ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Taking the temperature of the United States public regarding microbiome engineering.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. 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.
- Experiences with household mold and perceptions of microbiome engineering to mitigate mold.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Natural vs. genetically engineered microbiomes: understanding public attitudes for indoor applications and pathways for future engagement.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Public perceptions and support for introduced microbes to combat hospital-acquired infections and antimicrobial resistance.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents the first representative survey of U.S. adults' opinions on microbiome engineering within the built environment, revealing public awareness, perceived benefits and risks, and attitudes toward genetically engineered microbiomes. Using data from a cross-sectional survey of 1,000 nationally representative U.S. residents over 18 years of age, we examined demographic and cultural factors influencing public sentiment. Results indicate that younger generations report higher knowledge levels, optimism, and perceived benefits of microbiome engineering, while older generations exhibit more caution and concern about risks. Political affiliation, education level, and trust in science also shape public attitudes, with Democrats, college-educated individuals, and those with higher trust in science more likely to view microbiome engineering positively. Notably, nearly half of respondents across demographic groups remain uncertain about the technology's benefits and risks, and a majority of participants support government oversight to ensure ethical and responsible development. These insights provide a foundation for policymakers and researchers to foster informed public engagement and guide responsible innovation in microbiome engineering for built environments.
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.