Biotechnol. J.

2007, 2, 11291140

DOI 10.1002/biot.200700163

www.biotechnology-journal.com

Review

Portals, blogs and co.: the role of the Internet as a medium of science communication
Klaus Minol1, Gerd Spelsberg2*, Elisabeth Schulte1 and Nicholas Morris1
1Genius 2TransGen

GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany Wissenschaftskommunikation, Aachen, Germany

While the use of the Internet for the exchange of scientific data was characterised by exclusivity during its pioneer era, the active employment of the medium today, by a broad social spectrum of users in the exchange of information, for dialogue and in the accumulation of knowledge, displays an almost unbounded inclusion. Blogs and online encyclopaedias based on the Wikipedia model have contributed to the formation of a marketplace in which the free expression of opinions and the relaying of information occur. Counted among the ideas which have been popularised in the wake of this phenomenon, lay journalism and the wisdom of the masses are seen to be integral to the new web 2.0. Consequently, the ever-increasing information disseminated in the web has been diluted in quality and authenticity, resulting in the presentation of new challenges to online science journalism. In reference to the public debate surrounding green gene technology, the communications 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 biological safety research and that successfully has established itself as an intermediary between the scientific community and the broader public.

Received 31 July 2007 Accepted 31 July 2007

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

Introduction

Today, the Internet is so omnipresent as a medium of communication that one easily could believe that it always has been this way. In fact, the Internet first reached the masses in the middle of the 1990s, previously having spent decades accessible only to a very limited number of users as an elite system for data transfer in universities. Then, in combination with easily operable software from Netscape, the additional protocols and extensions devel-

Correspondence: Dr. Klaus Minol, Genius GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Str. 7, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany E-mail: Klaus.minol@genius.de Fax: +49-6151-8724041 Web: www.genius.de E-mail: info@transgen.de *Additional corresponding author: Gerd Spelsberg Abbreviations: EU, European Union; GM, genetically modified; GMO, GM organism; URL, uniform resource locator

oped by Tim Berner-Lee paved the way for the Internet to become a channel of mass communication. Through the medium of the Internet, the quantity and bandwidth of active, communicating agents of science information has been raised sharply. In addition to established science media organisations and higher research and education institutions, other individuals and entities counted today among publishers and authors include scientific societies, science centres, museums, public education initiatives, individual scientists, NGOs and laypersons from the broadest variety of social contexts. The formats offered by Internet-based media for science communication directed towards the general public include conventional forms of print and broadcasting as well as Internet-specific media, e.g. information portals, e-zines, forums, podcasts, news feeds, SMS alerts, video and audio clips, webcasts and weblogs (see box). These new media partly enhance the interactive character of communication and facilitate the expression of users opinions on topics (weblogs, forums), and are able to raise the speed of dissemination of information (i.e. to maintain

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

1129

Biotechnology Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

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 of a magazine. It offers comprehensive editorial content, which, as a rule, is composed by professional journalists and authors and contains such items as magazine articles, opinions (columns), interviews with prominent personalities, etc. In appearance, the e-zine is based on the classical periodical magazine (illustrated magazines, specialist and popular periodicals), although community functions such as evaluation systems and commentary functions commonly are implemented. Podcasting refers to the production and offer of media files (as audio or as video podcast, also known as vodcast) on the Internet. This portmanteau word is coined from the terms iPod and broadcasting. An individual podcast is therefore a series of media contributions (episodes) that may be received automatically through a feed (mostly RSS). One may view podcasts as radio or television transmissions that may be consumed irrespective of broadcast times. A webcast is similar to a television broadcast in aim but is conceived particularly for the Internet medium and also outpaces television by facilitating interaction. Programmes offer mostly live content, but most streams also are available later as recordings. Originally, webcasts simply were transmissions streamed through the Internet. The content type of webcasts is more likely to be of a didactic 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 is written on the computer and is published on the World Wide Web. Commonly, a blog is endless, i.e. is a long, inversely chronological list of entries, which periodically are wrapped up. It may be seen therefore as a website which, in the ideal case, incorporates a content level only. For the publisher (blogger) and his or her readers, a blog is an easily manageable medium for the presentation of aspects of ones own life and of opinions, often on specific groups of topics. When expanded, it may also serve the exchange of information, thoughts and experience as well as communication and, therefore, is very comparable with an Internet forum.

a live character, for example through SMS alerts, podcasts, webcasts and news feeds). The resulting conclusions are obvious: formal and informal communication within the scientific community increasingly is overlaid with science communication which occurs in the public sphere and which, furthermore, is increasingly influenced by non-scientists. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between correct and false information, or between reliable, structured data and random information. Many offers of information are tinted strongly by personal inclinations, derived either from the intent of the author or of the institutions with which he or she is associated. The situation is complicated further by the fact that websites offer an increasing quantity of information for which the original authors are no longer able to be determined. In this transformed communication landscape, even scientists often are unable to determine whether all scientific information has been validated internally before being shunted towards the broader public. Effectively, the rules of conventional scientific publishing including the rule of peer review have been waived in the Internet. In the following text, therefore, an attempt is made to provide a closer analysis of the new character of the web.

Web 2.0 New senders conquer the Internet

The most current topic of discussion is the web 2.0, a new generation of Internet which has substantially changed the rules of play for this medium. Its novelty lies in the fact that it is no longer merely a storage space for information that may later be retrieved but, instead, has become a global system for the processing of data, i.e. a platform. Arbitrarily, the data already present in the Internet may be combined and expanded, and use of such data has been made largely independent from the type of terminal, which may be a computer or a cell phone. Furthermore, a very particular change has taken place: web 2.0 has become a read-write-web. A vision is becoming real that had already been postulated in the 1930s by Bertolt Brecht in regard to the medium of radio [1]. The Internet currently is being transformed from a tool of distribution to a tool of genuine communication, with which knowledge may also be generated. Often, a highly specialised readership is gathered by online encyclopaedias and, foremost, by blogs with monothematic discourses on the perils of particular technical gadgets or on knotty technical language. This readership voluntarily disseminates information and develops solutions. In such cases, an ideal

1130

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

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

www.biotechnology-journal.com

becomes reality: that of collectively being able to conduct and compile research irrespective of geographical limits. An example of specialised competence is the English-language Scientific Activist web log [2].
2.1 The masses express themselves and transform journalism

The quantity of writers is increasing exponentially. Specialising in blogs, the search engine Technorati [3] currently observes approximately 25 million websites. Roughly 70 000 new blogs are opened every day, with circa 700 000 new contributions published therein. The journalist Dan Gollmor has designated as the avant-garde of a new civil movement that dismantles old media monopolies and establishes a plurality of opinion. In the Internet, engaged amateurs are able in dialogue to develop and disseminate news. Gillmore titles this new form of communication and exchange as grassroots journalism by the people, for the people [4]. The media researcher Aaron Delwiche has investigated the role played in the media by amateur journalists among the bloggers [5]. He was unable to find clear empirical evidence that such activity is already taking place on a widespread scale. Largely, a strong distinction remains between press and blogs among the subjects of thematic focus. However, through his research Delwiche also perceives evidence of increasing influence exerted by the blogger-scene on the media world and, in discussion, arrives at the following conclusion: Attempts at amateur journalism constitute only a small part of the overall blogosphere, but they have demonstrated their ability to affect the flow of information between traditional journalists and audiences. From the standpoint of agenda setting, the most important thing about web logs is the way that they bridge these components of our public sphere. In a publication entitled The End of Mass Communication? [6], Chaffee and Metzger argue that new media transform the assumptions of traditional communications theory. They propose that the key problem for agendasetting theory will change from what issues the media tell people to think about to what issues people tell the media they want to think about. It may also be expected that the web 2.0 will have an increasing influence upon journalism in general and thereby also a particular influence upon science journalism. In this context, the web 2.0 causes certain unease within the media sector, in which the question must be asked of whether, how, and in what way the profession resultantly will change. How must journalists react to the new media? Should the content of relevant web logs be printed? This already takes place: for example, in 2005 after the devastating tsunami in the Indian Ocean, excerpts from victims journals appeared in the feuilleton of a German daily newspaper. Should journalists instead become proactive and seek dialogue with their audience or with

bloggers? Early evidence of support for this potential came from a survey among Dutch online journalists in 1999: 69% of these new media professionals agreed to the proposition that a strong interactive relationship with the audience is an essential building block for any news site [7]. In some German newspapers (for example, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is distributed throughout Germany), science editors currently are experimenting with such interaction under the titles of participative journalism, citizens journalism or opensource journalism. These transitional forms between conventional media and the Internet remain at an early stage of development. Ultimately, such experiments and dalliances must be tested within the framework of social discussion, since neither print-based journalists nor active internet users may isolate themselves indefinitely all participants share a current reality and, necessarily, exert reciprocal influence thereby. The potentials (and pitfalls) of open-source journalism therefore should be explored instead of discarded.
2.2 Does the web 2.0 produce relevant content?

