U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions.

Introduction: Implementation of gene editing in agriculture and medicine hinges on public acceptance. The objectives of this study were to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in agricultural and medical fields and to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact of evidence to improve opinions about safety. Methods: Data were from two samples of U.S. respondents: 1,442 respondents in 2021 and 3,125 respondents in 2022. Survey respondents provided their opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields and answered questions about the number of studies or length of time without a negative outcome to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Results: Results indicated that respondents in both samples were more familiar, more likely to have an opinion about safety, and more positive about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural field than in the medical field. Also, familiarity was more closely associated with opinions about safety than the strength of opinions. Discussion: These findings add to the literature examining perceptions of gene editing in the agricultural or medical fields separately. Opinions about the safety of gene editing were generally more favorable for respondents who were aware of the use of gene editing. These results support a proactive approach for effective communication strategies to inform the public about the use of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields.

Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups.

In the United States, adult public perception of genetic modification has been well documented in the domain of agriculture and food; however, recent international news on gene editing in medical applications may present new challenges for science communicators who seek to proactively share benefits of emerging gene editing technology. While research traditionally considers perceptions of agricultural and medical applications separately, gene editing may bridge the gap between the two domains. We find that when asked about thoughts regarding gene editing, adult focus groups discussed medical applications more frequently and extensively than agricultural applications. Although, when examining the length of discussion about specific topics, designer babies, cures for disease, and food were discussed at similar lengths. Understanding audiences' current perceptions of the technology is the first step in shaping strategic communication efforts to inform public opinion. A proper understanding of the benefits and risks of new technology is central to its application.

Finding the Gaps: An Assessment of Concepts, Skills, and Employer Expectations for Plant Pathology Foundational Courses.

Foundational plant pathology courses, taught at the undergraduate level, serve students from a wide array of disciplines, and for most will be the only plant pathology course taken. This work examined the content, skills, and delivery modes of undergraduate plant pathology courses at a national scale, and assessed employer expectations for these courses and for students entering the workforce with degrees in plant science-related disciplines. While content knowledge coverage among plant pathology courses was generally consistent and aligned well with employers' knowledge expectations, delivery modes and skill development components were more variable and less aligned. Significant gaps were found between skills expected by employers and those emphasized by instructors, particularly in the areas of general laboratory skills (e.g., media preparation, molecular techniques, microscopy, and competence with other lab equipment) and recognition of plant problems that are not caused by pathogens. Employers also emphasized the value of (and frequent lack of) critical soft skills, such as teamwork, adaptability, communication, writing, and critical thinking. Results of this study will provide a foundation for course and curriculum development and evaluations. Recommendations are also discussed for enhanced interactions among educators and employers outside of academia.