Mapping the Landscape of Public Attitudes on Synthetic Biology

Akin, Heather; Rose, Kathleen M.; Scheufele, Dietram A.; Simis-Wilkinson, Molly; Brossard, Dominique; Xenos, Michael A.; Corley, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1093/biosci/biw171

Cited by 38 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing body of research highlights the important role cultural dispositions toward science play in shaping the way citizens think about complex scientific issues (Brossard & Nisbet 2007;Kim et al 2014;Akin et al 2017). In particular, systems of belief that privilege science as having epistemic and social authority tend to correlate with positive attitudes toward scientific issues.…”

Section: Belief In Authority Of Scientific Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, systems of belief that privilege science as having epistemic and social authority tend to correlate with positive attitudes toward scientific issues. For example, individuals who are more deferential toward scientific authority tend to have fewer reservations about the impacts of science and to support emerging technologies even when they involve hard-to-quantify risks over which experts may disagree (Lee & Scheufele 2006;Brossard & Nisbet 2007;Akin et al 2017). They also tend to perceive them as more beneficial and less risky (Kim et al 2014).…”

Section: Belief In Authority Of Scientific Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Akin et al. ). In particular, systems of belief that privilege science as having epistemic and social authority tend to correlate with positive attitudes toward scientific issues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…For example, individuals who are more deferential toward scientific authority tend to have fewer reservations about the impacts of science and to support emerging technologies even when they involve hard‐to‐quantify risks over which experts may disagree (Lee & Scheufele ; Brossard & Nisbet ; Akin et al. ). They also tend to perceive them as more beneficial and less risky (Kim et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation

Kohl

Brossard

Scheufele

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developments in CRISPR‐based gene‐editing technologies have generated a growing number of proposals to edit genes in wildlife to meet conservation goals. As these proposals have attracted greater attention, controversies have emerged among scientists and stakeholder groups over potential consequences and ethical implications of gene editing. Responsible governance cannot occur without consulting broader publics, yet little effort has been made to systematically assess public understandings and beliefs in relation to this new area of applied genetic engineering. We analyzed data from a survey of U.S. adults (n = 1600), collected by YouGov, and that examined respondents’ concerns about gene editing in animal and plant wildlife and how those concerns are shaped by cultural dispositions toward science and beliefs about the appropriateness of intervening in nature at the genetic level. On average, respondents perceived more risk than benefit in using these tools. Over 70% agreed that gene editing in wildlife could be “easily used for the wrong purposes.” When evaluating the moral acceptability of gene editing in wildlife, respondents evaluated applications to improve survival in endangered wildlife as more morally acceptable than applications to decrease abundance in a population or eliminate a population. Belief in the authority of scientific knowledge was positively related to favorable views of the benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of editing genes in wildlife. The belief that editing genes in wildlife inappropriately intervenes in nature predicted relatively more concern about risks and moral acceptability and skepticism about benefits. Given high levels of concern and skepticism about gene editing in wildlife for conservation among the U.S. public, a take‐it‐slow approach to making decisions about when or whether to use these tools is advisable. Early opinions, including those uncovered in this study, are likely to be provisional. Thus, consulting the public should be an ongoing process.

show abstract

Section: Belief In Authority Of Scientific Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Belief In Authority Of Scientific Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Akin et al. ). In particular, systems of belief that privilege science as having epistemic and social authority tend to correlate with positive attitudes toward scientific issues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation

Kohl

Brossard

Scheufele

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientists commonly adopt the knowledge-deficit model of public engagement, which assumes that public concern arises from a lack of scientific knowledge (ignorance) and can be overcome through the provision of technical information (Bauer, Allum, & Miller, 2007). However, this approach often exacerbates public concern and the polarization of social views (Pauwels, 2013) evidenced by experience with climate change (Hornsey, Harris, Bain, & Fielding, 2016), GMO food (Gaskell et al, 2000), nano-technology (Lee, Markowitz, Howe, Ko, & Leiserowitz, 2015), and synthetic biology in general (Akin et al, 2017). A greater understanding of the human decision-making process and implementing engagement initiatives derived from social science research may result in a more constructive public conversation about novel methods pest control methods (Estevez, Anderson, Pizarro, & Burgman, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Opinion Towards Gene Drive as a Pest Control Approach for Biodiversity Conservation and the Association of Underlying Worldviews

MacDonald

Balanovic

Edwards

et al. 2020

Environmental Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthetic gene drive approaches are nascent technologies with potential applicability for pest control for conservation purposes. Responsible science mandates that society be engaged in a dialogue over new technology, particularly where there exist global ramifications as with gene drive. We hypothesize that public attitudes towards gene drive are not formed on scientific knowledge or demographics alone, but are heavily influenced by underlying worldviews, which encapsulate a broad and interactive system of attitudes, beliefs, and values. To test this, we conducted a national survey in New Zealand (n = 8199) and found that respondents clustered into four distinct segments with underlying worldviews, better able to explain attitudes toward gene drive than either the participants' scientific knowledge or other explanatory factors such demographics, political ideology or religiosity. We found that the use of gene drive for biodiversity conservation currently has moderate (32%) levels of support in New Zealand but that varied substantially across the four segments. Should gene drive become a technically viable approach for pest control, understanding the worldviews that shape public decision-making can guide a more empathetic engagement process and empower society to participate in informed decisionmaking about if and how gene drive should be used for conservation purposes. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract