The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics
Abstract
The repertory grid method was used to determine what terminology respondents use to distinguish between different applications of genetic engineering drawn from food- related, agricultural, and medical applications. Respondents were asked to react to fifteen applications phrased in general terms, and results compared with a second study where fifteen more specific applications were used as stimuli. Both sets of data were submitted to generalized Procrustes analysis. Applications associated with animals or human genetic material were described as causing ethical concern, being unnatural, harmful, and dangerous. Those involving plants or microorganisms were described as beneficial, progressive, and necessary. The results were validated in survey research, which indicated that general applications ofgenetic engineering were perceived as either positive or negative, whereas specific applications were more highly differentiated in perceptual terms. The results imply that the public debate about genetic engineering must take due account of the complexity of public concerns.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Generalized procrustes analysis
Gower, J. C. (1975) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291478 · Cited by 3,267
Social Problems as Collective Behavior
Blumer, H. (1971) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/799797 · Cited by 1,281
Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: a UK study
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/bf01534445 · Cited by 142
Self-citation
Cited by
Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants
Verbeke, W. (2005) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.01.001 · Cited by 839
Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., & Duelli, S. (2016) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.014 · Cited by 661
What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x · Cited by 668
Self-citationExpert and public perception of risk from biotechnology
Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x · Cited by 341
Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Issues for the future
Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., & Lambert, N. (2003) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/00070700310506263 · Cited by 340
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R.
- Venue
- Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 98-124
- ISSN
- 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8251
- OpenAlex
- W2107928656
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 48.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/016224399702200105
- The paper
- Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399702200105
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
