While there have always been those in the American public who mistrust science and scientists’ views of the world, they have tended to be a minority of the larger public. Recent COVID-19 related events indicate that could be changing for some key groups. What might explain the present state of mistrust of science within an important component of the American public? In this study, we delve deeply into this question and examine what citizens today believe about science and technology and why, focusing on core theories of trust, risk concern, and political values and on the important role of science optimism and pessimism orientations. Using national public survey data, we examine the correlates of science optimism and pessimism and test the efficacy of this construct as drivers of biotechnology policy. We find that science optimism and pessimism are empirically useful constructs and that they are important predictors of biotechnology policy choices.

This paper examines whether national differences in political culture add an explanatory dimension to the formulation of policy in the area of biotechnology, especially with respect to genetically modified food. The analysis links the formulation of protective regulatory policies governing genetically modified food to both country and region-specific differences in uncertainty tolerance levels and risk perceptions in the United States, Canada, and European Union. Based on polling data and document analysis, the findings illustrate that these differences matter. Following a mostly opportunistic risk perception within an environment of high tolerance for uncertainty, policymakers in the United States and Canada modified existing regulatory frameworks that govern genetically modified food in their respective countries. In contrast, the mostly cautious perception of new food technologies and low tolerance for uncertainty among European Union member states has contributed to the creation of elaborate and stringent regulatory policies governing genetically modified food.

This paper examines the contextual factors shaping legislative debates affecting stem cell research in two states, Kansas and Massachusetts, which both permit therapeutic cloning for stem cell research but markedly vary in their legislative approach to the issue. In Kansas, restrictive legislation was proposed but effectively blocked by research proponents, while in Massachusetts permissive legislation was successfully implemented under the auspices of an act to promote stem cell research. The importance of university and industry involvement is highlighted in each case, as are the roles of enterprising and persistent policy entrepreneurs. Providing a close examination of the policy process attending the cloning debate in these states is intended to contribute to an enhanced understanding of the cloning-policy process as it has played out at the state level, with an eye toward informing legislative debates over related biotechnical advances in the future.