Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors Influencing Stakeholders Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Aedes Mosquito

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dengue fever is a debilitating and infectious disease that could be life-threatening. It is caused by the dengue virus which affects millions of people in the tropical area. Currently, there is no cure for the disease as there is no vaccine available. Thus, prevention of the vector population using conventional methods is by far the main strategy but has been found ineffective. A genetically modified (GM) mosquito is among the favoured alternatives to curb dengue fever in Malaysia. Past studies have shown that development and diffusion of gene technology products depends heavily upon public acceptance. The purpose of this study is to identify the relevant factors influencing stakeholders’ attitudes toward the GM Aedes mosquito and to analyse the relationships between all the factors using the structural equation model. A survey was carried out on 509 respondents from various stakeholder groups in the Klang Valley region of Malaysia. Results of the survey have confirmed that public perception towards complex issues such as gene technology should be seen as a multi-faceted process. The perceived benefit-perceived risk balance is very important in determining the most predominant predictor of attitudes toward a GM mosquito. In this study the stakeholders perceived the benefit of the GM mosquito as outweighing its risk, translating perceived benefit as the most important direct predictor of attitudes toward the GM mosquito. Trust in key players has a direct influence on attitudes toward the GM mosquito while moral concern exhibited an indirect influence through perceived benefits. Other factors such as attitudes toward technology and nature were also indirect predictors of attitudes toward the GM mosquito while religiosity and engagement did not exhibited any significant roles. The research findings serve as a useful database to understand public acceptance and the social construct of public attitudes towards the GM mosquito to combat dengue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alhakami, M. W., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risks and perceived benefits. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alphey, L., & Andreasen, M. H. (2002). Dominant lethality and insect population control. Molecular and Biochemical Parasiology, 121, 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alum, N. C., Boy, D., & Bauer, M. W. (2002). Europeans and the knowledge deficit model. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Ahmad, J., Md Jahi, J., Md Nor, A., Osman, M., & Mahadi, N. (2011). Factors influencing Malaysian public attitudes to agro-biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 674–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Azad, M. A. K., Gausmia, M. H., & Zulkifli, F. (2014). Determinants of public attitudes to genetically modified salmon. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Azlan, A., Gausman, M., Ahmad, J., Samian, A., Haron, M., et al. (2010). Ethical perception of modern biotechnology with special focus on genetically modified food among Muslims in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, 18(3), 359–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Md Jahi, J., Md Nor, A., Osman, M., & Mahadi, N. (2005). Relationship between general attitude towards nature religion, custom, science and technological progress and attitude towards modern biotechnology. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management, 6, 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Md. Jahi, J., Md.Nor, A., Osman, M., & Mahadi, N. (2006). Uncovering factors influencing Malaysian public attitude towards modern biotechnology. Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, 14(2), 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothe, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Small Water Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • BABAS. (1999). Ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnology. Report of the EFB Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Te Hague: Cambridge Biomedical Consultants.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J. O. (2012). Public perceptions of incompatibility between “Science and Religion”. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 340–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barling, D., De Vriend, H., Cornelese, J. A., Ekstrand, B., Hecker, E. F. F., Howlet, J., et al. (1999). The social aspects of food biotechnology: A European view. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 7(2), 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batiste, J. M., & Coenders, G. (2000). Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales. Madrid: La Muralla S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beech, C. J., Koukidou, M., Morrison, N. I., & Alphey, L. (2012). Genetically modified insects: Science use, status and regulation. Collection of Biosafety Reviews, 6, 66–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (2002). EQS 6 structural equations program manual Encino. CA: Multivariate Software Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertolini, P., Wolf, M. M., Shikima, I., & Berger, A. (2003). Attitudes toward food and biotechnology in the U.S., Japan and Italy: Paper presented at the 7th ICABR (International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research) International Conference on Public Goods and Public Policy for Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy, 29 June–3 July.

  • Bollen, K. A. (1998). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borcherding, K., Rohrmann, B., & Eppel, T. (1986). A psychological study on the cognitive structure of risk evaluations. In B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens, & G. Sevon (Eds.), New directions in research on decision making. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredahl, L. (1999). Consumers’ cognitions with regards to genetically modified foods, results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite, 33, 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman, N. C., Vazquez, E. L., & Dorantes, G. (2009). An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science, 47, 686–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS, basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E., & McIver, J. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement-current issues. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Watch: Level 1, practice usual precautions, update: Dengue in tropical and subtropical regions. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/watch/dengue-tropical-sub-tropical.htm (13.5.2013).

  • Chen, M. F., & Li, H. L. (2007). The consumers’ attitude toward genetically modified food in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 662–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chern, W. S., Richertsen, K., Tsuboi, N., & Fu, T. T. (2002). Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for genetically modified vegetables oil and salmon: A multiple country assessment. AgBioForum, 5(3), 105–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, M. W., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. (2000). Ethics and genetically modified crops. A brief for the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification of New Zealand, 8 October 2000.

  • Consumer Association of Penang. 10 things you should know about GM mosquitoes. http://www.consumer.org.my/index.php/focus/gm-mosquito/394-10-things-you-should-know-about-gm-mosquitoes (14.3.2013).

  • Costa-Font, M., & Gil, J. M. (2009). Structural equation modeling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study. Food Quality and Preference, 20(6), 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 15 (pp. 359–373). Sage publications: Newbury Park and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Valdez, M. R. W., Nimmo, D., Betz, J., Gong, H. F., James, A. A., Alphey, L., et al. (2011). Genetic elimination of dengue vector mosquitoes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(12), 4772. doi:10.1073/pnas.1019295108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Biosafety, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2010). Approval for field trial: Limited-mark-release-recapture of Aedes aegypti (L.) Wild Type and OX513A(My1) Strains. http://www.biosafety.nre.gov.my/country_decision/app_ft.shtml (6.3.2013).

  • Dyck, V. A., Hendrichs, J., & Robinson, A. S. (2005). Sterile insect technique: Principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T. C. & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Praeger (Westport, Conn.). ISBN 0275948455.

  • Einsiedel, E. F. (1997). Biotechnology and the Canadian public: Report on a 1997 National survey and some international comparisons. Alberta: University of Calgary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel, E. F. (2000). Cloning and its discontents—a Canadian perspective. Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 943–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. (2011). Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(4), 707–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, P., Read, S., & Combs, B. (2004). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risk and benefits. The perception of risk. Risk, society and policy series. London and Sterling: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Aaron, I. (1998). Consumers acceptance of transgenic crops. Pesticide Science, 52, 338–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., Downs, C., & Bredahl, L. (2000). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: Effects of different information strategies, Working Paper. MAPP, Aarhu, 71.

  • Furedi, F. (1997). Culture of fear. Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. London-New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0, 2nd edn. Report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the Project. Life Sciences in European Society, QLG7-CT: 1999–2086.

  • Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., Fischler, C., Jackson, J., Kronberger, N., Hampel, J., Mejlgaard, N., Quintanilha, A., Rammer, A., Revuelta, G., Stoneman, P., Torgersen, H., Wagner, W. (2010). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010—winds of change?. A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_winds_en.pdf.

  • Ghasemi, S., Karami, E., & Azadi, H. (2012). Knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions of agricultural professional towards genetically modified (GM) foods: A case study in Southwest Iran. Science and Engineering Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9383-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golob, T. F. (2003). Structural equation modelling for travel behaviour research. Transport Research Part B, 37, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gott, M., & Monamy, V. (2004). Ethics and transgenesis: Toward a policy framework incorporating intrinsic objections and societal perceptions. ATLA, 32(Supplement 1), 391–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen, N., Poulsen, J., Ueland, O., & Astrom, A. (2000). Consumer perception of food products involving genetic modification: Results from a qualitative study in four nordic countries (Work. Rep. No. 72). MAPP, Aarhus.

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamstra, A. (1992). Consumer research on biotechnology. In Biotechnology in Public:A review of recent research. Science Museum: London. (pp 42–51).

  • Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandoe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41(2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haro, M. N. (2012) Sustainability aspects of applying GMOs in aquaculture. FNI report, 7/2012: (pp 1–71).

  • Hebden, W. C., Hyun K. S., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Consumer responses to GM foods: Why are Americans so different?. 4th Quarter 2005: 20(4) http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2005-4/GMOs/2005-4-06.htm (18.3.2013).

  • Hoang, K. P., Andreasen, M. H., Burton, R. S., Vass, C., Epton, M. J., Pape, G., et al. (2007). Late-acting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biology, 5, 11. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-5-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, F.O, Benjamin, O., Adesoji, A., Brian, S., & Hallman, W. (2002). Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology: Willingness to buy genetically modified food product. A working paper, Food Policy Institute. June 2002.

  • House, L. O., Lusk, J. L., Jaeger, S. R., Traill, W. B., Moore, M., Valli, C., et al. (2004). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and The European Union. AgBioForum, 7, 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INRA (Europe) & Marlier. (1993). Eurobarometer 39.1. Biotechnology and genetic engineering: What the Europeans think about it in 1993. Report for the European Comission, DGX11 Science, Research and Development Unit X11/E/1:Biotechnologies.

  • Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Lang (Eds.), Testing structural equation models Newbury Park (pp. 294–316). CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Sci. Software Int.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamaldeen, S., & Powell, D. A. (2000). Public perceptions of biotechnology. Food safety network technical report #17, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph.

  • Kelley, J. (1995). Public perceptions of genetic engineering: Australia, 1994. Final report to the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, May 1995. http://www.dist.gov.au/pubs/reports/genengin/content.html (16.3.2011).

  • Kirk, S. F. L., Greenwood, D., Cade, J. E., & Pearman, A. D. (2002). Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 38(3), 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacroix, R., McKemey, A. R., Raduan, N., Kwee Wee, L., Hong Ming, W., et al. (2012). Open field release of genetically engineered sterile male Aedes aegypti in Malaysia. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42771. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisinger, K. M. (2007). Ethical and ecological aspects of industrial property rights in the context of genetic engineering and biotechnology. Annual Review Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture.

  • Levy, J. P., & Varela, J. (2003). Analisis Multivariable para las Ciencias Sociales. Madrid: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luque, T. (2000). Tecnicas de analisis de datos en investigacion de mercados. Madrid: Piramide.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macer, D. R. J. (2000). Bioethics: Perceptions of biotechnology and policy implications. International Journal of Biotechnology, 3, 116–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macer, D. R. J., Azariah, J., & Srinitives, P. (2000). Attitudes to biotechnology in Asia. International Journal of Biotechnology, 2, 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahani, M., Othman, H., & Atikah, N. (2012). Ecology Survey on Aedes Mosquito in Senawang, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. Sains Malaysiana, 41(2), 261–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides, G. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (1996). Advanced structural equation modelling. Mahnwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlier, E. (1992). Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology in 1991. In J. K. Durant (Ed.), Biotechnology in public. A review of recent research (pp. 52–108). London: Science Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Mc Donald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menozzi, D., Mora, C., & Merigo, A. (2012). Genetically modified salmon for dinner? Transgenic salmon marketing scenarios. AgBioForum., 15(3), 276–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Health Malaysia. (2012). Press released of the Director General of Health Malaysia. www.moh.gov.my/attachments/6981 (9.3.2013).

  • Mousson, L., Dauga, C., Garrigues, T., Schaffner, F., Vazeille, M., & Failloux, A. (2005). Phylogeography of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (L.) and Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse) (Diptera: Culicidae) based on mitochondrial DNA variations. Genetics Research, 86(1), 1–11. doi:10.1017/S0016672305007627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxitec. (2013a). RIDL, SIT and Dengue Fever. http://www.oxitec.com/news-and-views/topic-pages-safety-and-sustainability/ridl-sit-and-dengue-fever/ (6.3.2013).

  • Oxitec. (2013a). Benefits of RIDL. http://www.oxitec.com/ridl-science/benefits-of-ridl/ (6.3.2013).

  • Oxitec. (2013c). More on the science: how does oxitec make genetically modified mosquitoes?. http://www.oxitec.com/oxitec-video/more-on-the-science-how-does-oxitec-make-genetically-modified-mosquitoes/ (6.3.2013).

  • Pardo, R., Midden, C., & Miller, J. D. (2002). Attitudes towards biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology, 98, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J. R. (2003). Perception: Overview. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science, 3 (pp. 527–537). London: Nature Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H. (2000). US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 939–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, R. G., Denton, J. A., Santucci, F., Bryk, J., & Reed, F. A. (2012). Scientific standards and the regulation of genetically modified insects. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 6(1), e1502. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, B. (1994). Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 150–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. (2004). How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable? Trends in Biotechnology, 22(3), 107–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, L. (2004). Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology, EMBO Report 5(special issue), S47–S51.

  • Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption. Risk Analysis, 14, 799–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Canadian Trade Comissioner Service. (2006). Welcome kit—Malaysia. http://www.infoexport.gc.ca/en/DisplayDocument.jsp?did=9056.

  • The Star Online. (2011). A quiet release by Tan Shiow Chin. Published on January 30, 2011. http://thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2011/1/30/health/7886740&sec=health (13.3.2013).

  • Third World Network. (2010). Genetically engineered Aedes aegypti mosquitoes: Are there risks? 13th December 2010. http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/8147755984d0e21def079c.doc (14.3.2013).

  • Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. National Academy of Science. (2013). Compatibility of science and religion. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html (1.4.2014).

  • Vreysen, M. J. B., Robinson, A. S., & Hendrichs, J. (2007). Area-wide control of insect pests, from research to field implementation (p. 789). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2009). Dengue Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention and Control. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 92-4-154787-1. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications//9789241547871_eng.pdf (5.3.2013).

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for supporting this research under the UKMAP-CMNB-21-2009/1 and ERGS/1/2013/SSI12/UKM/02/1 grants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for General Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

    Latifah Amin

  2. The Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

    Hasrizul Hashim

Authors
  1. Latifah Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hasrizul Hashim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Latifah Amin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amin, L., Hashim, H. Factors Influencing Stakeholders Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Aedes Mosquito. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 655–681 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9557-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9557-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation