Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge

This study empirically examined expert and public attitudes toward applying gene editing to agricultural crops compared with attitudes toward other genetic modification and conventional breeding technologies. Regulations regarding the application of gene editing on food are being debated around the world. New policy measures often face issues of public acceptance and consensus formation; however, reliable quantitative evidence of public perception toward such emerging breeding technologies is scarce. To fill this gap, two web-based surveys were conducted in Japan from December 2016 to February 2017. Participants (N = 3197) were categorised into three groups based on the domain-specific scientific knowledge levels (molecular biology experts, experts in other fields, and lay public). Statistical analysis revealed group differences in risk, benefit, and value perceptions of different technologies. Molecular biology experts had higher benefit and value perceptions, as well as lower risk perceptions regarding new technologies (gene editing and genetic modification). Although the lay public tended to have more favourable attitudes toward gene editing than toward genetic modification, such differences were much smaller than the differences between conventional breeding and genetic modification. The experts in other fields showed some characteristics that are similar to the experts in molecular biology in value perceptions, while showing some characteristics that are similar to the lay public in risk perceptions. The further statistical analyses of lay attitudes revealed the influence of science literacy on attitudinal change toward crops grown with new breeding technologies in benefit perceptions but not in risk or value perceptions. Such results promoted understanding on distinguishing conditions where deficit model explanation types are valid and conditions where they are not.