Literature DB >> 17958501

Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science.

J Barnett1, H Cooper, V Senior.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17958501     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00932.x

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


  14 in total

1.  Hype and public trust in science.

Authors:  Zubin Master; David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Farmer knowledge and a priori risk analysis: pre-release evaluation of genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat across the Canadian prairies.

Authors:  Ian J Mauro; Stéphane M McLachlan; Rene C Van Acker
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Perceptions and Attitudes About Genetic Counseling Among Residents of a Midwestern Rural Area.

Authors:  Rachel J Riesgraf; Patricia McCarthy Veach; Ian M MacFarlane; Bonnie S LeRoy
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Acceptability of Cell and Gene Therapy for Curing HIV Infection Among People Living with HIV in the Northwestern United States: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Karine Dubé; Jane Simoni; Michael Louella; Laurie Sylla; Zahra H Mohamed; Hursch Patel; Stuart Luter; Ann C Collier
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.205

5.  Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review.

Authors:  Nidhi Gupta; Arnout R H Fischer; Lynn J Frewer
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2011-03-01

6.  Talking Science: Undergraduates' Everyday Conversations as Acts of Boundary Spanning That Connect Science to Local Communities.

Authors:  Hana Shah; Josue Simeon; Kathleen Quardokus Fisher; Sarah L Eddy
Journal:  CBE Life Sci Educ       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 3.955

7.  Young Adults' Belief in Genetic Determinism, and Knowledge and Attitudes towards Modern Genetics and Genomics: The PUGGS Questionnaire.

Authors:  Rebecca Bruu Carver; Jérémy Castéra; Niklas Gericke; Neima Alice Menezes Evangelista; Charbel N El-Hani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Is biotechnology (more) acceptable when it enables a reduction in phytosanitary treatments? A European comparison of the acceptability of transgenesis and cisgenesis.

Authors:  Damien Rousselière; Samira Rousselière
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Bioengineering microbial communities: Their potential to help, hinder and disgust.

Authors:  Diane Sivasubramaniam; Ashley E Franks
Journal:  Bioengineered       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.269

10.  A Study of Stakeholder Views to Shape a Communication Strategy for GMO in Brazil.

Authors:  Deise Maria Fontana Capalbo; Olivia Márcia Nagy Arantes; Alexandre Gori Maia; Izaias Carvalho Borges; José Maria Ferreira Jardim da Silveira
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2015-11-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.