Nanotechnology: Social issues and implications Andrew Cook Abstract - - PDF document

1 Nanotechnology: Social issues and implications Andrew Cook Abstract An empirical study was undertaken to measure New Zealand public reactions to the implementation of various nanotechnology applications. In an area where little research has been undertaken, the study used a novel panel focus group method to enable lay consideration

• f an unfamiliar topic.

This paper draws on transcription data from three of four planned focus groups with approximately ten subjects per group (N = 32). Over three meetings each group gained knowledge of the unfamiliar topic and considered a range of possible applications of

• nanotechnology. In-depth discussion was facilitated and, to avoid undue predetermination of

responses, emergent themes were pursued and explored. Analysis of the transcription data identified salient attitudes, beliefs, views and values associated with the examples. Amongst key results, identification was made of values associated with nature that suggested a resilient attitude that would present difficulties for using nanotechnology in the natural

• environment. There was also apprehension associated with the possibility of unforeseen
• consequences. Benefits were mentioned particularly for medical examples though concern

was expressed at the prospect of nanotechnology being used to enhance human abilities. In addition, concern over privacy extended from discussion of the acceptability of implanted

• sensors. While the groups had moral and ethical objections it was recognised that attitudes

and ethics could change over time. Keywords: Social issues, social implications, attitudes. Introduction Nanotechnology is an important emerging area for technological development that is expected to eventually create a new generation of products and services that will make a positive contribution to the way people live their lives. Indeed, studies of public reactions to nanotechnology have reported optimism. For example, an internet based survey conducted in 2001 found most respondents were very positive (Bainbridge, 2002). Similarly, a national phone survey conducted in the U.S. (N = 1536) found that initial reactions to nanotechnology were positive and linked to a positive view of science (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004). Social research conducted by BMRB (2004) for the Royal Society and Royal Society of Engineers Working Group employed two workshops (50 participants in total) and door to door interviews (N = 1005). These studies found that while there was interest in the prospects for new medical treatments from nanotechnology, but there also was concern over impacts that the technology could have on employment, social freedom and personal control. Also, long term unintended effects were of concern. As the BMRB (2004) results suggest, the nanotechnology may well be associated positive benefits but the introduction of novel technologies to society can be problematic. New technologies can challenge cultural norms and ethical practices, and raise public concern over foreseen and unforeseen risks. It is possible that particular applications of nanotechnology have the potential to incite controversy, given that they may be perceived to have impacts on,

2 for example, public health and the environment. This possibility means that some nanotechnology applications could suffer problems related to public acceptance. In New Zealand it is difficult to consider public acceptance or rejection of a new technology without recalling recent controversy over genetic modification (GM). There has been a good deal of concern in New Zealand over this form of biotechnology with the development of a predominantly negative attitude towards the use of GM in food production (Cook, Fairweather, Satterfield & Hunt, 2004). This trend of increased aversion has similarly been

• bserved in the U.S which had been that linked to growing opposition in Europe and

government moves to further regulate biotechnology (Bonny, 2003). In New Zealand it could have similarly been the investigations of a Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in 2000 and 2001 and the consequential increase in attention in the popular media that had contributed to increased aversion in New Zealand. Clearly GM failed to gain public acceptance and importantly, while the Royal Commission did not rely solely on public

• pinion, it recommended caution in the development and use of GM. This was followed by

the addition of further regulatory hurdles and constraints on the technology with only a recent small decline in negative attitudes (Cook & Fairweather, 2005). It would seem that the recent controversy over GM should serve as a warning to nanotechnology. While different to GM and biotechnology, nanotechnology would nevertheless best avoid travelling the same rough road as biotechnology. Towards this end it is necessary to assist and inform the implementation of nanotechnology applications through developing an understanding of relevant public viewpoints and values. Indeed, concerted analytical studies of reactions to biotechnology have only been made after biotechnology developments had made considerable progress (e.g., Gamble et al., 2000; Cook, Kerr & Moore, 2002; Hunt, Fairweather & Coyle, 2003). Therefore, when considering the development of nanotechnology there is a need to pre-emptively gauge and understand public reactions so as to usefully inform science and industry, as well as resource policies, programmes and projects to inform the public. To address the need for social research, the research that is the basis of this paper focused on identifying the relevant views and values that ordinary New Zealanders have regarding

• nanotechnology. Thus the research was intended to perform the primary functions of problem

identification and problem definition necessary for informing research and development and giving direction to policies and processes to recognize, take account of, and ideally include human and societal issues arising from nanotechnology. To adequately perform these tasks a qualitative study that was designed to explore possible ethical and social issues and public concerns arising from an unfamiliar technology. This paper draws upon transcribed data from three focus groups with contributions from 32

• participants. For the purposes of this paper selected themes are pursued using available data

from the study which when completed will contain contributions from four focus groups with 42 participants overall. Aims and objectives The overall aim of this research was to develop an understanding of relevant public reactions to nanotechnology. The research was designed with general objectives of identifying and investigating salient attitudes, beliefs, views and values arising from possible developments

• f nanotechnology. Further general objectives included predicting ethical and social reactions

to, and implications as well as providing guidance for processes of interaction between scientists, policymakers and the public.

3 In addition to these general objectives a specific aim of this paper was to use the available transcript data to investigate the following in talk about nanotechnology.  Values associated with nature and naturalness.  Perceptions of risk and benefit.  Concern over privacy.  Concern over perfect people.  Changing attitudes and ethics. Following the explanation of method, the results of investigating these topics are presented with an interpretation using extracts from the transcription data. Implications are then provided in the discussion and conclusion. Method Focus groups were selected as the preferred method to investigate reactions to nanotechnology because of the novelty of the topic. Given the expectation of unfamiliarity, focus groups provide the opportunity for people to learn and jointly explore a topic through building on the insights and ideas of the other participants. To further adapt the method to the unfamiliar topic each group met three times. It was judged that there would be limited time for the discussion of a less than well known, diverse and technical topic if only one meeting was held. In addition, it is questionable whether respondents would have the cognitive ability to adequately consider a new technology and an array of examples. A remedy for these expected problems was the use of panel focus groups. Having the same people meet more than once was planned to ease participants into the topic as well as enabling sufficient time for instruction regarding the science behind nanotechnology as well as examination and discussion of various recent examples and expected future developments. Recruitment Local primary schools provided adult participants for the groups. A payment of NZ$300 was provided to the schools for providing a venue and adult participants. To avoid attrition each participant was paid NZ$60. Participating primary schools were selected to represent a range

• f deciles which indicate the level of personal income for those living in school zone. In each

case the school fundraising committee sourced prospective participants from adults involved with the school or living in the local area. A balance of gender was sought, as well as participants of various ages. The groups Three groups had their meetings during the months of June to September, 2005. Each group met on their preferred evening once a week for three weeks. As planned each group had approximately 10 participants. Overall, there were a total of 32 participants with ages ranging from 26 to 72. There were more females (22) than males (9), which was explained by the groups as being common for school associated activities. Plan for the sessions The first session comprised an introduction to the focus groups which followed by consideration of examples of topical issues involving science and technology. A small A5 size handout was provided which contained the purpose and aim of the meetings and briefly introduced nanotechnology. An explanation of how the groups would be conducted was provided, as well as an outline of the three sessions. Participants provided their consent to be involved in the research after being informed about the research. This was followed by the

4 consideration of topical issues involving science and technology including aerial spraying for biocontrol in urban areas, public vaccination programmes and the use of bacteria in throat lozenges. A 28 minute educational video commissioned by the European Commission titled ‘Nano: The next dimension’ was shown at the beginning of the second session followed by discussion of a list of examples of everyday commercial products involving nanotechnology. The list was compiled using the international nanotechnology business directory (www.nanovip.com; accessed 4/4/2005) and the federal (US) funded national nanotechnology initiative (http://www.nano.gov accessed 4/4/2005). The list included the following examples.  Improved tennis rackets and tennis balls  Emulsion form of commercial disinfectant  Indoor air purifier powered by light  Shoe inserts with increased insulating properties  Golf driver with more resistance to bending  Sunscreens and cosmetics, and skin care products to combat the effects of aging and skin disorders Session three involved discussion of examples of nanotechnology that may be developed in the next 25 years. The following six examples were provided to the participants who were asked to consider and discuss their acceptability.  Medical investigations and self diagnosis using sensors, lab on a chip and remote diagnosis.  Artificial body parts.  The use of nano particles in food.  Connecting the brain to a machine.  Simple nano machines that could enhance the cleaning properties of toothpaste, shampoo, soap or hand wash.  Sophisticated nano machines that could manufacture more of themselves for cleaning up toxic waste, combating viruses and disease in the human body. Results The following results are provided with excerpts from transcribed data and their interpretation as relevant to the five topics addressed in this paper. Values associated with nature Amongst key results, identification was made of values associated with nature and naturalness.  I don’t think there really is a balance of nature, but making new things won’t help.  The more technology the more change to the environment and more problems.  The environment can only handle so much meddling.  I don’t really mind the insertion of a sensor in my arm but eating these things is unnatural.  We need start thinking about how much we should change the world and ourselves. It’s wrong to play god with nature.  It’s just about being human and doing what people are able to do. Scientists have always played around with nature.

