From the press release:
Researchers from North Carolina State University have conducted the first nationally representative survey in the United States to gauge public opinion on the use of genetic manipulations to drive down mosquito populations and related diseases. While public support varies, depending on how the mosquitoes are characterized, a plurality opposes the effort when potential risks are explained.
“We wanted to know what the public thinks about this issue, since modified mosquitoes are already being released in other parts of the world, and are under consideration for use in the U.S.,” says Dr. Michael Cobb, an associate professor of political science at NC State who oversaw the poll. “We found that giving people accurate information about how this process works increases their support for the concept, but support is also contingent on the label used to describe these mosquitoes.”
The nationally representative survey of 1,211 people was conducted in July and has a sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percent.
At issue is the development and release of genetically modified male mosquitoes. Male mosquitoes do not bite. However, if released in the wild these modified male mosquitoes would mate with wild female mosquitoes and pass on a genetic defect that would cause their offspring to die before reaching maturity – thus driving down the population of wild mosquitoes within a small geographic area. Scientists have stated that the technique holds promise as a means of combating mosquito-borne illnesses such as West Nile virus and dengue fever.
However, there are some questions about unexpected outcomes. For example, if some female offspring survive, would people be more allergic to their bites? Or, if mosquito populations shrink, could a potentially more troublesome species take their place in the ecosystem?
The recent survey finds that public support for the concept hinges, in part, on how it is first presented. For example, among respondents who were told that “sterile” mosquitoes had been bred to control mosquito populations, 42 percent supported releasing the mosquitoes and just 14 percent disagreed. When given more technical information about the concept, support went up to 51 percent – even though the respondents now knew the “sterile” mosquitoes were genetically engineered. Yet, when potential risks were also outlined, the percentage of people who approved of releasing the mosquitoes dropped to 33 percent.
But approval was lower across the board when respondents had the mosquitoes described as “genetically engineered,” “genetically modified” or “transgenic” rather than “sterile.” For example, initial approval of releasing “genetically engineered” mosquitoes was approximately 24 percent, rising to 39 percent when the process was explained. However, that number dropped to 17 percent when potential risks were also introduced.
Interestingly, while the plurality of respondents were neutral regarding the possible release of modified mosquitoes, on average respondents rated the genetic engineering technology as safer than spraying insecticides to kill mosquitoes.
“The survey findings are an excellent example of how public attitudes toward novel scientific innovations are far from fixed,” says Dr. Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication who helped author the survey questions. “But even if people haven’t formed concrete opinions about this technology, that does not diminish the importance of engaging in transparent and honest communication about the nature of the mosquitoes and their potential risks.”
The survey was developed by Cobb, Binder and Dr. Fred Gould, William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor of Entomology at NC State. A complete report of the survey results can be accessed from http://geneticengsoc.ncsu.edu/cccc
Subscribe to XpressMail. Free Sneak Peek. Every Week.
Want to know what's coming out in Xpress this week before the paper even hits the stands?
We've got your free sneak peek, along with deals available in XpressMail, our weekly email newsletter. (It's the best we can do without time travel.)
-
Comments
-
Related Articles
-
Comments
Make a comment
D'oh! I just read The Importance of Bill C-474 and see that Canadian organic cornecns are very similar to US organic cornecns. Complete with the whole silly claim that RR alfalfa will decimate organic farmers nevermind that alfalfa is mostly harvested before flowering. It's clear to me that an organic farmer concerned about cross pollination could just harvest before seed set and their forage would be non-GM. Similar to sugar beets, the only problem would be making sure that seed production of GM and non-GM were kept separate but those sorts of precautions have to be taken anytime seed of a specific variety is desired, so all those protocols are known and already used by seed producers (if they don't use these precautions then their seed won't be able to be certified as purely of the desired variety).This quote is great: “We can’t allow Monsanto’s GM seeds to destroy the livelihoods of farmers and jeopardize the future of organic farming.” Apparently Lucy Sharratt has never heard of other companies large and small including Canadian ones like Okanagan Specialty Fruits that are working on GM traits or government funded research. And apparently she hasn't talked to any farmers who would like the choice to use GM traits. And she doesn't know much about crop biology either.Another quick note about the article It’s a huge mystery as to just how the genetically-modified flax seeds resurfaced after a decade to contaminate the exports. Except that there's a very obvious hypothesis a few farmers didn't turn in all the seed like they were supposed to. The GM trait was probably there all along at low levels but was never tested for. It's so frustrating. I think I've written a blog post for just about every mistaken thing in that article. Anyway, I suppose at least in Canada there is an effort to force the govt to consider economic impact by regulation. In law suit happy US everyone's just suing. Sigh.
By Mary
08/23/2012