Public attitudes towards genetically modified polled cattle

Abstract

Genetic modification of farm animals has not been well accepted by the public. Some modifications have the potential to improve animal welfare. One such example is the use of gene editing (i.e. CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)) to spread the naturally occurring POLLED gene, as these genetically hornless animals would not need to experience the painful procedures used to remove the horns or horn buds. The aim of the current study was to assess public attitudes regarding the use of GM to produce polled cattle. United States (US) citizens (n = 598), recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, were asked “Do you think genetically modifying cows to be hornless would be…”, and responded using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = a very bad thing, 4 = neither good nor bad, 7 = a very good thing). Participants were then asked to indicate if they would be willing to consume products from these modified animals. We excluded 164 of the original 598 participants for not completing the survey, failing any of three attention check questions, or providing no or unintelligible qualitative responses. Respondents were then asked to provide a written statement explaining their answers; these reasons were subjected to qualitative analysis. Comparison of Likert scale ratings between two groups was done using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and comparisons between more than two groups were done using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test. More people responded that the modification would be good (Likert ≥ 5; 65.7%) than bad (Likert ≤ 3; 23.1%), and that they would be willing to consume products from these animals (Likert ≥ 5; 66.0%) versus not consume these products (Likert ≤ 3; 22.6%). Qualitative analysis of the text responses showed that participant reasoning was based on several themes including animal welfare, uncertainty about the technology, and worker well-being. In conclusion, many participants reported positive attitudes towards GM polled cattle; we suggest that people may be more likely to support GM technologies when these are perceived to benefit the animal.

On the Road to End Pig Pain: Knowledge and Attitudes of Brazilian Citizens Regarding Castration

“…However, it has been shown that simply informing lay citizens of the technical reasons behind practices that they may perceive as detrimental to animal welfare does not necessarily lead to support [ 55 , 57 , 59 , 61 ]. Yet, reducing animal suffering may be a powerful argument for the public to accept technologies that they otherwise reject on the grounds of risk for humans [ 33 , 56 , 62 , 63 ].…”

“…To maintain public trust, it is essential that these technologies are satisfactorily proven safe and effectively reduce animal suffering, as these are important conditions for acceptance [ 33 , 62 , 63 ]. In the case of immunocastration, there is sufficient scientific knowledge demonstrating the absence of residues potentially harmful to humans (see [ 18 , 20 ]).…”

Livestock breeding for the 21st century: the promise of the editing revolution

“…For many, issues related to technology do not elicit a yes or no response but a case-by-case deliberation. Reports of surveys of public opinion are starting to emerge [52][53][54] . These show general support for application of the technology, with a parallel cry for more information so that informed opinions can be developed [55] .…”

The Promise of CRISPR for Human Germline Editing and the Perils of “Playing God”

“…17,18 A 2019 study of public perceptions of genetically modifying dairy cattle so that they would be born without horns found that approximately half of respondents held a negative attitude toward the modification for ''moral considerations.'' 19 The authors reporting the survey results exemplified the category of moral considerations with the quote, ''I think that it is 'playing God' and is immoral and unethical.'' 19 The British watchdog organization, Human Genetics Alert, describes human germline editing as ''playing God'' and compares it to climate change in its potential for creating disaster.…”

“…19 The authors reporting the survey results exemplified the category of moral considerations with the quote, ''I think that it is 'playing God' and is immoral and unethical.'' 19 The British watchdog organization, Human Genetics Alert, describes human germline editing as ''playing God'' and compares it to climate change in its potential for creating disaster. 20 More direct objections to using CRISPR for human germline modification as ''playing God'' are also well established in the public discourse.…”