Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb 16:12:1340398.
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1340398. eCollection 2024.

U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions

Brandon R McFadden  1 , Joy N Rumble  2 , Kathryn A Stofer  3 , Kevin M Folta  4
Affiliations

U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions

Brandon R McFadden et al. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. .

Abstract

Introduction: Implementation of gene editing in agriculture and medicine hinges on public acceptance. The objectives of this study were to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in agricultural and medical fields and to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact of evidence to improve opinions about safety. Methods: Data were from two samples of U.S. respondents: 1,442 respondents in 2021 and 3,125 respondents in 2022. Survey respondents provided their opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields and answered questions about the number of studies or length of time without a negative outcome to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Results: Results indicated that respondents in both samples were more familiar, more likely to have an opinion about safety, and more positive about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural field than in the medical field. Also, familiarity was more closely associated with opinions about safety than the strength of opinions. Discussion: These findings add to the literature examining perceptions of gene editing in the agricultural or medical fields separately. Opinions about the safety of gene editing were generally more favorable for respondents who were aware of the use of gene editing. These results support a proactive approach for effective communication strategies to inform the public about the use of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields.

Keywords: biotechnology; consumer acceptance; gene editing; public opinion; science communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Strength of opinion about the safety of gene editing by familiarity with gene editing.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Opinion about the safety of gene editing by strength of opinion about safety.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Amount of evidence necessary to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing by opinions about the safety of gene editing (Panel (A): Number of studies; Panel (B): Number of years).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aslett K., Sanderson Z., Godel W., Persily N., Nagler J., Tucker J. A. (2023). Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity. Nature 625, 548–556. 10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Busch G., Ryan E., von Keyserlingk M. A., Weary D. M. (2022). Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose. Agric. Hum. Values 39 (1), 151–164. 10.1007/s10460-021-10235-9 - DOI
    1. Critchley C., Nicol D., Bruce G., Walshe J., Treleaven T., Tuch B. (2019). Predicting public attitudes toward gene editing of germlines: the impact of moral and hereditary concern in human and animal applications. Front. Genet. 9, 704. 10.3389/fgene.2018.00704 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cummings R. G., Harrison G. W., Rutström E. E. (1995). Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Am. Econ. Rev. 85 (1), 260–266.
    1. Funk C., Rainie L., Page D. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Washington, D.C., United States: Pew Research Center, 29.

LinkOut - more resources