Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology
Abstract
Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food-related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Emphasis on the benefits of GMOs would effectively induce sympathy.
“Although GMOs are at a disadvantage because they are commonly associated 211 with unnaturalness and trigger disgust, emphasis on the benefits would effectively induce 212 sympathy [37,47].”
From Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition (2015) · cites this paper as [37]
Cites
1 retracted
Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.
GASKELL, G. D., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., et al. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
RetractedSlovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271 · see citing works
Self-citationLoewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 · Cited by 5,955 · see citing works
How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. W., & Combs, B. (1978) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf00143739 · Cited by 2,838 · see citing works
Self-citationPerceived risk, trust, and democracy
Slovic, P. (1993) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x · Cited by 1,946 · see citing works
Self-citationPerception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · Cited by 1,400 · see citing works
Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0445-4_9 · Cited by 1,301 · see citing works
Self-citationA Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit
Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x · Cited by 1,151 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology
Siegrist, M. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020 · Cited by 1,100 · see citing works
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1981) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2168-0_17 · Cited by 712 · see citing works
Self-citationPerceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste
Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.254.5038.1603 · Cited by 684 · see citing works
Self-citationWhat Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., HEDDERLEY, D. I., & Shepherd, R. (1996) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x · Cited by 670 · see citing works
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979) · Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1080/00139157.1979.9933091 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Self-citationIntuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x · Cited by 468 · see citing works
Self-citationFACTS AND FEARS: UNDERSTANDING PERCEIVED RISK.
Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980) · Health Physics · doi:10.1097/00004032-198012000-00025 · Cited by 443 · see citing works
Self-citationBiotechnology and the European public
GASKELL, G. D., Allum, N., Bauer, M. W., et al. (2000) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/79403 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
SPARKS, P. B., & Shepherd, R. (1994) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00291.x · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/016224399702200105 · Cited by 325 · see citing works
A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1
Siegrist, M. (1999) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x · Cited by 298 · see citing works
SPARKS, P. B., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1995) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1603_1 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Biotechnology in the public sphere: a European sourcebook.
Durant, J. M., Bauer, M. W., & GASKELL, G. D. (1998) · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust
Sjöberg, L. (2001) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.211101 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study
Fife‐Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. (1996) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.212116 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Biotechnology 1996-1999 : the years of controversy
GASKELL, G. D., & Bauer, M. W. (2001) · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada
Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D. R., et al. (1995) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Self-citationDecidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Self-citationCredibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests
Jungermann, H., Pfister, H., & Fischer, K. (1996) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01455.x · Cited by 142 · see citing works
What the Public Thinks About Biotechnology
Zechendorf, B. (1994) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0994-870 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
The Allegedly Simple Structure of Experts’ Risk Perception: An Urban Legend in Risk Research
Sjöberg, L. (2002) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/016224302236176 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Wright, G., Pearman, A. D., & Yardley, K. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205061 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
"Expertise and regional differences in risk perception: the case of Italy".
Savadori, L., R., R., & Bonini, N. (1998) · Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citationRisk ‐ two views: the public’s and the experts’
Kletz, T. (1996) · Disaster Prevention and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/09653569610127442 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Sound science, problematic publics? Contrasting representations of risk and uncertainty
GASKELL, G. D., & Allum, N. (2001) · Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Lichtenberg, J., & MacLean, D. (1992) · The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Issues and Practice · doi:10.1057/gpp.1992.26 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition
Blancke, S., Van Breusegem, F., De Jaeger, G., Braeckman, J., & Van Montagu, M. (2015) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
- Authors
- Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Trento (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Savadori, Lucia
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1289-1299
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2047045580
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 34.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
- Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
- Keywords
- food biotechnology, medical biotechnology, scientific knowledge, familiarity, risk communication, risk management
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Biotechnology, Expert Testimony, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, Food, Genetically Modified
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
