Biomed Analysis: Engage the Public on New Technologies

"Neither dispassionate information nor scare stories are the answer: we need public engagement on health interventions..."

From journalist Priya Shetty, this opinion piece begins by tracing the history of scientists seeking ways to counteract misinformation about health in order to prevent paralysed action. As she reports, suspicion over childhood immunisations against diseases like measles, for example, has recently lowered immunisation rates in developed countries, where the disease is starting to re-emerge. Her argument is that it is unwise for health experts to present "counter scare stories" about a new health intervention with equally disturbing scenarios of not adopting it. Likewise, she argues, it will not work to instead provide people with dispassionate information and hope they make the right decision. Instead, she contends that "there can be no substitute for engaging with the public".

Shetty indicates that health organisations are now realising they can also be important allies. For instance, in Pakistan, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)'s work with the country's National Research and Development Foundation (NRDF) has rallied more than 5,000 religious leaders to denounce vaccine myths and encourage people to be immunised. However, she stresses that communicating and engaging with people must be "woven into the fabric of health strategies, rather than added on as an afterthought." One network taking communication very seriously, according to Shetty, is the Decade of Vaccines collaboration, a partnership between the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the Gates Foundation, the GAVI Alliance, and others. The communication working group of the collaboration is committing to, among other things, "advising other Working Groups by applying advocacy considerations to all technical products". The collaboration is consulting a diverse group of stakeholders to develop its global action plan, which aims to ensure that public sentiment is held in high regard.

Shetty observes that biomedical techniques are now so complex and use such high-level technology that public mistrust or doubt is increasingly likely. She envisions that active engagement with the public can support debate on the risks and benefits of these new technologies. The introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops is "one such contentious issue, dividing scientists and the public all over the world. For example in 2010 safety concerns delayed the introduction of GM brinjal [also known as an eggplant or aubergine] into India."

The article concludes with the message that "[t]he best technologies will fail if no one uses them. Ensuring that people's voices are heard, and giving them a stake in decisions about new technologies that affect their health, will be key....If health experts want their interventions to work effectively, they have got to engage with the public."