Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326984›Full record

ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2024

Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide?

Christine Kuo, Katherine E Koralesky, Marina A G von Keyserlingk, Daniel M Weary

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Christine KuoAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5865-9268
Katherine E KoraleskyAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7347-7745
Marina A G von KeyserlingkAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1427-3152
Daniel M WearyAnimal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0917-3982

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organizations involved with gene editing may engage with the public to share information and address concerns about the technology. It is unclear, however, if the information shared aligns with what people want to know. We aimed to understand what members of the public want to know about gene editing in animals by soliciting their questions through an open-ended survey question and comparing them with questions posed in Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) webpages developed by gene editing stakeholder organizations. Participants (338 USA residents) asked the most questions about gene editing in general and animal welfare. In contrast, FAQ webpages focused on regulations. The questions survey participants asked demonstrate a range of knowledge and interests. The discrepancy between survey participant questions and the information provided in the FAQ webpages suggests that gene editing stakeholders might engage in more meaningful public engagement by soliciting actual questions from the public and opening up opportunities for real dialogue.

Indexed as

Gene EditingAnimalsAnimal WelfareHumansPublic OpinionStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesattitudesconsumer educationethicsgenetic modificationknowledge deficit

Identifiers

PMID38326984
PMCPMC11290030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.