Boosting Understanding and Identification of Scientific Consensus Can Help to Correct False Beliefs.

Some people hold beliefs that are opposed to overwhelming scientific evidence. Such misperceptions can be harmful to both personal and societal well-being. Communicating scientific consensus has been found to be effective in eliciting scientifically accurate beliefs, but it is unclear whether it is also effective in correcting false beliefs. Here, we show that a strategy that boosts people's understanding of and ability to identify scientific consensus can help to correct misperceptions. In three experiments with more than 1,500 U.S. adults who held false beliefs, participants first learned the value of scientific consensus and how to identify it. Subsequently, they read a news article with information about a scientific consensus opposing their beliefs. We found strong evidence that in the domain of genetically engineered food, this two-step communication strategy was more successful in correcting misperceptions than merely communicating scientific consensus. The data suggest that the current approach may not work for misperceptions about climate change.

An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food.

Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.

History and future of genetically engineered food animal regulation: an open request.

Modern biotechnology resulted from of a series of incremental improvements in the understanding of DNA and the enzymes that nature evolved to manipulate it. As the potential impact of genetic engineering became apparent, scientists began the process of trying to identify the potential unintended consequences. Restrictions to recombinant DNA experimentation were at first self-imposed. Collaborative efforts between scientists and lawyers formalized an initial set of guidelines. These guidelines have been used to promulgate regulations around world. However, the initial guidelines were only intended as a starting point and were motivated by a specific set of concerns. As new data became available, the guidelines and regulations should have been adapted to the new knowledge. Instead, other social drivers drove the development of regulations. For most species and most applications, the framework that was established has slowly allowed some products to reach the market. However, genetically engineered livestock that are intended for food have been left in a regulatory state of limbo. To date, no genetically engineered food animal is available in the marketplace. A short history and a U.S.-based genetic engineer's perspective are presented. In addition, a request to regulatory agencies is presented for consideration as regulation continues to evolve. Regulators appear to have shown preference for the slow, random progression of evolution over the efficiency of intentional design.

A Study on Genetically Engineered Foods: Need, Benefits, Risk, and Current Knowledge.

Food requirements have always been a top priority, and with the exponential growth of the human population, there is an increasing need for large quantities of food. Traditional cultivation methods are not able to meet the current demand for food products. One significant challenge is the shortened shelf-life of naturally occurring food items, which directly contributes to food scarcity. Contaminating substances such as weeds and pests play a crucial role in this issue. In response, researchers have introduced genetically engineered (GE) food as a potential solution. These food products are typically created by adding or replacing genes in the DNA of naturally occurring foods. GE foods offer various advantages, including increased quality and quantity of food production, adaptability to various climatic conditions, modification of vitamin and mineral levels, and prolonged shelf life. They address the major concerns of global food scarcity and food security. However, the techniques used in the production of GE foods may not be universally acceptable due to the genetic alteration of animal genes into plants or vice versa. Additionally, their unique nature necessitates further long-term studies. This study delves into the procedures and growth stages of DNA sequencing, covering the benefits, risks, industrial relevance, current knowledge, and future challenges of GE foods. GE foods have the potential to extend the shelf life of food items, alleviate food shortages, and fulfill the current nutritional food demand.