Playing God or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 869-885

  Dragojlovic, Nicolas ^a   Einsiedel, Edna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Europe; public attitudes; religious beliefs; synthetic biology; values

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884359550     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662512445011     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Ai C,Norton EC.Interaction terms in logit and probit models.Economics Letters. 2003;80:123-29.
2. Anderson NH,Zalinski JContributions to Information Integration Theory, Volume 1: Cognition. Anderson NH, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp; 1991:145-85.
3. BainbridgeWS (2003) Religious opposition to cloning. Journal of Evolution and Technology13. Available at: www.jetpress.org/volume13/bainbridge.html (accessed 9 April 2012).
4. Bedau MA,Parke EC,Tangen U,Hantsche-Tangen B.Social and ethical checkpoints for bottom-up synthetic biology, or proto-cells.Systems and Synthetic Biology. 2009;3 (1-4): 65-75.
5. Boer J D.The role of prevention-oriented attitudes towards nature in people's judgment of new applications of genomics techniques in soil ecology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;1:1-15.
6. Brambor T,Clark WR,Golder M.Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis.Political Analysis. 2006;14:63-82.
7. Brossard D,Scheufele DA,Kim E,Lewenstein BV.Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:546-58.
8. Chopra P,Kamma A.Engineering life through synthetic biology.Silico Biology. 2005;5 (5): 401-10.
9. Costa-Font J,Mossialos E.The public as a limit to technology transfer: The influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK.Journal of Technology Transfer. 2006;31:629-45.
10. Decoster J,Claypool HM.A meta-analysis of priming effects on impression formation supporting a general model of informational biases.Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2004;8 (1): 2-27.
11. Dragojlovic NI.Priming and the Obama effect on public evaluations of the United States.Political Psychology. 2011;32 (6): 989-1006.
12. Druckman JN,Bolsen T.Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies.Journal of Communication. 2010;2011 (61): 4.
13. Dworkin RSovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2000:.
14. Endy D.Foundations for engineering biology.Nature. 2005;438 (7067): 449-53.
15. EndyD (2008) Engineering biology. Available at: www.edge.org/3rd_culture/endy08/endy08_index.html (accessed 9 April 2012).
16. Fishbein M,Ajzen IBelief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975:.
17. Fiske ST,Taylor SESocial Cognition. 1991) Social Cognition (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991:.
18. Garfinkel M,Endy D,Epstein GL,Friedman R.Synthetic genomics: Options for governance.Industrial Biotechnology. 2007;3 (4): 333-65.
19. Gaskell G,Allansdottir A,Allum N,Castro P,Esmer Y,Fischler C,Jackson J,Kronberger N,Hampel J,Mejlgaard N,Quintanilha A,Rammer A,Revuelta G,Stares S,Torgerson H,Wager W.The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences.Nature Biotechnology. 2011;29 (2): 113-14.
20. Gaskell G,Stares S,Allansdottir A,Allum N,Castro P,Esmer Y,Fischler C,Jackson J,Kronberger N,Hampel J,Mejlgaard N,Quintanilha A,Rammer A,Revuelta G,Stoneman P,Torgerson H,Wager WEuropeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change?. Brussels: European Commission; 2010:.
21. Gschemeidler B,Seiringer A.'Knight in shining armour' or 'Frankenstein's creation'? The coverage of synthetic biology in German-language media.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (3): 1-11.
22. Ho SS,Brossard D,Scheufele DA.Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2008;20 (2): 171-92.
23. Isasi R,Knoppers B.Mind the gap: Policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries.European Journal of Health Law. 2006;13:9-26.
24. New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, D.C:; 2010:.
25. Iyengar S.The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 1990;2 (1): 1-15.
26. Iyengar S,Kinder DThe News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987:.
27. Kaebnick G.Should moral objections to synthetic biology affect public policy?.Nature Biotechnology. 2009;27 (12): 1106-08.
