Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35822802›Full record

ArticleBiotech (Basel (Switzerland))2021

Public Perceptions Regarding Genomic Technologies Applied to Breeding Farm Animals: A Qualitative Study.

Francis Z Naab, David Coles, Ellen Goddard, Lynn J Frewer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Francis Z NaabSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
David ColesSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Ellen GoddardAgricultural Marketing and Business, Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences, 515 General Services Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5638-0562
Lynn J FrewerSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6494-3492

Funding

Genome Canada Increasing feed efficiency and reducing methane emissions through genomics: A new promising goal for the Canadian dairy industry
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The societal acceptability of different applications of genomic technologies to animal production systems will determine whether their innovation trajectories will reach the commercialisation stage. Importantly, technological implementation and commercialisation trajectories, regulation, and policy development need to take account of public priorities and attitudes. More effective co-production practices will ensure the application of genomic technologies to animals aligns with public priorities and are acceptable to society. Consumer rejection of, and limited demand for, animal products developed using novel genomic technologies will determine whether they are integration into the food system. However, little is known about whether genomic technologies that accelerate breeding but do not introduce cross-species genetic changes are more acceptable to consumers than those that do. Five focus groups, held in the north east of England, were used to explore the perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the use of genomic technologies in breeding farm animals for the human food supply chain. Overall, study participants were more positive towards genomic technologies applied to promote animal welfare (e.g., improved disease resistance), environmental sustainability, and human health. Animal "disenhancement" was viewed negatively and increased food production alone was not perceived as a potential benefit. In comparison to gene editing, research participants were most negative about genetic modification and the application of gene drives, independent of the benefits delivered.

Indexed as

breedingethicsfarm animalsfocus groupsgenomicspublic attitudes

Identifiers

PMID35822802
PMCPMC9245485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.