Search

    Start Over Subject Term UK Subject Term non-governmental organizations Within Last x Years within 10 Years

    1. Climate change on Twitter: topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group I Report

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Pearce, Warren (author), Holmberg, Kim (author), Helisten, Iina (author), and Nerlich, Brigitte (author)
    Format:
    Journal article abstract
    Publication Date:
    2014-04
    Published:
    International
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 138 Document Number: D05698
    Journal Title:
    PLoS ONE
    Journal Title Details:
    9, 1-11
    Notes:
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 3 pages.

    2. Genome-edited versus genetically-modifed tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Bearth, Angela (author), Kaptan, Gulbanu (author), and Kessler, Sabrina Heike (author)
    Format:
    Journal article
    Publication Date:
    2022-03-22
    Published:
    USA: Springer
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12625
    Journal Title:
    Agriculture and Human Values
    Journal Title Details:
    V. 39
    Notes:
    15 pgs, Biotechnology might contribute to solving food safety and security challenges. However, gene technology has been under public scrutiny, linked to the framing of the media and public discourse. The study aims to investigate people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology with focus on transgenic genetic modification versus genome editing. An online experiment was conducted with participants from the United Kingdom (n = 490) and Switzerland (n = 505). The participants were presented with the topic of food biotechnology and more specifically with experimentally varied vignettes on transgenic and genetic modification and genome editing (scientific uncertainty: high vs. low, media format: journalistic vs. user-generated blog). The results suggest that participants from both countries express higher levels of acceptance for genome editing compared to transgenic genetic modification. The general and personal acceptance of these technologies depend largely on whether the participants believe the application is beneficial, how they perceive scientific uncertainty, and the country they reside in. Our findings suggest that future communication about gene technology should focus more on discussing trade-offs between using an agricultural technologies and tangible and relevant benefits, instead of a unidimensional focus on risk and safety.