Trust, Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, and Normative Acceptance of Approaches for Restoring American Chestnut Trees.

Abstract

This article examined trust, perceived risks and benefits, and normative acceptance associated with using breeding and genetic engineering (GE) to restore American chestnut (AC) trees. Questionnaires were completed by a random representative sample of the public in the United States (n = 278) and a purposive sample of forest interest groups (FIG) such as scientists and managers (n = 195). These concepts were examined in relation to breeding (breed the AC with chestnut trees from Asia) and GE (add the oxalate oxidase [OxO] gene from bread wheat to the AC) approaches for mitigating chestnut blight and restoring AC trees. The public sample considered adding the gene from bread wheat (GE) to be more beneficial and slightly more acceptable, but also slightly riskier, compared to the breeding approach. The FIGs viewed the breeding approach to be more acceptable, less risky, and more beneficial than the GE approach. The FIGs viewed both approaches as less risky, more beneficial, and more acceptable than did the public sample. Path analysis showed that: (i) perceived environmental benefits were the strongest predictors of normative acceptance of both approaches for the public sample, (ii) perceived environmental risks were the strongest predictors of acceptance of both approaches for the FIGs, (iii) human benefits and risks were mostly unrelated to acceptance, and (iv) trust in government agencies charged with managing forests was only weakly associated with benefits, risks, and acceptance. Implications of these results for both research and management were discussed.