Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37672172›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2023

Genetically Engineered Foods and Moral Absolutism: A Representative Study from Germany.

Johanna Jauernig, Matthias Uhl, Gabi Waldhof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Johanna JauernigCenter for the Philosophy of Freedom, University of Arizona, 1145 E South Campus Dr, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4264-1466
Matthias UhlFaculty of Computer Science, Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Esplanade 10, 85049, Ingolstadt, Germany. matthias.uhl@thi.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8838-4824
Gabi WaldhofLeibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 2, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4455-369X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate about genetic engineering (GE) in food production. Supporters argue that it makes crops more resilient to stresses, such as drought or pests, and should be considered by researchers as a technology to address issues of global food security, whereas opponents put forward that GE crops serve only the economic interests of transnational agrifood-firms and have not yet delivered on their promises to address food shortage and nutrient supply. To address discourse failure regarding the GE debate, research needs to understand better what drives the divergent positions and which moral attitudes fuel the mental models of GE supporters and opponents. Hence, this study investigates moral attitudes regarding GE opposition and support in Germany. Results show that GE opponents are significantly more absolutist than supporters and significantly less likely to hold outcome-based views. Furthermore, GE opponents are more willing to donate for preventing GE admission than supporters are willing to donate for promoting GE admission. Our results shed light on why the divide between opponents and supporters in the German GE debate could remain stark and stable for so long.

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalMoralsGenetic EngineeringGermanyNutrientsNutrientsConsumer skepticismGE debateGenetic engineering (GE)Moral absolutismMoral convictionsTechnology aversion

Identifiers

PMID37672172
PMCPMC10482798

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.