In this context, scientists and professional science journalists must pull another question to the fore: in what way will the lay journalism cultivated by the web 2.0 alter the quality of scientific news, and how reliable will the sources and content of news in the Internet remain? In the first phase of the Internet until the 1990s, web users almost exclusively found sites, which stemmed from research institutions that were publicly financed and, in the majority, oriented towards the natural sciences. As a rule, such web profiles had neither commercial interests nor editors with time to chat or to blog. Essentially, the primary interests of their operators then were derived from the relatively simple desire to heighten acquaintance with their work within the already-existing social system of science. In a contribution by Ulrich von Rauchhaupt to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 28 January 2007, the question is asked of how much wisdom there could possibly be in the web 2.0, since discussion in the Internet is conducted not only by a licensed elite, to whom responsibility has been ceded but also ever-increasingly by anyone capable of operating a browser. Reference is made to randomness, idiosyncrasy and redundancy in countless Internet forums and blogs. To pursue this question, one must first seek models that either already exist or that are possible in principle and that provide order, relevance and correctness among the innumerable contributions in the Internet. Two principle mechanisms that may be capable of doing so are often cited: the models eBay and Wikipedia. The auction portal eBay is commonly known to be used for the acquisition and sale of movable goods but, additionally, also generates knowledge. Through the mas-

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

1131

Biotechnology Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

sive integration of data from bidders on the value of offered goods, a statistical determination of prices results that obeys the rules of supply and demand and that also necessarily approximates the realities of a market economy. However, the problem becomes more complex when addressing knowledge that does not originate at the agents in the Internet such as is the case with scientific 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 example and the foremost symbol of web 2.0, it may be observed with particular clarity that users of the Internet have become agents themselves: they create their own content. Passive consumers become highly active producers. This folk encyclopaedia is an open project of grass-roots democracy, accessible to everyone. Several thousand individuals across the world regularly post contributions that include technical and scientific themes. The English-language version currently contains 1.8 million contributions, and in Germany alone 500 new contributions are written daily. At Wikipedia, the corrective mechanism or quality control results from the supplementation, or correction, of existing contributions by other authors. Any user is able to participate in this process which is the second, fundamental mechanism of quality control in the Internet. With Wikipedia as an example, the web 2.0 demonstrates a further essential characteristic titled collective intelligence by many authors. This wisdom of the masses may often prove to be quicker and more current, deeper and through many links broader than conventional articles, textbooks or research projects. Questions are asked and answers are given on topics determined by the interest of individuals rather than by preordination through institutions. The popularity of the medium may be understood as being based on this sheer fact. In the case of popular factual issues, such as the names of countries in the European Union or the birth date of Bertolt Brecht, the large number of contributions suffices as a safeguard: for purely statistical reasons, contributions with incorrect answers will be in the minority. Such a principle also operates on a higher level in the Internet and certainly helps to minimise the errors of individual authors. Through evaluation of the content of websites or blogs by counting the numbers of links in the Internet which lead to them a simple, popular principle used by search engines such as Google or Yahoo unpopular websites, which may owe their unpopularity to their being faulty, are disfavoured. However, in regard to quality control, the Wikipedia model has obvious points of weakness. The wisdom of the masses cannot be guaranteed in every case: 1. Contributions on a particular topic must be provided in the majority by experts. However, this may neither be verified nor expected. Furthermore, particular

themes may be treated preferentially by a minority whose basic philosophy disproportionably influences text content. 2. Definite answers must exist for specific questions. Particularly in most cases of scientific questions; however, no single answers exist that may be squared by statistical processes involving the majority of users. Collective intelligence may only be an appropriate corrective mechanism for cases in which empirical evidence, through scientific knowledge, is not only quantitatively 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 important conclusion from the limited quality control of web 2.0: on the one side, the web 2.0 is one of the most powerful instruments that may be used to make knowledge generally accessible. In the history of humankind to date, it is the most comprehensive information system to have existed. However, the web 2.0 remains pointless without a scientific system working towards it. Continuously, providers of information will be needed who do not obtain their information anonymously but instead through professional work and preparation. Their efforts in their respective fields must be transparent and proven and, in the case of academics for example, may include such qualifications as doctorates, peer-reviewed publications, professorships or Nobel prizes. Without such support, the web 2.0 will suffer a loss of content despite an ever-growing number of published contributions. It is not enough for contributions merely to attain a high degree of social relevance: these indeed may be self-invoked through the system-immanent agenda-setting of the web 2.0. Science communication above all must tap primarily scientific sources. Jaron Lanier, a well-known theoretician of the digital future, is also pessimistic when ruminating on the collective wisdom of the Internet. The Internet certainly has generated wonderful ideas of democracy, openness and the equality of rights and responsibilities for all [9]. However, belief would be misplaced in a wisdom of the masses that supposedly finds its perfect expression in the Internet. Particularly, the view which maintains that reality and importance reside exclusively in the collective entirety as opposed to residing in the individual person with individual ideas and opinions points already towards totalitarianism. In the Internet, debates on political, social and scientific issues largely are conducted anonymously or by individuals who conceal themselves behind invented identities. Lanier states: An invisible person is invulnerable. In contrast, you only obtain truth with responsibility. Additionally, insecurity is promoted by the fact that the web 2.0, at least in individual cases, is actively used