28. Kahan DM,Braman D,Mandel GRisk and Culture: Is Synthetic Biology Different?. New Haven, CT: Yale University; n.d.:.
29. Keene ON.The log transformation is special.Statistics in Medicine. 1995;14:811-19.
30. Keller C,Siegrist M,Gutscher H.The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication.Risk Analysis. 2006;26 (3): 631-9.
31. King G,Tomz M,Wittenberg J.Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation.American Journal of Political Science. 2000;44 (2): 341-55.
32. Miller KC.The limitations of heuristics for political elites.Political Psychology. 2009;30 (6): 863-94.
33. Nelson TE,Clawson RA,Oxley ZM.Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effects on tolerance.American Political Science Review. 1997;91 (3): 567-83.
34. Nelson TE,Oxley ZM,Clawson RA.Toward a psychology of framing effects.Political Behavior. 1997;19 (3): 221-46.
35. Nisbet MC.The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2005;17 (1): 90-112.
36. Pauwels E.Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on US public perceptions of synthetic biology.Systems and Synthetic Biology. 2009;3:37-46.
37. Peters EM,Burraston B,Mertz CK.An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma.Risk Analysis. 2004;24:1349-67.
38. Peters HP,Lang JT,Sawicka M,Hallman WK.Culture and technological innovation: Impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2007;19 (2): 191-220.
39. Peters TPlaying God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. London: Routledge; 2003:.
40. Pligt JV D,Eiser JRAttitudinal judgment. Eiser JR, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1984:161-77.
41. PollackA (2001) Scientists are starting to add letters to life's alphabet. New York Times, 24July. Available at: www.nytimes.com/2001/07/24/science/scientists-are-starting-to-add-letters-to-life-s-alphabet.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (accessed 9 April 2012).
42. Price V,Tewksbury DProgress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion. Barett GABoster FJ, ed. Greenwich, CT: Ablex; 1997:173-212.
43. Price V,Tewksbury D,Powers E.Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses.Communication Research. 1997;24 (5): 481-506.
44. Engineering Life: The Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology. London: Institute of Physics; 2008:.
45. Scheitle CP.In God we trust: Religion and optimism toward biotechnology.Social Science Quarterly. 2005;86 (4): 846-56.
46. Scheufele DA.Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication.Mass Communication & Society. 2000;3 (2&3): 297-316.
47. Scheufele DA,Corley EA,Shih T-J,Dalrymple KE,Ho SS.Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States.Nature Nanotechnology. 2008;4:91-4.
48. SerranoL (2007) Synthetic biology: Promises and challenges. Molecular Systems Biology3(158). Available at: www.nature.com/msb/journal/v3/n1/full/msb4100202.html (accessed 9 April 2012).
49. Sjoberg L.Perceived risk and tampering with nature.Journal of Risk Research. 2000;3 (4): 353-67.
50. Sniderman P,Brody R,Tetlock PEReasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991:.
51. Synthetic Biology. (n.d.) What is synthetic biology? Available at: syntheticbiology.org/FAQ.html (accessed 4 April 2012).
52. TomzMWittenbergJKingG (2001) Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Unviersity. Available at: gking.harvard.edu (accessed 30 April 2012).
53. Tulving E,Watkins MJ.Structure of memory traces.Psychological Review. 1975;82 (4): 261-75.
54. Vandermoere F,Blanchemanche S,Bieberstein A,Marette S,Roosen J.The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: About God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2010;12:373-81.
55. Vandermoere F,Blanchemanche S,Bieberstein A,Marette S,Roosen J.The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views of science, technology, and nature.Public Understanding of Science. 2011;20 (2): 195-206.
56. Vriend H DConstructing Life: Early Social Reflections on the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology. The Hague: Rathenau Institute; 2006:.
57. Wyer RS,Srull TK.Human cognition in its social context.Psychological Review. 1986;93 (3): 322-59.
58. Zaller JThe Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; 1992:.
59. Zaller J,Feldman S.Theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences.American Journal of Political Science. 1992;36 (3): 579-616.