The development of Public Perception Research in the Genomics field

An empirical analysis of the literature in the field

Renske Pin & Jan Gutteling

Systematic Review

Insight in research literature “Where do we stand now?”

Fill gap – further research (e.g. Bunz, 2005; Gurabardhi, Gutteling

& Kuttschreuter, 2004; McComas 2006)

> Method> Results> Conclusion

1. How can we characterize the literature on public perception of genomics?

2. Do trends exist in the literature on public perception of genomics?

3. What do scientific indicators tell us about the

scientific nature of the published

articles on public perception of genomics?

Research questions

Choices:

> Databases> Document types> Period> Search Fields> Search Key design> Process

Method

Databases

Relevant databases on the field

(advise of information specialist)

Info on variables

Citation index

Downloadable in Endnote?

Unique coverage?

Web of Science + + + +

Scopus + + + +

Psycinfo + + + -

Philosophers index

+ - + -

Method 1/6

Document Type

Journal Articles

Review Articles (no bookreviews)

Method 2/6

Time Period

As far back as possible in the databases:

Web of science 1988 – 8 may 2006

Scopus 1970 – 8 may 2006

Method 3/6

Search fields

Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (article titles, abstracts, Author Keywords, Index terms (controlled terms)

Web of Science: TS (article titles, abstracts, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus)

So the same fields were searched

Method 5/6

Search Key

(consumer* or public)

AND

(attitude* or opinion or perception or acceptance or communication)

AND

(genomics or “genetically modified” or gm or “genetic modification” or “genetic engineering” or genetics)

Method 4/6

ProcessAnalysis based on abstracts and reference information (no fulltext)

> Selection Relevant articles (2 reviewers)> Coding variables> Statistical Analysis with SPSS 12.0

Method 6/6

Results

> Web of Science vs Scopus

> Characteristics

> Trends

> Scientific Nature

Hits

Scopus 799 1970-1987: 31

1987-2006: 768

Web of Science 460

Double 350

Total unique articles: 909

Criteria exclusion:• No research (28)• Not about genomics (66) • Not about public perception (364)

Total deleted: 458 (Scopus: 243; Web of Science: 215)

Total sample: 451 (Scopus: 206; Web of Science: 245)

Coding Relevant Articles

# %

AgBioForum 23 5.1

Risk Analysis 17 3.8

Public Understanding of Science 15 3.3

Food Quality and Preference 10 2.2

International Journal of Biotechnology 10 2.2

Appetite 9 2.0

Journal of Risk Research 8 1.8

New Genetics and Society 8 1.8

Nature biotechnology 7 1.6

Community Genetics 7 1.6

Top Journals

Authors Journal title Year Citation (mean=4,54) Artcls by 1st Au

Clayton et al.

J. of the American Medical Association 1995 127 (Scopus)

1

Gaskell et al.

Science 1999 89 (Web of Science)

6

Croyle & LermanPreventive Medicine

1993 77 (Scopus)1

Gaskell et al.Nature biotechnology

2000 68 (Scopus)6

Frewer et al.Science Technology & Human Values

1997 53 (Web of Science)18

Kerr et al.Public Understanding of Science

1998 46 (Scopus)1

Howell et al.

Archives of Internal Medicine 1999 42 (Web of Science)

1

Richards & Ponder

Journal of Medical Genetics 1996 34 (Scopus)

1

Wynne Sci Cult (Lond) 2001 33 (Scopus) 2

PetersenSocial Science and Medicine

2001 32 (Scopus)1

Miles & Frewer

Food Quality and Preference 2001 29 (Web of Science)

5

SjobergRisk Analysis

2001 28 (Scopus)2

Bredahl Appetite 1999 27 (Web of Science) 4

Most cited articles

Frequency Percent

USA 142 31.5 GB 87 19.3 Scandinavia 28 6.2 Australia 22 4.9 Germany 20 4.4 New Zealand 15 3.3 Canada 13 2.9 Mid & Latin America13 2.9 Switzerland 12 2.7 Netherlands 10 2.2 Japan 9 2.0 Other 44 9.8

Countries

Total of different authors in the field: 875 authorsMean of written articles per author: 2,7 article

The 12 most productive authors:

1. Frewer 182. Lusk 9 3. Condit, Howard, Grunert 74. Bauer, Gaskell, House, Macer, McCluskey,

Shepherd, Wertz 6

Authors

Production

Productive authors (4 or more articles): 38

Important authors (2-3 articles): 114

Incidental authors (1 article): 723

1970

1982

1984

1985

1986

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

PublicationYear

0

20

40

60

80

100

Co

un

t

“Watershed years”: GM soy to EU,

Clone: Sheep Dolly

None Little Hot item

1990

1997

Start Human Genome Project,

Clone: Bull Herman

Publication Year

Newspaper articles

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

Year

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Co

un

t

Gutteling et al. 2002

Trend: Research Focus

• General 13%

• Red (Medical) 22%

• Green (Food) 61%

Genomics

* Based on 75% of sample: N=342

Theoretical

Abstracts mentioning:

Theoretical base: 6%

Factors: 37%

Model (output): 6%

Measurement instrument: 21%

* Based on 75% of sample: N=342

Research Method

Survey/Interviews 33%

Desk research/

narrative essay 9%

Focus groups 4%

Experiment 4%

Mixed methods 9%

Unknown 31%

Quantitative 37%Qualitative 25%Unknown 33%

* Based on 75% of sample: N=342

Measured

• Attitude 50%• (Perceived) Risks 24%• (Perceived) Benefits 19%• Ethical aspects 12%• Other factors 37%

* Based on 75% of sample* Based on 75% of sample: N=342

… influencing acceptance

• Trust

• Knowledge

• Demographics

• Worldview, lifestyle, religion

• Manufacturing process, brand, price, information, labeling

Other Factors

Conclusions

> Characteristics

> Trends

> Scientific Nature

• Many incidental authors, many journals • Small group of influential authors• Scopus covers much research which Web of

Science does not: good additional source

Characteristics of the literature

Conclusion 1/3

Trends

• Genomics upcoming item in last decade

(“Watershed years”)• Many studies on green genomics• Focus from ethics to perceived

benefits and risks

Conclusion 2/3

• Scientific nature often unclear: value?• Many public surveys (33%: 113)

• Little theoretical framework (6%: 22)

• Little systematic research on factors/modeling (6%: 22)

Conclusion 3/3

Scientific nature

* Based on 75% of sample* Based on 75% of sample: N=342

• Second coder/check• Further research:

– Content: analyses keywords– Two different worlds: medical – food?

Other issues?

Food: acceptance; Medical: doctor-patient?

Discussion

Questions?

More information at www.sraeurope2007.eu