Gene drive could be a powerful tool for addressing problems of conservation, agriculture, and human health caused by insect and animal pests but is likely to be controversial as it involves the release of genetically modified organisms. This study examined the social determinants of opinion of gene drive. We asked a representative sample of the U.S. public to respond to a description of a hypothetical application of a gene-drive mosquito to the problem of malaria and examined the relationship of these responses with demographic and ideological beliefs. We found strong general approval for the use of gene-drive mosquitos to address malaria, coinciding with the concern about a possible environmental impact of modified mosquitos and that gene drives represent “too much power over nature.” Among the determinants we measured, respondent acceptance of scientism and trust that scientists are advancing the public’s interest were the greatest predictors of views of gene drive.
AltmanCE (2015) Age, period, and cohort effects. In: BeanFDBrownSK (eds) Encyclopedia of Migration. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–4. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-6179-7_88-1 (accessed 22 September 2021).
2.
AndersonAAScheufeleDABrossardDCorleyEA (2012) The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(2): 225–237.
3.
BakerJO (2012) Perceptions of science and American secularism. Sociological Perspectives55(1): 167–188.
4.
BaoLKrauseNMCaliceMNScheufeleDAWirzCDBrossardD, et al. (2022) Whose AI? How different publics think about AI and its social impacts. Computers in Human Behavior130: 107182.
5.
BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (2018) Image, perception and cultural authority of science—By way of introduction. In: BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (eds) The Cultural Authority of Science. London: Routledge, pp. 3–21.
6.
BergerPL (1967) The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Reprint edition). New York, NY: Anchor.
7.
BurgeRP (2022) The consequences of response options: Including both “Protestant” and “Christian” on surveys. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion61(1): 242–257.
8.
Cole-TurnerR (1993) The New Genesis, 1st edn. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Committee on Gene Drive Research in Non-Human Organisms: Recommendations for Responsible Conduct, Board on Life Sciences, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23405 (accessed 7 October 2021).
11.
CoppockAMcClellanOA (2019) Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics6(1): 2053168018822174.
12.
DoughertyKDJohnsonBRPolsonEC (2007) Recovering the lost: Remeasuring U.S. religious affiliation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion46(4): 483–499.
13.
DouglasH (2009) Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14.
EcklundEHScheitleCP (2018) Religion Vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think, 1st edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
EcklundEHPeiferJLWhiteVChanE (2017) Moral schemas in articulation and intuition: How religious people evaluate human reproductive genetic technologies. Sociological Forum2017: 277–297.
16.
EvansJH (2011) Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion50(4): 707–727.
17.
EvansJH (2018) Morals Not Knowledge: Recasting the Contemporary U.S. Conflict between Religion and Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
18.
EvansJH (2024) Disembodied Brains: Understanding Our Intuitions on Neuro-Chimeras and Human-Brain Organoids. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
EvansJHFengJ (2013) Conservative Protestantism and skepticism of scientists studying climate change. Climatic Change121(4): 595–608.
20.
EvansJHHargittaiE (2020) Who doesn’t trust fauci? The public’s belief in the expertise and shared values of scientists in the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius6: 2378023120947337.
21.
FarooqueMBarnhill-DillingSKShapiroJDelborneJ (2019) Exploring stakeholder perspectives on the development of a gene drive mouse for biodiversity protection on islands. Workshop report. Available at: http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-gene-drive-landscape
22.
FunkCHefferonM (2018) Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
23.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77(2): 167–187.
24.
GauchatG (2015) The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces94(2): 723–746.
25.
GierynTF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48(6): 781–795.
26.
GiffordRNilssonA (2014) Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology49(3): 141–157.
27.
HammondAGaliziRKyrouKSimoniASiniscalchiCKatsanosD, et al. (2016) A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature Biotechnology34(1): 78–83.
28.
HartleySSmithRDJKokotovichAOpesenCHabtewoldTLedinghamK, et al. (2021) Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: New directions for gene drive risk governance. Malaria Journal20(1): 149.
