ABSTRACT
Policy makers have other things to do than 'differentiate the biotechnology debate'. Discussions with biotechnology researchers revealed to be 'very interesting'. So 'to differentiate the biotechnology debate' is very interesting on paper, as 'discussion-material' at congresses — even called 'workshops' like this one. This chapter finds differences in attitudes towards specific biotechnological developments between senior and younger scientists, between top and base, between engineers, chemists or molecular biologists and ecologists, between scientists at universities or in research and development (R&D) firms and scientists in publicly funded institutions for applied research. Risk assessors gave information about specific risks of unwanted gene transfer in the field, different from that of the new gene combiners themselves. Almost all interest groups intermingled different levels of analysis, intertwined facts with not-yet-known-things, with beliefs or disbeliefs, with interpretations and so on and did this with sometimes remarkable rhetoric talent.
