Public Trust and Risk Perceptions: A Preliminary Study of Taiwan's GMOs, 2003-2004

公眾信任與風險感知：以2003/2004年基因改造產品為案例分析

10.6464/TJSSTM.200704.0150

周桂田(Kuei-Tien Chou)

信任 ； 科技風險 ； 風險感知 ； 風險溝通 ； 風險評估 ； 科學專家 ； 科技政策 ； 制度能耐 ； 遲滯型高科技風險社會 ； trust ； technological risk ； risk perception ； risk communication ； risk assessment ； science expert ； technological policy ； institutional capacity ； delayed high-tech risk society

科技醫療與社會

4期（2007 / 04 / 01）

150+152 - 178

英文

本研究主要探討公眾對基因改造食品相關問題的認知與態度，藉由2003與2004連續兩年的全國性電話訪問進行比較討論。分析的核心命題包括了公眾的風險感知、對風險評估的觀點、風險溝通、風險參與及信任等，分析的對象涉及公眾本身、公眾對國家與科學專家的相關觀點。由訪談分析中初步看到，台灣消費者對基因改造食品的議題有一定程度的陌生，相當比例的受訪者未曾聽過此議題。這個現象結合筆者其他相關的研究發現，台灣社會存在著對高科技風險的無知，並且在無知的風險文化中產生風險遲滯認知、行動的鴻溝，包括制度與個人行動上。同時，根據訪談的追問分析，聽過基因改造食品的公眾，就風險的感知、對風險評估的範固與國家技術官僚、科學專家有著不同的看法。並且，在風險溝通與參與層面上，受訪者認為國家提供相關的資訊與溝通機制或平台相當的不完整。因此，包括透明的風險資訊、溝通與宣傳、公眾表達意見的參與管道，在公眾的認知中仍有非常大的空間需要改善。整體而言，公眾對於高科技風險有著制度實踐上的期許，然而，由於溝通與參與機制的缺乏，造成台灣社會產生長期的風險問題隱匿結構。因此，就公眾對基因改造產品的風險感知與評估，呈現出對國家與技術官僚相關風險論述一定程度的不信任。在這個脈絡下，本研究初步發現問題的關鍵正在於制度問題造成隱匿風險、並侵蝕公眾信任的現象。

This paper mainly discusses public perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified organism (GMO) disputes by comparing the results of two annual national telephone surveys. The themes of the surveys include risk perception, risk assessment, risk communication, public participation, and public trust, and they examined the public's attitudes towards general GMO knowledge, GMO policy, and GMO risk, as well as the government's ability to engage in GMO risk governance.The initial analysis shows that Taiwan's consumers are somewhat unfamiliar with genetically modified (GM) foods. A considerable percentage of the respondents had not heard of GMOs. Combining the findings of this research with those of the author's related research, we know that unawareness of high-tech risks is embedded in Taiwanese society. Consequently, the gap between action and delayed risk perception that emerges in such a risk culture is characterized by institutional and individual unawareness. Meanwhile, according to the follow-up analysis, respondents who have heard of GM foods possess different ideologies in terms of risk perception and the scope of risk assessment than national technocrats and science experts. Furthermore, the public deems the channels of transparent risk information, communication, propagation, and public participation to be highly deserving of improvement.As a whole, the public has expectations about the institutional practices associated with high-tech risks. However, owing to the lack of communication and participation mechanisms, a long-running, hidden structure of high-tech risk has developed. With regard to risk perception, assessment, and concerns about GM foods, the public distrusts the state's and technocrats' risk discourses. The initial findings of this research indicate that the hidden risk structure is eroding public trust.

1. Chou, K.-T.(2002).The Theoretical and Practical Gap of Glocalizational Risk Delayed High-Tech Risk Society.Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies,45,69-122.
   連結：
2. Chou, K.-T.(2004).Monopolistic Scientific Rationality and Submerged Ecological and Social Rationality-a Discussion of Risk Culture between Local Public, Scientists, and the State.Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies,56,1-63.
   連結：
3. Chou, K.-T.(2000).Bio-Industry and Social Risk-Delayed High-Tech Risk Society.Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies,39,239-283.
   連結：
4. Wikipedia. Genetically Modified Organism. Retrieved on 03:04, 4 December 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism
5. Lui, D.-Y. (2002). Regulation on GM Foods on the Road. Department of Health. 16 October 2002..
6. Beck, U.(1986).Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in einen andere Moderne.Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.
7. Kasperson, R. E.(edited),Stallen, Pieter Jan M.(edited)(1991).Communicating Risks to the Public.Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Peng, Z.-M.(2000).Examination Methodology on Genetically Modified Foods.Conference on Trade Regulation, Examination, and Labeling Policy of Genetically Modified Foods,Taipei:
9. Slovic, P.(1993).Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy.Risk Analysis,13(6),675-682.
10. Slovic, Paul(edited)(2000).The Perception of Risk.London:Earthscan Publications Ltd..
11. Taylor, I. E.(1999).Political Risk Culture: Not Just a Communication Failure.Risk Communication and Public Health,Oxford:

1. 陳政亮(2008)。科學、技術與社會文化：對科學信念的反思。科技、醫療與社會，6，145-200。
2. 黎雅如、鄭尊仁、林宜平、周桂田、吳亭亭(2010)。台灣成年民眾對奈米產品與科技的公眾感知。臺灣公共衛生雜誌，29(5)，431-439。
3. 周桂田(2013)。全球化風險挑戰下發展型國家之治理創新─以台灣公民知識監督決策為分析。政治與社會哲學評論，44，65-148。