A frequent expert assumption is that the public will consider cisgenics more “natural” and therefore more acceptable than transgenics. Experimental (Studies 1 and 2) and representative survey (Eurobarometer) data highlight that public concerns indeed are stronger when the boundaries of species are crossed. However, genetic combinations that could come into existence naturally are not always considered unproblematic. Human intervention in the process amplifies concern while familiarity with the method and its products explains little of the variance. Although cisgenics is more supported than transgenics, a majority of respondents across countries considers cisgenic products to be genetically modified food that must be labeled.

background

Ontological Relativity and Other Essays

How Natural Is “More Natural”? The Role of Method, Type of Transfer, and Familiarity for Public Perceptions of Cisgenic and Transgenic Modification

Developments and Debates in the Historiography of Philosophy

Non-reductive Physicalism, Irreducibility of the Mental and the Problem of Mental Causation : A study of Donald Davidson's and Georg Henrik von Wright's positions in the philosophy of mind

Ontological Relativity and Other Essays

Citations

How Natural Is “More Natural”? The Role of Method, Type of Transfer, and Familiarity for Public Perceptions of Cisgenic and Transgenic Modification

Developments and Debates in the Historiography of Philosophy

Non-reductive Physicalism, Irreducibility of the Mental and the Problem of Mental Causation : A study of Donald Davidson's and Georg Henrik von Wright's positions in the philosophy of mind

The Prevention and Treatment of Gambling Disorders: Some Art, Some Science

Induction, Samples, and Kinds

Related Papers (5)

Word and Object

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Naming and Necessity

Two Dogmas of Empiricism

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature