Public understanding and perception of and attitude towards agricultural biotechnology in Indonesia

Significant findings of the study with strong implications on the planning and designing of communication strategy to enhance public understanding and perception of attitude towards agricultural biotechnology are as follows: 1) Among the Indonesian stakeholders, the journalists and religious leaders have the most conservative view of agricultural biotechnology. Both views biotechnology in food production as against moral values. 2) Religious leaders are active information seekers and receivers when it comes to biotechnology but they have low understanding of science and claim that they know nothing at all on uses of biotechnology in food production. 3) The journalists have some contradicting stance as illustrated by these findings: While they claim to have high understanding of science, they find the information they get on agricultural biotechnology only as 'somewhat scientific'. While they are most concerned with factual knowledge of all food characteristics when considering the uses of biotechnology in food production, they are moderately interested in the use of biotechnology in food production and don't see biotechnology as means of providing nutritious and cheaper food for the public. 4) Stakeholders have multiple information sources when it comes to agricultural biotechnology. University-based scientists and science magazines come out as the most trusted sources of information. Information obtained are perceived as useful and very scientific. 5) All stakeholders perceive themselves as having moderate knowledge about the uses of biotechnology in food production, except the religious leaders who claim that they have low understanding of the subject. 6) There's a general tendency for the various stakeholder groups to perceive agricultural biotechnology as hazardous at the same time beneficial. A little more than 30 percent have no opinion yet as to the hazards of agricultural biotechnology. 7) All stakeholder groups, excepts the journalists, are willing to attend information sessions on agricultural biotechnology that their community will hold. All stakeholder groups: are not willing to pay the cost for labeling GM [genetically modified] foods, are willing to support the consumers right to choose what to eat and to know what they are eating, and believing that the public should be consulted in formulating food regulations and laws. 9) In terms of frames used when making judgments on biotechnology, Indonesian policy makers and scientist are not strongly in dined towards biotechnology, application that would improve food quality, make crops more resistant, or cure disease. 10) The higher the education of the stakeholders, the more favorable is their perception and attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. 11) The current sources of information on agricultural biotechnology involving both mass media interpersonal ones tend to influence the Indonesian public into thinking that agricultural biotechnology is not good for their country's agriculture. 12) The worldviews and values of stakeholders impinage greatly on their perception of and attitude towards agricultural biotechnology. Conservative worldviews and values, such as the application of agricultural biotechnology being against their moral values, consistently lead to negative perception and attitude towards the use of biotechnology in food production. The above findings and implication point out the necessity to promptly conduct aggressive public education and strategic communication to address knowledge gaps and misconceptions. The latter usually lead to undue negative perception and unfavorable attitude towards agricultural biotechnology.