The fragility of omics risk and benefit perceptions

• Published in: Toxicology letters Vol. 201; no. 3; pp. 249 - 257
• Main Authors: Börner, Franziska U., Schütz, Holger, Wiedemann, Peter
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Shannon Elsevier Ireland Ltd 25.03.2011; Elsevier
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Benefits; Biological and medical sciences; Framing; Genomics; Genomics - economics; Genomics - legislation & jurisprudence; Humans; Industry; Judgment; Lay perception; Medical sciences; Perception; Poisoning - diagnosis; Risk Assessment; Risk perception; Toxicogenetics - economics; Toxicogenetics - legislation & jurisprudence; Toxicogenomics; Toxicology; Risk perception; Benefits; Lay perception; Framing; Toxicogenomics; Genomics; Genome
• ISSN: 0378-4274; 1879-3169
• DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2011.01.008

How do individuals judge the risks and benefits of toxicogenomics, an emerging field of research which is completely unfamiliar to them? The hypothesis is that individuals’ perceptions of the risks and benefits of toxicogenomics are fragile and can by influenced by different issues and context framings as a technology. The researchers expected that the effects on risk and benefit judgements would differ between lay individuals and experts in toxicogenomics. A 2×2×2 experiment that encompassed three factors was conducted. The first factor, issue framing incorporated the field of application for the technology (therapy vs. diagnosis setting). The second factor, context framing included organisations and institutions that would profit from the technology (companies vs. regulatory agencies) and the third factor encompasses the quality of individuals’ level of knowledge, for example lay vs. expert knowledge. Research results suggest the differential power of framing effects. It seems that the clues provided by context frames – but not by issue frames – are able to influence the ways in which lay people and experts process information. The findings are interpreted in the line of the fuzzy trace theory that predicts reliance on fuzzy gist representations formed by stereotypes on a wide range of judgement problem including risk and benefit perceptions.