U.S. Public Opinion on the Safety of Gene Editing in the Agriculture and Medical Fields

The Problem

Implementation of gene editing in agriculture and medicine hinges on public opinion. A lack of proactive public dialogue surrounding the primary introduction of genetically modified organisms damaged the emerging scientific field of genetic engineering. The continued expansion of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields has led many to call for “broad public dialogue” about the technology.

The Work

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. Co-authors included Kathryn A. Stofer and Kevin M. Folta with the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and Joy N. Rumble, now with The Ohio State University.

Two surveys were conducted in 2021 and 2022 with more than 4,500 people across the United States with support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture through its Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants program. Data were collected 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.

The Results

The study 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. More than 10 percent 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.

People who were more familiar with gene editing were also more likely to have an opinion about safety, and more positive about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural field than in the medical field.

The Value

The findings add to the literature examining perceptions of gene editing in the agricultural or medical fields separately. The results support a proactive approach for effective communication strategies to inform the public about the use of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields.

About the Researcher