What, Me Worry?
Alfred E. Newman, Mad Magazine
Introduction
One of the central purposes of this course is to learn how to gain adoption of technologies considered to be mainly beneficial that the public initially rejects. These technologies might be advanced (e.g., biotechnology) or not (e.g., boiling water in undeveloped areas to prevent disease). They might be material or nonmaterial. The central feature they share is public skepticism about them that delays their adoption and thereby hinders scientists' ability to improve the well-being of society, under the assumption that the technology is mainly beneficial.
This web page addresses the roots of consumer skepticism about new technologies. It discusses the legitimacy of skepticism as a positive feature of an informed public. At the same time, it describes how unjustified skepticism engendered by the fearmongering of some organizations and individuals can create negative consequences for society. It explains the role of the change agent in understanding skepticism, respecting its legitimacy from the perspective of the public, and gaining adoption of new technologies among skeptical consumers.
Why are Consumers Skeptical?
To gain adoption of a mainly beneficial technology, one must realize that skepticism about it likely will occur, even after the public is presented with the scientific facts about this technology. Scientists who labor to improve our quality of life understandably become frustrated when the public rejects new technologies based upon what scientists consider to be unreasonable fears about them. Certainly, if it inhibits the adoption of mainly beneficial technologies, unreasonable skepticism can hinder scientists' ability to improve the well being of society.
The question then becomes, "Why are consumers skeptical?"
Typically, life and physical scientists answer this question by saying that the general public is ignorant about the technology being considered and about science in general. Many scientists believe that if the public only knew the scientific facts about a technology, or only knew more about science, they would not harbor unreasonable skepticism about the technology.
It is true that society most likely would be better off if the public knew more about science. But these assumptions that greater education about science in general and about the technology under consideration will necessarily increase acceptance of it are incorrect for five reasons:
- The presumption that knowing more about science will improve acceptance of new technologies is incorrect because when people learn more about the actual practice of science they also learn more about its limitations. Science can never be totally objective, value-free, and unbiased. Scientific studies always have limitations. And the practice of science always is guided by the questions being asked; wherein funding agencies strongly influence which questions are asked. Therefore, science education is not a good predictor of technology adoption. In fact, some of the strongest critics of a particular technology typically are people with the most education about science and the technology.
- The presumption that knowing more about the technology under consideration will improve acceptance of it is incorrect because when people learn more they also learn more about the limitations of the technology and its potential negative consequences. That is, organizations opposed to controversial technologies also are educating the public about the technology. The public is hearing two sides of an issue. Because consumers who might otherwise be highly educated often do not have the advanced education within a particular scientific discipline to fully understand the arguments made by proponents and opponents, they are uncertain about whom to trust.
- Thinking that gaining more science and technology knowledge will improve acceptance of a technology ignores the fact that persons might understand science and the technology, but be opposed to it based upon moral or ethical reasons. One might, for example, be highly educated in general and highly educated about genetic modification and be opposed to biotechnologies because they feel that these technologies create too many negative consequences for farmers.
- Certainly, learning the scientific facts about a technology is a necessary element of gaining adoption of it. But many years of research and practice show that learning the facts is not the key element of gaining adoption. Adoption is a much more complex issue than simply learning scientific facts. In later sections of this course we will learn about the complexity of adoption decisions.
- Thinking that learning the scientific facts about a technology will increase adoption of it assumes that the public trusts the scientists who are proponents of the technology. The public trusts scientists in general, but might not trust them immediately when they learn about a new technology. They initially might be skeptical.
So, "Why are consumers skeptical?"
Skepticism as a Rational Response
The key to understanding public skepticism is to recognize that sometimes it is well founded.
For example:
Sometimes, scientists make mistakes...
Vioxx: A good medicine for relieving pain, but with more severe negative side effects than originally realized.
Thalidomide: Developed to treat pregnant women with nausea, it causes severe birth defects.
Sometimes, government management of technology is flawed...
Sometimes, industry management of technology is flawed...
Sometimes, government and industry management of technology is flawed...
Sometimes, industry lies...
Sometimes, scientists lie...
Discussion
When we recognize that consumer skepticism of new technologies sometimes is well founded, we acknowledge that it is a rational, reasonable response by citizens. In fact, skepticism is a survival trait. It has a firm foundation in fact. Homo Sapiens would not have survived on this planet without exhibiting skepticism about possible dangers. And skepticism can have a long memory. For example, farmers in less developed countries know the many disadvantages and unintended negative consequences of adopting agricultural practices associated with the green revolution. They therefore are hesitant to take at face value the promises of the biotechnology revolution.
Skepticism is not irrational, it is warranted.
Therefore, when change agents attempt to convince the public that irradiated food is safe to eat or persuade people living in undeveloped areas to boil water drawn from streams prior to drinking it, as examples, they should expect to observe public skepticism.
Because skepticism is warranted, the effective change agent will reframe the question from, "Why are consumers skeptical?" to "How can we overcome skepticism about this technology?"
This reframing of the question gives legitimacy to consumer skepticism. It switches the burden of adoption from the consumer to the change agent. That is, we no longer ask, "Why are consumers so unreasonable?" We instead ask, "How can we overcome legitimate skepticism about this new technology?"
Skepticism of Skepticism
Public skepticism of new technologies is warranted because science, industry, and regulation cannot always be trusted. At the same time, people and organizations that raise concerns about technology sometimes cannot be trusted.
Fearmongering and Technology...
Sometimes, organizations make claims about technologies that are not well supported by scientific facts:
Fearmongering for Profit...
Sometimes, to make a profit, organizations will mislead the public about technology:
Disseminating Misleading Information...
Sometimes, the opinions offered by non-scientific groups seem to be those offered by professional scientific organizations:
The website for the American College of Pediatricians, for example, might look like it offers the opinions of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the professional association of pediatricians. It does not.
Discussion
Fearmongering can create problems when organizations are successful at convincing the public to reject mainly beneficial technologies. When citizens are persuaded by junk science or by fearmongering, then they unnecessarily punish industry or reject technologies that can improve societal well being. Therefore, just as citizens should be active in learning about the limitations of new technologies, they should be active in learning about its benefits.
Because individuals and organizations sometimes engage in unreasonable fearmongering, the change agent might be inclined to dismiss consumer skepticism as an irresponsible perception.
The effective change agent will not follow this path of blaming consumers for nonadoption for two reasons.
- As noted above, skepticism is warranted because sometimes it is well founded.
- Dismissing a perception that the public considers as legitimate is not the most effective approach to gaining consumer confidence in and subsequent adoption of a new technology.
The Bottom Line
At the end of the day, consumer skepticism does not have as strong a negative effect on technology adoption as is sometimes believed. Skepticism can be a significant barrier to adoption. And it sometimes prevents or significantly delays the adoption of presumably good innovations or brings about unnecessary punishment of an industry. But for most technologies skepticism can be eased and adoption gained.
Too often, adoption of mainly beneficial technologies is unnecessarily delayed because scientists pursue inadvisable approaches to risk communication. Techniques for gaining adoption of presumably beneficial innovations can and have overcome skepticism for many different types of technologies in many settings worldwide.
The effective change agent will expect skepticism, respect its legitimacy, and learn how to alleviate it and gain adoption of the mainly beneficial technology.
Ethical Issues
One of the main objectives of this course is to learn techniques to overcome public skepticism for the purpose of gaining adoption of presumably beneficial technologies. As part of their work in gaining adoption, change agents should recognized that all technologies are flawed in some respects. Also, the adoption of new technologies always brings about negative consequences for some segments of the population.
The change agent, therefore, needs to understand as best as possible the potential negative consequences of technology adoption and seek ways to mitigate them. We will learn about these ethical issues at various points throughout this course.
