A cross-sectional study of biotechnology awareness and teaching in European high schools

New Biotechnology

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 822-828

  Vanderschuren, Hervé ^a,c   Heinzmann, Dominik ^b,c   Faso, Carmen ^a,c   Stupak, Martin ^a,c   Arga, Kazim Yalçin ^d   Hoerzer, Helen ^d   Laizet, Yech'an ^a,c   Leduchowska, Paulina ^d   Silva, Nádia ^d   Šimková, Klára ^a,c  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c Young European Biotechnology Network Switzerland (YEBN CH) c/o VSETH   (Switzerland)

^d Young European Biotechnology Network (YEBN)   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPLIED RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS; CONSUMER AWARENESS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DAILY LIVES; EUROPEAN COUNTRIES; HIGH SCHOOL; OLD AGE; POTENTIAL BENEFITS; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; SCHOOL STUDENTS; SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE; SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE; TARGET GROUP; TEACHING PRACTICES;

PUBLIC RISKS; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BIOLOGY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; EDUCATION PROGRAM; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EUROPE; FOOD QUALITY; HIGH SCHOOL; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; TEACHING;

AWARENESS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; ENVIRONMENT; EUROPE; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HUMANS; MALE; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCHOOLS; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; WORK;

EID: 78649688225     PISSN: 18716784     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.01.338     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Sturgis P., et al. Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics and Society 2005, 24(1):31-56.
2. Agricultural & Environmental Biotechnology Commission. (2001) Crops on trial. (London: AEBC).
3. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000, 20(2):195-203.
4. Pardo R., et al. Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology 2002, 98(1):9-24.
5. Knight A. Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Analysis 2007, 27(6):1553-1563.
6. Gaskell G., et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 2000, 18(9):935-938.
7. Magnusson M.K., Hursti U.K.K. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 2002, 39(1):9-24.
8. Gaskell G., et al. Public perceptions of biotechnology in 1996: Eurobarometer 46.1. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere 1998, 296. Science Museum, London. M.W. Bauer, J. Durant, G. Gaskell (Eds.).
9. Blaine K., et al. Public perceptions of biotechnology. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67(9):3200-3208.
10. Gaskell G., et al. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 1999, 285(5426):384-387.
11. Hossain F., et al. Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2003, 27(5):353-365.
12. Harrison R.W., et al. Risk perceptions of urban italian and united states consumers for genetically modified foods. AgBioForum 2004, 7(4):195-201.
13. Gaskell, G., et al. (2006). Eurobarometer 64.3: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends E.C.s. D.-G.f. Research. Brussels, Directorate-General for Research: 85 pp.
14. Hohl K., Gaskell G. European public perceptions of food risk: cross-national and methodological comparisons. Risk Analysis 2008, 28(2):311-324.
15. Dawson V., Schibeci R Western Australian school students' understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education 2003, 25:57-69.
16. Klop T., Severiens S. An exploration of attitudes towards modern biotechnology: a study among Dutch secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education 2007, 29(5):663-679.
17. Gassen H.G. Perspective: why communication in biotechnology is important. Biotechnology Journal 2007, 2:1051-1052.
18. Vanliere K.D., Dunlap R.E. The social bases of environmental concern - a review of hypotheses. Explanations and empirical-evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 1980, 44(2):181-197.
19. Greenberg M.R., Schneider D.F. Gender differences in risk perception - effects differ in stressed vs nonstressed environments. Risk Analysis 1995, 15(4):503-511.
20. Siegrist M. Belief in gene technology: the influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences 1998, 24(6):861-866.
21. Knight A., Warland R. The relationship between sociodernographics and concern about food safety issues. Journal of Consumer Affairs 2004, 38(1):107-120.
22. Ackermann P.L., et al. Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 93:797-825.
23. Hursti U.K.K., Magnusson M.K. Consumer perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods. What kind of knowledge matters?. Appetite 2003, 41(2):207-209.
24. Hursti U.K.K., et al. Swedish consumers' opinions about gene technology. British Food Journal 2002, 104(11):860-872.
25. O'Connor E., et al. Acceptance by Irish consumers of a hypothetical GM dairy spread that reduces cholesterol. British Food Journal 2005, 107(6):361-380.
26. Schlapfer F. Determinants of voter support for a five-year ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 59(3):421-435.