about
Communicating Synthetic Biology: from the lab via the media to the broader publicPublic Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM CropsNanomedicine: promises and challenges for the future of public healthCommunicating the risks, and the benefits, of nanotechnologyRisk Communication, Media Amplification and the Aspartame ScareFrom Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology ControversyExpert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies.Communication in nuclear emergency preparedness: a closer look at information reception.Town mouse or country mouse: identifying a town dislocation effect in Chinese urbanization.Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on U.S. public perceptions of synthetic biology.Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis.The real and perceived risks of genetically modified organismsScientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterialsThe acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: perceptions of researchers and research trainees in the field of new technologiesEffects of disciplinary cultures of researchers and research trainees on the acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: a mixed-methods study.Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005.A study of the perception of health risks among college students in ChinaBeyond risk. A more realistic risk-benefit analysis of agricultural biotechnologiesDeterminants of public attitudes to genetically modified salmon.Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review.Public attitudes toward biofuels. Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use.Attitudes of Agricultural Experts Toward Genetically Modified Crops: A Case Study in Southwest Iran.Pharmaceutical Benefit-Risk Communication Tools: A Review of the Literature.Acceptability of GM foods among Pakistani consumers.Perceived efficacy and attitudes towards genetic science and science governance.Decomposing the effects of time on the social acceptability of biotechnology using age-period-cohort-country models.Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility, and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology.Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods.Is biotechnology (more) acceptable when it enables a reduction in phytosanitary treatments? A European comparison of the acceptability of transgenesis and cisgenesis.Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security.Potential damage of GM crops to the country image of the producing country.Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public.Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science.Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs.The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union.Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process.Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support.The role of prevention-oriented attitudes towards nature in people's judgment of new applications of genomics techniques in soil ecology.An empirical test of competing theories of hazard-related trust: the case of GM food.How Natural Is “More Natural”? The Role of Method, Type of Transfer, and Familiarity for Public Perceptions of Cisgenic and Transgenic Modification
P2860
Q24655409-A886FD47-13E1-4388-B66E-F916957837EFQ26799189-A0B3B32E-BD4A-413B-851B-14A86875D188Q28384103-760FCE50-3385-4BE5-A825-162504495655Q28750604-9CC21EF5-1C0D-429E-AC36-7FECAF22C62BQ29037525-9BF9B2F5-4F50-4796-822B-10CCD1E4DABDQ30039808-DFE06E1A-E4C1-4BF3-B1AD-4D61E3C6AAD5Q30219030-D933C94C-9213-432E-B0E5-550D6127E19CQ30223127-1DBFD6F4-358E-4402-8FAD-3AEEE268DEB1Q30388718-6577A664-23D5-423F-9C95-4DF77BBE9193Q30490865-C34B05B7-ABE5-470A-9163-323A9D2E74AEQ30520416-3293698F-F745-4718-BEA4-960141DC53D8Q34166474-90D36EF3-D732-4603-A724-F952D2EFCFD0Q34183113-D9B3B7ED-9363-4671-B4F3-1E917C8ECF22Q35201516-5D562A58-999D-4A64-894E-9099D14248F4Q35546009-11A06CA6-72B0-4FF4-ACE2-C972C8DFC34BQ36425191-217754A8-7FDB-41CD-9E97-DF60B2E058D9Q37030736-1A794C31-26D6-4E61-9F55-70C518EE9486Q37124469-9749F253-8235-44FA-94C4-83A41492EAE7Q37529247-44271C15-DC81-4C9A-942F-E254343809EEQ38119872-46A8E102-564D-4857-95D5-7A23770F0BC2Q38410579-C2F82699-EEA7-48F8-AB7A-76B7DF1ADFC2Q38516830-0B2C0AEB-3B69-44D9-97E1-9F3D1D406F1CQ38981425-668D41EE-6BF1-4256-A4C7-F1C10597F01AQ39520356-425010DB-27DF-4BAA-97C2-2FFF142D7AE5Q39823920-15ADFF78-8484-4FD5-9FA2-3F9B7A3A08BDQ40119265-52BBBE41-D9B3-4034-8C8E-CFA9745DD7B3Q40191618-628CE4DA-717F-49E9-8B4F-41D0CAF0FEE5Q41398728-3A331F4D-1B14-4AAB-975C-FE005F2C540EQ41634852-DA4EADA5-5BA1-4DF6-8479-53EA5F9F656AQ43481004-7023CEAC-8017-4284-BDE5-CDBA61B23AE6Q44896044-6651494A-03CA-4827-8F47-B3D7DBCDAA69Q45086530-0DC5F577-43DA-45A3-AE8A-A1148C3BFB4BQ45872137-B9D846A0-DBD4-4684-9A89-C5533F370369Q47297029-C9785B0A-5FA6-4ADA-B5FA-4B08C981EC0BQ49056025-4609337D-3CC4-4914-9DD9-3BCBFE116F7FQ49143935-65260983-C3E7-485F-BF7B-EFACBDC042E4Q51064242-865A088C-F762-4446-9D33-8CBFDF4E14D1Q51172653-3E43B3A5-7351-4FEF-B2B5-A089C67DEAFBQ51902382-1BA9887A-D2A4-4A5F-816D-73C60DAE345DQ57422158-F95CF03D-1EAD-4704-8F12-84FEF471D017
P2860
description
im Februar 2004 veröffentlichter wissenschaftlicher Artikel
@de
scientific article published on 01 February 2004
@en
wetenschappelijk artikel
@nl
наукова стаття, опублікована в лютому 2004
@uk
name
GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
@en
GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
@nl
type
label
GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
@en
GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
@nl
prefLabel
GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
@en
GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
@nl
P2093
P1433
P1476
GM foods and the misperception of risk perception
@en
P2093
George Gaskell
Helge Torgersen
Juergen Hampel
Julie Bardes
Nick Allum
P304
P356
10.1111/J.0272-4332.2004.00421.X
P577
2004-02-01T00:00:00Z