision-makers and agencies, as well as individuals andgroups involved in agriculture and the food industry, i.e.

branches that are affected by questions of green genetechnology.

The information that may be obtained from bioSicher-heit.de is to be seen as an offer to the society: on both theindividual and social levels, it is intended to provide aservice facilitating appropriate and informed determina-tion of opinions and decisions. Scientific information andappraisals are clearly distinguished from each other.

6.1 Communication strategy bioSicherheit.de

The communication concept upon which bioSicher-heit.de is based may be subdivided into four levels (Fig. 5).

6.1.1 Demand for informationAn active interest already exists in information on ques-tions of green gene technology and on its surroundingsafety aspects. Further approvals of GM plants, their cul-tivation and uses of their harvest products in the EU, aswell as media reports and the ongoing public debate, willcontinue to foster this demand for information.

An active demand for information may be expectedforemost from the following target groups:– Interested citizens– Regional communities, e.g. in cases of conflict regard-

ing release experiments or cultivation of GM plants– Farmers and manufacturers of foodstuffs– The media– Teachers, pupils and students– Politicians and public agents

6.1.2 Marketing: Steering demand towards supplyThe Internet is increasingly used as a source and mediumto satisfy the demand for knowledge. Queries about top-ics of green gene technology are addressed on the Inter-net preferably through the use of search engines. In addressing this demand, the Internet portal bioSicher-heit.de thereby is in competition with other sources.Competing provenances include monothematic Internetsites from public agencies, interest groups, associations,news and science portals, and topical informationsources. Increasingly, a role is played by newer, decen-tralised Internet sites (Web 2.0) such as ‘blogs’ or the user-based lexicon ‘Wikipedia’.

Queries directed towards search engines should gen-erate result lists on which pages from bioSicherheit.de areplaced among the first hits. To accomplish this goal for abroad spectrum of terms and catchphrases, suitablesearch engine marketing is necessary. Such marketing in-cludes a thematically differentiated offer of information,page information optimised for search engines, and ahigh page ranking (visibility) accomplished through link-ing of external sites to bioSicherheit.de.




6.1.3 Demand-oriented alignment of the offer of informationThe user’s assessment of a Website after the first-time vis-it depends decisively on whether he or she has receivedthe information that was the object of the search.

For user satisfaction, pivotal considerations are:– Clarity of structure, navigation and user guidance

(usability)– Thematic breadth of offer– Understandable language and attractive forms of pres-

entation– Functional, easily operable search tools, and– Currency and maintenance of the store of informationThe editorial concept of bioSicherheit.de is derived fromthese requirements.

The Internet platform is established by an editorialboard as an ‘online magazine’ consistent with basic jour-nalistic principles. Characteristics of this journalistic con-cept include attractive presentation, understandable, pre-cise and transparent language, variety of topics and offorms of presentation, separation of information and valu-ation, and high information content as well as photo-graphs and graphics as self-contained elements. The on-line magazine is aimed at making a vigorous and attrac-tive impression that also motivates interested non-ex-perts to visit the site. With the aim of the highest possibleuser satisfaction, specific possibilities of the Internetmedium are adopted.

The magazine segment of bioSicherheit.de forms abridge between specific aspects of the biological safety ofindividual transgenic plants and the social and scientificdebate surrounding green gene technology. Current re-ports, foremost on topics related to questions of safety inreference to GM plants, are presented in prominent posi-tions. The foreground is occupied by reporting on politi-cal discussions – e.g. on questions on the legal regulationof GM plants – and also contains supporting informationon current media topics.

For bioSicherheit.de to be seen as a credible, seriousand trustworthy source of information, everything mustbe avoided that may result in its being perceived as a‘communiqué organ’ for one or the other side of debate.Nonetheless, an independent alignment of bioSicher-heit.de is not achieved alone through its best-possibledocumentation of differing scientific perspectives orstandpoints of debate, but also through goal-oriented pro-cessing of information according to the journalistic quali-ty standards formulated above.

Controversies, messages, differing points of view andinterpretations are associated with individuals wheneverpossible: in dialogues and interviews published bybioSicherheit.de, scientists and experts are personallyrecognisable and thereby demonstrate their willingnessto engage in social discussion.

Figure 5. Scheme of the principle com-munication strategy of bioSicherheit.de(see text).




Supplementary to its online magazine, bioSicher-heit.de offers a databank on research projects sponsoredby the BMBF on biological safety. For each project, resultsare illuminated in an understandable form that is alsotransparent to non-experts. For projects that have yet tobe concluded, the actual status is presented.

As multipliers, educators play a particularly decisiverole in relaying information. For teachers and interestedpupils, the school portal of bioSicherheit.de offers a sys-tematic entry to current topics of biological safety re-search on plants and includes reflection on the complex ofattendant social problems.

6.1.4 Binding users to bioSicherheit.deTo users, bioSicherheit.de should become a preferredsource of information in the field of biological safety. Toachieve this, the site should be acknowledged as a‘brand’. The brand ‘bioSicherheit’ represents current, se-rious, reliable, credible and high-quality information, pre-sented attractively and fluidly, and also represents themaintenance of independence from political camps ‘pro’and ‘contra’ green gene technology.

In 2006, the topic menu ‘debate’ was established toemphasise the discursive, open approach of bioSicher-heit.de. Here, scientific controversies – mostly in the formof interviews – are presented, as well as social percep-tions of science.

Additionally, the intention exists to establish a ‘com-munity’ of interested users surrounding bioSicherheit.de.Such an effort includes for example:– that all ‘debate’ contributions may be commented

upon directly by users, and– that users registered with the mailing list regularly re-

ceive a newsletter indicating new or updated pagesand content.

6.2 Results: Goals accomplished?

In German-speaking regions, bioSicherheit.de has devel-oped into an outstanding provider of information on as-pects of green gene technology relevant to safety. The sitecurrently records an ever-increasing user popularity ofmore than 90 000 visits and 400 000–500 000 retrievedpages and page impressions per month (Fig. 6).

At the end of 2006, the completed form of the English-language site GMO-Safety.eu went online. One year later,already 30 000 users visit the site (Fig. 7).

The Internet platforms bioSicherheit.de and GMO-Safety.eu have secured their place as trustworthy, seriousproviders of information used primarily by the media, mul-tipliers and decision-makers, and also are used in schoolsand universities. Their pages are extracted by both oppo-nents and proponents of gene technology for use as asource of information.

7 Perspective: More weight for scientific aspectsin social debate

Despite high user receptivity and the attention of varioussocial groups to biosicherheit.de, it must be acknowl-edged that science-based results of safety research re-main insufficiently present in social debate.

This observation must be recognised as deriving lessfrom the unavailability of relevant information than fromthe limited science-based argumentation with which thesocial controversy surrounding green gene technology isconducted.

Figure 6. User statistics www.biosicherheit.de April 2002–June 2007 (permonth). Site: user sites (URLs). Visits: Each visit from an external site(min. 3 pages retrieved).

Figure 7. User statistics www.gmo-safety.eu April 2006–June 2007 (permonth). Site: user sites (URLs). Visits: Each visit from an external site(min. 3 pages retrieved).




Dr. Klaus Minol, Chief Editor, obtained

his Ph.D. in Biology at the Technical

University of Darmstadt (Institute for

Biology and Institute for Biochemistry)

in 1997. Since 1998 he has been Senior

Scientist at Genius GmbH. His core

competences include safety evaluation

and other issues related to transgenic

organisms (e.g., food and feed safety).

He is Chief Editor of three EU-spon-

sored communication and research projects, namely, the consumer

and stakeholder communication platforms Co-Extra (addressing co-ex-

istence and traceability of GM plants and derived products; since

2005), GMO-Compass (addressing GM food and health safety evalua-

tion; since 2005) and Biosafenet, a network of European scientists

working in the field of biosafety research (since 2006). From 2001 to

2005 he led the national communication management of biosafety

and co-existence research in Germany on behalf of the Federal Minist-

ry of Research.

In the future, further efforts will be necessary to bringthe information and points of view presented bywww.biosicherheit.de more closely and strongly into thesocial debate. Since May 2005, the coverage of biosicher-heit.de and gmo-safety.eu has been accompanied by pro-fessional press work. National and international print andonline media regularly are made aware of press releasesand newsletters with new content. Since 2005, and pri-marily in the online media, more than 300 content reportsof biosicherheit.de have been placed. Furthermore, theeditorial board of GMO-Safety plans stronger participa-tion for scientists in the public debate: willingness to-wards such engagement already exists. Karl-Heinz Kogel,Professor of Plant diseases and Plant Protection and VicePresident of the University of Giessen, has stated in an in-terview with GMO-Safety: “The scepticism we face is anexpression of an explicable – even necessary – defencemechanism, which also makes sense from the perspec-tive of biological evolution. For us scientists, this meansthat we have to show that the technology that we want tointroduce has great benefits – and we have to make thesebenefits understandable. Only then, I believe, can one re-ally convince the public. Our task is to persuade people –constantly, and with a lot of patience.” [26].

8 References

[1] Brecht, B., Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat (Radiobroadcasting as communications apparatus) In: Bertold Brecht:Gesammelte Werke, Vol. 18. Schriften zur Literatur und Kunst, Vol. 1. Frankfurt/Main 1967, p. 127.

[2] http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist.[3] http://technorati.com.[4] Gillmor, D., We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for

the People. O’Reilly, Sebastopol 2004.[5] Delwiche, A., Agenda–setting, opinion leadership, and the world of

Web logs. First Monday, 2005, 10 (12).[6] Chaffee, S. H., Metzger, M. J., The end of mass communication?

Mass Commun. Soc. 2001, 4, 365–379.[7] Deuze, M., Understanding the impact of the Internet: On new me-

dia professionalism, mindsets and buzzwords. EJournalist, 2001,1(1). Retrieved August 1, 2003, from http://www.ejournalism.au.com/ ejournalist/deuze.pdf

[8] von Rauchhaupt, U., Wie viel Weisheit steckt im Web 2.0.FAZ.NET, 26 January 2007 (online).

[9] “Eine grausame Welt” (“A horrible world”), Der Spiegel 2006, 46,182–183.

[10] Herwig, M., Spiegel Spezial 2007, 3, 22–23.[11] www.nano2hybrids.net.[12] Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) /

www.bvl.bund.de.[13] Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. ISAAA

Brief 35-2006 / www.isaaa.org.[14] Gaskell, G. et al., Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002, Euro-

barometer 58.0 / 2003.[15] Revuelta, G., Schreiner, C., Torgersen, H., Wagner, W., Europeans

and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Final report on Eu-robarometer 64.3. 2006

[16] FAO/WHO, Strategies for assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology. Report of a joint FAO/WHO Consultation. 1991,WHO, Geneva.

[17] OECD, Safety evaluation of foods produced by modern biotech-nology: concepts and principles. OECD, Paris 1993.

[18] Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modi-fied Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modifiedplants and derived food and feed, EFSA J. 2006, 99, 1–100.

[19] Eurobarometer 46.1, 77–78 , 1997, European Commission DG XII.[20] Economidis, I. (Ed.), EC-sponsored Research on Safety of Geneti-

cally Modified Organisms, European Commission 2001.[21] Personel communication: Economidis, I. Statusseminar Biologis-

che Sicherheitsforschung. March 2006, Berlin.[22] Bruce, D. M., A Social Contract for Biotechnology: Shared Visions

for Risky Technologies? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2004, 15, 279–289.[23] Davies, K. G., Wolf-Phillips, J., Scientific citizenship and good gov-

ernance: implications for biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2006,24, 57–61.

[24] Unease finds a legitimate expression in risk.” Interview with Wolfgang van den Daele at GMO-Safety (http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/563.docu.html).

[25] Chalmers, D., Nicol, D., Commercialisation of biotechnology: pub-lic trust and research. Int. J. Biotechnol. 2004, 6, 116–133.

[26] “The central problem is the mixing of scientific and political argu-ments.” Interview with Karl-Heinz Kogel at GMO-Safety (http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/debate/569.docu.html).


minol

Documents

Transcript of minol