IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v39y2022i1d10.1007_s10460-021-10235-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose

Author

Listed:
  • Gesa Busch

    (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
    University of Goettingen)

  • Erin Ryan

    (The University of British Columbia)

  • Marina A. G. Keyserlingk

    (The University of British Columbia)

  • Daniel M. Weary

    (The University of British Columbia)

Abstract

Public opinion can affect the adoption of genome editing technologies. In food production, genome editing can be applied to a wide range of applications, in different species and with different purposes. This study analyzed how the public responds to five different applications of genome editing, varying the species involved and the proposed purpose of the modification. Three of the applications described the introduction of disease resistance within different species (human, plant, animal), and two targeted product quality and quantity in cattle. Online surveys in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany and Italy were carried out with a total sample size of 3698 participants. Using a between-subject design, participants were confronted with one of the five applications and asked to decide whether they considered it right or wrong. Perceived risks, benefits, and the perception of the technology as tampering with nature were surveyed and were complemented with socio-demographics and a measure of the participants’ moral foundations. In all countries, participants evaluated the application of disease resistance in humans as most right to do, followed by disease resistance in plants, and then in animals, and considered changes in product quality and quantity in cattle as least right to do. However, US and Italian participants were generally more positive toward all scenarios, and German and Austrian participants more negative. Cluster analyses identified four groups of participants: ‘strong supporters’ who saw only benefits and little risks, ‘slight supporters’ who perceived risks and valued benefits, ‘neutrals’ who showed no pronounced opinion, and ‘opponents’ who perceived higher risks and lower benefits. This research contributes to understanding public response to applications of genome editing, revealing differences that can help guide decisions related to adoption of these technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Gesa Busch & Erin Ryan & Marina A. G. Keyserlingk & Daniel M. Weary, 2022. "Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 151-164, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:39:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10235-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10235-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-021-10235-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-021-10235-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilhelm Klümper & Matin Qaim, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    2. Carmen Bain & Sonja Lindberg & Theresa Selfa, 2020. "Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: implications for governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(2), pages 265-279, June.
    3. Nagwan R. Zahry & John C. Besley, 2019. "Genetic engineering, genetic modification, or agricultural biotechnology: does the term matter?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 16-31, January.
    4. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    5. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    6. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    7. Lena Galata & Kostas Karantininis & Sebastian Hess, 2014. "Cross-Atlantic Differences in Biotechnology and GMOs: A Media Content Analysis," Cooperative Management, in: Constantin Zopounidis & Nikos Kalogeras & Konstadinos Mattas & Gert Dijk & George Baourakis (ed.), Agricultural Cooperative Management and Policy, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 299-314, Springer.
    8. Violet Muringai & Xiaoli Fan & Ellen Goddard, 2020. "Canadian consumer acceptance of gene‐edited versus genetically modified potatoes: A choice experiment approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(1), pages 47-63, March.
    9. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Henrik Mielby & Peter Sandøe & Jesper Lassen, 2013. "Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(3), pages 471-480, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Petit, Joshua D. & Needham, Mark D. & Howe, Glenn T., 2021. "Cognitive and demographic drivers of attitudes toward using genetic engineering to restore American chestnut trees," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    5. J. Ross Pruitt & Kaitlyn M. Melton & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Does Physical Activity Influence Consumer Acceptance of Gene Edited Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    7. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    8. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    9. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    10. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    11. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    12. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    13. Timothy C. Earle, 2009. "Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 785-792, June.
    14. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    15. Chen, Rui & Liu, Maggie Wenjing & Guan, Yuhong & Zheng, Yuhuang, 2020. "Female responses to genetically modified foods: Effects of the menstrual cycle and food risk concerns," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 608-618.
    16. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.
    17. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    18. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    19. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    20. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:39:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10235-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.