The more that people know about gene editing, the more likely they are to feel it is safe to use in agriculture and medicine, according to a survey of more than 4,500 people across the United States.
While there is a technical difference between “gene editing” and “genetic modification,” also known as transgenics, people often lump the two biotechnologies together as genetic engineering. Gene editing does not introduce new biology to a genotype like gene modification.
Brandon McFadden, Tyson Endowed Chair in Food Policy Economics for the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, was the lead author of a peer-reviewed study to find out more about the opinions of consumers in the United States on the safety of gene editing in agricultural and medical fields.
The research, which analyzed surveys taken in 2021 and 2022, was published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology this year.
“People who have heard or read a lot about gene editing generally have a favorable opinion about using it for agricultural or medical purposes,” McFadden said. “So, people who are less familiar with gene editing are likelier to think it is unsafe.”
The study, McFadden noted, showed that people who are not as familiar with gene editing are more likely to think it is unsafe, and they require more evidence to change their minds. That evidence could come from either more studies or time without a negative outcome.
The surveys showed that, on average, people with a negative opinion of gene editing’s safety need around 100 studies, or 20 years, to improve their opinion about the safety of gene editing.
However, McFadden noted that many people may never change their minds about the safety of gene editing. More than 10% of respondents stated that no amount of research or time without an adverse outcome would improve their opinion about the safety of gene editing for agriculture and medical products.
Co-author Kathryn A. Stofer, research associate professor in the agricultural education and communication department for UF/IFAS, said the results were enlightening on multiple levels and opens more avenues of research.
“The study sets us up to test explicit messages about the number of studies or years of research on this technology that might help alleviate concerns about safety and support the benefits,” Stofer said.
Kevin M. Folta, UF/IFAS professor in the horticultural sciences department, said better perceptions of gene editing are associated with awareness of biotechnology.
“That means scientists need to be engaging in conversations about the successes, like how sickle cell disease may be curable in the next few years,” Folta said. “We used to think that providing more evidence didn’t change opinions, but this work shows maybe we can change public perception if we effectively share the good things we can do with gene editing.”
Difference in gene editing and genetic modification
Gene editing is “the process of precisely changing or deleting a few ‘letters’ of DNA,” the researchers explained in the study. This is different from genetic modification, also known as transgenics, which introduces new biology to a genome.
Both gene editing and gene modification are used in agriculture to develop plant varieties that are more drought tolerant and disease resistant in less time than traditional breeding techniques. The study notes that a lack of proactive public dialogue surrounding the primary introduction of genetically modified organisms “did irreparable damage to the emerging scientific field of genetic engineering,” and that the continued expansion of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields has led many to call for “broad public dialogue” about the technology.
Gene editing in the medical field is also known as “gene therapy” and aims to treat and cure disease or make the body better able to fight disease.
According to the Mayo Clinic, gene therapy “holds promise as a treatment for a wide range of diseases, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS.” Research cited in the McFadden study showed that public opinion on gene editing in the medical field was more supportive for therapeutic uses than aversion for non-disease uses that are cosmetic.
Public opinion varies
Data were collected during two time periods using surveys distributed online by Qualtrics to samples of U.S. adults. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Delaware approved both surveys. Collecting data from two samples allowed researchers to examine the stability of results across groups of respondents and time.
Recent research on public opinion toward the use of biotechnology in agriculture has focused on differences in opinions between the use of gene editing and genetic modification. McFadden noted that studies published in 2019 and 2020 concluded that the public generally supports gene editing in agriculture more than genetic modification.
However, the objective of the new study was to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Another goal of the study was to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact to improve opinions about safety.
Public acceptance seems to be associated with whether the gene editing is done for medical or agricultural purposes. The study noted that when participants in U.S. focus groups were asked what they thought about when hearing the words “gene editing,” the medical field was discussed more frequently and extensively than agriculture.
Researchers pointed out that in 2018 there was an announcement of gene-edited twins in China that increased public awareness of medical applications. Public aversion to the use of related biotechnology in agriculture has also been well-documented, McFadden added, despite support from the scientific community.
For example, he pointed to a 2014 Pew Research survey of U.S. adults and researchers affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science estimating that 88% of its members agreed that genetically modified foods were safe to consume compared to only 37% of adults.
Results from the study indicate that people in the U.S. who are familiar with gene editing, or do not hold a negative opinion about safety, required less evidence to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing. On average, respondents in both samples were more familiar with gene editing in agriculture and more likely to have a positive opinion about its use in agriculture than for medical purposes.
“When we have a negative opinion about something, we should maybe ask ourselves what would cause us to change our minds,” McFadden said.
More information: Brandon R. McFadden et al, U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (2024). DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1340398
Provided by University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture
![](https://www.nanoappsmedical.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/spacer.jpg)
News
Ethics in Nanomedicine: Key Issues and Principles
Nanomedicine, a branch of nanotechnology, is revolutionizing healthcare by enabling the manipulation of materials at the nanoscale to diagnose, treat, and prevent diseases. Unlike traditional treatments, nanoparticles (NPs) are highly precise in targeting diseased [...]
A call for robust H5N1 influenza preparedness and response
As the global threat of H5N1 influenza looms with outbreaks across species and continents including the U.S., three international vaccine and public health experts say it is time to fully resource and support a [...]
Mucosal COVID-19 boosters outperform mRNA shots in preventing upper airway infections
In a recent study published in Nature Immunology, a team of researchers from the United States used non-human primate models to compare the protection conferred by an intramuscular booster dose of the bivalent messenger ribonucleic acid [...]
How Space Travel Really Changes Astronauts – From the Inside Out
International team reveals previously unknown effects on physiology that could shape the future of long-duration space missions. Researchers have discovered significant changes in the gut microbiome due to spaceflight, which affects host physiology and [...]
Breakthrough in blood stem cell development offers hope for leukemia and bone marrow failure
Melbourne researchers have made a world first breakthrough into creating blood stem cells that closely resemble those in the human body. And the discovery could soon lead to personalized treatments for children with leukemia [...]
Scientists Develop Game-Changing Needle-Free COVID-19 Intranasal Vaccine
A new mucosal COVID-19 vaccine poised to revolutionize the delivery process is especially beneficial for those with a fear of needles. A next-generation COVID-19 mucosal vaccine is set to be a game-changer not only when delivering [...]
Scientists Develop All-in-One Solution To Catch and Destroy “Forever Chemicals”
A new water treatment system developed by UBC researchers efficiently removes and destroys PFAS pollutants using a dual-action catalyst, offering a sustainable and cost-effective solution for water purification challenges. Chemical engineers at the University of [...]
New method accelerates drug discovery from years to months
Researchers from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children's Hospital have found a new method to increase both speed and success rates in drug discovery. The study, published Aug. 30 in [...]
A new smart mask analyzes your breath to monitor your health
Your breath can give away a lot about you. Each exhalation contains all sorts of compounds, including possible biomarkers for disease or lung conditions, that could give doctors a valuable insight into your health. [...]
Study reveals the role of blood clotting in COVID-19
In a study that reshapes what we know about COVID-19 and its most perplexing symptoms, scientists have discovered that the blood coagulation protein fibrin causes the unusual clotting and inflammation that have become hallmarks [...]
A Novel Cancer Vaccine Combining Nano-11 and ADU-S100
In a recent article published in npj Vaccines, researchers detailed the development of a novel cancer vaccine that combines a plant-derived nanoparticle adjuvant, Nano-11, with a clinically tested STING agonist, ADU-S100. The primary objective was [...]
AI spots cancer and viral infections with nanoscale precision
Researchers have developed an artificial intelligence which can differentiate cancer cells from normal cells, as well as detect the very early stages of viral infection inside cells. The findings, published today in a study [...]
Tiny shards of plastic are increasingly infiltrating our brains, study says
Human brain samples collected at autopsy in early 2024 contained more tiny shards of plastic than samples collected eight years prior, according to a preprint posted online in May. A preprint is a study which has not yet [...]
Scientists Have Discovered Strange DNA in Our Brains – and It Could Be Shortening Our Lives
According to the research, these mitochondrial DNA insertions could be linked to early death. Mitochondria in brain cells frequently insert their DNA into the nucleus, potentially impacting lifespan, as those with more insertions were found to [...]
Watch Out After a Hospital Stay: You Could Be Exposing Your Family to Superbugs
Research indicates hospitals contribute to the local spread of antibiotic-resistant infections. A recent study published in the journal Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America suggests that family members of [...]
Molecular Trickery: How COVID-19 Silently Sabotages the Human Immune System
Researchers have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 manipulates the human immune system by forcing cells to produce non-functional proteins, hindering the body’s antiviral defenses. This groundbreaking study by teams from prestigious Brazilian universities highlights potential targets for new COVID-19 treatments, [...]