Colección SciELO Chile

Departamento Gestión de Conocimiento, Monitoreo y Prospección
Consultas o comentarios: productividad@anid.cl
Búsqueda Publicación
Búsqueda por Tema Título, Abstract y Keywords



Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?
Indexado
WoS WOS:000484896700012
Scopus SCOPUS_ID:85067615649
DOI 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0218176
Año 2019
Tipo artículo de investigación

Citas Totales

Autores Afiliación Chile

Instituciones Chile

% Participación
Internacional

Autores
Afiliación Extranjera

Instituciones
Extranjeras


Abstract



Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (rho = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, rho<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant's perception of risks (r = -0.35, rho<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, rho<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, rho<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.

Revista



Revista ISSN
P Lo S One 1932-6203

Métricas Externas



PlumX Altmetric Dimensions

Muestra métricas de impacto externas asociadas a la publicación. Para mayor detalle:

Disciplinas de Investigación



WOS
Biology
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Scopus
Sin Disciplinas
SciELO
Sin Disciplinas

Muestra la distribución de disciplinas para esta publicación.

Publicaciones WoS (Ediciones: ISSHP, ISTP, AHCI, SSCI, SCI), Scopus, SciELO Chile.

Colaboración Institucional



Muestra la distribución de colaboración, tanto nacional como extranjera, generada en esta publicación.


Autores - Afiliación



Ord. Autor Género Institución - País
1 Yunes, Maria Cristina Mujer UNIV FED SANTA CATARINA - Brasil
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - Brasil
2 Lemos Teixeira, Dayane - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile - Chile
3 von Keyserlingk, Marina A. G. Mujer UNIV BRITISH COLUMBIA - Canadá
The University of British Columbia - Canadá
4 Hötzel, Maria José Mujer UNIV FED SANTA CATARINA - Brasil
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - Brasil

Muestra la afiliación y género (detectado) para los co-autores de la publicación.

Financiamiento



Fuente
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina

Muestra la fuente de financiamiento declarada en la publicación.

Agradecimientos



Agradecimiento
This research was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (311509/2015-0 to MJH) and the Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
This research was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (311509/2015-0 to MJH) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Muestra la fuente de financiamiento declarada en la publicación.