Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Science, Technology & Human Values
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frewer, L. J.
Right arrow Articles by Shepherd, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics

Lynn J. Frewer

Institute of Food Research, Reading, U.K.

Chaya Howard

Institute of Food Research, Reading, U.K.

Richard Shepherd

Institute of Food Research, Reading, U.K.

The repertory grid method was used to determine what terminology respondents use to distinguish between different applications of genetic engineering drawn from food- related, agricultural, and medical applications. Respondents were asked to react to fifteen applications phrased in general terms, and results compared with a second study where fifteen more specific applications were used as stimuli. Both sets of data were submitted to generalized Procrustes analysis. Applications associated with animals or human genetic material were described as causing ethical concern, being unnatural, harmful, and dangerous. Those involving plants or microorganisms were described as beneficial, progressive, and necessary. The results were validated in survey research, which indicated that general applications ofgenetic engineering were perceived as either positive or negative, whereas specific applications were more highly differentiated in perceptual terms. The results imply that the public debate about genetic engineering must take due account of the complexity of public concerns.

Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 22, No. 1, 98-124 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/016224399702200105
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
R. R. Pin and J. M. Gutteling
The Development of Public Perception Research in the Genomics Field: An Empirical Analysis of the Literature in the Field
Science Communication, September 1, 2009; 31(1): 57 - 83.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
W. Qin and J. L. Brown
Public reactions to information about genetically engineered foods: effects of information formats and male/female differences
Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 2007; 16(4): 471 - 488.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
W. Qin and J. L. Brown
Consumer Opinions about Genetically Engineered Salmon and Information Effect on Opinions: A Qualitative Approach
Science Communication, December 1, 2006; 28(2): 243 - 272.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
R. SCHIBECI and I. BARNS
Gene Technology Communication: Facilitating Public Deliberation of pST Gene Technology
Science Communication, December 1, 1998; 20(2): 204 - 226.
[Abstract]