Public opinion can affect the adoption of genome editing technologies. In food production, genome editing can be applied to a wide range of applications, in different species and with different purposes. This study analyzed how the public responds to five different applications of genome editing, varying the species involved and the proposed purpose of the modification. Three of the applications described the introduction of disease resistance within different species (human, plant, animal), and two targeted product quality and quantity in cattle. Online surveys in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany and Italy were carried out with a total sample size of 3698 participants. Using a between-subject design, participants were confronted with one of the five applications and asked to decide whether they considered it right or wrong. Perceived risks, benefits, and the perception of the technology as tampering with nature were surveyed and were complemented with socio-demographics and a measure of the participants’ moral foundations. In all countries, participants evaluated the application of disease resistance in humans as most right to do, followed by disease resistance in plants, and then in animals, and considered changes in product quality and quantity in cattle as least right to do. However, US and Italian participants were generally more positive toward all scenarios, and German and Austrian participants more negative. Cluster analyses identified four groups of participants: ‘strong supporters’ who saw only benefits and little risks, ‘slight supporters’ who perceived risks and valued benefits, ‘neutrals’ who showed no pronounced opinion, and ‘opponents’ who perceived higher risks and lower benefits. This research contributes to understanding public response to applications of genome editing, revealing differences that can help guide decisions related to adoption of these technologies.

公众舆论会影响基因组编辑技术的采用。在食品生产中，基因组编辑可以应用于不同物种和不同目的的广泛应用。这项研究分析了公众如何对五种不同的基因组编辑应用做出反应，包括所涉及的物种和修改的拟议目的。其中三个应用描述了在不同物种（人类、植物、动物）中引入抗病性，以及两个针对牛的产品质量和数量。在加拿大、美国、奥地利、德国和意大利进行了在线调查，总样本量为 3698 名参与者。使用主体间设计，参与者面对五个应用程序之一，并要求他们决定他们认为它是对还是错。感知风险，利益，以及对技术篡改自然的看法进行了调查，并辅以社会人口统计学和参与者道德基础的衡量标准。在所有国家，参与者评估了在人类中应用抗病性是最正确的做法，其次是植物中的抗病性，然后是动物，并认为牛的产品质量和数量的变化是最不应该做的。然而，美国和意大利的参与者普遍对所有情景都持更积极的态度，而德国和奥地利的参与者则更消极。聚类分析确定了四组参与者：参与者评估了在人类中应用抗病性是最正确的做法，其次是植物中的抗病性，然后是动物，并认为改变牛的产品质量和数量是最不合适的。然而，美国和意大利的参与者普遍对所有情景都持更积极的态度，而德国和奥地利的参与者则更消极。聚类分析确定了四组参与者：参与者评估了在人类中应用抗病性是最正确的做法，其次是植物中的抗病性，然后是动物，并认为改变牛的产品质量和数量是最不合适的。然而，美国和意大利的参与者普遍对所有情景都持更积极的态度，而德国和奥地利的参与者则更消极。聚类分析确定了四组参与者：强烈支持者只看到好处和小风险，“轻微支持者”感知风险并重视收益，“中立者”没有发表明确意见，“反对者”认为风险更高而收益更低。这项研究有助于了解公众对基因组编辑应用的反应，揭示有助于指导与采用这些技术相关的决策的差异。