Search

In this study, we investigated how gender and implicit theories of mathematics and science abilities interacted to predict mathematics and science achievements in a sample of elementary (primary) school students from the United States. Study participants came from six elementary schools (Grades 2 to 5) and were a part of a larger sample that participated in the Gifted Education in Mathematics and Science (GEMS) Project. We observed that, overall, boys had higher mathematics and science achievements than girls. Such gender differences were particularly significant among the 3rd and 4th graders. Moreover, there was a novel and yet consistent pattern of gender x implicit theories interaction effect on the achievements of the 3rd graders, such that boys had higher mathematics and science achievements than girls only when they endorsed strong incremental theories of mathematics and science abilities, but not when they endorsed weak incremental theories. The results demonstrate the importance of paying attention to early gender differences in mathematics and science achievements, particularly at transitional grades. The study also stimulates further investigations on how implicit theories of ability moderate such gender differences.

Growing awareness of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in livestock production has led to calls for the development of alternatives such as antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) that are also able to combat infectious diseases in farm animals. A critical step in the development of AMPs is to understand people's perspectives towards this technology to avoid misalignment with societal expectations. The aim of this study was to investigate university student perspectives of AMP applications in farm animals as alternatives to antibiotic use. We interviewed 20 university students and, using thematic analysis, identified six themes: 1) Initial knowledge, including knowledge of antibiotics and initial impressions of AMPs; 2) Human wellbeing, including the effects of food and animal health on public health, the importance of addressing AMR, and cost for farmers; 3) Animal welfare, including animal health, welfare, and production, and continuation of contentious farm practices; 4) Perceived naturalness of AMPs, including biocompatibility and comparing same and different species transfer of biological material; 5) Unforeseen consequences of AMPs, and the importance of researching unintended consequences of novel technologies; and 6) Public acceptance of AMPs, including trust and lack of awareness. In summary, participants viewed AMPs positively as an alternative to antibiotic use in farm animals to address AMR. However, key concerns centered around unintended harmful effects for food systems, public health, and animal welfare, which may impact public acceptance of AMPs in animal agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic engineering of animals has been proposed to address societal problems, but public acceptance of the use of this technology is unclear. Previous work has shown that the source of information proposing the technology (e.g. companies, universities), the term used to describe the technology (e.g. genome editing, genetic modification), and the genetic engineering application (e.g. different food products) affects technology acceptance. We conducted three mixed-method surveys and used a causal trust-acceptability model to understand social acceptance of genetic engineering (GE) by investigating 1) the source of information proposing the technology, 2) the term used to describe the technology, and 3) the GE application for farm animals proposed. Further, participants expressed their understanding of technology using a range of terms interchangeably, all describing technology used to change an organism's DNA. We used structural equation modelling and confirmed model fit for each survey. In each survey, perceptions of benefit had the greatest effect on acceptance. Following our hypothesized model, social trust had an indirect influence on acceptance through similar effects of perceived benefit and perceived risk. Additional quantitative analysis showed that the source of information and technology term had little to no effect on acceptance. Applications involving animals were perceived as less beneficial than a plant application, and an application for increased cattle muscle growth was perceived as more risky than a plant application. When assessing the acceptability of applications participants considered impacts on plants, animals, and people, trust in actors and technologies, and weighed benefits and drawbacks of GE. Future work should consider how to best measure acceptability of GE for animals, consider contextual factors and consider the use of inductive frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]