Abstract
The development of genetic engineering and its plausible consequences raises a level of controversy that can be identified at the level of public rather than scientific debate. Opposition to genetic engineering may manifest itself in rejection of the technology overall, or rejection of specific aspects of the technology, where public attitudes may be defined by a complex set of perceptions incorporating risk, benefit, control, and ethical concerns.
One hundred and seventy six members of the public responded to questionnaires about genetic engineering that were framed in terms of either food production or medical application. The first section assessed perceived risks, benefits, and control of genetic engineering where the targets of the potential application and the location of control were varied. The second section assessed the relationship between objections to application of the technology to different types of organisms (plants, microorganisms, animals, or human genetic material). Questions were directed at either perceived risk or ethical objections. The applications of genetic engineering were seen as riskier and less beneficial when applied to food production than medicine, although perceived control was independent of application. Optimistic bias was observed. Ethical and risk related objections were greater for applications to food than to medicine, and again dependent on the type of organism manipulated. The transfer of genetic material between “dissimilar” types of organism (for example, between plants and animals) were not associated with greater risk or ethical concern than transfers between “similar” types of organism (for example, between animals and animals). The public requirement for legislative control was also dissociated into risk or ethical objections to the technology, and found to be greater for risk-related concerns, although ethical considerations were also important.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, H., “Genetic Engineering: A Discussion Paper. Society, Religion and Technology project,” Edinburgh: Church of Scotland Department of Ministry and Mission, 1989.
Baker, J. A., “Biblical Attitudes to Nature,” inMan and Nature, ed. H. Montefiore, London: Collins, 1975.
Brown, R. S., “The State Role in Regulating Biotechnology,”Policy Studies Journal, 17, (1, 1988): 148–155.
Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, and B. Combs, “How Safe is Safe Enough? A sychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,”Policy Studies, 9 (1978): 127–152.
Fischhoff, B., S. R. Watson, and C. Hope, “Defining Risk,”Policy Sciences, 17 (1984): 123–139.
Fox, M. W., “Genetic Engineering Biotechnology: Animal Welfare and Environmental Concerns,”Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 20 (1988): 83–94.
Frewer, L. J., R. Shepherd, and P. Sparks, “The Interrelationship between Perceived Knowledge, Control and Risk Associated with a Range of Food-Related Hazards targeted at the Individual, Other People, and Society,”Journal of Food Safety, 14 (1994a): 19–40.
Frewer, L. J., R. Shepherd, and P. Sparks, “Biotechnology and Food Production: Knowledge and Perceived Risk,”British Food Journal, 9 (1994b): 26–33.
Godown, R. D., “The Science of Biotechnology,” inPublic Perceptions of Biotechnology, eds. L. R. Batra, and W. Klassen. Maryland: Agricultural Research Institute, Maryland, 1987.
Hamstra, A., “Consumer Research on Biotechnology,” inBiotechnology in Public: A Review of Recent Research, ed. J. Durant, London: Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology, 1992.
Harlander, S. K., “Social, Moral, and Ethical Issues in Food Biotechnology”,Food Technology, (May, 1991): 152–159.
Hoban, T. J. and P. A. Kendall, “Consumer Attitudes about the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production,” North Carolina State University; Raleigh, NC, 1992.
HMSO (1990), “Standard Occupational Classification” Volume 2. Employment Department Group Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HMSO, London, 1990.
Hynes, H. P., “Biotechnology in Agriculture: An Analysis of Selected Technologies and Policy in the United States,”Reproductive and Genetic Engineering, (2/1: 1989), 39–49.
Krimsky, S., “The Cultural and Symbolic Dimensions of Agricultural Biotechnology,” Conference proceedings,Issues in Agricultural Bioethics, Nottingham University, 13th–17th September, 1993.
Polkinghorne, J.,Report of the Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use. London: HMSO, 1993.
RSGB -Research Surveys of Great Britain, 1988. Referred to in Tait, 1990 (ibid.)
Sandman, P.M. “Apathy Versus Hysteria: Public Perception of Risk,” inPublic Perceptions of Biotechnology, eds. L. R. Batra, and W. Klassen. Maryland: Agricultural Research Institute, Maryland, 1987.
Sparks, P. and R. Shepherd, “Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study,”Risk Analysis, 14 (1994): 79–86.
Sparks, P., R. Shepherd, and L. J. Frewer, “Gene Technology, Food Production, and Public Opinion: A UK Study,”Agriculture and Human Values 11, 1 (1994): 19–28.
Sparks, P., R. Shepherd, and L. J. Frewer, “Assessing and Structuring Attitudes Towards the Use of Gene Technology in Food Production: The Role of Perceived Ethical Obligation,”Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 3 (1995):267–285.
Straughan, R.,Ethics, Morality and Crop Biotechnology. Fernhurst, Surrey: ICI Seeds, 1992.
Tait, J., “Public Perception of Biotechnology Hazards,”Journal of Chemical and Technical Biotechnology, 43 (1988): 363–372.
Tait, J., “Biotechnology — Interactions Between Technology, Environment and Society,” Synthesis Report No. 1 project: Biosphere and the economy. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1990.
Taverne, D.,The Case for Biotechnology. London: Prima Europe, 1990.
Thompson, P. B., “Ethics and Agricultural Biotechnology,”Science of Food and Agriculture, 5, 1 (1993): 8–9.
Thompson, P. B., “Risk: Ethical Issues and Values,” in NABC Report 2, Agricultural Biotechnology: Food Safety and Nutritional Quality for the Consumer (ed. J. F. MacDonald), National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, New York, 1990 pp. 204–217.
Weinstein, N. D., “Optimistic Bias in Public Perceptions of the Risk from Radon,”American Journal of Public Health, 78, (1988): 796–800.
Wynne, A., “Frameworks of Rationality in Risk Management: Towards the Testing of Naive Sociology,” inEnvironmental Threats: Perception, Analysis and Management, (ed. J. Brown). London: Belhaven Press, 1989.
Additional information
Lynn Frewer graduated from the University of Bristol in Psychology (B.Sc.), followed by an M.Sc. in Ergonomics from University College London and a Ph.D. in Applied Psychology from Leeds. Her current research interests include risk perceptions and attitudes, public reactions to genetic engineering, and the impact of trust on the effectiveness of risk communication.
Richard Shepherd graduated with an MA from Cambridge in Natural Sciences, followed by a B.Sc. from Cardiff in Psychology and a Ph.D. from Southampton in Psychology. He is currently Head of the Food Choice Section of the Consumers Science Department. His main current research interests are the application of psychological models of attitude and attitude change to food choice, perception of risks associated with foods, and risk communication.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frewer, L.J., Shepherd, R. Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agric Hum Values 12, 48–57 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02218074
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02218074