Conservation pest control with new technologies: public perceptions

References

• Akin H, Rose KM, Scheufele DA, Simis-Wilkinson M, Brossard D, Xenos MA, Corley EA. 2017. Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. BioScience. 67(3):290–300. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ancillotti M, Rerimassie V, Seitz SB, Steurer W. 2016. An update of public perceptions of synthetic biology: still undecided? NanoEthics. 10(3):309–325. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0256-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidwell SR. 2012. Talking about 1080: risk, trust and protecting our place. Dunedin: University of Otago.
   Google Scholar
• Blok V. 2014. Look who’s talking: responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 1(2):171–190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.924239.
   Google Scholar
• Brossard D, Belluck P, Gould F, Wirz CD. 2019. Promises and perils of gene drives: navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 116(16):7692–7697. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805874115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman A. 2004. Social research methods: second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell KJ, Beek J, Eason CT, Glen AS, Godwin J, Gould F, Holmes ND, Howald GR, Madden FM, Ponder JB, et al. 2015. The next generation of rodent eradications: innovative technologies and tools to improve species specificity and increase their feasibility on islands. Biological Conservation. 185:47–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caulfield T, Condit C. 2012. Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics. 15(3–4):209–217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1159/000336533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collingridge D. 1980. The social control of technology. New York: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Saille S, Medvecky F, Van Oudheusden M, Albertson K, Amanatidou E, Barabi T, Pansera M. 2020. Responsibility beyond growth: a case for responsible stagnation. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dowling DK, Tompkins DM, Gemmell NJ. 2015. The Trojan female technique for pest control: a candidate mitochondrial mutation confers low male fertility across diverse nuclear backgrounds in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolutionary Applications. 8(9):871–880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois A, Holzer S, Xexakis G, Cousse J, Trutnevyte E. 2019. Informed citizen panels on the swiss electricity mix 2035: longer-term evolution of citizen preferences and affect in two cities. Energies. 12(4231):1–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/en12224231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eason CT, Shapiro L, Ogilvie S, King C, Clout M. 2017. Trends in the development of mammalian pest control technology in New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Zoology. 44(4):267–304. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2017.1337645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Kafafi S. 2017. Genetic engineering perception in New Zealand: Is it the way of the future? In: A Ahmed, editor. World sustainable development outlook 2017: knowledge management and sustainable development in the 21st century, 200. New York: Routledge; p. 400.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg EM, Quaglio G, O’Kane H, Karapiperis T, Van Woensel L, Amaldi S. 2015. Assessment of science and technologies: advising for and with responsibility. Technology in Society. 42:21–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frewer L, Howard C, Shepherd R. 1997. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specefic applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 22(1):98–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujimura JH. 2003. Future imaginaries: genome scientists as sociocultural entrepreneurs. In: A. H. Goodman, D. Heath, S. M. Lindee, editor. Genetic nature/cultureanthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; p. 176–199.
   Google Scholar
• Gent DH, De Wolf E, Pethybridge SJ. 2011. Perceptions of risk, risk aversion, and barriers to adoption of decision support systems and integrated pest management: an introduction. Phytopathology. 101(6):640–643. doi:https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-04-10-0124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genus A, Stirling A. 2018. Collingridge and the dilemma of control: towards responsible and accountable innovation. Research Policy. 47(1):61–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R. 2011. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist. 66(4):290–302. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green W, Rohan M. 2012. Opposition to aerial 1080 poisoning for control of invasive mammals in New Zealand: risk perceptions and agency responses. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 42(3):185–213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2011.556130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston DH. 2018.  … Damned if you don’t. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 5(3):347–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. 2008. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 20(2):171–192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones MS, Delborne JA, Elsensohn J, Mitchell PD, Brown ZS. 2019. Does the U.S. public support using gene drives in agriculture? And what do they want to know? Science Advances. 5(9). doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau8462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kannemeyer RL. 2017. A systematic literature review of attitudes to pest control methods in New Zealand. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. 1–49.
   Google Scholar
• Kohl P, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA. 2019. Public views about gene editing wildlife for conservation. Conservation Biology. 33(6):1286–1295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurath M, Gisler P. 2009. Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. 18(5):559–573. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509104723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald EA, Balanovic J, Edwards ED, Abrahamse W, Frame B, Greenaway A, Kannemeyer R, Kirk N, Medvecky F, Milfont TL, et al. 2020. Public opinion towards gene drive as a pest control approach for biodiversity conservation and the association of underlying worldviews public opinion towards gene drive as a pest control approach for biodiversity conservation and the association of under. Environmental Communication. 1–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1702568.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten P, Davies SR, Kearnes M. 2015. Understanding public responses to emerging technolgies: a narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 21(5):504–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy EC, Russell JC, Broome KG, Ryan GJ, Dowding JE. 2019. Conserving New Zealand’s native fauna: a review of tools being developed for the Predator Free 2050 programme. Journal of Ornithology. 160(3):883–892. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-019-01643-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NASEM. 2016. Gene drives on the horizon: advancing science, navigating uncertainty, and aligning research with public values. Washington (DC): The National Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet MC. 2005. The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 17(1):90–112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribeiro B, Bengtsson L, Benneworth P, Bührer S, Castro-Martínez E, Hansen M, Jarmai K, Lindner R, Olmos-Peñuela J, Ott C, Shapira P. 2018. Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation. 5(3):316–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberson TM. 2020. Can hype be a force for good?: inviting unexpected engagement with science and technology futures. Public Understanding of Science. 29(5):544–552. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520923109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal Society of New Zealand. 2017. The use of gene editing to create gene drives for pest control in New Zealand. Wellington: Royal Society of New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Russell JC, Innes JG, Brown PH, Byrom AE. 2015. Predator-free New Zealand: conservation country. BioScience. 65(5):520–525. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seabrook-davison MNH, Brunton DH. 2014. Public attitude towards conservation in New Zealand and awareness of threatened species. Pacific Conservation Biology. 20(3):286–295.
   Google Scholar
• Selge S, Fischer A, van der Wal R. 2011. Public and professional views on invasive non-native species – a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biological Conservation. 144(12):3089–3097. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg L. 2004. Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO Reports. 5(1):S47–S51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tompkins DM. 2018. The research strategy for a ‘Predator Free’ New Zealand. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. 28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5070/V42811002. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1fg8405s
   Google Scholar
• van Eeden LM, Dickman CR, Ritchie EG, Newsome TM. 2017. Shifting public values and what they mean for increasing democracy in wildlife management decisions. Biodiversity and Conservation. 26(11):2759–2763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff JN, Gemmell NJ, Tompkins DM, Dowling D. 2017. Introduction of a male-harming mitochondrial haplotype via ‘Trojan females’ achieves population suppression in fruit flies. ELIFE, May. 3(6):e23551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar