Suppr超能文献

公众对应用于养殖场动物的基因组技术的看法:一项定性研究。

Public Perceptions Regarding Genomic Technologies Applied to Breeding Farm Animals: A Qualitative Study.

作者信息

Naab Francis Z, Coles David, Goddard Ellen, Frewer Lynn J

机构信息

School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.

Enhance International, The Bacchus, Elsdon, Newcastle upon Tyne NE19 1AA, UK.

出版信息

BioTech (Basel). 2021 Dec 3;10(4):28. doi: 10.3390/biotech10040028.

Abstract

The societal acceptability of different applications of genomic technologies to animal production systems will determine whether their innovation trajectories will reach the commercialisation stage. Importantly, technological implementation and commercialisation trajectories, regulation, and policy development need to take account of public priorities and attitudes. More effective co-production practices will ensure the application of genomic technologies to animals aligns with public priorities and are acceptable to society. Consumer rejection of, and limited demand for, animal products developed using novel genomic technologies will determine whether they are integration into the food system. However, little is known about whether genomic technologies that accelerate breeding but do not introduce cross-species genetic changes are more acceptable to consumers than those that do. Five focus groups, held in the north east of England, were used to explore the perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the use of genomic technologies in breeding farm animals for the human food supply chain. Overall, study participants were more positive towards genomic technologies applied to promote animal welfare (e.g., improved disease resistance), environmental sustainability, and human health. Animal "disenhancement" was viewed negatively and increased food production alone was not perceived as a potential benefit. In comparison to gene editing, research participants were most negative about genetic modification and the application of gene drives, independent of the benefits delivered.

摘要

基因组技术在动物生产系统中的不同应用的社会可接受性将决定其创新轨迹是否会进入商业化阶段。重要的是,技术实施和商业化轨迹、监管及政策制定需要考虑公众的优先事项和态度。更有效的共同生产实践将确保基因组技术在动物上的应用符合公众优先事项且为社会所接受。消费者对使用新型基因组技术开发的动物产品的抵制和有限需求将决定这些产品是否能融入食品系统。然而,对于加速育种但不引入跨物种基因变化的基因组技术是否比引入此类变化的技术更易为消费者接受,人们所知甚少。在英格兰东北部举行的五个焦点小组会议被用于探究人们对基因组技术在用于人类食品供应链的养殖动物育种中的看法和态度。总体而言,研究参与者对应用于促进动物福利(如提高抗病能力)、环境可持续性和人类健康的基因组技术更为积极。动物“功能减退”被视为负面情况,仅增加食品产量不被视为潜在益处。与基因编辑相比,研究参与者对基因改造和基因驱动的应用最为反感,无论其带来何种益处。

相似文献

2
Public attitudes toward dairy farm practices and technology related to milk production.
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 30;16(4):e0250850. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250850. eCollection 2021.
3
4
Ethics in animal breeding.
Reprod Domest Anim. 2018 Nov;53 Suppl 3:4-13. doi: 10.1111/rda.13335.
5
6
Brazilian Citizens' Opinions and Attitudes about Farm Animal Production Systems.
Animals (Basel). 2017 Sep 28;7(10):75. doi: 10.3390/ani7100075.
8
Genomics applied to livestock and aquaculture breeding.
Evol Appl. 2022 Apr 18;15(4):517-522. doi: 10.1111/eva.13378. eCollection 2022 Apr.
9
Enhancement of Plant Productivity in the Post-Genomics Era.
Curr Genomics. 2016 Aug;17(4):295-6. doi: 10.2174/138920291704160607182507.
10
Invited review: Breeding and ethical perspectives on genetically modified and genome edited cattle.
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Jan;101(1):1-17. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12962. Epub 2017 Nov 6.

引用本文的文献

1
University student perspectives on antimicrobial peptide use in farm animals.
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 5;19(12):e0309986. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309986. eCollection 2024.
2
Public attitudes toward the use of technology to create new types of animals and animal products.
Anim Welf. 2023 Jun 6;32:e43. doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.38. eCollection 2023.
3
Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology.
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 16;18(8):e0290070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290070. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Genome editing for disease resistance in livestock.
Emerg Top Life Sci. 2017 Nov 10;1(2):209-219. doi: 10.1042/ETLS20170032.
2
CRISPR in livestock: From editing to printing.
Theriogenology. 2020 Jul 1;150:247-254. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.01.063. Epub 2020 Jan 29.
3
Does the U.S. public support using gene drives in agriculture? And what do they want to know?
Sci Adv. 2019 Sep 11;5(9):eaau8462. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau8462. eCollection 2019 Sep.
4
Policy Considerations Regarding Genome Editing.
Trends Biotechnol. 2019 Oct;37(10):1029-1032. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.05.005. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
5
Comparison of gene editing versus conventional breeding to introgress the POLLED allele into the US dairy cattle population.
J Dairy Sci. 2019 May;102(5):4215-4226. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15892. Epub 2019 Mar 7.
7
Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems.
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 10;14(1):e0210432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210432. eCollection 2019.
8
Livestock 2.0 - genome editing for fitter, healthier, and more productive farmed animals.
Genome Biol. 2018 Nov 26;19(1):204. doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1583-1.
9
The elephant in the room: How a technology's name affects its interpretation.
Public Underst Sci. 2019 Feb;28(2):218-233. doi: 10.1177/0963662518812295. Epub 2018 Nov 21.
10
CRISPR plants now subject to tough GM laws in European Union.
Nature. 2018 Aug;560(7716):16. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05814-6.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验