Content-Type: text/html Who's listening? And to whom? Worldviews of Biotechnology Executives and Scientists toward Public Relations and Communication b j Altschul, APR Master's Candidate, University of Maryland 2226 Rockwater Terrace Richmond, VA 23233 804/741-7264 [log in to unmask] Paper presented to the Science Communication Interest Group Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference Washington, DC August 9-12, 1995 Who's listening? And to whom? Worldviews of Biotechnology Executives and Scientists toward Public Relations and Communication b j Altschul, APR Master's candidate, University of Maryland 2226 Rockwater Terrace Richmond, VA 23233 804/741-7264 [log in to unmask] Abstract Depth and personal interviews with leaders of three significant biotechnology enterprises sought insights from executives and scientists about their worldviews toward public relations and communication and asked to what extent worldviews reflected standards of excellent and effective practice. Participants viewed the function as an important part of management. When their worldviews demonstrated openness and a willingness to grant ready access to information, they experienced greater acceptance and potential support for their programs. To a limited degree they conducted research to learn whether their publics perceived them as wanting to serve the public good. The study suggested that working through differences by understanding worldviews is one way that organizations and their publics can cultivate effective long-term working relationships and public support. Maybe, Tomatoes if the vines mature if the caterpillars don't get them if we water, sucker, feed if we pick and preserve maybe, tomatoes thin sliced on sandwiches chunked into salads peeled and whole juiced and sauced stewed pickled stuffed DConnie J. Green in Some Say Tomato _ August 1993, Mariflo Stephens, editor Charlottesville, VA: Northwood Press Courtesy Mariflo Stephens Introduction and Rationale How prepared are proponents of modern biotechnology to discuss complex social issues this technology raises with strategic publics? Not as well as they could be, according to the industry magazine Bio/Technology (Hassler, 1994). At a meeting on food safety issues in agricultural biotechnology, for example, a woman complained about speakers from the scientific community. When they addressed her group, she said, they always started with a disclaimer about not being prepared to discuss such issues. Yet as Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University in New York noted in the same article, "Public opposition to new technologies has not hinderedDbut in fact has helped stimulateDtheir development" (Hassler, 1994, p. 7). Sociologists and scholars of risk communication often discuss these issues and meet their counterparts from the life sciences in an increasing number of conferences, many of which also are open to the public. Outside of academia, though, to what extent do biotechnology industry executives and scientists engage in dialogue with non-scientists and regulators about public concerns? And for what purposes? After all, if the debate that public opposition provokes makes the producers of new goods and services adjust in consideration of consumer needs, as Hassler (1984) wrote, that result is a win-win situation. Producers are able to sell their products to consumers who have enough confidence in, and desire for, the products to purchase them. And the corporation has healthy relationships with stakeholders, enabling it to survive and thrive. Calgene, Inc., for one, found that its willingness to be accessible and open with everyone from public interest groups to government regulators helped stimulate an awareness of its genetically modified tomato. Its subsidiary, Calgene Fresh, is the developer of the FlavrSavr_ tomato, the first whole food biotechnology product introduced in selected grocery stores in mid-1994 (Benoit, 1994). The company's openness also stimulated an interest in tasting and purchasing that product upon its becoming available commercially. Calgene's experience isn't necessarily typical. Scientists traditionally have communicated within their own community in the quest to generate breakthrough knowledge (e.g., Lacy & Busch, 1991; Colwell, 1994). Still, industry observers (Burrill & Lee, 1993; Staff, 1993) have commented on the need for biotechnology companies to communicate moreDand betterDabout what they do, and to participate in public policy discussions about their products and issues (Hassler, 1994). More than 200 of these companies in the United States are publicly traded (Stone, 1994), yet they can be hard to distinguish individually. Moreover, a product can take seven to 12 years to move from research and development to the point of commercialization (Biotechnology Industry Organization, 1993). That timeframe can be frustrating as entrepreneurs try to comply with multiple tiers of government regulations, maintain their sources of venture capital, stay abreast of the whims of political support, and ride the ups and downs of public perception. Within the context of such a dynamic environment, one that often brings challenges from activists, an opportunity exists for public relations practitioners to learn not only about the public perceptions of this technology. To increase the prospects of their function adding value for the organization, practitioners in biotechnology enterprises also need to understand how their own executives and scientists view the role and purpose of their public relations and communication programs. Public relations is used in this paper as the management science concerned with building organizational relationships and solving problems of the organizational environment, both internal and external, through managerial decision-making. It encompasses communication as a process or tool to share those decisions with others both inside and outside the organization (J. Grunig, 1992). As a foundation underlying public relations practice, J. Grunig and White (1992) synthesized Kearney's (1984) concept of worldview as one's images and assumptions about the world. They described it as a "schema" that organizes what a person knows about the world and how he or she makes sense of new information. A person's worldview allows the individual to make assumptions about the relationship between oneself and others. An organization's worldview is concerned with the relationship between the organization and others with whom it interacts. Familiarity with worldviews toward communication (J. Grunig & White, 1992) can help public relations practitioners within the industry become better equipped to help their organizations bridge cognitive gaps with nonscientist and policy-maker publics. In their role as boundary spanners, public relations practitioners can contribute to their organizations' effectiveness and long-term survival by focusing on two-way symmetrical communication (J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1992). They can accomplish this by actively seeking out the needs, interests, and concernsDas reflected in their worldviewsDof both their external stakeholders and their management and research teams. In so doing, public relations managers can plan communication programs that more effectively help their organizations and their publics adjust to each other, in ways that are appropriate to a dynamic environment. This study therefore seeks to contribute to our knowledge of the worldview of leaders in biotechnology enterprises toward public relations, i.e., their beliefs and values about communication, and how they make sense of different viewpoints held by their stakeholders. To conceptualize elements of a worldview that are important to effective communication, I begin with an overview of recent research about the thinking within the biotechnology industry. This section also includes a brief description of the models of public relations and what constitutes excellent practice (J. Grunig, Ed., 1992), and a summary of significant research on public perceptions of biotechnology and risk communication. Next I describe this study's methodology and findings. Discussion concludes with an assessment of those worldview elements as expressed by the interviewees that have contributed to effective communication in their own experience. The interview protocol is attached as an appendix. Conceptualization Technology is a lens through which we see the world, and biotechnology (both traditional and new) has the power to change our understanding of ourselves, of the natural world, and of our place in it. DEdwin Hettinger (1992) Despite considerable research about societal concerns involving safety and risk, moral and ethical reservations, and consumer perceptions, understanding, and acceptance of biotechnology, little research to date considers the worldview toward public relations and communication of those working inside the biotechnology industry. Examining the history of the "new" biotechnology, however, quickly reveals scientists' desire to conduct their research in a socially responsible manner. When