In this work, using experiments, we investigate the role of the name of a technology on the informed evaluation of that technology. We argue that a name can influence interpretations by activating cognitive structures. Using genomics-accelerated breeding as a case, we show that the name 'genomics' makes people evaluate related information as similar to genetic modification. Replacing the name 'genomics' with 'natural crossing' causes evaluations similar to those for traditional breeding. The results show that a name can have a strong influence on public attitudes, and we call for more consideration in choosing a name for a technology.

In this article, we follow up on food scientists' findings that people judge new food technologies and related products (un)favourably immediately after just hearing the name of the technology. From the reactions, it appears that people use their attitudes to technologies they know to evaluate new technologies. Using categorization theory, in this study we have found that, by triggering associations with a familiar technology, a name of the new technology can be enough to determine emerging attitudes. Comparison between the technology used for categorization and another familiar technology had a slight influence on the attitude formation process. AbstractPublic perception of science and technology; Public understanding of science and technology Keywords https://doi.

We investigate how people form attitudes and make decisions without having extensive knowledge about a technology. We argue that it is impossible for people to carefully study all technologies they encounter and that they are forced to use inferences to make decisions. When people are confronted with an intangible abstract technology, the only visible attribute is the name. This name can determine which inferences a person will use. Considering these inferences is important: first, a name will reach consumers before detailed information, if any, will. Second, if detailed information reaches consumers, the hard-to-comprehend information is processed using pre-activated attitudes and beliefs. Using the available literature, we explore the impact a name can have on the interpretation of a technology. We argue that science communication can benefit from trying to develop a name for a technology that activates proper beliefs to guide non-experts to a more meaningful understanding of it.

In July 2018 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that organisms obtained from most New Plant Breeding Technologies (NPBT) fulfil the requirements of the GMO definition of Directive 2001/18. Practically, organisms created with NPBT have since been legally treated as GMOs. While we do not seek to contest the judgment in itself, in the present contribution we draw attention to the effects of such a categorisation from the perspective of communication science. Extrapolating from communication research conducted in adjacent technology domains, we will argue that by putting organisms obtained from NPBT semantically in the same basket as GMOs may carry a serious risk – transferring analogous communication problems that GMOs encountered in the past, to organisms obtained from NPBT, while they may not address similar risks. Possible consequences such as these can hardly be considered at the stage of legal interpretation (such as with the CJEU). Rather, as discussion now unfolds whether and how to change the legal definition, insights from communication science and risk perception research on the effect of such a definition should be taken into account.

Public opinion is important for the success of a plant breeding practice. Currently, the relatively new practice of genomics-accelerated breeding is under development. From initial findings in research on consumer acceptance, it appears that people experience a strong link between genetic manipulation (GM) and genomics-accelerated breeding after hearing the name "genomics," leading to an unfavourable evaluation of genomics-accelerated breeding. There are indications that when genomics is presented with the purpose of enhancing food production, the negative link with GM is perceived more readily than when it is presented for other purposes. In the current article, we conduct experiments with the purpose of studying the transference of unfavourable attitudes from GM to genomics-accelerated breeding. The main focus is to investigate if this transfer is influenced by the presented purpose of plant breeding, resp. enhancing food or biofuel production. The results show that universally respondents use their attitudes towards GM to evaluate genomics. In a culture where GM is perceived as controversial (Ukraine), more favourable attitudes towards both practices result when presenting GM in relation to biofuel rather than to food.