Genetically engineered coral: A mixed-methods analysis of initial public opinion

Rising sea surface water temperatures is contributing to coral degradation in the Great Barrier Reef. Synthetic biology technologies offer the potential to enhance coral resilience to higher water temperatures. To explore what the public think of genetically engineered coral, qualitative responses to an open-ended question in a survey of 1,148 of the Australian public were analysed. More respondents supported the technology (59%) than did not (11%). However, a considerable proportion indicated moderate or neutral support (29%). Participants commented about the (moral) right to interfere with nature and uncertainty regarding the consequences of implementing the technology. Participants also mentioned the need to take responsibility and act to save the reef, as well as the benefits likely to result from implementing the technology. Other themes included a desire for further testing and proof, more information, and tight regulation and controls when introducing the technology.


39
The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia holds both significant and economic value 40 (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2019). Home to more than 1,200 species of hard 41 and soft corals (GBRMPA, 2019), the GBR is estimated to directly and indirectly contribute favourably, whereas technologies that bring back extinct animals or technologies used for 138 recreational purposes (e.g., glowing fish) are viewed least favourably and are considered an 139 unacceptable use of this technology (Funk & Hefferon, 2018). It would appear then that the 140 mechanism or intended purpose of the technology is an important consideration for people. 141 Furthermore, people seem to be predominantly attuned to the potential benefits and 142 risks to animals, humans, and the ecosystem; moral, emotional or value-related issues (e.g., 143 unnaturalness, creating life, playing God) (Dragojlovic & Einsiedel, 2012); and 144 regulatory/control aspects (Akin et al., 2017;Betten, Broerse & Kupper, 2018;Hart Research 145 Associates, 2013; Mandel, Braman & Kahan, 2008). Value predispositions (i.e., religiosity 146 and deference towards scientific authority) and trust in scientists also have been found to be 147 significantly correlated with support for synthetic biology (Akin et al., 2017;Dragojlovic & 148 Einsiedel, 2012). Focussing further on perceived risks, some research also has reported public 149 concern regarding the potential for secondary use, misuse and/or unintended consequences of 150 synthetic biology (Gibson et al., 2010), including bioterrorism, loss of biodiversity, or the 151 evolution of more resilient pests (Hart Research Associates, 2013;Newson, 2015;Rogers, 152 2011).

153
Psychological theories have also been developed to formally model some of these 154 potential causal influences on individuals' support or acceptance of novel scientific 155 innovations and technologies more generally. For instance, in the area of novel, sustainable 156 energy technologies (e.g., wind farms, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen vehicles, nuclear 157 energy), a comprehensive framework has been proposed to explain technology acceptance 158 (Huijts, Molin & Steg, 2012). This framework amalgamates several psychological theories 159 and draws upon empirical evidence to a range of influences on technology acceptance 160 including but not limited to perceived costs, risks and benefits; social norms; attitudes and 161 perceived behavioural control (the Theory of Planned Behaviour: Azjen, 1991), outcome 162 efficacy, problem perception and personal norms or moral obligations (the Norm Activation 163 Model: Schwartz, 1968;1977), affective influences, including both positive and negative 164 affect (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003), trust in the regulators or owners of the technology 165 (Midden & Huijts, 2009;Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000), and fairness, including fairness of 166 decision processes, and the distribution of outcomes (constructs borrowed from the 167 organisational justice literature: Colquitt, 2001 with empirical evidence from wind farm 168 studies: Gross, 2007;Wolsink, 2005). Across different technological applications, empirical 169 work reveals support for the explanatory value of these social/psychological constructs. 170 Although this psychological framework can be applied to any technology that 171 promises benefits along with potential risks and costs (Huijts et al., 2012), in the current 172 study, we undertook an exploratory assessment of self-generated reasons for public support 173 (or lack thereof) for a synthetic biology solution (i.e. heat resistant coral) to the problem of 174 coral loss due to climate-related factors. Once these factors are identified, it may be then

217
Participants then received information on the problem of coral loss in the GBR and a 218 possible synthetic biology solution (i.e. genetic engineering of heat resistant coral). A power-219 point style presentation, or 'storyboard', was presented to participants to convey this 220 information; this storyboard also provided textual and visual information about the novel 221 technological solution. The storyboard was developed by the authors in collaboration with the 222 scientists who are developing the technology, as well as CSIRO communication specialists. It 223 should be noted that the information on the technology focussed on the benefits and did not 224 explicitly detail potential negative consequences. The reasons for only presenting the benefits 225 and not the negative consequences were two-fold -first, we wanted to see if and what 226 negative outcomes people would raise themselves; and second, the technology is currently at 227 such an infant stage of development that the potential negative outcomes are unknown at this 228 stage.

229
Before viewing the storyboard, participants were asked whether they had heard of 230 gene editing before. For those who had heard of it before, a knowledge of gene editing of  knowledge of genetically engineered coral was low across the sample.      These results are consistent with the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Azjen, 1991) 370 whereby people are thought to form attitudes based on an appraisal of the perceived costs/risk and benefits. In the context of synthetic biology, perceived risks and benefits is a salient and 372 topical theme. For example, survey research in the U.S. has revealed that about a quarter 373 think the risks will be high, while a similar percentage also believe the benefits will be high -374 and when a single 'risks -benefits' measure is created, it correlates negatively and 375 significantly with support (Akin et al., 2017). Other research has shown that concerns about 376 risks outweighing the benefits significantly heightens (i.e., doubling the percentage sharing 377 this concern) when people are provided balanced information (including its potential benefits 378 and risks) as opposed to when no information is provided (Pauwels, 2013). In focus groups 379 where balanced information is provided, discussions appear to be more nuanced whereby 380 participants express more ambivalence towards the technology (Pauwels, 2013 cues to determine whether they will support the technology -factors such as deference to 410 scientific authority and trust in scientists (Akin et al., 2017).

Naturalness objections
A small number (n=86, ~7%) of people made comments that fundamentally objected 413 to human interference in nature or more broadly how nature should be left alone presented.

414
The language used in these comments reflected a firm stance. Examples include: Of all the themes negatively related to support, naturalness objections were the most 420 significant correlate (t=-8.09, p=0.000), highlighting its importance in potentially influencing 421 one's level of support.

422
Certainly, prior research has revealed that some people may not support synthetic 423 biology due to an underlying yet highly accessible implicit belief that genetic manipulation is 424 unnatural (and therefore morally wrong); or alternatively, they may hold a more explicit  respectively. It is possible, then, that this small group of people were feeling somewhat 509 cautious towards the technology, and therefore wanted to see more reliable evidence from 510 scientific trials.  Finally, there was a smaller proportion (~2%) again who explained that they had 521 confidence in and trusted the science and evidence that the technology would indeed be an 522 effective solution.

523
It seems it's strongly based on scientific fact without damaging the ecological environment [2077] 524 I'm confident it's been tested vigorously in this day and age [4350] 525 The fact that testing will be controlled in a lab situation before anything is done in the reef [2663] 526 Participants who mentioned this reasoning were significantly more likely to support 527 the technology (t=4.52, p=0.000). Prior research has revealed that scientists, academics and The final theme that was significantly negatively related to support was prior stories 540 of failed scientific field interventions, such as the introduction of the cane toad into Australia.

541
While only a small percentage (n=24, ~2%) of participants mentioned previous stories, it was 542 still significantly related to less support for the technology, signifying how salient historical 543 failures of introduced bio-based technologies are in the minds of some (t=-2.78, p=0.006).

549
As observed in previous qualitative research (Ancillotti et al., 2016), our participants 550 drew links between the current synthetic biology technology and past experiences or stories 551 that readily came to mind. It is possible that both the availability heuristic (Tversky & 552 Kahneman, 1973) and the negativity bias (Kanouse & Hanson, 1971) are in operation here.

553
The availability heuristic is a mental short-cut that involves making judgements or decisions 554 based on how easily an example, story or similar experience comes to mind -that is, when an 555 example spring to mind quickly, people may perceive that example (and the information it 556 conveys) as important and more heavily rely on this example to assist them in forming a 557 decision. While this process certainly improves the speed of decision-making, in some cases,

558
it can lead to biased decisions. Further to this, the negativity bias explains that more negative 559 things (e.g., unpleasant thoughts, emotions, events) have a greater effect on one's 560 psychological state than do neutral or positive things (Baumeister,Finkenauer & Vohs,561 2001). Applied to memory, research reveals that people tend to recall negative 562 events/information more so than positive events/information (Finkenauer & Rime, 1998;563 Robinson-Riegler & Winton, 1996;Thomas & Diener, 1990 there was a small proportion who admitted that they needed more information and/or had not 582 formed an opinion on the technology. In addition to desiring more information, some 583 participants also expressly requested results from scientific trials.

584
With an understanding of these factors, it may be possible for key stakeholders to 585 modify how they develop and implement the technology so that it aligns with these societal

Need for action
There is a need to do something to fix the problem.
Because we need to do something soon to prevent destruction of the barrier reef [12469] Something needs to be to try to help fix this issue if we can, some of which is of our own making. [13939] The earth is in a position where human intervention is necessary, this technology would have a positive affect [sic] on the current issues being faced today [15439] There is nothing to loose [sic] by supporting it because the reef will continue to be damaged regardless so it is better to do something than nothing If the reef was to be lost, this would definitely be worth trying, provided safeguards were established as much as possible (potential loss vs potential risk) [1611] I do support it however I have reservations....there is a lot of doom and gloom about the reef. [2002] 52 (4.53%)

Problem focus
Need to accept and recognize the problem and focus on problem-focused solutions instead. This solution will not work as there remains additional threats to the reef.
It would legitimise our continued use of fossil fuels and our failure to take adequate steps to prevent and reverse global warming [12210] I believe the root causes need to be target and new or modified DNA will only in the long-term lead to other as yet unknown issues [13747] Your dealing with the effects not the root cause of the