The repertory grid method was used to determine what terminology respondents use to distinguish between different applications of genetic engineering drawn from food- related, agricultural, and medical applications. Respondents were asked to react to fifteen applications phrased in general terms, and results compared with a second study where fifteen more specific applications were used as stimuli. Both sets of data were submitted to generalized Procrustes analysis. Applications associated with animals or human genetic material were described as causing ethical concern, being (...) unnatural, harmful, and dangerous. Those involving plants or microorganisms were described as beneficial, progressive, and necessary. The results were validated in survey research, which indicated that general applications ofgenetic engineering were perceived as either positive or negative, whereas specific applications were more highly differentiated in perceptual terms. The results imply that the public debate about genetic engineering must take due account of the complexity of public concerns. (shrink)

Since the 1960s, scientists, engineers, and healthcare professionals have developed brain–computer interface (BCI) technologies, connecting the user’s brain activity to communication or motor devices. This new technology has also captured the imagination of publics, industry, and ethicists. Academic ethics has highlighted the ethical challenges of BCIs, although these conclusions often rely on speculative or conceptual methods rather than empirical evidence or public engagement. From a social science or empirical ethics perspective, this tendency could be considered problematic and even technocratic because (...) of its disconnect from publics. In response, our trinational survey (Germany, Canada, and Spain) reports public attitudes toward BCIs (N = 1,403) on ethical issues that were carefully derived from academic ethics literature. The results show moderately high levels of concern toward agent-related issues (e.g., changing the user’s self) and consequence-related issues (e.g., new forms of hacking). Both facets of concern were higher among respondents who reported as female or as religious, while education, age, own and peer disability, and country of residence were associated with either agent-related or consequence-related concerns. These findings provide a first look at BCI attitudes across three national contexts, suggesting that the language and content of academic BCI ethics may resonate with some publics and their values. (shrink)

The magnitude of public concerns about agricultural innovations has often been underestimated, as past examples, such as pesticides, nanotechnology, and cloning, demonstrate. Indeed, studies have proven that the agricultural sector presents an area of tension and often attracts skepticism concerning new technologies. Digital technologies have become increasingly popular in agriculture. Yet there are almost no investigations on the public acceptance of digitalization in agriculture so far. Our online survey provides initial insights to reduce this knowledge gap. The sample represents the (...) German population in terms of gender, age, education and size of place of residence. Results showed that if the potential of digital farming technologies regarding animal welfare and environmental protection was described, respondents reacted positively. Thus, the general attitudes of respondents toward the benefits of DFT were mostly positive. The approval to increasing adoption rates of particular DFT by providing subsidies was also high. Linear regression models showed that the dominant positive influences on respondents’ attitudes toward the benefits of DFT were a generally positive attitude toward farming and a strong trust in farmers in Germany. Confronting respondents with pictures showing DFT resulted in many spontaneous negative associations and general criticism of agricultural production. The latter holds true for DFT in animal husbandry in particular. However, as agriculture as a whole is criticized by many groups in Germany, it is unlikely that benefits from digitalization will significantly increase the public acceptance of agriculture as a whole. (shrink)

It is easy to call for public engagement (or dialogue) around difficult, morally fraught policy topics such as synthetic biology, but it is quite another thing to make sure that the deliberation is meaningful, as Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray aptly insist it should be. The surveys, focus groups, and public dialogues that have been held about synthetic biology to date show a very low level of public knowledge about it. Focus group findings also suggest that the in­herent uncertainty and complexity (...) surrounding synthetic biology give rise to greater ambivalence moving forward. The Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Hart Research Associates presented respondents with a “balanced description” of synthetic biology in nation­wide phone surveys and eight sessions of focus groups and found that, after respondents received information, the percentage saying that the risks outweighed the ben­efits consistently increased.In my view, the Hart research suggests three very im­portant conclusions about how best to structure public deliberation. First, information about uncertainty may not inform the public in any meaningful way. Second, the purpose of assessing public opinion and conduct­ing public deliberation is crucially important. Third, as Kaebnick, Gusmano, and Murray point out, the type and framing of the information given and the timing of the discussion matters a great deal for shaping the content. (shrink)

Source credibility has been thought to bean important determinant of peoples‘ reactions toinformation about technology. There has also been muchdebate about the need to communicate effectively withthe public about genetic engineering, particularlywithin the context of food production. Questionnaireswere used to investigate the impact of sourcecredibility, admission of risk uncertainty, andinitial attitude towards genetic engineering onattitudes of respondents after information provision.120 respondents with positive attitudes towardsgenetic engineering in food production were providedwith persuasive information about the technology,where both source attribution and admission (...) of riskuncertainty were systematically varied within theexperimental design. Impact on perceptions of sourcecredibility, informational qualities, and postintervention attitudes were examined, and compared toa second group of respondents who held initiallynegative attitudes towards genetic engineering, andwho had been exposed to similar informationinterventions. As predicted by Social Judgment Theory,initial attitude was found to be an importantdeterminant of post-intervention attitude. However,admission of risk uncertainty was also found to beinfluential in increasing acceptance and reducingrejection of the technology, possibly through thefacilitation of elaborative processing. Contrary toprevious research, prior attitudes had an impact onperceptions of both source credibility andinformational quality. In terms of effectiveinformation provision about genetic engineering, itwas concluded that scientific honesty is the bestpolicy, and that lay understanding of scientificprocess is probably greater than hitherto assumed byexperts. (shrink)

Whilst there has been much debateregarding the importance of public acceptance ofgenetic engineering and its applications, there isevidence to indicate that objections to the technologyare likely to focus on specific applications of thetechnology, rather than genetic engineering per se.Thus it becomes important to examine the extent ofobjections associated with individual applications,rather than to assess public feeling regarding thetechnology overall. Survey data were collected from200 respondents regarding their objections to generalapplications of genetic engineering (where thetangible benefits were not obvious). Similar objectiondata (...) were collected from 200 different respondents,who were presented with specific applications withmore obvious tangible benefits. Overall patterns ofobjection to different applications were identifiedusing a novel method of objection mapping, inconjunction with analysis of variance to identifyindividual differences in the samples. For generalapplications, the results indicate that mostrespondents object less to applications involvingplants and microorganisms than to those involvinganimals or human genetic material. Individualdifferences in objection focus on applicationsinvolving animals or human genetic material, withwomen and those who are very concerned with theenvironment having greatest objections to theseapplications. Individual differences tend to reducewhen specific applications are used as stimuli,although the focus of concern is still on applicationsinvolving animals and human genetic material. However,gender differences were not statistically significant,and those respondents who have high levels ofenvironmental concern are differentiated by increasedobjections to large-scale agricultural applications.It is argued that effective communication regardingthe technology should focus on specific applications,and address issues of environmental impact within thecontext of these applications, if the public is tomake an informed choice regarding their acceptance ofthe products of the technology. (shrink)

The development of genetic engineering and its plausible consequences raises a level of controversy that can be identified at the level of public rather than scientific debate. Opposition to genetic engineering may manifest itself in rejection of the technology overall, or rejection of specific aspects of the technology, where public attitudes may be defined by a complex set of perceptions incorporating risk, benefit, control, and ethical concerns.One hundred and seventy six members of the public responded to questionnaires about genetic engineering (...) that were framed in terms of either food production or medical application. The first section assessed perceived risks, benefits, and control of genetic engineering where the targets of the potential application and the location of control were varied. The second section assessed the relationship between objections to application of the technology to different types of organisms (plants, microorganisms, animals, or human genetic material). Questions were directed at either perceived risk or ethical objections. The applications of genetic engineering were seen as riskier and less beneficial when applied to food production than medicine, although perceived control was independent of application. Optimistic bias was observed. Ethical and risk related objections were greater for applications to food than to medicine, and again dependent on the type of organism manipulated. The transfer of genetic material between “dissimilar” types of organism (for example, between plants and animals) were not associated with greater risk or ethical concern than transfers between “similar” types of organism (for example, between animals and animals). The public requirement for legislative control was also dissociated into risk or ethical objections to the technology, and found to be greater for risk-related concerns, although ethical considerations were also important. (shrink)

Genomics, Climate Change, Nanotechnology, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance… For the uninitiated, scientific names created by experts can be difficult to understand. Yet, people have to make decisions about the related scientific concepts. Experts reach understanding with theory and expect non-experts to do the same. However, my research shows that people can satisfy their need to make sense of what they are dealing with by just using associations triggered by a name. For example, people often unfairly presume that genomics and the controversial (...) genetic manipulation are the same because of their similar names. Resulting beliefs are convincing enough to make decisions and they are difficult to change because activated associations influence further learning. This can cause persistent misunderstandings and unnecessary controversies that can harm scientific developments. By working together, experts and the public can prevent misunderstanding by co-creating names that foster meaningful associations by non-experts and promote appropriate understandings. (shrink)