ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
From Blog to lab: testing messages to shift public opinion on gene editing.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Public acceptance of gene editing remains an important consideration for the adoption of biotechnology in agriculture and medicine. This study presents findings from the final phase of a multi-stage research project designed to identify the communication strategies most effective at shaping public opinions on the safety of gene editing. Methods: A nationally recruited sample of 3,200 U.S. respondents participated in a randomized survey experiment. Participants were assigned to view one of eight videos developed from prior focus groups and three earlier surveys conducted as part of the broader research project. The videos varied across three communication attributes: messenger (researcher or blogger), message framing (emphasizing either the number of years of biotechnology use without adverse events or the number of studies demonstrating safety), and application context (agriculture or medicine). Between-subject analyses evaluated differences in communication effectiveness across treatment conditions, with outcomes focused on opinion change and knowledge retention. Results: Respondents were generally receptive to the video interventions, suggesting that brief communication messages can influence perceptions of gene-editing safety. The application context of the video significantly affected knowledge retention, with respondents demonstrating stronger retention when the information aligned with the specific field emphasized in the communication. In contrast, differences in messenger type and message framing had comparatively limited effects on knowledge outcomes, suggesting that these communication features were less influential in shaping responses. Discussion: These findings suggest that the context in which gene editing is presented may be more important than the specific messenger or message framing for communicating biotechnology safety to the public. The results offer practical insights for science communicators, industry stakeholders, and policymakers seeking to improve public understanding and acceptance of gene editing technologies across agricultural and medical applications.
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.