ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Public attitudes to genetic technology for invasive pest control and preferences for engagement and information: a segmentation analysis.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in genetic technology hold promise in managing the increasing problem of invasive pests. The current study sought to improve our understanding of public perceptions, and potential public engagement pathways and information needs as the technology is researched and potentially developed for deployment. A survey of 1,149 Australians was conducted, and the sample was segmented into 4 groups based on their attitudes: Certain Objectors, Fence Sitters, Cautious Supporters, and Certain Supporters. 'Light touch' engagement activities appeared to satisfy most people; yet more intensive engagements could be appropriate for a small group who hold negative views towards the technology. Across the board, people wanted to know about the potential risks, and the regulation and controls surrounding the gene editing technology. Those who held more positive views also showed an interest in the scientific processes and techniques, while people who held more negative views wanted to know what was being done to deal with social and ethical issues. The results provide insight into 1) the diversity of views, and associated beliefs and feelings, among the public when confronted with a synthetic biology solution to an environmental problem, 2) how public engagement activities can be tailored to align with people's engagement beliefs and stated preferences, and 3) what issues biotechnology developers should address as they endeavour to design genetic technology in a socially responsible way.
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.