Study Shows Positive Attitude Towards Gene Editing

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and gene editing have been the subject of intense discussion in recent years. A recent survey by the Alliance for Science found that gene editing consistently earns greater favorability ratings than GMOs in both social and mainstream English-language media, signaling a positive shift in public opinion toward one aspect of agricultural biotechnology.

The report was released after five years of data—from January 2018 to December 2022—were examined. For the scientific community and experts in science communication, the data offers useful information.

Our sentiment analysis shows that favorability is especially positive in social media, with close to 100% favorability achieved in numerous monthly values throughout our five years of analysis. We believe that the scientific community can therefore be cautiously optimistic based on current trends that gene editing will be accepted by the public and be able to achieve its promise of making a substantial contribution to future food security and environmental sustainability worldwide.”

Mark Lynas, Study Lead Author, Research and Climate Lead, Alliance for Science, Boyce Thompson Institute

The study, which was published in the journal GM Crops & Food, showed a constant difference between the acceptance of gene editing and that of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), with gene editing receiving far higher approval ratings than GMOs.

Lynas added, “This could be the result of the relative novelty of gene editing as an issue, which has not—unlike GMOs—been the subject of a decades-long campaign of negative publicity by opponents.”

The research team also stated that as gene editing is used more frequently, the scientific community could have learned from its early use of GMOs and made measures to prevent duplicating them.

“It may also be the case that gene editing—which largely involves DNA alterations that could possibly happen in nature—is less inherently ‘scary’ than transgenic techniques transferring DNA sequences between unrelated species,” Lynas further stated.

Interestingly, the study discovered that, despite reaching far wider audiences, social media coverage of gene editing has been unexpectedly positive in recent years.

Lynas stated, “This contradicts often-heard statements about how social media tends to be negative and polarizing: our analysis suggests the opposite, that social media on this new technology at least has been very positive over time.”

Despite the fact that the study shows a good trend in public acceptability of gene editing, the authors warn that more recent signs of persistently negative tendencies could be cause for concern.

They stress how crucial it is to track potential deteriorations in public opinion and analyze how sentiment changes over time. They emphasize the importance of constant dialogue and involvement from the public to ensure that these technologies are understood better.

The positive coverage of agricultural gene editing in both traditional and social media is encouraging. These findings suggest that the battle for public opinion is not lost, and the scientific community can find hope in the potential acceptance of gene editing technologies.”

Dr Sheila Ochugboju, Executive Director, Alliance for Science, Boyce Thompson Institute