hide
Free keywords:
biotechnology; ccommunication; controversy; disruptive technologies; genetically modified organisms; innovation; mosquitoes; public health; public; scientists; technology; perception; transgenic; Wolbachia
Abstract:
Background: Pioneering technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, synthetic biology or climate engineering) are often
associated with potential new risks and uncertainties that can become sources of controversy. The communication
of information during their development and open exchanges between stakeholders is generally considered a key
issue in their acceptance. While the attitudes of the public to novel technologies have been widely considered
there has been relatively little investigation of the perceptions and awareness of scientists working on human or
animal diseases transmitted by arthropods.
Methods: Consequently, we conducted a global survey on 1889 scientists working on aspects of vector-borne
diseases, exploring, under the light of a variety of demographic and professional factors, their knowledge and
awareness of an emerging biotechnology that has the potential to revolutionize the control of pest insect
populations.
Results: Despite extensive media coverage of key developments (including releases of manipulated mosquitoes
into human communities) this has in only one instance resulted in scientist awareness exceeding 50 % on a
national or regional scale. We document that awareness of pioneering releases significantly relied on private
communication sources that were not equally accessible to scientists from countries with endemic vector-borne
diseases (dengue and malaria). In addition, we provide quantitative analysis of the perceptions and knowledge of
specific biotechnological approaches to controlling vector-borne disease, which are likely to impact the way in
which scientists around the world engage in the debate about their value.
Conclusions: Our results indicate that there is scope to strengthen already effective methods of communication, in
addition to a strong demand by scientists (expressed by 79.9 % of respondents) to develop new, creative modes of
public engagement.