1132

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

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

www.biotechnology-journal.com

for manipulation. Wikipedia contributions from representatives of the German parliament have been altered tendentiously, and political advertisements have been inserted into Wikipedia pages [10]. Already a reality in the realm of politics, such actions naturally may be expected also in others areas with high social relevance, such as scientific journalism. The problem may be thus formulated: how will information be transferred from science to the web 2.0 in an appropriate manner? Only in the fewest cases do scientists themselves possess sufficient time and resources to maintain a continuous channel of communication with the Internet public. Such projects as the nano2hybrids may be counted among the few exceptions to this rule. Key scientists involved in this European research project produce video diaries and post these, along with blogs of their work and lives, on a dedicated web site. The video diaries may also be extracted through the popular YouTube website and, therefore, are on view on one of the most widely embraced websites of the present [11]. An option for such a scientific-social bridge is represented by information portals of which the editors receive information directly from scientists. In return, scientists receive the opportunity to review the editorial processing of their information as it is directed towards specific target groups. Through this collaboration, a reliable offer of information is established for web-users that can provide a citable and fact-based point of entry to deeper discussion in the web 2.0. To date in Europe, only a limited number of such theme-specific information portals exist that operate according to this system (examples: GMO-Compass consumer information on GM food and feed, www.gmo-compass.org; GMO-Safety information platform presenting results of biosafety research on transgenic plants; www.gmo-safety.eu, Scitizen an open science news source by scientists and journalists, www. scitizen.com). In the following segments, the basic editorial characteristics of such a bridge portal are explained using the example of the German information portal bioSicherheit.de (www.biosicherheit.de; English-language version: GMO-Safety.eu /www.gmo-safety.eu), an Internet platform used in the dissemination of knowledge obtained through safety research on transgenic plants.

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

The situation outlined above is based strongly upon the negative attitude of the European consumer: although 10 years have passed since the beginning of commercial cultivation, the European public sphere largely remains characterised by significant resistance to green biotechnology. The complicated consumer attitude is reflected in polls contracted by the European Commission [14, 15]. Europeans indeed are becoming increasingly optimistic about biotechnology, as has been the trend in the EU since 1999 (Fig. 1). Support especially is strong for medical applications of biotechnology, provided that clear benefits for human health are recognisable. Many Europeans also support white biotechnology, i.e. industrial biotechnological applications: as examples, the survey addressed ethanol fuel production, biodegradable plastics, and transgenic plants developed to produce pharmaceuticals. Even the controversial field of stem cell research is widely supported in Europe, provided that it is tightly regulated. According to the study, confidence in the EUs regulation of biotechnology also is on the rise. Nonetheless, Europeans purchasing attitudes remain unchanged particularly in regard to the distaste for GM food. Even the recent overhaul of the regulatory framework for GMO authorisation and labelling in the EU has been unable yet to effect more local acceptance of food made from genetically engineered plants. A tendency of steady decline in support for GM food between 1996 and 2005 may be discerned (Fig. 2). Apparently, most consumers have difficulty in seeing clear benefits associated with genetically engineered crops. At the same time, the

Public debate on the biosafety of GMOs

To categorise the tasks and field of communication of the GMO-Safety Internet portal, it is helpful at this point to outline the European context of the debate on green gene technology. In 1996, the first genetically modified (GM) crop was cultivated commercially in the USA. Currently, GM crops are grown on more than hundred million hectares worldwide, although the cultivation of GM plants remains very limited in Europe. Only in France and Spain is genetical-

Figure 1. Trends in optimism for biotechnology for selected European countries (19912005) [15]. 1:Spain; 2:France; 3:United Kingdom; 4:Germany; 5:Denmark

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

1133

Biotechnology Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

Figure 2. Support for GM food in EU-15 countries (average 19912005) [15].

more likely to be assigned to the category of nature and not to those of science, technology or innovation. In the case of green gene technology, such considerations also play a large role: its use of research and breeding techniques on plants including gene-technological processes is met by the majority of polled individuals with acceptance, and is considered as positive. Nonetheless, this acceptance vanishes in all EU countries albeit with recognisable changes of accent when confronted with GM food (Fig. 4).

public is clearly concerned about potential risks to human health and the environment. The acceptance of GM foods in Europe also has shifted significantly over the years. After a period of rising scepticism from 1996 to 1999, an increase in support was observed in the 2002 study. Since 2002, support for GM foods has taken another downturn. For an increasing number of people, the perceived risks of GM food outweigh the benefits. The survey also questioned participants on the circumstances under which they would choose to buy GM food (Fig. 3). The results showed that benefits for human health would be the forerunning reason to opt for GMOs. Reduction of pesticide use appeared to be another important factor that would motivate European consumers to choose a GM product. Most respondents, however, claimed that saving money would be inadequate as the sole reason for choosing GM products. Furthermore, authorisation by European authorities was not seen by most Europeans as a sufficient reason to sample GM foods.
3.2 Societal value perceptions are decisive

The contribution of biosafety research to safe innovations

The approval, and prerequisite safety evaluation, of transgenic products by competent authorities must be perceived clearly as separate to biosafety research.
4.1 Approval procedure

Approval of new technologies and innovation certainly is to be detected by polls conducted in the EU, but this attitude remains unapplied to foodstuffs. The mere mention of biotechnology in the context of GM foodstuffs provokes radically different acceptance values and perceptions. Clearly, the category foodstuff activates a different value pattern as does technical innovation. Foodstuff is

The approval of transgenic products in the EU only can take place subsequently to comprehensive risk assessment derived from a clear concept. Principally, and for every transgenic product (i.e. event), risk estimation based upon scientific knowledge, plausible assumptions and scenarios is conducted, and experiences are won in step-by-step procedures upon the relevant GMO. In a succession of experiments (in laboratories, greenhouses, small- and large-scale field releases, and traffic), the security measures are reduced incrementally. Each step only may be undertaken when the previous step has shown to hold no risks for human beings or the environment. The approval requirements for a new GM product demand that the product be exactly as safe as a comparable conventional product according to the current standard of knowledge. Such requirements apply to the conduct of a new product in the environment as well as in regard to its effects upon the health of human beings and animals. Proof of safety must be provided by the applicant and, on the basis of the submitted certificates, an ensuing

Figure 3. Reasons for buying or not buying GM foods [15].

1134

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

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

www.biotechnology-journal.com

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

safety assessment is conducted by independent expert panels [competent national authorities, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)]. Applicable guidelines for safety assessments have been formulated among others by the FAO [16], OECD [17] and the EFSA [18]. Nonetheless, approval procedures and the decisions made by the responsible agencies remain unaccepted by large segments of the European public (i.e. consumers, the media, various other agents). Particularly, NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or GM Watch consider the applied approval procedures to be faulty. Therefore, despite the legal-administrative framework and elaborate safety assessments, a public belief persists that GM products are neither safe nor investigated. The reasons for this are complex, and include: A loss of trust in science, particularly in socially controversial areas. In a survey, for example, 26% of European citizens named environmental organisations when asked whom they most trusted to tell the truth about GM crops. Only 6% named universities, 4% national public authorities and 1% industry [19]. The low transparency of decision procedures of the EU. A politically based depreciation of expert opinions. For example, during approval processes of GM products, judgements submitted by the responsible GMO panels of the EFSA are regularly ignored by voting representatives of EU Member States in the Council of Ministers. As a result, scientific assessments and the resulting recommendations of the EFSA have never received the qualified majority among Member States that is necessary for their implementation.
4.2 Biosafety research

products and applications in health care, agro-food and the environment. The benefits of GM crops are becoming clear but, as always with innovations, the precautionary approach demands that uncertainties and conjectural risks be addressed by corresponding research. Fed into regulatory and risk management policies, growing practical experience and the results of research have both facilitated safe innovations. Research results can resolve uncertainties and provide a sound basis for risk management and science-based regulation [20]. GMO safety research has been supported in successive EC-sponsored Framework Programmes from 1985 to the present day. Eighty-three projects and 477 teams have been supported with more than 87.5 million euros [21]. Since the end of the 1980s, the Federal Government of Germany has sponsored biological safety research, including more than 300 projects, with more than 95 million euros.

Communication GMO biosafety: Challenges and constraints

Safety research sponsored, for example, by the EU Commission and individual Member States must find its place in an area of conflict, i.e. between science-based regulation and approval on the one hand and the absence of social acceptance on the other. Such research is conducted independently of the businesses involved in the commercial development of GM crops and, in the past quartercentury, has played a key role in accompanying the development and dissemination of modern biotechnology

The biological safety research sponsored by the German government for the past 20 years has focused most recently on GM plants. In the responsible ministry, the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), it was decided in 2001 for the first time to accompany a ministry-financed research programme with professional communications management. The core of this collaboration has been formed by the Internet platform bioSicherheit.de, which went online in 2002 and has been available in English since 2006. Together with supplementary communications measures, this Internet platform is aimed at bringing the results of safety research on GM plants into public discussion more vigorously. In light of sustained social controversy on the topic of green gene technology, the communication of research results remains a difficult task which, furthermore, is influenced by various and contradictory intentions:

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

1135

Biotechnology Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

On the one hand, the goal exists of presenting circumstances and research in such a manner that the interested public may understand their relative objectives as well as the findings that result. However, public knowledge for example, on basic principles of biology and agriculture is low. A context is lacking within which individual data may be integrated. On the other hand, widespread scepticism towards the products of green gene technology can be explained not only as emanating from a deficit of knowledge but also as the expression of a deep conflict of values within society. The successful closure of present gaps in public information and knowledge would not lead automatically to a transformation in the climate of public opinion [22]. Communications strategies towards green gene technology must address divergent challenges: the communication of knowledge through clear and understandable depiction of science-oriented principles is essential, but is insufficient on its own to reach the public or to influence the 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, has been conducted for years without having led to a generally acceptable result. This debate mirrors a deep conflict in regard to modernisation: the discussion surrounding GM plants in agriculture and in the food industry may be seen as a current point of its crystallisation. Controversial issues include the following: Recombination technology is not seen as a modern molecular procedure that may be applied to plant breeding in a similar manner to other agricultural methods but, instead, as the expression of an opportunistic relationship with nature and, as such, worthy of refusal at least in the context of individual nutrition. The release of GM plants is perceived against the background of a stasis-oriented understanding of nature: changes in (agro-)ecosystems are not held to be the expression of a natural and evolutionary dynamic but, instead, to be a menace and peril to that which already exists. In public perception, the application of agro-gene technology leads to the loss of traditional values (e.g. naturalness, inherited tradition, self reliance). In contrast, the modern values associated with gene technology (e.g. scientific control, goal rationale, efficiency) are more likely to be perceived negatively, particularly in the context of foodstuffs and nutrition. This conflict of values and its resulting perceptions form an essential framework upon which communication on

biological safety research must take place [23]. Communication on this topic is also made difficult by the fact that the categories safety and risk are interpreted in differing ways by laypeople (consumers) and experts (scientists). While the former infer safety from untreated states and from natural, unmanipulated processes, the latter define safety as the result of technical control and scientific penetration. Communication on biological safety research therefore cannot be conducted under the assumption of a generally accepted understanding of safety and risk. Bluntly: the social debate surrounding green gene technology is conducted not on the basis of knowledge but, instead, of valuations. Therefore, the importance and role of science is transformed: The socially accepted power of determination attributed to science is limited. Science must compete with post-material definitions and value systems. Scientists cannot assume that their knowledge and point of view will be accepted unconditionally by the surrounding society. On the contrary: natural scientists currently are experiencing a substantial loss of trust and credibility [19, 24]. The loss of trust and the decreasing power of determination attributed to science are manifest foremost in politically and socially controversial fields such as green gene technology. In such contexts, expert knowledge is used selectively: it is primarily accepted when suited to pre-existing patterns of perceptions and when seen as confirming pre-established value systems. Internal scientific controversies, normally confined to a single community, are subject to broader public interest in the case of socially controversial questions and are amplified by the media. To the eye of a public audience, which lacks the possibility of placement within a technical context or of verification, it may appear in each case that experts hold an excess of differing and contradictory perspectives and assessments that nonetheless seem to be of equal rank. This impression of arbitrariness results not only in a depreciation of expert knowledge but also enhances the broad public perception that experts are more motivated by commercial factors than by interest in the acquisition of knowledge [25]. The creeping devaluation of expert knowledge is exacerbated by the commingling of science and politics. Particularly in conflicts surrounding green gene technology, one may notice that scientific facts are interpreted politically. Political decisions, such as decisions by the EU Council of Ministers on the approval of GM plants or GMO products, bypass scientific opinions generated by the responsible panels of experts for example, of the EFSA. Conversely, to achieve better weighting in public debate, political assessments are often presented as scientifically secured conclusions [26].

1136

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

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

www.biotechnology-journal.com

Case study: Goals and basic orientation of bioSicherheit.de

The public perception remains widespread that safety-related knowledge on GM plants is insufficient and that, therefore, their commercial application is unjustifiable. Against this background, public receptiveness is higher towards information that strengthens, rather than weakens, risk-based reservations. Communication on questions of biological safety cannot change this situation directly, and must assume appropriate goals under consideration of the contextual situation. It will not be possible with PR concepts alone to penetrate the basic scepticism of large parts of the society towards green gene technology and to motivate these towards acceptance. The communication strategy upon which the Internet platform bioSicherheit.de is based is oriented towards the following 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 of scientific arguments in national and regional debates on GM plants and on the risks associated with their use Increased availability to the interested public of scientific knowledge relevant to the discussion of safety, and the dismantlement of barriers based on technology and language, i.e. easily findable, accessible and understandable offers of information Trust and credibility through transparency and attractive presentation, as well as through recognition of scientists as persons with convincing messages Transparency as a principle: safety research should become recognisable as an open process, in which all relevant information is accessible freely. Openness, transparency and traceability are central requirements for credibility Contextualisation of individual aspects of biological safety. The recipient of this offer of information is the broader public, provided that interest exists in questions of green gene technology and the safety of GM plants. The information offered is understandable to interested users, including those with neither scientific nor previous knowledge. Additionally, important target groups for bioSicherheit.de include multipliers, such as journalists, teachersin-training, teachers in continuing education, political decision-makers and agencies, as well as individuals and groups involved in agriculture and the food industry, i.e.

branches that are affected by questions of green gene technology. The information that may be obtained from bioSicherheit.de is to be seen as an offer to the society: on both the individual and social levels, it is intended to provide a service facilitating appropriate and informed determination of opinions and decisions. Scientific information and appraisals are clearly distinguished from each other.
6.1 Communication strategy bioSicherheit.de

The communication concept upon which bioSicherheit.de is based may be subdivided into four levels (Fig. 5).
6.1.1 Demand for information

An active interest already exists in information on questions of green gene technology and on its surrounding safety aspects. Further approvals of GM plants, their cultivation and uses of their harvest products in the EU, as well as media reports and the ongoing public debate, will continue to foster this demand for information. An active demand for information may be expected foremost from the following target groups: Interested citizens Regional communities, e.g. in cases of conflict regarding 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 supply

The Internet is increasingly used as a source and medium to satisfy the demand for knowledge. Queries about topics of green gene technology are addressed on the Internet preferably through the use of search engines. In addressing this demand, the Internet portal bioSicherheit.de thereby is in competition with other sources. Competing provenances include monothematic Internet sites from public agencies, interest groups, associations, news and science portals, and topical information sources. Increasingly, a role is played by newer, decentralised Internet sites (Web 2.0) such as blogs or the userbased lexicon Wikipedia. Queries directed towards search engines should generate result lists on which pages from bioSicherheit.de are placed among the first hits. To accomplish this goal for a broad spectrum of terms and catchphrases, suitable search engine marketing is necessary. Such marketing includes a thematically differentiated offer of information, page information optimised for search engines, and a high page ranking (visibility) accomplished through linking of external sites to bioSicherheit.de.

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

1137

Biotechnology Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

Figure 5. Scheme of the principle communication strategy of bioSicherheit.de (see text).

6.1.3

Demand-oriented alignment of the offer of information

The users assessment of a Website after the first-time visit depends decisively on whether he or she has received the 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 presentation Functional, easily operable search tools, and Currency and maintenance of the store of information The editorial concept of bioSicherheit.de is derived from these requirements. The Internet platform is established by an editorial board as an online magazine consistent with basic journalistic principles. Characteristics of this journalistic concept include attractive presentation, understandable, precise and transparent language, variety of topics and of forms of presentation, separation of information and valuation, and high information content as well as photographs and graphics as self-contained elements. The online magazine is aimed at making a vigorous and attractive impression that also motivates interested non-experts to visit the site. With the aim of the highest possible user satisfaction, specific possibilities of the Internet medium are adopted.

The magazine segment of bioSicherheit.de forms a bridge between specific aspects of the biological safety of individual transgenic plants and the social and scientific debate surrounding green gene technology. Current reports, foremost on topics related to questions of safety in reference to GM plants, are presented in prominent positions. The foreground is occupied by reporting on political discussions e.g. on questions on the legal regulation of GM plants and also contains supporting information on current media topics. For bioSicherheit.de to be seen as a credible, serious and trustworthy source of information, everything must be avoided that may result in its being perceived as a communiqu organ for one or the other side of debate. Nonetheless, an independent alignment of bioSicherheit.de is not achieved alone through its best-possible documentation of differing scientific perspectives or standpoints of debate, but also through goal-oriented processing of information according to the journalistic quality standards formulated above. Controversies, messages, differing points of view and interpretations are associated with individuals whenever possible: in dialogues and interviews published by bioSicherheit.de, scientists and experts are personally recognisable and thereby demonstrate their willingness to engage in social discussion.

1138

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

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

www.biotechnology-journal.com

Supplementary to its online magazine, bioSicherheit.de offers a databank on research projects sponsored by the BMBF on biological safety. For each project, results are illuminated in an understandable form that is also transparent to non-experts. For projects that have yet to be concluded, the actual status is presented. As multipliers, educators play a particularly decisive role in relaying information. For teachers and interested pupils, the school portal of bioSicherheit.de offers a systematic entry to current topics of biological safety research on plants and includes reflection on the complex of attendant social problems.
6.1.4 Binding users to bioSicherheit.de

To users, bioSicherheit.de should become a preferred source of information in the field of biological safety. To achieve this, the site should be acknowledged as a brand. The brand bioSicherheit represents current, serious, reliable, credible and high-quality information, presented attractively and fluidly, and also represents the maintenance of independence from political camps pro and contra green gene technology. In 2006, the topic menu debate was established to emphasise the discursive, open approach of bioSicherheit.de. Here, scientific controversies mostly in the form of interviews are presented, as well as social perceptions of science. Additionally, the intention exists to establish a community 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 receive a newsletter indicating new or updated pages and content.
6.2 Results: Goals accomplished?

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

In German-speaking regions, bioSicherheit.de has developed into an outstanding provider of information on aspects of green gene technology relevant to safety. The site currently records an ever-increasing user popularity of more than 90 000 visits and 400 000500 000 retrieved pages and page impressions per month (Fig. 6). At the end of 2006, the completed form of the Englishlanguage site GMO-Safety.eu went online. One year later, already 30 000 users visit the site (Fig. 7). The Internet platforms bioSicherheit.de and GMOSafety.eu have secured their place as trustworthy, serious providers of information used primarily by the media, multipliers and decision-makers, and also are used in schools and universities. Their pages are extracted by both opponents and proponents of gene technology for use as a source of information.

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

Perspective: More weight for scientific aspects in social debate

Despite high user receptivity and the attention of various social groups to biosicherheit.de, it must be acknowledged that science-based results of safety research remain insufficiently present in social debate. This observation must be recognised as deriving less from the unavailability of relevant information than from the limited science-based argumentation with which the social controversy surrounding green gene technology is conducted.

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

1139

Biotechnology Journal

Biotechnol. J. 2007, 2, 11291140

In the future, further efforts will be necessary to bring the information and points of view presented by www.biosicherheit.de more closely and strongly into the social debate. Since May 2005, the coverage of biosicherheit.de and gmo-safety.eu has been accompanied by professional press work. National and international print and online media regularly are made aware of press releases and newsletters with new content. Since 2005, and primarily in the online media, more than 300 content reports of biosicherheit.de have been placed. Furthermore, the editorial board of GMO-Safety plans stronger participation for scientists in the public debate: willingness towards such engagement already exists. Karl-Heinz Kogel, Professor of Plant diseases and Plant Protection and Vice President of the University of Giessen, has stated in an interview with GMO-Safety: The scepticism we face is an expression of an explicable even necessary defence mechanism, which also makes sense from the perspective of biological evolution. For us scientists, this means that we have to show that the technology that we want to introduce has great benefits and we have to make these benefits understandable. Only then, I believe, can one really convince the public. Our task is to persuade people constantly, and with a lot of patience. [26].

[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 biotechnology: concepts and principles. OECD, Paris 1993. [18] Guidance document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed, EFSA J. 2006, 99, 1100. [19] Eurobarometer 46.1, 7778 , 1997, European Commission DG XII. [20] Economidis, I. (Ed.), EC-sponsored Research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms, European Commission 2001. [21] Personel communication: Economidis, I. Statusseminar Biologische Sicherheitsforschung. March 2006, Berlin. [22] Bruce, D. M., A Social Contract for Biotechnology: Shared Visions for Risky Technologies? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2004, 15, 279289. [23] Davies, K. G., Wolf-Phillips, J., Scientific citizenship and good governance: implications for biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2006, 24, 5761. [24] Unease finds a legitimate expression in risk. Interview with Wolfgang van den Daele at GMO-Safety (http://www.gmosafety.eu/en/news/563.docu.html). [25] Chalmers, D., Nicol, D., Commercialisation of biotechnology: public trust and research. Int. J. Biotechnol. 2004, 6, 116133. [26] The central problem is the mixing of scientific and political arguments. Interview with Karl-Heinz Kogel at GMO-Safety (http:// www.gmo-safety.eu/en/debate/569.docu.html).

References

[1] Brecht, B., Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat (Radio broadcasting 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. OReilly, Sebastopol 2004. [5] Delwiche, A., Agendasetting, 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, 365379. [7] Deuze, M., Understanding the impact of the Internet: On new media 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, 182183. [10] Herwig, M., Spiegel Spezial 2007, 3, 2223. [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, Eurobarometer 58.0 / 2003. [15] Revuelta, G., Schreiner, C., Torgersen, H., Wagner, W., Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Final report on Eurobarometer 64.3. 2006

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-sponsored communication and research projects, namely, the consumer and stakeholder communication platforms Co-Extra (addressing co-existence and traceability of GM plants and derived products; since 2005), GMO-Compass (addressing GM food and health safety evaluation; 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 Ministry of Research.

1140

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