Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science
- PMID: 17958501
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00932.x
Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science
Abstract
Government and policymakers want to engage the public in a dialogue about the conduct and consequences of science and increasingly seek to actively involve citizens in decision-making processes. Implicit in this thinking is that greater transparency and public inclusion will help dispel fears associated with new scientific advancements, foster greater public trust in those accountable, and ultimately increase the acceptability of new technologies. Less understood, however, are public perceptions about such high-level involvement in science and how these map onto public trust and attitudes within a diverse population. This article uses the concept of public efficacy -- the extent to which people believe that the public might be able to affect the course of decision making -- to explore differences in trust, attentiveness, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Using nationally representative data from the 2003 British Social Attitudes Survey, we begin by examining the characteristics of those who have a positive belief about public involvement in this area of scientific inquiry. We then focus on how this belief maps on to indicators of public trust in key stakeholder groups, including the government and genetic scientists. Finally, we consider the relationship between public efficacy and trust and attitudes toward different applications of genetic technology. Our findings run contrary to assumptions that public involvement in science will foster greater trust and lead to a climate of greater acceptance for genetic technology. A belief in public efficacy does not uniformly equate with more trusting attitudes toward stakeholders but is associated with less trust in government rules. Whereas trust is positively correlated with more permissive attitudes about technologies such as cloning and gene therapy, people who believe in high-level public involvement are less likely to think that these technologies should be allowed than those who do not.
Similar articles
-
The attitudes of religious, environmental, and science policy leaders toward biotechnology.Recomb DNA Tech Bull. 1985 Dec;8(4):141-64. Recomb DNA Tech Bull. 1985. PMID: 4095277
-
How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales.Soc Sci Med. 2005 May;60(9):1937-48. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.058. Epub 2004 Nov 13. Soc Sci Med. 2005. PMID: 15743645
-
Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public.New Genet Soc. 2005 Apr;24(1):31-56. doi: 10.1080/14636770500037693. New Genet Soc. 2005. PMID: 16552916
-
Public knowledge and public trust.Community Genet. 2006;9(3):204-10. doi: 10.1159/000092658. Community Genet. 2006. PMID: 16741351 Review.
-
Risk as a social phenomenon.Forum Nutr. 2003;56:327-30. Forum Nutr. 2003. PMID: 15806921 Review.
Cited by
-
Farmer knowledge and a priori risk analysis: pre-release evaluation of genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat across the Canadian prairies.Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2009 Sep;16(6):689-701. doi: 10.1007/s11356-009-0177-6. Epub 2009 May 28. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2009. PMID: 19475440
-
Talking Science: Undergraduates' Everyday Conversations as Acts of Boundary Spanning That Connect Science to Local Communities.CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022 Mar;21(1):ar12. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-06-0151. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022. PMID: 35179951 Free PMC article.
-
Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review.Public Underst Sci. 2012 Oct;21(7):782-95. doi: 10.1177/0963662510392485. Epub 2011 Mar 1. Public Underst Sci. 2012. PMID: 23832558 Free PMC article.
-
Definition of Personalized Medicine and Targeted Therapies: Does Medical Familiarity Matter?J Pers Med. 2021 Jan 4;11(1):26. doi: 10.3390/jpm11010026. J Pers Med. 2021. PMID: 33406631 Free PMC article.
-
Bioengineering microbial communities: Their potential to help, hinder and disgust.Bioengineered. 2016 Apr;7(3):137-44. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2016.1187346. Bioengineered. 2016. PMID: 27221461 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources