Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1241–1256 | Cite as

Public perspectives on genetic biocontrol technologies for controlling invasive fish

  • Leah M. SharpeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Understanding people’s knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about genetic biocontrol can help researchers understand the challenges and opportunities that may be encountered during development of these technologies. This study conducted eight focus groups in the United States Great Lakes and Lake Champlain region to assess different stakeholders’ views about genetic biocontrol technology, factors affecting whether or not they support its use, and recommendations on how to proceed with its development. Stakeholders were excited about having a new invasive species control tool, but they were deeply concerned about potential unintended consequences. The primary concerns relate to ecological impacts, along with the cost of development and the possibility that such efforts will distract from other, ongoing control work. Participants made a number of recommendations to genetic biocontrol developers, including setting up regulatory systems, conducting independent cost benefit analyses and risk assessments, and engaging stakeholders throughout the development process.

Keywords

Invasive species Genetic biocontrol Stakeholder engagement Genetic modification Aquatic invasive species 

Supplementary material

10530_2013_545_MOESM1_ESM.docx (175 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 174 kb)

References

  1. Allendorf FW (1991) Ecological and genetic effects of fish introductions: synthesis and recommendations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:178–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bäckstrand K (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob Environ Polit 3:24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benfey T (2010) Use of triploidy for biocontrol of invasive species. Presentation at the international symposium on genetic biocontrol of invasive fish, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown P, Walker P (2004) CARPSIM: stochastic simulation modelling of wild carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) population dynamics, with applications for pest control. Ecol Model 176:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulow FJ, Webb MA, Crumby WD, Quisenberry SS (1988) Effectiveness of fish barrier dam in limiting movements of rough fishes from a reservoir into a tributary system. N Am J Fish Manage 8:273–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byers PY, Wilcox JR (1991) Focus groups: a qualitative opportunity for researchers. J Bus Commun 28:63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotton S, Wedekind C (2007) Control of introduced species using Trojan sex chromosomes. Trends Ecol Evol 22:441–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 15:226–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher N, Cribb J (2005) Monitoring community attitudes to using gene technology methods (daughterless carp) for managing common carp. Cooperative Research Center for Pest Animal Control, ValuemetricsGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402:C81–C84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbs GR (2002) Qualitative data analysis: explorations with NVIVO. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  12. Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kapuscinski AR, Patronski TJ (2005) Genetic methods for biological control of non-native fish in the Gila River Basin. Contract report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. University of Minnesota, Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability, St. Paul, Minnesota. Minnesota Sea Grant Publication F 20Google Scholar
  14. Krueger R, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 3rd edn. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  15. Ludwig D (2001) The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4:758–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marking LL (1992) Evaluation of toxicants for the control of carp and other nuisance fishes. Fisheries 17:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muir WM, Howard RD (1999) Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:13853–13856PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Otts SS (2013) U.S. regulatory framework for genetic biocontrol of invasive fish. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0327-5
  20. Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal 17:43–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pramualratana A, Havanon N, Knodel J (1985) Exploring the normative basis for age at marriage in Thailand: an example from focus group research. J Marriage Fam 47:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salwasser H (2002) Navigating through the wicked messiness of natural resource problems: roles for science, coping strategies, and decision analysis. Sierra Science Symposium. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/science/salwasser-wickedproblems/. Accessed 11 Nov 2011
  24. Schot J (2001) Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technol Anal Stateg Manage 13:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwartz FJ (1986) A leadless stackable trap for harvesting common carp. N Am J Fish Manage 6:596–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:698–701Google Scholar
  28. Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO 10:S18–S22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thresher RE (2008) Autocidal technology for the control of invasive species. Fisheries 33:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thresher RE, Kuris AM (2004) Options for managing invasive marine species. Biol Invasions 6:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verrill DD, Berry CR Jr (1995) Effectiveness of an electrical barrier and lake drawdown for reducing common carp and bigmouth buffalo abundances. N Am J Fish Manage 15:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Conservation Biology Graduate ProgramUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations