n 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 percent of its members agreed that genetically modified foods were safe to consume compared to only 37 percent 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.