scientists first successfully transferred DNA from one cell to another, in 1973, the initial realization of new potential gave way to a realization of vast unknowns that people feared might result from manipulating living material. In 1975, the scientific community took it upon itself to meet in Asilomar, California, where more than 150 prominent researchers from around the world discussed their situation. They decided upon a moratorium until they would be able to determine that proceeding with their research would be safe both to themselves and to the public (Goodell, 1986; Rabino, 1994). Plein (1991) found that during the 1980s the industry transformed its image from one of risk and uncertainty to one of positive potential and familiarity. Four techniques of issue definition enabled this shift: 1) unifying and organizing the industry's interests; 2) forming alliances between government regulators and the private sector; 3) associating the technology with a popular issue on the political agenda, i.e., economic development, and disassociating it from issues that, at least at the time, were perceived as negative, i.e., the environment and ethical questions; and finally, 4) portraying those opposed to the technology as extremists. The result of the latter technique was to deny critics in some of the more mainstream groups a legitimate chance to gain credibility and contribute to the policy-making process. Writing from a public administration perspective, Plein credited the strategy of industry unity as an effective communication tool in the policy process. His acknowledgment that the industry failed to meet the heart of its criticism directly merely nodded toward the possibility that economic matters could divide biotechnology's supporters in the future, but he did not assess in depth the long-run ramifications of discrediting the opposition. Since Plein's article was published, the two major trade associations in the field merged into one collective entity in 1993, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Where the predecessor organizations frequently attacked one another at the expense of being able to build public support, BIO in its first year concentrated on an aggressive identity-building effort to establish itself in both media and political circles as the voice of the industry in Washington (D. Eramian, personal interview, December 6, 1993; Biotechnology Newswatch, 1993). The most recent study (Rabino, 1994) that bears on the topic of worldview toward communication compared how genetic engineering scientists in the United States (n=430) and their colleagues in Europe (n=400) viewed the impact of public attention, political advocacy, regulation and litigation on their work. Rabino conducted two waves of surveys, both with a particularly high rate of returnD79 percent in Europe and 74 percent in the United States. This suggests high interest among the scientists because of both the pervasiveness of the technology and its indispensability to their research in spite of frequent controversies. European researchers held the more negative views about public scrutiny, responding that it has hurt more than it has helped their efforts. Rabino attributed this finding to a stricter regulatory environment than in the United States, which relies more on voluntary compliance. In contrast, scientists in this country were more concerned about economic competitiveness. University researchers were somewhat more likely to perceive benefits from public attention than researchers in government laboratories or private industry, again due probably to a difference in the applicable regulations. As reflected in open-ended comments solicited at the end of the questionnaire, some scientists in both Europe and the United States attributed the existence of regulations, strict or otherwise, to pressure from outside interest groups. Conflict resolution between activists and the industry in this country tends more to litigation while settlements in Europe occur more through face-to-face negotiation, public debate, or the political process. In either case, researchers themselves engaged in self-regulation and acknowledged that prudent government regulations, especially when accompanied by efforts to communicate with the public and allow for public input during the regulatory process, could contribute to public confidence and support for their work. According to Rabino (1994): The majority of researchers...feel that to counter the negative public image and attention, it is important for genetic engineering scientists to be open and informative with the public (which is viewed as uninformed or misinformed) about the methods and aims of their research....Scientists would have to become more involved in educating, communicating, policy-making and regulating. (p. 44) Public Perceptions of Biotechnology in the Context of Risk Communication Numerous researchers have addressed aspects of risk communication that determine the degree of public trust and confidence that may evolve when new technologies are introduced. For example, Slovic (1987) focused on the psychological strategies people use to make sense out of uncertainty. Quantitative estimates of risk tell only part of the story; perceptions and attitudes give a broader indication of how great they may consider the risk. Scherer (1991) discussed assumptions that have been questioned in research about risk communication, including the belief that science alone could offer objective truth, that scientific experts were the sole sources of correct information, and that the public would accept risk information if only it would learn about risk issues. He argued that an alternative communication process would help avoid a crisis of public confidence; such an alternative process would involve greater understanding of science by the public and more openness by the scientific community to other ways of looking at risk. One of the better known recent studies about agricultural biotechnology was Hoban and Kendall's (1992) national telephone survey of consumers. They found respondents generally supportive of science and technology, including biotechnology, although awareness and understanding of the latter were low. Acceptance of uses that involve changing the genetic make-up of animals was lower than for changes to plants; the process of gene transfers was of concern possibly as much a result of underlying values and beliefs as of a lack of understanding. Trust surfaced as a central issue: "Confidence in government regulations and trust in information sources were strongly related to acceptance of biotechnology products and general attitudes about biotechnology" (p. 5). Health professionals, university scientists, farmers, and environmental groups were perceived as the most trustworthy information providers. The biotechnology industry hardly can be unaware of what the public thinks and what its concerns and desires are. During the past decade, seven polls conducted by both public and private sector researchers in the United States have tapped the opinions of almost 6,000 people including farmers, science policy leaders, biology teachers, and random samples of the public (Zechendorf, 1994). Zechendorf (1994) gauged that acceptance of biotechnology in the United States tended to be favorable in spite of perceptions of risk. In polls analyzed for significant trends, he found that most United States citizens feared hazards, were not able to assess risk reasonably, perceived less risk for genetic engineering than nuclear technology, thought that biotechnology will improve life, based any opposition on specific applications, and overwhelmingly (91 percent) got their information about science and technology from television. Only a relatively few people in the United States were well-informed; the higher their education level, the more likely they were to accept biotechnology. Zechendorf noted, "The overall acceptance is astonishingly high, considering the rather bad media image of biotechnology" (p. 874). Taking a different approach, Hornig's (1993) content analysis of newspaper coverage of biotechnology found many "booster" articles written from an economic or business point of view. Representatives of industry, scientists and universities were the most frequent sources, with relatively little material from activists and agricultural interests. University sources, in particular, were found to be responsible for positive coverage, more so even than industry voices. Readers' concerns about risk, public awareness issues, adequacy of research, and ethics rarely were reflected in the newspapers studied. Hornig faulted the media for failure to present a diversity of views that might stimulate debate and eventually lead to consensus. Although the researcher was the sole coder, her conclusion was significant: Responsiveness to the public's desire for information on the broad range of considerations relevant to science policy-making is more likely to build the atmosphere of trust and the sense of empowerment that must underlie such confidence. Cynicism about the activities of both public agencies and private