5  You need to be concerned about the environment. When you take a new thing it goes through your body and goes somewhere else. We need to think about where it goes - about the life cycle.  But all we do is an intervention. Everything we do affects the environment. The important thing for us is to be conscious of it and decide for the better and realise that some things we do aren’t for the better. As the comments show there was concern about the effect of technology on nature that was seen as interference with natural process. Of interest, an aversion related to the use of nano- particles in food was considered worse than the insertion of a sensor under the skin by one

• participant. The idea of scientists ‘playing god’ was used to describe the situation and there

was a comment that interventions were like playing around with nature. Another relevant line

• f thinking was the consideration of what happens to nano-particles after eating them in the

context of their introduction to the environment. The final comment introduced a wider perspective by pointing out that intervention cannot be avoided and that it was important to choose appropriate interventions. Risk There was apprehension associated with the possibility of risk and the possibility of unforeseen consequences.  It’s concern about unknown things. It’s a concern about moving on and what it does to us.  It’s like asbestos. Surely what happened with asbestos shouldn’t happen today.  It might kill the tumour but it might cause something else.  But if you use it, it’s like we don’t know if particles are around like dead skin. When they touch something else, something might be left.  Fluoride, Thalidomide and the DDT poison were huge mistakes. We’ve had some

• catastrophes. Various medications have caused issues along the way, lots and lots of
• things. I’m not saying not to move forward. I’m just saying caution all the way along.

 Scientists can only estimate the risk about things they can measure. Its what they can’t predict - that’s the problem  No one really has much idea of the kind of world technology is thrusting upon us.  The scientists don’t think about making something out of it, they don’t think what it’s for, they just get excited. There was a tendency to use historic examples to explain and emphasise the possibility of unforeseen harmful consequences in most comments related to the possibility of risk. In two cases blame was attributed to scientists, once as part of their method and once as problem of their interest in doing science. More broadly, concern about possible outcomes was related as concern about the unknown and concern about change. Benefits As shown in the following excerpts this appreciation of benefits was most apparent in discussions about possible medical examples.  I can see a lot of good in this technology  It’s wonderful these medical things, to restore sight to blind people or to treat hearing loss or correct dehabilitating diseases.  Everybody has the right to life and shouldn’t people who are paralysed have access to the latest technology.

6  The new medical thing from nanotechnology is great, the people with new prosthetic limbs, surely it is better for them, lighter and stronger.  My mothers a diabetic and this would be fantastic. She wouldn’t have to go to the doctor all the time the test kit at home is horrible.  There are some people who have lack of these functions and are happy with their life but they should be given the opportunity of a better life, to be independent and look after themselves.  I think it would be fantastic for disabled people who are paralysed. In all of the three groups there was a general appreciation of the benefits of nanotechnology. These favourable reactions tended to be expressions of appreciation for immediate benefits from the treatment of known medical problems such as diabetes. It would seem that these medical problems were a well known cause of suffering that could readily be understood as being repaired by techniques developed using nanotechnology. Identity chips The use of identity chips arose in group conversations from the explanation of the use of implanted sensors.  Civil libertarians would be against it because people could keep track of you. Actually people like the police could use these things. The latest idea is a chip for your car so you can be taxed. It’s not unlike automatic garage door openers.  I don’t have a problem with it. You only have a problem if you have something to hide.  They wouldn’t give a rats about ya.  It’s very big brotherish and very much open to abuse.  When you think about these things with best intentions it would be good to track terrorists but with time everyone gets monitored. Like home detention clamps. They use it for animals. Drivers licence and credit cards are a step towards it.  The crims go along with technology and think how to outwit it or use it for themselves. Society has one idea and the bad people have another. What about a burglar alarm, it goes or doesn’t go depending on the chip you have. Then the police don’t bother dusting for prints they just plug into the computer to see who’s been here.  Ten or so years ago they talked about an ID card. It was strongly objected to. In Europe they have it in Italy and France, you must have ID to show the police. Its escalating towards that. We are going that way because you need picture ID to get your ticket at the airport.  Older people remember during the Second World War there were certain people in Europe who had to carry ID cards and that was because they were considered lesser

• people. That’s why older people think it’s a bad thing to do.

