Examining the Gap between Science and Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Food and Global Warming

Abstract

There is great uncertainty due to challenges of escalating population growth and climate change. Public perception that diverges from the scientific community may decrease the effectiveness of scientific inquiry and innovation as tools to solve these challenges. The objective of this study was to identify the factors associated with the divergence of public opinion from scientific consensus regarding the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods and human involvement in global warming (GW). Results indicate that the effects of knowledge on public opinion are complex and non-uniform across types of knowledge (i.e., perceived and actual) or issues. Political affiliation affects agreement with science; Democrats were more likely to agree that GM food is safe and human actions cause GW. Respondents who had relatively higher cognitive function or held illusionary correlations about GM food or GW were more likely to have an opinion that differed from the scientific community.

The Role of Scientific Source Credibility and Goodwill in Public Skepticism Toward GM Foods

“…Thus, incorporating additional measures into the model originally used by Gauchat et al (2017) improved our ability to estimate the direct and mediating effect of source credibility on public evaluations of GM impacts. Moreover, the present study advances current understanding of the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis (McCright et al, 2013;McCright & Dunlap, 2011;McFadden, 2016), offering evidence that political ideology is directly associated with beliefs about GM impacts on people and the environment. Our study extends existing knowledge by demonstrating that perceptions of scientists' motivation and legitimacy as sources of information directly affects beliefs about the potential risks of GM foods to people and the environment.…”

“…Known as the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis, this concept articulates the role of political ideology, particularly conservativism, in undermining the legitimacy of particular modes of scientific endeavor. Generally, conservatives express greater trust in "production" science oriented toward economic or technological innovation (such as agriscience), while liberals are more likely to trust "impact" science that emphasizes consequences to human and environmental health (like climate change) (McCright, Dentzman, Charters, & Dietz, 2013;McCright & Dunlap, 2011;McFadden, 2016). Partisan trends in beliefs about climate change have been widely demonstrated (Funk & Kennedy, 2016;Hamilton, 2015;Hunt & Wald, 2018;Kahan, 2013;Nisbet et al, 2015).…”

Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety

“…There are some issues for which a substantial proportion of the public hold beliefs that are at odds with broad scientific consensus. Examples include the reality of human-caused climate change [ 1 , 2 ], the safety of genetically modified food (GM) [ 3 ] and the efficacy of vaccines [ 4 ]. This ‘rejection of science’ poses a risk to humanity: doubts about climate change lead to personal and societal inaction, resulting in global environmental changes as well as social and economic costs [ 5 ]; concerns regarding vaccination threaten to lower immunisation rates and increase the spread of diseases such as measles [ 4 ], and; fears around the safety of GM foods could limit efforts to provide a sustainable level of food production for a growing global population [ 6 ].…”

Establishing a Scientific Consensus on the Cognitive Benefits of Physical Activity

“…It was hypothesized that there would be no association between the scientists' and laymen's interpretations of scientific abstracts. This hypothesis was based on the discrepancy between the public's and scientists' views on key issues [44,45]. In the second phase, the same scientific literature was distributed to participants with a non-academic background.…”