interests involved in science and technology is unlikely to evaporate unless these information needs are met. (pp. 11-12) Concerns of Activists and Regulators Earlier, Margaret Mellon (1988), writing for the National Wildlife Federation, looked not only to government but also to the private sector to provide opportunities for public participation in decision-making. Federal agencies provide access to information through laws governing both biotechnology and procedural laws applicable to all agencies, including the Freedom of Information Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The degree of access varies from agency to agency. In addition to assuring be tter decisions, an informed public would be more helpful for industry, Mellon suggested. Though possibly more costly up front, agencies and firms that encourage full information and full participation may stem a rise in public frustration later, Mellon (1988) continued, especially "if it later becomes apparent that the technology was oversold or its risks understated" (p. 51). At the opening of the Food Advisory Committee's hearings for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, James Maryanski, biotechnology strategic manager for the agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, noted two different ways of looking at the technology. "Science calls it recombinant DNA, the public calls it genetic engineering," he said. Based on experiments cited in the news media, he added that consumers develop the impression that "exotic" foods will soon be available. Regardless of how such foods are developed, consumers rely on the FDA to assure that food is safe and to ensure confidence in new techniques, he pointed out. Not quite a year earlier, the Government Accounting Office (1993) had summarized some of the unresolved issues as whole food products neared commercialization. These included providing guidance to industry on a case-by-case basis and a need to improve interagency coordination, both factors that create regulatory uncertainty. Such uncertainty could not only slow commercialization of new products, it could also undermine consumer confidence in the agency's efforts to ensure these products are safe, the GAO said. Nevertheless, the hearings provided a forum for contrasting perspectives of industry and activists. Robert Serenbetz, chief executive officer of DNA Plant Technology, emphasized the importance of keeping the public informed. In his view, the more the technology is demystified and the more the public understands about biotechnology, the more they would appreciate its potential benefits. "I also believe this public review of FDA's process for assessing food safety clearly demonstrates to consumers that ge netically engineered foods do receive rigorous FDA oversight," he said at the hearing. On the other hand, in a statement by Margaret Mellon, now with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Jane Rissler expressed their concern about the agency's proposed policy allowing whole food products that were genetically modified into the market . Mellon suggested that early approval of the policy would place industry's agenda ahead of the public interest. She feared that such action would mislead the public into thinking all such products would go through as extensive an approval and review process as C algene's tomato. She and other consumer activists were disturbed that the FDA had not answered several thousand concerns or negative comments received during the public comment period. More recently Mellon lamented that in-depth information-sharing and education between regulatory agencies, industry, and the public have not developed enough. The current public debate is so one-sided, she said, "it isn't salad days for the environmental community... Industry is on its way but without products at the moment, that aren't yet realized. Without products it's hard to get people interested [in the issue]" (M. Mellon, personal communication, March 21, 1995). The Case of bST When several agricultural pharmaceutical companies developed bovine somatotropin (bST) to increase milk production in cows in the 1980s, controversy dogged the product from the outset. In one of only a small handful of studies of public relations practices by a biotechnology company, Hornig (1991) suggested that use of conflict resolution techniques such as negotiation might have generated a better outcome from both the company's perspective and that of society in general. Through a newspaper content analysis, she found that press coverage had afforded numerous opportunities for the company to express its point of view. Consumer and activist reactions, at least at that time, received far less emphasis. Instead of pursuing a course of education and two-way dialogue, however, the chemical industry during the late 1980s engaged in name-calling tactics against those who opposed the introduction of bST. Such statements may well have contributed to the ill will that developed later, Hornig suggested. In addition, the industry equated bST as simply the next step in the chain of progress associated with agricultural productivity and economic prosperity. The industry portrayed this product's introduction as inevitable and value-neutral, adding that bST was pure and a product that was developed at great expense. Monsanto, for example, attempted to capitalize on an image of science as a rational, benign and progressive force. The problem was that this image was not likely to reflect public sentiment accurately in the wake of Three Mile Island and other disasters. Thus, Hornig gauged, bST's developers would have fared better during the period of her study by going beyond a focus solely on the benefits and addressing additional concerns about the product's safety and its socioeconomic impact among prospective purchasers. In her assessment, Monsanto ignored the point of view of dairy farmers as its primary audience and did nothing to work with the dairy community to explore solutions to the problem. Hornig (1991) suggested that messages about the introduction of new technologies succeed when they are congruent with important beliefs of their audiences and responsive to the perceived needs of potential adopters. As she put it, An honest attempt to resolve the conflict of interests here, even a failed attempt, would have been far better public relations than trying to deny the legitimacy of the economic issue, or to deny any responsibility on the part of bST's developers for its social as well as health effects, or to blame others for the crisis....(p. 9). It is also possible that Monsanto representatives did speak to those issues and concerns and that the media chose not to cover that perspective as newsworthy. In the same year as Hornig's (1991) study of bST, Gerard Ingenthron (1991), director of public affairs for Monsanto Agricultural Company, recommended two basic strategies for corporate scientists to communicate about genetically engineered crops: (a) Addressing the public affairs implications early during a research program, and (b) engaging in comprehensive, quality communication activities with a range of diverse publics. While he regarded scientists as the most credible sources for technical information, he also recognized the need to translate their expertise in ways that others could understand: "We need to explain the basis of the technology...but one cannot make bioengineers of our journalists, much less the public. We need to speak on their terms, about their interestsDwhat's in it for them, or for society" (p. 114). Organizational Approaches Toward Public Relations J. Grunig and L. Grunig (1992, pp. 287-289) elaborated on four models to represent an organization's public relations values, goals, and behaviors. In brief, the models are: Press agentry, a one-way set of activities built on seeking and obtaining publicity; public information, also a one-way dissemination of information approach, built around truthful and accurate reports about the practitioners' organizations, although typically no other information is volunteered; two-way asymmetrical, which involves seeking information from and offering information to publics, primarily to motivate or persuade them to think or behave as the organization wants them to behave; and two-way symmetrical, which uses research to develop mutual understanding between an organization's management and the publics it affects. A simpler approach is to collapse these models as symmetrical or asymmetrical worldviews toward public relations. Only the two-way symmetrical model is, as its name implies, fully balanced, since it does not involve manipulative persuasion. Because of its emphasis on building relationships for the long run, this model sets the standard for excellent and effective practice. Another way of looking at asymmetrical practice is the relationship between the organizations and their publics. This type of practice is not unusual if the organization feels its publics have increased external control over its choices more than it finds comfortable. For those organizations that both conduct research and provide information in a blend of symmetrical and asymmetrical communication, their practice may be described as mixed motive (J. Grunig, 1992). Practitioners demonstrate loyalty to both their employers and to the publics with whom their employers interact. Thus, most public relations practitioners in scientific organizations or departments act as journalists in residence. They work in the public information model both to translate technical material into forms that are easier to understand and to represent positive aspects of their organizations, often motivated by the desire to attract funding for research and development. Sometimes activists oppose the technologies under consideration without understanding them. In this country a tradition of individualism may inhibit some organizations from engaging in the collective decision-making that the standard of excellent public relations suggests is more effective in the long run. In reality, most organizations practice a mix of the models, with the predominant choice based on the organizational culture. Factors influencing that choice include whether the organizational worldview includes, for example, the two-way symmetrical model, and whether the organization's public relations director is trained or experienced in the chosen model. To summarize, among the elements of a worldview that contribute to effective public relations and communication are: y a spirit of openness and honesty; y availability and willingness to grant access to information readily; y interest and ability to express scientific findings and applications in "real world" terms easily understandable by nonscientists; y trust-building efforts with both supporters and critics; and y active listening and taking into account different interests and viewpoints in the public relations planning process. The section on methodology describes this study's approach to identifying whether and to what extent these characteristics are present in the worldviews of biotechnology executives and scientists. Communication About Science and Technology Issues with Different Publics To understand the nature of communication in which scientists engage, Donohue, Tichenor, and Olien (1973) examined concepts of "knowledge-of" and "knowledge-about science." "Knowledge-of" science supports and reinforces the internal views of the science system. For example, the organizations in their study preferred to control information flow to publics by releasing material to the press only after publication in a refereed journal. "Knowledge-about" science is external to the system and incorporates criticism as well as the release of comprehensive information and encouragement to journalists to obtain material directly from sources in the organization. Pollack (1986) linked these variables with the influence of the dominant coalition's values on the models of public relations practiced at scientific organizations. The dominant coalition is the top decision-making leadership of an organization, its power elite. For both "knowledge-of" and "knowledge-about" science, the perception of scientific knowledge by top management determined the nature and timing of information released to the mass media. Of the approximately 200 scientific organizations that responded to Pollack's survey, most practiced predominantly the public information model. The two-way asymmetrical model also was strong in corporations. In addition to the approaches of administrators, how do scientists themselves look at communication? In the past they were able to rely on establishing a track record of accomplishment with their peers to maintain research support and did not need or want to pursue public visibility (Nelkin, 1987). But since mid-century, when the Soviets launched Sputnik, scientists increasingly have popularized science "out of ideological and cultural as well as economic concerns" (pp. 136-137). The National Academy of Sciences has shifted from explaining and interpreting technical reports to viewing the press as a means of shaping public attitudes that will support funding of science. Scientists in industrial public relations speak on behalf of corporations to enhance public confidence in the company's products, respond to crises that affect the company's reputation, enhance corporate credibility, and shape the news, especially where the news concerns controversy or risk (Nelkin, 1987). Too often, however, they dwell on language and image as instruments of persuasion in an asymmetrical approach to communication. Neighborhood activists, union representatives, and other critics rarely are heard at programs co-sponsored by universities and corporations for journalists, programs that often seem just to be compatible with industry's goals. Not surprisingly, as covered by the trade and popular press, the biotechnology industries generally reflect asymmetrical models of communication (J. Grunig, 1989; J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1992). There is also evidence of symmetrical communication. For example: y Press agentry: In an effort to win the favorable attention of stock analysts, pharmaceutical biotechnology companies distribute "lots of attention-grabbing press releases that trumpet their latest research studies or new manufacturing sites" (Power, 1993). Frequently these announcements tout positive news only, with no mention of problems. y Public information: BIO, the trade association, undertook activities such as trade show exhibits and a special publication for local elected officials complete with a resource manual and information about the industry's potential to create new jobs (Staff, 1994b). y Two-way asymmetrical: Peter Steinerman (1994), vice president and director of the biotechnology group at Ruder-Finn Inc., New York, spelled out several steps for biotechnology firms to utilize marketing public relations techniques. These included research to identify the relative importance of messages for critical audiences and the impact of potentially damaging news. y Two-way symmetrical: Sandoz Crop Protection Corporation developed an external corporate relations strategy to earn customer respect over the long term. The company expressed a willingness to change its business perspective "to address environmental and safety concerns of customers, regulators, and the public while still producing effective products" (Thayer, 1990, p. 15). Methodology For this project, I wanted to gain insight into the thinking of leaders involved in nationally known biotechnology enterprises, in both the public and private sectors and the industry at large. Qualitative research is particularly appropriate for a study of worldview in public relations because it is well suited to developing a deeper understanding of meaning, motivations, and interests (Mariampolski, 1984). Further, qualitative methods are most vigorous "when they are used to discover how the respondent sees the world" (McCracken, 1988, p. 21). A semi-structured interview protocol, included as an appendix, permitted respondents the flexibility to emphasize what they considered important while allowing the researcher to keep the interview on track. Drawing from previous experience as public relations director at the Virginia Department of Agriculture and other contacts through my membership in the Public Relations Society of America, I arranged telephone or face-to-face depth interviews with a small purposive sample. Primary respondents were: * Stephen Benoit, most recently vice president of marketing, Calgene Fresh, with background in finance and strategic planning, and responsible for both sales and corporate communication; * Dr. Rita Colwell, a distinguished marine biotechnologist, educator, director of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and * Dr. Mary Moynihan, communications coordinator for UMBI, with a background in writing and editing for regional business and research publications. In addition, I conducted shorter personal interviews with two other public relations counselors involved with major companies introducing biotechnology products. Jim Altemus, public relations manager for Monsanto Agricultural Company's plant biotechnology office, commented on that division's current efforts, and Merrill Rose, general manager of Porter/Novelli's Chicago office and head of this public relations agency's food and nutrition practice, provided additional information on behalf of Calgene Fresh. I also observed three days of hearings of the Food Advisory Committee to the FDA in April, 1994, described earlier, as the agency considered safety issues surrounding whole foods produced by new biotechnology methods. Because the FlavrSavr_ tomato was the first product of plant biotechnology to be approved for commercial production, Calgene was the object of precedent-setting attention, within both the industry and the media. The purpose of the FDA hearings went considerably beyond the one company's exp erience, however; the discussion and decisions continue to be applicable as federal policy is determined and evolves for many more whole food products nearing the point of production for market. To round out insights culled from the interviews, I also reviewed a number of company publications, articles about communication by company executives, and, finally, corporate and financial reports and news articles from both the trade and daily media, gleaned from searches of the Lexis-Nexis electronic database and Internet resources. Both the reports in the news media and literature produced by the companies should be considered not only in light of what they say but also in light of what they do not say. Findings and Analysis This section reports and analyzes the issues and interests about which respondents spoke and their approaches to communication about these issues. As expressed in the literature on public perceptions of biotechnology, major areas of public interest or concern most often are safety considerations, presence and type of benefits, and ethical questions. Both the benefits and the risks may revolve around health, economic and environmental issues; culinary or taste improvements constitute a benefit. Ethical concerns also may include those based on religious beliefs and distributive justice, both domestically and internationally. Among the respondents in this study, their comments reflected all three areas and particularly the first two, safety and benefits. The extent to which they typically sought out concerns among their respective stakeholders and incorporated them into their communication efforts varied, from informal environmental scanning to sophisticated market research. That is not surprising, as each organization's situation is distinctive. For example, since its founding in 1984, UMBI has pursued a rapid capital expansion program to establish itself as a leader in publicly supported biotechnology research. At the same time that it represents an emerging growth industry for the state of Maryland, it also has needed to perform leanly in light of tight state budget requirements. Much of its communication effort thus has been geared to generating support among legislators for its potential to contribute to the state of Maryland's economic development. In the private companies, both Calgene and Monsanto are pioneers with marketplace "firsts." Monsanto found itself in a reactive mode with bST, with lessons learned from that experience which appear to be altering the company's approach to more recent communication efforts. Calgene has undertaken a clearly proactive approach for introducing the FlavrSavr_ tomato. Openness and Willingness to Share Information, Coupled with Intellectual Curiosity Toward the end of the 1980s, long before the FlavrSavr_ tomato would be ready to introduce to the marketplace, Calgene sought guidance from the FDA because it recognized the consumer public would be more likely to accept the product if it were subject to regulatory review (Fox, 1994). In 1991 the company sought a voluntary consultation with the reviewing agency, followed in 1993 by the chief executive officer's petition for review under the existing, stringent food additive provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (Hoyle, 1994). Even FlavrSavr_ critics acknowledged that consideration under those provisions is tougher yet than under the evolving provisions for whole food products. The extra review steps cost the company time, money, and jobs, leading to a restructuring and scaleback of the Calgene Fresh subsidiary during the last half of fiscal 1994 (Rose, personal communication, 1994; Benoit, personal interview, 1994; Staff, 1994a). Nevertheless, despite plowing under a number of its fields since October, 1993, while awaiting the FDA's decision, Calgene expected toDand did indeedDbring the tomato to market before the end of 1994. Though furloughed from his post as vice president of marketing, Stephen Benoit was still motivated by a desire to do something challenging. "That's also what makes Calgene tick," he said, "a positive contribution using technology to make people's lives a little better. Science for science's sake is not particularly helpful; science with a conscience is what it needs to be all about, a commonly shared value." Indeed it seemed natural for people working in the biotechnology industries to feel compelled by both the intellectual challenges and the desire to improve the quality of human life (Benoit, 1993). Even though he is not a scientist himself, Benoit echoed some of the passion with which UMBI's multi-faceted director, Dr. Rita Colwell, spoke. Driven by curiosity about why and how things work, Colwell said she loves to build and to create. For her, the motivation was also a matter of having a vision about where things can be. "The status quo isn't enough, especially in a society whose technology is going through enormous pyrotechnics. It's like a huge fireworks display what's happened in science and technology in the last 30 years." Similarly, UMBI's communications coordinator, Mary Moynihan, was attracted to the institute in part because one of its research centers focused specifically on public issues in the social, legal, ethical and regulatory arenas. Sensitivity to these issues was certainly apparent on an individual level, perhaps more so than could be seen at the macro-organizational level in this type of limited study. To wit, Monsanto's Jim Altemus, who was not directly involved with the introduction of bST, observed his colleagues' handling of the issue. His own approach in managing the company's information needs for plant biotechnology reflected an understanding of both where the company had been and where it wants to go. "With Monsanto's genetically engineered potato, we're taking a look at society, people's relation with food," Altemus said. He continued: It's an intimate relationship, and it is our responsibility to provide something that talks about those concerns. We prepared a discussion report as an example of our willingness to talk, not just the scientific point of view but with others who have other points of view. It directly relates to the company's attitudes, what did we learn from the past. Are we repeating it or are we responding to needs and wants of the people in an open-ended, honorable way? It's an example of Monsanto's style, very modest, [to show] how does our product fit with ecosystems, with diversity. It's very middle of the road and nondefensive, how can consumers get information? ConsumersDor anyone else, for that matterDwho wanted information from Calgene should have found it readily available, according to Benoit. "We were incredibly accessible for them," he said, explaining further: What we successfully did was communicate openly about what we were doing, what the technology was, how we were using it, what we expected the outcome to be. We never had an issue of safety, we were willing to share the research data with anyone who cared to look at it. We had a general philosophy to communicate, a willingness to give people the information they want so they can make choices they want to make. That was the hallmark of the effort we undertook. The company made its safety studies public either on request from its own offices or through federal agencies reviewing the data. Corporate fact sheets also said Calgene Fresh would voluntarily label the FlavrSavr_ tomato as a product of food biotechnology. "We believe that tomato purchasers need a reason to believe we can deliver a superior product and that acknowledging the role of technology will provide that confidence," read one news release. But what those working within the industry are learning to communicate is not necessarily the detailed scientific findings, even though that information may be made available. Respondents grasped the need to explain their work and to explain it in terms that would be meaningful to their publics. As Benoit explained, consumers are more concerned with whether a food product is harmful and what its benefit(s) may be so they can make their own choices. "One of the great sins is assuming the public is stupid," he said. "We explained the technology so people could understand what we were doing and why...better taste is what we will ultimately be judged on. We went from food biotechnology to [still calling] it a tomato." Where scientists and technologists in years past did not even consider talking with reporters as a general rule, they largely have come to understand the importance of doing so now, even if many have not yet developed the skills. From the inward professional focus of a researcher, as Rita Colwell told it, speaking with the press would have ruined a scientist's reputation 20 years ago. "I think the attitude was that what we did was important for its own good. We didn't have to explain it to anybody, we just deserved the (funding) because we were serving the country," Colwell said. With the change in the world political climate, she continued, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the change in the nation's security and defense needs, attention has focused more recently on social stability and how we have usedDor misusedDthe earth's resources. Those shifts in attention have brought a concurrent change in funding priorities to the point that public research institutions have a greater obligation now to let the public know about both the scientific and the economic benefits. As a state facility, UMBI is monitored by state legislators, a key strategic public "who will make sure that we gyroscopically keep us on what they think is the track that the public wants us to be on," Colwell said. Elaborating on this responsibility, she said: We have a greater burden on us than, let's say, Johns Hopkins or Stanford in their respective states... It means that we have a responsibility therefore to tell the public what we're doing, to educate them, that we are in fact through basic research and creativity-driven directions in research, serving them because what we're doing is trying to find ways to understand what the life processes are or how they work or can be effective...and to also transfer this technology to the public good. It doesn't mean just dumping it on the street but to figure out ways it is transferred to create jobs, to keep the economic strength of the state maintained. Public Relations Practices as Indicators of Worldview Beyond the effort to perform out of a concern for social responsibilityDimproving human life and adding to knowledgeDthe biotechnology enterprises in this study engaged in a mix of the public relations models described earlier. Respondents placed a high value on the function as part of strategic management, while placing primary emphasis on media relations and viewing public relations as part of communication rather than the other way around. As Colwell expressed it: [Public relations is] managing interactions with the public. Communication is a far more serious business, and that means preparing in a variety of media, spoken, written, visual image, the message, the education you need to get done... What you really have to address is the fundamental information that has to be transmitted and it has to constantly be transmitted, it has to transmitted in a variety of mediaDa brochure for a certain kind of clientele, or it would be in the form of a PBS report, or a book that goes to another portion of the clientele or in the form of a newspaper article. Because so much of the communication effort was directed outside the industry, respondents shared an interest in educating nonscientist publics. Educational programs served a variety of goals: To inform publics about both their organizational activities and the basic principles of science about which they otherwise would be unfamiliar, and thus not able to make choices for lack of adequate information (asymmetrical), and also to address issues about which publics have expressed concern or interest (symm etrical). Whether based on research or on a particular philosophical approach to communication, participants in this study recognized that publics unfamiliar with the subject would be more likely to grasp its significance if it was described in terms they already understood. Using language that is easy to understand is thus a necessary communication skill for those who explain their work to nonscientific publics. UMBI's Mary Moynihan, for one, thought it might even be an advantage not to have a scientific background to be effective in this regard. As she reflected: If I'm going to explain this to the public, and I'm very committed to that, I don't want to understand it too much myself. You or I think in terms of what does this mean to me? How is it going to change my life, how is it going to change the world? Researchers don't think that way. They're focused on a specific idea although they know somewhere down the line it has applications. We have to find a way to understand their research and also how it's going to help us. Benoit also went through a learning curve to represent the work of Calgene's researchers to other audiences. He framed it in terms of what non-scientist executives could offer the research staff: If you were willing to listen, scientists were more than willing to share everything they had and take the time until you got it right, you were not expected to understand at their level in terms of being conversant, but [they showed] a real willingness to have the business folks understand the essence of the technology. They recognized that if they wanted a career any different from working at a university, they needed people who could translate their work into products, and that these people rarely have the same background as bench people. Depending on the staff and financial resources available to the organizations in this study, their research efforts ranged from seat-of-the-pants to much more formal methods. For instance, UMBI's communications staff was too small and too rushed at the time of the study to be able to conduct either formative or evaluative research, but the institute did operate an internal clipping service to monitor both its visibility and other issues of interest in the external environment. Moynihan, who also doubled as UMBI's legislative analyst, said she recommended a more systematic scanning effort and hoped to complete a well-developed communication plan in the near future. Monsanto's Jim Altemus said he relied heavily on research, testing news releases, for example, before sending them out. One of his concerns was to choose vocabulary that readers not only would understand but also to which they would respond favorably, one of the characteristics of asymmetrical communication. At the same time, he wanted the company to be seen as honest and open, "to increase the feeling that Monsanto can be trusted with that technology." Hence, the invitation, printed directly on one of its reports, for readers to contact Monsanto "to obtain additional information, share an insight or simply open a dialog," a symmetrical approach. Research for Calgene Fresh has investigated consumer awareness of and attitudes toward genetically modified foods in general and the FlavrSavr_ tomato in particular. Undertaken primarily for marketing communication purposes, the quantitative survey also asked about consumer awareness of groups that opposed such products, finding only three percent able to name specific groups. Nearly half of all respondents and two-thirds of those who were already aware of these products expressed at least some interest in trying genetically modified foods (Porter/Novelli, 1993). "We did pretty novel research about why people reacted the way they do when they hear the phrase 'genetic engineering.' That led to how you should communicate. You've got to be open, communicate the truth, frame it in a context people can use to evaluate a given technology," Benoit said. Taste on a year-round basis was the main consumer interest. Media Relations a Key Focus Publicity and visibility figured prominently in the strategies of both Calgene and UMBI. As a result of the FlavrSavr_ tomato being the first such product approved for market, Calgene experienced mostly unsolicited media attention. Without even being in grocery stores yet, the company's research found eight percent of the public "aware of a product that doesn't exist and that they can't look at," Benoit added. That level of awareness was eight times higher than for other tomato brands. In addition to being the first, he repeatedly emphasized openness and willingness to communicate about Calgene's actions, the technology and how it was being used, and the expected outcome. "Communication philosophy should be to tell the truth every chance you get. It's a lot easier," he said. While Calgene received unsolicited media attention, UMBI also placed great emphasis on coverage, but from a different perspective. Recognition was more forthcoming at the international level, perhaps because of respect among scientists within the scientific community. That stature has taken longer to achieve in-state and nationally. As Colwell put it, "I've been irritated by the fact that we haven't been recognized until recently as a place where some very fine work is being done, where some excellent e ducation is obtained. I always wanted to push to make our reputation better, to let the world know there is a lot of exciting (research) here." Colwell's perspective probably stemmed from her insatiable drive both to know and to excel. In founding the institute, she said: I just felt we didn't have time to be slow and deliberative and touch all the bases and make sure everybody's happy and move forward in the traditional way. I felt we really had to leap out and start a separate institute and serve all the campuses (of the University of Maryland System), not just College Park. Her vision transmitted to others who are backing the institute. As Moynihan related, "It's a great leap of faith that the state is making. There's a certain gestation period that goes along with setting up this kind of institution and it's beginning to show definite results." Much of UMBI's communication effort was directed to media coverage in an effort to create awareness of the research it sponsors. This kind of activity fits the public information model quite well and also reveals some aspects of symmetrical communication. Business and trade press coverage increased substantially, as well as television appearances. One of the reasons Colwell was eager to build recognition through the media was an anticipation that Maryland residents who were aware of UMBI and its work wo uld ask state legislators to support it. Media coverage also tied in with communicating openly, as she explained: Now I think we understand that we have to tell the public because the money isn't coming to us because we deserve it, it comes to us because we serve, not because we deserve. Communication is a very important aspect, and I just think if you can't tell people what you're doing, you ought not to be doing it... If you have an interest in doing it as I do, you make an effort to talk on PBS or to make a TV program as I will be doing on Thursday next week, or just open up to the school kids who call in on closed circuit and ask questions. From her vantage point as a writer, Moynihan noted that many good stories go untold, and amid UMBI's fast-paced environment, she expressed a desire to cultivate media relations more extensively, by calling reporters with story ideas, editorial boards, op-ed pieces, and similar tactics. Facilitating reporters' efforts to get information, she said she steered them to the appropriate staff and research experts and allowed them freedom to make their own contacts although most came to her for assistance first. At the time of this study, she was developing an experts' directory on computer, intended to make that part of the jobDboth hers and the pressDeven easier. Tours for legislators and museum visits featuring interactive skits for inner city students were other popular activities. Other techniques also fit the public information model, including museum exhibits and the opening of UMBI's new Aquaculture Research Center at Fells Point. Internal communication was strengthened through a newsletter which introduced staff at the institute's geographically dispersed centers both to each other and to external supporters. Less Systematic Approach to Critics and Activists in Trust-Building Efforts with Publics Research elsewhere has documented that the presence of activists in an organization's external environment can be a significant influence on the organization's communication (L. Grunig, 1992). Those whose worldview is broad enough to listen to different interests and viewpoints will be more likely to practice two-way symmetrical public relations. In this study the respondents indicated some movement in that direction, although none specifically solicited input from activist groups as part of their strategic planning processes. The organizations and the activist groups interacted as their paths crossedDduring participation on conference panels, or as the organizations responded to criticisms they considered to be misstatements of fact or misconceptions that needed to be cleared up. Calgene's Stephen Benoit said that even those who opposed the introduction of the FlavrSavr_ tomato acknowledged that the company had done everything it could to communicate about the product and make itself accessible. From his perspective: There were not many criticisms about the way we do business. The activist groups didn't come to us, but we met with them...on many panels together. I like a lot of them as a matter of fact, we just have different points of view. One of the humbling experiences early on, you think you're on the forefront, but not everybody knows who you are, and it's a small universe of people who actually care. That keeps you from overreacting and doing more than you need to in the media. An attentive ear and a desire to adjust organization performance to address critics' concerns can guide an appropriate response. UMBI's Rita Colwell analyzed the feedback process this way: I listen to the critics to find out what it is that they're worried about. If they're worried about a lot of things that are simply impressions that we're not explaining, we need to do a better job, to let them understand what we're doing and why we're doing it....Criticism generally derives from ignorance. I use that word not pejoratively but simply as an observation: What you don't know, you fear. Summary, Limitations, and Implications At the beginning of this paper, I cited an observation that public concern can have a positive effect in stimulating development of new technologies. Where organizations gear their communication to be responsible and responsive, meaningful dialogue occurs and the organizations and their publics adjust to each other's needs and interests. This study took a qualitative approach to gain insight into the worldviews of biotechnology executives and scientists toward communication and public relations. Understanding their values as well as the values of stakeholders can help public relations practitioners perform more effectively as boundary spanners, helping that adjustment process take place. Depth and personal interviews with leaders of three significant biotechnology enterprises revealed a mix of public relations models in practice. The small number of interviewees means their observations can not be taken as representative of all in the industry. Moreover, such a small number of participants per organization does not give a complete picture of the organization's behavior, although the documentation cited helps to fill in some of the gaps between individual perception and collective action. Also, the accuracy of the self-reports in this study may be questioned in light of possible response bias according to both what the interviewer may think the researcher wants to hear and the use of real names for attribution. However, Dean and Whyte (in Dexter, 1970), emphasized, "The interview situation must be seen as just ONE of many situations in which an informant may reveal subjective data in different ways" (p. 122). In that light, then, and mirrored against the literature discussed in the concept analysis, the participants' thoughts do provide an indication of how at least some in the industry make sense of the communication function. That knowledge should be helpful to practitioners in other biotechnology organizations. Future research should supplement this type of insight with quantitative assessments of the models practiced, such as the questionnaire utilized by the IABC Excellence Study (J. Grunig, Ed., 1992). Respondents viewed the function as an important part of management although the term public relations may be seen as part of communication rather than the other way around. When their worldviews demonstrated openness and a willingness to grant ready access to information in response to the interests and needs of their publics, they experienced greater acceptance and potential support for their programs. They perceived their motivations deriving from a desire to serve the public good. To a limited degree they conducted research to learn whether their publics perceive them similarly. Much of their programming was educational in nature, predominantly although not exclusively in the asymmetrical mode. Of the worldview characteristics identified as significant for effective public relations and communication, the major area not found in this study was a systematic effort to develop more trusting relationships. I do not interpret this gap to mean the characteristic is not an important part of the worldview or that there is anything wrong with the worldview of the interviewees. Rather, I would like to grant the benefit of the doubt. Efforts at trust building well may exist at the respondents' organizations and simply may need a different line of questioning to afford an opportunity for discussion. It also may be that such efforts exist and are focused on supporters but not on critics. Alternatively, these enterprises may be so caught up in this rapidly changing industry that an effort seen as time-consuming over the long term gets put off while the organizations address more immediately pressing, short-term concerns. This is a topic that future research should consider and for which other methods of observation, such as long interviews or participant observation, would be better suited. In sum, biotechnology researchers and executives recognize much of the value that effective public relations and communication can accomplish for their organizations. The organizations in this study likely need to broaden their perspective to a long-term view as well. The value of the present study is in suggesting an understanding of worldviews toward this function as an avenue through which both the organizations and their publics can work through their differences together. Learning about each other's values and beliefs is a first step toward achieving long-term support. What's needed, as Rita Colwell put it, is "vision tethered by reality." References Benoit, S. (1993). Changing food: Ethical considerations. In Symbol, substance, science: The societal issues of food biotechnology (pp. 32-44). Proceedings of a meeting conducted by the Office of Agricultural Biotechnology (USDA) and the North Carolina Biotechnology Center. Research Triangle Park, NC: North Carolina Biotechnology Center. Biotechnology Industry Organization. (1993, Sept. 8). "Patients will lose" if health care reform hurts development of biotech drugs. (News release) Burrill, G.S., & Lee, K.B., Jr. (1993). Biotech 94: Long-term value, short term hurdles. The industry annual report (SCORE Retrieval File No. P00036). San Francisco: Ernst & Young. Biotechnology Newswatch (October 4, 1993). Former ABC members wonder if BIO benefits will be worth the dues. p. 12. Dean, J.P., & Whyte, W.F. (1970). How do you know if the informant is telling the truth? In Dexter, L.A., Elite and specialized interviewing (pp. 119-131). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Reprinted from Human Organization, 17 (2), 1958) Donohue, , G.A., Tichenor, P.J., & Olien, C.N. (1973). Mass media functions, knowledge and social control. Journalism Quarterly, 50 (Winter), 653-659. Fox, J. (1994, May). FDA nears approval of Calgene's Flavr Savr. Bio/Technology, 12 (5), electronic edition. Goodell, R. (1986). How to kill a controversy: The case of recombinant DNA (pp. 170-181). In Friedman, S.M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C.L. Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Grunig, J.E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J.E., & Grunig, L.A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In Grunig, J.E. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J.E., & White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In Grunig, J.E. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 31-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, L.A. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent public relations departments respond. In Grunig, J.E. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 503-530). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hassler, S. (1994, Jan.). Not science, but necessary. Bio/Technology, 12 (1), 7. Hettinger, E. (1992). Owning varieties of life. In Ethics and patenting of transgenic organisms (pp. 5-34). Occasional Paper #1. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. Hoban, T.J., & Kendall, P.A. (1992, July). Consumer Attitudes About the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production (summary report). Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Hornig, S. (1991). Monsanto Corporation and bovine somatotropin: A case study in failed public relations. Unpublished discussion paper. College Station, TX: Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics. Hornig, S. (1993). Mass media and the ultimate technological fix: Newspaper coverage of biotechnology. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC. Hoyle, R. (1994). FDA "screwed" Calgene, leaving policy vague. Bio/Technology, 12 (5), electronic edition. Ingenthron, G.D. (1991). Public communications: Genetically improved food crops. Food Technology 45 (4), 110-114, 117. Kearney, M. (1984). World View. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp. Lacy, W.B., & Busch, L. (1991). The Fourth Criterion: Social and Economic Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology. In J.F. MacDonald (Ed.), Agricultural Biotechnology at the Crossroads: Biological, Social & Institutional Concerns (pp. 153-168). Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. Mariampolski, H. (1984, July). The resurgence of qualitative research. Public Relations Journal, pp. 21-23. McCracken, G.D. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 13. Mellon, M.G. (1988). Biotechnology and the environment: A primer on the environmental applications of genetic engineering. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. Nelkin, D. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Plein, L.C. (1991). Popularizing biotechnology: The influence of issue definition. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16 (4), 474-490. Pollack, R.A. (1986). Testing the Grunig organizational theory in scientific organizations: public relations and the values of the dominant coalition. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. Porter/Novelli. (1993). Awareness of and attitudes toward the Flavr Savr_ tomato and genetically modified foods. Internal report prepared for Calgene Fresh, Inc. Power, W. (1993, October 4). Heard on the street: Press blitzes aside, biotechnology companies take time to turn a profit on new discoveries. Wall Street Journal, p. C-2. Rabino, I. (1994). How European and U.S. genetic engineering scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: A comparison. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19 (1), 23-46. Scherer, C.W. (1991, October). Strategies for communicating risks to the public. Food Technology, pp. 110-116. Slovic, P. (1987, April 17). Perception of risk. Science, v. 236, pp. 180-285. Staff (1993, Aug.). Biotechnology? What's that? Public Relations Journal , p. 11. Staff (1994a, Mar. 3). To reduce non-engineered tomato marketing; awaits FDA approval on new product. Standard & Poor Daily News (Lexis-Nexis edition). Staff (1994b, March-April). BIO Cities Project kicks off with booth at mayors conference. BIO News, p. 9. (Biotechnology Industry Organization newsletter) Steinerman, P. (1994, January 15). How biotech firms can manage the impact of potentially adverse cost-benefit news. Genetic Engineering News, 14 (2), 4, 31. Stone, D. (1994). Analyzing successful business strategies. Bio/Technology, 12 (3), 226-227. United States General Accounting Office. (1993). Food Safety and Quality: Innovative Strategies May Be Needed to Regulate New Food Technologies (GAO Publication No. GAO-RCED 93-142). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology. Bio/Technology, 12 (9), 870-875. Interviews/respondents for this study: Altemus, Jim, APR. (1994, Apr. 21). Personal communication. (Manager, Plant Biotechnology Information, Monsanto, The Agricultural Group, St. Louis, MO) Benoit, Steven. (1994, May 2). Personal interview. (former Vice President, Marketing, Calgene Fresh, Evanston, IL, subsidiary of Calgene, Inc., Davis, CA) Colwell, Rita, Ph.D. (1994, May 5). Personal interview. (Director, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, College Park, MD) Moynihan, Mary, Ph.D. (1994, May 5). Personal interview. (Communications Coordinator, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, College Park, MD) Rose, Merrill. (1994, Apr. 15 & Apr. 27). Personal communication. (Executive Vice President and General Manager, Porter/Novelli, Chicago, IL) APPENDIX INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. BackgroundDindividual Position title and experience Educational background Interests, goals and motivations; how you got involved in science or leadership or current position Role models, both generally and for effective communication Your philosophy of: 1) Communication and public relations; 2) new or innovative technology; 3) reasonable risk (how you see the purpose of these concepts) Significant changes, if any, in your philosophy in these three areas ("defining moments") 2. Organization's worldview of communication and public relations Examples of what you consider effectiveDand ineffectiveDorganization management, and specifically, public relations and communication actions that are or have been effective in accomplishing the organization's mission (probe: to get beyond tools and techniques, specific examples or events or issues involving other organizations, and how they have handled communication surrounding those examples) How these organization events/experiences may have shaped your thinking about effective public relations and communication management How your thinking may have shaped the organization's decisions regarding public relations and communication Discrepancies, if any, between what you think should be and what you perceive to be the way the organization practices public relations and communication 3. Stakeholders Who the key stakeholders and publics are, including those from community relations, grassroots, and activist standpoints, and whether these stakeholders are supporters or critics or a mix How your organization interacts with these stakeholders Your perception of the organization's external environment; where you see the focus Your organization's interests, needs, concerns, and what you think the interests, needs, concerns are of your stakeholders Ways, if any, in which you have incorporated stakeholders interests/needs/ concerns into your planning and decision-making processes 4. Organization structure Strategic alliances, partnering, and similar "virtual" relationships, if applicable Degree of authority managers/employees have to make communication and public relations decisions independently 5. Decision-making processes Flow of internal communication in your organization when you are considering communication with external stakeholders Who provides input and who makes decisions What happens if the decision made is different from what you would have chosen, i.e., how staff, including yourself, co-orient with each other in considering different viewpoints 6. Anything else respondent would like to share, and close