BioWorld International Correspondent

CAMBRIDGE, England - "Many ethical issues are raised by biotechnology, and many members of the general public are still skeptical. We should talk to people we meet on buses or wherever, and tell them the benefits biotechnology will bring," Chairman Mark Treherne told delegates at the Eastern Region Biotech Initiative's 4th annual biopartnering exchange here last week.

The industry has a responsibility to communicate to a wider audience, he said. "Don't let the media dictate; be more proactive in communicating."

Products that are coming through offer significant benefits, while in the Eastern region of England, biotechnology is a very significant part of the economy, with 175 companies and 25 percent of the top 50 European listed companies.

Contributors to a panel debate on public perception and ethical issues in biotechnology agreed that the public does not have a unified view of biotechnology, seeing it rather as a series of issues, such as genetically modified crops, genetic testing, embryonic stem cell research or cloning. The public is less likely to say biotechnology is about providing high-tech jobs, or the medicines of the future, because those aspects are seldom aired in the media.

Furthermore, each issue generates its own specific arguments, with GM crops raising fears of releasing unproven technology into the environment and onto the dinner plate, embryonic stem cell research raising fears about breaking taboos, and genetic testing raising fears over privacy and loss of human self-determination.

"When we as a community respond, we have to remember we are speaking a different language," said Crispin Kirkman, CEO of the BioIndustry Association. The industry has "always been on the back foot" in terms of rebutting criticism. "We are a young industry without the resources to make the argument about what we do," he said.

Kirkman added that the industry must face up to critics. "All of us in the industry must maintain self-confidence. In the last six months I think the industry has talked itself down."

Steven Burke, senior vice president of corporate affairs and external relations at the North Carolina Biotech Center, said, "We are in an age where people think they must have an opinion about anything. There's no reason to think that an informed opinion would be in favor of biotech. As a society we will say yes to some applications and no to others."

While it should talk about the benefits, the sector must be careful not to alienate the public by promising more than it can deliver, John Gillot, policy director of a pressure group, the Genetic Interest Group, told the 400 delegates. "You have to be very wary not to raise false expectations. You need to convey a sense of optimism, without being unrealistic."

Kirkman agreed: "It is time for a reality check. Talk down the hype, and say we will concentrate on one or two things because we can't do everything at our stage of development. We need to be a bit sober this year."

Burke noted that in the 25-year history of biotechnology nothing fundamentally malign has happened to justify public fears. "But I dare say something bad will, and the worry is that the entire biotech community will be affected by it."

Richard Dyer, director of the Babraham Institute, a biotechnology research center in Cambridge, agreed, saying, "I'm nervous that biotechnology could end up being a dirty word, like nuclear power."