Literature DB >> 15563295

Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology.

Lucia Savadori1, Stefania Savio, Eraldo Nicotra, Rino Rumiati, Melissa Finucane, Paul Slovic.   

Abstract

Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food-related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15563295     DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  36 in total

1.  Novel therapies, high-risk pediatric research, and the prospect of benefit: learning from the ethical disagreements.

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín; Dolan Sondhi; Ronald G Crystal
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 11.454

2.  Interpreting evidence: why values can matter as much as science.

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín; Kristen Intemann
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.416

Review 3.  Beyond risk. A more realistic risk-benefit analysis of agricultural biotechnologies.

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martín; Zahra Meghani
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of agricultural professionals toward genetically modified (GM) foods: a case study in Southwest Iran.

Authors:  Sedigheh Ghasemi; Ezatollah Karami; Hossein Azadi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Public Engagement with Biotechnology Inside and Outside the Classroom: Community-Focused Approaches.

Authors:  Jorge Jimenez; Joyonna Gamble-George; Giovanna Danies; Ronda L Hamm; Ana Maria Porras
Journal:  GEN Biotechnol       Date:  2022-08-18

6.  Special Interests and the Media: Theory and an Application to Climate Change.

Authors:  Jesse M Shapiro
Journal:  J Public Econ       Date:  2016-10-27

Review 7.  Current concepts of Harm-Benefit Analysis of Animal Experiments - Report from the AALAS-FELASA Working Group on Harm-Benefit Analysis - Part 1.

Authors:  Aurora Brønstad; Christian E Newcomer; Thierry Decelle; Jeffrey I Everitt; Javier Guillen; Kathy Laber
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.471

8.  Leveraging risk communication science across US federal agencies.

Authors:  William M P Klein; Alycia K Boutté; Heather Brake; Madeline Beal; Katherine Lyon-Daniel; Emily Eisenhauer; Monica Grasso; Bryan Hubbell; Karen E Jenni; Christopher J Lauer; Arthur W Lupia; Christine E Prue; Paula Rausch; Carl D Shapiro; Michael D Smith; William T Riley
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-04

9.  All Plant Breeding Technologies Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal Than Others: The Case of GM and Mutagenesis.

Authors:  Luisa Batalha; Francesco Foroni; Brian Joseph Jones
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 5.753

10.  Cattle producers' perceptions of biosecurity.

Authors:  Marnie L Brennan; Robert M Christley
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 2.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.