29.
HowellELWirzCDScheufeleDABrossardDXenosMA (2020) Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science29(8): 800–818.
JonesMSDelborneJAElsensohnJMitchellPDBrownZS (2019) Does the U.S. public support using gene drives in agriculture? And what do they want to know?Science Advances5(9): eaau8462.
32.
KohlPABrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMA (2019) Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation. Conservation Biology33(6): 1286–1295.
33.
KrauseNMBrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMAFrankeK (2019) Trends—Americans’ trust in science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly83(4): 817–836.
34.
LehmanDSherkatDE (2018) Measuring religious identification in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion57(4): 779–794.
35.
LevayKEFreeseJDruckmanJN (2016) The Demographic and political composition of mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open6(1): 215824401663643.
36.
LongJSFreeseJ (2014) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 3rd edn.College Station, TX: Stata Press.
37.
MacDonaldEABalanovicJEdwardsEDAbrahamseWFrameBGreenawayA, et al. (2020) Public opinion towards gene drive as a pest control approach for biodiversity conservation and the association of underlying worldviews. Environmental Communication14(7): 904–918.
38.
MacDonaldEAEdwardsEBalanovicJMedveckyF (2021) Underlying beliefs linked to public opinion about gene drive and pest-specific toxin for pest control. Wildlife Research48(1): 30–37.
39.
MannMSchleiferC (2020) Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces99(1): 305–332.
40.
MarshallJMAkbariOS (2018) Can CRISPR-based gene drive be confined in the wild? A question for molecular and population biology. ACS Chemical Biology13(2): 424–430.
41.
MooneyC (2007) The Republican War on Science. New York, NY: Basic Books.
42.
MutzDC (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
NisbetMCScheufeleDA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany96(10): 1767–1778.
44.
O’BrienTLNoyS (2015) Traditional, modern, and post-secular perspectives on science and religion in the United States. American Sociological Review80(1): 92–115.
45.
O’BrienTLNoyS (2021) Threatening morality: Religious and political opposition to science in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion60(3): 628–644.
46.
PetersonGR (2003) Demarcation and the scientistic fallacy. Zygon38(4): 751–761.
47.
PoortingaWPidgeonNF (2004) Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis24(6): 1475–1486.
48.
PrestonCJ (2018) The Synthetic Age: Outdesigning Evolution, Resurrecting Species, and Reengineering Our World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
RobinsonDN (2015) Introduction. In: WilliamsRNRobinsonDN (eds) Scientism: The New Orthodoxy. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 1–22.
50.
SchairerCETriplettCAkbariOSBlossC (2022) California residents’ perceptions of gene drive systems to control mosquito-borne disease. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology10: 848707.
51.
ShapinS (2007) Science and the modern world. In: HackettEAmsterdamskaOLynchM, et al. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.New York, NY: MIT Press, pp. 433–448.
52.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25(4): 400–414.
53.
SlabyJ (2013) The new science of morality: A bibliographic review. Hedgehog Review15(1): 46–54.
54.
SmithTWDavernMFreeseJMorganS (2018) General Social Surveys, 1972-2018. Chicago, IL: NORC.
55.
SorellT (2017) Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science, 1st edn. London: Routledge.
56.
StenmarkM (1997) What is scientism?Religious Studies33(1): 15–32.
57.
ValliantRDeverJA (2018) Survey Weights: A Step-by-Step Guide to Calculation, 1st edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
58.
WolkomirMFutrealMWoodrumEHobanT (1997a) Denominational subcultures of environmentalism. Review of Religious Research38(4): 325–343.
59.
WolkomirMFutrealMWoodrumEHobanT (1997b) Substantive religious belief and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly78(1): 96–108.
60.
World Health Organization (2020) World Malaria Report 2020: 20 Years of Global Progress and Challenges. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337660 (accessed 2 May 2022).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
