Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?
Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-06, Vol.14 (6), p.e0218176-e0218176 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0218176 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | e0218176 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Yunes, Maria Cristina Teixeira, Dayane L von Keyserlingk, Marina A G Hötzel, Maria J |
| description | Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0218176 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2246222187</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A590572610</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_9dd6656a308e44fe960bdafa453bb0a8</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A590572610</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-75d7846e45d584f5d74d395f56e9ec4ef06c90ce81579a9d9acc11d323874bb83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkktv1DAUhSMEoqXwDxBEQkKwmMHvxBugqniMVKkSr63l2DcZVxl7GjsV_Hs8nbSaoC5QFo6d755zr3OK4jlGS0wr_O4yjIPX_XIbPCwRwTWuxIPiGEtKFoIg-vDg_ah4EuMlQpzWQjwujigmlHKCjouPq1h24KEE65LzXal9qY2BbdJND6XuE2SX5K6hTKE0OqYh74IvnS-3rosfnhaPWt1HeDatJ8XPz59-nH1dnF98WZ2dni-MkCQtKm6rmglg3PKatXnHLJW85QIkGAYtEkYiAzXmldTSytwExpYSWlesaWp6Urzc6277ENU0fFSEMEFInr7KxGpP2KAv1XZwGz38UUE7dXMQhk7pITnTg5LWCsGFpqgGxlqQAjVWt5px2jRI79zeT25jswFrwOe5-5no_It3a9WFayW4RDXCWeDNJDCEqxFiUhsXDfS99hDGfd8S0fqm71f_oPdPN1GdzgM434bsa3ai6jR78ooIjDK1vIfKj4WNMzkprcvns4K3s4LMJPidOj3GqFbfv_0_e_Frzr4-YNeQg7SOoR932YlzkO1BM4QYB2jvLhkjtQv67W2oXdDVFPRc9uLwB90V3Sab_gV8APa8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2246222187</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Yunes, Maria Cristina ; Teixeira, Dayane L ; von Keyserlingk, Marina A G ; Hötzel, Maria J</creator><contributor>Olsson, I Anna S</contributor><creatorcontrib>Yunes, Maria Cristina ; Teixeira, Dayane L ; von Keyserlingk, Marina A G ; Hötzel, Maria J ; Olsson, I Anna S</creatorcontrib><description>Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant's perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218176</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31233520</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acceptability ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Agricultural biotechnology ; Animal welfare ; Animals ; Anopheles ; Attitude ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biotechnology ; Castration ; Education ; Engineering and Technology ; Ethics ; Female ; Food ; Food, Genetically Modified ; Gene Editing ; Genes ; Genetic engineering ; Genetic modification ; Genetic research ; Genetically modified organisms ; Genome editing ; Genomes ; Hogs ; Humans ; Male ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Pain ; People and places ; Perception ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative reasoning ; Questionnaires ; Regression analysis ; Regression models ; Religion ; Retirement benefits ; Risk factors ; Suidae ; Surgery ; Swine ; Technology</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-06, Vol.14 (6), p.e0218176-e0218176</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Yunes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Yunes et al 2019 Yunes et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-75d7846e45d584f5d74d395f56e9ec4ef06c90ce81579a9d9acc11d323874bb83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-75d7846e45d584f5d74d395f56e9ec4ef06c90ce81579a9d9acc11d323874bb83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3815-4086</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6590801/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6590801/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2095,2914,23846,27903,27904,53770,53772,79347,79348</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31233520$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Olsson, I Anna S</contributor><creatorcontrib>Yunes, Maria Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teixeira, Dayane L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Keyserlingk, Marina A G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hötzel, Maria J</creatorcontrib><title>Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant's perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.</description><subject>Acceptability</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Agricultural biotechnology</subject><subject>Animal welfare</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anopheles</subject><subject>Attitude</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>Castration</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food, Genetically Modified</subject><subject>Gene Editing</subject><subject>Genes</subject><subject>Genetic engineering</subject><subject>Genetic modification</subject><subject>Genetic research</subject><subject>Genetically modified organisms</subject><subject>Genome editing</subject><subject>Genomes</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>People and places</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative reasoning</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Religion</subject><subject>Retirement benefits</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Suidae</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Technology</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkktv1DAUhSMEoqXwDxBEQkKwmMHvxBugqniMVKkSr63l2DcZVxl7GjsV_Hs8nbSaoC5QFo6d755zr3OK4jlGS0wr_O4yjIPX_XIbPCwRwTWuxIPiGEtKFoIg-vDg_ah4EuMlQpzWQjwujigmlHKCjouPq1h24KEE65LzXal9qY2BbdJND6XuE2SX5K6hTKE0OqYh74IvnS-3rosfnhaPWt1HeDatJ8XPz59-nH1dnF98WZ2dni-MkCQtKm6rmglg3PKatXnHLJW85QIkGAYtEkYiAzXmldTSytwExpYSWlesaWp6Urzc6277ENU0fFSEMEFInr7KxGpP2KAv1XZwGz38UUE7dXMQhk7pITnTg5LWCsGFpqgGxlqQAjVWt5px2jRI79zeT25jswFrwOe5-5no_It3a9WFayW4RDXCWeDNJDCEqxFiUhsXDfS99hDGfd8S0fqm71f_oPdPN1GdzgM434bsa3ai6jR78ooIjDK1vIfKj4WNMzkprcvns4K3s4LMJPidOj3GqFbfv_0_e_Frzr4-YNeQg7SOoR932YlzkO1BM4QYB2jvLhkjtQv67W2oXdDVFPRc9uLwB90V3Sab_gV8APa8</recordid><startdate>20190624</startdate><enddate>20190624</enddate><creator>Yunes, Maria Cristina</creator><creator>Teixeira, Dayane L</creator><creator>von Keyserlingk, Marina A G</creator><creator>Hötzel, Maria J</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3815-4086</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190624</creationdate><title>Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?</title><author>Yunes, Maria Cristina ; Teixeira, Dayane L ; von Keyserlingk, Marina A G ; Hötzel, Maria J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-75d7846e45d584f5d74d395f56e9ec4ef06c90ce81579a9d9acc11d323874bb83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Acceptability</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Agricultural biotechnology</topic><topic>Animal welfare</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anopheles</topic><topic>Attitude</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>Castration</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food, Genetically Modified</topic><topic>Gene Editing</topic><topic>Genes</topic><topic>Genetic engineering</topic><topic>Genetic modification</topic><topic>Genetic research</topic><topic>Genetically modified organisms</topic><topic>Genome editing</topic><topic>Genomes</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>People and places</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative reasoning</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Religion</topic><topic>Retirement benefits</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Suidae</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yunes, Maria Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teixeira, Dayane L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Keyserlingk, Marina A G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hötzel, Maria J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yunes, Maria Cristina</au><au>Teixeira, Dayane L</au><au>von Keyserlingk, Marina A G</au><au>Hötzel, Maria J</au><au>Olsson, I Anna S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-06-24</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0218176</spage><epage>e0218176</epage><pages>e0218176-e0218176</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant's perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31233520</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0218176</doi><tpages>e0218176</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3815-4086</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2019-06, Vol.14 (6), p.e0218176-e0218176 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2246222187 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Acceptability Adolescent Adult Aged Agricultural biotechnology Animal welfare Animals Anopheles Attitude Biology and Life Sciences Biotechnology Castration Education Engineering and Technology Ethics Female Food Food, Genetically Modified Gene Editing Genes Genetic engineering Genetic modification Genetic research Genetically modified organisms Genome editing Genomes Hogs Humans Male Medical research Medicine and Health Sciences Middle Aged Pain People and places Perception Qualitative analysis Qualitative reasoning Questionnaires Regression analysis Regression models Religion Retirement benefits Risk factors Suidae Surgery Swine Technology |
| title | Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T06%3A18%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20gene%20editing%20an%20acceptable%20alternative%20to%20castration%20in%20pigs?&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Yunes,%20Maria%20Cristina&rft.date=2019-06-24&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0218176&rft.epage=e0218176&rft.pages=e0218176-e0218176&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0218176&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA590572610%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2246222187&rft_id=info:pmid/31233520&rft_galeid=A590572610&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_9dd6656a308e44fe960bdafa453bb0a8&rfr_iscdi=true |