![]() ![]() Assessments of the risk of gene spread follow a different pattern, with the new-to-nature gene considered safest (Study 4). ![]() Adding a gene from a taxonomically distant organism is considered more morally wrong (Studies 2, 3 and 4), more risky (Studies 2 & 3), and more risky to eat (Study 4), than adding either a gene from a similar organism or a new-to-nature gene. ![]() Moral purity concerns but not moral harm concerns predict moral wrongness judgments of adding a foreign gene to a plant (Studies 1, 2 & 4), as well as assessments of risk (Studies 1 and 2), and risk of harm from eating (Study 4). Across four studies with American adults (N = 649), the present research investigates the proposal that essentialist reasoning and moral purity concerns conspire to shape risk assessments of engineered organisms. But little attention has been paid to potential cognitive constraints on reasoning about such technologies. The field of synthetic biology heralds a new era in our relationship with nature, as organisms are engineered to meet human goals. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2023
Categories |