‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Whilst there has been much debateregarding the importance of public acceptance ofgenetic engineering and its applications, there isevidence to indicate that objections to the technologyare likely to focus on specific applications of thetechnology, rather than genetic engineering per se.Thus it becomes important to examine the extent ofobjections associated with individual applications,rather than to assess public feeling regarding thetechnology overall. Survey data were collected from200 respondents regarding their objections to generalapplications of genetic engineering (where thetangible benefits were not obvious). Similar objectiondata were collected from 200 different respondents,who were presented with specific applications withmore obvious tangible benefits. Overall patterns ofobjection to different applications were identifiedusing a novel method of objection mapping, inconjunction with analysis of variance to identifyindividual differences in the samples. For generalapplications, the results indicate that mostrespondents object less to applications involvingplants and microorganisms than to those involvinganimals or human genetic material. Individualdifferences in objection focus on applicationsinvolving animals or human genetic material, withwomen and those who are very concerned with theenvironment having greatest objections to theseapplications. Individual differences tend to reducewhen specific applications are used as stimuli,although the focus of concern is still on applicationsinvolving animals and human genetic material. However,gender differences were not statistically significant,and those respondents who have high levels ofenvironmental concern are differentiated by increasedobjections to large-scale agricultural applications.It is argued that effective communication regardingthe technology should focus on specific applications,and address issues of environmental impact within thecontext of these applications, if the public is tomake an informed choice regarding their acceptance ofthe products of the technology.
- ACOST (1990). Developments in biotechnology. London: HMSO.
- Altman, D.G. (1978). Plotting probability ellipses, AppliedStatistics 27: 347–349.
- Bauer, M. (1995). Resistance to new technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Carroll, J.D. (1980). Individual differences and multidimensionalscaling, in R.N. Shephard, A.K. Romney & S.B.Nerlove (eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applicationsin the behavioral sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 105–155).New York: Seminar Press.
- Drottz-Sjoberg, B.M. (1991). Perception of risk: Studies of riskattitudes, perceptions and definitions. Stockholm: StockholmSchool of Economics Centre for Risk Research.
- Dunlap, R.E.& Van Liere, K. (1984). Commitment to the dominantsocial paradigm and concern for environmental quality,Social Science Quarterly 66: 1013–1027
- Edington, E.S. (1987). Randomization tests, 2nd edn. Statistics:Textbooks and Monographs No 77. New York: MarcelDekker.
- Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap methods for standarderrors, confidence intervals, and other measures ofstatistical accuracy, Statistical Science 1: 54–77.
- Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Lay foiblesand expert fables in judgments about risk, American Statistics36: 240–255.
- Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. (1996). The influenceof realistic product exposure on attitudes towards geneticengineering of food, Food Quality and Preference: 61–67.
- Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. & Shepherd, R. (1996).What determines trust in information about food-relatedrisks? Underlying psychological constructs, Risk Analysis16(4): 473–486.
- Frewer, L.J., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineeringinthe UK: Risk, benefit and ethics, Science, Technologyand Human Values 22(1): 98–124.
- Frewer, L.J., Shepherd, R. & Sparks, P. (1994). Biotechnologyand food production-knowledge and perceived risk, BritishFood Journal 96: 26–33.
- Frewer, L.J. & Shepherd, R. (1995). Ethical concerns and riskperceptions associated with different applications of geneticengineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need forregulation of the technology, Agriculture and Human Values12: 48–57.
- Greenhoff, K. & MacFie, H.J.H. (1994). Preference mappingin practice, in H.J.H. MacFie & D.M.H. Thomson (eds.),Measurement of food preferences (pp. 137–166). London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
- Hamstra, A.M. (1991). Biotechnology in foodstuffs: Towardsa model of consumer acceptance. The Hague: SWOKA,Institute for Consumer Research, Research report 105.
- Hamstra, A.M. (1993). Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology:The relationship between product evaluation andacceptance. The Hague: SWOKA, Institute for ConsumerResearch, Research report 137.
- Hagerstrand, T. (1967). Innovation diffusion as a spatial process.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Hedderley, D.I. & Wakeling, I.N. (1995). A comparison of imputation techniques for internal preference mapping usingMonte Carlo simulation, Food Quality and Preference 6(4):281–297.
- Heijs, W.J.M., Midden, C.J.H. & Drabbe, R.A.J. (1993). Biotechnology: Attitudes and influencing factors. Research report.Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.
- Hoban, T.J. & Kendall, P.A. (1992). Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
- Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Krzanowski, W.J. (1988). Principles of multivariate analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Knudsen, I. & Ovesen, L. (1994). Assessment of novel foods: A call for a new and broader GRAS concept, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 21: 365–369.
- Marlier, E. (1992). Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology, in J. Durant (ed.), Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research (pp. 52–109). London: Science Museum.
- Michael, M. (1992). Lay discourses of science–science in general, science in particular and self, Science, Technology, and Human Values 17: 313–333.
- Nicholson, M. (1987). The new environmental age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- OST (1995). Technology foresight: Progress through partnership No 7. Food and drink. London: HMSO London.
- SAS Institute (1992). Statistical analysis package. USA: SAS Institute.
- Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. & Frewer, L. (1994). Gene technology, food production and public opinion: A UK study, Agriculture and Human Values 11: 19–28.
- Steger, M.A.E., Pierce, J.C., Steel, B.S. & Lovrich, N.P. (1989). Political culture, postmaterial values, and the new environmental paradigm: A comparative analysis of Canada and the United States, Political Behaviour 11(1): 233–254.
- Turney, J. (1995). Why communicate science?, Science and Public Affairs: 5–7.
- Zechendorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology, Bio/Technology 12: 870–875.
- ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering
Agriculture and Human Values
Volume 14, Issue 1 , pp 67-79
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Public attitudes
- Genetic engineering
- Industry Sectors