Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate
Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate
复制标题
为什么理性论证在基因改造（GM）争论中失败了
DOI：
10.1007/s12571-018-0832-1
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
M. Barker
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lucy Mallinson;J. Russell;D. Cameron;J. Ton;P. Horton;M. Barker
农作物的转基因(GM)为实现全球粮食安全所需的农业改良提供了一种方法。然而，公众对转基因食品的反对是巨大的。这场辩论倾向于冒着沟通的风险，但在这里，我们通过对具有全国代表性的英国成年人的大量样本的研究表明，公众对转基因食品的接受有社会、文化和情感背景。回归模型显示，对食品神圣性的形而上学信念和对转基因食品的情绪厌恶是主要的负面决定因素，而对科学价值的信仰和对转基因食品的风险益处的有利评价是次要的积极决定因素。尽管机构信任、对转基因食品辩论的一般了解以及对转基因食品生态友好性的信念都与接受程度有关，但它们的影响很小。虽然对食品的神圣性的信念对转基因的接受有直接的反作用，但对科学价值的信念在很大程度上是通过对益处对风险的有利认知来实现的。此外，细分分析表明，对转基因食品的焦虑有社会和文化因素，白人男性最不焦虑，年长的素食女性最焦虑。仅就转基因食品的风险和好处进行理性论证不太可能改变公众对转基因技术的看法。
Genetic modification (GM) of crops provides a methodology for the agricultural improvements needed to deliver global food security. However, public opposition to GM-food is great. The debate has tended to risk communication, but here we show through study of a large nationally representative sample of British adults that public acceptance of GM-food has social, cultural and affective contexts. Regression models showed that metaphysical beliefs about the sanctity of food and an emotional dislike of GM-food were primary negative determinants, while belief in the value of science and favourable evaluation of the benefits-to-risks of GM-food were secondary positive determinants. Although institutional trust, general knowledge of the GM-food debate and belief in the eco-friendliness of GM-food were all associated with acceptance, their influence was minor. While a belief in the sanctity of food had a direct inverse effect on GM acceptance, belief in the value of science was largely mediated through favourable perception of benefits-to-risks. Furthermore, segmentation analysis demonstrated that anxiety about GM-food had social and cultural antecedents, with white men being least anxious and older vegetarian women being most anxious. Rational argument alone about the risks and benefits of GM-food is unlikely to change public perceptions of GM-technology.