↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Engineering and Human Mental Ecology: Interlocking Effects and Educational Considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Biosemiotics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 211)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genetic Engineering and Human Mental Ecology: Interlocking Effects and Educational Considerations
Published in
Biosemiotics, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12304-017-9286-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramsey Affifi

Abstract

This paper describes some likely semiotic consequences of genetic engineering on what Gregory Bateson has called "the mental ecology" (1979) of future humans, consequences that are less often raised in discussions surrounding the safety of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The effects are as follows: an increased 1) habituation to the presence of GMOs in the environment, 2) normalization of empirically false assumptions grounding genetic reductionism, 3) acceptance that humans are capable and entitled to decide what constitutes an evolutionary improvement for a species, 4) perception that the main source of creativity and problem solving in the biosphere is anthropogenic. Though there are some tensions between them, these effects tend to produce self-validating webs of ideas, actions, and environments, which may reinforce destructive habits of thought. Humans are unlikely to safely develop genetic technologies without confronting these escalating processes directly. Intervening in this mental ecology presents distinct challenges for educators, as will be discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Lecturer 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Other 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 3 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Computer Science 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,921,804
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Biosemiotics
#12
of 211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,870
of 308,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biosemiotics
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 211 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them