IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01104-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultures in the laboratory: mapping similarities and differences between Māori and non-Māori in engaging with gene-editing technologies in Aotearoa, New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Lyn Kathlene

    (University of Waikato)

  • Debashish Munshi

    (University of Waikato)

  • Priya Kurian

    (University of Waikato)

  • Sandra L. Morrison

    (University of Waikato)

Abstract

Public engagement on rapidly advancing gene-editing technologies requires attention not merely to science and economics, but also to culture. In focusing on the similarities and differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives on new and emerging genetic technologies, this article reports on a national survey in Aotearoa New Zealand among a stratified random sample of an equal number of Māori and non-Māori participants. Identifying approaches to the experimentation, use, and potential commercialization of genetic technologies, the article moves along the continuum of nuanced cultural insights into gene editing for purposes ranging from human medical treatments and food production to conservation of native species of plants and animals and pest eradication. The development of typologies using K-means cluster analysis reveals the public’s complex responses to genetic modification as well as gene editing. The article signals how recognizing a diversity of values on gene-editing technologies can help shape a robust policy design on the use and regulation of gene technologies in a variety of sectors and contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyn Kathlene & Debashish Munshi & Priya Kurian & Sandra L. Morrison, 2022. "Cultures in the laboratory: mapping similarities and differences between Māori and non-Māori in engaging with gene-editing technologies in Aotearoa, New Zealand," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01104-9
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01104-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01104-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01104-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heidi Ledford & Ewen Callaway, 2020. "Pioneers of revolutionary CRISPR gene editing win chemistry Nobel," Nature, Nature, vol. 586(7829), pages 346-347, October.
    2. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Sheila Jasanoff & J. Benjamin Hurlbut, 2018. "A global observatory for gene editing," Nature, Nature, vol. 555(7697), pages 435-437, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua Farley & Dakota Walker & Bryn Geffert & Nina Chandler & Lauren Eisel & Murray Friedberg & Dominic Portelli, 2024. "Creating a Transnational Green Knowledge Commons for a Socially Just Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Robin Siebert & Christian Herzig & Marc Birringer, 2022. "Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 617-632, June.
    3. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    4. Melanie Goisauf & Kaya Akyüz & Gillian M. Martin, 2020. "Moving back to the future of big data-driven research: reflecting on the social in genomics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Sabina Semiz & Philip C. Aka, 2019. "Precision medicine in the era of CRISPR-Cas9: evidence from Bosnia and Herzegovina," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    7. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Alessandro Natalini & Nazzareno Acciarri & Teodoro Cardi, 2021. "Breeding for Nutritional and Organoleptic Quality in Vegetable Crops: The Case of Tomato and Cauliflower," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, June.
    9. Ujiie, Kiyokazu, 2021. "Discussion: Food Consumption to Embody Multidimensionality: The Role of Information: Viewpoints and Issues," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 23.
    10. Harald König & Martina F. Baumann & Christopher Coenen, 2021. "Emerging Technologies and Innovation—Hopes for and Obstacles to Inclusive Societal Co-Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01104-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.