Simple Analysis: Graphs Panel Toggle

Knowledge

Figure E:The degree of which participants know the difference between mutagenesis and conventional breeding.

Opinion

Confidence

Knowledge

The majority of participants had not previously heard of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system prior to the survey. Of those that were knowledgeable on the subject, their information came from a multitude of sources. Websites, news articles, scientific journals, and word of mouth were all heavy sources of information. A breakdown of the sources is displayed in Figure B. Of note, only 3.3% of participants had gained any information about gene-editing from food labels.

Opinion

On the opinion of gene editing applications, there did not appear to be an overarching preference for the technology in any specific area. In fact, there was no substantial consensus on particular applications and organisms that were sanctioned for genetic engineering, providing evidence that gene-editing is a generally validated technique among the public. Surprisingly, there was not a large skew away from applications that involve greater ethical sensitivity. For example, about 14% of participants were okay with genetically modifying humans (Figure C). Only 4.2% of participants believed no organisms should be genetically modified, suggesting a high approval rate for gene-editing technologies (Figure C).

Participants were most accepting of using genetic engineering in plants, with 31% approval. For perspective, ‘Lab Animals’ had the second greatest approval at 21%. This data is summed up in Figure C. The agriculture industry was likewise favored as an area with high approval for genetic engineering applications. Interestingly, there was dissonance with participants when asked whether they would actually consume foods that have had some degree of gene editing. Figure F demonstrates a lack of certainty in the consumption of produce with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Only 16.4% of participants were certain with their consumption, compared to the 20% that sanctioned CRISPR-Cas9 technology for agriculture. About 30% of participants were on the fence, but overall, a greater amount were closer to consumption (5) than non-consumption (1). When asked what foods they were okay with eating in Figure G, organic foods and foods grown without pesticides held a slight majority. Interestingly, more people were okay with eating CRISPR foods than non-CRISPR foods, whereas less were okay with eating GM foods than non-GM foods. This offers a potential trend in the reputation of gene-editing over GMO technology. These results are taken in the context that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was not widely understood among participants, potentially causing discourse in opinions.

Participants appeared to be most compliant with using gene editing for medical and research applications, although 70% agreed that regulations for CRISPR-Cas9 should exist in a research setting.

Confidence

Despite the general acceptance in using CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing techniques in a multitude of applications and organisms, there is still an underwhelming confidence in the safety of the tool. Figure H shows that only 4.9% of participants were completely confident in saying the technology was safe. About half fell in the middle.

Conclusions

The data suggests that the biggest challenges facing gene-editing technologies, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system, are the lack of understanding and awareness of the tool itself, and lack of confidence in its safety within the general public. Barring this, many people favor its use in research and industrial applications.

Complex Analysis: Graphs Panel Toggle