ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2022
Conservation pest control with new technologies: public perceptions.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leading with courage and integrity in the National Science Challenges.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Article
- Public attitudes to genetic technology for invasive pest control and preferences for engagement and information: a segmentation analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Article
- California Residents' Perceptions of Gene Drive Systems to Control Mosquito-Borne Disease.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New genetic tools can potentially mitigate the decline of biodiversity. Democratisation of science mandates public opinion be considered while new technologies are in development. We conducted eleven focus groups in New Zealand to explore three questions about novel technologies (gene drive and two others for comparison of pest control tools): (1) what are the risks/benefits? (2) how do they compare to current methods? and (3) who should be represented on a panel that evaluates the tools and what factors should they consider? Findings from the content analysis of the risks/benefits revealed three main considerations that were of social concern - Environmental, Practical, and Ethical. Most participants were self-aware of their insufficient knowledge to compare the different technologies. Unanimously, respondents wanted the available information provided throughout the tool development process and saw multi-sector panel oversight as essential. Scientists and policy makers should match the public's willingness to engage collaboratively.
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.