1. The development of Public Perception Research in the Genomics field An empirical analysis of the literature in the field Renske Pin & Jan Gutteling

2. Systematic Review Insight in research literature “Where do we stand now?” Fill gap – further research (e.g. Bunz, 2005; Gurabardhi, Gutteling & Kuttschreuter, 2004; McComas 2006) > Method > Results > Conclusion

3. 1.How can we characterize the literature on public perception of genomics? 2. Do trends exist in the literature on public perception of genomics? 3. What do scientific indicators tell us about the scientific nature of the published articles on public perception of genomics? Research questions

4. Choices: > Databases > Document types > Period > Search Fields > Search Key design > Process Method

5. Databases Relevant databases on the field (advise of information specialist) Info on variables Citation index Download able in Endnote? Unique coverage? Web of Science++++ Scopus++++ Psycinfo+++- Philosophers index +-+- Method 1/6

6. Document Type Journal Articles Review Articles (no bookreviews) Method 2/6

7. Time Period As far back as possible in the databases: Web of science 1988 – 8 may 2006 Scopus 1970 – 8 may 2006 Method 3/6

8. Search fields Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (article titles, abstracts, Author Keywords, Index terms (controlled terms) Web of Science: TS (article titles, abstracts, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus) So the same fields were searched Method 5/6

9. Search Key (consumer* or public) AND (attitude* or opinion or perception or acceptance or communication) AND (genomics or “genetically modified” or gm or “genetic modification” or “genetic engineering” or genetics) Method 4/6

10. Process Analysis based on abstracts and reference information (no fulltext) > Selection Relevant articles (2 reviewers) > Coding variables > Statistical Analysis with SPSS 12.0 Method 6/6

11. Results > Web of Science vs Scopus > Characteristics > Trends > Scientific Nature

12. Hits Scopus 799 1970-1987: 31 1987-2006: 768 Web of Science460 Double 350 Total unique articles: 909

13. Criteria exclusion: No research (28) Not about genomics (66) Not about public perception (364) Total deleted: 458 (Scopus: 243; Web of Science: 215) Total sample: 451 (Scopus: 206; Web of Science: 245) Coding Relevant Articles

14. #% AgBioForum235.1 Risk Analysis173.8 Public Understanding of Science153.3 Food Quality and Preference102.2 International Journal of Biotechnology102.2 Appetite92.0 Journal of Risk Research81.8 New Genetics and Society81.8 Nature biotechnology71.6 Community Genetics71.6 Top Journals

15. AuthorsJournal titleYearCitation (mean=4,54)Artcls by 1 st Au Clayton et al.J. of the American Medical Association1995127 (Scopus) 1 Gaskell et al.Science199989 (Web of Science) 6 Croyle & LermanPreventive Medicine199377 (Scopus) 1 Gaskell et al.Nature biotechnology200068 (Scopus) 6 Frewer et al.Science Technology & Human Values199753 (Web of Science) 18 Kerr et al.Public Understanding of Science199846 (Scopus) 1 Howell et al.Archives of Internal Medicine199942 (Web of Science) 1 Richards & PonderJournal of Medical Genetics199634 (Scopus) 1 WynneSci Cult (Lond)200133 (Scopus) 2 PetersenSocial Science and Medicine200132 (Scopus) 1 Miles & FrewerFood Quality and Preference200129 (Web of Science) 5 SjobergRisk Analysis200128 (Scopus) 2 BredahlAppetite199927 (Web of Science) 4 Most cited articles

16. FrequencyPercent USA 14231.5 GB8719.3 Scandinavia286.2 Australia224.9 Germany204.4 New Zealand153.3 Canada132.9 Mid & Latin America132.9 Switzerland122.7 Netherlands102.2 Japan 92.0 Other449.8 Countries

17. Total of different authors in the field: 875 authors Mean of written articles per author: 2,7 article The 12 most productive authors: 1.Frewer18 2.Lusk 9 3.Condit, Howard, Grunert 7 4.Bauer, Gaskell, House, Macer, McCluskey, Shepherd, Wertz 6 Authors

18. Production Productive authors (4 or more articles): 38 Important authors (2-3 articles): 114 Incidental authors (1 article): 723

19. “Watershed years”: GM soy to EU, Clone: Sheep Dolly NoneLittle Hot item 19901997 Start Human Genome Project, Clone: Bull Herman Publication Year

20. Newspaper articles Gutteling et al. 2002

21. Trend: Research Focus

22. General 13% Red (Medical) 22% Green (Food) 61% Genomics * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

23. Theoretical Abstracts mentioning: Theoretical base: 6% Factors:37% Model (output):6% Measurement instrument: 21% * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

24. Research Method Survey/Interviews 33% Desk research/ narrative essay 9% Focus groups 4% Experiment 4% Mixed methods 9% Unknown 31% Quantitative 37% Qualitative 25% Unknown 33% * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

25. Measured Attitude50% (Perceived) Risks24% (Perceived) Benefits19% Ethical aspects12% Other factors37% * Based on 75% of sample * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

26. … influencing acceptance Trust Knowledge Demographics Worldview, lifestyle, religion Manufacturing process, brand, price, information, labeling Other Factors

27. Conclusions > Characteristics > Trends > Scientific Nature

28. Many incidental authors, many journals Small group of influential authors Scopus covers much research which Web of Science does not: good additional source Characteristics of the literature Conclusion 1/3

29. Trends Genomics upcoming item in last decade (“Watershed years”) Many studies on green genomics Focus from ethics to perceived benefits and risks Conclusion 2/3

30. Scientific nature often unclear: value? Many public surveys (33%: 113) Little theoretical framework (6%: 22) Little systematic research on factors/modeling (6%: 22) Conclusion 3/3 Scientific nature * Based on 75% of sample * Based on 75% of sample: N=342

31. Second coder/check Further research: –Content: analyses keywords –Two different worlds: medical – food? Other issues? Food: acceptance; Medical: doctor-patient? Discussion

32. Questions?

33. More information at www.sraeurope2007.eu