New Delhi: The findings of a new study could prove to be crucial in understanding the gap between scientific and public consensus on issues such as climate change and genetically modified organisms (GMO).
A paper published in Nature Human Behaviour found that the staunchest opponents of GMO foods usually knew the least about genetics, and also overestimated their ability to understand the subject.
The study departs from earlier hypotheses that tried to explain the opposition to GMOs based on political affiliation.
Researchers asked a demographically diverse group of 500 US residents to rate their level of concern with and opposition to GMOs. Most respondents were wary of GMOs because they were uncertain about biotechnology. More than 90% reported concern and a similar number were also opposed to it.
Also Read: How an Environmentalist Changed His Mind About GMOs
However, the study found that opposition was not significantly different among self-reported liberals, moderates and conservatives.
Questions were also included to test if respondents understood science in general and genetics in particular. The researchers observed a clear pattern: “As extremity of opposition increases, scientific literacy decreases,” according to the paper. The people most strongly opposed to GMOs knew the least about the genetics.
Another test sought to gauge how highly people rated their own understanding of science. And another pattern emerged here. While people with lower levels of opposition assessed their understanding well, those who were strongly opposed overrated their knowledge.
The scientists concluded, “For extremists, knowing less is associated with thinking one knows more.” This is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias where people rate their abilities to be better than they actually are.
The researchers then expanded the study to Europe, conducting a similar study in Germany and France. Here, too, the findings were similar. Literacy about genetics was inversely related with opposition to GMOs. However, here, the stronger opponents did not overestimate their knowledge of genetics like their American counterparts had.
Using the European Commission’s Eurobarometer survey, the researchers then tested 1,000 people in each EU country about their opinions of GMOs. In 20 of the 25 countries, knowledge of genetics and opposition to GMO were again inversely related. However, they didn’t check for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
According to Ars Technica, the researchers later repeated the experiment while changing the order of questions, which did not have any effect. The study also found that dislike of GMOs was associated with the behaviour of agricultural corporations (such as Monsanto) or the risks of crop monoculture, which is not directly related to the scientific consensus that GMO crops are safe.
When respondents were asked about their biggest issue with GMOs, 75% said health and safety concerns, also contrary to the scientific consensus.
When respondents were quizzed about gene therapy instead of GMOs, the Dunning-Kruger effect reared its head once more, although the level of opposition was lower. Those who strongly opposed gene therapy had lower literacy but also overrated their knowledge.
Also Read: Should GM Crops Feature in the ‘Evergreen Revolution’ India Dearly Needs?
While the study establishes a correlation between scientific literacy and opposition to GMOs, it does not go into issues of causality.
If causation had been established, the study could have helped provide some insights into how we can bridge the gap between the scientific and public consensuses.
Although the science of climate change and evolution is almost entirely beyond doubt, sections of the population oppose these theories anyway. Some scientists call this the ‘deficit model’ of public understanding, and believe that if people are educated about their deficit, they will being to accept objective evidence supporting climate change and evolution
In many cases, however, the deficit model has failed because better-educated people are more confident when rejecting scientific concepts they do not want to believe. If research is able to establish that opposition to GMOs can be addressed by the deficit model, it could help scientists tackle problems with the public’s receptiveness to scientific information better.