Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups

被引:5
|
作者
McFadden, Brandon R. [1 ]
Rumble, Joy N. [2 ]
Stofer, Kathryn A. [3 ]
Folta, Kevin M. [4 ]
Turner, Savanna [3 ]
Pollack, Adam [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Delaware, Dept Appl Econ & Stat, 531 S Coll Ave,Rm 224, Newark, DE 19716 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Dept Agr Commun Educ & Leadership, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Univ Florida, Dept Agr Educ & Commun, Gainesville, FL USA
[4] Univ Florida, Hort Sci Dept, Gainesville, FL USA
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
Genome editing; science communication; disease; designer babies; food; GENETICALLY-MODIFIED FOOD; SCIENCE; ATTITUDES; TRUST;
D O I
10.1080/21645698.2021.1919485
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
In the United States, adult public perception of genetic modification has been well documented in the domain of agriculture and food; however, recent international news on gene editing in medical applications may present new challenges for science communicators who seek to proactively share benefits of emerging gene editing technology. While research traditionally considers perceptions of agricultural and medical applications separately, gene editing may bridge the gap between the two domains. We find that when asked about thoughts regarding gene editing, adult focus groups discussed medical applications more frequently and extensively than agricultural applications. Although, when examining the length of discussion about specific topics, designer babies, cures for disease, and food were discussed at similar lengths. Understanding audiences' current perceptions of the technology is the first step in shaping strategic communication efforts to inform public opinion. A proper understanding of the benefits and risks of new technology is central to its application.
引用
收藏
页码:616 / 626
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Use of Focus Groups to Identify Food Safety Risks for Older Adults in the U.S.
    Kavanaugh, Melissa
    Fisher, Kathleen
    Quinlan, Jennifer J.
    FOODS, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [2] Reply to Comments on "Bisphenol A (BPA) in U.S. Food"
    Schecter, Arnold
    Malik, Noor
    Haffner, Darrah
    Smith, Sarah
    Harris, T. Robert
    Paepke, Olaf
    Birnbaum, Linda
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 45 (08) : 3814 - 3815
  • [3] THE U.S. ISN'T FALLING BEHIND. THE REST OF THE WORLD IS JUST CATCHING UP. GET OVER IT
    Elliott, Michael
    FORTUNE, 2010, 162 (09) : 86 - 86
  • [4] U.S. adult viewers of information treatments express overall positive views but some concerns about gene editing technology
    Stofer, Kathryn A.
    Turner, Savanna
    Rumble, Joy
    McFadden, Brandon
    Folta, Kevin
    Jeevan, Adithi
    Ouncap, Tracy
    Hecht, Kirsten
    Cummins, Cierra
    Thiel, Robert
    JCOM-JOURNAL OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 2023, 22 (04):
  • [5] What's the beef with gene editing? An investigation of factors influencing U.S. consumers' acceptance of beef from gene-edited cattle
    Parrella, Jean A.
    Leggette, Holli R.
    Lu, Peng
    Wingenbach, Gary
    Baker, Matt
    Murano, Elsa
    FUTURE FOODS, 2024, 10
  • [6] Don't just click 'download': The case of U.S. military expenditure data
    Brauer, Jurgen
    ECONOMICS OF PEACE AND SECURITY JOURNAL, 2019, 14 (02): : 55 - 64
  • [8] Working longer and population aging in the U.S.: Why delayed retirement isn?t a practical solution for many
    Berkman, Lisa F.
    Truesdale, Beth C.
    JOURNAL OF THE ECONOMICS OF AGEING, 2023, 24
  • [9] Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose
    Alison L. Van Eenennaam
    Kevin D. Wells
    James D. Murray
    npj Science of Food, 3
  • [10] Why the Watchdog Won't Bite: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Challenges
    Lex, Joe
    WESTERN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2016, 17 (06) : 747 - 748