21 pages., via online journal., Scholars are divided over whether communicating to the public the existence
of scientific consensus on an issue influences public acceptance of the
conclusions represented by that consensus. Here, we examine the
influence of four messages on perception and acceptance of the scientific
consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): two
messages supporting the idea that there is a consensus that GMOs are safe
for human consumption and two questioning that such a consensus exists.
We found that although participants concluded that the pro-consensus
messages made stronger arguments and were likely to be more
representative of the scientific community’s attitudes, those messages did
not abate participants’ concern about GMOs. In fact, people’s premanipulation attitudes toward GMOs were the strongest predictor of of our outcome variables (i.e. perceived argument strength, post-message GMO
concern, perception of what percent of scientists agree). Thus, the results
of this study do not support the hypothesis that consensus messaging
changes the public’s hearts and minds, and provide more support, instead,
for the strong role of motivated reasoning.
15 pages., via online journal., Genetically modified organisms have been at the centre of a major public controversy, involving different interests and actors. While much attention has been devoted to consumer views on genetically modified food, there have been few attempts to understand the perceptions of genetically modified technology among farmers. By investigating perceptions of genetically modified organisms among Brazilian farmers, we intend to contribute towards filling this gap and thereby add the views of this stakeholder group to the genetically modified debate. A comparative analysis of our data and data from other studies indicate there is a complex variety of views on genetically modified organisms among farmers. Despite this diversity, we found variations in such views occur within limited parameters, concerned principally with expectations or concrete experiences regarding the advantages of genetically modified crops, perceptions of risks associated with them, and ethical questions they raise. We then propose a classification of prevailing profiles to represent the spectrum of perceptions of genetically modified organisms among farmers.
15 pages., via online journal, Genetic modification (GM) science has received considerable pushback from consumers despite the research finding GM products are safe for consumption. This may be partly due to the disconnect between consumers and farms since most consumers are disconnected from the farm by at least three generations. The largest consumer population is composed of millennials, which is the generation furthest removed from the farm which may mean they need to be educated differently about GM science than other generations. The purpose of this research was to determine if there were generational differences regarding the perceived attributes of GM science to inform the development of extension programs designed to educate consumers about GM science. A survey was used to collect consumers’ perceptions of GM science. The respondents were grouped into generational classifications and perceptions between groups were compared. The findings revealed generations do perceived GM science differently and extension programs should be designed for specific generational audiences.
3 pages., via online journal, This study is motivated by the importance of communication with societal stakeholders when food is involved. This case adopts an internal view of Monsanto's challenge of engaging with consumers and the broader public when discussing biotechnologies and specifically, genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Multiple interviews were conducted at Monsanto's world headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, to understand the challenges within the organization in terms of their public persona and why and how they want to change it.
28 pages, via online journal, While uncertainty is central to science, many fear negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainties to the public, though research results about such effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we test the effects of four distinct uncertainty frame types (deficient, technical, scientific, consensus) on three outcomes (belief, credibility, behavioral intentions) across three science issues (climate change, GMO food labeling, machinery hazards) with an experiment using a national sample (N = 2,247) approximating U.S. census levels of age, education, and gender. We find portraying scientific findings using uncertainty frames usually does not have significant effects, with an occasional exception being small negative effects of consensus uncertainty.
