Vasopressins are evolutionarily conserved peptide hormones. Mammalian vasopressin functions systemically as an antidiuretic and regulator of blood and cardiac flow essential for adapting to terrestrial environments. Moreover, vasopressin acts centrally as a neurohormone involved in social and parental behavior and stress response. Vasopressin synthesis in several cell types, storage in intracellular vesicles, and release in response to physiological stimuli are highly regulated and mediated by three distinct G protein coupled receptors. Other receptors may bind or cross-bind vasopressin. Vasopressin is regulated spatially and temporally through transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms, sex, tissue, and cell-specific receptor expression. Anomalies of vasopressin signaling have been observed in polycystic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, and neuropsychiatric conditions. Growing knowledge of the central biological roles of vasopressin has enabled pharmacological advances to treat these conditions by targeting defective systemic or central pathways utilizing specific agonists and antagonists.

Focus groups were used to examine the social, cultural and spiritual dimensions of biotechnology through an analysis of five selected community groups (total n = 68): scientists, Buddhists, business people, mothers with young children and the environmentally active. Participants from all groups were united in their perspective on three of the value spheres explored: health and welfare of family/society; maintaining/preserving the environment; and ethical considerations (e.g. welfare of animals, sanctity of life). However, values regarding science and business differentiated scientists and business people from the remaining community segments. Business people were more likely to adhere to "productionism," resulting in a greater acceptance of biotechnology, since business people did not hold the same resentment toward the business sphere held by other community segments. Scientists were far more accepting of the norms and values inherent in the sphere of science, believing science to be more predictable and controllable than general public perceptions. The disparity in worldviews for this value sphere meant scientists and laypeople did not communicate at the same level, in spite of having the same concerns for health and the environment. This resulted in feelings of frustration and powerlessness on the part of the layperson and the scientist.

PurposeThe goal of this research was to try a new methodology to elicit consumers' willingness to pay for genetically modified (GM) food.Design/methodology/approachEven though experimental auctions have been used for several years, they do not provide qualitative information on consumers' reasoning behind their purchase behaviours. To provide further illumination in this regard, a thought‐listing technique and a questionnaire were added.FindingsA majority of the consumers involved in this study were ready to pay for the GM food offered. The benefit provided by the GM product did not seem to be the major purchase criterion and sensory assessment appeared to be important. The use of different methodologies on the same sample of participants revealed that there was a gap between purchasing intentions and behaviours, and that a key to efficiently assessing public perception and purchase behaviours is the precision of the context.Research limitations implicationsThe absence of discrimination between the different benefits offered, might come from the limited size of the samples or from the nature of the benefits offered. Future research should consider larger samples and more diversified products.Practical implicationsThis study has concrete methodology applications. If one would like to conduct a market study, for instance, on a specific GM product, a general survey on biotechnology will not provide relevant answers.Originality/valueThe implementation of experimental auctions with psychometric tools, created an original and suitable protocol for accessing consumers' willingness to pay as well as their justifications.

Nous testons ici les dispositions à payer des consommateurs pour des aliments transgéniques de seconde génération, c'est-à-dire ayant des caractéristiques innovantes attractives pour le consommateur par rapport au produit conventionnel. Nous testons également les dispositions à payer de tels produits lorsqu'ils sont obtenus avec des technologies alternatives aux biotechnologies transgéniques. Les résultats indiquent que la disposition à payer positive pour une caractéristique désirable obtenue grâce à un organisme génétiquement modifié compense la perte de disposition à payer qu'entraine, pour le consommateur, l'usage d'une telle technologie. Pour un même produit amélioré pour le consommateur, le recours à la technologie transgénique conduit à une disposition à payer toujours inférieure à celles proposée pour les autres technologies. L'écart est néanmoins d'une ampleur réduite, même si les OGM continuent à subir le coût d'une image négative.