Conservation pest control with new technologies: public perceptions

Abstract

New genetic tools can potentially mitigate the decline of biodiversity. Democratisation of science mandates public opinion be considered while new technologies are in development. We conducted eleven focus groups in New Zealand to explore three questions about novel technologies (gene drive and two others for comparison of pest control tools): (1) what are the risks/benefits? (2) how do they compare to current methods? and (3) who should be represented on a panel that evaluates the tools and what factors should they consider? Findings from the content analysis of the risks/benefits revealed three main considerations that were of social concern – Environmental, Practical, and Ethical. Most participants were self-aware of their insufficient knowledge to compare the different technologies. Unanimously, respondents wanted the available information provided throughout the tool development process and saw multi-sector panel oversight as essential. Scientists and policy makers should match the public’s willingness to engage collaboratively.

General science‐technology orientation, specific benefit–risk assessment frame, and public acceptance of gene drive biotechnology

“…Third, in line with the theories of cognitive heuristics, social schema, and planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2018;Fiske & Taylor, 1991;Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011;MacDonald et al, 2022;Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005;Tversky & Kahneman, 1973;1974), our study showed that people tend to rely heavily on predisposition factors, which were developed and formed during their socialization processes, to guide and form their opinions about new biotechnological issues about which they have little information and knowledge. Future research should continue to examine the importance of predisposition variables.…”

“…Planned behavior theorists premise that preexisting attitudes influence people's intentions and behaviors (Ajzen, 1991;Ajzen & Fishbein, 2018;Madden et al, 1992), showing that people's supporting or opposing actions are based on previously established attitudinal structures (Ajzen, 1991;Kim et al, 2014). Using the theory of planned behavior, MacDonald et al (2022) found that general attitudes toward new technology such as perceptions of harm/benefit and safety/risk are significant predictors of support for gene drive compared to other gene drive beliefs. Other researchers have also shown empirical associations between individuals' benefit-risk assessment and their acceptance of new biotechnology.…”

“…The connection between this bifurcated assessment frame and individuals’ attitudes toward gene drive technology is suggested in the theories of social cognition and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2018; Fiske & Taylor, 1991, 2020; MacDonald et al., 2022; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005; Tallapragada et al., 2021). In their theory of social cognition, Fiske and Taylor (1991, 2020) (see also Kim et al., 2014; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005) explained that people are cognitive misers.…”

California Residents’ Perceptions of Gene Drive Systems to Control Mosquito-Borne Disease

“…The merits and concerns raised by these California residents are quite similar to those found in other survey, interview, and focus group studies. Other studies of communities or publics consistently discuss hopes that GE and gene drive will provide effective, safe, and economical solutions to the threat of vector-borne diseases ( Marshall et al, 2010 ; Hudson et al, 2019 ; Jones et al, 2019 ; Hartley et al, 2021 ; MacDonald et al, 2021 ). Likewise, these studies have recorded common concerns related to environmental impact, off-target impacts, human health risks, and general wariness of GE technologies.…”

“…To this end, public engagement often takes the form of surveys and public opinion polls conducted to establish political will and influence policy debates, as well as inform more democratic scientific processes. ( Pew Initiative on Food Biotechnology, 2004 ; Marshall et al, 2010 ; Ernst et al, 2015 ; Glenza 2016 ; Hudson et al, 2019 ; Jones et al, 2019 ; MacDonald et al, 2020a ; MacDonald et al, 2020b ; MacDonald et al, 2021 ; Schairer et al, 2021 ).…”