Exploring the influences on Australian agricultural professionals’ genetic engineering beliefs: an empirical analysis

This paper analyses what influences professionals’ beliefs on agricultural genetic engineering. A telephone survey was conducted in 2004 on Australian public agricultural professionals. Using an ordered probit regression, some of the significant key influences on overall beliefs were: age; research relevance; ethnicity; farm background; information and occupational effects; attitudes towards the current sustainability of conventional agriculture; attitudes towards agricultural research issues; and attitudes towards the individual aspects of genetic engineering. Somewhat surprisingly, subjective knowledge of genetic engineering was not a significant factor in influencing overall beliefs, although it did play a positive influence on some individual beliefs (such as the technology’s profitability benefits and that there is no need for more long-term research before further general release of genetically engineered products). However, more research on the links between actual knowledge and acceptance are needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.

How will we regulate genetic enhancement?

Genetic enhancement technologies present difficult and novel regulatory issues, including the problem of measuring and comparing risks and benefits and dealing with the impact of these technologies on social values. This Article describes and evaluates the potential approaches that may be taken to regulate these technologies. The author concludes that a variety of approaches will be necessary, involving self-regulation, government restrictions on access and use, licensing, and a national lottery.     

Is embryo research and preimplantation genetic diagnosis ethical?

The legal position in the UK on embryo research and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is outlined and contrasted with the position in other EU countries. The "gradualist" position of the UK on the moral status of the embryo is defended on the basis of an argument that precaution must be applied in proportion to the degree to which the embryo has developed to display components of agency, on the assumption that mortality is categorically binding and requires agents to be granted rights and that it cannot be known with certainty that the embryo is not an agent. The extent to which this argument, when combined with vicarious protections that the embryo should receive in order to protect the rights of other agents, limits embryo research and PGD, is discussed. It is concluded that the complexities that attend deliberation about the moral problems attending embryo research and PGD are such that the proper response to these problems is via the procedures of political democracy to achieve accountable answers rather than "correct" answers. This allows for a variety of judgements.     

Do peer group norms moderate the expression of genetic risk for aggression?

Purpose

Using a genetically informed design based on 192 Monozygotic and Dizygotic twin pairs assessed in kindergarten, this study examined whether the expression of genetic risk for physical aggression or for relational aggression varies depending on the peer group’s injunctive behaviour norms.

Methods

Physical aggression and relational aggression, as well as injunctive peer group norms in regard to these behaviours, were measured via peer nominations in the twins’ kindergarten classes.

Results

Peer groups varied considerably in terms of the level of acceptability of both physical and relational aggression. Bivariate Cholesky modeling revealed a significant gene-environment interaction, indicating that a strong genetic disposition for physical aggression was much more likely to be expressed when peer group injunctive norms were favourable to such behaviour. In contrast, genetic factors essentially played no role in explaining inter-individual differences when peer group norms discouraged physical aggression. Relational aggression was generally less explained by genetic influences and more by environmental influences regardless of peer group norms, but environmental influences became even more important when peer group norms favoured such behaviour.

Conclusions

These findings speak to the importance of the peer group in shaping aggression already in young children by either condoning or penalizing such behaviour.