Gene-editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, hold immense potential in biomedical research, agriculture, and disease treatment. While offering significant benefits, these technologies also raise ethical concerns regarding the alteration of living systems. Public engagement with gene editing necessitates considering not only scientific and economic aspects, but also the social and cultural contexts influencing technology development, implementation, and impact. Existing research highlights the inadequacy of solely focusing on science literacy in public engagement; a more nuanced approach is required that incorporates cultural values and perspectives. This study emphasizes the significance of culture in understanding public responses to gene-editing technologies, drawing on the scholarship of science and technology studies (STS) and feminist science studies, which demonstrate how scientific advancements are deeply embedded in social and political contexts and often reflect existing biases. Previous work has shown how controversies surrounding biotechnology and genetic modification frequently stem from conflicting interests, moral considerations, and concerns about 'tampering with nature'. The authors argue that effective science policy must engage with cultural and moral imperatives to foster public trust. Drawing on previous work emphasizing culture-centered engagement frameworks in climate science communication, the study focuses on understanding and comparing Indigenous Māori and non-Indigenous perspectives on gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand, a country with a unique history of incorporating Māori values into regulatory processes.

The introduction extensively reviews existing literature on public engagement with genetic technologies, highlighting the limitations of deficit models that focus solely on increasing scientific knowledge. It emphasizes the importance of a culture-centered approach, drawing on existing work in science and technology studies (STS) and feminist science studies. The authors discuss the ethical and social tensions surrounding biotechnology and genetic modification, referencing prior research on moral, political, and social controversies in this field. They also draw a parallel to climate change communication, emphasizing the need for culture-centered frameworks that acknowledge values, place, power, and narrative in communicating with at-risk communities. Finally, they provide context on the development of genetic technology regulations in Aotearoa New Zealand, highlighting the integration of Māori values and perspectives in policy-making.

The research employed a national online survey of a stratified random sample of 830 participants (50% Māori, 50% non-Māori), reflecting the unique demographic context of Aotearoa New Zealand where Māori comprise approximately 16.7% of the population. The survey, conducted in July 2019, covered six main themes: familiarity with genetic modification and gene editing; attitudes toward various applications (human medical treatments, food production, conservation); views on the existing legal framework; the importance of Māori values (kaitiakitanga, whakapapa, mana, mauri) in guiding gene editing; support for gene editing of taonga (native) species; and conditions for acceptable commercialization. The survey included Likert scale questions, open-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, thermometer questions, and demographic questions. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and K-means cluster analysis to identify attitudinal subgroups within Māori and non-Māori respondents. The K-means algorithm, chosen due to the large sample size, iteratively grouped respondents based on their responses, aiming to create distinct clusters with similar attitudes. ANOVA tests were conducted to assess the usefulness of variables in classifying respondents into these clusters. The study employed a rigorous methodology to analyze complex cultural nuances and attitudes toward gene editing.

The K-means cluster analysis revealed six distinct attitudinal groups: Māori Strongly Opposed, Māori Leaning Supportive, Māori Strongly Supportive, Non-Māori Strongly Opposed, Non-Māori Leaning Supportive, and Non-Māori Strongly Supportive. Across all clusters, support for gene editing was higher than for genetic modification, suggesting that perceptions of genetic modification significantly influenced views on gene editing. Support for specific applications varied, with human medical treatments receiving the highest support and human cosmetic enhancements the lowest. While overall support levels for gene technologies were similar between Māori and non-Māori, Māori respondents in the opposed clusters expressed significantly stronger opposition. Māori in the leaning supportive cluster demonstrated more ambivalence and expressed concerns regarding unintended consequences and ethical issues. The importance of Māori values (whakapapa, mana, kaitiakitanga, mauri) in guiding decisions about gene editing was recognized across all clusters, although non-Māori respondents in the Leaning Supportive and Opposed clusters showed less emphasis on these values. Regarding gene editing of taonga (native) species, support was highest for applications related to human health, with significantly less support for applications in animal and plant breeding. A substantial portion of Māori respondents (particularly in the Strongly Opposed cluster) expressed opposition to gene editing of taonga species under any circumstances.

The findings highlight the importance of culturally sensitive communication strategies in public engagement with gene-editing technologies. The study's identification of distinct attitudinal clusters among Māori and non-Māori reveals the complexities of public opinion and the need for tailored communication approaches. The significant difference in the strength of opposition expressed by Māori compared to non-Māori underscores the necessity of incorporating Māori values and perspectives into policy development. The ambivalence expressed by the Leaning Supportive cluster highlights the need for transparent communication that addresses public concerns about risk and uncertainty. The study's findings demonstrate that understanding cultural values and perspectives is crucial for fostering trust and facilitating informed public discourse surrounding gene-editing technologies.

This study provides valuable insights into the cultural complexities surrounding public engagement with gene-editing technologies in Aotearoa New Zealand. The findings emphasize the importance of culturally sensitive communication strategies and the need to incorporate diverse values and perspectives into policy making. Future research could explore more detailed qualitative studies to further understand the nuanced perspectives of different groups, and investigate the effectiveness of various public engagement strategies in shaping informed public opinion.

The study's reliance on a single national survey limits the generalizability of the findings. Further research using mixed-methods approaches, including qualitative interviews and focus groups, would be beneficial to enrich the understanding of public perspectives. The cross-sectional nature of the study limits causal inferences, and longitudinal studies could better capture changes in attitudes over time. The study's focus on Māori and non-Māori perspectives might overlook other relevant cultural or social factors influencing public engagement.