The development of Public Perception Research in the Genomics field An empirical analysis of the...
-
Upload
tyrone-fletcher -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of The development of Public Perception Research in the Genomics field An empirical analysis of the...
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