Undergraduate Biotechnology Students’ Views of Science Communication

Abstract

Despite rapid growth of the biotechnology industry worldwide, a number of public concerns about the application of biotechnology and its regulation remain. In response to these concerns, greater emphasis has been placed on promoting biotechnologists' public engagement. As tertiary science degree programs form the foundation of the biotechnology sector by providing a pipeline of university graduates entering into the profession, it has been proposed that formal science communication training be introduced at this early stage of career development. The aim of the present study was to examine the views of biotechnology students towards In biotechnology, rapid advances have generated considerable controversy and public concern. While the governments of many countries see the commercialisation of biotechnology to be of benefit for society and the economy, not all members of the public share this view. Surveys of the public's attitudes towards biotechnology in America and Europe indicate that biotechnology raises a number of issues for the public, including the 'unnaturalness' of genetic manipulation, levels of acceptable risk and usefulness of new products (see Gaskell et al., 2000;Priest, 2000;Smith, 2001). In Australia, the federal government has examined attitudes to biotechnology 4 in a series of biannual surveys (Eureka Strategic Research, 2005;Millward Brown, 2001Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler, 1999). These surveys suggest the majority of Australians see the application of gene technology as risky. In the most recent survey (Eureka Strategic Research, 2007), a majority (87%) of the 1067Australians surveyed expressed the view that gene technology was likely to create "significant problems in the future" (p. 13).Negative public perceptions of biotechnology pose a number of significant problems for the industry. Community resistance to technological advances have resulted in the rejection of products outright and the inhibition of research and development progress through bans and moratoriums. This has been particularly evident in the genetically modified food industry in Europe and increasingly in Australia (Smith, 2001). AusBiotech, Australia's national biotechnology industry organisation, has acknowledged that uncertainty about adoption of new biotechnologies by the community and regulatory bodies has prevented the Australian biotechnology sector from realising its full potential (Carroll, 2006). They noted that stem cell research and genetically modified crops, in particular, are areas that have failed to translate from advances in research to economic and social advantage. A decreased ability to attract secondary students to undergraduate biotechnology programs in Australia has also been attributed to negative public perceptions of the industry. The skills shortage that is predicted to result from this reduction in undergraduate biotechnology enrolments has been described as "one of the biggest threats" to the biotechnology profession (Lavelle, 2006, p. 20). 5Increased recognition of the influence of pub...

Are Students Prepared to Communicate? A Case Study of an Australian Degree Course in Biotechnology

“…It is conceivable they may never receive any formal training in science communication in the course of their career. A previous study of this case has shown that biotechnology undergraduates taking this course do not value communication with nonscientists (Edmondston, Dawson & Schibeci, 2010) and evidence from other studies suggests up to three quarters of scientists do not receive any formal training in science communication (Brown, Propst & Woolley, 2004;Wellcome Trust/MORI, 2000).…”

Teaching oral communication in undergraduate science: Are we doing enough and doing it right?

“…A study by Edmondston et al (2010b) reported that undergraduate biotechnology students do not value scientific communication and science communication training. Further, the study concluded that their graduates may graduate with only a limited understanding of science communication (Edmondston et al, 2010b). In contrast, it has been shown that undergraduates and graduates who have taken science communication subjects place a high value on these units (Longnecker, 2009).…”

“…Furthermore, as a significant portion of undergraduate students will not undertake studies at a postgraduate level, inclusion of science communication training in undergraduate courses becomes even more significant (Edmondston, Dawson & Schibeci, 2010a). It is also proposed that formal science communication training should be introduced in early stages of career development as this form of training will place the students in a better stage as they begin their careers as willing and able scientists after they graduate (Edmondston, Dawson & Schibeci, 2010b). Many academics surveyed believed that graduate attributes were least effectively developed if they were integrated into a late capstone course or left to be developed by the students independently (De La Harpe, Radloff, Scoufis, Dalton, Thomas, Lawson et al, 2009).…”

BioBlitzes help science communicators engage local communities in environmental research

“…Callon et al describe this as expert and lay knowledge produced by 'hybrid forums' [Bucchi and Trench, 2014]. Adopting knowledge co-production has been suggested as a way to guarantee 'the generation and maintenance of public trust' [Edmondston, Dawson and Schibeci, 2010].…”