Is biotechnology (more) acceptable when it enables a reduction in phytosanitary treatments? A European comparison of the acceptability of transgenesis and cisgenesis

16Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Reduced pesticide use is one of the reasons given by Europeans for accepting new genetic engineering techniques. According to the advocates of these techniques, consumers are likely to embrace the application of cisgenesis to apple trees. In order to verify the acceptability of these techniques, we estimate a Bayesian multilevel structural equation model, which takes into account the multidimensional nature of acceptability and individual, national, and European effects, using data from the Eurobarometer 2010 73.1 on science. The results underline the persistence of clear differences between European countries and whilst showing considerable defiance, a relatively wider acceptability of vertical gene transfer as a means of reducing phytosanitary treatments, compared to horizontal transfer.

Figures

  • Table 1. Rates of agreement with different proposals concerning the genetic manipulation of apple trees.
  • Table 3. Hypotheses.
  • Table 4. Comparison of DIC according to the different estimations.
  • Table 5. Estimation of loadings.
  • Table 6. Institutional influence explained by different levels.
  • Table 8. Validation of the hypothesis.

References Powered by Scopus

Bayes factors

12714Citations
3505Readers
Get full text

Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit

9904Citations
3426Readers
8935Citations
6426Readers
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rousselière, D., & Rousselière, S. (2017). Is biotechnology (more) acceptable when it enables a reduction in phytosanitary treatments? A European comparison of the acceptability of transgenesis and cisgenesis. PLoS ONE, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183213

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 12

60%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

20%

Researcher 4

20%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7

41%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 5

29%

Social Sciences 3

18%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

12%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0