Scientists study opinions about gene modification, editing

Humans have been manipulating the genes of plants and animals for thousands of years. Through traditional breeding more desired traits were created, but the process took generations of breeding.

That changed in 1973 when biochemists Herbet Boyer and Stanley Cohen created the first genetically modified organism (GMO) by manipulating it on a genetic level, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

GMOs are used in medicine and agriculture and there is often a negative connotation about them, Brandon McFadden, Tyson endowed chair in food policy economics for the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, told Talk Business & Politics. A newer technology, gene editing, has been used for several years in medicine and agriculture, he said.

While there is a technical difference between “gene editing” and “genetic modification,” also known as transgenics, people often lump the two biotechnologies together as genetic engineering. Gene editing does not introduce new biology to a genotype like gene modification, he said.

McFadden was the lead author of a peer-reviewed study to find out more about the opinions of U.S. consumers on the safety of gene editing in agricultural and medical fields. Part of that research included a survey of 4,500 people. The research, which analyzed surveys taken in 2021 and 2022, was published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology this year.

“People who have heard or read a lot about gene editing generally have a favorable opinion about using it for agricultural or medical purposes,” McFadden said. “So, people who are less familiar with gene editing are more likely to think it is unsafe.”

GMOs use an agri-bacterium, or a virus, to introduce a gene modification into a plant or animal. GMOs are heavily regulated. McFadden said it’s no surprise people were more worried about GMOs in the agriculture industry. What did surprise him was many were more worried about gene editing in the medical industry, even though medicines such as insulin use GMOs.

The study, McFadden noted, showed that people who are not as familiar with gene editing are more likely to think it is unsafe, and they require more evidence to change their minds. That evidence could come from either more studies or time without a negative outcome. The surveys showed that, on average, people with a negative opinion of gene editing’s safety need around 100 studies, or 20 years, to improve their opinion about the safety of gene editing. Ironically, traditional breeding or hybrid breeding techniques actually change more genes in a plant or animal, McFadden added.

“The difference between traditional breeding and gene editing is the difference between using an ax versus using a scalpel,” he said.

Despite this, McFadden said many people may never change their minds about the safety of gene editing. More than 10% of respondents said no amount of research or time without an adverse outcome would improve their opinion about the safety of gene editing for agriculture and medical products.

McFadden and his co-authors began the study at the University of Florida, and it was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture through its Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants program. Co-authors included Kathryn Stofer and Kevin Folta with the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and Joy Rumble, now with The Ohio State University.

Stofer, research associate professor in the agricultural education and communication department for UF/IFAS, said the results were enlightening on multiple levels and opened more avenues of research.

“The study sets us up to test explicit messages about the number of studies or years of research on this technology that might help alleviate concerns about safety and support the benefits,” Stofer said.

Folta, UF/IFAS professor in the horticultural sciences department, said better perceptions of gene editing are associated with awareness of biotechnology.

“That means scientists need to be engaging in conversations about the successes, like how sickle cell disease may be curable in the next few years,” Folta said. “We used to think that providing more evidence didn’t change opinions, but this work shows maybe we can change public perception if we effectively share the good things we can do with gene editing.”

Gene editing is “the process of precisely changing or deleting a few ‘letters’ of DNA,” the researchers explained in the study. This is different from genetic modification, which introduces new biology to a genome. Gene editing and gene modification are used in agriculture to develop plant varieties that are more drought tolerant and disease resistant in less time than traditional breeding techniques.

The study notes that a lack of proactive public dialogue surrounding the primary introduction of genetically modified organisms “did irreparable damage to the emerging scientific field of genetic engineering,” and that the continued expansion of gene editing in agricultural and medical fields has led many to call for “broad public dialogue” about the technology.

Gene editing in the medical field is also known as “gene therapy” and aims to treat and cure disease or make the body better able to fight disease.

According to the Mayo Clinic, gene therapy “holds promise as a treatment for a wide range of diseases, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS.” Research cited in the McFadden study showed that public opinion on gene editing in the medical field was more supportive for therapeutic uses than aversion for non-disease uses that are cosmetic.

Data were collected during two time periods using surveys distributed online by Qualtrics to samples of U.S. adults. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Delaware approved both surveys. Collecting data from two samples allowed researchers to examine the stability of results across groups of respondents and time.

Recent research on public opinion toward the use of biotechnology in agriculture has focused on differences in opinions between the use of gene editing and genetic modification. McFadden said studies published in 2019 and 2020 concluded that the public generally supports gene editing in agriculture more than genetic modification. However, the objective of the new study was to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Another goal of the study was to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact to improve opinions about safety.

Public acceptance seems to be associated with whether the gene editing is done for medical or agricultural purposes. The study noted that when participants in U.S. focus groups were asked what they thought when hearing the words “gene editing,” the medical field was discussed more frequently and extensively than agriculture.

Results from the study indicate that people in the U.S. who are familiar with gene editing, or do not hold a negative opinion about safety, require less evidence to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing. On average, respondents in both samples were more familiar with gene editing in agriculture and more likely to have a positive opinion about its use in agriculture than for medical purposes.

“When we have a negative opinion about something, we should maybe ask ourselves what would cause us to change our minds,” McFadden said.