Matching Items (4)
Description
BACKGROUND: Biotechnology can improve vitamin deficiencies, farming practices and yields, yet it is surrounded by controversy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to better understand opinions Americans have about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), across multiple perspectives including scientists, farmers, and perceptions shared via social media. METHODS: A Google Scholar search for the term "genetically modified" (GM) produced 1,420,000 results in 0.05 seconds from the year 1988 to present, a portion of this literature was used for this study. In addition a quasi-experimental study on social media (i.e. a blog and Twitter) was performed to inspire reactions of social media users who followed the accounts @Biofortified and @BiotechFood. The study lasted for approximately three months. The analytics website, Topsy was also used to track the number of conversations that included terms like "GMO". Furthermore a plant biologist, sustainability scientist, and local farmers were interviewed to gain insights on their perceptions of GM products. RESULTS: Results generally suggest that there was no stance shared by social media users, local farmers, and researchers. It was clear however that conversation about GMOs happens daily on social media. These conversations however lack the evidence that can be learned through literature and conversations with local farmers. DISCUSSION: A plausible possible reason for the confusion and mixed opinions is that regardless of the resources (like scientific literature and agriculture workers available on GMOs), individuals appear to use moral reasoning \u2014 as defined by Jonathan Haidt \u2014 to defend their stance on GMOs, not necessarily any empirical evidence.
ContributorsHubbard, Shayla Briann (Author) / Hekler, Eric (Thesis director) / Wharton, Christopher (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Community Resources and Development (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
This dissertation explores conditions under which food messages backfire among consumers leading them to engage in behaviors that are opposite to what was intended by the messages. The first essay shows when and how food-related warnings can backfire by putting consumers in a state of reactance. Across three studies, I demonstrate that dieters (but not nondieters) who see a one-sided message focusing on the negative aspects of unhealthy food (vs. a one-sided positive or neutral message) increase their desire for and consumption of unhealthy foods. In contrast, dieters who see a two-sided message (focusing on both the negative and positive aspects of unhealthy food) are more likely to comply with the message, thereby choosing fewer unhealthy foods. My research suggests that negatively-worded food warnings (such as PSAs) are unlikely to work – nondieters ignore them, and dieters do the opposite. Although preliminary, the findings also suggest that two-sided messages may offer a better solution. The second essay shows how certain messages advocating for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can backfire by activating consumers’ thoughts about risk of GMOs. Across four studies, I demonstrate that strong anti-GMO (but not weak anti-GMO) consumers who see a pro-GMO message claiming that GMOs are safe for human consumption (vs. a neutral message) perceive higher risk from GMOs, resulting in more unfavorable attitudes toward GMOs and lower intentions to consume GMOs. My research also suggests that a pro-GMO message claiming that GMOs are beneficial will be more effective in persuading both strong and weak anti-GMO consumers.
ContributorsPham, Nguyen (Author) / Mandel, Naomi (Thesis advisor) / Ketcham, Andrea M (Thesis advisor) / Samper, Adriana (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
The debate around genetic engineering has permeated society for decades. A crucial aspect of this debate is the containment of genetically engineered organisms. This project outlines the three types of biocontainment and the conclusions drawn about each in the form of policy briefs. These briefs utilize case studies to sketch an overview of the current biocontainment paradigm in the United States. In addition, there is a brief discussing the major conclusions drawn from the case studies, as well as a brief containing useful definitions.
ContributorsDanciu, Mark (Author) / Frow, Emma (Thesis director) / Vogel, Kathleen (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
Genetic engineering, a development in science and technology that has enabled the genetic modification of crops among other organisms since the 1970s, has stirred heated debate among various stakeholders in the issue. This struggle is one consisting of two sides set in their own beliefs, refusing to even consider the validity of any opposition. As a result, it is difficult to establish common ground and attempt to develop policies and practices that can best suit all members involved while still being able to utilize a breakthrough technology in beneficial ways to society. This research project was conducted upon one particular case in the timeline of genetic modification of crops: the introduction of the Rainbow papaya in Hawaii in 1998 and its subsequent ramifications. The goal was to establish a more detailed understanding of the landscape of a debate that can appear to be based mainly upon the science of genetic engineering. Upon analysis of 22 news articles spanning the years 1999-2019 it was determined that the types of arguments themselves, both in favor of and against GM, fall into a wide range of categories that span much more than simply the science. Arguments both in favor and in opposition are nuanced and actually often seek similar end goals. There is potential to utilize these common goals and priorities in productive ways once stakeholders in the debate are aware of them. Finding commonalities will enable progress in the safe, effective implementation of a technology that has the potential to provide immense benefit in various ways in a manner that considers all perspectives involved.
ContributorsCartwright, Avery (Author) / Frow, Emma (Thesis director) / Bowman, Diana (Committee member) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05