Government
Survey finds public supports biotechnology The U.S. public is generally supportive of most b i o t e c h n o l o g y , but that support is not overwhelming, according to a recent opinion survey conducted by Congress 7 Office of Technology Assessment. Congress requested the survey, the second in a series on developments in biotechnology, to gauge whether the field needs closer regulation. The survey asked about science in general as well as about aspects of biotechnology. OTA says that a fairly high percentage, 47%, of people surveyed believe they are very interested, very concerned, or very knowledgeable about science and technology. Two thirds say they understand the meaning of genetic engineering, and three out of 10 say they discuss science-related issues at least once a week. These numbers differ from what other surveys have found about the public's interest in science and technology, OTA says. The survey found that though just 16% of those asked believe their knowledge of science is very good, a majority—54%—rate their understanding of science and technology issues as adequate. Another indication of high interest in science is that about one quarter of the public say they read science magazines or books at least weekly. Also, 36% report they read the science sections in newspapers, and an unexpected 9% say they discuss science issues daily. According to the survey, the public expects considerable benefits from science and technology developments, but not without risk. Personal benefits from science within the next 20 years are expected by 80% of those polled, but 71% believe those developments won't be attained without some risk to the public. There is mixed opinion about how serious the risk might be. OTA says that 61% believe "society has perceived only the tip of the iceberg with regard to risks from modern technology/' and 54% say the problems may have been blown out of proportion. 22
June 15, 1987 C&EN
The same mixed opinion exists when the subject is limited to risk from genetic engineering. A majority believe the risks associated with genetic e n g i n e e r i n g have been greatly exaggerated, but 77% of that same public indicate that the dangers are so great that strict regulations are necessary. It appears, OTA concludes, that the public recognizes both that unreasonable fears of genetic e n g i n e e r i n g have delayed some societal benefits, but that there are real risks as well. On the critical issue of field-testing genetically engineered organisms, 82% of the public believe small-scale tests should be permitted. There is no identifiable subset of the population—political, religious, educational, or other—that believes experimental field tests should be prohibited. One of the factors that determines how the public perceives risk is the credibility of the person describing the risk. OTA reports that to the public the most credible persons are university scientists, who are believed by 86% of the people. Slightly more than half are inclined to believe federal or local officials on the degree of risk, and less than half, only 43%, find the news media credible. In a situation in which the federal g o v e r n m e n t claims there is no risk from a biotechnology release, but a major environmental group says there is a danger, 65% of those surveyed responded they would believe the environmental group rather than the government. The overall results seem to indicate that the public is less afraid of genetic engineering and biotechnology than had been thought before. Although there is not a great understanding of how it works, biotechnology is seen as having large benefits at relatively low risk. Degree of support for genetic engineering rose and concern over risks decreased as the education levels of the persons surveyed increased. Those with college degrees saw the greatest potential with the least concern. The OTA survey involved 1273 responses from adults and was performed last fall by the Louis Harris & Associates polling company. David Hanson, Washington
Federal Alert— new regulations This C&EN listing highlights regulations published in the Federal Register from March 17 to May 15. Complete information is available on the page numbers cited. PROPOSED Environmental Protection Agency—Requires all local educational agencies to identify and control asbestos fibers in public schools; comments by June 29 (April 30, page 15820). Expands controls on burning of hazardous wastes as fuel in commercial boilers and industrial furnaces; comments by July 6 (May 6, page 16982). Occupational Safety & Health Administration—Aims to reduce occupational exposures to 2-methoxyethanol, 2-ethoxyethanol, and their respective acetates; comments by July 31 (April 2, page 10586). Transportation Department—Amends U.S. rules for transport, labeling, and packaging of hazardous materials to agree with UN and International Civil Aviation Organization rules; comments by Nov. 2 (May 5, page 16482). FINAL Environmental Protection Agency—Revises standards for mercury emissions from mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants, including rules for monitoring, reporting, and onetime emissions testing requirements; effective March 19 (March 19, page 8724). Establishes what agency means by "adequate" cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyl spills under Toxic Substances Control Act; effective May 4 (April 2, page 10688). Revises standards for fugitive emissions from volatile organic liquid storage vessels, including petroleum tanks; effective April 8 (April 8, page 11420). Publishes list of extremely hazardous substances as required by Superfund amendments, including emergency planning amounts and reportable quantities; effective May 17 (April 22, page 13378). Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Establishes clearly stated and specific radiation safety requirements for use of radioactive materials when well logging; effective July 14 (March 17, page 8225). NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency—Announces availability of document produced jointly with NRC on definition and identification of mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes; comments by July 6 (April 7, page 11147). Publishes priority list of 100 hazardous substances most commonly found at Superfund waste sites (April 17, page 12866).
