Summary: Public acceptance of CRISPR and other genome-editing methods in agriculture depends strongly on purpose and species. People are more accepting when editing is used to increase disease resistance, particularly in crops, and less accepting when edits aim to boost production or alter livestock for yield.
Source: University of Göttingen
A research collaboration between the University of Göttingen (Germany) and the University of British Columbia (Canada) examined how citizens in five countries view different agricultural applications of genome editing, including CRISPR.
The study explored which specific applications of genome editing people find acceptable and how they assess the risks and benefits of these new breeding technologies. The research surveyed opinions across Germany, Italy, Canada, Austria and the United States to identify common patterns and national differences in attitudes toward genome editing in food production.
Across all surveyed countries, respondents were more likely to approve genome edits in plants than in animals. Acceptance also varied significantly with the purpose of the modification: edits aimed at disease resistance received higher approval than edits aimed at increasing product quantity or altering product quality in livestock.
The study appears in the journal Agriculture and Human Values.
New breeding technologies such as CRISPR-Cas systems make precise genetic changes possible and offer new options for plant and animal improvement. In the European Union, these technologies are regulated under genetic engineering laws and face strict controls. Public debate over the use of gene editing in food systems remains lively and sometimes polarized.
Between June and November 2019, researchers gathered responses from approximately 3,700 participants via online surveys. The survey presented five different hypothetical applications of genome editing: three scenarios involved introducing disease resistance in humans, crops, or animals; two scenarios involved modifying cattle to improve either product quality or production quantity.
“The intended purpose of the genetic change strongly influenced people’s judgments,” says Dr. Gesa Busch of the University of Göttingen, first author of the study. “When gene editing was framed as a way to increase disease resistance in animals, respondents showed greater approval than when the same techniques were described as increasing yield or output.”
Although overall patterns were similar across countries, notable differences emerged: participants from the United States and Italy tended to be more favorable across scenarios, while Germany and Austria showed greater caution. Nevertheless, all countries ranked the scenarios in the same order of acceptability: disease resistance in humans ranked highest, followed by disease resistance in plants, then in animals, with edits intended to change cattle quality or quantity ranking lowest.
Respondents’ perceptions of risk, benefit, and whether the technology constituted “tampering with nature” shaped their responses. The study also collected demographic information and measured participants’ moral values to better understand what drives acceptance or opposition.
Cluster analysis of responses revealed four distinct groups among participants: strong supporters, supporters, neutrals, and opponents. About 21 percent of respondents were strong supporters who perceived few risks and many benefits. Supporters made up roughly 26 percent and saw benefits alongside risks. Neutrals comprised approximately 29 percent and did not hold a pronounced opinion. Opponents accounted for about 24 percent and perceived high risks, often supporting restrictions or bans regardless of potential benefits.
Funding: The research was supported by the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and Genome BC.
About this CRISPR research news
Source: University of Göttingen
Contact: Melissa Sollich – University of Göttingen
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Open access. “Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose” by Gesa Busch et al., published in Agriculture and Human Values.
Abstract
Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose
Public attitudes influence how genome editing technologies are adopted in food systems. Genome editing can address diverse goals across species—disease resistance, product quality, and production quantity—and public responses may vary with both species and purpose.
This study assessed public reaction to five genome-editing applications that varied by species and intended outcome. Three scenarios described introducing disease resistance in humans, plants, or animals. Two scenarios targeted changes in product quality or quantity in cattle.
Online surveys were conducted in Canada, the United States, Austria, Germany and Italy, with a total of 3,698 participants. Using a between-subjects design, each participant evaluated one scenario and judged whether the application was right or wrong. The survey measured perceived risks and benefits, beliefs about whether the technology tampers with nature, and included demographic and moral-value measures.
Across all countries, respondents rated disease resistance in humans as the most acceptable application, followed by disease resistance in plants, then animals; edits aimed at increasing cattle product quality or quantity were least acceptable. Country-level differences appeared, with U.S. and Italian respondents generally more positive and German and Austrian respondents more cautious. Cluster analysis identified groups of strong supporters, slight supporters, neutrals, and opponents, illustrating varied public positions.
These findings clarify how purpose and species influence public acceptance of genome editing and can inform policy discussions, science communication, and decision-making about the adoption of these technologies in agriculture and food systems.