Yeping Han

Institute of Life Sciences, Jiyang Colloge of Zhejiang A&F University, Zhuji, 311800, Zhejiang, China
Author    Correspondence author
GMO Biosafety Research, 2024, Vol. 15, No. 5   
Received: 15 Jul., 2024    Accepted: 26 Aug., 2024    Published: 08 Sep., 2025

This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This study explores public perception and acceptance of genetically modified (GM) pigs in medical applications, systematically analyzing key factors influencing public attitudes, including technological awareness, ethical and cultural values, and risk perception differences. The research finds that the shortage of xenotransplantation donors has driven the rapid development of GM pigs in the medical field, including applications in organ transplantation, biopharmaceutical production, and disease modeling. However, alongside these medical breakthroughs, the technology has sparked ethical controversies and public concerns over safety risks, making public acceptance a critical variable affecting its implementation and adoption. Significant differences in acceptance exist among various groups—medical professionals, the general public, and patients' families. Information sources, trust mechanisms, and ethical sensitivities play important roles in shaping acceptance. To improve public acceptance, this study proposes effective science communication strategies, including establishing participatory communication mechanisms, adopting diversified dissemination formats and narrative strategies, and strengthening institutional transparency and third-party oversight. This research offers practical significance for enhancing public understanding and support for the medical application of GM pigs, and for promoting coordinated progress in medical innovation and ethical governance.

Genetically modified pigs; Xenotransplantation; Public perception; Ethical controversy; Science communication