 They have been against it in the UK but now with terrorism people might see it differently. A discussion about the use of chips inserted under a person’s skin as a form of identification arose from explanation of the use of sensors inserted under the skin. The chip was considered a potentially useful tool for disabled people and was made more real with the mention of the existing use of similar technology. It was generally recognised that this could be a ‘big brother’ issue and it was also recognised that the institution of some form of uniform identification was conceivable. However, while it was considered older people had some ethical reason for concern this was not apparent for the participants. The general need for security against crime

• r

terrorism seemed important enough to forgo personal inconvenience.

7 Concern about perfect people Concern was expressed about the use of nanotechnology to enhance human beings. This concern was important because it was not the result of prompting by the group facilitator. In each group the concern emerged in their third meeting from consideration of possible medical applications of nanotechnology and was clearly the result of considering interventions in natural processes to alleviate suffering.  It’s about keeping everybody perfect.  It’s like being a machine, where will it stop. You can do the whole body, why stop at arms.  It’s wonderful these medical things, to restore sight to blind people or to treat hearing loss or correct dehabilitating diseases. But if you can do those things you have the power to do other things. There are ethical issues involved here.  Its like futuristic movies like Gattaca where there are all these perfect people. You know, if you are ever so slightly less than perfect then you were a nobody. Unless you’re careful, in society, that sort of thing can happen.  The philosophy of Hitler.  The thing is that our humanity looses something. We actually gain something from knowing people who are less than perfect. We become more empathic, we learn new ways of relating to people, loving people and things like that. If we don’t have that we loose something collectively that makes us human.  It’s really sci-fi stuff but it’s exciting to repair the eyes or hearing or re grow limbs or fix Alzheimes. We would all be perfect though is that a good thing.  Are we heading to a utopia? Isn’t that a good thing?  I’m thinking of the Borg and everyone has access to the best info but you’re all living

• n the same level as each other. In Star Trek this was a frightening thing and maybe it

would be in reality as well. Although not mentioned by any of the participants it would seem that the common stance was against the practice of Eugenics. This link is most clear in references to ‘Hitler’ and the movie ‘Gattaca’ which depicted the struggle of an ordinary person in a genetically enhanced society

• f the future. Despite these links the explanation of the dangers involved were not well

articulated, though the claim of loosing something that makes us human and likening the result to the cybernetic ‘Borg’ of Star Trek served to relate the concern adequately. Changing attitudes and ethics A further interesting point that was also raised unprompted was that attitudes and ethics change over time. This idea of change was particularly interesting because while respondents

• ften held seemingly fixed ethical stances, the introduction of the idea that ethics and

attitudes change over time seem to reduce the power of the stance.  Gradually we readjust ourselves and our thinking as we move along. We are readjusting.  We are basically just flexible characters and whilst what shocked us earlier, or knocked us out of our comfort zone, for one reason or another, something else comes along so we adjust to that and on we go again.  In my parents generation they say they saw the most change, stoves and fridges and

• things. But I think now things change so rapidly. It’s like we do have the same amount
• f change as them but we don’t notice it.

8  I think our world changes rapidly. Perhaps with variations more than significant changes.  It’s the fear of the new. There’s a certain built in resistance in all of us to accept change.  I love the idea of progression and technology and things but we don’t give it enough time to try it. We really need a life time, perhaps two generations, but scientists cannot wait.  Years ago we never thought we would have what we have now.  it’s already here and from the scientists point of view it’s going to happen no matter

• what. Why are we having these discussions if they are doing it anyway?

