Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study

Bates, Benjamin R.

doi:10.1177/0963662505048409

Cited by 98 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Open-ended questions invite participants to engage in a research study and is in agreement with Bates et al (2005) who suggests that the subjects' active participation and interaction in the research study is necessary for future investigations of the public understanding of genetics. These 'other' responses, together with the selection of the choices given on the questionnaire, led to two major overall themes regarding the potential barriers against participation for this population in a genetic research study: (1) the need for more information on genetic research studies, including any risks involved in participation and how participation would be beneficial; and (2) providing more details on the methods used to collect, share and maintain security of the genetic sample.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Perceptions of genetic research in three rural Appalachian Ohio communities

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appalachian Americans are an underserved population with increased risk for diseases having strong genetic and environmental precursors. The purpose of this study is to understand the thoughts and perceptions of genetic research of Appalachian Americans residing in eastern Ohio prior to conducting a genetic research study with this population. A genetic survey was developed and completed by 180 participants from Marietta, Cambridge and East Liverpool, Ohio. The majority of respondents were Caucasian women with a median age of 37.5 years. We found that participants had a high interest in participating in 80 %, allowing their children to participate in 78 %, and learning more about genetic research studies (90 %); moreover, they thought that genetic research studies are useful to society (93 %). When asked what information would be useful when deciding to participate in a genetic research study, the following were most important: how environmental pollutants affect their genes and their child's genes (84 %), types of biological specimens needed for genetic research studies (75 %) and who will have access to their samples (75 %). Of the 20 % who responded that they were "unsure" about participating in a genetic research study, the leading reason was "I don't have enough information about genetic research to make a decision" (56 %). We also asked respondents to choose their preferred method for receiving genetic information, and the principal response was to read a brochure (40 %). Findings from this study will improve community education materials and dissemination methods that are tailored for underserved populations engaged in genetic research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Perceptions of genetic research in three rural Appalachian Ohio communities

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The similarity of responses lends support to the assertion by Petersen (2001) that the media coverage in this area is likely "to exert a powerful influence on public responses". However, previous focus group research (Bates, 2005) and the research reported here present a more complex picture of the use by members of the public of the resources provided through the media (Condit, 1999). Commonalties may reflect the media being well attuned to the nature of public beliefs/feelings in this area and reflecting these in the coverage or of both the media and the public drawing on common sources of public discourse in this field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…For example, while there was substantial coverage of therapeutic cloning in the media this was not picked up in the focus groups until the topic was expressly introduced by the researchers. Also the examination of the media showed a range of views presented often within the same newspaper, and so a simple transmission of views from the media to the public is not really viable (cf Bates, 2005;Condit, 1999). Rather members of the public appear to draw upon the media and other public discourse but their views will be influenced by other factors such as more general attitudes and also by interactions with others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some have argued that the public receive an overly deterministic view of genetic science from the media (e.g. Nelkin and Lindee, 1995) but others have questioned the extent to which this impacts on the public (Condit, 1999;Bates, 2005). The interpretation of information in the media is far from a linear acceptance of the views expressed but rather the target audience interpret the information in complex ways and are active rather than passive in the ways in which they use media information (Condit, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning

Shepherd

Barnett

Cooper

et al. 2007

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of scientists to apply cloning technology to humans has provoked public discussion and media coverage. The present paper reports on a series of studies examining public attitudes to human cloning, bringing together a range of quantitative and qualitative methods to address this question. These included a nationally representative survey, an experimental vignette study, focus groups and analyses of media coverage. In all of the analyses therapeutic cloning was viewed more favourably than was reproductive cloning. However, while participants in the focus groups were generally negative about both forms of cloning, and this was also reflected in the media analyses, quantitative results showed more positive responses. In the quantitative research, therapeutic cloning was generally accepted when the benefits of such procedures were clear and although reproductive cloning was less accepted there was still substantial support. Participants in the focus groups only differentiated between therapeutic and reproductive cloning after the issue of therapeutic cloning was explicitly raised; initially they saw cloning as being reproductive cloning and saw no real benefits. Attitudes were shown to be related to underlying values related to scientific progress rather than to age, gender or education, and although there were a few differences in the quantitative data based on religious affiliation, these tended to be small effects. Likewise in the focus groups there was little direct appeal to religion but the main themes were "interfering with nature" and the "status of the embryo", with the latter being used more effectively to try to close down further discussion. In general there was a close correspondence between the media analysis and focus group responses, possibly demonstrating the importance of media as a resource or that the media reflect public discourse accurately. However, focus group responses did not simply reflect media coverage. Abstract word count: 293

show abstract

“…The methodology of focus groups (Krueger 2004) was selected as it enables to observe the attitudes, beliefs, and reactions of a group in a way that would not be possible using other methods (Gibbs 1997;Krueger 2004;Bates 2005). Thus, the researcher receives lots of information in a short period of time.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptions on genetics in a group of college students

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate awareness, beliefs, and opinions on genetics in a group of Brazilian college students from several courses. The study used the focus group technique with the participation of 19 students, divided into four groups. Also, it used the isotopic reading technique to analyze the material. The results were divided in four themes: the basic knowledge of genetics, the "new genetics," including molecular biology and testing, genetic manipulation, and genetics and the media. The participants showed reasonable knowledge on the subject, obtained from various sources, including the printed press, the internet, documentaries, and fictional TV shows. Ethical issues were discussed comprehensively and the groups showed awareness on the hazards brought by genetic reductionism and the need to have some type of regulation regarding genetic manipulation and testing. It is necessary to broaden the debate about the progress in genetics because some of them will affect a significant number of people. This debate should include the lay public, which has been actively participating in decisions involving research and the use of new technologies.

show abstract

Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study

Cited by 98 publications

References 75 publications

Perceptions of genetic research in three rural Appalachian Ohio communities

Perceptions of genetic research in three rural Appalachian Ohio communities

Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning

Conceptions on genetics in a group of college students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About