ArticleGM crops & food2021
Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups.
Article in GM crops & food, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Divergence and convergence in international regulatory policies regarding genome-edited food: How to find a middle ground.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.