 Technology is going to change our future rather than the choices that we make.  We get used to this and then we get used to that. It might be put in our shampoo - so what. Most of the comments about change suggested that change was something that had to be dealt with or was imposed upon the individual. Only one participant expressed enjoyment at the prospect of encountering change. With the comment that the world changes rapidly the idea

• f continual variation between more significant events was related. This more detailed

description seemed to suggest that change was more serious because it continued between

• bvious events. Further talk of particular relevance to nanotechnology suggested a lack of

control for the individual. This included the questioning of the purpose of talking to the public about the new technology given that it was likely to be developed regardless of public

• pinion and the claim that technological development drives change and overrides the choices

that people might make. Discussion and conclusion This section begins with an evaluation of the method followed by a summary and discussion

• f the results and their implications.

Evaluation of method First, to consider the value of the results it is necessary to point out that no claim is made that the results represent with accuracy the views of the wider population. The purpose of using a qualitative method was to investigate reactions to nanotechnology in depth so as to seek out and explore factors involved in these reactions. The method involved the participation of

• rdinary New Zealanders but the small number that were involved means that no claim can be

made that the sample represents views or attitudes of the New Zealand population. A second relevant consideration is that the methods employed were directed at drawing out reactions to nanotechnology and cannot be considered methods appropriate to an experiment. While the provision of information was standardised across the three groups, the pursuit of emergent themes meant that discussions were different in each group. Arguably this form of exploratory research is appropriate because the topic was unfamiliar to the participants. A third relevant consideration is the effect of introduced information on discussions. Such influences cannot be avoided but prompted discussion and use of an educational video can be considered less predisposing than, for example, having scientists explain nanotechnology or by gathering responses using set questions. Given these limitations the method worked well and served to reveal issues of importance to the participants associated with their consideration of nanotechnology.

9 Discussion of results In New Zealand talk about nature and nature and naturalness in the context of considering technology are of particular importance. New Zealanders are known to be particularly interested in their natural environment (Hughey et al, 2004) and nature and naturalness have been shown to be strongly associated with aversion to biotechnology (Coyle et al. 2003, Cook et al, 2004, Cook & Fairweather, 2005). Where nanotechnology might threaten nature, for example, by introducing new pollutants or contaminants, objections to the technology would likely be forthcoming. Similarly comments about ‘meddling’ or ‘playing God’ with nature suggest nature is best left alone and indicate that the New Zealand public would likely be particularly concerned about nanotechnology applications that threaten the environment. Talk about risk involved associations with instances where unforeseen risks had led to serious negative consequences. This association was likely a way of talking about, and conceptualising, this aspect of risk but also suggests such problems might be of particular concern because they are readily associated with serious consequences of the past. Of relevance, the need for a precautionary approach in response to unforeseen risk has been promoted by groups in opposition to GM (Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, 2001). Such responses are likely entwined with concern for the environment and highlight further an area of particular concern for New Zealanders. While there were some concerns about nanotechnology, there was also talk about benefits. This talk tended to be about the immediate benefits for the disabled. Concern about privacy was talked about through talk about the introduction of identity chips in the form of implanted

• sensors. Although not mentioned by the groups, the introduction of identity cards has been a

public issue in New Zealand (see www.privacy.org.nz). Prior to 2000 there had been strong

• bjections to use of identity cards, but such objections were not apparent in the group
• discussions. It is possible that, as the talk suggests, that privacy was not an important concern

for the participants because of recognition of the need for security against crime or terrorism. Talk of the possibility of nanotechnology assisting in the development of perfect people revealed an ethical objection against Eugenics. It was thought that medical advances would be used for the purpose of enhancing the human body and improving human performance. Participants were particularly uncomfortable with this possibility and, although negative implications were not made clear, the mention of ‘Hitler’ and examples form popular media served to relate their concern. The concern of the participants indicates an ethical position that is likely to arise with the possibility of medical advances being used for enhancing the capacities of people. The prospect of changing attitudes and ethics was an interesting result of the group

• discussions. Despite strong objections, such as against the artificial enhancement of people,

the participants readily related their view that while they may object to something at the moment such views may not be held in the future. There was, however, no indication of what length of time it would take for change to occur. To consider implications from the research, concern over effects on nature and the environment are important because this could support opposition to relevant applications of

• nanotechnology. In recent studies of attitudes towards biotechnology, the link between
• pposition to this technology and the importance of conserving nature and the natural

environment indicates an attitude that is difficult to change (Cook et al, 2004, Cook & Fairweather, 2005). The danger for nanotechnology is that if its development is seen to threaten nature then a resolute negative attitude is likely to develop. It is then possible that nanotechnology could be likened to biotechnology with similar difficulties in gaining public

10

• acceptance. Similarly the emphasis given to unforeseen risks in talk about nanotechnology

suggests opposition to nanotechnology would involve a call for a precautionary approach. The recommendation of the New Zealand Royal Commission on GM to proceed with caution reflects this approach which has led to increased regulation of biotechnology. A similar approach if taken for nanotechnology would likely similarly constrain development. Unlike environmental applications, medical developments from nanotechnology seemed to be

• acceptable. However, a caveat in their development would be a fear of the use of

nanotechnology in the enhancement of human abilities. A fear of eugenics may rise as a counter to medical advances using the new technology. This suggests that where possible some distance be maintained between combating disease and disabilities and possibility for the artificial improvement of human beings. A further implication stems from the awareness of the research participants of the possibility for change in attitudes and ethics which may be encouraging for promoters

• f
• nanotechnology. While seemingly encouraging for new technologies this finding should

nevertheless be treated with caution. While the research participants may be correct in a general sense, it does not necessarily follow that such change occurs in the short term. Of relevance, survey research conducted in New Zealand has identified that attitudes towards recent developments in biotechnology tend to be stable over time (Cook & Fairweather, 2004; Cook & Fairweather, 2005). Further research To consider further research, this research has utilised methods appropriate for the exploration of public attitudes towards a novel technology. The findings suggest further research using similar methods would be rewarding which can then lead on to more structured qualitative enquiry and be used to assist in the design and content of quantitative studies towards establishing the views of New Zealanders as a whole. Given adequate resources, studies of sufficient breadth and depth have the potential to gauge public opinion and enable various institutions involved in nanotechnology to respond and ideally avoid the possibility of nanotechnology becoming a social problem. Conclusion To conclude, the research reported in this paper has served to reveal a number of findings of interest to those involved in nanotechnology. Such research can be useful for informing policies and processes to recognize, take account of, and ideally include human and societal issues arising from nanotechnology and ideally avoid the possibility of nanotechnology becoming a social problem. At this early stage in the development of nanotechnology there is an opportunity to utilise social research to inform and guide the development of nanotechnology and its introduction to the New Zealand public. In this way social research can avoid novel technologies becoming problematic, by identifying where they will challenge the views and attitudes of the public.

11 References Arnall, A. H. (2003). Future technologies, today’s choices. Nanotechnology artificial intelligence and robotics: A technical, political and institutional map of emerging

• technologies. Report for the Greenpeace Trust.

Bainbridge, W.S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, 561-570. BMPR (2004). Nanotechnology: Views of the Public. Report prepared for the Royal Society and Royal Society of Engineers Working Group. Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic journal of biotechnology (www.ejbiotechnology), 6, Cobb, M. D. & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risk, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-495. Cook, A. J., Kerr, G.N. & Moore, K. (2002). Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM

• food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 557-572.

Cook, A. J. & Fairweather, J. R. (2004). Change in New Zealand farmer and grower attitudes towards gene technology: Results from a follow up survey. Agbioforum, 6, 3, 9-16. Cook, A. J., & Fairweather, J. R. (2005). New Zealanders and biotechnology: Attitudes perceptions and affective responses. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University. Cook, A. J., Fairweather, J. R., Satterfield, T. & Hunt, L. M. (2004). New Zealand public acceptance of biotechnology. Research Report No. 269, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University. Coyle, F. J., Maslin, C., Fairweather, J. R. & Hunt, L. M. (2003). Public understandings of biotechnology in New Zealand: Nature, clean green image and spirituality. Research Report No. 265, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University. Gamble, J., Muggleston, S., Hedderly, D., Parminter, T. & Richardson-Harman, N. (2000). Genetic engineering - the publics’ point of view. Mount Albert Research Centre. Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Limited. Hughey, K.F.D., Cullen, R., Kerr, G.N. & Cook, A. J. (2004) Application of the pressure- state-response model to perceptions of the state of the New Zealand environment. Journal of Environmental Management, 70, 85-93. Hunt, L. M. Fairweather, J. R. & Coyle, F. J. (2003). Public understandings of biotechnology in New Zealand: Factors affecting acceptability rankings

• f

five selected

• biotechnologies. Research Report No. 266, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit,

Lincoln University. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (2001). Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.