The fragility of omics risk and benefit perceptions

Toxicology Letters

Volumn 201, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 249-257

  Börner, Franziska U ^a   Schütz, Holger ^b   Wiedemann, Peter ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

^c KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Benefits; Framing; Genomics; Lay perception; Risk perception; Toxicogenomics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENE TECHNOLOGY; GENOMICS; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; THEORY; TOXICOGENETICS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; JUDGMENT; PERCEPTION; POISONING; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOGENETICS;

EID: 79951771713     PISSN: 03784274     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2011.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adelman D.E. The false promise of the genomics revolution for environmental law. Harvard Environmental Law Review 2005, 29(1):117-177.
2. Bishop W.E., Clarke D.P., Travis C.C. The genomic revolution: what does it mean for risk assessment?. Risk Analysis 2001, 21(6):983-987.
3. Bostrom A. Risk perceptions: experts vs. lay people. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 1997, 8:101-113.
4. Burri R., Bellucci S. Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2008, 10(3):387-391.
5. Chong D., Druckman J.N. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 2007, 10:103-126.
6. Cobb M.D. Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology. Science Communication 2005, 27(2):221-239.
7. Cobb, M.D., Macoubrie, J., 2004. Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust. 26 October, 2010, from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/cobb/me/past%2520articles%2520and%2520working%2520papers/Public%2520Perceptions%2520about%2520Nanotechnology%2520-%2520Risks,%2520Benefits%2520and%2520Trust.pdf.
8. Dabrock P., Schröder P. Public Health Gen-Ethik: Medizinethische Materialien 2006, 171. Bochum, Germany.
9. Emery J., Kumar S., Smith H. Patient understanding of genetic principles and their expectations of genetic services within the NHS: a qualitative study. Community Genetics 1998, 1(2):78-83.
10. Gaskell G., Allum N., Wagner W., Kronberger N., Torgersen H., Hampel J., et al. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 2004, 24(1):185-194.
11. Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischler, C., Hampel, J., Jackson, J., Kronberger, N., Mejlgaard, N., Revuelta, G., Schreiner, C., Torgersen, H.,Wagner, W., 2006. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Pattern and Trends - Final Report on Eurobarometer 64.3. Retrieved 26 October, 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_244b_en.pdf.
12. Henderson B.J., Maguire B.T. Three lay mental models of disease inheritance. Social Science & Medicine 2000, 50(2):293-301.
13. Henneman L., Timmermans D.R., van der Wal G. Public experiences, knowledge and expectations about medical genetics and the use of genetic information. Community Genetics 2004, 7(1):33-43.
14. IPCS, 2003. Workshop Report: Toxicogenomics and the Risk Assessment of Chemicals for the Protection of Human Health [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 2010-11-01 from http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/toxicogenomics/en/.
15. Johnson E.J., Tversky A. Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1983, 45(1):20-31.
16. Kasperson R., et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 1988, 8(2):177-187.
17. Khoury M.J., Thrasher J.F., Burke W., Gettig E.A., Fridinger F., Jackson R. Challenges in communicating genetics: a public health approach. Genetics in Medicine 2000, 2(3):198-202.
18. Kraus N., Malmfors T., Slovic P. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risk. Risk Analysis 1992, 12(2):215-232.
19. Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1998, 75(1):23-55.
20. Levin I.P., Schneider S.L., Gaeth G.J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1998, 76(2):149-188.
21. Lord P.G., Nie A., McMillian M. Application of genomics in preclinical drug safety evaluation. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 2006, 98(6):537-546.
22. MacGregor D.G., Slovic P., Malmfors T. "How exposed is exposed enough?" Lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Analysis 1999, 19(4):649-659.
23. McElroy T.M., Seta J. Framing effects: an analytic - heuristic perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology 2003, 39:610-617.
24. Morris J., Gwinn M., Clyne M., Khoury M.J. Public knowledge regarding the role of genetic susceptibility to environmentally induced health conditions. Community Genet 2003, 6(1):22-28.
25. Napolitano C.L., Ogunseitan O.A. Gender differences in the perception of genetic engineering applied to human reproduction. Social Indicators Research 1999, 46:191-204.
26. NRC Communicating Toxicogenomics Information to Nonexperts: A Workshop Summary Committee on Communicating Toxicogenomics Information to Nonexperts. Committee on Emerging Issues and Data on Environmental Contaminants 2005, National Research Council.
27. NRC Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy 2007.
28. Phillips R.D., Bahadori T., Barry B.E., Bus J.S., Gant T.W., Mostowy J.M., Smith C., Willuhn M., Zimmer U. Making sense of human biomonitoring data: findings and recommendations of a workshop. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2009, 19(6):536-543.
29. Pin R., Gutteling J. The development of public perception research in the genomics field. Science Communication 2009, 31(1):57-83.
30. Reyna V.F., Brainerd C.J. Fuzzy-trace theory: an interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences 1995, 7:1-75.
31. Reyna V.F. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Medical Decisions Making 2008, 28:850-865.
32. Robins R., Metcalfe S. Integrating genetics as practices of primary care. Social Science and Medicine 2004, 59(2):223-233.
33. Royal Society, 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Retrieved 26 October, 2010, from http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/Nano%2520report%25202004%2520fin.pdf.
34. Sandman P.M., Miller P.M., Johnson B.B., Weinstein N.D. Agency communication, community outrage, and perception of risk: three simulation experiments. Risk Analysis 1993, 13:585-598.
35. Satterfield T., Kandlikar M., Beaudrie C., Conti J., Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology 2009, 4:752-758.
36. Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2005, 7(6):659-667.
37. Schütz H., Wiedemann P.M. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 2008, 17(3):369-379.
38. Simmons P.T., Portier C.J. Toxicogenomics: the new frontier in risk analysis. Carcinogenesis 2002, 23(6):903-905.
39. Slovic P., Malmfors T., Mertz C.K., Neil N., Purchase I.F. Evaluating chemical risks: results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society. Human & Experimental Toxicology 1997, 16(6):289-304.