- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- UBC Research Data /
- Social Acceptance of Genetic Engineering Technology
Open Collections
UBC Research Data
Social Acceptance of Genetic Engineering Technology Koralesky, Katherine; Sirovica, Lara; Hendricks, Jillian; Mills, Katelyn; von Keyserlingk, Marina; Weary, Daniel
Description
Genetic engineering of animals has been proposed to address societal problems, but public acceptance of the use of this technology is unclear. Previous work has shown that the source of information proposing the technology (e.g. companies, universities), the term used to describe the technology (e.g. genome editing, genetic modification), and the genetic engineering application (e.g. different food products) affects technology acceptance. We conducted three mixed-method surveys and used a causal trust-acceptability model to understand social acceptance of genetic engineering (GE) by investigating 1) the source of information proposing the technology, 2) the term used to describe the technology, and 3) the GE application for farm animals proposed. Quantitative analysis showed that the source of information and technology term had little to no effect on social acceptance. Further, participants expressed their understanding of technology using a range of terms interchangeably, all describing technology used to change an organism’s DNA. Applications involving animals were perceived as less beneficial than a plant application, and an application for increased cattle muscle growth was perceived as more risky than a plant application. We used structural equation modelling and confirmed model fit for each survey. In each survey, perceptions of benefit had the greatest effect on acceptance. Following our hypothesized model, social trust had an indirect influence on acceptance through similar effects of perceived benefit and risk. When assessing the acceptability of applications participants considered impacts on plants, animals, and people, trust in actors and technologies, and weighed benefits and drawbacks of GE. Future work should consider how to best measure acceptability of GE for animals, consider contextual factors and consider the use of inductive frameworks.
Item Metadata
Title |
Social Acceptance of Genetic Engineering Technology
|
Creator | |
Contributor | |
Date Issued |
2022-09-14
|
Description |
Genetic engineering of animals has been proposed to address societal problems, but public acceptance of the use of this technology is unclear. Previous work has shown that the source of information proposing the technology (e.g. companies, universities), the term used to describe the technology (e.g. genome editing, genetic modification), and the genetic engineering application (e.g. different food products) affects technology acceptance. We conducted three mixed-method surveys and used a causal trust-acceptability model to understand social acceptance of genetic engineering (GE) by investigating 1) the source of information proposing the technology, 2) the term used to describe the technology, and 3) the GE application for farm animals proposed. Quantitative analysis showed that the source of information and technology term had little to no effect on social acceptance. Further, participants expressed their understanding of technology using a range of terms interchangeably, all describing technology used to change an organism’s DNA. Applications involving animals were perceived as less beneficial than a plant application, and an application for increased cattle muscle growth was perceived as more risky than a plant application. We used structural equation modelling and confirmed model fit for each survey. In each survey, perceptions of benefit had the greatest effect on acceptance. Following our hypothesized model, social trust had an indirect influence on acceptance through similar effects of perceived benefit and risk. When assessing the acceptability of applications participants considered impacts on plants, animals, and people, trust in actors and technologies, and weighed benefits and drawbacks of GE. Future work should consider how to best measure acceptability of GE for animals, consider contextual factors and consider the use of inductive frameworks.
|
Subject | |
Type | |
Language |
English
|
Date Available |
2023-06-22
|
Provider |
University of British Columbia Library
|
License |
CC0 1.0
|
DOI |
10.14288/1.0419376
|
URI | |
Publisher DOI | |
Grant Funding Agency |
Ontario Genomics Institute
|
Rights URI | |
Country |
Canada; United States
|
Aggregated Source Repository |
Dataverse
|
Item Media
Item Citations and Data
Licence
CC0 1.0