ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2020
Synthetic livestock vaccines as risky interference with nature? Lay and expert arguments and understandings of "naturalness".
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The article describes how the idea of "naturalness" was used by three different groups in arguments over the risk of livestock vaccines developed in synthetic biology. Based on interviews with two groups of scientific experts and focus groups with lay people in five European countries, and using Toulmin's argument analysis as the analytical tool, the article maps and compares the different ways in which "naturalness" was used as a warrant. Several notions of "naturalness" are involved in lay people's reasoning and several lay people's understandings of risk relied on their perceptions of the "unnaturalness" of the synthetic vaccines. The notion of "naturalness" was used less by synthetic biology experts and not at all by vaccine experts. Lay people see the vaccine as less natural than other vaccines and therefore as a greater risk. In contrast, synthetic biology experts understand synthetic biology as natural, and relate naturalness, unpredictability and risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.