KI-NA-24537-EN-C
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Europeans and
Biotechnology in 2010
Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010 - Winds of change?
This is the seventh in a series of Eurobarometer surveys on life sciences and biotechnology conducted
in 1991, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2010. This latest survey, carried out in February 2010,
was based on a representative sample of 30,800 respondents from the 27 Member States, plus
Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Issues such as regenerative medicine, production
of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs, both transgenic and cisgenic), biobanks, biofuels and other
innovations such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology, in addition to broader issues such as the
governance of science and the engagement of citizens, were investigated. These surveys provide an
indication of the distribution of opinions and attitudes in the public at large and evidence of changes in
these perceptions over time. To ensure the continuing independence and high reputation of this series
of surveys, the Commission charged a team of social scientists throughout Europe with designing the
questionnaire and analysing the responses.
European
Research Area
Winds of change?
projects
Studies and reports
Interested in European research?
Research*eu is our monthly magazine keeping you in touch with main
developments (results, programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French,
German and Spanish. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research
Communication Unit
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Fax (32-2) 29-58220
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu
How to obtain EU publications
Free publications :
•
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•
at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications :
•
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union
and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union) :
•
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research
Directorate L – Science, Economy and Society
Unit L.3 – Governance and Ethics
Contact: Lino Paula
European Commission
Office SDME 07/80
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. +32 2 29 63873
Fax +32 2 29 84694
E-mail: [email protected]
Directorate E – Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food
Unit E.2 – Biotechnology
Contact: John Claxton
European Commission
Office SDME 08/07
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. +32 2 29 84375
Fax +32 2 29 91860
E-mail: [email protected]
via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Europeans and biotechnology in
2010
Winds of change?
A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research
by
George Gaskell*, Sally Stares, Agnes Allansdottir, Nick Allum, Paula Castro,
Yilmaz Esmer, Claude Fischler, Jonathan Jackson, Nicole Kronberger,
Jürgen Hampel, Niels Mejlgaard, Alex Quintanilha, Andu Rammer,
Gemma Revuelta, Paul Stoneman, Helge Torgersen and Wolfgang Wagner.
October 2010
*George Gaskell ([email protected]) and colleagues designed, analysed and interpreted the Eurobarometer 73.1 on
the Life Sciences and Biotechnology as part of the research project Sensitive Technologies and European Public
Ethics (STEPE), funded by the Science in Society Programme of the EC’s Seventh Framework Programme for
Research and Technological Development (FP7). The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do
not represent the view of DG Research
2010
Directorate-General for Research
Science in Society and Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, & Biotechnology
EUR 24537 EN
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers
or these calls may be billed
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for
the use which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the European Commission.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010
ISBN
doi
978-92-79-16878-9
10.2777/23393
© European Union, 2010
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF)
Contents
Overview of key findings .................................................................................................... 6
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 12
1.
Optimism about technology ....................................................................................... 13
2.
Emerging technologies............................................................................................... 21
2.1
3.
Nanotechnology .....................................................................................................21
2.2
Biofuels .................................................................................................................26
2.3
Synthetic biology .....................................................................................................29
Biotechnologies for food production.......................................................................... 36
3.1
GM food .................................................................................................................36
3.2
Animal cloning for food production ............................................................................41
3.3
Transgenic and cisgenic apples .................................................................................46
4.
Regenerative medicine............................................................................................... 51
5.
Biobanks..................................................................................................................... 60
6.
Governance and trust................................................................................................. 69
7.
Familiarity and engagement with technologies......................................................... 80
8.
Pillars of truth: religion and science .......................................................................... 89
9.
Climate change......................................................................................................... 101
10. Public ethics, technological optimism and support for biotechnology ................... 105
References ...................................................................................................................... 110
Annex 1 ........................................................................................................................... 112
Annex 2 ........................................................................................................................... 128
3
Figures
Figure 1: Generalised technological optimism and pessimism......................................................15
Figure 2: Optimism and pessimism regarding eight technologies, EU27........................................16
Figure 3: Index of optimism about six technologies....................................................................18
Figure 4: Awareness of nanotechnology, EU27..........................................................................22
Figure 5: Encouragement for nanotechnology (excluding DKs)....................................................23
Figure 6: Perceptions of nanotechnology as beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural, EU27
(excluding DKs) .....................................................................................................................25
Figure 7: Opinions regarding first generation and sustainable biofuels, EU27................................27
Figure 8: Support for first generation and sustainable biofuels (excluding DKs).............................28
Figure 9: Awareness of synthetic biology, EU27.........................................................................30
Figure 10: Priority given to finding out about risks and benefits (versus other issues) in relation to
synthetic biology....................................................................................................................32
Figure 11: Approval of and ambivalence towards synthetic biology ..............................................34
Figure 12: Awareness of GM food, EU27...................................................................................37
Figure 13: Support for GM food, EU27......................................................................................37
Figure 14: Perceptions of GM food as beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural, EU27 (excluding
DKs).....................................................................................................................................38
Figure 15: Awareness of animal cloning for food production, EU27..............................................42
Figure 16: Perceptions of animal cloning for food products as beneficial, safe, inequitable and
unnatural, EU27 (excluding DKs) .............................................................................................43
Figure 17: Encouragement for GM food and animal cloning for food products (excluding DKs)........45
Figure 18: Perceptions of transgenic and cisgenic apples, EU27 ..................................................48
Figure 19: Support for transgenic and cisgenic apples (excluding DKs).........................................49
Figure 20: Levels of approval of biomedical research and synthetic biology, EU27 .........................53
Figure 21: Levels of approval for embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research and gene therapy,
2005 and 2010, Europe-wide ..................................................................................................55
Figure 22: Levels of approval for human embryonic stem cell research, 2005 and 2010 (excluding
DKs).....................................................................................................................................56
Figure 23: Public views on ethical positions and regenerative medicine, EU27...............................58
Figure 24: Principles of governance for synthetic biology (DKs excluded) .....................................72
Figure 25: Principles of governance for animal cloning (DKs excluded).........................................73
Figure 26: Public confidence in the 'biotechnology system' (excluding DKs) ..................................78
Figure 27: Familiarity with five technologies: percentages of people who have heard of each
technology............................................................................................................................82
Figure 28: Engagement with five technologies, EU27 .................................................................83
Figure 29: 'Worry' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27 .............................85
Figure 30: 'Safety' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27.............................86
Figure 31: ‘Benefits' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27 ..........................87
Figure 32: Index of generalised optimism and index of pessimism, by religious denomination, 32
European countries (DKs excluded)..........................................................................................90
4
Figure 33: Ethical objection to human embryonic stem cell research, by religious denomination, 32
European countries (DKs excluded)..........................................................................................90
Figure 34: Should science prevail over ethics? By religious denomination, 32 European countries (DKs
excluded)..............................................................................................................................91
Figure 35: Ethical objection to human embryonic stem cell research, by religious attendance, 32
European countries (DKs excluded)..........................................................................................92
Figure 36: Should science prevail over ethics? By religious attendance, 32 European countries (DKs
excluded)..............................................................................................................................93
Figure 37: Parental and family university education/work in science, by age group of respondent,
EU27 (DKs excluded) .............................................................................................................94
Figure 38: Technological optimism and pessimism, by science in the family, EU27 ........................96
Figure 39: Technological optimism and pessimism, by science education, EU27 ............................96
Figure 40: Support for nanotechnology, by family science background, EU27 (DKs excluded).........98
Figure 41: Support for GM food, by family science background, EU27 (DKs excluded)....................99
Figure 42: Support for GM food and nanotechnology, by science education, EU27 (DKs excluded) ..99
Figure 43: Favoured solutions for halting climate change.......................................................... 102
Figure 44: Preference for 'changing ways of life' solution to climate change and confidence that one's
government will adopt such policies, by country...................................................................... 104
Figure 45: Relationships between clusters of countries............................................................. 109
Tables
Table 1: Trends in the index of optimism for biotechnology/genetic engineering ...........................20
Table 2: Issues about which respondents would like to know more in relation to synthetic biology,
EU27 (excluding DKs).............................................................................................................31
Table 3: Trends in support for GM food (excluding DKs).............................................................40
Table 4: Perceptions of safety, environmental impacts and naturalness of GM food and transgenic
apples, EU27 (excluding DKs)..................................................................................................50
Table 5: Segmentation of the European public on principles of governance for synthetic biology,
EU27 (DKs excluded) .............................................................................................................70
Table 6: Segmentation of the European public on principles of governance for animal cloning, EU27
(DKs excluded)......................................................................................................................71
Table 7: Principles of governance for synthetic biology, technological optimism, and support for GM
food, EU27 (DKs excluded) .....................................................................................................74
Table 8: Principles of governance for animal cloning, technological optimism, and support for
nanotechnology, EU27 (DKs excluded) .....................................................................................74
Table 9: Trust in key actors and trends from 1999.....................................................................76
Table 10: Trend in trust surplus/deficit for the biotechnology industry (DKs excluded)...................77
Table 11: Percentages of science graduates by age group, EU27.................................................95
Table 12: Principles of governance for animal cloning and synthetic biology by science education,
EU27 (DKs excluded) .............................................................................................................98
Table 13: Public ethics: five clusters....................................................................................... 106
Table 14: Public ethics and support for biotechnology.............................................................. 107
5
Overview of key findings
The latest Eurobarometer survey on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology, based on representative
samples from 32 European countries and conducted in February 2010, points to a new era in the
relations between science and society. While entrenched views about GM food are still evident, the crisis
of confidence in technology and regulation that characterised the 1990s – a result of BSE, contaminated
blood and other perceived regulatory failures – is no longer the dominant perspective. In 2010 we see a
greater focus on technologies themselves: are they safe? Are they useful? And are there 'technolite'
alternatives with more acceptable ethical-moral implications? Europeans are also increasingly concerned
about energy and sustainability. There is no rejection of the impetus towards innovation: Europeans are
in favour of appropriate regulation to balance the market, and wish to be involved in decisions about
new technologies when social values are at stake.
Technological optimism
A majority of Europeans are optimistic about biotechnology (53 per cent optimistic; 20 per cent say
‘don’t know’). In comparison, they are more optimistic about brain and cognitive enhancement (59; 20),
computers and information technology (77; 6), wind energy (84; 6) and solar energy (87; 4), but are
less optimistic about space exploration (47; 12), nanotechnology (41; 40) and nuclear energy (39; 13).
Time series data on an index of optimism show that energy technologies – wind energy, solar energy
and nuclear power – are on an upward trend – what we call the ‘Copenhagen effect’. While both
biotechnology and nanotechnology had seen increasing optimism since 1999 and 2002 respectively, in
2010 both show a similar decline – with support holding constant but increases in the percentages of
people saying they ‘make things worse’. With the exception of Austria, the index for biotechnology is
positive in all countries in 2010, indicating more optimists than pessimists – Germany joining Austria in
being the least optimistic about biotechnology. But in only three countries (Finland, Greece and Cyprus)
do we see an increase in the index from 2005 to 2010.
Nanotechnology
Only 45 per cent of Europeans say they have heard of nanotechnology, which in the survey is described
in the context of consumer products. Six out of ten EU citizens who expressed an opinion support such
applications of nanotechnology, with support varying from over 70 per cent in Poland, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Finland and Iceland to less than 50 per cent in Greece, Austria and Turkey. For the opponents
of nanotechnology, safety is the pressing concern followed by the perceived absence of benefits.
Biofuels
A comparison of crop based (first generation) biofuels with sustainable (second generation) biofuels
made from non-edible material shows that overall, Europeans are positive towards both types. 78 per
cent of Europeans support crop based biofuels and 89 per cent support sustainable biofuels. It would
appear that debates about the downsides of crop based biofuels – on food security, food prices and
destruction of forests for crop cultivation –have had only a marginal impact on the public’s perceptions.
6
Synthetic biology
Following a description of synthetic biology respondents in the survey were asked – ‘Suppose there was
a referendum about synthetic biology and you had to make up your mind whether to vote for or against.
Among the following, what would be the most important issue on which you would like to know more?’
Our respondents were asked to select three from the list of seven issues of interest. 73 per cent selected
‘possible risks’; 61 per cent ‘claimed benefits’ and 47 per cent ‘who will benefit and who will bear the
risks’. Information about social and ethical issues was the least frequent choice at 19 per cent. Asked
about their views on whether, and under what conditions, synthetic biology should be approved, of those
respondents who expressed a view 17 per cent said that they do not approve under any circumstances;
21 per cent do not approve except under very special circumstances; 36 per cent approve as long as
synthetic biology is regulated by strict laws and only 3 per cent approve without any special laws.
Overall, Europeans consider synthetic biology a sensitive technology that demands precaution and
special regulations, but an outright ban would not find overwhelming support.
GM food
GM food is still the Achilles’ heel of biotechnology. The wider picture is of declining support across many
of the EU Member States – on average opponents outnumber supporters by three to one, and in no
country is there a majority of supporters. What is driving the continued opposition to GM food? Public
concerns about safety are paramount, followed by the perceived absence of benefits and worry – GM
food is seen as unnatural and makes many Europeans ‘uneasy’. Across the period 1996-2010, we see,
albeit with fluctuations, a downward trend in the percentage of supporters. Denmark and the UK, at the
higher end of the distribution of support, are exceptions, as is Austria, at the lower end. Those among
the ‘old’ EU countries with a ban on GM crops in place consistently show low values of support, with Italy
joining the group. In contrast, Member States where GM crops are grown tend to show among the
highest values, suggesting a link between private attitudes and public policies.
Animal cloning for food products
Cloning animals for food products is even less popular than GM food with 18 per cent of Europeans in
support. In only two countries – Spain and the Czech Republic – does animal cloning attract the support
of three in ten. This contrasts with 14 countries in which support for GM food is above 30 per cent. Is
this an indication of broader public anxieties about biotechnology and food? The idea of the ‘natural
superiority of the natural’ captures many of the trends in European food production, such as enthusiasm
for organic food, local food, and worries about food-miles. And if ‘unnaturalness’ is one of the problems
associated with GM food, it appears to be an even greater concern in the case of animal cloning and
food products.
Cisgenics
Cisgenics is the genetic modification of crops adding only genes from the same species or from plants
that are crossable in conventional breeding programmes. It could be employed, for example, in the
cultivation of apples to provide resistance to the common apple diseases and thereby reduce pesticide
use. In all EU countries, cisgenic production of apples receives higher support (55 per cent) than
7
transgenic apples (33 per cent), with the former attracting majority support in 24 countries (including
Austria).
GM food and transgenic apples are both seen to be unnatural by three out of four respondents.
However, support for GM food (27 per cent) is a little lower than for transgenic apples (33 per cent).
Transgenic apples are more likely to be perceived as safe and not to harm the environment. It is likely
that the preamble in the survey describing transgenic apples as a technique that would ‘limit use of
pesticides, and so pesticide residues on the apples would be minimal’’ suggested an attractive benefit
both to food safety and the environment. Cisgenics might be seen as a hypothetical example of the socalled ‘second generation’ of GM crops. Here, the benefits of GM apple breeding are achieved with a
technolite process, a consumer benefit is offered and as such it achieves better ratings in terms of
benefits, safety, environment, naturalness, and double the support of GM food.
Regenerative medicine
Developments in regenerative medicine attract considerable support across Europe. 68 per cent of
respondents approve of stem cell research and 63 per cent approve of embryonic stem cell research.
Levels of approval for gene therapy are similar, at 64 per cent. Xenotransplantation – an application long
subject to moratoria in various countries – now finds approval with 58 per cent of respondents. And the
solid support for medical applications of biotechnology spreads over to non-therapeutic applications.
Moving from repair to improvement, we find that 56 per cent of the European public approves of
research that aims to enhance human performance. However, support for regenerative medicine is not
unconditional. Approval is contingent upon perceptions of adequate oversight and control.
Biobanks
While approximately one in three Europeans have heard about biobanks before, nearly one in two
Europeans say they would definitely or probably participate in one, with Scandinavian countries showing
the most enthusiasm. And people do not seem to have particular worries about providing certain types of
information to biobanks: blood samples, tissue samples, genetic profile, medical records and lifestyle
data elicit similar levels of concern. However, amongst those similar levels there are some nuances. In
twelve countries, providing one’s medical records provokes the most worry, and in ten countries it is the
genetic profile that is most worrying. Asked about who should be responsible for protecting the public
interest with regard to biobanks, we find a split between those countries opting for self-regulation (by
medical doctors; researchers; public institutions such as universities or hospitals) and those opting for
external regulation (ethics committees; national governments; international organisations and national
data protection authorities). Broadly speaking, respondents in those countries which show higher levels
of support for biobanks tend to favour external regulation more than self-regulation. In those countries
where biobanks are unfamiliar, self regulation is a more popular way of guarding the public interest. On
the issue of consent, almost seven in ten Europeans opt for specific – permission sought for every new
piece of research; one in five for broad consent, and one in sixteen for unrestricted. But of those more
likely to participate in the biobank, some four in ten opt for either unrestricted or broad consent.
8
Governance of science
Europeans’ views on the governance of science were sought in the context of two examples of
biotechnology: synthetic biology and animal cloning for food products. Respondents were asked to
choose between, firstly, decisions making based on scientific evidence or on moral and ethical criteria,
and secondly, decisions made on expert evidence or reflecting the views of the public. 52 per cent of
European citizens believe that synthetic biology should be governed on the basis of scientific delegation
where experts, not the public decide, and where evidence relating to risks and benefits, not moral
concerns, are the key considerations. However, nearly a quarter of Europeans take the opposite view: it
is the public, not experts, and moral concerns, not risks and benefits, that should dictate the principles of
governance for such technologies (the principle of 'moral deliberation'). For animal cloning (compared to
synthetic biology) some 10 per cent fewer opt for scientific deliberation and 9 per cent more opt for
moral deliberation. It seems that moral and ethical issues are more salient for animal cloning for food
products than for synthetic biology: altogether 38 per cent of respondents choose a position prioritising
moral and ethical issues for synthetic biology, with 49 per cent doing the same for animal cloning for
food. To put this another way, the European public is evenly split between those viewing animal cloning
for food as a moral issue and those viewing it as a scientific issue.
Trust in key actors
The re-building of trust in regulators and industry from the lows in the 1990s is in evidence. On an index
capturing a trust surplus or trust deficit, we find ‘national governments making regulations’ up 23 per
cent since 2005. ‘Industry developing biotechnology products’ is up 9 per cent since 2005 and 62 per
cent since 1999, and ‘the EU making laws across Europe’ is up 14 per cent since 2005. On this index,
‘university scientists’ maintain a trust surplus of around 80 per cent. There is a robust and positive
perception of the biotechnology system. It seems fair to conclude that Europeans have moved on from
the crisis of confidence of the mid to late 1990s. It is also notable that both national governments and
the EU carry almost equivalent trust surpluses in the majority of countries. It seems as if the idea of
national regulation within a framework of European laws is accepted amongst the publics of the
European Member States.
Familiarity and engagement
The link between familiarity and engagement with technology is not straightforward. On the one hand,
views of nanotechnology are clearly related to the extent of public familiarity and engagement. Those
who are actively engaged in finding out about nanotechnology tend to be much more inclined to
perceive of it as safe and beneficial and something not to worry about, compared to those for whom
nanotechnology is unfamiliar. On the other hand, when it comes to the two controversial
biotechnologies, GM food and animal cloning in food production, levels of familiarity and engagement are
only weakly related to perceptions of them. These technologies similarly tend to invoke worry, and are
perceived as less beneficial and safe than nanotechnology.
9
Religion and education
Overall, the non-religious are more optimistic about the contribution of technologies to the improvement
of everyday life and are more likely to support human embryonic stem cell research. But when faced
with a conflict between science and religion they are almost evenly split on which pillar of the truth
should prevail – not that different to people in the major European religious denominations. Religious
commitment appears to be associated with greater concerns about ethical issues in stem cell research
and with a belief that ethics should prevail over scientific evidence. However, here again there are many
highly religious people who say that science should prevail in such a conflict of opinion.
As to the effect of education the findings show that socialisation in a scientific family and having a
university education in science are associated with greater optimism about science and technology, more
confidence in regulation based on scientific delegation, and more willingness to encourage the
development of both nanotechnology and GM food. However, the findings also show that scientific
socialisation either in the family or at university is not a magic bullet – it is not the panacea to the issue
of resistance to innovation. For example, a majority of those coming from a scientific family background
or with a degree in science are not willing to support the development of GM food.
Climate change
Across a number of questions it is apparent that there is widespread concern with climate change, and
more generally with sustainability. Respondents in all countries except two (Latvia and Malta) favour
changes in ways of living over technological solutions, even if this means reduced economic growth. Only
in 7 countries (Bulgaria, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Latvia and Malta) is support for the
‘changing ways of life’ solution below the ‘comfortable majority’ threshold of 55 per cent. In some
countries ( Finland, Denmark, or Switzerland) the support for the ‘changing ways of life’ solution is much
stronger than the support of the notion that technology will solve climate change (for instance, about six
times stronger in Finland, where only 14 per cent opt for the ‘technological solution’ and 84 per cent for
the ‘changing ways of life’ solution). The relatively small percentage of ‘don’t know’ responses shows
that people now feel ready to take a stance.
Whatever people’s view on climate change respondents, the majority is likely to assume that others
share their views and that their views will be reflected in national policies. Given that an individual’s
beliefs are reinforced by the support – actual or perceived - of others, that so many believe that others
share their views, is an indication of just how difficult is the task of changing beliefs about climate
change.
Public ethics, technological optimism and support for biotechnologies
Analysing the range of questions in the survey that address issues of public ethics – the moral and
ethical issues raised by biotechnology and the life sciences – we find five clusters of countries. Key
contrast emerge between clusters of countries. First, those that prioritise science over ethics and those
that prioritise ethics over science, and second those countries that are concerned about distributional
fairness and those who are not. In combination these contrasts are related to people’s optimism about
10
the contribution of technologies to improving our way of life and support for regenerative medicines and
other applications of biotechnology and the life sciences. Where ethics takes priority over science,
concerns about distributional fairness lead to a profile of lower support; but in the absence of
sensitivities about distributional fairness, the profile of support is relatively higher. When science taking
priority over ethics is combined with concerns about distributional fairness, then we find only moderate
support; but here again the absence of sensitivities about distributional fairness reveals a profile of high
support.
11
Introduction
Eurobarometer 73.1 is the seventh in a series of surveys of public perceptions of the Life Sciences and
Biotechnology. The series started in 1991 with Eurobarometer 35.1 (INRA 1991) in the twelve Member
States of the European Community. It was followed by the second in 1993, Eurobarometer 39.1 (INRA
1993). In 1996, the third in the series, Eurobarometer 46.1(INRA 1997) covered the fifteen Member
States of the expanded European Union. The fourth in the series, Eurobarometer 52.1 (INRA 2000) was
conducted in 1999, the fifth (Eurobarometer 58.0) in 2002 (Gaskell et al. 2003) and the sixth
(Eurobarometer 63.1) in 2005 (TNS 2005). The new survey in 2010 covers the now 27 Member States of
the European Union plus Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.
The survey questionnaire for EB 73.1 includes key trend questions, designed to assess the stability or
change in aspects of public perceptions over the last ten years or more. It also includes new questions
that capture opinions and attitudes to emerging issues in the field of biotechnology: regenerative
medicine, synthetic biology and cisgenics. And as in 2005 there are questions on nanotechnology – in
part because nanotechnology has been heralded as the next strategic technology, but also on account of
its links with biotechnology, as seen in the emergence of the so-called converging technologies. As in
2005 there are questions about human embryonic and other types of stem cell research.
The Eurobarometer on Biotechnology and the Life Sciences, like other systematic survey research
studies, provides a representation of public voices – for the European public speaks not with one voice –
to policy makers, representatives of industry, journalists, civil society groups, scientists and social
scientists – and even to the public themselves. Surveys represent the world in particular ways;
depending on the perspective adopted, the representations will differ. Survey results do not have a
single, obvious and unequivocal meaning. Whether the glass is half full or half empty is a matter of
personal preference. In this report we provide our interpretation. But because other interpretations are
possible, we include the basic data in the Annexes to this report.
The report is divided into three sections. The first provides an analytic description of Europeans'
perceptions of biotechnology in 2010, with, where possible, comparable data from previous surveys to
illustrate trends. This is followed by two Annexes, containing the questionnaire and a codebook of basic
descriptive statistics for each question by country, with a technical note including details of survey
sampling and weighting. In the report we present results across the 32 countries. We also give Europewide summaries for the current 27 EU Member States, with samples weighted to reflect their relative
population sizes. An expanding Europe is an inherent characteristic of these Eurobarometer reports.
However, note that were the summaries to include all 32 countries, they would change very little.
For ease of presentation the majority of results exclude those respondents who registered a ‘don’t know’
response. In this sense we report findings based on only those who expressed an opinion in the context
of a particular question. However, since the rates of ‘don’t know’ responses vary from question to
question, and from country to country, from about 5 per cent to 35 per cent, we encourage readers to
look at the codebook to assess the impact of differential rates of ‘don’t know’ responses.
12
1.
Optimism about technology
The Lisbon declaration of 2000 set a strategic goal for the European Union (EU) to become the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world. The 7th Framework Programme (20072013), with a budget of €53 billion to support research and technological development, was launched to
give a new impetus to increase Europe’s growth and competitiveness. In 2002, the EU’s Heads of State
and Government agreed to the Barcelona target to increase Research and Development to 3 per cent of
GDP.
The European Commission has reaffirmed the importance of innovation and research as one of the key
drivers of economic recovery. One of the seven flagship initiatives in the Europe 2020 strategy is the
Innovation Union and a commitment to ‘improve framework conditions and access to finance for
research and innovation so as to ensure that innovative ideas can be turned into products and services
that create growth and jobs’ (European Commission 2010a: 3).
But does the European public have the appetite for technology and innovation? Some theorists have
argued that we are in a post-materialist age in which the desire for economic growth is replaced by
concerns for the environment, personal development and civil liberties (Inglehart 1990). Others have
argued that uncritical enthusiasm for science and technology is typical of less developed economies, and
that the publics of the advanced industrial countries become increasingly critical, even sceptical, about
the contribution of science and technology to the quality of life (Durant et al. 2000).
However, such longer term changes in people’s values – for which it must be admitted the empirical
evidence is not overwhelming – can be reversed by period effects, such as a downturn in the economy.
Rising unemployment and other recessionary impacts focus people’s minds on how the economy can
deliver jobs, prosperity and improve the quality of life.
More prosaically there may be a habituation effect, whereby the novel of the past becomes the takenfor-granted of the present, and even substantial breakthroughs in the past are no longer seen as such in
contemporary times. Think of personal computers, email and the lack of excitement that greets a new
computer operating system. People also recognize that the promises that accompanied past
developments were often hyperbole, and so they tend to discount similar claims attached to the current
crop of innovations.
In the Eurobarometer survey respondents were asked whether particular technologies ‘will improve our
way of life in the 20 years’, ‘will have no effect’, or ‘will make things worse’, and a ‘don’t know’ response
was accepted but not offered by the interviewer. This question has been asked since 1991 and it not
only provides an indicator of general sentiment towards technology and innovation but also places views
about biotechnology and the life sciences in the context of other technologies. Over the seven waves of
the Eurobarometer on biotechnology some of the target technologies have been retained in the survey,
others have been dropped and new technologies introduced to keep abreast of new developments.
13
In 2010 respondents were asked about eight technologies (the year in which the technology was
introduced is indicated in brackets here). The target technologies are computers and information
technology, and space exploration (from 1991), solar energy (from 1993), nuclear energy (from 1999),
nanotechnology (from 2002), wind energy (from 2005) and brain and cognitive enhancement (new in
2010).
From 1991 to 2005 a split ballot was used for biotechnology, with half of the sample asked about
‘biotechnology’ and the other half asked about ‘genetic engineering’. In 2010 the alternative descriptions
were combined into ‘biotechnology and genetic engineering’.
Generalised sentiment to technology
How optimistic are Europeans about new technologies? Our measures of generalised technological
optimism and pessimism are admittedly rather crude. We take the eight technologies (see above) and
count for each respondent: firstly, the number of technologies that they say will improve our way of life;
and, secondly, the number that will make things worse. We then compute for each country the average
(mean) number of technologies that are given the optimistic judgement (‘optimism’) and the average
(mean) number of technologies that are given the pessimistic judgement (‘pessimism’), and plot them
for the EU27 as a whole, and by country, in Figure 1.
Some caveats are in order. The eight technologies are not claimed to be representative of the full range
of technological innovations – they are a partial group. Civil nuclear power is hardly new and, as argued
above, innovation fatigue may have set in amongst sections of the public for computers and information
technology. But all of the technologies chosen may count as being ‘sensitive’, i.e. potentially raising
strong sentiments for various reasons beyond their technical characteristics and economic implications.
Our interpretation of the data is that lying behind an individual’s score on the scale is a representation
about the role of technologies in contributing to a better or worse future for society. And one might
expect that those countries in which, on average, more technologies are rated as likely to improve our
lives over the coming years, will tend to provide more support for political and economic policies that
support innovation.
14
Figure 1: Generalised technological optimism and pessimism
Optimism
Pessimism
4.9
EU27
1.1
5.7
Norway
0.7
5.7
Estonia
0.8
5.6
Finland
0.8
5.6
Czech Republic
1.0
5.5
Denm ark
0.9
5.4
Slovakia
1.1
5.4
Cyprus
0.8
5.3
Spain
0.8
5.2
Hungary
0.7
5.1
Sweden
1.0
5.0
Greece
1.6
5.0
United Kingdom
0.9
5.0
Latvia
1.2
4.9
France
1.1
4.9
Bulgaria
0.8
4.9
Netherlands
1.1
4.9
Croatia
1.5
4.9
Belgium
1.4
4.8
Iceland
0.5
4.7
Germ any
1.4
4.7
Italy
1.1
4.7
Slovenia
1.6
4.6
Luxembourg
1.6
4.6
Poland
1.1
4.5
Ireland
0.9
4.4
Malta
0.7
4.3
Portugal
1.0
4.3
Lithuania
1.3
4.3
Rom ania
1.2
4.3
Turkey
1.0
4.2
Switzerland
1.6
3.8
Austria
2.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average (mean) number of technologies
15
Figure 1 shows that the greater majority of countries score between 4.5 and 5.5 out of 8 on this
measure of generalised technological optimism, indicating a degree of similarity in average levels of
optimism across European countries. The figure also shows the average (mean) number of pessimistic
responses; here only a small number of countries exceed 1.5. And while there is a negative relationship
between optimism and pessimism, it is not particularly large. The correlation coefficient which compares
optimism and pessimism between respondents (rather than between country-level averages) is -0.44,
where -1 would indicate a perfect one-to-one negative (linear) relationship between optimism and
pessimism, and 0 would indicate no such relationship.
So, is the glass half full or half empty? Does the European public hold a positive representation of
technology and does it depend on the particular technology? Figure 2 gives us some clues. For 7 out of
the 8 technologies optimists outnumber pessimists. Expectations about nuclear power are the exception
with an even split between optimists and pessimists.
Figure 2: Optimism and pessimism regarding eight technologies, EU27
Positive effect
No effect
Solar energy
Negative effect
Don't know
87
Wind energy
5
84
Computers and information
technology
6
77
Brain and cognitive
enhancement
7
59
Biotechnology and genetic
engineering
11
53
Space exploration
7
Nanotechnology
29
41
Nuclear energy
9
39
0
20
6
6
11
20
13
12
40
10
10
40
4
4
20
11
20
47
4
13
39
60
80
100
% respondents
Notably, a majority of Europeans are optimistic about biotechnology and genetic engineering. In
comparison, they are more optimistic about brain and cognitive enhancement, computers and
information technology, wind energy and solar energy, but are less optimistic about space exploration,
nanotechnology and nuclear energy.
The contrast between the four so-called strategic technologies of the post-World War II years is striking.
For biotechnology, 53 per cent are optimistic and 20 per cent are pessimistic. The comparable figures for
nuclear power are 39 per cent optimistic and 39 per cent pessimistic. For computers, 77 per cent are
16
optimistic and 11 per cent are pessimistic. For nanotechnology, which was acclaimed as a strategic
technology in the early 2000s, 41 per cent are optimistic and 10 per cent are pessimistic.1
Not surprisingly on account of its novelty, the percentage of ‘don’t know’ responses for nanotechnology
is above 40 per cent, much the same as in 2005. That biotechnology still elicits a ‘don’t know’ response
from one in five (again much the same as in 2005) suggests that either many people have still to make
up their minds about its prospects, or that it is difficult to weigh up pros and cons of the varieties of
biotechnology, for example across medical and agricultural applications.
Brain and cognitive enhancement, now the focus of attention of neuroethicists, is probably relatively
unfamiliar to many of the public (20 per cent give a ‘don’t know’ response), yet the idea of this
technology seems to engender widespread optimism, with optimists outnumbering pessimists by a ratio
of 5 to 1. Later in the survey, respondents are asked for their views on adequate levels of regulation of
research exploring ways of enhancing the performance of healthy people, for example to improve
concentration or to increase memory. The results are discussed in the context of views on regenerative
medicine in Chapter 4 of this report.
Nuclear power continues to be cited as an option in climate change and energy security debates. Here
we find equal percentages of optimists and pessimists (39 per cent). In contrast to the findings of the
Eurobarometer in 2005, in 2010 we find that judgements that it ‘will have no effect’ have declined from
18 to 10 per cent; the proportion of Europeans saying ‘it will improve our way of life’ has increased from
32 to 39 per cent; and roughly the same proportion of respondents say it ‘will make things worse’, with
an increase of just 2 percentage points to 39 per cent in 2010.
1
Synthetic biology - the latest strategic technology – was not included in this question set on account of its relative unfamiliarity.
However, in Chapter 2 we report on the European public’s perceptions of this development.
17
Trends in technological optimism
To assess the changes in optimism and pessimism over time (1991 to 2010) we use a summary index.
For this we subtract the percentage of pessimists from the percentage of optimists and divide this by the
combined percentage of optimists, pessimists and those who say the technology will have no effect. In
excluding the ‘don’t know’ responses, this index is based on only those respondents who expressed an
opinion. A positive score reflects a majority of optimists over pessimists, a negative score a majority of
pessimists over optimists and a score around zero more or less equal percentages of the two.
This index has the following merits. Firstly, it is an economical way of presenting comparisons between
countries and over time; secondly, with substantial differences in rates of ‘don’t know’ responses across
countries, the raw scores can be misleading; and thirdly, it weights the balance of optimism and
pessimism in relation to all the respondents who express an opinion on the question.
Figure 3: Index of optimism about six technologies2
100
Solar energy
80
Wind energy
Computers and IT
60
Index
Nanotechnology
40
Biotechnology and
genetic engineering
Nuclear energy
20
0
1991
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2010
-20
Year
The trends in the index of optimism (see Figure 3) show some interesting trajectories. Firstly, for all of
the energy technologies – wind and solar energy and nuclear power – an upward trend is seen. This
might be termed the ‘Copenhagen’ effect. The extensive media coverage of climate change and global
warming, making salient the issue of carbon emissions, may have helped increase public optimism about
the contributions of renewable energy sources and nuclear power. At the same time, new issues have
2
The countries included in each score for ‘Europe’ (weighted according to their relative population sizes) reflect the expanding
membership of the EU: thus 1991 and 1993 scores are for the original 12 Member States, 1996–2002 for EU15, 2005 for EU25 and
2010 for EU27.
18
come to public attention, such as those represented by Al Gore in his An Inconvenient Truth (Gore
2006).
As an aside, how do those who are optimistic about solar and wind energy – the classic sustainable
energy solutions – view nuclear power, which is now claimed by some to be in the sustainable category
but completely rejected by others? In the event, the public are divided. While the optimists for solar
energy take the same position on wind energy, those who are optimistic about solar energy are split on
nuclear power between optimism (46 per cent) and pessimism (42 per cent).
In parallel, the second noticeable trend is that of recently declining optimism in biotechnology,
nanotechnology and computers and information technology. While computer and information technology
has been consistently around 80 per cent on the index, there is a small decline in the period 2005-2010.
While both biotechnology and nanotechnology had been on an upward trend since 1999 and 2002
respectively, in 2010 there is a similar decline in optimism. In both cases we see support holding
constant but changes in the percentages of ‘make things worse’ responses. These increase from 12 to 20
per cent for biotechnology and from 5 to 10 per cent for nanotechnology. Changes come not from a
reduction in ‘don’t know’ responses, but rather a decline in ‘make no difference’ responses.
Turning to European country-level data, Table 1 shows the index of optimism for biotechnology over the
period 1991 to 2010. The EU15 countries are ordered from the most to the least optimistic in 2010,
followed by the 10 new Member States of 2004, then Romania and Bulgaria and finally Iceland, Norway,
Turkey, Switzerland and Croatia (also ordered from most to least optimistic).
In all countries, with the exception of Austria, the index has positive values, indicating more optimists
than pessimists. But in only three countries (Finland, Greece and Cyprus) do we see an increase in the
index from 2005 to 2010. The table also shows little change in optimism over the last five years in Spain,
Ireland, the UK, France and Estonia, and that the non-EU countries Iceland and Norway stand amongst
the most optimistic countries. But in the rest of Europe there is a consistent decline in optimism about
biotechnology.
19
Table 1: Trends in the index of optimism for biotechnology/genetic engineering
1991
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2010
82
78
67
61
71
75
74
Sweden
-
-
42
-
61
73
63
Finland
-
-
24
13
31
36
59
Portugal
50
77
67
50
57
71
54
Ireland
68
54
40
16
26
53
51
UK
53
47
26
5
17
50
50
Italy
65
65
54
21
43
65
48
France
56
45
46
25
39
49
46
Denmark
26
28
17
-1
23
56
45
Greece
70
47
22
-33
12
19
35
Belgium
53
42
44
29
40
46
32
Luxembourg
47
37
30
25
29
55
32
Netherlands
38
20
29
39
39
47
31
Germany
Spain
20
42
17
17
23
24
33
12
Austria
-
-
-11
2
25
22
-7
Cyprus
-
-
-
-
-
74
78
Estonia
-
-
-
-
-
79
76
Malta
-
-
-
-
-
81
64
Hungary
-
-
-
-
-
62
58
Czech Rep.
-
-
-
-
-
71
53
Slovakia
-
-
-
-
-
55
48
Latvia
-
-
-
-
-
60
43
Poland
-
-
-
-
-
59
41
Slovenia
-
-
-
-
-
47
33
Lithuania
-
-
-
-
-
66
28
Romania
-
-
-
-
-
-
36
Bulgaria
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
Iceland
-
-
-
-
-
-
79
Norway
-
-
-
-
-
-
70
Turkey
-
-
-
-
-
-
49
Switzerland
-
-
-
-
-
-
32
Croatia
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
2.
Emerging technologies
2.1
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology is a collective term for a variety of technologies for engineering matter on the atomic
and/or molecular level. Nanotechnology is considered a strategic technology par excellence; its many
uses and vast potentials cover medicines and medical processes as well as electronics, energy, materials,
filtration, consumer goods and food. As nanoscience emerged as a new discipline, scientists and policy
makers became conscious of the need to avoid a repetition of the GM food saga (David and Thompson
2008). In parallel, nanoethics emerged to debate the social, ethical and legal aspects of molecular
engineering. That it continues to be a socially sensitive technology is evidenced by a call of the European
Parliament to ban nanoparticles from food products.
For the Eurobarometer survey it was decided to select an area of nanotechnology that involved products
close to everyday life: cosmetics, sun creams and household cleaning fluids. Nanotechnology was
introduced to respondents in the following way:
‘Now thinking about nanotechnology: Nanotechnology involves working with atoms and
molecules to make new particles that are used in cosmetics to make better anti-aging creams,
suntan oils for better protection against skin cancer and cleaning fluids to make the home
more hygienic. Despite these benefits, some scientists are concerned about the unknown and
possibly negative effects of nanoparticles in the body and in the environment.’
Figure 4 shows that only around 25 per cent of Europeans have ‘engaged’ with nanotechnology, i.e.
talked about it or searched for information. More than half have not heard of it before the interview.
21
Figure 4: Awareness of nanotechnology, EU27
Talked about or
searched for
information
occasionally
22%
Talked about or
searched for
information
frequently
3%
Not heard
55%
Heard only
20%
First, we look at the distribution of supporters and opponents of nanotechnology in countries across
Europe. Figure 5 is based on only those respondents who expressed an opinion to question 10 below,
regarding encouragement for nanotechnology3. As can be seen from the figure, six out of ten EU citizens
support nanotechnology. Support varies, between all the countries in the survey, from 83 per cent in
Iceland to 48 per cent in Austria. Note that in the description of nanotechnology, both potential benefits
and risks were mentioned. It would appear that while opponents are concerned about safety issues, in
most countries this is a minority response. In all but three countries an absolute majority support
nanotechnology for consumer products.
3
That is, 63 per cent of respondents across the 32 countries.
22
Figure 5: Encouragement for nanotechnology (excluding DKs)
EU27
61
Iceland
83
Finland
78
Czech Republic
77
Cyprus
77
Poland
74
Hungary
68
Norway
68
Ireland
67
Sweden
67
Latvia
66
Estonia
65
United Kingdom
64
Romania
64
Lithuania
63
Switzerland
63
Spain
63
Slovakia
62
Denmark
61
Germany
61
France
60
Bulgaria
60
Croatia
56
Belgium
55
Italy
55
Netherlands
54
Luxembourg
53
Malta
52
Slovenia
52
Portugal
51
Greece
48
Austria
48
Turkey
41
0
20
40
60
80
100
% respondents who strongly agree or agree that nanotechnology should be encouraged
23
Respondents were asked a number of questions about nanotechnology (similar questions were also
asked about animal cloning for food products and GM food, which will be reported later):
1.
Nanotechnology is good for the (NATIONALITY) economy
2.
Nanotechnology is not good for you and your family
3.
Nanotechnology helps people in developing countries
4.
Nanotechnology is safe for future generations
5.
Nanotechnology benefits some people but puts others at risk
6.
Nanotechnology is fundamentally unnatural
7.
Nanotechnology makes you feel uneasy
8.
Nanotechnology is safe for your health and your family’s health
9.
Nanotechnology does no harm to the environment
10.
Nanotechnology should be encouraged
For each question, respondents were asked whether they totally agree, tend to agree, tend to disagree
or totally disagree. The first nine questions were designed to tap into four clusters of perceptions of
technologies. The final question, ‘should nanotechnology be encouraged?’ we take as a measure of
overall support.
•
Questions 1 and 2 provide an index of the extent of perceived benefit;
•
Questions 3 and 5 give as index of distributional equity – do people perceive this
technology to be fair or unfair in the distribution of both benefits and risks?
•
Questions 4, 8 and 9 give an index of perceived safety/risk;
•
And finally, questions 6 and 7 provide an index of worry related to unnaturalness. This
is similar to the ‘affective heuristic’ (Slovic et al. 2002).
For each respondent, a score was created for each of these four indices of benefit, safety, inequity and
worry (unnatural). Scores range from -1.5 to 1.5, where -1.5 indicates low perceived benefit, low safety,
and absence of both inequity and worry; and 1.5 indicates high perceived benefit, high safety, high
inequity and high worry. Zero marks the notional mid-point on the scale. Note, therefore, that the first
two indices are framed ‘positively’, with high scores indicating positive views about the technology,
whereas the second two indices are framed ‘negatively’, with high scores indicating concerns about the
technology.
Figure 6 shows average (mean) scores for respondents in EU27 countries, both overall (yellow bars). We
then take the final question, number 10, and split the sample between supporters (those who agree that
nanotechnology should be encouraged) and opponents (those who disagree). In the figure, the
supporters are denoted with green bars and opponents with red bars.
The figure shows that, across the European public (the first bar in each cluster, in yellow), the balance of
opinion is that nanotechnology is somewhat more likely to be beneficial than not; to be unsafe rather
24
than safe; to be inequitable rather than equitable; and not particularly worrying (though equally, not
particularly unworrying). Taken as a whole, perceptions of nanotechnology emerge as rather neutral in
character. But dig beneath the surface and we find division in perceptions between supporters and
opponents. Supporters (denoted by the middle bar in each cluster, in green) are much more likely than
opponents (the last bar, in red) to agree that nanotechnology is beneficial, safe, equitable and not the
cause of worry. When comparing opponents and supporters, the most pronounced contrast is in the
issue of safety. Supporters and opponents are most in agreement on the issue of inequity, which
supporters returning a neutral verdict on this issue, and opponents somewhat concerned.
Multiple regression is a statistical technique that allows us to find out the extent to which the four indices
(benefit, safety, inequity and worry) make a separate (independent) contribution to the explanation of
variation in overall support. If the four indices are making independent contributions to explaining overall
support, then they flag up distinct concerns rather than merely some overall attitude, for example,
‘technological optimism’. The multiple regression4 shows that all four indices make a statistically
significant contribution to the explanation of overall support. Here, safety is by far the most influential,
followed by benefit, worry and lastly inequity.
Figure 6: Perceptions of nanotechnology as beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural,
EU27 (excluding DKs)
Beneficial
Safe
Inequitable
Unnatural
1.5
Average (mean) score
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Overall
Supporters
Opponents
4
Specifically, we used a binary logistic regression model, with the response variable dichotomised into ‘agree or totally agree’ that
nanotechnology should be encouraged, versus ‘disagree or totally disagree’ that it should be encouraged. Respondents answering
‘don’t know’ to this question were excluded from this analysis. ‘Statistically significant’ results are so at the 1% significance level.
25
2.2
Biofuels
When biofuels made from edible crops were first introduced, they were heralded as one of the more
exciting applications of modern biotechnology, offering an apparently sustainable means to produce
energy resources and lower dependence on Middle-Eastern oil, as well as providing farmers in Europe
and the US with a new market. The EU announced targets for the introduction of biofuels, and motorists,
even airlines, sought out biofuels as a response to climate change. Relatively quickly, some unintended
consequences became apparent, with negative impacts appearing in the developed world – increased
speculation in commodity crops and food prices and in the developing world – increased destruction of
rain forests for crop cultivation.
In our questions on biofuels, respondents were asked sequentially about the first generation of crop
based biofuels and then about the second generation of more sustainable biofuels. The introductions
went as follows:
(First generation)
‘Let’s speak now about biofuels. Biofuels are made from crops like maize and sugar cane that
are turned into ethanol and biodiesel for airplanes, cars and lorries. Unlike oil, biofuels are
renewable, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the European Union less
dependent on imported oil. Critics, however, say that these biofuels take up precious
agricultural land and may lead to higher food prices in the European Union and food shortages
in the developing world.’
(Second generation)
‘Now, scientists are working on more sustainable biofuels. These can be made from plant
stems and leaves - the things we don’t eat, or from trees and algae. With these second
generation biofuels, there is no longer the need to use food crops.’
Figure 7 summarises the balance of opinion about two generations of bio-fuels across the European
Union. Overall, feelings are positive towards all kinds of biofuels across Europe. 72 per cent of Europeans
support crop based biofuels. It would appear that the discussions about the downsides of crop-based
biofuels have not had much impact.
However, Europeans are even more optimistic about the second generation biofuels: 83 per cent
approve of sustainable biofuels made from non-edible material.
26
Figure 7: Opinions regarding first generation and sustainable biofuels, EU27
Should definitely be encouraged
Should probably be encouraged
Should probably not be encouraged
Should definitely not be encouraged
Don't know
First generation biofuels
34
Sustainable biofuels
38
13
51
20
32
40
60
7
7
80
8
4
7
100
% respondents
Figure 8 shows the levels of approval towards biofuels by country, ordered according to their overall
levels of support for sustainable biofuels. Respondents in all countries support sustainable bio-fuels more
than the crop based variety. In every country the majority support traditional biofuels, with highest level
of support in Slovakia, Denmark, Hungary and Baltic States (more than 80 per cent). Hence, there is an
overwhelming preference for such biofuels across Europe. Large gaps between the approvals of the two
generations of biofuels emerged in Scandinavia and Central Europe. Probably the term ‘sustainable’ is
considered particularly favourable in these countries while in countries such as Portugal or Turkey, where
differences are much less, the issue of sustainability has not gained such prominence.
27
Figure 8: Support for first generation and sustainable biofuels (excluding DKs)
Sustainable biofuels
First generation biofuels
EU27
89
78
Denmark
98
88
Cyprus
97
86
97
91
95
Lithuania
Finland
78
95
91
94
87
94
91
94
Slovakia
Ireland
Latvia
Iceland
68
Netherlands
94
75
Sweden
93
77
93
Poland
87
Hungary
88
Norway
93
67
Croatia
93
84
Slovenia
92
77
Estonia
86
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
91
79
Spain
89
84
Belgium
89
78
Czech Republic
81
88
85
88
83
87
Portugal
Romania
73
Germany
87
68
Malta
88
88
70
Greece
92
91
82
France
93
86
57
85
81
83
Austria
Italy
Luxembourg
70
Switzerland
74
55
Turkey
60
0
20
76
78
67
40
60
% respondents
28
80
100
2.3
Synthetic biology
Synthetic biology is an emerging field in which scientists seek to turn biology into an engineering
discipline. Rather than introducing one or a few genes into existing organisms, they want to construct
novel organisms and their genomes from scratch, using genetic ‘building blocks’ that ideally could be
freely combined. For example, the scientist Craig Venter and colleagues in May 2010 announced that
they had managed to introduce a functioning fully synthetic genome into a bacterium. Such results
currently meet with considerable media attention, but when it comes to public perceptions, it must be
assumed that synthetic biology has hardly entered public awareness. Nevertheless, and not unlike
nanotechnology, scientists are concerned that the new field could meet public resistance. Apart from
moral considerations over ’creating life’, a potentially sceptical public prompted scientists and regulators
to address ethical and social issues at a very early stage despite the lack of almost any current practical
applications.
In this section, we ask how people deal with emerging technologies – such as synthetic biology – that
still are unfamiliar to them. Confronted by such an innovation, what information is important to them?
How and in what ways does familiarity with the technology influence its evaluation? What is important to
people when it comes to decision-making and regulation?
Based on the assumption that synthetic biology still is widely unknown, respondents in the
Eurobarometer were, first of all, presented the following description:
Synthetic biology is a new field of research bringing together genetics, chemistry and
engineering. The aim of synthetic biology is to construct completely new organisms to make
new life forms that are not found in nature. Synthetic biology differs from genetic engineering
in that it involves a much more fundamental redesign of an organism so that it can carry out
completely new functions.
Respondents were then asked whether they had heard anything about synthetic biology before, and if
they had, whether they had talked with anyone about it or searched for further information. The results,
shown in Figure 9, indicate that synthetic biology is an unfamiliar technology to most Europeans. 83 per
cent indicate that they have not heard about it. Out of those having heard about it (17 per cent), 8 per
cent say that they have (passively) heard but not talked about it nor searched for any information. Only
9 per cent have talked about or searched for information occasionally or more. The innovation is most
familiar in Switzerland (30 per cent having heard) and least familiar in Turkey (10 per cent having
heard).
29
Figure 9: Awareness of synthetic biology, EU27
Talked about or
searched for
information
occasionally
8%
Heard only
8%
Talked about or
searched for
information
frequently
1%
Not heard
83%
Even if people are unfamiliar with a technology, they nevertheless are sometimes called upon to make
up their minds. While it makes little sense to ask people whether they support an unknown technology or
not, it is worthwhile asking what information they would be interested in to learn more about the new
development. What pieces of information do they regard as relevant, and what questions would they like
to be answered?
Respondents were presented with the following scenario:
Suppose there was a referendum about synthetic biology and you had to make up your mind
whether to vote for or against. Among the following, what would be the most important issue
on which you would like to know more?
Respondents were offered a list of seven issues and asked to choose the three options that were of most
interest to them. 84 per cent of those asked5 indeed chose three questions. The remaining 16 per cent
chose fewer issues; this group consisted predominantly of respondents who gave ‘don’t know’, ‘none’ or
‘other’ responses. There are considerable country differences in these responses. The highest number of
such ‘don’t know’ responses is found in Turkey (41 per cent); In the remaining countries the proportion
of such responses ranges from 6 per cent (Czech Republic) to 22 per cent (Latvia). To ensure
comparable base rates, for the following analyses only those respondents who chose three of the
following issues are included.
5
The questions on synthetic biology were part of a split ballot, i.e. only half of respondents were asked.
30
Table 2: Issues about which respondents would like to know more in relation to
synthetic biology, EU27 (excluding DKs)
Issue
% respondents selecting
the issue
What are the possible risks
73
What are the claimed benefits
61
Who will benefit and who will bear the risks
47
What the scientific processes and techniques are
37
What is being done to regulate and control synthetic biology
34
Who is funding the research and why
28
What is being done to deal with the social and ethical issues involved
19
Other/none
1
Note: percentages sum to 300 because respondents chose three pieces of information
Clearly, potential risks and benefits related to synthetic biology are of upmost interest to respondents.
However, all the other issues are of interest to a not insignificant proportion of the European publics.
Remarkably, information about social and ethical issues clearly comes last in the list, while the scientific
processes involved meet considerable interest.
The most frequent out of 35 possible combinations are risks, benefits and the distribution of risks and
benefits (16 per cent); risks, benefits and scientific processes (11 per cent); risks, benefits and
regulation (9 per cent); and risks, benefits and funding (7 per cent). All other combinations are less
frequent (less than 5 per cent). The most frequent combinations all include interest in information on
both risks and benefits.
Risks and benefits are of high interest in all countries. Germany is the only country where interest in
benefits is higher than in risks; in all other countries risks are of highest interest. While in Belgium, the
Czech Republic, Estonia and France, interest in risks almost double that in benefits, in most other
countries the interests in risks and benefits are more balanced.
Figure 10 highlights the importance of risks and benefits relative to other issues in different European
countries. While in Greece, Lithuania, Portugal and Malta, risks and benefits combined represent the
most important concern, there are other countries where issues such as the distribution of risks and
benefits, scientific details, control and regulation, funding, or social and ethical issues play a more
prominent role. Of all countries, interest in the distribution of risks and benefits is highest (more than 60
per cent) in the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and in Slovakia; interest in scientific details is most
pronounced (more than 50 per cent) in the Czech Republic, in Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovenia; a demand
for information on control and regulation is particularly high (more than 40 per cent) in Sweden, France,
Iceland and Switzerland; the issue of funding attracts most interest (more than 30 per cent) in Romania,
Luxemburg and Ireland; and social and ethical issues are of highest interest (more than 30 per cent) to
respondents in the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden.
31
Figure 10: Priority given to finding out about risks and benefits (versus other issues) in
relation to synthetic biology6
Risks and benefits
Other issues
133
EU27
163
Greece
156
Lithuania
156
Portugal
155
Malta
153
Spain
149
Cyprus
147
Hungary
146
Italy
144
Bulgaria
143
Romania
142
Austria
139
Germany
138
Croatia
136
Poland
135
Finland
134
Turkey
132
Slovakia
130
Iceland
128
France
127
Denmark
127
Norway
126
Latvia
125
Estonia
125
Luxem bourg
125
143
144
145
147
149
152
154
155
157
155
161
161
163
164
164
167
170
172
170
171
172
174
174
173
121
United Kingdom
Ireland
118
Belgium
117
Slovenia
115
Switzerland
114
Sweden
113
Czech Republic
107
Netherlands
105
0
20
40
176
182
182
184
185
187
192
194
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
% respondents
6
Note: Percentages within each country sum to 300 because respondents have chosen three pieces of information. Only those
respondents who chose three pieces of information are included in this graph: those who responded ‘don’t know’ or who
mentioned only one or two types of information are excluded from the graph.
32
200
Should synthetic biology be supported or not?
Finally, respondents were asked about their views on whether, and under what conditions, synthetic
biology should be approved. Not surprisingly, a substantial percentage across Europe (23 per cent) say
they don’t know (9 per cent in Greece, 43 per cent in Turkey). The remaining respondents, however, are
willing to voice a view despite the technology’s unfamiliarity. Some (17 per cent) say that they do not
approve under any circumstances and 21 per cent do not approve except under very special
circumstances. More than a third (36 per cent) approve as long as synthetic biology is regulated by strict
laws and only 3 per cent fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary. Overall, it seems
safe to say that Europeans consider synthetic biology a sensitive technology that demands for precaution
and special laws and regulations, but an outright ban would not find overwhelming support.
Figure 11 shows that, across Europe, the numbers of those approving and non-approving are roughly
equal, an indication that synthetic biology potentially may become a controversial issue. Furthermore,
the picture of a divided Europe emerges: the proportions of those approving and non-approving vary
considerably. While in half of the countries under consideration, supporters outnumber critics, the
opposite is true for the other half of the countries. People in central European countries such as
Germany, Slovenia, Austria and the Czech Republic (as well as Iceland) are particularly cautious (50 per
cent or more do not approve at all or only under very special circumstances). Support, in contrast, is
more frequent in Southern (Portugal, Spain) and Eastern countries (Romania, Estonia, Hungary), as well
as in Ireland. In these latter countries, the majority of respondents express approval of the technology if
regulated by strict laws.
33
Figure 11: Approval of and ambivalence towards synthetic biology
Approve' minus 'do not approve'
Don’t know
1
EU27
Germany
19
Iceland
-20
Slovenia
-20
11
10
-19
Austria
14
-16
Czech Republic
12
-14
Cyprus
Net disapproval
17
-15
Finland
15
Croatia
-7
Latvia
-7
Greece
-7
19
25
9
Sweden
-5
Bulgaria
-5
Netherlands
-5
16
36
17
-4
Poland
Switzerland
-3
Slovakia
-2
31
24
19
1
Lithuania
Net approval
23
-22
31
Denmark
4
Malta
4
12
35
Italy
5
Turkey
5
25
43
8
Norway
13
9
United Kingdom
20
11
Luxembourg
26
13
France
Belgium
12
19
15
16
Hungary
Estonia
19
17
Romania
18
Spain
18
35
29
20
Ireland
Portugal
38
24
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
net % respondents
34
23
20
27
30
40
50
The grey bars indicate percentages of ‘don’t know’ responses. Red bars indicate the difference between
approval and non-approval with negative values indicating higher proportions of non-approval and
positive values indicating higher proportions of approval. ‘Do not approve’ comprises ‘do not approve
under any circumstances’ and ‘do not approve except under very special circumstances’, and ‘Approve’
comprises ‘approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws’ and ‘fully approve and do not think that
special laws are necessary’.
How is familiarity with synthetic biology related to the technology’s evaluation? Those who have heard
about synthetic biology are much more likely to approve, as long as it is regulated by strict laws. Those
who have not heard about the innovation are both more likely to so say that they don’t know or that
they do not approve under any circumstances. The fact that those familiar with synthetic biology are
more supportive should be interpreted with caution though; it is only a small group of respondents who
have heard about it. It is possible that familiarity leads to more support, but it is also possible that it is a
technophile avant-garde that – because of its affinity to and support of technologies – has heard about
synthetic biology7 in the first place. Whether familiarity will lead to more support for a broader public,
remains an open question.
In summary, a large majority of Europeans is unfamiliar with synthetic biology, giving us the opportunity
to investigate how European citizens deal with fundamentally unknown issues. Asked what information
they would like to be offered, risks and benefits are the preferred options across Europe. However, other
issues – such as the distribution of risks and benefits, funding, scientific details, regulation and social and
ethical issues – also represent important concerns to relevant proportions of the European public. When
it comes to the evaluation of synthetic biology, Europe seems to be evenly split: the proportion of those
approving of synthetic biology equal those not approving. About half of the countries included are
predominantly cautious, while the other half is predominantly supportive. It should be noted, though,
that support is almost always conditional on strict laws and regulation.
However, Europeans, on the whole, are not technophobic. They want to be informed about what to
expect from the innovation and to ensure prudent regulation. While those familiar with synthetic biology
are more likely to express (conditional) approval than those unfamiliar, it remains an open question
whether increasing familiarity with the topic will make European citizens more supportive of synthetic
biology in general or not.
7
Means for technology optimism seem to support this view: those having heard of synthetic biology are more optimistic about
other technologies than those who have not heard (not heard of synthetic biology M = 4.78, SD = 2.14; passive awareness: M =
5.51, SD = 1.90; active awareness: M = 5.44, SD = 2.06).
35
3.
Biotechnologies for food production
3.1
GM food
20 years after the first EU directive on deliberate release was released, the issue of GM crops and food is
still unresolved. Only two crops have formal approval for cultivation – Monsanto’s MON 810 Maize and,
most recently, BASF’s Amflora potato. At present only six countries have planted GM crops – Spain, the
Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, Poland and Slovakia– about 95,000 hectares in total in 20098,
compared to 134 million hectares world wide. However, currently six countries have bans on GMOs using
the ‘safeguard clause’: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg. Italy has said that
it will defy the EC and refuse to allow GM crop to be grown, but has not done so formally. Confronted by
this opposition, the European Commission is taking the subsidiarity route. Member States, it is proposed,
will have the legal right to decide whether to cultivate GM crops or not (European Commission 2010b).
GM food was introduced to respondents in the following way:
‘Let’s speak now about genetically modified (GM) food made from plants or micro-organisms
that have been changed by altering their genes. For example a plant might have its genes
modified to make it resistant to a particular plant disease, to improve its food quality or to help
it grow faster.’
Figure 12 shows that the majority of Europeans are familiar with GM food. Nearly half of them have not
only heard about it but also talked about it or searched for information. Only about 18 per cent have not
heard of it before the interview. Levels of engagement seem then to reflect continued media attention of
the issue.
8
GMO Compass, http://www.gmocompass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/gmo_planting/392.gm_maize_cultivation_europe_2009.html
36
Figure 12: Awareness of GM food, EU27
Talked about or
searched for
information
frequently
9%
Not heard
18%
Talked about or
searched for
information
occasionally
46%
Heard only
27%
Figure 13 presents the levels of support for GM food for both EU27 in 2010 and for comparative
purposes EU25 in 2005. In 2010, combining ‘totally agree’ and ‘tend to agree’ we find 27 per cent in
support. By the same token, 57 per cent are not willing to support GM food. The comparison between
2010 and 2005 shows no substantial changes in the public’s perception of GM food.
Figure 13: Support for GM food, EU27
Totally agree
2005, EU25
6
2010, EU27
5
0
Tend to agree
21
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
29
18
28
28
20
Don't know
16
33
40
% respondents
60
16
80
100
To explore what may be driving the public perceptions of GM food, we used the same set of question as
nanotechnology (see Chapter 2.1). With these questions, we have the four indices of whether
respondents perceive GM food as beneficial, safe, inequitable and worrying. In Figure 14 the first
(yellow) bar in each cluster shows overall perceptions of the four dimensions. Contrary to scientific and
industry opinion, the European public see GM food as not offering benefits, as unsafe, as inequitable and
as worrying.
37
Splitting the overall sample into those who support GM food (the middle, green bar in each cluster) and
those who oppose it (the last, red bar in each cluster), we see that the dimension that most
differentiates supporters and opponents is the issue of safety. This is followed by benefit and worry.
Even the supporters are lukewarm about benefits and safety, and on balance only marginally convinced
that GM food is equitable and worry-free. The views of opponents run in the opposite direction, and are
considerably more extreme. The perceived safety deficit suggests that the risk assessment for GMOs in
place according to EU rules is not considered valid. It could also be interpreted as an entrenched
attitudinal association between GM food and a lack of safety, notwithstanding institutional efforts to
demonstrate the opposite.
Figure 14: Perceptions of GM food as beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural, EU27
(excluding DKs)
Beneficial
Safe
Inequitable
Unnatural
1.5
Average (mean) score
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Overall
Supporters
Opponents
Carrying out logistic regression analysis (see Section 2.1) to explain levels of support for GM food, we
find that all four indices have an independent effect on levels of overall support. Here, safety is by far
the most influential, with the other three making smaller, albeit statistically significant, contributions.
Using questions on GM food from previous waves of the Eurobarometer survey, we can track levels of
support over time. In Table 3 we have three blocks of countries. Block 1 (from UK to Greece) comprises
EU15 plus Switzerland and Norway, who were included in some of the earlier Eurobarometers. Block 2
(from Czech Republic to Cyprus) covers those additional Member States when the EU expanded to 25.
Block 3 takes us to EU27, with Bulgaria and Romania, and also includes Iceland, Croatia and Turkey.
In Table 3 we show the percentage of respondents in each country who agree or totally agree that GM
food should be encouraged. We base the calculations on only those who express an opinion. Highlighted
in bold, green font are those countries in which GM crops are currently cultivated. It is noticeable that in
these countries, support for GM food tends to be amongst the highest. Romania is an exception to the
38
rule. Highlighted in italicised, red font are the countries which have bans on the cultivation of GMOs.
Apart from Hungary, at 32 per cent support, levels of support in these countries are amongst the lowest
in Europe.
Across the period 1996-2010, we see, albeit with fluctuations, a downward trend in the percentage of
supporters. Denmark and the UK, at the higher end of the distribution of support, are exceptions, as is
Austria, at the lower end. Those among the ‘old’ EU countries with a ban on GM crops in place
consistently show low values of encouragement, with Italy obviously joining the group. In contrast,
Member States where GM crops are grown tend to show among the highest values, which might suggest
a link between private attitudes and public policies.
39
Table 3: Trends in support for GM food (excluding DKs)
% respondents who agree or totally agree that GM food should
be encouraged
40
1996
1999
2002
2005
2010
United Kingdom
52
37
46
35
44
Ireland
57
45
57
43
37
Portugal
63
47
56
56
37
Spain
66
58
61
53
35
Denmark
33
33
35
31
32
Netherlands
59
53
52
27
30
Norway
37
30
Finland
65
57
56
38
30
30
Belgium
57
40
39
28
28
Sweden
35
33
41
24
28
Italy
51
42
35
42
24
Austria
22
26
33
24
23
Germany
47
42
40
22
22
Switzerland
34
Luxembourg
44
29
26
16
19
France
43
28
28
23
16
Greece
49
21
26
14
10
Czech Republic
57
41
Slovakia
38
38
Malta
51
32
Hungary
29
32
Poland
28
30
Estonia
25
28
Slovenia
23
21
Latvia
19
14
Lithuania
42
11
Cyprus
19
10
20
Iceland
39
Romania
16
Bulgaria
13
Croatia
13
Turkey
7
3.2
Animal cloning for food production
Using the technique that created ‘Dolly the sheep’, animal cloning for food products has been offered as
a commercial service. It is claimed that consumers will benefit simply because the offspring of clones will
produce better meat and milk products. Because cloning is costly, it is the progeny (F1s) that will enter
the food chain and not the clones (F0s). This is an important distinction as it has been argued that
labeling would be restricted to the F0s and would not be necessary for the F1s. Whether the public will
agree with the scientists that the F1s are the same as conventionally bred animals is a moot point;
parents perceived to be unnatural may lead to perceptions of unnatural offspring.
Scientific opinions on animal cloning for food products have been published by the Center for Veterinary
Medicine at the US Food and Drug Administration9 and by the European Food Safety Authority. Both
concur that cloning poses no increased risk for food consumption. However, they also agree that cloning
raises questions about animal health. The health risks include large offspring syndrome with animals
showing abnormalities of the lungs and other organs, increased incidence of cardiovascular and
respiratory problems, and increased rates of mortality and morbidity compared to sexually reproduced
animals. Those developing cloning claim that these problems will be minimized as the technology
matures.
In the formulation of their opinions the FDA and EFSA invited comments from the public. Here EFSA
notes that a large majority of submissions that did not support cloning ‘were not scientific views’. The
same occurred in the US, leading the FDA to stress that ‘the Agency is not charged with addressing nonscience based concerns such as the moral, religious, or ethical issues associated with animal cloning for
agricultural purposes’ (FDA 2008). Apparently, for the public on both sides of the Atlantic, cloning raises
issues beyond the strictly scientific. (The issue of scientific versus moral criteria for governance is taken
up in Chapter 6.)
Such concerns have also been voiced by the European Group of Ethics of Science and New Technology
(EGE 2008), which reports to the President of the European Commission. The EGE conclude that while
‘there are no categorical arguments against animal cloning for breeding with the purpose of food
production, the EGE is not convinced so far that there are enough good reasons to alleviate the ethical
concerns’. These include: moral unease at such a new dimension to animal breeding; the effects on
animal welfare and health; the need for traceability and labelling; the requirement for further research
efforts on key issues; and the need for a comprehensive public discussion. Perhaps influenced by these
concerns, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly for a ban on cloned animals for food. But what
does the European public think of animal cloning for food products?
9
(FDA; see http://www.fda.gov/cvm/cloning.htm)
41
In the survey, cloning was described as follows:
‘Let’s speak now about cloning farm animals. Cloning may be used to improve some
characteristics of farmed animals in food production. Due to the high cost of cloning, this
technique would mainly be used to produce cloned animals which will reproduce with noncloned animals. Their offspring would then be used to produce meat and milk of higher quality.
However, critics have raised questions about ethics of animal cloning.’
Figure 15 shows that 71 per cent respondents have heard about animal cloning, with four in ten having
talked about or searched for information on the topic. Given the very extensive coverage of Dolly the
sheep in 1997, it is perhaps not surprising that this is a familiar issue for most people.
Figure 15: Awareness of animal cloning for food production, EU27
Talked about or
searched f or
inf ormation
f requently
4%
Not heard
27%
Talked about or
searched for
information
occasionally
39%
Heard only
30%
To gauge the attributes of public perceptions of animal cloning, we used the same question set used for
nanotechnology and GM food (see Chapters 2.1 and 3.1), providing an indicator of support and
assessments of whether respondents perceive animal cloning as beneficial, safe, inequitable and
worrying. The yellow bars in Figure 16 show overall perceptions of the four indices. Similar to GM food,
the European public see animal cloning as not offering benefits, as unsafe, as inequitable and as
worrying. The similarities between perceptions of animal cloning and GM food are striking. Here, it is
worth noting that these topics were in different sections of the split ballot design used in the
42
Eurobarometer. Those who answered the questions on GM food did not answer the questions on animal
cloning, and vice versa.
Splitting respondents into those who support animal cloning for food products (green bars) and those
who oppose it (red bars), we see a considerable degree of differentiation on the issue of safety. This is
followed by benefit and worry. As with GM foods, supporters are not greatly convinced about benefits or
safety, and while they do not think it is inequitable, they are on average as likely to worry about it as not
to.
Regression modelling (see Section 2.1) shows that safety is the strongest predictor of support, with
benefit, equity and worry making separate, but much smaller, contributions to the explanation of support
for animal cloning.
Figure 16: Perceptions of animal cloning for food products as beneficial, safe, inequitable
and unnatural, EU27 (excluding DKs)
Beneficial
Safe
Inequitable
Unnatural
1.5
Average (mean) score
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Overall
Supporters
Opponents
Figure 17 juxtaposes support for GM food and animal cloning for food products across Europe. As
mentioned above, questions about these two technologies were in different sections of the split ballot
used in the survey. Thus, we cannot determine the association between the two at the level of
individuals. At the country level, however, we can assess the correlation between levels of support for
the two technologies. It is moderately high, at 0.65.10
10
Pearson’s correlation coefficient, often called ‘Pearson’s r’. 0 would indicate that levels of support for GM food were unrelated to
levels of support for animal cloning; 1 would indicate that they were essentially the same within countries; -1 would indicate that
levels of support for GM food are exactly opposite to levels of support for animal cloning.
43
In only two countries are as many as three in ten supporters of animal cloning, among those who
express an opinion. This contrasts with 14 countries in which support for GM food is above 30 per cent.
Is this an indication of public anxieties about biotechnology and food? ‘The natural superiority of the
natural’ captures many of the current trends in European food production – organic, local, food-miles,
etc. And if ‘unnaturalness’ is one of the problems confronting GM food, it appears to be an even greater
concern for animal cloning and food products.
44
Figure 17: Encouragement for GM food and animal cloning for food products (excluding
DKs)
GM food
Animal cloning
27
EU27
18
44
United Kingdom
24
41
Czech Republic
32
39
Iceland
15
38
Slovakia
Ireland
37
Portugal
37
25
17
24
35
Spain
Denmark
32
Malta
32
31
20
22
32
Hungary
27
30
Netherlands
Norway
30
Poland
30
Finland
30
Belgium
28
Sweden
28
15
17
16
19
18
10
28
Estonia
Italy
24
Austria
23
Germany
22
Slovenia
21
23
24
14
11
17
20
Switzerland
11
19
Luxembourg
France
16
Romania
16
11
6
17
14
Latvia
Bulgaria
13
Croatia
13
13
21
8
11
Lithuania
12
Greece
10
13
Cyprus
10
14
7
Turkey
0
18
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% respondents who 'agree' or 'totally agree' to encouragement
45
3.3
Transgenic and cisgenic apples
The preceding chapter on animal cloning suggested that ‘unnaturalness’ might be a reason for concern
or even rejection among the public. For plants, new biotechnological methods are being developed that
might be considered more ‘natural’ than conventional genetic modification, and at the same time reap
the benefit from modern molecular breeding approaches. Is this a viable strategy when it comes to
public concerns? Will such a ‘technolite’ solution be deemed more acceptable than conventional
transgenic techniques?
Commercial apple growers spray crops with pesticides and fungicides on a frequent basis – in some
locations 20 to 25 times a year – in order to prevent diseases such as canker, scab and mildew. This is
both costly and a potential health risk. Public concern about pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables
has been documented in a Eurobarometer survey sponsored by the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA 2008). With proposals for the introduction of maximum residue levels (MRLs), there may be
pressure on the industry to look for alternative ways to protect crops from common diseases.
It has been found that crab apples, a closely related species that can cross naturally with food apples,
have genes that provide resistance to the common apple diseases, but classical breeding to introduce
such genes into modern varietals would be a painstakingly slow process. Cisgenics is the genetic
modification of crops adding only genes from the same species or from plants that are crossable with the
recipient plant in conventional breeding programmes. Thus, cisgenics might be thought of as
biotechnologically informed ‘green fingers’, reducing the time to introduce new strains of fruit from
decades to a matter of a few years.
Cisgenics, a technique also used to develop new strains of potato that are resistant to potato blight (a
contributory factor in the Irish famine in the mid 19th century), can technically be compared to
transgenics. In transgenics genes are taken from other species or bacteria that are taxonomically very
different from the gene recipient and transferred into plants to promote resistance to herbicides or to
insect pests – the latter by the incorporation of a gene that codes for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, for
example.
How might the public respond to cisgenics? Would the transfer of genes within a genus (‘life form’) be
more acceptable than transfers of genes across the genus? The species combined in a genus are
generally perceived to be phenotypically equivalent and genetic transfers may be imagined as much
more ‘morally acceptable’.
46
Cisgenics was introduced in the survey with the following description:
Some European researchers think there are new ways of controlling common diseases in
apples– things like scab and mildew. There are two new ways of doing this. Both mean that
the apples could be grown with limited use of pesticides, and so pesticide residues on the
apples would be minimal. The first way is to artificially introduce a resistance gene from
another species such as a bacterium or animal into an apple tree to make it resistant to mildew
and scab…. The second way is to artificially introduce a gene that exists naturally in wild/ crab
apples which provides resistance to mildew and scab.
Respondents were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements in
relation to these techniques:
1.
It is a promising idea (transgenic)/ it will be useful (cisgenic)
2.
Eating apples produced using this technique will be safe (transgenic)/it will be risky
(cisgenic)
3.
It will harm the environment
4.
It is fundamentally unnatural
5.
It makes you feel uneasy
6.
It should be encouraged.
These questions allow us to make two main comparisons. The first is between transgenics and cisgenics
in apple production: Is genetic modification within a species more acceptable to the public than
modifications which cross the species barrier? Secondly, we can also compare public perceptions of
transgenic apples with perceptions of GM food. In principle there should be no difference as the process
described in the survey of creating transgenic apples is identical to the process of creating other GM
food. However, it may be that GM in the context of food in general carries other negative connotations
that drive public perceptions. Some perceived risks become almost stigmatised, with the mere mention
of them leading to negative perceptions.
Figure 18 shows the contrast between perceptions of the indices of transgenic and cisgenic apples.
Across EU 27, 55 per cent support cisgenisis, some 22 per cent more than those who support
transgenics. As can be seen, cisgenic apples are more positively perceived on all the indices. They make
people feel less uneasy than transgenic apples; they seem more natural, less problematic for the
environment, safer and more useful/promising.
47
Figure 18: Perceptions of transgenic and cisgenic apples, EU27
Totally agree
Encourage: cisgenic apples
Tend to agree
Makes me feel uneasy: cisgenic apples
Makes me feel uneasy: transgenic apples
Unnatural: transgenic apples
Harm the environment: transgenic apples
Risky: cisgenic apples
23
Useful: cisgenic apples
22
Promising: transgenic apples
0
20
11
60
12
12
22
23
40
20
15
41
32
15
14
7
23
27
12
22
10
31
27
13
Not safe: transgenic apples
19
17
25
27
16
9
6
14
33
9
12
33
20
10
8
12
26
39
Harm the environment: cisgenic apples
8
22
29
23
15
20
30
28
Unnatural: cisgenic apples
15
18
31
24
16
Don't know
31
26
22
7
Totally disagree
20
32
14
Encourage: transgenic apples
Tend to disagree
80
Percentage respondents
Figure 19 shows the country profile of support for transgenic and cisgenic apples. In all countries,
cisgenic apples receive higher support than transgenic apples. In 24 countries an absolute majority of
those who expressed an opinion are supportive of cisgenic apples.
48
100
Figure 19: Support for transgenic and cisgenic apples (excluding DKs)
Cisgenic apples
Transgenic apples
EU27
55
33
Cyprus
76
24
Hungary
70
41
Finland
70
35
Czech Republic
69
44
Estonia
68
27
Norway
66
39
Latvia
65
24
Slovakia
64
38
Poland
64
38
United Kingdom
63
40
Bulgaria
62
30
Lithuania
61
27
Ireland
61
36
Iceland
61
38
Romania
60
31
Malta
59
37
Greece
58
18
Sweden
57
27
Denmark
57
33
Portugal
56
38
Spain
53
37
Austria
53
28
Belgium
53
37
Netherlands
51
39
Germany
49
26
France
48
28
Slovenia
48
22
Croatia
47
23
Italy
37
Switzerland
44
23
Turkey
30
Luxembourg
17
0
10
44
36
35
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% respondents who 'agree' or 'totally agree' to encouragement
49
In contrast to transgenics, it seems that people may perceive cisgenic apples as not transcending the
‘life-form’ barrier separating living beings. Hence, cisgenics appears to be more natural, perhaps
comparable to hybridization in ‘natural’ horticulture.
What of the comparison between GM food and transgenic apples, which were both described in the
survey as the result of a similar process of genetic modification?
For EU 27, support for GM food is 27 per cent among those who expressed an opinion, while the
comparable figure for transgenic apples is 37 per cent. Can we determine from other questions what
differentiates GM food from transgenic apples that might account for the latter receiving 10 per cent
more support?
Table 4 shows the contrasting perceptions of the safety, environmental impacts and ‘naturalness’ of GM
food, transgenic apples and cisgenic apples.
Table 4: Perceptions of safety, environmental impacts and naturalness of GM food and
transgenic apples, EU27 (excluding DKs)
GM food
Transgenic apples
Cisgenic apples
27
37
53
Not harmful for
the environment
30
55
63
Unnatural
76
78
57
Support
27
33
55
% responses
Safe/not risky11
While both GM food and transgenic apples are seen to be ‘unnatural’ by three out of four respondents,
transgenic apples are more likely to be perceived as safe and not to harm the environment. This
suggests that the preamble describing transgenic apples as a technique would ‘limit use of pesticides,
and so pesticide residues on the apples would be minimal’’ may have suggested a benefit both to the
environment and to food safety.
It has long been suggested that the Achilles’ heel of current GM crops and food has been the perceived
absence of benefits for the public and their imagined threat to nature’s integrity. Cisgenics might be seen
as a hypothetical example of the so-called ‘second generation’ of GM crops. Here, the benefits of GM
apple breeding are achieved with a technolite process, consumer benefits are apparent and as such
more acceptable, by a factor of two.
11
The criterion of safety was captured by different questions for each item: for GM food, agreeing that it is ‘Safe for your health
and your family’s health’; for transgenic apples, agreeing that ‘Eating apples produced by this technique will be safe’; and for
cisgenic apples, disagreeing that ‘It will be risky’.
50
4.
Regenerative medicine
Throughout the series of Eurobarometer surveys on life science and society, biomedical research has
enjoyed more public support than agricultural applications of biotechnology (Bauer 2005). Biomedicine, it
seems, still encapsulates the very idea of progress in the public mind, having greatly contributed to the
alleviation of disease and suffering and having led to greater quality of life. Both public and private
investments in various medical applications of biotechnology have been significant in Europe. However,
there is one field within medical biotechnology that repeatedly attracted criticism. Regenerative
medicine, “the process of creating living, functional tissues to repair or replace tissue or organ function
lost due to age, disease, damage, or congenital defects” (according to a definition by the NIH) promises
significant improvements for an ageing population. However, it is beset with intriguing moral dilemmas
surrounding the origin of living cells and tissue. No wonder, the regulation of regenerative research has
been challenging. At times it has escalated into heated political controversies.
The field of human embryonic stem cell research epitomises some of the central tensions. Promoters
herald the potential of such research to contribute to the alleviation of human suffering and restore
dignity to patients and their families. This position has become a conflict of principle. On the one hand,
safeguarding the freedom of scientific research to push back the frontiers of knowledge; on the other
hand, using cells from human embryos is seen as an affront to the dignity of human life.
Human embryonic stem cell research not only raises religious opposition (especially from Catholics) but
is also seen as going against the public order that highly values the sanctity of human life. Other fields of
regenerative medicine have been also a cause of concern for regulators. Gene therapy has been in the
pipeline for almost two decades but has repeatedly been halted because of safety issues. Another
controversial application is xenotransplantation, regarded as an important source of cells and tissues for
transplantation into humans but fraught with issues over potential risks (for example porcine
endogenous retroviruses) arising from crossing species.
Questions in the Eurobarometer cover these issues. We also include questions that move from repair to
improvement, attempting to capture public views on human enhancement, that is using techniques of
regenerative medicine not only to repair debilitated bodily functions to the normal level but also to
improve certain aspects of human performance beyond this level. This raises questions over risk and
benefit, what is to be considered normal, and distributional equity.
In this section we first report on public views on the regulation of regenerative medicine and human
enhancement in 2010 and briefly discuss the most significant changes from 2005. We then attempt to
disentangle the ethical positions or dilemmas of the debate that are driving public views.
51
Respondents were presented with the following questions:
Let’s speak now about regenerative medicine which is a new field of medicine and clinical
applications that focuses on the repairing, replacing or growing of cells, tissues, or organs.
1.
Stem cell research involves taking cells from human embryos that are less than 2 weeks
old. They will never be transplanted into a woman’s body but are used to grow new
cells which then can be used to treat diseases in any part of the body. Would you say
that...?
2.
Now suppose scientists were able to use stem cells from other cells in the body, rather
3.
Scientists can put human genes into animals that will produce organs and tissues for
than from embryos. Would you say that...?
transplant into humans, such as pigs for transplants or to replace pancreatic cells to
cure diabetes. Would you say that...?
4.
Scientists also work on gene therapy which involves treating inherited diseases by
intervening directly in the human genes themselves. Would you say that...?
5.
Regenerative medicine is not only about developing cures for people who are ill. It is
also looking into ways of enhancing the performance of healthy people, for example to
improve concentration or to increase memory. Would you say that...?
The response alternatives were:
52
•
You fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary
•
You approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws
•
You do not approve except under very special circumstances
•
You do not approve under any circumstances
Figure 20: Levels of approval of biomedical research and synthetic biology, EU27
Fully approve
Approve if strict laws to regulate
Do not approve unless special circumstances
Do not approve under any circumstances
Don't know
Synthetic biology
3
36
21
Human enhancement
11
Xenotransplantation
11
Gene therapy
11
52
Embryonic stem cell
research
12
51
Non-em bryonic stem
cell research
44
22
20
46
15
0
17
18
18
17
54
20
40
15
60
80
17
7
17
7
11
8
13
7
9
7
100
% respondents
Figure 20 presents the overall results for the EU27 countries as a whole. The greater majority of this
European public is willing to express an opinion on regenerative medicine. We find less than 10 per cent
‘don’t know’ responses. In contrast, one fourth of the European public has not formed an opinion on the
emerging field of synthetic biology (included here for comparative purposes, but discussed in greater
detail in Section 2.3).
In general, levels of approval are rather high. If we combine the two positive statements (‘fully approve
and I do not think that special laws are necessary’, ‘approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws’),
some 68 per cent approve of stem cell research and 63 per cent approve of embryonic stem cell
research. Levels of approval for gene therapy are similar, at 64 per cent . Xenotransplantation – an
application long subject to moratoria in various national contexts and an application which was seen as
even more critical than GM food in the 1996 Eurobarometer (Gaskell et al. 1998, p207) – is now
approved by 58 per cent of respondents. The solid support for medical applications of biotechnology
spreads over to non-therapeutic applications, moving from repair to improvement we observe that 56
per cent of the European public approves of research that aims to enhance human performance. This
result is consistent with expectations of brain and cognitive enhancement where 59 per cent said they
were optimistic about such developments. The new horizons opened up by biomedical research exploring
and enhancing the functions of the brain, perhaps the ultimate frontier in science, is apparently
favourably viewed by the European public in general.
The substantial levels of approval of these lines of research are, however, not unconditional. Approval is
clearly contingent upon perceptions of adequate oversight and control to guide developments. For
53
example, levels of approval when there are strict rules in place ranges from 44 per cent for human
enhancement to 54 per cent for non-embryonic stem cell research. The percentages of those who do not
approve but would allow developments in exceptional circumstance, ‘sceptical approval’, range from 15
per cent for non-embryonic stem cell research to 20 per cent for human enhancement. Both general
approval and general rejection of regenerative biotechnology are only minority positions.
These results show a very clear picture that raises a range of important issues for processes of
governance of this rapidly growing field of research. The European public does not generally approve or
reject applications of regenerative medicine and human enhancement, but wants developments to be
kept under control.
National regulation of human embryo stem cell research varies greatly across the European member
states. UK, Sweden and Belgium have adopted the most permissive legislation with Germany and Italy
adopting the most restrictive. The 2005 Eurobarometer report was made public at a time when the rules
for eligible research funding for 7th FP 2007 to 2013 were being defined. The European Parliament and
the Council opted for an approach that allowed the allocation of public funds to research using human
embryo stem cells under strict condition. A year later the new EC directive on Advanced Therapy
Medicinal Products (1394/2007) came into force.
Next we look at shifts and trends in levels of approval for three types of research between 2005 and
2010 (Figure 21). The views of the European public have become somewhat more decided, and across
the applications, levels of conditional approval have increased. This is due to a small increase in those
who do not approve under any circumstances and a somewhat larger decrease in the percentages of
‘fully approve’ responses.
54
Figure 21: Levels of approval for embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research and
gene therapy, 2005 and 201012, Europe-wide
Fully approve
Approve if strict laws to regulate
Do not approve unless special circumstances
Do not approve under any circumstances
Don't know
Gene therapy 2010
11
18
Gene therapy 2005
18
52
20
36
15
Non-embryonic s tem cell research 2010
Embryonic s tem cell research 2010
0
20
7
17
36
23
9
14
51
40
17
60
8
18
15
37
12
Embryonic s tem cell research 2005
8
54
28
Non-embryonic s tem cell research 2005
11
7
14
7
13
9
15
80
100
% respondents
Human embryonic stem cell research continues to be a contentious issue so next we look more deeply
into the changes between 2005 and 2010.
12
Based on the 25 Member States in 2005 and 27 Member States in 2010
55
Figure 22: Levels of approval for human embryonic stem cell research, 2005 and 201013
(excluding DKs)
2010
2005
67
EU27/EU25
69
80
UK
Spain
78
Denmark
77
74
79
74
75
Estonia
Netherlands
75
France
75
Belgium
74
50
71
72
76
72
Sweden
78
70
Portugal
Hunary
69
Italy
69
66
77
79
68
Finland
Greece
64
Ireland
63
Luxembourg
61
Lithuania
61
Latvia
61
Malta
57
Poland
57
53
53
55
65
56
53
51
65
55
Cyprus
65
52
Czech Republic
Germany
50
Slovakia
50
Slovenia
49
75
59
60
40
39
Austria
53
74
Romania
63
Bulgaria
77
Iceland
74
Norway
Turkey
58
Switerland
57
54
Croatia
0
20
40
60
% respondents
13
Based on the 25 Member States in 2005 and 27 Member States in 2010.
56
80
100
Figure 22 shows the changes in levels of approval of embryonic stem cell research between 2005 and
2010 in the countries that were members of the EU in 2005. A comfortable majority (55 per cent or
more) support embryonic stem cell research in 19 countries, from the UK at the top, down to Poland.
Support has increased by 8 per cent or more in Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Latvia and Slovenia. In
contrast, support has declined by 8 per cent or more in Hungary, Italy, Poland, Cyprus, The Czech
Republic, Germany, Slovakia and Austria. While data for 2005 and 2010 do not constitute a trend, the
decline in support across these eight countries may indicate problems to come. Finally, in the countries
not included in the 2005 Eurobarometer survey, all bar Croatia show a comfortable majority in support.
Interestingly enough, analyses for non-embryonic stem cell research and gene therapy point to similar
trends.
The debates over the regulations of biomedical research have been strongly characterised by diverse
ethical arguments and dilemmas. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with
the following statements relating to ethical considerations involved in regenerative medicine:
1.
It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might offer
promising new medical treatments.
2.
We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments, even
when it involves the creation or use of human embryos.
3.
Immediately after fertilisation the human embryo can already be considered to be a
human being.
4.
Mixing animal and human genes is unacceptable even if it helps medical research for
human health.
5.
Research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if this means that
possible treatments are not made available to ill people.
6.
Should ethical and scientific viewpoints on regenerative medicine differ, the scientific
viewpoint should prevail.
7.
You do not support developments in regenerative medicine if it only benefits rich people.
8.
Research on regenerative medicine should be supported, even though it will benefit only
9.
Research into regenerative medicine should go ahead, even if there are risks to future
a few people.
generations.
57
Figure 23: Public views on ethical positions and regenerative medicine, EU27
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to dis agree
5
Regenerative research to go ahead despite risks
23
11
Regenerative medicine should be supported
Totally disagree
31
32
27
25
29
Embryo as a human being
Don't know
20
27
21
51
Do not s upport regenerative medicine for the rich only
23
27
Mixing animal and human genes unacceptable
Science over ethics
12
We have a duty to allow research for new treatments
14
Ethically wrong to use embryos in research
16
Embryo research wrong even if promising for medicine
15
0
26
33
25
23
20
23
31
34
40
60
% res pondents
12
12
10
25
36
27
13
11
8
11
14
8
11
16
16
12
16
11
18
10
80
100
Figure 23 shows that an overwhelming majority of respondents claim not to support the lines of research
in question if they only benefit the rich. The views of Europeans clearly diverge on most other issues
relating to ethical positions, such as the sanctity of human life and the essence of the human, the
prospects of future risks and the imperative to further research in regenerative medicine.
58
Figure 24: Sanctity of human life versus utilitarian positions
% totally agreeing that human embryonic stem cell research it ethically wrong.
40
Cyprus
35
Slovenia
30
Greece
Turkey
Austria
25
Croatia Germany
Latvia
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Lithuania
Hungary
Netherlands
Finland
Bulgaria
Poland
Ireland
Czech Republic
Romania
Slovakia
20
Malta
15
Italy
Belgium
France
Portugal
Estonia
10
Denmark
Norway
United Kingdom
Spain
Sweden
Iceland
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
% totally agreeing we have a duty to allow research involving human embryos
Figure 24 maps the percentages within each country, of those believe we have a duty to allow research
that can bring benefits even if human embryos are used (indicative of a utilitarian principle) against
those who would like to see a ban posed on human embryonic stem cell research (indicative of a sanctity
principle). It clearly shows that the fault lines in European public views cannot be construed as a simple
divide between Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. In a group of mainly Scandinavian countries
(Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark), UK and Spain, we find support for utilitarian ethics and little
support for a ban. While the other countries are low on the utilitarian factor, they differ according their
support for a ban on the use of human embryos for research. In Portugal, France, Belgium, Italy and
Estonia, there is as little support for a ban as in the Scandinavian countries and the UK. At the other
extreme countries that tend towards favouring a ban are Cyprus, Slovenia, Turkey, Austria, Germany and
Croatia.
59
5.
Biobanks
Biobanks collect data on biological and environmental/lifestyle characteristics of individuals. They do so
on a very large scale, with the aim of teasing apart genetic and lifestyle factors in the risk of diseases
and the maintenance of health. Scientists hope to develop new methods for better understanding many
common diseases and arrive at new effective treatments. The pharmaceutical industry is interested and
likely to be a major investor in the development and maintenance of biobanks. According to the scientific
journal Nature (24 September 2009) there are more than 400 biobanks in Europe. The EU is funding
biobank research as well as the development of an integrated system for sharing the vast amounts of
data they contain. Collecting biological information from people with illnesses has a long history, but
collecting data from healthy people is relatively novel and key to biobanks. The issues of altruistic duty to
contribute to research, privacy of very sensitive personal data on health, life habits and genetic profiles,
commercialisation of the results from research on biobank data and governance issues have been widely
debated (Elger et al. 2008, Gottweis and Petersen 2008).
Biobanks were described to respondents in the following way:
‘And now thinking about biobanks for biomedical research: These are collections of biological
materials (such as blood and/or tissues) and personal data (medical records, lifestyle data)
from large numbers of people. Using biobanks, researchers will try to identify the genetic and
environmental factors in diseases, to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
Participation in biobanks is voluntary. Critics, however, raise questions about privacy,
confidentiality and commercial interests regarding the biobanks and about who is going to
regulate them.’
Figure 25: Awareness of biobanks, EU27
Talked about or
searched f or
inf ormation
occasionally
15%
Talked about or
searched for
information
f requently
2%
Heard only
16%
Not heard
67%
60
As yet, it appears that many European citizens are unaware of biobanks. Two thirds of respondents had
not heard about biobanks before they were interviewed, and only 17 per cent can be described as
having actively engaged with the topic, through discussions or seeking out information about them.
Nevertheless, how do people feel about participating in biobanks? Figure 26 shows a range of support –
from 92 per cent Icelanders (where a highly publicised initiative more than a decade ago resulted in the
setting up of a large commercial biobank) say they definitely or probably would be willing to provide
information to a biobank, to 24 per cent Latvians expressing the same view. Turkish respondents as a
group return similar expressed levels of enthusiasm, or lack of it, for biobanks, but with a great deal
more ambivalence too – 33 per cent Turkish respondents say ‘I don’t know’ to this question.
Figure 26: Would you be willing to provide information about yourself to a biobank?
Yes, definitely
EU27
Yes, probably
No, probably not
22
32
14
Iceland
No, never
Sweden
Netherlands
Portugal
16
37
Luxembourg
15
37
Belgium
16
35
United Kingdom
15
Spain
Ireland
29
Switzerland
18
30
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Germany
Slovakia
Poland
4
31
Greece
4
31
Romania
Bulgaria
Latvia
Turkey
11
0
20
5
24
27
16
18
8
26
24
5
37
19
27
21
28
21
18
23
8
36
39
6
27
16
4
25
30
13
7
26
31
19
6
15
31
25
8
5
23
19
30
26
7
Lithuania
17
25
23
10
6
17
18
27
30
10
Austria
9
21
22
34
6
7
29
30
29
13
12
23
19
31
11
Hungary
16
22
30
15
8
25
17
17
35
11
Croatia
2
5
24
18
33
13
7
20
19
37
10
Malta
16
18
17
18
3
12
21
36
12
France
5
16
26
30
4
20
23
34
14
4
10
17
20
35
19
Italy
11
24
29
9
12
21
33
26
Cyprus
24
39
21
Estonia
19
43
24
4
3
16
38
30
4 2
11
42
40
34
Finland
4
12
46
36
Denmark
10
22
39
54
Norway
DK
40
33
60
80
100
Percentage
61
What kinds of deposits might be made to a biobank? Do certain types of information invoke more anxiety
amongst the public than other types? On the whole, the data suggest that people do not seem to be
markedly more worried about some than other types of information we asked about. At the EU-level (i.e.
pooling all the data), people seem less concerned about giving information about their lifestyle (e.g. diet,
exercise habits etc.) to biobanks. In half of the countries in the survey, fewer than 20 per cent
respondents mention being concerned about this. By contrast, in only two countries do fewer than 20
per cent respondents mention being concerned about giving their genetic profile to a biobank.
Regarding the relative distribution of concerns within countries, some more subtle differences emerge.
The primary concern about genetic profiles in most countries tends to be followed closely by the relative
levels of concern about giving medical records from one’s doctor. This is notably the case for a collection
of countries in the rather supportive Scandinavian area, and also in Luxembourg. These are countries
where biobanks are well established, and where concern about giving blood or tissue samples to
biobanks is low.
Generally, indeed, people tend to mention pairs of concerns together: for example, those who say they
would be concerned about giving blood samples to a biobank are more likely to say they are also
concerned about giving tissue samples than they are to be concerned about any other type of
information; those who are concerned about giving lifestyle information are more likely to also be
worried about giving medical records than anything else. So we have concerns based around
physiological samples on the one hand, and around personal descriptive information on the other.
Genetic profiles appear to span both types of information, and there does not seem to be a strong
connection between concern about particular types of information and levels of enthusiasm about
participating in biobanks.
62
Figure 27: Levels of concern about giving different types of information to a biobank
Blood samples
Tissue collected during medical operations
Your genetic profile
Medical record from your doctor
Lifestyle (what you eat, how much exercise you take, etc.)
EU27
34
30
30
Germany
37
39
Austria
35
43
38
44
Greece
36
41
42
32
33
35
28
Belgium
35
Latvia
32
France
30
Hungary
31
Switzerland
Cyprus
Romania
24
25
25
27
Malta
28
22
Bulgaria
31
Italy
25
Portugal
27
24
Finland
16
16
27
26
13
18
Luxembourg
0
20
15
23
21
12
17
7
18
37
16
Turkey
20
28
14
29
23
22
18
18
24
16
19
20
27
29
17
Iceland
18
22
50
17
20
26
27
12
11
Norway
27
Sweden
20
32
24
28
15
26
26
22
23
19
Denmark
17
23
25
26
19
27
31
34
Croatia
Estonia
21
27
24
22
27
16
30
31
35
29
Poland
23
33
35
28
17
36
31
27
25
25
35
28
27
18
31
36
29
30
Lithuania
25
37
40
25
26
27
36
35
32
26
33
32
29
26
36
32
31
30
United Kingdom
33
30
26
Ireland
23
34
43
32
Spain
25
32
36
37
31
22
32
40
26
21
19
41
42
Slovenia
29
38
39
Czech Republic
39
46
41
Slovakia
Netherlands
24
33
48
9
13
100
150
200
250
% respondents concerned about each type of information
63
Whether those conducting research on data in biobanks have obligations to the donors has been
explored in the ethics literature. Some argue in favour of a version of informed consent while others
argue that on pragmatic grounds this is simply not feasible. Salvaterra and colleagues note that models
of consent differ widely and that the regulations covering biobank research are ‘characterised by a maze
of laws, policies and ethical recommendations’ (Salvaterra et al. 2008: 307). What do Europeans think?
In the survey respondents were asked
‘In a hospital doctors ask the patient to sign a form giving permission to carry out an operation
– this is called ‘informed consent’ and it is also required of medical researchers who do
research involving members of the public. When a scientist does research on data in a
biobank, what do you think about the need for this kind of permission? Researchers should…’
•
Not need to ask for permission (unrestricted consent)
•
Ask for permission only once (broad consent)
•
Ask for permission for every new piece of research (specific consent)
•
Don’t know
Figure 28 shows that 67 per cent of people in EU27 wish for a strict interpretation of informed consent –
permission being required for every piece of research. The figure also shows that there is a comfortable
majority (55 per cent plus) in all the countries covered by the Eurobarometer, with the exception of
Denmark. Asking for permission ‘only once’ is the preference of 18 per cent of EU27 and a mere 6 per
cent say permission is not needed. It is notable that countries such as Iceland, Sweden and the
Netherlands, all with long established biobanks, have relatively high percentages of people saying
permission is needed once only – up to around 1 in 3. Yet this is still a minority response.
These findings will represent a significant concern for the proponents of biobanks, whether national
governments, research institutions or private companies. Of course, in the survey situation respondents
do not have the opportunity to deliberate on their responses, the ethics of informed consent are
complex, and in such a context some people may opt for a precautionary response. Weighing up the
prospective collective benefits against the interests of the individual donor is not a simple matter. At
minimum, the findings suggest that at first sight, informed consent, as in hospital operations, is the
legitimate procedure, in the sense of familiarity from custom and practice. The promoters of biobanks
cannot take the public for granted, and will need to cultivate public confidence.
64
Figure 28: Form of consent for biobank research
Ask for permission for every new piece of research (specific)
Ask for permission only once (general)
No need to ask for permission (unrestricted)
Don't know
6
18
67
EU27
Greece
2
Bulgaria
75
9
France
75
12
Germany
75
Cyprus
74
Slovenia
73
15
Switzerland
71
71
17
Austria
70
18
Belgium
69
Croatia
69
14
Luxembourg
68
17
68
Lithuania
66
19
21
Portugal
63
19
Poland
61
22
59
59
Italy
58
Netherlands
57
Turkey
56
Romania
55
Finland
20
4
5
7
4
14
9
6
8
5
6
4
13
6 1
11
6
7
15
7
25
7
4
10
32
60
3
28
16
25
40
3
12
33
13
4
15
4
9
7
5
9
27
21
3
11
22
51
0
6
11
32
55
Denmark
8
6
26
63
Ireland
6
4
16
66
Norway
9
6
23
65
60
8
10
6
17
Estonia
Iceland
4
22
United Kingdom
Sweden
4
3 4
6
Czech Republic
67
7
9
14
12
Spain
7
3
19
71
Slovakia
13
13
Latvia
4
6
15
73
Malta
22
4
14
78
Hungary
9
12
84
80
8
100
% respondents
65
Figure 29: Probability of participation and preferred form of consent (excluding DKs)
No need to ask for permission (unrestricted)
Ask for permission only once (broad)
Ask for permission for every new piece of research (specific)
16
Yes, definitely
6
Yes, probably
No, probably not
28
3
5
No, never
56
26
68
17
79
11
0
84
20
40
60
80
100
% respondents
But, for the proponents of biobanks there are some grounds for optimism. Figure 29 provides a crosstabulation of agreeing to participate in a biobank with the preferred form of consent. The figure shows
that those who say they will definitely participate in a biobank are much more likely to say researchers
don’t need to ask for permission (16 per cent) or permission granted once only (28 per cent). With 44
per cent of Europeans taking a relaxed view on the issue of consent the pool of potential volunteers is
around 150 million (taking account of the 10 per cent ‘don’t know’ responses).
Who should be responsible for protecting the public interest when it comes to biobanks? Respondents
were asked who, from a list, they would choose first and second to protect the public interest. The
majority of Europeans would entrust this responsibility to medical doctors and researchers first. But there
are some patterns in responses which vary interestingly between countries. First of all, certain pairs of
responses are more highly correlated than others – that is, people tend to choose types of actors in
clusters. Those who choose ‘doctors’ are more likely to also choose ‘researchers’ than to choose ‘national
governments’. Those who choose ‘national governments’ are more likely to also choose ‘international
organisations’ than to choose ‘researchers’. So we can see a difference in emphasis, between:
self-regulation (medical doctors; researchers; public institutions such as universities,
hospitals); and
external
regulation
(ethics
committees;
national
governments;
international
organisations such as the European Union or World Health Organisation; national data
protection authorities)
Figure 30 plots for each country the percentage of people who select one or more of the self-regulation
agents, against the percentage who select one or more of the external regulation agents. The pattern of
points in the scatterplot – countries lie very roughly on a line from top left to bottom right – illustrates
66
these clusterings of concerns. In some countries, such as Iceland and the Netherlands, respondents tend
to choose external regulation more often than self-regulation. In other countries, such as Greece and
Slovakia, respondents tend to choose self-regulation more often than external regulation. Broadly
speaking, respondents in those countries which show higher levels of support for biobanks tend to
favour external regulation more than self-regulation. In those countries where biobanks are unfamiliar,
specialists in the substance of biobanks tend to be more popular as guardians of the public interest. The
differing levels of support for external regulation may reflect broader issues in national politics – for
example, general trust in government.
Figure 30: External regulation versus self-regulation of biobanks
% respondents choosing one or more external regulators
100
90
Iceland
80
Netherlands
Germany Denmark
Norway Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
70
France
Cyprus
Finland
Malta
Hungary
Belgium Spain
Slovenia Luxembourg
Austria
Ireland
Greece
Latvia Czech Republic
Croatia
Lithuania
60
Estonia
Slovakia
Bulgaria
50
50
60
70
80
90
100
% respondents choosing one or more self-regulators
Figure 31 shows the levels of support for sharing personal and biological materials amongst biobanks in
different European countries. There is almost no association between support for international
integration of biobanks and the agents that should protect the public interest; those who are in favour of
international integration are marginally more likely (than those against) to choose international bodies
like the EU as the primary guardians, but really only marginally. Levels of support for the sharing and
exchange of biobank data between EU Member States broadly echoes levels of support for biobanks per
se.
67
Figure 31: Support for sharing and exchange of personal data and biological materials
Yes, definitely
EU27
Yes, probably
No, probably not
No, definitely not
17
34
19
Cyprus
Iceland
49
Belgium
26
Norway
25
Slovakia
Spain
21
38
22
37
19
Portugal
19
Italy
Croatia
Malta
Greece
12
39
Poland
12
39
Ireland
Romania
Germany
Turkey
12
0
12
20
28
22
19
12
5
38
8
36
10
26
22
16
40
8
22
5
21
21
12
14
12
14
47
60
% respondents
68
25
19
26
33
6
15
14
11
25
18
6
21
19
21
10
32
14
Austria
15
10
9
19
39
9
18
14
13
16
25
23
Bulgaria
12
10
20
32
16
Switzerland
11
35
14
United Kingdom
21
17
20
38
14
9
5
13
31
20
Latvia
12
7
20
29
25
9
15
15
35
21
Netherlands
16
14
16
39
17
11
12
14
43
14
Hungary
11
14
23
30
27
12
11
18
39
France
5
14
19
40
9
14
13
41
17
Estonia
6
9
16
Sweden
5
11
10
17
41
Lithuania
Czech Republic
4
14
34
19
5
9
18
36
25
9
19
32
27
Luxembourg
17
18
17
47
31
13
4
16
43
42
17
Denmark
Slovenia
7
40
29
20
15
15
25
52
Finland
Don't know
80
100
6.
Governance and trust
This chapter provides an overview of how European citizens think about the governance and regulation
of science and technology, as well as how trustworthy they think the key actors involved in the field of
biotechnology are.
Principles of governance
Given that time and knowledge are scarce, citizens are open to the idea that sometimes the
responsibility of developing public policy should be solely in the hands of the experts, the ones who are
deemed to ‘know best’. This cannot be generalised though; some issues are deemed too sensitive to be
left solely in the hands of experts. To what degree, then, do European publics feel they ought actively to
be involved in such decisions? And to what degree do they believe that they should defer to the
judgements of experts?
In the survey, respondents were asked two forced-choice questions. First, should decision-making be left
primarily to the experts or based mainly on the views of the public? And second, should decisions be
made largely on evidence related to the risks and benefits or based on moral and ethical considerations?
In the survey a split ballot was used. Half the respondents in each country answered the questions in the
context of synthetic biology, while the other half answered the questions in the context of animal cloning
for food products. Both of these topics had been the subject of prior questions in the survey.
The pairs of questions forced respondents to make a choice between the options offered; there was no
scope for saying ‘I would like to see scientific assessment informed by ethical and moral considerations’,
or ‘I would prefer to have experts taking note of the public’s views’. The intention of the question was to
push respondents. When it comes to the crunch, who do Europeans want to make decisions and what
sort of evidence should be privileged in the decision-making process?
The responses to the questions allow us to divide the public into four ‘types’ reflecting different principles
of governance (Gaskell et al., 2005). Opting for decisions based on expert advice rather than the views
of the public, and on the grounds of scientific evidence rather than moral and ethical considerations is
labelled the principle of scientific delegation. An institutional equivalent would be, for example, an expert
commission on risk assessment. By contrast, those who want decisions to be based on scientific evidence
and to reflect the views of average citizens are opting for the principle of scientific deliberation.
Institutionally, this could be reflected in a consensus conference, where lay people discuss aspects of an
issue with the help of specialists’ expertise. By the same token, those who would prefer decisions to be
based primarily on the moral and ethical issues involved (rather than scientific evidence), and on the
advice of experts rather than the general public, we refer to as adopting a principle of moral delegation.
The respective institution would be an ethics committee. And those who prioritise moral and ethical over
scientific considerations, whilst favouring the views of the general public over those of the experts, we
69
label as adhering to a principle of moral deliberation. Such a view could best be accommodated with the
help of instruments of public deliberation such as a peoples’ initiative.
Underlying these four principles of governance are beliefs about social progress and how science and
technology should be organised towards that goal. Can experts and sound science remain the basis for
deciding the direction of progress? Is science and technology developing along the right moral and
ethical lines? Can experts be trusted to take account of the public interest? (Gaskell et al. 1998).
Tables 5 and 6 and present the results for synthetic biology and animal cloning for food products,
respectively. For synthetic biology (Figure 5), a small majority (52 per cent) of European citizens believe
that the technology should be governed on the basis of scientific delegation where experts, not the
public decide, and where evidence relating to risks and benefits, not moral concerns, are the key
considerations. However, nearly a quarter of Europeans take the opposite view: it is the public, not
experts, and moral concerns, not risks and benefits, that should dictate the principles of governance for
such technologies (the principle of 'moral deliberation').
Tables 5 and 6 tell very similar stories for synthetic biology and animal cloning in relation to the
principles of moral delegation (around 15 per cent) and scientific deliberation (around 10 per cent). But
there is an interesting contrast between synthetic biology and animal cloning in levels of support for
scientific delegation and moral deliberation. For animal cloning (compared to synthetic biology) some 10
per cent fewer opt for scientific deliberation and 9 per cent more opt for moral deliberation. It seems
that moral and ethical issues are more salient for animal cloning for food products than for synthetic
biology: altogether 38 per cent of respondents choose a position prioritising moral and ethical issues for
synthetic biology, with 49 per cent doing the same for animal cloning for food. To put this another way,
the European public is evenly split between those viewing animal cloning for food as a moral issue and
those viewing it as a scientific issue.
Table 5: Segmentation of the European public on principles of governance for synthetic
biology, EU27 (DKs excluded)
70
Based mainly on the advice
of experts
Based mainly on the general
public’s view
Based primarily on scientific
evidence about the risks and
benefits involved
Scientific delegation
52%
Scientific deliberation
10%
Based primarily on the moral
and ethical issues involved
Moral delegation
15%
Moral deliberation
23%
Table 6: Segmentation of the European public on principles of governance for animal
cloning, EU27 (DKs excluded)
Based primarily on scientific
evidence about the risks and
benefits involved
Based mainly on the advice
of experts
Scientific delegation
42%
Based mainly on the general
public’s view
Scientific deliberation
9%
Moral delegation
17%
Moral deliberation
32%
Based primarily on the moral
and ethical issues involved
Figures 32 and 33 stratify the principles of governance results by country. As can be seen 11 of the
countries have a comfortable majority (55 per cent or more) in favour of scientific delegation for
synthetic biology while only 2 have a comfortable majority in favour of scientific delegation for animal
cloning and food.
A comparison of the percentages of respondents in each country opting for moral deliberation (public
ethics) over moral delegation (institutionalised ethics) might lead to the tentative conclusion that ethics
committees have yet to gain widespread public confidence. To achieve greater public confidence, ethics
committees may need to, and be seen to, take more account of the public voice.
On the governance of animal cloning, in all countries (with the exception of Norway) a similar or larger
percentage opt for moral deliberation than for moral delegation. For synthetic biology seven mainly
north-western countries have a higher percentage opting for moral delegation – Belgium, Finland,
Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Iceland and Malta. It would appear that apart from North Western
Europe, moral delegation to ethics committees is yet to emerge as an accepted intermediary between
the wider public and the policy process.
On the other hand, a variety of technologically highly developed countries seem to be at odds with the
default solution to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Germany, Austria, Denmark and Switzerland show
less than 30% support for scientific delegation. Apparently, sound science is not enough especially when
it comes to potentially morally contentious issues such as animal cloning. In contrast, moral deliberation
enjoys high esteem, it seems – in Austria, more than half prefer this governance principle.
71
Figure 24: Principles of governance for synthetic biology (DKs excluded)
Scientific delegation
Moral delegation
Scientific deliberation
52
EU27
15
Hungary
66
Romania
65
Spain
62
Czech Republic
62
Italy
61
10
12
Luxembourg
55
13
55
14
Finland
53
52
Sweden
52
18
Estonia
52
17
52
50
Turkey
50
Latvia
49
Netherlands
49
Croatia
48
Greece
46
Switzerland
39
Iceland
39
0
20
23
27
11
21
14
9
15
26
11
38
4
13
33
9
21
33
3
20
31
7
15
33
12
23
25
13
34
18
21
6
32
12
25
26
12
5
9
40
26
38
60
% respondents
72
16
9
18
12
21
20
12
34
32
Germany
15
14
28
35
Malta
23
11
11
37
Denmark
18
6
8
13
38
Austria
19
23
40
Bulgaria
14
18
12
15
42
Slovenia
16
15
24
43
14
13
16
45
Ireland
Cyprus
17
13
14
Portugal
Poland
23
5
17
United Kingdom
21
6
11
55
Norway
18
19
4
11
France
18
9
15
57
13
11
7
10
59
Belgium
23
10
61
Slovakia
Lithuania
Moral deliberation
10
80
100
Figure 25: Principles of governance for animal cloning (DKs excluded)
scientific delegation
moral delegation
41
EU27
scientific deliberation
17
12
57
Romania
13
52
Hungary
Lithuania
50
Turkey
49
13
44
Slovakia
44
Estonia
44
Poland
44
Greece
40
Latvia
40
Portugal
40
Malta
40
United Kingdom
40
Norway
39
Netherlands
39
Slovenia
39
Ireland
38
Luxembourg
37
France
37
Cyprus
36
Croatia
36
28
Denmark
26
Austria
23
Germany
23
0
36
7
30
25
13
26
9
43
4
10
36
14
18
35
7
23
27
9
16
35
9
33
26
8
21
34
7
15
35
12
23
28
12
20
32
11
26
35
3
19
35
10
28
8
44
14
21
38
11
48
7
27
6
40
7
21
22
6
27
15
24
9
11
31
20
32
23
17
24
10
15
11
25
4
13
30
Sweden
Switzerland
26
7
21
31
22
10
19
34
Iceland
Bulgaria
25
26
19
40
Finland
8
7
12
14
46
Belgium
Czech Republic
20
10
11
54
Italy
33
9
58
Spain
moral deliberation
55
9
40
46
60
80
100
% respondents
It is also interesting to see whether these different preferences for the principles of governance are
related to support for technology in general as well as to specific technologies, namely GM food and
Nanotechnology. Tables 7 and 8 present the results. Table 7 suggests that support for technology in
general is lower as publics move away from scientific delegation and closer towards moral deliberation
when thinking about synthetic biology; the same is true for GM foods (a decline from 31 per cent to 17
per cent). Table 8, however, demonstrates that no clear linear relationship exists between the principles
73
of governance for animal cloning and support for technologies in general, although those who take a
moral deliberation position are evidently more sceptical of technology in general compared to others.
Nonetheless, a clear linear relationship does exist in relation to support for Nanotechnology; scientific
delegators are significantly more supportive of this technology than moral deliberators (70 per cent
compared to 50 per cent).
Table 7: Principles of governance for synthetic biology, technological optimism, and
support for GM food, EU27 (DKs excluded)
Mean score on
technological optimism
(additive scale 0-8, where 8
equals high optimism)
5.5
% who
encourage
GM food
Scientific deliberation
5.0
30
Moral delegation
4.8
22
Moral deliberation
4.3
17
Scientific delegation
31
Table 8: Principles of governance for animal cloning, technological optimism, and
support for nanotechnology, EU27 (DKs excluded)
Mean score on
technological optimism
(additive scale 0-8, where 8
equals high optimism)
5.4
% who encourage
nanotechnology
Scientific deliberation
4.8
61
Moral delegation
5.1
60
Moral deliberation
4.4
50
Scientific delegation
70
Taken together, it appears as if scientific delegation and moral deliberation mark two extremes, with
scientific deliberation and moral delegation somewhere in between, when measured against support for
a potentially sensitive technology. In other words, scientific delegation can be expected to deliver
accepted results in those cases only where a technology is not considered sensitive. More generally, the
call for moral deliberation may be expected in those cases where a technology is particularly sensitive
with respect to public sentiments.
74
Trust in key actors
Trust is a key attribute of a functional society. Without a degree of trust and confidence in many and
varied people in charge of transport, education, food production etc, life would be more or less
impossible. As a part of the division of labour, trust allows us to delegate responsibility for our safety and
security to others. In an ideal world, trust eliminates concerns about risk. However, trust may be
challenged when the ‘other’ is thought to be insufficiently informed, incompetent, or acting purely on the
basis of self interest.
Trust is part of the equation of scientific and technological innovation, where risk and uncertainty are
often unavoidable. When failures occur people may wonder are these actors competent? Are the sources
of information credible? Are they motivated by sectional interests and do they have the public good in
mind?
During the mid-1990s, in the heydays of the controversy over various food issues such as BSE, hormone
beef or GM soya, the public was said to have lost trust in key actors for example scientists involved in
risk assessment and regulators involved in risk management. The intricate relations between trust in
responsible actors and political decision-making has made a severe impact on technology policy both at
the national and the EU level. No wonder that decision-makers are eager to secure a sufficient level of
trust in institutions and responsible persons. To this end, various measures have been implemented
aiming at increasing transparency and accountability in the pursuit of good governance and effective
policy making.
In the survey, respondents were asked:
‘Now I’m going to ask you about some people and groups involved in the various
applications of modern biotechnology and genetic engineering. Do you suppose they are
doing a good job for society or not doing a good job for society?’
Saying 'doing a good job for society' is likely to express a view that the actor is both competent and
behaves in a socially responsible way. Thus, ‘doing a good job’ constitutes a proxy measure of trust and
confidence.
Table 9 is in two parts. Shown in the first two columns is the percentage of all Europeans saying 'good
job' and 'not doing a good job' for each of the nine actors presented. ‘Don’t know’ responses are not
included in the table.
Looking at the percentages for 2010 (data columns 1 and 2), 70 to 80 per cent of Europeans have
confidence in doctors, university scientists, and consumer organisations. Between 60 and 69 per cent
have confidence in environmental groups and in newspapers and magazines. All the other actors – the
EU, industry, government and shops – attract the confidence of between 54 per cent and 59 per cent of
Europeans.
75
In the final four columns the confidence surplus or deficit is shown for 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2010. This
is the difference between the percentages saying 'doing a good job' and 'not doing a good job'; a
positive score denotes a trust surplus, while a negative score a trust deficit. For this calculation, the
‘don’t know’ responses are excluded. The index thus provides, for those Europeans who expressed an
opinion, a relative ranking of levels of confidence for comparisons across actors and across time. The
trust surplus/deficit time series index, from 1999 to 2010, shows that, broadly speaking, doctors,
university scientists and consumer organisations retain a high trust surplus and newspapers and
magazines a moderate trust surplus. Shops show a dip in trust in 2002 and again in 2005. In 2010 they
return to a surplus of 46 – the level in 1999. Respondents’ national government, environmental groups,
the European Union and industry all show sizeable increases in trust surplus since 2005 and generally
increases over the last decade. The gain in trust in industry remains most remarkable with a 62 point
rise over the period.
Table 9: Trust in key actors and trends from 1999
% in 2010
(Base: DKs included)
Medical doctors keeping an eye on the
Doing a
good job
78
Not doing
a good job
8
74
Trust surplus/deficit
(Base: DKs excluded)
1999 2002 2005 2010
72
80
79
82
8
-
73
78
80
70
11
72
73
76
74
62
20
53
57
49
50
58
16
-
48
42
56
56
19
-12
20
41
50
63
15
54
56
35
62
54
20
22
27
33
46
59
22
46
39
32
46
health implications of biotechnology
University scientists doing research in
biotechnology
Consumer organisations checking
products of biotechnology
Newspapers and magazines reporting
on biotechnology
The European Union making laws on
biotechnology for all European Union
countries
Industry developing new products with
biotechnology
Environmental groups campaigning
against biotechnology
Our government in making regulations
on biotechnology
Shops making sure our food is safe
76
Table 10: Trend in trust surplus/deficit for the biotechnology industry (DKs excluded)
Percentage
2005
2010
Finland
24
47
68
72
Sweden
-46
-10
11
70
Belgium
9
22
61
66
31
35
62
64
Denmark
-20
15
44
57
Luxembourg
-10
18
56
56
United Kingdom
-16
29
58
55
France
-35
15
37
52
2
32
67
50
Austria
-9
47
45
50
Portugal
31
33
41
50
Ireland
-30
17
46
44
Italy
-32
-3
37
44
3
20
20
32
-38
23
31
10
Slovakia
68
78
Czech Republic
77
76
Latvia
71
74
Cyprus
82
73
Hungary
51
66
Poland
54
65
Lithuania
62
58
Malta
75
54
Estonia
61
46
Slovenia
40
10
Netherlands
Spain
Germany
Greece
1999
2002
Iceland
74
Romania
70
Croatia
64
Lithuania
58
Switzerland
50
Norway
46
Bulgaria
40
Turkey
38
Table 10 shows how the trust surplus/deficit for industry has changed across the countries with time
series data where it is available. Substantial increases in the trust surplus are evident in Sweden,
Denmark, UK, France, Austria, Italy and Germany. While there are recent declines in Spain, Greece,
77
Slovenia, Malta and Estonia, the broader picture is of Europeans generally much more likely to think
industry is doing a good rather than a bad job.
Figure 26: Public confidence in the 'biotechnology system' (excluding DKs)
University scientists
EU27
91
Cyprus
95
95
Sweden
98
89
The EU
79
Industry
Government
73
76
93
86
89
85
Finland
98
84
86
92
Netherlands
96
89
82
90
Slovakia
93
90
89
Hungary
94
92
83
Czech Republic
95
89
Iceland
99
83
Latvia
97
90
80
88
85
85
76
87
Romania
89
88
85
Belgium
92
84
83
81
Poland
92
85
82
79
82
Lithuania
94
Malta
91
90
75
81
Spain
91
89
75
80
91
Croatia
91
82
Luxembourg
89
82
Portugal
92
Switzerland
93
France
94
Denmark
94
Austria
86
Italy
84
Greece
87
50
50
74
71
69
72
73
75
100
63
66
72
64
65
70
70
87
67
78
70
85
78
55
77
Norway
71
72
64
Slovenia
0
76
75
80
69
68
73
79
78
85
Ireland
77
76
69
77
Turkey
69
75
67
92
Estonia
80
75
77
91
Germany
76
82
78
73
86
Bulgaria
74
79
85
91
United Kingdom
150
58
58
55
65
200
% respondents
78
83
85
250
300
350
400
Finally in this section on trust, Figure 26 concerns the extent of public confidence in what might be called
the ‘biotechnology system’. This comprises the actors that create and regulate biotechnology – research
scientists, industry and national and European regulators (Torgersen et al. 2002).
Notwithstanding the continuing controversy over GM food and crops and respondents concerns about
various technologies that have featured in this Eurobarometer survey, there is a robust and positive
perception of the biotechnology system. It seems fair to conclude that Europeans have moved on from
the crisis of confidence of the mid to late 1990s. It is also notable that both National Governments and
the EU carry almost equivalent trust surpluses in the majority of countries. Perhaps, the idea of national
regulation within a framework of European laws is accepted amongst the publics of the European
Member States.
79
7.
Familiarity and engagement with technologies
Public engagement with science and technology has been a priority area within Directorate General for
Research in the European Commission for fifteen years. Engagement with issues technological, however,
may be a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, there is a long-standing belief that familiarity with a technology increases its positive
evaluation by the public. Familiarity not only refers to the active use of a technology and its products but
also to a basic knowledge of the principles and methods involved. In other words, promoters claim that
the public not only needs to be passively confronted with the technology at stake: rather, they have to
actively engage in searching for information and dealing with the issue.
On the other hand, there is a school of thought that see the public in the driving seat when it comes to
decision-making over the implementation of a (possibly risky) technology (Sclove 1995). Since the public
will be affected, the public should decide – so the normative argument proposes. In order to be able to
decide, the public needs to engage in the issue. Views on the technology may change – not necessarily
in favour of the technology – according to levels of engagement and as people acquire knowledge about
technical risks and benefits, and also about matters of public interest and distributional fairness.
Along the history of public engagement in Europe, starting with the Danish consensus conferences in the
1980s, varieties of this ‘Danish model’ have emerged in many Member States. Consensus conferences
have been introduced with different aims in mind, ranging from lay participation in real decision-making
to mere public relation exercises. These aims reflect diverse views on the role of the public in relation to
science and technology policy running from the extremes of ‘only the elite can decide such matters’ to
policy making by referenda or popular initiatives. Underlying these extreme views, and all those positions
in between, are a number of normative and pragmatic considerations.
In the Eurobarometer survey we are interested in finding out how engagement in science and
technology, by the public themselves, relates to their views. Do those who are more active in attending
and/or finding out about issues of science and technology hold different views from those for whom such
issues are of little interest?
Familiarity and engagement with a range of technologies
Figure 35 below is an illustration of public familiarity with a range of technologies within the life sciences.
It gives the percentages of respondents who report having heard of GM foods, animal cloning for food
production, nanotechnology, biobanks, and synthetic biology, prior to the interview. The top bar
illustrates the European weighted average (EU27), followed by a separate bar for each of the 32
countries included in the survey. The countries have been ordered according to aggregate familiarity
across the five technologies, i.e. by adding together the percentages who report having heard of each of
the five technologies in question.
80
In Europe as a whole, there is widespread familiarity with both GM food and animal cloning in food
production. After more than a decade of controversy related to GM food, awareness is generally high.
Three out of four people have heard about animal cloning in food production. Since 2005, familiarity has
remained constant at about 80 per cent for GM food and about 45 per cent for nanotechnology. About a
third of Europeans have heard of biobanks. Among the five different technologies presented below,
biobanking is the area where levels of familiarity vary most between countries. For example, In Iceland,
80 per cent of the public have heard of biobanks. In Turkey, Austria, and Portugal, familiarity is less than
20 per cent. Finally, the emerging area of synthetic biology is on average not very well known in Europe.
Only 17 per cent of the European population has heard of synthetic biology.
81
Figure 27: Familiarity with five technologies: percentages of people who have heard of
each technology
GM food
Animal cloning in food production
Nanotechnology
Biobanks
Synthetic biology
84
EU27
75
91
Finland
93
84
Norway
96
74
Switzerland
89
Netherlands
93
Denmark
87
Luxembourg
84
Croatia
92
Germ any
95
Iceland
90
Slovenia
91
Latvia
90
Estonia
87
76
Greece
80
Spain
74
42
74
75
83
85
80
63
81
Poland
79
Bulgaria
71
70
Romania
54
59
Portugal
0
26
54
50
28
35
16
20
17
19
31 13
31
22
28 15
34
20
31
28 16
47
18 15
32
21
25 15 10
55
49
Malta
18
21 19 17
58
68
Turkey
31
35
70
68
Austria
44
31
66
22 23 19
100
150
200
% respondents
82
15
24 12
47
37
69
69
Slovakia
55
37
33
21
12
39
41
61
18
34
54
35
22
49
32
57
22
68
45
73
Belgium
Italy
46
48
77
76
Ireland
52
59
85
74
Lithuania
52
81
18
15
46
47
74
28
80
70
15
27
29
59
75
71
20
50
65
67
29
44
52
45
87
24
42
40
77
56
79
80
Cyprus
61
23
28
65
76
81
Hungary
63
73
79
86
France
75
78
87
89
Czech Republic
17
75
75
79
United Kingdom
34
46
Sweden
250
300
350
400
Figure 27 also shows that there are significant differences between countries. There appears to be a
cluster of Nordic countries on top, including Sweden, Finland, and Norway, where familiarity is very high
across the range of technologies, and also the remaining Nordic countries, Denmark and Iceland, are
characterized by relatively high levels of awareness of these technologies. The country comparisons
indicate significant differences in familiarity with the five technologies. Least familiarity is found in Malta,
Turkey, and Portugal.
In the questionnaire, respondents who confirmed having heard of these technologies were asked two
additional, follow-up, questions concerning the extent to which they had also engaged in active
discussion or information search on the subject. So, for example, people who reported having heard of
GM food, were subsequently asked whether they had ‘talked about GM food with anyone before today’
or ‘searched for information about GM food’ either ‘frequently’, ‘occasionally’, ‘once or twice’, or ‘never’.
In general, and particularly relating to synthetic biology and biobanks, very few people state that they
have frequently talked and / or searched for information. Among the five technologies, GM food is the
area in which most people have been actively engaged, in terms of talking with other people or
searching for information.
Figure 28: Engagement with five technologies, EU27
Have heard and talked and/or searched for inform ation
Have heard but not talked or searched for inform ation
Have not heard
GM food
Animal cloning for food production
18
Synthetic biology
9
0
54
20
26
Biobanks
25
29
46
Nanotechnology
16
26
58
66
17
83
8
20
40
60
% respondents
80
100
In Figure 28 above, response categories have been collapsed into three simple categories, indicating the
level of public engagement with the five technologies. The three categories include those who have not
heard of the technology, those who have passively heard but not actively talked about or search for
information, and finally those who have heard and also actively talked and/or searched for information
about the technology in question. The figure shows that 58 per cent of Europeans have had some
degree of active engagement with GM food prior to the interview, 26 per cent have heard about it
without engaging actively in discussion or information search, and the remaining 16 per cent are
unfamiliar with GM food. Almost half of the European population has actively engaged with animal
cloning, around 25 per cent of Europeans have actively engaged with nanotechnology, whereas only 18
83
per cent and 9 per cent have talked and/or search for information about biobanks and synthetic biology
respectively.
Engagement and affective reactions
In the survey, respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a number of
statements concerning animal cloning in food production, GM food, and nanotechnology. For each of
these areas in turn, respondents were asked to indicate whether they would ‘totally agree’, ‘tend to
agree’, ‘tend to disagree’ or ‘totally disagree’ that such technological applications are ‘fundamentally
unnatural’ and ‘makes you feel uneasy’. The responses to these two statements provide a measure of
what could be considered an affective dimension: do these technologies, i.e. animal cloning in food
production, GM food, and nanotechnology invoke anxiety or concern? Are Europeans worried about such
technological applications?
We might have expected that familiarity and active engagement with these technologies would have a
positive impact on the affective dimension, in the sense that those Europeans who had heard, actively
discussed and/or searched for information about animal cloning in food production, GM food, and
nanotechnology prior to the interview would be least worried about these technologies. In many
situations, people tend to be more concerned or worried about the issues that they are least familiar
with and least well-informed about. What the survey demonstrates, though, is that the relation between
familiarity on the one hand and unease on the other hand is not straightforward, but depends on the
particular technology in question.
Figure 29 below gives the average scores on an index of ‘worry’ related to the three technologies. The
index ranges from -1.5 to 1.5. Average scores above 0 indicate, that more people tend to agree that the
technologies are ‘fundamentally unnatural’ and ‘makes you feel uneasy’ and fewer people tend to
disagree with these statements. By comparing the average scores of those who have not heard, those
who have heard but not actively talked or searched for information, and those who have actively talked
or engaged in information search, we see some striking differences between technologies.
84
Figure 29: 'Worry' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27
Have not heard
Have heard but not talked or searched for information
Have heard and talked and/or searched for information
0.8
Average (mean) score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Animal cloning in food
production
GM food
Nanotechnology
For nanotechnology, higher levels of familiarity and engagement clearly have a soothing effect on
Europeans. Among those who have not heard of nanotechnology, the average score on the index is
0.23, which means that in this group most people tend to agree that nanotechnology is fundamentally
unnatural and makes them feel uneasy. Among those who have heard of nanotechnology, but not
actively talked or searched for information, the average score is -0.01, which means that about an equal
amount of people either agree or disagree that nanotechnology is worrying. Finally, the average score
among those who have actively talked about nanotechnology or searched for information is -0.22,
indicating that in this group most people tend to disagree that nanotechnology is unnatural and ‘makes
you feel uneasy’. In the case of nanotechnology, then, the differences between these groups
demonstrate that higher levels of familiarity and engagement significantly reduce the extent of worrying
about nanotechnology.
For GM food and animal cloning in food production, the picture is rather different. First, on average
people are more affected by these technologies, and those who agree that animal cloning in food
production and GM food are ‘fundamentally unnatural’ and ‘makes you uneasy’ outnumber those who
disagree, irrespective of the level of familiarity and engagement. Furthermore, the relationship between
engagement and concern for these technologies is opposite to nanotechnology. For GM food and animal
cloning in food production, people who are most familiar and engaged are also those who worry the
most. These biotechnological applications appear to be so sensitive and controversial that higher levels
of involvement accelerate concern rather than ease the worry. This could well be part of the explanation
for the continued disapproval of GM food among the European public. Rising levels of familiarity over
time does not lead to less concerns, in fact the opposite seems to be the case.
85
Engagement, risks and benefits
Similarly to the analyses of affective reactions to nanotechnology, GM food and animal cloning in food
production, also perceptions of risks and benefits are related to levels of familiarity and engagement.
In the 2010 barometer results, risk or safety has been a recurring and dominant issue in the way that
the European public relates to controversial technologies. In the questionnaire, three statements
particularly tap into the perceived safety of nanotechnology, GM food, and animal cloning in food
production. For each of these areas, respondents were asked to which extent they agree that the
technologies are ‘safe for future generations’, ‘safe for your health and your family’s health’, and ‘does
no harm to the environment’. Combined, these statements function as an index of ‘safety’, and
equivalent to the index of affect described above, the index for perceived safety ranges from -1.5 to 1.5,
with average scores above 0 indicating, that a majority of people agree that the technologies are safe,
and scores below 0 indicating that most people disagree that the technologies in question are safe.
Figure 30 shows that Europeans clearly on average tend to disagree that GM food and animal cloning in
food production are safe technologies, no matter how familiar they are with them. There are modest
differences between people who are unfamiliar and people who are more actively engaged. With regard
to animal cloning in food production, the engaged Europeans find this technology slightly safer than
people who have not heard of it at all. For GM food the relation is opposite, but also in this case the
differences between the active, information-searching segment of the population and those who are
unfamiliar with GM food, is modest.
Figure 30: 'Safety' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27
Have not heard
Have heard but not talked or searched for information
Have heard and talked and/or searched for information
0.8
Average (mean) score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Animal cloning in food
production
86
GM food
Nanotechnology
Again, nanotechnology stands somewhat out. In relation to nanotechnology, levels of familiarity and
engagement clearly have an impact on perceived safety. Those who had not heard of nanotechnology
before the interview are less convinced that nanotechnology is safe, and the majority of people within
this group disagrees that nanotechnology is safe for future generations, the environment, and their own
and their family’s health. People, who have heard, but not actively talked or searched for information
about nanotechnology are fairly more likely to agree that nanotechnology is safe, and in the final group
of actively engaged respondents, a small majority tend to agree that nanotechnology is safe.
With regard to perceived benefits of nanotechnology, GM food, and animal cloning in food production,
these are similarly measured on an index, based on two statements, namely that the technology ‘is good
for the national economy’ and ‘is not good for you and your family’. The latter statement is reversed in
the overall index, which ranges from -1.5 to 1.5, so that scores above 0 indicate agreement that the
technology is beneficial and scores below 0 indicate disagreement.
Figure 31: ‘Benefits' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27
Have not heard
Have heard but not talked or searched for information
Have heard and talked and/or searched for information
0.8
Average (mean) score
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Anim al cloning for food
production
GM food
Nanotechnology
Consistent with the previous results, the public assessment of nanotechnology differs from GM foods and
animal cloning in food production, and again, the level of engagement plays a significantly more
important role for Europeans’ perceptions of benefits in the case of nanotechnology. People who have
not heard of nanotechnology prior to the interview have an average score of 0.02 on the index, which
means that about an equal amount of these people either agree or disagree that nanotechnology is
beneficial. As familiarity increases, so do perceived benefits. People who have heard of nanotechnology
prior to the interview on average score 0.21 on the index, while those who have actively talked or
searched for information have an average score of 0.39, indicating that a majority in these groups agree
that nanotechnology is beneficial.
87
For both GM food and particularly animal cloning in food production, a vast majority disagrees that these
technologies are beneficial, irrespective of their level of familiarity and engagement with these
technologies. There are almost no differences between those who are unfamiliar and those who have
some degree of familiarity with animal cloning for food production, when it comes to assessing benefits.
For GM food, those who have not heard of it before the interview tend to be a bit less sceptical about
benefits than those who knew about GM foods before the interview.
On the whole, public familiarity and engagement with technologies appear to have a significant impact
on assessment in the case of nanotechnology. Those who know about and actively engage in
nanotechnology tend to be much more inclined to perceive of nanotechnology as safe and beneficial and
something not to worry about. On the other hand, when it comes to the two controversial
biotechnologies, GM food and animal cloning in food production, levels of familiarity and engagement
play a minor role for perceptions. These technologies generally invoke worry, and are perceived as less
beneficial and safe.
88
8.
Pillars of truth: religion and science
Both science and religion are used as the basis of statements about the ‘truth’. But what happens when
these ‘truths’ collide? Religious authorities have made claims for the virtues of creationism and intelligent
design, and for these subjects to be included in the school curriculum in science. Others claim that a
collection of pluripotent stem cells are a human being, and that whatever the possible benefits, human
embryonic stem cell research should not be countenanced. From the scientific perspective, the positivists
have long argued that scientific truths trump any other form of knowing. Some scientific authorities have
argued that religion is at best wishful thinking, at worst a pernicious force in society. Such competition is
not, of course, inevitable. There are both scientists and religious leaders who see no intrinsic conflict
between these two pillars of the truth. But how do such positions play out with the public? How do
people in the major religious denominations of Europe view science, and what is the impact of the
strength of religious adherence on such views? In terms of views about science and technology, does a
scientific family background make a difference? And what is the impact of education in science from
school to university?
In the Eurobarometer respondents were asked questions about their religious denomination, their
religious beliefs, and behaviours. We explore the association between these facets of religion and a
selection of indicators of attitudes and beliefs about science and technology: generalised optimism and
pessimism about technologies; principles of governance for synthetic biology and animal cloning for food
products; and overall support for nanotechnology and GM food. Note that in this chapter the summaries
of Europe-wide responses are given for the 32 countries in the sample, rather than just for the 27
current Member States. This approach allows us to gain the maximum amount of information about
Muslim respondents, who are in very small numbers in all countries but Turkey.
Generalised technological optimism and pessimism
Technological optimism is based on a simple count of the number of technologies (see Chapter 1)
respondents say will ‘improve our way of life’. Similarly, technological pessimism is a count of the
number of technologies that respondents say will ‘make things worse’. As can be seen from Figure 32,
the non-religious are the most optimistic, while Muslim respondents are least optimistic. But Figure 32
also shows that Muslims are, along with the non-religious, the least pessimistic. The most pessimistic are
the adherents to the Orthodox Church. That said, apart from the difference in optimism between the
non-religious and Muslims, the other contrasts are relatively small, providing little basis for claims of
cleavages in the culture for science based on religious denomination.
89
Figure 32: Index of generalised optimism and index of pessimism, by religious
denomination, 32 European countries (DKs excluded)
Optimism
Pessimism
6
Average (mean) score
5
4
3
2
1
0
Non-religious
Protestant
Catholic
Orthodox
Muslim
Denomination
We now look at responses to two questions that address the possible dilemma between science and
ethical positions. From the battery on regenerative medicine we take two questions and Figures 32 and
33 show how people in the different denominations responded:
It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might offer
promising new medical treatments
Should ethical and scientific viewpoints on regenerative medicine differ, the scientific
viewpoint should prevail
Figure 33: Ethical objection to human embryonic stem cell research, by religious
denomination, 32 European countries (DKs excluded)
Totally agree
Muslim
Tend to agree
36
Orthodox
0
19
39
40
25
60
% respondents
90
15
32
24
20
12
34
28
12
11
30
32
21
Non-religious
24
35
19
Protestant
Totally disagree
29
23
Catholic
Tend to disagree
80
100
Figure 33 shows that the non-religious are, by a considerable margin, more likely to disagree that human
embryonic stem cell research is ethically wrong. A majority of 64 per cent are, by implication, prepared
to support stem cell research if it offers medical treatments. Those most likely to agree that stem cell
research is ethically wrong are the Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Catholics. But, what is also striking
is that 35 per cent of Muslims, 42 per cent of Orthodox Christians and 49 per cent of Catholics support
stem cell research on what appears to be utilitarian grounds – potential health benefits outweighing
ethical concerns.
Figure 34: Should science prevail over ethics? By religious denomination, 32 European
countries (DKs excluded)
Totally agree
Muslim
Tend to agree
28
Catholic
29
13
Non-religious
42
18
Orthodox
11
Protestant
12
0
Tend to disagree
37
40
26
16
28
16
30
14
34
32
20
Totally disagree
15
35
40
60
22
80
100
% respondents
Figure 34 shows that across all the religions and amongst the non-religious, opinion is divided as to
whether, in a conflict between science and ethics, the scientific view should prevail. For the Muslims,
Catholics and the non-religious there is a slight majority leaning towards science, the Orthodox Christians
are equally divided, and among the Protestants the majority leans towards ethics. All in all, the striking
finding is of differences of opinion within the religious denominations and within the non-religious, rather
than differences between the religious and non-religious.
Now what of religious commitment? Here we take frequency of religious attendance in all the major
denominations as a proxy for commitment and look again at the above two questions about the ethics of
stem cell research and conflict between ethics and science.
91
Figure 35: Ethical objection to human embryonic stem cell research, by religious
attendance, 32 European countries (DKs excluded)
Totally agree
Every week or more
often
Tend to agree
29
Every one to three
months
33
23
Only on special holy
days
34
15
Never
29
17
0
12
31
15
33
15
39
24
20
Totally disagree
26
31
18
Once a year or less
Tend to disagree
17
35
40
60
24
80
100
% respondents
As can be seen in Figure 35, 62 per cent of those attending a religious service once a week or more
often are opposed to stem cell research even if it promises new medical treatments. And as the
frequency of religious attendance declines so do fewer people oppose stem cell research. That said it is
only among those who attend services once a year or less do we see a majority supporting stem cell
research. But, once again it is notable that even among the most committed a substantial minority – 38
per cent for ‘every week or more often’ and 46 per cent for ‘once in every one to three months’ resolve
the dilemma in favour of stem cell research.
What about our second dilemma – how should a conflict between science and ethics be resolved? Figure
44 shows, as we have seen before, that the greater the religious commitment the less are people
inclined to resolve such a conflict in favour of science. For those attending a service ‘every week of more
often’ the proportion is 5.5 to 4.5 in favour of ethics. At the other pole, of those who never attend a
service the proportion is the mirror image – 5.5 to 4.5 in favour of science.
All in all, the non-religious are more optimistic about the contribution of technologies in the improvement
of everyday life and are more likely to support human embryonic stem cell research. But when faced
with a conflict between science and religion they are almost evenly split on which pillar of the truth
should prevail – not that different to the major European religious denominations. Religious commitment
appears to be associated with greater concerns about ethical issues in stem cell research and with a
belief that ethics should prevail of scientific evidence. However, here again there are many highly
religious people who say that science should prevail in such a conflict of opinion.
92
Figure 36: Should science prevail over ethics? By religious attendance, 32 European
countries (DKs excluded)
Totally agree
Every week or more
often
31
15
Every one to three
months
Only on special holy
days
15
Once a year or less
14
24
19
29
13
29
13
32
41
29
35
20
Totally disagree
29
43
20
0
Tend to disagree
39
13
Never
Tend to agree
40
60
16
80
100
% respondents
Although it is clear that religious commitment is related to an ethical rather than a scientific orientation
(Figure 36) this could be due, in part, to other factors. For example older people or possibly women,
categories of people that tend to be less supportive of science and technology may be more likely to
frequently attend religious services. Multiple regression allows us to investigate such hypotheses. Here
responses to the question concerning the priority given to ethics or science are ‘predicted’ using three
indicators – age, gender and religious commitment. We find that age is not a significant predictor but
both gender and the frequency of religious attendance are separately highly significant. Being female
and attending a religious service once a week or more are strongly related to the tendency to prioritize
ethics over science. While this does not explain what actually leads people to this position, it does show
that attributing the effect solely to religious commitment is overly simplistic. Other characteristics of the
individual outside the scope of our survey are implicated.
Scientific background and education
The last 20 years have seen a number of debates around the topic of science literacy. These range from
normative assertions about the need for citizen to know about matters scientific in order to participate in
the democratic process; concerns about the decline in the teaching of science and the rise in metaphysical beliefs and the popularity of pseudo science, and the absence of scientific literacy feeding
resistance to scientific and technological innovation.
Attempts to measure science literacy have been controversial amongst the social scientific community
interested in science and technology. Miller and Durant were early initiators of the measurement camp
using a quiz format to assess people’s knowledge of scientific facts (Miller 1998). In a recent metaanalysis Allum and colleagues showed a small but consistent positive correlation between various
measures of science literacy and support for science and technology (Allum et al. 2008). The critics of
93
this approach argue that factual knowledge is but a small component of the understanding of technoscience. This approach to science literacy supports the infamous ‘deficit model’ cultivating a caricature of
the public as ignorant, distrustful and risk averse, and points the finger of blame, for example for the
problems over GM food, exclusively on the public and away from systemic institutional and political
failings in the governance of science – a democratic deficit (Jasanoff 2000).
Yet, there are still interesting questions to be asked about the drivers of support and resistance to
science and technology. Why are some people more optimistic about technological innovation than
others? Why are some more relaxed about risk? As we have seen religious beliefs may play a part, but
the part is far more complex than a simple religion versus science equation. What of family background
and education?
In the Eurobarometer respondents were asked two questions about their family background and their
education in matters scientific. First, respondents were asked:
Does/Did any of your family have a job or a university qualification in natural science,
technology or engineering (for instance, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine)?
Figure 37 shows the percentages of respondents across six age groups who say that their mother and/or
father, or another family member, had such a job or qualification.
Figure 37: Parental and family university education/work in science, by age group of
respondent, EU27 (DKs excluded)
Age group
Mother and/or father
Other family member
15-24
8
13
79
25-34
8
14
78
4
35-44
15
81
81
45-54
2
17
55-64
2
20
65+ 2
0
79
81
17
20
40
60
% respondents
94
No family member
80
100
As can be seen in Figure 37 about 1 in 5 people, regardless of age, come from a family background in
which their father, mother or another member of the family have a job or university training in science.
Across the sample as a whole 4 per cent have a parent educated or working in science and 17 per cent
have other family members with similar experience. It is notable that the prevalence of parents with
scientific experience increases among the younger age categories, increasing from 1 in 50 of those aged
65+ to 1 in 12 for the 15-24 year olds.
Now, what about the respondents themselves? In the survey the relevant question was:
Have you ever studied natural science, technology or engineering: at school, in college, in the
university or anywhere else?
With this question we divide the sample into those who have studied science at a university and those
who have not. As can be seen in table 9 around 8 per cent of Europeans have studied science at
university level. While 10 per cent of the 25-34 year olds have a university science education, not
unexpectedly it is lower, at 8 per cent, for the 15-24 year olds presumably because some of the latter
age group are not old enough to go to university.
Table 11 shows the prevalence of science education across the age groups.
Table 11: Percentages of science graduates by age group, EU27
Age group
% respondents
15-24
25-34
8
12
35-44
45-54
8
7
55-64
65+
9
5
Now, it is probably not unreasonable to expect that those socialised in a ‘scientific family’, or having
studied science at university will be not only more familiar with issues in science but also more
supportive of science led innovation. But the question remains by how much more, and do socialisation
and education have different impacts?
Figure 38 considers technological optimism and pessimism. On both counts those with a parent or other
family member, and those who have studied science at university are more optimistic and marginally less
pessimistic about the impact of the seven technologies than those with no family member educated or
working in science and those who have not studied science at university. Interestingly, there are no
differences in optimism between those respondents with a parent versus another family member
educated or working in science.
95
Figure 39 shows that a science degree is associated with both greater optimism and lower pessimism
compared to those without a science degree.
The contrast between the socialisation effect (Figure 38) and the educational effect (Figure 39) is rather
striking. Studying science at university is associated with significantly higher optimism and lower
pessimism compared to family socialisation in science.
Figure 38: Technological optimism and pessimism, by science in the family, EU27
Optimism
Pessimism
6
Average (mean) score
5
4
3
2
1
0
No family member
Other family member
Mother and/or father
Science in the family
Figure 39: Technological optimism and pessimism, by science education, EU27
Optimism
Pessimism
6
Average (mean) score
5
4
3
2
1
0
No science degree
Science degree
Studied science
96
So far, we find that both family background in science and university education in science are associated
with respondents reporting greater optimism about science and technology. How do these groups
compare with others in their views about the governance of science. In the survey, respondents were
asked two questions. First, should decision-making be left primarily to the experts or based mainly on
the views of the public? And second, should decisions be made largely on evidence related to the risks
and benefits or based on moral and ethical considerations?
The responses to the two questions allow us to divide the public into four ‘types’ reflecting different
principles of governance. Opting for decisions based on expert advice rather than the views of the public,
and on the grounds of scientific evidence rather than moral and ethical considerations is labelled the
principle of scientific delegation. By contrast, those who want decisions to be based on scientific
evidence and to reflect the views of average citizens are opting for the principle of scientific deliberation.
By the same token, those who would prefer decisions to be based primarily on the moral and ethical
issues involved (rather than scientific evidence), and on the advice of experts rather than the general
public, we refer to as adopting a principle of moral delegation. And those who prioritise moral and ethical
over scientific considerations, whilst favouring the views of the general public over those of the experts,
we label as adhering to a principle of moral deliberation.
The survey involved a split ballot in which half the sample was asked about the governance of animal
cloning, while the other half was asked about synthetic biology. Hence we have two independent views
on the governance of these technologies. Table 12 shows the relevant percentages. Looking at the two
tables we see that opting for either moral delegation or scientific deliberation is not affected by studying
science at university. For both animal cloning and synthetic biology around 1 in 5 favour moral
delegation and about 1 in 11 favour scientific deliberation; whether a person has a degree in science or
not makes relatively little difference.
However, the contrast between moral deliberation and scientific delegation is rather striking. Those with
a science degree are 10 per cent more likely to opt for scientific delegation and about 10 per cent less
likely to chose moral deliberation compared to those without a degree in science. Hence, it may be
concluded that the study of science at university is associated with greater confidence in governance by
scientifically trained experts.
But having said that, it is worth noting that for animal cloning, 43 per cent of those with a science
degree opt for either moral deliberation or moral delegation. By implication, they recognise the moral
dimensions of animal cloning for food products and believe that the governance of this technology
should prioritise these. To a lesser extent we find the same for synthetic biology. Here 30 per cent of the
science graduates want to see the moral issues reflected in the governance of this technology. By the
same token, it is worth emphasising that amongst those without a degree in science 41 per cent opt for
scientific delegation in the case of animal cloning and 51 per cent in the case of synthetic biology.
97
Table 12: Principles of governance for animal cloning and synthetic biology by science
education, EU27 (DKs excluded)
No science degree
% respondents
Science degree
Moral deliberation
Moral delegation
34
17
Synthetic
biology
24
15
Scientific
deliberation
9
10
7
8
Scientific delegation
41
51
50
62
Animal cloning
Animal cloning
Synthetic biology
22
21
13
17
In a final analysis in this section we look at support for a familiar technology GM food and a less familiar
one nanotechnology. Many believe that if only the public knew more about science and technology, they
would be more willing to support innovation and be less prone to be influenced by the siren voices of
opposition. Thus we continue our analyses by asking whether socialisation in a scientific family and/or a
university education in science associated with more support for these two technologies?
First we look at family background in Figure 40. For nanotechnology support rises from 60 per cent for
those without a family background in science to 63 per cent with another family member educated or
working in science, and to 73 per cent for those respondents whose father and/or mother are educated
or work in science. The respective percentages for GM food (see Figure 41) are 26, 30 and 37. Clearly
exposure to science in one’s family background is associated with more support for both nanotechnology
and GM food. But, as noted in the earlier analyses, the issue is not black and white. While those with a
mother and/or father working or educated in science are the most supportive of GM food, a majority –
63 per cent – do not agree that the development of GM food should be encouraged.
Figure 40: Support for nanotechnology, by family science background, EU27 (DKs
excluded)
Totally agree
Family science background
Mother and/or father
Tend to agree
44
29
Other family member
16
No family member
40
14
26
60
% respondents
98
6
14
23
48
20
Totally disagree
21
47
12
0
Tend to disagree
80
100
Figure 41: Support for GM food, by family science background, EU27 (DKs excluded)
Totally agree
9
Mother and/or father
Family science background
Tend to agree
Other family member
7
No family member
5
Tend to disagree
28
33
23
0
30
33
21
38
33
20
Totally disagree
40
40
60
80
100
% respondents
Looking at the impact of a science degree we find a rather similar picture – see Figure 42. Science
graduates are more supportive of nanotechnology than those without a science degree – 75 per cent
compared to 59 per cent respectively. The same pattern is observed for GM food. Support for GM food is
found among 34 per cent of science graduates compared to 26 per cent of those without a science
degree.
But, once again a majority of science graduates – 65 per cent – do not support the development of
GM food.
Figure 42: Support for GM food and nanotechnology, by science education, EU27 (DKs
excluded)
Nanotechnology
Totally agree
Tend to disagree
25
Science degree
No science
degree
No science
degree
5
0
17
47
9
Totally disagree
50
12
Science degree
GM food
Tend to agree
26
25
21
32
40
14
33
33
20
8
40
60
80
100
% respondents
99
Broadly speaking these analyses show that socialisation in a scientific family and having a university
education in science are associated with greater optimism about science and technology, more
confidence in regulation based on scientific delegation, and more willingness to encourage the
development of both nanotechnology and GM food. However, the analyses also show that scientific
socialisation either in the family or at university is not a magic bullet – it is not the panacea to the issue
of resistance to innovation. A majority of those coming from a scientific family background or with a
degree in science are not willing to support the development of GM food.
Religion and Science Education
These analyses point to some fairly consistent associations between views about science and technology
and both religious beliefs and commitment, and university education in science.
On average, compared to those respondents who say they are non-religious or atheist, those who say
they are a member of one of Europe’s major religious denominations are less optimistic about science
and technology’s contribution to a better future, less supportive of hESC research, and more likely to
support governance based on ethics rather than science. By contrast, science graduates and those with
one or other parent educated or employed in science related activities compared to others are more
optimistic about science and technology, have more confidence in regulation based on scientific
delegation, and more willingness to encourage the development of both nanotechnology and GM food.
But while these are consistent trends, they are also consistently underwhelming in size. In all the groups
under consideration – the religious and the non-religious, those from scientific families or not, and those
with a degree in science or not, there are many that depart from the ‘consistent pattern’. So, some with
religious beliefs and devotional commitment seem to show solid support for science, and some science
graduates are very concerned about ethics and far from supportive of GM food. To this extent, any
generalisations from these findings on the role of religion and education in cultivating views about
science should not be overstated.
100
9.
Climate change
In this section we turn to a theme affecting numerous issues addressed in this report - climate change,
global warming and sustainability. As we saw in chapter 1, all the energy technologies included in the
index of technological optimism – wind, solar and nuclear power – are increasingly believed to be likely
to improve our way of life over the next 20 years – an indication, perhaps, of public anxieties about the
impacts of climate change. Yet, while many scientists and political figures are also anxious and debates
highlight the need for action, the conference on climate policy in Copenhagen in autumn 2009 failed to
agree a compromise to take matters beyond the Kyoto protocol of more than a decade ago. Indeed the
parallel world-wide citizens’ conference on climate change arrived at more radical views than most
politicians would dare to countenance.
What do European citizens believe needs to be done about global warming and climate change?
In the survey, respondents were offered two possible ways of dealing with climate change and asked to
indicate which was closest to their opinion:
•
Technology will stop climate change and global warming so we can maintain our way of
life and economic growth
•
To halt climate change and global warming, we have to rethink ways of living even if it
means lower economic growth.
Figure 43 shows the percentages for the options chosen across EU 27 and for each country. There are
two trends of particular note.
First, there are relatively few ‘don’t know’ responses to this question - these range from 2 per cent in
Finland to 19 per cent in Lithuania and Ireland. It is remarkable that there are 20 countries with less
than 10 per cent of respondents answering don’t know. This suggests that in the light of the ten or more
years of debate about climate change, much of it mired in a seemingly inextricable entanglement of
conflicting interests, the European public feels ready to take a stance.
And second, the European public take a radical stance. Respondents in all countries except two – Latvia
and Malta – select the option of changes in ways of living over technological solutions, even if this means
reduced economic growth. Across EU27 more than two to one favour this option. In only seven countries
(Bulgaria, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Latvia and Malta) is support for the ‘changing ways of
life’ solution below the ‘comfortable majority’ threshold of 55 per cent. It is also of note that in eight of
the wealthier European countries support for changing life styles is above 70 per cent.
Of course, there is often a gap between ‘what people say and what people do’, particularly in social
surveys where the cost of answering a question in a socially desirable way is minimal. But taking into
account other findings in this Eurobarometer on optimism about energy technologies and support for
101
sustainable biofuels, we suggest that converging lines of inquiry point to a recognition that something
needs to be done about climate change and that both society and technology has a contribution to
make.
Figure 43: Favoured solutions for halting climate change
To halt climate change and global warming, have to rethink ways of living even if it means lower economic growth
Technology will stop climate change and global warming so we can maintain our way of life and economic growth
Don't know
64
EU27
26
83
Finland
15
80
Germany
Sweden
71
71
Austria
71
Greece
71
19
4
8
24
5
22
7
24
4
27
2
22
69
Spain
8
19
73
Luxembourg
2
12
78
Slovenia
Switzerland
9
29
Netherlands
66
France
65
Iceland
65
Norway
64
Denmark
64
32
4
Belgium
64
31
5
Cyprus
64
32
4
Croatia
64
Turkey
64
Hungary
62
Italy
60
Slovakia
59
United Kingdom
58
Czech Republic
58
Portugal
57
Ireland
56
Poland
53
Estonia
52
Lithuania
51
0
20
7
28
19
9
18
32
5
11
30
37
4
31
11
36
6
25
18
25
19
36
11
30
18
35
13
30
19
34
17
9
46
12
52
36
Malta
4
29
45
Latvia
11
31
49
Romania
5
24
53
Bulgaria
40
60
% respondents
102
10
80
100
Perceived consensus and policy expectations regarding the ‘changing ways of life’ solution
Overall, the support for the view that there is a need for changing lifestyles – even if this implies reduced
economic growth – is impressive. Do respondents perceive their views to be consensually shared and do
they think that their views will be adopted by politics in their country? Interestingly, whatever view on
climate change respondents hold, the majority is likely to assume that others share their views and that
their views will be reflected in national policies. Out of those who think that technology will stop climate
change, 58 per cent think that many other people share their views and 51 per cent assume that their
views will be adopted by their country’s policies (29 per cent and 36 per cent respectively do not think
so, with the remaining respondents saying that they don’t know). Out of those who think that a change
of life is needed to stop climate change, 63 per cent think that their views are shared by others but only
48 per cent think that their country will adopt their preferred policy (26 per cent and 37 per cent do not
think so). Given that an individual’s beliefs are reinforced by the support – actual or perceived - of
others, that so many believe that others share their views, is an indication of just how difficult is the task
of changing beliefs about climate change.
The expectations of the public concerning their government’s decisions are important in terms of future
social debate. When the publics have clear preferences for certain solutions and do not expect
governments to implement them, more social controversy and debate are to be expected. Figure 44
shows that in some countries (Finland, Switzerland, Greece, Sweden, Austria, Iceland) there is both a
strong preference for the ‘changing ways of life’ solution and high confidence that the country will adopt
policies consonant with this solution. In other countries, respondents – although strongly supporting the
‘changing ways of life’ solution – are less confident they will see corresponding policies (Germany,
Slovenia, Spain, France). Countries like Latvia, Romania, Estonia or Malta show a lower preference for
the ‘changing ways of life’ solution, but also low expectations regarding a consonant public policy.
103
Figure 44: Preference for 'changing ways of life' solution to climate change and
confidence that one's government will adopt such policies, by country
% respondents who think ('definitely' or 'probably') that their own country will
adopt policies in line with their view
100
90
80
Finland
70
Cyprus
Greece
60
50
Malta
40
Switzerland
Iceland Sweden
Norway Belgium Austria
Denmark Luxembourg
Hungary
Slovakia France
Netherlands
Croatia
Slovenia
Italy
Spain
Estonia
Ireland
Bulgaria
United Kingdom
Poland
Romania
Czech Republic
Germany
Lithuania
Portugal
Latvia
Turkey
30
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% respondents choosing 'changing ways of life' solution to climate change
Note: the two lines added mark the ‘comfortable majority’ threshold (55 per cent) for ease of
interpretation.
104
100
10.
Public ethics, technological optimism and support for biotechnology
This analysis and interpretation of the Eurobarometer 73.1 is a component of an EU funded project
Sensitive Technologies and European Public Ethics (STEPE)14. In the analysis of the survey we have
looked at the wider picture using summary scores across the EU27 countries, and presenting graphics
that show comparative data for the individual 32 countries. In this final chapter, we return to the
project’s wider goal of investigating European public ethics, and we do so using a statistical technique –
cluster analysis – that allows us to identify groups of countries that share broadly similar views on moral
and ethical issues in relation to science and technology.
The analysis is based on those questions in the survey that addressed moral and ethical sensitivity:
•
The percentage of respondents who think that in a disagreement between science and ethics
in the context of regenerative medicine, the ethical view should prevail (ethics over science or
science over ethics).
•
For GM food, nanotechnology and animal cloning, the average level of concern about
distributional fairness – whether ‘it will benefit some people but put others at risk’ and whether
‘it will help people in developing nations’. Rather than ‘distributional equity’ we call this
distributional fairness.
•
The percentage of respondents who would want to know about the moral and ethical issues
involved in synthetic biology if they were deciding how to vote in a referendum (interest in
ethics).
•
The percentage of respondents who think that the governance of science, in relation to
synthetic biology, and separately, animal cloning, should be based on moral and ethical
considerations rather than scientific evidence (moral governance versus scientific governance).
It is important to appreciate that cluster analysis is a procedure for summarizing a variety of data
sources. It provides a number of possible ‘solutions’, identifying different numbers of clusters, from
which the researcher chooses the most interpretable. In this sense, the outcome of a cluster analysis is
tentative and provisional. For our analysis, we selected a five-cluster solution for the 32 countries. Each
cluster comprises a set of countries, described in Table 13 below.
14
Funded by the Science in Society Programme of the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development. For more information on STEPE, see http://www.stepe.eu
105
Table 13: Public ethics: five clusters
Cluster
Countries
Profile
Sensitivities
and
place of science
1
2
Czech
•
Low concern over distributional fairness
Interest in ethics
Republic, Estonia,
•
Balanced on governance of science
Science 1st
France, Slovakia,
•
Moderate interest in ethics
Sweden and UK
•
Science over ethics
Croatia,
•
Moderate concern about distributional
Distributional fairness
fairness
Science 1st
Belgium,
Finland,
Latvia,
3
Luxembourg,
•
Balanced on scientific governance
Norway,
•
Low interest in ethics
Portugal, Turkey
•
Science over ethics
Hungary,
•
Moderate concern about distributional
Science 1st
fairness
Low
•
Scientific governance
interest
•
Low interest in ethics
issues
•
Science over ethics
•
High
Poland,
Italy,
Lithuania,
Romania
and
Spain
4
Austria, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Germany,
5
concern
about
distributional
fairness, particularly about GM food
to
moderate
in
ethical
Distributional fairness
Science 2nd
Greece, Slovenia
•
High support for moral governance
and Switzerland
•
Moderate interest in ethics
•
Ethics over science
•
Low fairness concerns, particularly for
Moral governance
GM food
Science 2nd
Denmark, Iceland,
Ireland,
Netherlands and
•
Moral governance
Malta
•
High interest in ethics
•
Ethics over science
We must take care in interpreting these clusters. First, Europe does not present a level playing field
when it comes to matters of science and society. Some countries have a longish history of bringing moral
and ethical issues into science; others have not. Equally, what constitutes ‘ethical concerns’ may vary
across countries due to their wider history and more specific experiences with science and technology.
For example, Austria’s referendum in 1996 set in train a long history of sensitivities around genetic
modification, and in the UK, the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority facilitated the
development of regenerative medicines well in advance of many other European countries.
Table 14 shows some quite nuanced differences between the clusters. Countries in cluster 4 are
characterized by a wide ranging moral and ethical imperative, while countries in cluster 5 are interested
in ethical issues, but apparently not concerned about distributional fairness.
106
In contrast to clusters 4 and 5, the countries in clusters 1, 2 and 3 all prioritise science over ethics.
Clusters 2 and 3 differ from countries in cluster 1 by a greater concern about issues of distribution
fairness. And in cluster 1 we see a greater interest in the ethical implications of synthetic biology in
comparison to clusters 2 and 3.
How do these patterns of ethical concerns relate to levels of support for science and technology? To
investigate this, we take three indicators:
•
Technological optimism - the number of technologies that people say would improve our
way of life (optimism)
•
Support for GM food, nanotechnology and animal cloning for food products - total
percentage of supporters (bio-nano)
•
Support for the various regenerative medicines – see Chapter 4; total percentage of
supporters (regenerative medicine)
Table 14: Public ethics and support for biotechnology
Cluster
Sensitivities
1
Interest in ethics
2
Distributional fairness
Optimism
Support for
Support for
bio-nano
regenerative medicine
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Low
science 1st
Science 1st
3
Science 1st
Medium
Medium
Medium
4
Distributional fairness
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
High
Science 2nd
5
Moral governance
Science 2nd
Table 14 shows some interesting associations between public sensitivities and levels of support for the
technologies. Cluster 4, predominantly German speaking countries, for whom all the moral and ethical
issues appear to be highly sensitivities show, relatively speaking, the lowest technological optimism and
lowest support for regenerative medicines and for bio-nano.
Cluster 5, which includes Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland, also put science second and have
strong views on the importance of moral and ethical issues in governance. At the same time they are,
relatively speaking, among the most supportive of bio-nano and regenerative medicine, and show
moderate technological optimism. Reflecting on the recent history of Denmark and the Netherlands the
combination of public sensitivities about and support for science and technology might reflect the
107
successful embedding of societal issues in science – societies at ease with scientific progress, informed
by ethical principles.
By contrast, cluster 1, which includes France, Sweden and the UK, put science first but also show an
interest in, rather than possibly concerns about, ethics. In these countries distributional fairness is
apparently not an issue. In this cluster of countries, relative to others, technological optimism is high and
there are high levels of support for regenerative medicines and bio-nano.
Cluster 2 is a heterogeneous group of countries linked by putting science first, having some concerns
about distributional fairness but otherwise at the centre of gravity in Europe. They are, relatively
speaking, moderately optimistic about technology, not very keen on regenerative medicine and moderate
supporters bio-nano.
Cluster 3, which includes Italy, Spain and Hungary also put science first. But in these countries ethical
and moral issues are not on the public’s radar screen. In comparison with the other clusters, these
countries show moderate levels of technological optimism and equally moderate levels of support for bionano.
Figure 45 shows how the clusters are statistically related to each other. Looking from the bottom to the
top of the graphic, it can be seen that clusters 1 and 2 are more similar to each other than to any other
cluster. Cluster 3 is more similar to clusters 1 and 2 than it is to any other cluster. Clusters 4 and 5 are
more similar to each other than to any other cluster. If we were to select a two cluster solution to these
data, we would split the countries between those in clusters 1, 2 and 3 on the one hand, and clusters 4
and 5 on the other. Another way of expressing this is to say that the greatest division between countries
is between those in the upper three rows of Table 14, and those in the lower two rows. And it turns out
that the key characteristic distinguishing those two groups of countries from each other is the relative
priority given to scientific versus ethical concerns. But having said that we need to move down the
graphic and note that clusters where distributional fairness is a concern are rather different in their
support for science and technology, than those clusters (1 and 5) where this is a lesser concern.
108
Figure 45: Relationships between clusters of countries
Science 1st
1
2
Ethics 1st
3
4
5
Low
High
Concerns about Distributional
Fairness
Support:
High
Mixed
Moderate
Looking at clusters 4 and 5 it is clear that we cannot conclude that giving priority to ethics over science
leads to a profile of low technological optimism and low support for biotechnologies. Rather,
technological optimism and support for biotechnologies must be seen as a combination of the priority
given to either ethics over science, or science over ethics; and crucially, whether distributional fairness is
a particular sensitivity. Where ethics takes priority, concerns about distributional fairness lead to a profile
of low support. And when science taking priority over ethics is combined with concerns about
distributional fairness, then support moderate. For the present we conclude that the relations between
perceptions of science and technology, and public ethics are intriguing. In our continuing research we
will dig deeper into the meaning and origins of distributional fairness, and into the wider implications of
the relative priority that people give to science versus ethics.
109
References
Allum, N, Sturgis, P, Tabourazi, D, and Brunton-Smith, I (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes
across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science 17(1). 35-54
Bauer, MW (2005) Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology: Cultivation Effects of the Elite Press.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 63-89.
David, K and Thompson, PB (ed.s) (2008) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Food
Science and Technology International Series. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Durant, J, Bauer, MW, Gaskell, G, Midden, C, Liakopoulos, M, and Scholten, L (2000) Two Cultures of
Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe. In M Dierkes & C von Grote (ed.s)
Between Understanding and Trust: the Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood
Academic Publishers.
EGE (2008): The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European
Commission, Ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply, Opinion No 23, 16 January 2008,
available at http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/avis/index_en.htm
Elger, B, Biller-Andorno, N, Mauron, A, and Capron, AM (ed.s) (2008) Ethical Issues in Governing
Biobanks. Global Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate
European Commission (2008) Europeans' attitudes towards animal cloning Analytical Report.
Brussels: Directorate General Health and Consumers.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/resources/docs/eurobarometer_cloning_en.pdf
European Commission (2010a) Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission: Brussels, 3rd March 2010-08-06
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf
European Commission (2010b) Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of
national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and
organic crops. Brussels, 13.7.2010, C(2010) 4822 final
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/docs/new_recommendation_en.pdf
European Food Safety Authority (2007) Draft Scientific Opinion on Food Safety, Animal Health and
Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals Derived from Cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer
(SNCT) and their Offspring and Products obtained from these Animals
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/sc_opinion_clon_public_consultation.pdf
Food and Drug Administration (2008) Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment. Center for Veterinary
Medicine US Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville,
MD, 1/8/2008. http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/default.htm
Gaskell, G, Bauer, MW, and Durant, J (1998) Public perceptions of biotechnology in 1996:
Eurobarometer 46.1. P. 189-214 in: Durant, J., et al. (ed.s) Biotechnology in the Public Sphere. A
European Sourcebook. London, Science Museum Press.
Gaskell, G, Allum, N and Stares, S (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002 (Eurobarometer
58.0): Report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project 'Life Sciences in European
Society'
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf
Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from the European Commission on Food
Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals derived from Cloning by
Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT) and their Offspring and Products Obtained from those Animals.
The EFSA Journal (2008) 767, 1-49
110
Gore, A (2006) An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We
Can Do About It. New York: Rodale
Gottweis, H, and Petersen, A (ed.s) (2008) Biobanks. Governance in comparative perspective.
Abingdon: Routledge
Inglehart, R (1990) Culture shift in advanced societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
INRA (1991) Eurobarometer 35.1: Opinions of Europeans on biotechnology in 1991. Report
undertaken on behalf of the Directorate-General Science, Research and Development of the
Commission of the European Communities
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_061_en.pdf
INRA (1993) Eurobarometer 39.1: Biotechnology and genetic engineering. What Europeans think
about in 1993. Report written for the European Commission Directorate-General Science, Research
and Development, Unit XII/E/1: Biotechnologies.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_080_en.pdf
INRA (1997) Eurobarometer 46.1: The Europeans and modern biotechnology. Report written for the
European Commission Directorate-General Science, Research and Development (first published in
French)
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_108_en.pdf
INRA (2000) Eurobarometer 52.1: The Europeans and biotechnology. Report by INRA (Europe) –
ECOSA on behalf of Directorate-General for Research Directorate B - Quality of Life and Management
of Living Resources Programme
http://ec.europa.eu/research/pdf/eurobarometer-en.pdf
Jasanoff, S (2000) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the
United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Salvaterra, E et al. (2008) Banking together: a unified model of informed consent for biobanking.
EMBO Reports 9, 30713
Sclove, R E (1995) Democracy and Technology. New York: The Guildford Press.
Slovic, P, Finucane, M, Peters, E, and MacGregor, GG (2002) The Affect Heuristic, P.397 in: Gilovich,
T, Griffin, D and Kahneman, D (ed.s) Intuitive Judgment: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge
University Press
TNS Opinion and social (2005) Special Eurobarometer 224, Wave 63.1: Europeans, science and
technology. Requested by Directorate General Research and coordinated by Directorate General
Press and Communication
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf
Torgersen et al. (2002) The framing of a new technology, 1973-1996. Ch.2 in Bauer, MW and
Gaskell, G (ed.s) Biotechnology – the making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
111
Annex 1
EB Special 73.1 Biotechnology and the Life Sciences
Questionnaire: English version
QB1
I am going to read out a list of areas where new technologies are currently developing.
For each of these, do you think it will have a positive, a negative or no effect on our way of
life in the next 20 years?
(ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Solar energy
Computers and Information Technology
Biotechnology and genetic engineering
Space exploration
Nuclear energy (M)
Nanotechnology
Wind energy (N)
Brain and cognitive enhancement (M)
Positive
effect
Negative
effect
No effect
DK
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ASK QB2a TO QB4a ONLY TO SPLIT A - OTHERS GO TO QB2b
Let’s speak now about genetically modified (GM) food made from plants or microorganisms that have been changed by altering their genes. For example a plant might
have its genes modified to make it resistant to a particular plant disease, to improve its
food quality or to help it grow faster.
QB2a
Have you ever heard of genetically modified (or GM) foods before? (M)
Yes
No
1
2
EB64.3 QB6a TREND MODIFIED
ASK QB3a IF "YES", CODE 1 IN QB2a - OTHERS GO TO QB4a
QB3a
Have you ever…?
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
112
Talked about GM food with anyone
before today
Searched for information about
GM food
Yes,
frequently
Yes,
occasionally
Yes,
only
once or
twice
No, never
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
ASK ALL IN SPLIT A
QB4a
For each of the following issues regarding GM food please tell me if you agree or disagree
with it.
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GM food is good for the
(NATIONALITY) economy
GM foods is not good for you and
your family
GM food helps people in
developing countries
GM food is safe for future
generations
GM food benefits some people but
puts others at risk
GM food is fundamentally
unnatural
GM food makes you feel uneasy
GM food is safe for your health
and your family’s health
GM food does no harm to the
environment
The development of GM food
should be encouraged
Totally
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Totally
disagree
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
ASK QB2b TO QB7b ONLY TO SPLIT B - OTHERS GO TO QB5a
And now thinking about nanotechnology: Nanotechnology involves working with atoms
and molecules to make new particles that are used in cosmetics to make better anti-aging
creams, suntan oils for better protection against skin cancer and cleaning fluids to make
the home more hygienic. Despite these benefits, some scientists are concerned about the
unknown and possibly negative effects of nano particles in the body and in the
environment.
QB2b
Have you ever heard of nanotechnology before? (M)
Yes
No
1
2
113
ASK QB3b IF "YES", CODE 1 IN QB2b - OTHERS GO TO QB4b
QB3b
Have you ever…?
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
Talked about nanotechnology with
anyone before today
Searched for information about
nanotechnology
Yes,
frequently
Yes,
occasionally
Yes,
only
once or
twice
No, never
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
ASK ALL IN SPLIT B
QB4b
For each of the following statements regarding nanotechnology please tell me if you agree
or disagree with it.
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
114
Nanotechnology is good for the
(NATIONALITY) economy
Nanotechnology is not good for
you and your family
Nanotechnology helps people in
developing countries
Nanotechnology is safe for future
generations
Nanotechnology benefits some
people but puts others at risk
Nanotechnology is fundamentally
unnatural
Nanotechnology makes you feel
uneasy
Nanotechnology is safe for your
health and your family’s health
Nanotechnology does no harm to
the environment
Nanotechnology should be
encouraged
Totally
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Totally
disagree
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Let’s speak now about cloning farm animals. Cloning may be used to improve some
characteristics of farmed animals in food production. Due to the high cost of cloning, this
technique would mainly be used to produce cloned animals which will reproduce with noncloned animals. Their offspring would then be used to produce meat and milk of higher
quality. However, critics have raised questions about ethics of animal cloning.
QB5b
Have you ever heard of animal cloning in food production before?
Yes
No
1
2
ASK QB6b IF "YES", CODE 1 IN QB5b - OTHERS GO TO QB7b
QB6b
Have you ever…?
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
Talked about animal cloning in
food production with anyone
before today
Searched for information about
animal cloning in food production
Yes,
frequently
Yes,
occasionally
Yes,
only
once or
twice
No, never
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
115
ASK ALL IN SPLIT B
QB7b
For each of the following statements regarding animal cloning in food production please
tell me if you agree or disagree with it.
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Animal cloning in food production
is good for the (NATIONALITY)
economy
Animal cloning in food production
is not good for you and your
family
Animal cloning in food production
helps people in developing
countries
Animal cloning in food production
is safe for future generations
Animal cloning in food production
benefits some people but puts
others at risk
Animal cloning in food production
is fundamentally unnatural
Animal cloning in food production
makes you feel uneasy
Animal cloning in food production
is safe for your health and your
family’s health
Animal cloning in food production
does no harm to the environment
Animal cloning in food production
should be encouraged
Totally
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Totally
disagree
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
ASK QB5a TO QB10a ONLY TO SPLIT A - OTHERS GO TO QB8b
Let’s speak now about regenerative medicine which is a new field of medicine and clinical
applications that focuses on the repairing, replacing or growing of cells, tissues, or organs.
QB5a
Stem cell research involves taking cells from human embryos that are less than 2 weeks
old. They will never be transplanted into a woman’s body but are used to grow new cells
which then can be used to treat diseases in any part of the body. Would you say that...?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
You
You
You
You
DK
116
fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary
approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws
do not approve except under very special circumstances
do not approve under any circumstances
1
2
3
4
5
QB6a
Now suppose scientists were able to use stem cells from other cells in the body, rather
than from embryos. Would you say that...?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
You
You
You
You
DK
fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary
approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws
do not approve except under very special circumstances
do not approve under any circumstances
1
2
3
4
5
NEW
QB7a
Scientists can put human genes into animals that will produce organs and tissues for
transplant into humans, such as pigs for transplants or to replace pancreatic cells to cure
diabetes. Would you say that...?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
You
You
You
You
DK
QB8a
fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary
approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws
do not approve except under very special circumstances
do not approve under any circumstances
1
2
3
4
5
Scientists also work on gene therapy which involves treating inherited diseases by
intervening directly in the human genes themselves. Would you say that...?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
You
You
You
You
DK
QB9a
fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary
approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws
do not approve except under very special circumstances
do not approve under any circumstances
1
2
3
4
5
Regenerative medicine is not only about developing cures for people who are ill. It is also
looking into ways of enhancing the performance of healthy people, for example to improve
concentration or to increase memory. Would you say that...?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
You
You
You
You
DK
fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary
approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws
do not approve except under very special circumstances
do not approve under any circumstances
1
2
3
4
5
117
QB10a
Now I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following issues
regarding regenerative medicine.
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
118
Research involving human
embryos should be forbidden,
even if this means that possible
treatments are not made available
to ill people
It is ethically wrong to use human
embryos in medical research even
if it might offer promising new
medical treatments
We have a duty to allow research
that might lead to important new
treatments, even when it involves
the creation or use of human
embryos
Should ethical and scientific
viewpoints on regenerative
medicine differ, the scientific
viewpoint should prevail
Mixing animal and human genes is
unacceptable even if it helps
medical research for human health
You do not support developments
in regenerative medicine if it only
benefits rich people
Immediately after fertilisation the
human embryo can already be
considered to be a human being
Research on regenerative medicine
should be supported, even though
it will benefit only a few people
Research into regenerative
medicine should go ahead, even if
there are risks to future
generations
Totally
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Totally
disagree
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
ASK QB8b TO QB11b ONLY TO SPLIT B - OTHERS GO TO QB11a
Some European researchers think there are new ways of controlling common diseases in
apples– things like scab and mildew. There are two new ways of doing this. Both mean
that the apples could be grown with limited use of pesticides, and so pesticide residues on
the apples would be minimal.
QB8b
The first way is to artificially introduce a resistance gene from another species such as a
bacterium or animal into an apple tree to make it resistant to mildew and scab. For each of
the following statements about this new technique please tell me if you agree or disagree.
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE - SHOW PICTURE (Bacterium to apple) – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
QB9b
It is a promising idea
Eating apples produced using this
technique will be safe
It will harm the environment
It is fundamentally unnatural
It makes you feel uneasy
It should be encouraged
Totally
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Totally
disagree
DK
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
And which of the following statements is closest to your view?
Apples created by this technique would be like GM food and should be clearly
identified with a special label
Apples created by this technique would be the same as ordinary apples and would
not need special labelling
DK
QB10b
1
2
3
The second way is to artificially introduce a gene that exists naturally in wild/ crab apples
which provides resistance to mildew and scab. For each of the following statements about
this new technique please tell me if you agree or disagree.
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE - SHOW PICTURE (Apple to apple) – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
QB11b
It
It
It
It
It
It
will be useful
will be risky
will harm the environment
is fundamentally unnatural
makes you feel uneasy
should be encouraged
Totally
agree
Tend to
agree
Tend to
disagree
Totally
disagree
DK
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
And which of the following statements is closest to your view?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Apples created by this technique would be like GM food and should be clearly
identified with a special label
Apples created by this technique would be the same as ordinary apples and would
not need special labelling
DK
1
2
3
119
ASK QB11a TO QB16a ONLY TO SPLT A - OTHERS GO TO QB12b
Synthetic biology is a new field of research bringing together genetics, chemistry and
engineering. The aim of synthetic biology is to construct completely new organisms to
make new life forms that are not found in nature. Synthetic biology differs from genetic
engineering in that it involves a much more fundamental redesign of an organism so that
it can carry out completely new functions.
QB11a
Before today, have you ever heard anything about synthetic biology?
Yes
No
1
2
ASK QB12a IF "YES", CODE 1 IN QB11a - OTHERS GO TO QB13a1
QB12a
Have you ever…?
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
Yes,
frequently
Yes,
occasionally
Yes,
only
once or
twice
No, never
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Talked about synthetic biology
with anyone before today
Searched for information about
synthetic biology
ASK ALL IN SPLIT A
QB13a1
Suppose, there was a referendum about synthetic biology and you had to make up your
mind whether to vote for or against. Among the following, what would be the most
important issue on which you would like to know more? Firstly?
QB13a2
And secondly?
QB13a3
And thirdly?
(SHOW CARD – ONE ANSWER PER COLUMN)
(READ OUT)
What the scientific processes and techniques are
Who is funding the research and why
What the claimed benefits are
What the possible risks are
Who will benefit and who will bear the risks
What is being done to regulate and control synthetic biology
What is being done to deal with the social and ethical issues
involved
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
None (SPONTANEOUS)
DK
120
QB13a1
FIRSTLY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QB13a2
SECONDLY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
QB13a3
THIRDLY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8
9
10
8
9
10
QB14a
Overall, what would you say about synthetic biology?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
You
You
You
You
DK
fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary
approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws
do not approve except under very special circumstances
do not approve under any circumstances
1
2
3
4
5
Let’s speak now about biofuels. Biofuels are made from crops like maize and sugar cane
that are turned into ethanol and biodiesel for airplanes, cars and lorries. Unlike oil,
biofuels are renewable, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the European
Union less dependent on imported oil. Critics, however, say that these biofuels take up
precious agricultural land and may lead to higher food prices in the European Union and
food shortages in the developing world.
QB15a
To what extent do you think these biofuels should be encouraged or not be encouraged?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Should
Should
Should
Should
DK
definitely be encouraged
probably be encouraged
probably not be encouraged
definitely not be encouraged
1
2
3
4
5
Now, scientists are working on more sustainable biofuels. These can be made from plant
stems and leaves - the things we don’t eat, or from trees and algae. With these second
generation biofuels, there is no longer the need to use food crops.
QB16a
To what extent do you think these sustainable biofuels should be encouraged or not be
encouraged?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Should
Should
Should
Should
DK
definitely be encouraged
probably be encouraged
probably not be encouraged
definitely not be encouraged
1
2
3
4
5
ASK QB12b TO QB18b ONLY TO SPLIT B - OTHERS GO TO QB19
And now thinking about biobanks for biomedical research: These are collections of
biological materials (such as blood and/or tissues) and personal data (medical records,
lifestyle data) from large numbers of people. Using biobanks, researchers will try to
identify the genetic and environmental factors in diseases, to improve prevention,
diagnosis and treatment. Participation in biobanks is voluntary. Critics, however, raise
questions about privacy, confidentiality and commercial interests regarding the biobanks
and about who is going to regulate them.
QB12b
Before today, have you ever heard anything about biobanks?
Yes
No
1
2
121
ASK QB13b IF "YES", CODE 1 IN QB12b - OTHERS GO TO QB14b
QB13b
Have you ever…?
(SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT)
1
2
Yes,
frequently
Yes,
occasionally
Yes,
only
once or
twice
No, never
DK
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Talked about biobanks with
anyone before today
Searched for information about
biobanks
ASK ALL IN SPLIT B
QB14b
In a hospital doctors ask the patient to sign a form giving permission to carry out an
operation – this is called ‘informed consent’ and it is also required of medical researchers
who do research involving members of the public. When a scientist does research on data
in a biobank, what do you think about the need for this kind of permission? Researchers
should…
(READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Not need to ask for permission
Ask for permission only once
Ask for permission for every new piece of research
DK
1
2
3
4
DO NOT ASK QB15b2 IF "NONE" OR "DK", CODE 9-10 IN QB15b1
QB15b1
Biobanks will follow up participants over long periods of time. And many biobanks will
work with industrial companies to develop new medicines. Who do you think should be
primarily responsible for protecting the public interest? Firstly?
QB15b2
And secondly?
(SHOW CARD – ONE ANSWER PER COLUMN)
(READ OUT)
Medical doctors
Researchers
Public institutions (universities, hospitals)
National governments
Ethics committees
International organisations such as the European Union or World
Health Organisation
National Data Protection Authorities
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
None (SPONTANEOUS)
DK
122
QB15b1
FIRSTLY
1
2
3
4
5
6
QB15b2
SECONDLY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7
8
9
10
QB16b
Would you be willing to provide information about yourself to a biobank?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Yes, definitely
Yes, probably
No, probably not
No, never
DK
QB17b
1
2
3
4
5
In order to understand the causes of diseases researchers need as much information as
possible about the people in the biobank. Would you personally be concerned or reluctant
about the collection of any of the following types of data and materials from you?
(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)
Blood samples
Tissue collected during medical operations
Your genetic profile
Medical record from your doctor
Lifestyle (what you eat, how much exercise you take, etc.)
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
None (SPONTANEOUS)
DK
QB18b
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
Some countries in the European Union have one or more biobanks. Do you think the
sharing and exchange of personal data and biological materials tissue across Member
States should be encouraged?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Yes, definitely
Yes, probably
No, probably not
No, definitely not
DK
1
2
3
4
5
123
ASK ALL
QB19
For each of the following people and groups, do you think they are doing a good job for
society or not doing a good job for society?
(ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT – ROTATE)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Newspapers, magazines and television which report on
biotechnology
Industries which develop new products with biotechnology
University scientists who conduct research in biotechnology
Consumer organisations which test biotechnological products
Environmental groups who campaign about biotechnology
(NATIONALITY) Government making laws about
biotechnology
Retailers who ensure our food is safe
The European Union making laws about biotechnology for all
EU Member States
Ethics committees who consider the moral and ethical
aspects of biotechnology
Religious leaders who say what is right and wrong in the
development of biotechnology
Medical doctors
Doing a
good
job for
society
Not doing
a good job
for society
DK
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
ASK QB20a TO QB22a ONLY TO SPLIT A - OTHERS GO TO QB20b
QB20a
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Decisions about synthetic biology should be based primarily on scientific evidence
Decisions about synthetic biology should be based primarily on the moral and ethical
issues
DK
QB21a
1
2
3
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Decisions about synthetic biology should be based mainly on the advice of experts
Decisions about synthetic biology should be based mainly on what the majority of
people in a country thinks
DK
QB22a
1
2
3
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Synthetic biology should be tightly regulated by Government
Synthetic biology should be allowed to operate in the market place like a business
DK
ASK QB20b TO QB22b ONLY TO SPLIT B - OTHERS GO TO QB23
124
1
2
3
QB20b
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Decisions about animal cloning should be based primarily on scientific evidence
Decisions about animal cloning should be based primarily on the moral and ethical
issues
DK
QB21b
1
2
3
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Decisions about animal cloning should be based mainly on the advice of experts
Decisions about animal cloning should be based mainly on what the majority of
people in a country thinks
DK
QB22b
1
2
3
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Animal cloning should be tightly regulated by Government
Animal cloning should be allowed to operate in the market place like a business
DK
1
2
3
ASK ALL
QB23
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
The Government should take responsibility to ensure that new technologies benefit
everyone
It is up to people to seek out the benefits from new technologies themselves
DK
QB24
1
2
3
And which of the following do you think is most important?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Protecting freedom of speech and human rights
Fighting crime and terrorism
DK
QB25
1
2
3
And which of the following do you think is most important?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Having strong European companies to compete in global markets
Reducing economic inequalities among people in the European Union
DK
1
2
3
125
QB26
And which of the following do you think is most important?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
To halt climate change and global warming we will all have to rethink our ways of
living even if it means lower economic growth in (OUR COUNTRY)
Technology will find a way to stop climate change and global warming so that we
can maintain our way of life and have economic growth
DK
QB27
1
2
3
To what extent do you think your view on climate change and global warming is shared in
(OUR COUNTRY)?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Everyone shares my views
A lot of people share my views
A few people share my views
No one shares my views
DK
QB28
1
2
3
4
5
Do you think (OUR COUNTRY) will adopt policies in line with your view on this matter?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Yes, definitely
Yes, probably
No, probably not
No, definitely not
DK
QB29
1
2
3
4
5
Overall how strongly would you say you feel about issues concerning biotechnology that
we have been talking about in this survey?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Extremely strongly
Very strongly
Somewhat strongly
Not at all strongly
DK
QB30
1
2
3
4
5
Does/Did any of your family have a job or a university qualification in natural science,
technology or engineering (for instance, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine)?
(READ OUT – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)
Yes, your father
Yes, your mother
Yes, another member of your family
No, no one in your family
DK
126
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
QB31
Have you ever studied natural science, technology or engineering: at school, in college, in
the university or anywhere else?
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Yes, at the university
Yes, in college
yes, at school
Yes, elsewhere
No, you have never studied any of these
DK
QB32
1
2
3
4
5
6
Which of these statements comes closest to your beliefs?
(SHOW CARD - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)
You believe there is a God
You believe there is some sort of spirit or life force
You don’t believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force
DK
1
2
3
4
EB63.1 QB2
QB33
Do you consider yourself to be…?
(DO NOT READ - SHOW CARD - PRECODED LIST - ONE ANSWER ONLY)
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
Other Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Sikh
Buddhist
Hindu
Atheist
Non believer\Agnostic
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
DK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
EB71.2 D44
QB34
Apart from weddings or funerals, about how often do you attend religious services?
(SHOW CARD - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)
More than once a week
Once a week
About once a month
About each 2 or 3 month
Only on special holy days
About once a year
Less often
Never
DK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
127
Annex 2
Eurobarometer on Biotechnology and the Life Sciences, 2010 (73.1)
Descriptive statistics
128
129
Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage.
With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits:
For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national
statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In
all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies
the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed above.
Between the 29th of January and the 25th of February 2010, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium created between TNS plc and TNS opinion, carried out wave 73.1 of the
EUROBAROMETER, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, ‘Research and Political Analysis’. The SPECIAL EUROBAROMTER
n°341 (‘Life Sciences and Biotechnology’) is part of wave 73.1 and covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in
each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. The EUROBAROMETER 73.1 has also been conducted in two candidate countries (Croatia and Turkey) and in
Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. In these countries, the survey covers the national population of citizens and the population of citizens of all the European Union Member
States that are residents in these countries and have a sufficient command of the national languages to answer the questionnaire. The basic sample design applied in all
states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total
coverage of the country) and to population density. In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the ‘administrative regional units’, after
stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and
according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points,
a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard ‘random route’ procedures, from the initial address. In each
household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the ‘closest birthday rule’). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate
national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available.
SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 341 ‘Life Sciences and Biotechnology’
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Taken directly from TNS Opinion and Social R eport
130
131
BE
DK
DE
GR
ES
FI
FR
IE
IT
LU
NL
AT
PT
SE
UK
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LV
LT
MT
PL
SK
SI
BG
RO
TR
IS
HR
CH
NO
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Sweden
United Kingdom
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Romania
Turkey
Iceland
Croatia
Switzerland
Norway
COUNTRY CODES USED IN TABLES
Codebook
Eurobarometer 73.1
Biotechnology and the life sciences
132
6.7
1.6
Negative effect
DK
.8
.7
95.9
2.6
DK
1.9
1.3
92.6
4.1
DE
87.9
6.0
4.1
2.1
9.9
13.4
2.1
DK
74.6
BE
6.0
11.3
6.7
76.0
DE
Negative effect
DK
Positive effect
No effect
exp_nuclear
Nuclear energy
Positive effect
No effect
Negative effect
DK
exp_space
30.6
24.6
40.2
4.6
17.8
41.0
4.1
DK
45.9
39.7
9.8
4.5
DK
37.2
BE
46.3
29.8
19.0
4.9
BE
7.1
8.3
Space exploration
8.8
21.3
13.2
24.5
No effect
Negative effect
DK
62.8
DK
53.9
BE
Positive effect
exp_biotech
9.1
49.9
11.2
29.7
DE
41.5
35.0
12.9
10.6
DE
18.0
6.6
32.8
42.6
DE
Biotechnology and genetic engineering
Negative effect
DK
Positive effect
No effect
exp_computer
4.9
66.4
6.3
22.5
GR
64.7
15.0
14.9
5.4
GR
19.6
6.2
23.1
51.1
GR
5.5
12.3
2.1
80.1
GR
5.0
1.1
92.3
1.6
GR
Computers and Information Technology
85.2
6.5
BE
Positive effect
No effect
exp_solar
Solar energy
5.9
42.7
14.1
37.3
ES
57.1
17.3
8.4
17.2
ES
23.2
3.2
8.6
65.0
ES
2.3
5.6
7.2
84.9
ES
4.5
5.6
87.7
2.2
ES
FI
16.9
28.8
5.9
48.4
FI
46.6
37.4
10.0
5.9
FI
7.1
9.0
14.5
69.4
FI
8.1
6.7
2.9
82.3
.8
.8
94.3
4.1
FI
12.9
38.3
9.9
38.9
FR
36.3
37.7
15.9
10.1
FR
20.3
6.3
18.5
55.0
FR
9.5
17.4
5.3
67.8
FR
2.1
3.6
89.2
5.0
FR
9.5
32.1
22.4
36.1
IE
33.9
24.8
16.2
25.0
IE
34.4
3.4
14.2
47.9
IE
3.2
4.2
7.1
85.5
IE
2.3
6.7
89.1
2.0
IE
9.7
40.4
15.7
34.2
IT
50.2
25.2
12.3
12.4
IT
23.7
9.0
15.2
52.1
IT
10.0
10.1
7.7
72.2
IT
5.7
6.2
80.5
7.7
IT
11.2
56.0
7.2
25.5
LU
31.7
33.1
24.8
10.4
LU
12.7
9.0
25.4
52.9
LU
5.5
13.9
5.0
75.6
LU
5.2
1.9
89.9
3.0
LU
19.3
39.4
6.1
35.2
NL
32.3
46.9
14.9
5.9
NL
9.6
11.5
25.5
53.4
NL
8.3
8.4
2.6
80.7
NL
.6
.8
93.6
5.0
NL
13.4
61.3
8.4
16.9
AT
37.8
40.5
12.9
8.8
AT
12.5
11.9
40.7
34.9
AT
19.5
10.2
4.3
66.0
AT
1.7
1.2
88.7
8.5
AT
9.7
39.6
23.0
27.7
PT
45.4
17.3
13.2
24.2
PT
35.1
7.9
11.0
46.0
PT
8.3
7.9
9.3
74.5
PT
8.2
6.3
81.3
4.1
PT
14.5
24.7
7.0
53.8
SE
42.6
42.3
8.9
6.1
SE
7.5
6.9
13.8
71.8
SE
6.7
8.3
4.2
80.8
SE
1.5
1.5
92.1
4.9
SE
8.3
26.8
12.5
52.4
UK
39.2
35.5
16.4
8.9
UK
21.2
6.6
16.3
55.9
UK
4.4
6.2
4.5
84.9
UK
3.7
4.5
85.4
6.5
UK
5.4
1.3
86.7
6.6
6.4
12.8
1.6
79.1
8.6
9.0
17.0
65.4
62.6
24.0
10.7
2.7
7.0
40.0
12.5
40.5
10.2
27.1
4.8
58.0
Country
CY
CZ
54.6
18.9
8.9
17.6
Country
CY
CZ
25.4
3.0
6.5
65.0
Country
CY
CZ
7.6
10.3
7.3
74.8
Country
CY
CZ
3.2
3.1
90.8
2.9
Country
CY
CZ
8.1
30.2
8.2
53.5
EE
62.3
18.8
10.0
8.8
EE
10.1
4.6
8.3
77.0
EE
4.1
10.2
5.1
80.7
EE
4.7
5.5
82.6
7.2
EE
18.4
28.1
9.9
43.5
HU
55.3
33.5
5.6
5.6
HU
13.1
15.3
10.5
61.1
HU
11.2
7.6
1.7
79.5
HU
3.2
1.6
85.3
9.9
HU
8.8
38.3
11.2
41.7
LV
61.2
17.8
12.3
8.7
LV
15.2
7.1
20.8
56.9
LV
4.7
16.4
5.7
73.2
LV
6.9
7.2
76.0
10.0
LV
7.5
33.2
19.5
39.8
LT
52.1
16.2
13.0
18.7
LT
26.1
5.4
23.9
44.6
LT
5.5
25.3
7.3
61.9
LT
17.6
11.5
58.3
12.5
LT
8.7
35.9
26.7
28.6
MT
33.4
27.4
8.7
30.5
MT
42.8
1.8
9.4
46.0
MT
2.9
2.1
3.9
91.2
MT
7.0
5.1
87.1
.8
MT
5.8
32.3
15.8
46.1
PL
55.6
19.6
11.6
13.2
PL
22.4
7.1
19.2
51.3
PL
5.3
10.6
5.5
78.6
PL
7.6
5.0
81.2
6.2
PL
7.6
30.5
5.6
56.3
SK
64.3
21.6
10.0
4.1
SK
9.8
9.0
19.1
62.2
SK
7.2
10.1
1.8
80.9
SK
3.3
2.4
87.7
6.6
SK
10.5
44.7
7.1
37.6
SI
52.7
24.1
15.9
7.3
SI
14.3
7.9
25.0
52.9
SI
8.2
13.7
5.7
72.4
SI
9.7
3.6
82.0
4.7
SI
3.4
24.6
22.8
49.2
BG
67.6
5.9
5.9
20.7
BG
35.9
3.7
22.5
37.9
BG
1.8
5.9
8.8
83.5
BG
1.9
8.5
87.9
1.8
BG
5.7
37.3
21.9
35.1
RO
51.1
11.2
15.4
22.3
RO
31.9
6.6
18.4
43.1
RO
3.5
16.0
9.4
71.0
RO
7.1
10.0
79.1
3.8
RO
8.8
22.0
29.5
39.7
TR
49.6
11.9
13.2
25.4
TR
28.3
7.4
14.5
49.8
TR
6.9
11.0
17.0
65.1
TR
8.4
14.9
70.1
6.6
TR
qb1
I am going to read out a list of areas where new technologies are currently developing. For each of these, do you think it will have a positive, a negative or no effect on our way of life in the next 20 years?
45.5
31.1
3.1
20.3
IS
25.2
69.3
3.8
1.7
IS
2.0
16.6
2.1
79.3
IS
6.7
1.6
.5
91.2
IS
1.9
.9
74.4
22.8
IS
9.2
51.2
11.5
28.1
HR
48.1
20.1
21.5
10.3
HR
16.4
6.6
28.2
48.9
HR
4.1
12.4
4.7
78.8
HR
3.5
4.3
90.2
2.1
HR
17.8
40.1
9.3
32.8
CH
28.7
47.7
17.0
6.6
CH
14.0
16.6
21.0
48.5
CH
15.0
11.7
4.8
68.5
CH
1.4
1.0
91.4
6.1
CH
12.9
37.9
14.4
34.8
NO
45.6
36.7
6.5
11.1
NO
11.3
4.1
11.4
73.2
NO
5.5
5.0
5.4
84.1
NO
.5
1.0
93.6
4.9
NO
9.8
38.8
12.6
EU27
38.8
EU27
46.8
28.7
13.0
11.5
20.3
7.2
19.6
EU27
52.9
6.7
10.5
5.8
EU27
77.1
4.1
4.1
EU27
86.6
5.3
133
96.0
2.7
.9
.4
85.1
7.0
5.9
2.0
DK
8.7
18.7
14.0
25.1
BE
61.5
11.2
DK
44.5
16.4
BE
66.0
59.9
14.5
13.0
12.6
Positive effect
No effect
Negative effect
DK
20.5
5.1
8.5
DK
BE
exp_brain
14.5
11.5
18.2
55.8
DE
4.1
3.5
1.4
91.0
DE
12.6
37.0
43.4
7.1
DE
Brain and cognitive enhancement
Negative effect
DK
Positive effect
No effect
exp_wind
Wind energy
DK
Positive effect
No effect
Negative effect
exp_nanotech
Nanotechnology
7.7
10.7
17.9
63.8
GR
1.2
3.0
4.9
91.0
GR
21.2
31.6
37.1
10.1
GR
3.0
3.0
20.8
73.2
ES
2.2
2.8
9.7
85.3
ES
7.7
46.6
42.4
3.3
ES
12.7
8.0
6.7
72.6
FI
6.0
1.2
.9
92.0
FI
6.9
22.5
58.1
12.5
FI
8.5
3.9
6.4
81.2
FR
8.5
6.1
4.2
81.1
FR
8.2
38.7
45.5
7.6
FR
4.7
9.7
42.0
43.6
IE
1.1
2.0
7.6
89.3
IE
10.2
57.7
27.2
4.9
IE
10.1
10.5
12.6
66.8
IT
8.9
5.9
11.0
74.1
IT
10.8
40.5
36.1
12.6
IT
11.8
14.4
22.4
51.4
LU
5.1
4.4
3.9
86.6
LU
17.0
24.4
50.8
7.8
LU
19.6
8.0
18.1
54.4
NL
7.0
3.5
.4
89.1
NL
9.5
29.5
51.6
9.4
NL
14.9
52.4
9.6
23.1
AT
9.0
3.0
1.6
86.3
AT
24.8
28.8
29.8
16.6
AT
7.1
7.5
35.1
50.3
PT
4.9
5.3
10.2
79.5
PT
10.7
52.8
29.2
7.2
PT
15.2
37.3
31.9
15.6
SE
8.8
3.1
1.6
86.5
SE
4.6
24.1
63.3
8.0
SE
11.2
10.7
22.7
55.4
UK
6.7
4.4
4.6
84.3
UK
5.4
46.6
39.9
8.1
UK
10.4
20.8
57.9
10.8
10.5
3.7
1.0
84.8
3.0
3.3
19.8
73.9
12.3
10.5
13.2
64.0
Country
CY
CZ
.4
1.2
9.0
89.4
Country
CY
CZ
8.3
42.0
46.3
3.3
Country
CY
CZ
6.6
4.1
18.8
70.5
EE
7.4
3.2
5.1
84.4
EE
5.8
33.0
54.1
7.1
EE
16.7
6.2
7.5
69.5
HU
10.0
2.8
1.5
85.7
HU
6.4
31.1
44.2
18.3
HU
11.6
13.2
20.7
54.5
LV
7.9
2.8
4.4
84.8
LV
10.8
33.6
48.9
6.7
LV
6.6
9.6
23.8
60.1
LT
6.8
2.9
7.9
82.4
LT
8.0
55.3
31.9
4.8
LT
5.4
1.8
47.3
45.5
MT
1.0
2.2
8.7
88.1
MT
1.2
75.7
19.7
3.4
MT
10.0
18.3
42.4
29.3
PL
3.8
5.3
6.9
84.0
PL
9.8
47.7
33.8
8.8
PL
12.5
17.1
8.7
61.8
SK
8.1
3.2
3.2
85.5
SK
14.3
24.1
46.0
15.6
SK
14.1
32.7
15.7
37.4
SI
4.6
3.6
3.9
88.0
SI
15.1
32.7
42.1
10.2
SI
3.7
8.3
32.7
55.3
BG
1.9
1.3
12.2
84.5
BG
8.2
60.1
28.6
3.1
BG
5.7
11.3
38.3
44.7
RO
4.1
4.1
13.9
78.0
RO
13.3
52.9
28.5
5.3
RO
7.3
8.9
24.1
59.7
TR
7.4
7.7
25.1
59.7
TR
11.2
48.4
32.5
8.0
TR
29.2
2.0
3.7
65.1
IS
22.2
1.2
.7
75.9
IS
3.1
23.9
46.4
26.5
IS
6.1
11.0
15.0
67.8
HR
3.1
5.1
5.3
86.5
HR
19.1
34.3
38.7
7.9
HR
16.5
57.7
11.4
14.5
CH
7.3
2.2
2.1
88.4
CH
10.3
29.7
47.3
12.7
CH
7.7
1.7
5.6
85.0
NO
4.7
2.4
1.2
91.8
NO
5.7
29.3
59.4
5.7
NO
10.5
10.9
19.9
EU27
58.7
5.9
4.3
5.7
EU27
84.1
10.0
40.3
EU27
41.1
8.6
134
86.7
73.7
26.3
Heard
Not heard
5.4
94.6
DE
20.3
79.7
GR
26.1
73.9
ES
6.9
93.1
FI
14.4
85.6
FR
19.8
80.2
IE
44.4
No, never
DK
27.0
42.2
22.0
8.8
DK
21.7
.3
45.4
16.5
16.0
DE
24.4
38.3
29.5
7.7
GR
42.9
.3
29.4
23.4
4.0
ES
30.7
37.7
23.5
8.1
FI
35.1
37.8
13.5
13.6
FR
5.0
15.1
15.0
64.9
10.1
65.4
DK
2.5
22.1
BE
24.4
45.8
.4
.1
5.2
24.2
GR
16.6
55.9
6.6
20.7
DE
.3
14.2
69.0
2.1
14.5
ES
.2
16.5
56.7
4.9
21.7
FI
7.4
62.5
7.1
22.9
FR
1.6
7.2
72.5
3.6
15.1
IE
48.9
1.1
24.8
19.0
6.2
IE
.5
17.7
54.0
4.9
22.9
IT
25.1
.9
44.2
21.9
7.8
IT
15.3
84.7
IT
1.3
10.7
54.2
11.3
22.5
LU
25.7
1.3
37.3
16.3
19.4
LU
15.8
84.2
LU
11.4
62.7
5.4
20.5
NL
30.4
.5
38.3
19.2
11.6
NL
6.6
93.4
NL
17.1
53.9
4.6
24.4
AT
16.4
1.3
43.0
29.1
10.1
AT
32.1
67.9
AT
9.9
37.8
26.7
12.4
13.2
13.6
DK
5.0
29.2
33.4
18.7
BE
10.1
8.6
24.0
31.9
25.5
DE
8.9
4.6
16.1
27.3
43.0
GR
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
gmfood_family
28.9
31.0
24.1
6.4
9.6
8.7
DK
20.2
30.9
29.0
11.1
BE
10.2
44.0
25.2
13.4
7.3
DE
5.8
61.0
17.1
6.7
9.4
GR
GM foods is not good for you and your family
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
gmfood_economy
27.2
15.4
27.9
18.1
11.4
ES
30.4
9.2
31.4
18.9
10.2
ES
GM food is good for the (NATIONALITY) economy
7.2
31.2
28.2
22.8
10.6
FI
10.5
3.5
17.5
40.6
27.9
FI
18.1
29.2
25.5
17.9
9.2
FR
18.2
4.2
20.4
29.4
27.7
FR
34.7
14.5
24.9
17.0
8.9
IE
37.2
3.2
17.6
21.6
20.4
IE
11.0
28.4
30.7
17.9
11.9
IT
18.0
3.5
23.4
30.9
24.2
IT
12.6
35.0
25.0
18.2
9.2
LU
15.7
2.4
16.5
32.0
33.4
LU
13.0
16.4
26.3
35.0
9.3
NL
15.0
6.6
34.3
29.2
14.9
NL
7.2
36.2
24.2
15.5
16.9
AT
10.4
2.9
16.2
31.5
39.0
AT
qb4a
For each of the following issues regarding GM food please tell me if you agree or disagree with it.
No, never
DK
Yes, occasionally
Yes, only once or
Yes, frequently
infosearch_gmfood
[IF YES] Have you ever searched for information about GM food?
5.9
32.6
17.1
Yes, occasionally
Yes, only once or
BE
Yes, frequently
talked_gmfood
qb3a
[IF YES] Have you ever talked about GM food with anyone before today?
13.3
DK
BE
heard_gmfood
Have you ever heard of genetically modified (or GM) foods before?
26.0
16.0
33.3
19.6
5.0
PT
36.2
4.5
24.9
25.5
8.9
PT
.3
27.2
56.3
2.9
13.3
PT
33.7
.8
29.2
31.9
4.5
PT
40.9
59.1
PT
11.5
34.1
22.1
20.5
11.9
SE
11.1
8.6
23.8
28.0
28.6
SE
20.8
50.8
4.0
24.4
SE
19.8
40.6
28.5
11.1
SE
9.2
90.8
SE
21.3
10.3
30.1
29.9
8.4
UK
21.7
7.4
35.2
25.8
9.9
UK
.7
10.5
73.0
3.2
12.5
UK
42.8
.6
29.6
17.9
9.2
UK
11.0
89.0
UK
23.6
76.4
3.7
46.4
.8
26.6
22.5
15.6
70.5
2.9
11.1
12.3
1.5
31.4
36.6
18.2
7.1
59.3
14.1
8.8
10.7
12.3
17.1
26.6
30.1
13.9
Country
CY
CZ
22.4
4.1
13.8
26.2
33.5
Country
CY
CZ
.5
14.4
65.0
3.3
16.9
Country
CY
CZ
51.3
.5
20.3
23.6
4.3
Country
CY
CZ
19.9
80.1
Country
CY
CZ
12.9
31.3
28.4
15.9
11.5
EE
13.0
5.3
20.6
32.8
28.3
EE
.2
18.3
59.4
4.2
17.9
EE
35.5
.3
34.5
22.5
7.2
EE
20.5
79.5
EE
13.2
29.6
26.1
21.8
9.3
HU
17.0
3.0
21.9
29.1
29.1
HU
16.4
71.7
3.1
8.9
HU
40.3
23.3
33.0
3.5
HU
25.9
74.1
HU
6.8
49.7
29.8
10.3
3.4
LV
9.9
3.2
18.1
32.8
35.9
LV
.2
16.3
60.2
4.4
18.9
LV
29.4
.2
38.7
22.5
9.1
LV
10.0
90.0
LV
11.1
46.5
17.9
9.7
14.9
LT
16.9
7.0
21.9
19.9
34.2
LT
.3
11.9
55.1
9.0
23.7
LT
23.7
.2
45.9
15.2
15.0
LT
16.5
83.5
LT
33.3
8.4
27.7
16.2
14.4
MT
39.7
7.9
19.9
17.0
15.5
MT
.4
8.2
66.9
3.9
20.5
MT
50.7
.4
31.2
13.4
4.3
MT
50.7
49.3
MT
16.2
26.3
26.6
15.9
15.1
PL
23.1
4.6
14.9
32.0
25.4
PL
.3
15.5
67.6
4.5
12.1
PL
50.3
1.2
24.3
19.0
5.3
PL
18.8
81.2
PL
12.2
19.0
32.7
26.8
9.4
SK
16.0
3.6
26.7
36.7
17.0
SK
.5
17.9
59.7
2.1
19.7
SK
32.9
1.0
29.8
33.1
3.3
SK
30.6
69.4
SK
2.8
44.5
26.2
15.6
10.8
SI
4.0
2.7
15.3
36.5
41.6
SI
15.0
61.0
5.4
18.6
SI
23.4
43.2
24.4
9.0
SI
8.7
91.3
SI
20.5
27.0
20.6
12.7
19.2
BG
21.2
4.4
12.2
27.1
35.0
BG
2.6
15.0
70.3
2.2
9.9
BG
33.4
1.6
32.4
26.3
6.3
BG
20.8
79.2
BG
22.4
25.5
16.8
17.6
17.7
RO
28.8
4.1
20.9
22.1
24.0
RO
2.2
18.5
59.6
3.7
16.1
RO
31.7
1.5
37.2
25.0
4.6
RO
30.1
69.9
RO
17.1
48.4
9.4
8.8
16.3
TR
18.3
4.2
5.1
15.7
56.8
TR
3.1
12.4
71.4
3.6
9.4
TR
52.8
2.2
21.6
14.8
8.7
TR
32.4
67.6
TR
6.7
29.1
29.9
25.8
8.5
IS
6.0
7.2
25.4
38.0
23.4
IS
22.0
52.1
7.1
18.8
IS
22.1
40.8
22.3
14.8
IS
9.7
90.3
IS
6.9
44.0
16.7
12.9
19.4
HR
8.2
5.1
9.8
23.1
53.8
HR
3.3
11.5
56.1
7.4
21.8
HR
23.3
1.6
38.3
22.1
14.7
HR
7.5
92.5
HR
8.7
31.0
23.4
19.9
17.1
CH
13.0
4.7
19.0
28.7
34.6
CH
16.3
46.3
12.4
25.0
CH
19.7
.4
38.9
20.9
20.1
CH
11.0
89.0
CH
14.1
29.3
30.2
18.8
7.6
NO
19.5
5.5
24.9
24.6
25.5
NO
.2
21.0
59.3
2.6
16.9
NO
27.8
.6
41.9
21.9
7.8
NO
3.7
96.3
NO
16.0
EU27
27.1
26.7
19.5
10.6
18.9
EU27
5.9
24.9
28.5
21.8
.4
14.5
62.1
EU27
4.7
18.2
33.4
.5
36.4
20.1
EU27
9.5
16.4
EU27
83.6
qb2a - split ballot A
Let’s speak now about genetically modified (GM) food made from plants or micro-organisms that have been changed by altering their genes. For example a plant might have its genes modified to make it resistant to a particular plant
disease, to improve its food quality or to help it grow faster.
135
19.7
45.1
14.7
9.6
10.9
15.8
10.4
DK
14.6
38.4
20.9
BE
24.6
13.2
10.8
29.9
21.6
DE
23.8
12.8
Totally disagree
DK
22.5
10.2
26.3
34.2
6.9
DK
38.1
12.2
12.6
34.2
2.9
DE
56.9
8.2
8.4
24.6
1.9
GR
32.8
11.4
6.5
20.3
29.0
GR
20.5
29.4
23.5
20.8
5.8
ES
13.8
26.0
12.0
34.3
13.9
ES
13.9
42.4
19.3
12.9
11.5
BE
26.5
45.0
13.1
7.1
8.3
DK
37.8
36.8
12.3
6.3
6.9
DE
53.4
26.9
12.2
2.6
4.9
7.1
DK
38.8
29.6
18.8
5.7
BE
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
gmfood_uneasy
8.9
22.5
30.3
25.9
12.4
BE
4.5
31.6
38.1
14.4
11.5
DK
GM food makes you feel uneasy
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
gmfood_unnatural
3.6
50.3
27.6
12.4
6.2
DE
6.5
40.0
28.7
19.0
5.9
DE
GM food is fundamentally unnatural
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
gmfood_unequal
4.3
68.3
20.3
5.3
1.7
GR
4.5
71.5
17.9
4.7
1.4
GR
24.8
34.6
16.9
16.4
7.2
GR
11.8
22.5
28.8
22.7
14.2
ES
13.3
37.5
29.5
14.0
5.6
ES
20.0
34.6
14.7
6.1
24.6
ES
GM food benefits some people but puts others at risk
26.6
31.1
5.7
BE
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
gmfood_safe
GM food is safe for future generations
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
gmfood_developing
GM food helps people in developing countries
3.5
35.1
28.3
21.9
11.3
FI
4.7
46.6
31.1
13.0
4.6
FI
19.3
39.0
24.9
7.4
9.3
FI
27.5
11.3
17.7
40.7
2.8
FI
16.7
9.2
11.4
35.5
27.3
FI
12.0
25.9
29.3
19.1
13.8
FR
10.0
44.9
28.8
10.7
5.6
FR
14.9
28.4
16.4
20.8
19.4
FR
40.5
18.0
9.6
30.6
1.3
FR
20.8
20.5
7.0
31.1
20.6
FR
30.4
20.1
27.9
15.6
5.9
IE
30.9
26.1
26.4
12.0
4.6
IE
10.5
32.7
11.0
6.4
39.4
IE
14.9
45.2
19.0
17.3
3.7
IE
9.5
37.5
9.6
33.0
10.5
IE
10.4
25.4
31.3
20.7
12.3
IT
7.1
37.0
33.1
15.8
7.0
IT
17.1
34.0
17.0
12.9
19.0
IT
26.1
21.4
19.1
29.4
4.0
IT
20.6
19.5
9.3
24.8
25.8
IT
15.6
31.8
28.7
16.1
7.8
LU
6.6
45.7
28.8
12.6
6.3
LU
21.5
30.5
17.9
15.0
15.1
LU
35.0
14.9
13.9
33.9
2.3
LU
23.0
18.6
3.5
27.9
27.1
LU
3.4
26.8
31.3
23.7
14.8
NL
3.1
37.5
29.7
21.4
8.3
NL
16.4
46.5
16.8
5.7
14.6
NL
16.5
19.5
30.1
30.0
4.0
NL
12.1
10.7
14.7
40.7
21.8
NL
5.8
45.1
32.6
13.3
3.2
AT
6.6
44.8
33.1
12.7
2.8
AT
22.9
38.4
17.5
9.6
11.6
AT
40.8
10.9
16.2
26.6
5.6
AT
23.4
12.2
10.4
26.0
28.1
AT
23.3
15.9
34.5
19.4
6.9
PT
22.5
25.1
31.8
15.9
4.7
PT
12.2
33.2
15.3
4.8
34.5
PT
12.6
33.0
22.0
29.0
3.4
PT
9.0
34.2
7.9
28.0
21.0
PT
5.6
34.8
24.2
20.1
15.3
SE
3.7
59.1
20.0
12.2
5.0
SE
9.6
27.0
16.8
31.0
15.7
SE
50.9
10.2
7.2
29.1
2.5
SE
24.3
9.3
9.3
41.5
15.5
SE
12.1
21.3
28.4
26.7
11.4
UK
12.5
29.6
34.6
17.1
6.2
UK
13.2
41.8
15.9
5.3
23.8
UK
10.6
29.7
25.3
28.3
6.0
UK
5.1
17.1
17.5
41.6
18.7
UK
11.1
18.7
11.0
37.0
22.1
3.5
19.1
17.3
27.8
32.3
8.3
42.9
23.6
8.9
16.4
5.3
38.1
36.3
17.2
3.0
7.1
64.5
20.4
7.2
.8
6.7
21.5
34.0
29.3
8.5
Country
CY
CZ
5.8
69.6
21.0
3.2
.4
Country
CY
CZ
31.6
30.3
6.4
7.1
24.6
Country
CY
CZ
47.3
21.1
5.1
23.4
3.2
Country
CY
CZ
17.3
30.0
13.7
23.1
15.8
Country
CY
CZ
9.5
28.6
32.4
17.8
11.7
EE
10.6
42.2
30.9
11.7
4.7
EE
13.7
31.2
19.6
17.9
17.6
EE
33.7
16.3
17.0
28.8
4.3
EE
14.0
17.9
10.2
37.3
20.5
EE
22.1
18.3
28.4
22.3
8.9
HU
7.9
42.7
30.1
14.7
4.6
HU
22.8
35.6
17.6
9.9
14.2
HU
27.6
17.1
18.8
34.0
2.4
HU
18.5
15.1
8.8
33.4
24.3
HU
7.5
46.4
25.9
16.3
3.9
LV
5.4
55.9
24.9
10.5
3.2
LV
26.2
34.9
16.5
14.6
7.8
LV
52.3
8.9
5.8
30.5
2.5
LV
20.0
13.6
6.9
34.5
25.0
LV
9.2
56.6
22.6
7.5
4.1
LT
10.4
58.8
21.2
6.4
3.1
LT
64.3
19.2
3.3
2.4
10.8
LT
55.0
16.1
6.0
20.7
2.2
LT
19.0
21.1
10.6
31.8
17.5
LT
39.6
14.4
25.7
12.8
7.5
MT
30.6
27.1
27.4
11.3
3.5
MT
10.8
23.5
10.8
10.2
44.7
MT
19.7
44.5
12.9
19.7
3.1
MT
11.8
39.6
9.6
29.9
9.1
MT
10.3
34.1
34.5
13.2
7.9
PL
10.5
36.9
37.6
9.2
5.8
PL
19.7
35.7
15.9
10.5
18.2
PL
31.1
21.9
12.6
30.0
4.4
PL
15.1
28.1
11.3
27.5
18.0
PL
8.4
20.5
38.0
26.8
6.3
SK
7.5
34.2
41.2
14.5
2.5
SK
15.4
42.0
22.1
4.8
15.5
SK
18.7
17.6
26.5
34.2
3.1
SK
9.2
19.1
8.9
35.9
26.8
SK
2.4
53.7
25.4
13.3
5.1
SI
3.7
59.1
24.2
8.3
4.7
SI
40.4
35.1
10.0
8.0
6.5
SI
39.2
7.8
16.5
32.6
3.9
SI
26.6
7.0
11.0
27.4
28.0
SI
29.7
28.2
27.5
7.2
7.4
BG
19.8
37.5
30.6
6.6
5.5
BG
27.5
34.1
7.3
7.1
24.0
BG
41.2
24.9
8.3
22.7
2.9
BG
17.0
39.5
6.1
20.7
16.7
BG
22.1
23.7
29.3
14.5
10.3
RO
24.9
31.3
24.8
11.6
7.4
RO
34.1
29.9
8.2
6.7
21.1
RO
33.1
30.5
9.9
22.9
3.7
RO
19.9
34.4
5.7
22.0
18.0
RO
16.8
51.2
11.0
9.7
11.3
TR
15.6
53.6
9.8
9.1
11.9
TR
29.9
11.9
13.2
24.9
20.1
TR
63.5
16.6
3.6
12.3
4.1
TR
52.6
23.0
5.8
4.7
13.9
TR
1.8
22.9
29.9
24.1
21.4
IS
5.1
31.3
34.0
24.5
5.0
IS
13.5
37.9
27.7
11.0
10.0
IS
22.6
8.1
26.5
37.3
5.5
IS
4.4
5.0
19.8
46.1
24.7
IS
6.3
47.6
29.1
6.9
10.2
HR
6.1
55.0
25.4
6.3
7.1
HR
22.5
33.4
14.4
17.3
12.3
HR
45.0
12.5
10.8
26.8
4.9
HR
29.5
12.3
10.3
26.9
21.0
HR
6.6
36.2
29.7
15.1
12.3
CH
4.8
44.1
29.9
14.5
6.7
CH
30.5
32.1
13.6
13.1
10.7
CH
36.8
15.9
10.8
32.4
4.0
CH
27.3
11.1
8.2
30.3
23.2
CH
4.1
31.8
33.6
17.2
13.4
NO
3.3
53.7
26.2
10.9
5.9
NO
27.5
37.2
12.1
6.8
16.4
NO
28.0
18.4
19.7
29.3
4.6
NO
17.7
14.7
15.5
34.0
18.1
NO
10.5
EU27
30.7
29.6
18.8
10.3
10.1
EU27
39.0
30.7
14.5
5.7
EU27
21.4
35.7
15.2
10.1
17.6
28.9
20.8
17.3
29.1
EU27
3.9
17.2
19.7
EU27
10.9
31.6
20.5
136
5.5
16.8
40.5
29.1
8.2
33.5
25.4
10.7
DK
7.5
22.9
BE
28.6
44.8
8.9
4.5
13.2
DE
18.1
66.6
6.6
3.4
5.3
GR
3.4
21.1
37.6
23.6
14.3
38.5
17.9
13.1
DK
7.1
23.4
BE
29.1
35.3
15.1
4.5
16.0
DE
29.9
44.2
12.2
3.4
10.3
GR
20.1
13.3
38.9
5.6
22.1
ES
21.0
26.1
27.5
5.1
20.3
ES
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
gmfood_encourage
9.1
6.4
19.4
34.8
30.3
BE
10.5
5.4
23.5
30.2
30.4
DK
7.9
4.3
15.7
27.4
44.7
DE
8.1
2.4
6.9
24.3
58.2
GR
24.2
5.5
21.4
21.9
27.0
ES
The development of GM food should be encouraged
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
gmfood_environment
GM food does no harm to the environment
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
gmfood_health
9.3
7.5
19.6
30.8
32.7
FI
34.0
28.2
11.8
5.4
20.7
FI
32.8
36.6
9.0
5.7
15.9
FI
GM food is safe for your health and your family’s health
15.2
2.4
11.4
28.2
42.8
FR
28.6
35.6
20.4
3.9
11.5
FR
26.3
36.0
21.8
3.9
12.0
FR
42.0
2.7
18.6
16.1
20.5
IE
18.5
15.1
49.1
2.5
14.8
IE
20.1
19.7
39.5
2.5
18.2
IE
16.4
3.3
16.6
31.6
32.1
IT
30.8
22.6
21.4
5.9
19.2
IT
27.8
34.7
15.9
5.3
16.4
IT
10.9
3.5
13.5
23.2
49.0
LU
26.1
30.1
24.2
4.1
15.5
LU
21.2
41.9
16.9
5.6
14.4
LU
9.8
6.7
20.6
37.8
25.0
NL
35.6
17.7
24.6
3.2
18.9
NL
28.2
17.8
16.6
5.3
32.2
NL
8.7
4.0
17.4
24.6
45.3
AT
25.3
38.2
14.9
4.7
16.8
AT
27.1
46.2
9.2
4.3
13.2
AT
32.2
2.8
22.0
25.7
17.3
PT
21.4
11.4
39.4
4.1
23.7
PT
26.2
21.5
26.9
4.2
21.2
PT
7.5
5.0
21.2
27.7
38.6
SE
32.8
40.6
15.7
2.5
8.4
SE
27.7
43.3
11.6
6.0
11.4
SE
20.0
7.0
28.4
27.0
17.5
UK
29.8
14.9
30.3
5.1
19.9
UK
25.3
13.6
27.7
8.1
25.4
UK
30.0
24.4
15.2
4.1
26.3
26.7
13.6
18.6
7.2
33.9
17.6
1.2
6.9
23.9
50.4
15.1
5.5
29.6
32.5
17.3
Country
CY
CZ
24.2
37.4
26.8
2.0
9.7
Country
CY
CZ
17.9
65.1
8.9
2.9
5.1
Country
CY
CZ
13.8
4.8
19.3
29.5
32.6
EE
27.7
18.3
23.4
5.1
25.5
EE
27.4
34.6
14.8
5.8
17.4
EE
15.0
4.9
22.0
28.6
29.4
HU
27.4
16.8
23.9
4.9
27.0
HU
27.4
32.3
17.9
2.7
19.8
HU
6.6
2.7
10.3
28.2
52.2
LV
28.3
33.7
15.1
6.8
16.1
LV
25.6
52.5
8.8
4.2
9.0
LV
13.4
3.2
6.5
21.5
55.3
LT
24.1
38.8
23.1
5.3
8.7
LT
19.2
59.8
12.6
3.7
4.7
LT
38.3
2.8
16.9
19.3
22.7
MT
15.4
14.0
49.7
4.1
16.8
MT
21.6
21.8
42.8
2.1
11.8
MT
18.6
5.9
18.6
29.8
27.0
PL
24.4
22.7
27.3
6.3
19.4
PL
26.6
33.4
17.6
7.3
15.1
PL
14.9
4.9
27.3
37.6
15.3
SK
33.7
10.9
19.8
4.6
31.0
SK
34.5
23.6
14.6
4.2
23.0
SK
4.3
3.8
16.2
26.7
49.1
SI
27.7
32.1
12.3
10.2
17.8
SI
28.5
49.7
6.4
3.7
11.7
SI
20.8
4.2
6.4
26.7
41.8
BG
23.2
25.6
33.9
5.1
12.3
BG
23.7
44.7
21.6
1.6
8.4
BG
27.9
3.6
7.7
22.0
38.8
RO
19.3
22.3
37.4
5.2
15.7
RO
19.2
42.7
26.1
2.3
9.8
RO
21.1
2.7
2.5
11.9
61.8
TR
14.4
56.9
21.1
3.9
3.7
TR
12.2
61.3
17.3
5.2
3.9
TR
3.9
8.7
29.0
34.6
23.8
IS
41.2
25.3
12.1
4.1
17.4
IS
32.9
28.4
6.9
7.1
24.7
IS
10.7
3.5
8.3
20.4
57.1
HR
21.8
40.9
17.7
7.3
12.2
HR
21.1
58.1
9.4
4.2
7.2
HR
10.6
5.7
12.2
30.5
41.0
CH
30.9
33.2
20.1
4.2
11.6
CH
27.4
41.9
15.3
4.5
10.9
CH
11.3
7.7
19.1
28.3
33.5
NO
29.0
26.7
26.5
4.9
13.0
NO
29.3
32.6
11.7
6.2
20.2
NO
16.3
EU27
4.6
18.2
27.9
33.1
27.8
24.6
24.4
EU27
5.0
18.2
26.3
33.1
18.5
EU27
5.2
17.0
137
41.0
59.0
BE
77.1
22.9
DK
64.7
35.3
DE
44.7
55.3
GR
32.1
67.9
ES
73.3
26.7
FI
53.9
46.1
FR
33.4
66.6
IE
37.3
62.7
IT
56.5
43.5
LU
9.2
30.7
27.3
32.8
21.6
18.8
56.7
DK
2.9
BE
27.7
21.4
40.4
.6
9.9
DE
29.9
35.4
30.5
4.2
GR
14.4
28.0
54.5
3.1
ES
27.0
16.5
51.5
5.1
FI
21.5
15.4
55.7
7.4
FR
18.6
24.0
53.4
.6
3.4
IE
15.9
16.9
60.4
6.9
DK
15.4
13.5
64.6
.8
5.7
DE
16.9
22.0
57.4
3.6
GR
10.3
10.7
76.0
3.0
ES
17.5
13.9
64.3
4.4
FI
18.0
10.3
66.1
5.7
FR
13.1
14.0
69.1
3.8
IE
22.4
20.0
55.2
2.4
IT
37.5
18.9
38.3
1.1
4.2
IT
16.9
12.8
63.9
1.5
5.0
LU
21.6
14.8
57.0
1.5
5.1
LU
18.1
16.3
61.5
4.1
NL
25.5
18.5
49.1
6.9
NL
61.2
38.8
NL
13.2
24.8
59.5
2.5
AT
28.1
39.9
28.1
.6
3.3
AT
47.0
53.0
AT
20.9
22.0
48.3
1.3
7.6
PT
35.0
26.8
34.9
3.3
PT
20.9
79.1
PT
13.0
15.5
67.8
.4
3.3
SE
19.1
28.4
47.3
.9
4.3
SE
74.8
25.2
SE
23.9
DK
25.4
38.2
11.8
5.6
19.0
DE
20.7
37.1
18.1
10.4
13.7
GR
44.8
28.2
10.1
7.5
9.5
ES
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
nanotech_family
9.0
24.3
33.9
11.2
21.7
25.0
36.6
8.3
21.6
DK
8.5
BE
12.4
27.9
19.8
31.5
8.4
DE
10.2
19.8
26.1
25.6
18.4
GR
14.6
41.1
16.4
18.2
9.6
ES
Nanotechnology is not good for you and your family
25.4
40.8
19.5
4.8
42.7
19.6
5.8
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
9.5
BE
8.0
Totally agree
Tend to agree
nanotech_economy
11.9
17.0
21.9
44.1
5.0
FI
17.1
45.5
19.4
4.5
13.5
FI
11.3
34.4
19.3
28.2
6.8
FR
33.6
34.8
14.8
7.6
9.2
FR
6.3
60.3
14.4
16.5
2.6
IE
63.5
21.9
5.8
3.0
5.9
IE
14.3
31.1
21.1
22.9
10.5
IT
35.0
34.6
15.4
9.0
6.0
IT
14.4
30.3
21.9
28.2
5.2
LU
35.2
31.0
19.1
6.9
7.8
LU
12.1
28.1
15.4
37.8
6.5
NL
23.9
40.9
17.1
5.4
12.7
NL
11.6
34.5
25.0
18.3
10.6
AT
37.7
29.0
17.6
10.0
5.7
AT
4.7
47.9
23.3
16.6
7.5
PT
53.0
27.2
10.5
4.7
4.6
PT
17.0
28.6
17.6
29.5
7.3
SE
28.1
36.1
13.2
7.4
15.2
SE
qb4b
For each of the following statements regarding nanotechnology please tell me if you agree or disagree with it.
Nanotechnology is good for the (NATIONALITY) economy
No, never
DK
2.5
16.1
17.7
63.6
Yes, occasionally
Yes, only once or
BE
Yes, frequently
infosearch_nanotech
[IF YES] Have you ever searched for information about nanotechnology?
Yes, only once or
No, never
DK
Yes, frequently
Yes, occasionally
talked_nanotech
qb3b
[IF YES] Have you ever talked about nanotechnology with anyone before today?
Not heard
Heard
heard_nanotech
7.4
40.3
18.0
27.6
6.7
UK
38.8
36.5
11.9
5.3
7.5
UK
9.5
9.0
78.7
1.1
1.7
UK
22.4
16.0
57.5
1.1
3.0
UK
47.5
52.5
UK
58.7
41.3
14.8
25.8
56.9
1.2
1.3
1.1
8.1
20.9
69.9
23.8
42.6
15.4
4.7
13.5
8.7
34.0
19.7
26.7
11.0
6.0
25.2
27.7
33.7
7.4
Country
CY
CZ
35.4
36.0
7.9
6.4
14.3
Country
CY
CZ
10.9
14.7
71.0
3.4
Country
CY
CZ
15.9
22.8
58.0
3.3
Country
CY
CZ
36.7
63.3
Country
CY
CZ
11.4
32.8
18.6
31.5
5.7
EE
29.0
39.7
12.9
5.9
12.5
EE
12.0
16.4
69.4
2.2
EE
21.9
25.4
50.7
2.0
EE
46.6
53.4
EE
11.5
29.9
16.9
34.1
7.5
HU
29.9
41.0
14.8
5.1
9.1
HU
15.0
16.0
67.5
1.5
HU
14.9
25.6
55.8
3.7
HU
47.0
53.0
HU
12.9
36.8
11.9
33.2
5.2
LV
36.9
20.3
27.9
11.8
3.1
LV
14.5
19.2
63.9
2.4
LV
20.7
25.0
50.1
4.3
LV
52.0
48.0
LV
12.2
37.4
17.1
24.8
8.5
LT
39.9
30.3
13.2
6.3
10.4
LT
17.4
14.5
65.2
2.9
LT
26.2
19.7
49.4
.5
4.1
LT
35.5
64.5
LT
8.4
57.3
16.1
14.4
3.9
MT
57.7
15.6
13.0
8.8
4.9
MT
18.5
10.9
67.0
3.6
MT
20.2
17.2
59.1
3.6
MT
21.7
78.3
MT
7.2
48.6
16.5
22.8
4.9
PL
50.4
30.3
9.1
3.8
6.4
PL
8.6
18.9
67.8
1.2
3.4
PL
17.2
21.1
58.5
.5
2.7
PL
30.7
69.3
PL
8.5
26.0
28.0
31.8
5.7
SK
26.5
42.9
21.7
3.9
5.0
SK
16.1
24.5
57.2
2.3
SK
18.6
36.8
41.4
3.1
SK
34.5
65.5
SK
10.2
18.5
28.5
27.8
15.0
SI
18.5
38.6
18.1
14.1
10.7
SI
13.8
12.8
68.2
5.2
SI
24.3
26.2
44.1
5.4
SI
45.5
54.5
SI
9.3
49.4
18.1
17.6
5.6
BG
48.0
30.5
10.0
3.5
8.0
BG
17.9
19.4
59.8
1.2
1.7
BG
28.0
25.0
42.2
.8
4.0
BG
30.6
69.4
BG
10.7
57.0
13.7
14.5
4.2
RO
57.2
24.6
8.0
4.8
5.4
RO
16.9
11.9
63.7
2.7
4.8
RO
23.2
16.0
52.1
5.2
3.5
RO
25.5
74.5
RO
12.9
49.9
12.0
14.4
10.9
TR
47.4
13.5
13.8
14.0
11.3
TR
4.4
10.6
80.8
2.2
2.0
TR
9.0
17.2
70.5
1.4
2.0
TR
25.3
74.7
TR
8.2
24.3
17.8
46.5
3.1
IS
26.0
40.1
22.9
4.5
6.5
IS
15.6
15.4
65.7
3.2
IS
25.4
26.2
40.7
7.7
IS
59.5
40.5
IS
19.0
26.0
20.1
23.9
10.9
HR
27.5
33.9
13.7
13.4
11.5
HR
12.1
16.5
65.0
1.6
4.8
HR
21.5
25.5
47.9
1.4
3.7
HR
45.4
54.6
HR
15.1
37.1
13.7
27.3
6.9
CH
33.5
36.9
10.1
5.1
14.5
CH
17.9
14.9
62.0
.4
4.7
CH
30.2
27.8
34.3
.2
7.5
CH
75.7
24.3
CH
19.7
21.8
19.6
34.2
4.8
NO
30.2
33.8
17.2
6.4
12.4
NO
17.0
19.5
59.4
.3
3.8
NO
30.8
23.7
38.9
.3
6.3
NO
77.7
22.3
NO
11.0
35.5
19.3
26.3
EU27
7.9
36.0
34.6
13.1
6.4
EU27
10.0
15.0
14.5
66.1
.5
EU27
3.9
24.5
21.1
48.2
.6
EU27
5.6
EU27
46.3
53.7
Split ballot B
And now thinking about nanotechnology: Nanotechnology involves working with atoms and molecules to make new particles that are used in cosmetics to make better anti-aging creams, suntan oils for better protection against skin
cancer and cleaning fluids to make the home more hygienic. Despite these benefits, some scientists are concerned about the unknown and possibly negative effects of nano particles in the body and in the environment
qb2b
Have you ever heard of nanotechnology before?
138
Totally disagree
DK
14.1
24.0
6.2
32.5
23.2
DK
17.9
27.6
4.7
22.6
27.2
DE
11.0
22.1
14.7
33.1
19.1
GR
5.6
33.1
30.2
7.7
23.4
29.2
10.4
22.8
DK
4.4
33.3
BE
27.1
13.1
33.8
6.0
20.0
DE
25.5
13.6
24.3
9.8
26.8
GR
13.9
8.0
44.0
7.1
26.9
ES
11.4
41.3
7.0
25.7
14.5
ES
21.8
6.4
22.9
5.7
43.2
FI
11.0
18.9
8.3
34.1
27.8
FI
26.2
16.1
32.3
6.3
19.0
FR
15.4
35.1
5.3
22.4
21.7
FR
20.6
46.1
11.7
3.4
18.2
19.8
4.5
18.9
DK
14.1
42.7
BE
23.2
12.4
3.3
21.8
39.3
DE
20.2
16.0
5.3
17.0
41.5
GR
DK
15.8
22.4
30.9
22.9
8.1
DK
25.8
13.6
20.0
28.8
11.7
DE
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
nanotech_uneasy
11.8
22.6
29.8
22.2
13.6
12.5
17.7
DK
10.2
26.0
33.7
BE
17.4
16.6
16.7
21.3
28.0
DE
4.0
12.3
26.2
31.6
26.0
GR
17.1
30.5
28.0
20.0
4.5
GR
Nanotechnology makes you feel uneasy
16.0
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
BE
20.2
33.4
23.8
6.7
Totally agree
Tend to agree
nanotech_unnatural
Nanotechnology is fundamentally unnatural
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
nanotech_unequal
24.9
21.5
10.6
18.5
24.6
ES
29.7
21.1
22.8
16.1
10.3
ES
41.2
11.7
6.9
11.6
28.6
ES
27.6
12.5
8.1
19.5
32.4
FI
16.8
10.9
32.1
29.5
10.7
FI
19.0
23.6
4.2
9.0
44.2
FI
22.7
20.5
11.7
18.3
26.8
FR
23.9
26.5
36.0
9.3
4.3
FR
27.3
6.2
5.1
16.1
45.2
FR
Nanotechnology benefits some people but puts others at risk
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
nanotech_safe
Nanotechnology is safe for future generations
13.5
22.4
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
BE
5.4
28.1
30.5
Totally agree
nanotech_developing
Nanotechnology helps people in developing countries
6.3
52.1
6.6
18.6
16.4
IE
55.7
4.1
20.8
14.7
4.7
IE
62.7
10.8
2.6
3.7
20.2
IE
9.5
4.5
65.5
3.5
17.0
IE
3.2
61.8
4.1
19.8
11.0
IE
18.0
28.7
6.9
22.3
24.1
IT
29.7
14.9
28.1
19.3
7.8
IT
34.5
16.5
7.9
9.5
31.6
IT
16.5
9.2
38.7
6.8
28.8
IT
12.1
34.8
7.1
26.0
20.1
IT
19.7
24.4
9.9
24.2
21.9
LU
23.2
16.9
42.2
11.3
6.5
LU
28.8
14.3
4.9
14.1
38.0
LU
25.3
4.8
35.9
7.5
26.5
LU
5.9
36.6
6.5
23.2
27.7
LU
23.6
13.9
14.1
19.2
29.2
NL
18.3
19.2
26.8
24.4
11.3
NL
24.0
13.9
3.2
17.4
41.5
NL
27.4
8.8
34.5
4.3
25.0
NL
18.4
27.4
5.4
23.1
25.6
NL
9.6
18.0
18.1
32.3
21.9
AT
27.3
20.5
24.4
21.6
6.2
AT
28.5
14.5
3.0
17.0
36.9
AT
21.1
16.5
36.3
7.2
18.9
AT
14.5
37.3
7.3
21.1
19.8
AT
5.7
46.1
9.8
21.1
17.3
PT
47.0
19.6
21.5
9.5
2.3
PT
50.4
10.7
4.2
9.8
24.9
PT
18.4
7.5
51.7
2.7
19.7
PT
6.2
52.0
3.8
21.3
16.7
PT
40.9
16.9
5.9
16.9
19.5
SE
19.0
22.0
24.6
18.1
16.3
SE
29.8
8.8
5.8
15.8
39.8
SE
32.9
25.0
28.3
2.5
11.2
SE
14.6
30.9
9.4
28.5
16.7
SE
14.5
29.2
9.0
22.7
24.5
UK
34.8
11.8
25.9
21.3
6.2
UK
38.8
12.2
2.9
8.3
37.7
UK
14.4
5.0
49.2
5.1
26.4
UK
8.0
40.3
5.0
29.9
16.9
UK
7.2
30.6
6.8
34.2
21.3
14.4
4.9
28.5
8.4
43.9
28.5
22.2
4.6
7.2
37.5
20.3
10.5
31.1
34.7
3.4
12.4
17.8
20.9
24.4
24.5
17.1
17.8
4.0
19.4
41.7
Country
CY
CZ
33.1
22.4
17.3
21.2
6.0
Country
CY
CZ
33.1
9.1
2.0
21.9
33.8
Country
CY
CZ
13.5
7.0
45.4
7.1
27.0
Country
CY
CZ
5.8
32.0
19.3
35.6
7.2
Country
CY
CZ
24.9
23.7
5.8
16.0
29.6
EE
30.1
11.3
25.1
23.5
10.0
EE
29.4
15.4
6.5
13.1
35.5
EE
20.4
6.3
37.0
5.8
30.5
EE
6.7
35.2
10.8
33.0
14.2
EE
15.5
28.2
5.1
17.3
33.9
HU
20.3
12.9
31.5
26.0
9.3
HU
22.3
17.8
5.4
14.4
40.1
HU
16.8
6.1
29.0
10.5
37.7
HU
6.5
27.2
11.8
40.5
14.1
HU
16.6
32.9
7.8
15.7
27.0
LV
34.7
19.8
23.8
16.8
4.8
LV
32.0
13.3
3.2
17.2
34.3
LV
25.2
7.6
38.0
5.2
24.0
LV
5.7
38.3
9.6
33.7
12.7
LV
12.0
32.9
13.0
18.6
23.5
LT
38.0
24.4
24.9
9.5
3.1
LT
34.4
8.6
3.2
24.1
29.7
LT
17.3
9.1
46.5
5.5
21.6
LT
6.1
42.7
10.0
28.2
12.9
LT
7.0
61.1
5.2
15.0
11.6
MT
53.4
11.9
25.5
7.5
1.7
MT
57.9
7.8
2.4
5.6
26.2
MT
15.9
9.9
65.0
1.6
7.6
MT
9.4
57.2
4.5
14.5
14.4
MT
9.2
38.3
8.3
19.4
24.8
PL
44.6
10.1
23.8
17.8
3.7
PL
47.6
8.8
2.3
12.1
29.1
PL
11.8
5.3
54.3
5.0
23.5
PL
2.4
51.3
7.9
28.9
9.6
PL
10.2
21.0
7.9
23.4
37.5
SK
22.5
12.1
41.5
20.0
3.9
SK
25.9
20.9
4.2
7.9
41.1
SK
23.6
5.6
25.4
5.3
40.2
SK
5.5
30.3
4.7
36.4
23.1
SK
14.4
12.7
24.9
27.4
20.7
SI
17.5
37.7
28.4
9.3
7.1
SI
19.5
14.3
4.2
23.8
38.2
SI
21.5
15.7
25.5
11.3
26.0
SI
16.7
20.5
9.6
30.4
22.8
SI
9.9
50.9
4.4
14.6
20.1
BG
46.8
7.8
24.0
17.1
4.4
BG
48.0
7.8
2.3
12.0
29.8
BG
17.2
8.3
53.3
3.7
17.4
BG
4.7
55.4
6.9
24.4
8.7
BG
10.2
55.1
5.7
14.7
14.3
RO
59.6
11.2
15.8
9.5
4.0
RO
51.8
6.8
4.9
13.2
23.3
RO
8.4
6.9
56.5
7.5
20.7
RO
6.9
58.0
5.8
19.9
9.4
RO
10.8
52.6
14.0
9.5
13.1
TR
51.7
17.5
11.4
10.2
9.2
TR
52.0
13.2
10.2
11.8
12.8
TR
13.0
14.7
50.6
8.6
13.1
TR
13.2
52.2
8.4
12.0
14.2
TR
33.9
9.8
1.6
16.2
38.5
IS
25.0
8.6
32.3
29.4
4.7
IS
30.6
20.8
3.8
8.9
35.9
IS
23.1
7.6
30.5
2.1
36.6
IS
8.6
24.4
2.8
34.7
29.5
IS
15.3
20.2
17.0
27.5
20.0
HR
22.7
23.9
32.4
14.7
6.2
HR
27.6
15.1
9.6
14.9
32.9
HR
20.6
13.0
30.7
7.7
28.1
HR
16.6
28.4
8.2
30.8
16.1
HR
20.1
17.4
13.3
20.8
28.5
CH
24.2
19.8
29.8
14.8
11.4
CH
27.9
10.1
4.9
19.9
37.3
CH
23.5
15.2
38.4
5.2
17.6
CH
15.1
33.9
4.1
23.4
23.4
CH
37.5
13.1
5.7
17.7
25.9
NO
17.7
19.6
24.2
19.3
19.3
NO
22.2
12.3
5.9
20.1
39.6
NO
25.8
10.6
30.2
8.3
25.1
NO
14.7
27.3
9.4
27.8
20.8
NO
17.1
25.9
EU27
10.7
20.7
25.7
30.5
EU27
16.5
26.1
19.6
7.4
33.6
12.2
4.6
EU27
13.8
35.9
19.6
9.8
39.8
EU27
6.1
24.7
11.4
36.9
EU27
6.4
26.2
19.1
139
Totally disagree
DK
10.4
21.7
5.3
29.9
32.7
DK
12.9
29.9
6.5
19.6
31.1
DE
20.8
21.1
6.0
23.9
28.2
GR
12.6
44.9
5.3
22.8
14.4
ES
4.8
22.9
34.7
10.6
27.1
39.8
11.0
23.5
DK
2.4
23.3
BE
30.0
13.0
35.0
4.8
17.2
DE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
nanotech_encourage
15.7
32.1
23.2
7.0
21.9
21.7
DK
7.7
35.7
25.4
9.6
BE
25.3
12.6
33.0
18.8
10.3
DE
Nanotechnology should be encouraged
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
nanotech_environmen
20.8
8.9
29.4
27.8
13.1
GR
28.1
16.0
25.4
7.7
22.7
GR
40.8
8.4
28.6
11.6
10.6
ES
17.1
9.9
50.9
3.3
18.8
ES
Nanotechnology does no harm to the environment
9.9
22.8
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
BE
3.8
27.9
35.6
Totally agree
nanotech_health
17.1
17.2
47.2
13.1
5.4
FI
29.6
7.0
25.3
4.4
33.7
FI
8.3
20.3
5.5
42.1
23.9
FI
32.2
6.8
34.0
17.0
10.1
FR
28.2
13.8
41.5
2.8
13.7
FR
18.9
37.1
3.3
12.6
28.1
FR
Nanotechnology is safe for your health and your family’s health
67.5
4.6
17.2
6.6
4.1
IE
9.6
4.7
69.1
1.1
15.5
IE
6.2
65.6
1.0
16.2
11.1
IE
36.2
6.2
28.7
17.7
11.2
IT
18.9
10.5
45.0
4.2
21.5
IT
12.3
39.8
3.4
24.6
19.9
IT
30.7
8.6
28.1
25.9
6.8
LU
21.4
12.0
39.3
3.1
24.2
LU
9.4
35.4
5.8
16.5
32.9
LU
23.3
9.8
31.3
25.2
10.3
NL
33.6
10.5
37.5
2.5
15.9
NL
10.0
31.9
4.1
26.9
27.1
NL
30.4
6.1
27.3
22.3
13.9
AT
23.3
14.5
35.9
5.2
21.1
AT
17.9
31.5
4.7
20.7
25.2
AT
52.3
2.0
22.1
15.3
8.2
PT
18.3
7.3
58.1
2.0
14.3
PT
12.5
51.5
1.2
16.5
18.3
PT
24.9
16.3
33.8
18.6
6.5
SE
33.4
13.0
35.5
4.5
13.5
SE
13.1
31.7
10.7
16.7
27.8
SE
40.4
9.5
28.8
15.7
5.7
UK
20.9
5.6
54.5
3.1
16.0
UK
5.4
48.5
3.5
24.9
17.7
UK
5.8
29.3
4.8
42.5
17.6
19.2
5.2
29.0
7.4
39.2
38.8
9.8
37.2
6.6
7.6
24.8
15.2
42.6
14.7
2.7
Country
CY
CZ
17.4
10.1
51.1
3.6
17.9
Country
CY
CZ
16.0
37.4
3.8
23.4
19.5
Country
CY
CZ
32.2
10.1
34.3
17.2
6.3
EE
23.3
6.4
39.2
5.8
25.2
EE
8.3
34.1
5.8
31.0
20.8
EE
23.9
12.2
39.6
17.6
6.7
HU
21.5
6.0
34.2
8.1
30.1
HU
7.3
33.7
7.5
32.3
19.2
HU
32.6
11.4
33.2
15.9
6.8
LV
26.5
9.3
40.6
4.3
19.3
LV
10.2
37.4
6.9
24.8
20.8
LV
42.0
7.3
29.3
13.7
7.6
LT
20.7
9.3
51.9
4.0
14.0
LT
12.8
46.0
3.7
17.9
19.7
LT
62.2
5.5
14.2
8.5
9.5
MT
12.4
5.5
70.3
3.1
8.7
MT
9.2
64.2
5.3
10.3
10.9
MT
50.7
6.5
30.1
8.2
4.4
PL
15.5
5.9
53.7
4.0
20.9
PL
5.6
53.8
5.2
23.7
11.7
PL
24.9
7.0
39.3
22.9
5.8
SK
30.4
6.3
25.9
4.2
33.2
SK
6.8
25.0
2.6
38.4
27.2
SK
19.0
9.6
32.2
23.2
15.9
SI
25.9
18.2
25.7
9.4
20.8
SI
20.3
22.0
6.3
25.5
25.9
SI
53.0
6.6
21.6
10.4
8.4
BG
14.9
6.5
57.2
3.4
18.0
BG
9.5
53.1
2.7
18.1
16.6
BG
58.9
5.6
20.7
7.9
6.9
RO
9.8
7.4
64.4
2.9
15.6
RO
8.8
61.9
2.4
15.2
11.7
RO
55.4
8.8
9.4
11.7
14.6
TR
14.5
16.0
56.7
6.2
6.6
TR
18.0
54.1
5.6
9.8
12.4
TR
17.9
16.0
52.4
11.8
1.9
IS
38.7
5.6
39.2
.7
15.8
IS
6.6
30.6
3.2
35.4
24.3
IS
34.2
9.6
27.3
15.6
13.4
HR
19.9
19.6
34.6
5.7
20.3
HR
22.8
29.5
5.8
21.6
20.2
HR
29.7
11.4
32.8
18.0
8.1
CH
26.3
15.6
40.6
5.0
12.5
CH
13.5
34.3
5.7
17.8
28.8
CH
20.5
21.3
32.5
17.1
8.5
NO
28.9
10.4
39.2
6.7
14.9
NO
12.8
25.8
11.2
24.2
26.1
NO
35.6
EU27
8.8
30.7
16.2
8.7
23.0
9.9
44.2
EU27
3.9
18.9
11.4
39.9
EU27
4.5
22.3
21.9
140
74.6
25.4
BE
81.3
18.7
DK
87.4
12.6
DE
84.5
15.5
GR
73.7
26.3
ES
84.4
15.6
FI
76.5
23.5
FR
61.4
38.6
IE
62.8
37.2
IT
78.6
21.4
LU
86.8
13.2
NL
71.1
28.9
AT
19.0
20.9
54.9
1.2
Yes, occasionally
Yes, only once or
No, never
DK
28.2
.2
36.0
26.6
9.0
DK
29.1
.1
37.5
20.4
12.8
DE
29.2
.2
37.8
29.5
3.3
GR
44.4
.5
20.0
31.1
4.0
ES
37.1
31.8
26.5
4.6
FI
49.4
.3
29.0
16.1
5.1
FR
49.0
2.3
18.2
28.4
2.1
IE
31.1
1.7
36.7
25.0
5.5
IT
34.0
1.6
35.8
22.0
6.6
LU
36.9
.6
30.9
22.2
9.3
NL
25.4
.6
38.3
31.8
3.9
AT
3.6
11.1
14.9
70.1
.2
11.9
77.0
.4
DK
2.0
8.6
BE
14.0
69.1
.3
3.0
13.6
DE
28.0
50.6
.2
2.4
18.7
GR
9.9
77.3
.3
1.3
11.2
ES
19.7
61.1
.1
3.3
15.7
FI
8.3
77.6
3.2
10.9
FR
9.6
79.0
2.5
1.3
7.6
IE
14.5
60.1
1.0
2.0
22.5
IT
14.3
62.7
2.7
20.3
LU
14.2
68.7
3.5
13.6
NL
18.9
65.5
1.0
2.9
11.7
AT
19.0
68.1
.6
1.0
11.3
PT
36.5
.6
32.0
28.9
1.9
PT
58.5
41.5
PT
17.9
66.8
.4
1.6
13.4
SE
29.2
.7
34.8
29.7
5.6
SE
87.0
13.0
SE
6.5
80.8
.2
3.7
8.8
UK
49.5
.2
26.0
20.4
3.9
UK
80.8
19.2
UK
71.2
28.8
44.8
.4
23.4
29.9
1.4
14.3
74.2
1.0
1.7
8.8
13.8
75.5
.9
9.8
Country
CY
CZ
45.4
1.0
17.6
33.9
2.2
Country
CY
CZ
72.7
27.3
Country
CY
CZ
38.6
30.2
9.0
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
27.7
19.7
14.2
8.4
30.0
DK
27.2
35.4
11.1
6.2
20.1
DE
27.5
35.9
8.4
6.3
21.8
GR
18.6
18.6
30.7
5.9
26.2
ES
35.6
38.7
6.5
3.8
15.3
FI
30.6
42.5
11.5
3.0
12.3
FR
25.5
26.6
32.5
1.1
14.3
IE
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
animalcloning_family
8.2
23.3
31.8
27.0
9.7
BE
11.2
26.2
34.8
20.7
7.1
DK
11.9
42.8
26.5
11.6
7.2
DE
5.2
48.6
26.3
12.1
7.7
GR
26.4
18.9
26.7
14.3
13.8
ES
7.6
32.9
27.6
20.0
11.9
FI
12.2
37.5
28.2
11.7
10.5
FR
31.1
20.8
28.9
11.8
7.3
IE
Animal cloning in food production is not good for you and your family
DK
3.5
18.8
BE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
animalcloning_econom
11.9
29.8
26.7
15.6
16.0
IT
27.6
34.5
16.6
3.6
17.7
IT
Animal cloning in food production is good for the (NATIONALITY) economy
10.0
31.4
28.0
15.7
14.8
LU
32.2
46.2
11.3
1.4
9.0
LU
11.4
26.7
23.2
26.6
12.2
NL
30.4
33.9
9.1
5.0
21.7
NL
5.0
42.1
27.4
12.2
13.3
AT
32.9
48.0
6.6
1.2
11.2
AT
26.3
22.3
30.5
11.7
9.2
PT
24.8
18.7
31.8
2.3
22.4
PT
9.7
42.8
20.0
16.8
10.6
SE
22.2
43.6
10.1
5.3
18.9
SE
20.6
18.2
31.8
20.6
8.8
UK
30.8
24.2
16.5
4.8
23.7
UK
36.1
24.3
10.7
3.4
25.4
8.0
57.6
18.3
8.8
7.3
11.2
22.6
28.1
27.5
10.6
Country
CY
CZ
21.0
32.2
25.7
3.9
17.2
Country
CY
CZ
qb7b
For each of the following statements regarding animal cloning in food production please tell me if you agree or disagree with it.
No, never
DK
Yes, occasionally
Yes, only once or
Yes, frequently
infosearch_animalclon
[IF YES] Have you ever talked about animal cloning in food production with anyone before today?
4.0
BE
Yes, frequently
talked_animalcloning
qb6b
[IF YES] Have you ever talked about animal cloning in food production with anyone before today?
Heard
Not heard
heard_animalcloning
18.1
27.6
24.3
19.3
10.6
EE
28.7
34.3
14.9
3.5
18.5
EE
9.7
80.2
.3
.9
8.8
EE
50.2
.3
25.5
21.8
2.2
EE
67.4
32.6
EE
13.4
27.7
30.9
20.7
7.4
HU
33.2
29.3
14.3
2.3
20.9
HU
15.6
76.1
.7
7.6
HU
47.4
14.5
35.5
2.6
HU
76.4
23.6
HU
16.6
31.4
27.2
18.5
6.2
LV
31.9
38.6
17.7
1.4
10.4
LV
12.1
77.2
1.0
.8
8.9
LV
50.4
1.2
25.2
21.8
1.5
LV
70.0
30.0
LV
21.5
28.1
22.3
13.5
14.6
LT
25.0
28.0
24.5
4.1
18.3
LT
9.6
74.5
1.6
1.6
12.7
LT
49.9
.9
26.3
20.0
2.9
LT
56.6
43.4
LT
36.1
13.6
27.9
15.6
6.8
MT
20.8
19.8
40.9
1.2
17.3
MT
8.0
77.2
2.4
12.4
MT
57.9
28.4
9.0
4.6
MT
53.5
46.5
MT
23.0
26.8
24.6
14.3
11.2
PL
31.5
31.2
25.4
2.3
9.7
PL
11.2
77.2
.3
1.1
10.2
PL
53.1
.8
17.2
26.3
2.7
PL
69.5
30.5
PL
8.5
17.3
32.2
28.1
14.0
SK
41.9
23.6
9.1
2.5
22.9
SK
14.6
71.1
1.1
13.2
SK
43.0
23.3
30.4
3.3
SK
65.9
34.1
SK
3.6
46.7
23.5
13.8
12.3
SI
27.2
52.3
6.3
1.9
12.3
SI
17.0
66.7
.3
3.0
13.0
SI
32.9
.3
34.9
26.9
5.0
SI
74.7
25.3
SI
24.5
24.6
23.9
16.9
10.2
BG
27.1
27.1
23.3
5.0
17.5
BG
12.8
76.0
2.3
.3
8.7
BG
40.6
2.2
26.9
29.8
.6
BG
70.0
30.0
BG
26.4
22.3
17.5
15.6
18.2
RO
18.3
32.0
32.3
3.2
14.2
RO
15.0
70.4
3.7
.8
10.2
RO
47.8
3.8
22.3
25.4
.6
RO
53.9
46.1
RO
23.9
31.7
14.7
14.9
14.8
TR
20.4
29.3
26.8
9.9
13.6
TR
7.6
84.8
3.1
.8
3.7
TR
68.0
3.1
9.2
17.4
2.4
TR
54.8
45.2
TR
7.3
41.8
20.7
24.5
5.6
IS
27.2
50.9
6.0
2.5
13.4
IS
7.8
85.5
1.9
4.7
IS
38.9
27.4
28.8
4.9
IS
41.9
58.1
IS
8.7
44.5
19.8
8.3
18.7
HR
16.5
62.0
9.3
3.6
8.5
HR
10.4
69.5
.5
4.5
15.1
HR
36.8
.2
28.9
25.0
9.1
HR
78.5
21.5
HR
9.0
43.4
21.6
11.6
14.4
CH
26.9
53.4
5.9
3.2
10.6
CH
16.6
63.9
.7
3.8
15.0
CH
24.5
37.0
28.3
10.3
CH
75.5
24.5
CH
13.6
34.8
25.2
18.2
8.2
NO
22.6
36.0
13.9
6.5
21.0
NO
11.3
75.5
.4
1.3
11.5
NO
30.3
1.1
38.6
25.0
5.0
NO
73.8
26.2
NO
Let’s speak now about cloning farm animals. Cloning may be used to improve some characteristics of farmed animals in food production. Due to the high cost of cloning, this technique would mainly be used to produce cloned
animals which will reproduce with non-cloned animals. Their offspring would then be used to produce meat and milk of higher quality. However, critics have raised questions about ethics of animal cloning.
qb5b
Have you ever heard of animal cloning in food production before?
16.2
EU27
29.8
27.0
15.9
11.1
28.1
31.7
17.2
EU27
4.2
18.7
12.4
72.2
.5
EU27
2.4
12.6
40.8
.7
28.9
23.8
EU27
5.8
EU27
74.9
25.1
141
13.8
31.9
26.5
18.3
28.8
30.8
23.1
9.7
9.4
DK
7.7
BE
11.5
21.4
23.7
36.3
7.1
DE
7.3
31.4
27.0
25.1
9.2
GR
27.2
26.4
17.3
17.6
11.5
ES
10.1
28.0
30.4
24.8
6.6
FI
15.7
18.9
25.5
36.2
3.8
FR
3.2
21.7
37.3
25.0
12.7
18.1
40.5
28.9
9.6
DK
2.8
BE
10.7
30.2
44.9
11.8
2.4
DE
13.6
26.4
50.1
7.6
2.2
GR
22.9
19.7
24.3
28.3
4.9
ES
12.8
40.0
37.7
8.0
1.5
FI
5.9
29.2
49.6
13.7
1.6
FR
14.8
17.5
22.2
44.6
1.0
IE
39.8
27.0
16.3
13.0
3.9
IE
15.5
26.3
35.3
19.1
3.7
IT
18.7
22.5
26.2
26.6
6.0
IT
40.8
21.6
16.4
7.9
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
11.0
8.9
41.9
18.9
19.2
DK
8.4
10.5
33.4
10.6
37.1
DE
9.6
7.5
44.2
14.3
24.4
GR
9.5
26.3
33.5
12.2
18.5
ES
11.1
7.9
39.0
18.3
23.7
FI
27.3
16.3
31.0
12.9
12.5
FR
DK
63.9
25.2
5.4
1.8
3.7
BE
56.4
25.3
8.9
4.5
4.9
59.9
24.1
6.5
3.6
5.8
DE
64.0
23.8
6.6
2.2
3.5
GR
44.1
23.8
9.8
6.7
15.6
ES
59.4
25.2
6.6
4.6
4.2
FI
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
animalcloning_uneasy
40.8
34.8
11.4
8.7
4.3
19.4
7.8
4.9
DK
36.3
31.5
BE
8.2
5.3
3.8
58.7
23.9
DE
7.5
.7
1.9
62.4
27.5
GR
16.6
14.4
12.8
21.7
34.6
ES
16.7
9.5
3.7
39.2
31.0
FI
Animal cloning in food production makes you feel uneasy
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
animalcloning_unnatu
14.8
12.6
5.6
39.9
27.1
FR
63.6
21.2
3.4
5.6
6.1
FR
Animal cloning in food production is fundamentally unnatural
13.3
BE
Totally agree
animalcloning_unequa
9.9
3.9
27.9
27.6
30.6
IE
34.4
27.6
9.0
2.7
26.3
IE
7.8
43.4
31.0
10.7
7.1
IE
18.6
11.9
12.5
27.5
29.5
IT
38.7
28.9
13.5
8.4
10.4
IT
16.7
17.7
29.7
19.4
16.5
IT
11.9
9.1
5.5
38.0
35.4
LU
51.9
31.3
8.1
3.5
5.2
LU
18.1
9.2
34.8
18.0
19.9
LU
11.2
35.5
40.9
10.7
1.6
LU
11.3
20.2
31.5
34.0
2.9
LU
Animal cloning in food production benefits some people but puts others at risk
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
animalcloning_safe
Animal cloning in food production is safe for future generations
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
animalcloning_develop
Animal cloning in food production helps people in developing countries
14.6
8.3
2.2
50.1
24.8
NL
67.0
17.0
7.9
5.1
3.0
NL
12.6
12.8
34.2
17.9
22.6
NL
13.9
34.2
34.0
14.2
3.7
NL
10.5
23.0
27.4
33.4
5.7
NL
7.9
5.7
3.4
56.9
26.1
AT
52.5
32.3
7.4
4.2
3.5
AT
10.9
9.3
40.8
15.5
23.4
AT
10.5
30.7
42.2
10.4
6.1
AT
11.5
20.6
35.4
27.6
4.9
AT
13.7
6.7
22.0
26.5
31.1
PT
32.8
30.0
10.9
3.8
22.5
PT
7.1
32.0
32.2
13.5
15.2
PT
15.8
30.5
20.3
32.2
1.2
PT
31.5
26.9
23.0
14.3
4.3
PT
8.6
8.6
2.7
58.2
21.9
SE
80.5
8.1
4.6
4.0
2.8
SE
31.9
15.6
27.5
16.0
8.9
SE
6.2
24.4
58.0
8.6
2.9
SE
11.4
21.2
19.0
44.3
4.1
SE
14.4
10.2
9.7
37.5
28.2
UK
43.9
31.6
9.7
4.5
10.3
UK
7.4
21.6
37.4
19.2
14.4
UK
18.1
29.6
21.1
27.2
4.0
UK
19.5
32.7
22.4
18.1
7.3
UK
15.9
35.6
23.6
16.4
8.5
26.7
31.1
23.8
14.6
3.8
9.1
19.0
35.1
26.3
10.4
47.5
29.1
14.7
2.5
6.1
6.5
3.3
4.1
65.6
20.5
24.1
8.2
6.8
30.2
30.6
Country
CY
CZ
70.4
14.1
5.0
.4
10.1
Country
CY
CZ
6.1
17.8
36.4
7.6
32.1
Country
CY
CZ
10.5
19.8
42.5
25.4
1.7
Country
CY
CZ
29.9
27.7
16.5
15.9
9.9
Country
CY
CZ
16.7
13.6
13.0
29.2
27.4
EE
44.2
27.0
12.0
6.3
10.4
EE
15.5
18.2
35.9
15.0
15.4
EE
19.0
31.9
24.4
20.0
4.6
EE
19.9
31.4
20.4
18.5
9.9
EE
18.3
6.4
10.0
31.6
33.7
HU
54.6
26.0
10.3
4.5
4.6
HU
8.3
9.8
40.2
19.9
21.8
HU
19.4
36.2
26.7
13.8
3.8
HU
15.7
28.1
27.9
20.6
7.7
HU
12.2
4.6
10.3
48.0
24.9
LV
56.8
23.4
6.5
2.9
10.4
LV
10.2
16.6
36.1
12.2
24.8
LV
10.2
31.7
37.3
17.8
3.0
LV
17.5
31.2
22.3
21.2
7.8
LV
10.1
3.7
14.7
41.6
30.0
LT
49.4
26.8
3.7
4.4
15.7
LT
4.6
20.4
26.9
6.3
41.9
LT
5.7
23.6
38.4
29.2
3.2
LT
31.4
27.5
17.7
17.1
6.2
LT
10.7
3.1
38.7
23.6
23.8
MT
26.0
33.4
5.0
2.6
33.0
MT
6.8
48.3
29.3
6.7
8.9
MT
12.0
16.6
21.3
49.0
1.1
MT
45.6
18.7
15.2
16.2
4.2
MT
15.1
5.8
12.9
38.1
28.0
PL
46.5
27.9
6.7
5.3
13.5
PL
10.9
25.3
32.4
13.4
18.0
PL
10.9
30.7
30.7
25.7
2.0
PL
31.7
17.9
25.5
20.3
4.6
PL
22.8
6.9
5.9
30.2
34.2
SK
42.1
35.9
11.6
5.5
4.8
SK
8.9
9.4
45.9
22.5
13.3
SK
20.0
40.4
23.3
12.5
3.8
SK
14.4
29.6
33.1
16.4
6.4
SK
8.9
4.1
1.6
58.3
27.1
SI
64.5
20.1
6.3
5.9
3.2
SI
9.9
6.4
33.6
11.7
38.4
SI
15.3
27.3
46.4
7.6
3.4
SI
7.5
23.7
27.7
34.2
6.9
SI
13.1
6.1
23.9
28.6
28.2
BG
32.8
30.3
8.8
5.6
22.5
BG
5.2
25.8
34.6
8.3
26.2
BG
12.1
27.0
26.8
30.4
3.7
BG
39.1
26.6
12.7
13.5
8.0
BG
13.1
12.0
23.9
23.9
27.0
RO
34.2
21.9
9.1
9.7
25.1
RO
11.4
27.2
28.6
6.4
26.5
RO
11.9
21.9
29.9
32.7
3.5
RO
36.9
18.1
18.9
21.4
4.7
RO
11.3
13.4
26.0
32.4
17.0
TR
37.6
15.6
8.7
12.5
25.6
TR
13.6
30.3
18.9
12.8
24.4
TR
7.6
21.8
35.9
26.7
8.0
TR
32.0
11.5
20.1
24.0
12.4
TR
14.1
7.8
3.5
50.1
24.5
IS
61.3
24.9
6.7
2.6
4.5
IS
22.5
14.3
28.2
23.2
11.7
IS
20.0
30.1
35.8
12.4
1.7
IS
8.2
25.8
25.6
32.2
8.4
IS
6.1
9.3
8.1
54.7
21.9
HR
61.7
21.2
3.5
6.9
6.7
HR
17.0
16.2
30.6
10.7
25.5
HR
9.0
19.5
54.3
13.9
3.4
HR
16.1
20.1
18.1
39.2
6.6
HR
7.2
7.1
2.9
55.9
26.9
CH
68.4
22.1
2.6
4.7
2.2
CH
17.2
12.3
32.5
10.9
27.1
CH
8.2
26.7
51.3
11.3
2.6
CH
8.2
18.2
21.7
48.4
3.5
CH
12.6
17.1
4.3
36.3
29.7
NO
74.3
13.2
6.9
2.8
2.8
NO
10.1
14.9
35.4
14.4
25.3
NO
17.8
28.3
32.4
18.2
3.3
NO
13.2
33.7
17.3
25.4
10.4
NO
14.2
9.1
9.5
EU27
38.9
28.3
EU27
50.6
25.7
8.4
5.4
9.9
12.8
18.1
33.7
14.8
EU27
20.5
14.1
28.6
34.6
19.6
EU27
3.1
19.5
24.2
23.9
25.8
EU27
6.6
142
5.3
19.7
34.9
27.9
12.2
37.3
30.0
11.1
DK
5.3
16.3
BE
25.3
46.5
14.8
2.4
11.0
DE
24.0
54.5
6.1
4.1
11.3
GR
21.7
28.6
29.7
1.7
18.2
ES
36.3
37.7
8.9
4.1
12.9
FI
25.8
43.9
20.2
4.2
5.9
FR
19.3
25.9
43.5
1.1
10.1
IE
8.2
25.5
33.3
17.6
15.4
36.4
20.6
14.2
DK
5.1
23.7
BE
20.9
25.1
32.7
5.9
15.4
DE
11.5
31.4
40.0
4.3
12.7
GR
40.4
18.1
13.6
6.6
21.2
ES
12.0
35.4
27.3
4.7
20.5
FI
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
animalcloning_encour
7.2
2.4
14.5
33.8
42.1
BE
8.4
3.3
14.9
28.0
45.5
DK
7.4
2.5
8.0
22.1
60.0
DE
6.8
2.6
9.7
29.3
51.6
GR
25.4
4.3
19.1
19.3
31.8
ES
8.0
3.8
13.3
29.6
45.3
FI
Animal cloning in food production should be encouraged
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
animalcloning_environ
9.6
1.6
3.8
24.5
60.5
FR
27.7
22.5
33.3
3.7
12.8
FR
39.0
1.0
9.6
21.4
29.0
IE
51.7
19.2
16.3
1.2
11.7
IE
Animal cloning in food production does no harm to the environment
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
animalcloning_health
16.4
3.1
16.7
24.3
39.4
IT
24.5
22.7
27.5
4.8
20.5
IT
22.9
39.3
18.5
2.7
16.5
IT
10.4
3.5
6.4
25.9
53.8
LU
21.4
28.6
30.5
3.6
15.8
LU
23.7
42.9
12.7
5.6
15.1
LU
Animal cloning in food production is safe for your health and your family’s health
6.0
2.0
12.5
28.4
51.1
NL
19.5
28.0
25.2
6.3
21.0
NL
27.8
33.8
18.0
3.1
17.3
NL
7.1
3.1
10.0
26.9
52.9
AT
17.0
31.6
30.7
6.5
14.2
AT
23.1
53.9
7.3
3.7
12.0
AT
29.6
2.5
14.6
28.7
24.5
PT
41.6
22.3
15.2
2.2
18.7
PT
28.1
28.2
27.4
2.0
14.3
PT
4.3
1.2
8.4
18.5
67.6
SE
17.4
25.5
36.1
6.6
14.3
SE
22.8
45.0
13.8
7.2
11.2
SE
13.6
6.2
14.5
33.4
32.3
UK
32.1
24.5
15.8
5.3
22.2
UK
27.9
24.9
26.8
3.2
17.3
UK
29.5
26.3
16.8
3.0
24.5
18.0
24.5
11.5
6.5
39.5
19.7
.8
10.7
22.6
46.2
10.7
4.0
24.9
34.1
26.3
Country
CY
CZ
37.4
16.5
31.4
3.4
11.2
Country
CY
CZ
17.3
60.7
12.7
3.3
6.0
Country
CY
CZ
16.4
3.9
15.3
26.8
37.6
EE
25.5
25.0
18.4
8.1
22.9
EE
27.6
23.9
16.6
9.7
22.3
EE
9.5
3.8
20.7
26.0
40.1
HU
24.3
25.7
16.4
6.9
26.8
HU
26.1
33.8
15.9
5.0
19.1
HU
12.5
1.7
9.8
26.9
49.1
LV
23.5
25.4
27.5
4.2
19.4
LV
23.6
38.9
19.0
4.0
14.6
LV
23.3
2.5
6.5
22.9
44.7
LT
30.6
22.9
29.9
5.0
11.6
LT
25.2
42.7
23.4
2.5
6.2
LT
44.0
.3
11.8
14.2
29.7
MT
57.7
15.1
13.0
.5
13.6
MT
21.0
26.3
43.5
.3
9.0
MT
21.5
2.6
9.8
25.9
40.1
PL
33.5
21.7
26.4
5.4
13.0
PL
26.4
34.4
25.7
3.4
10.1
PL
11.0
3.6
19.0
38.0
28.4
SK
14.4
34.7
21.3
3.0
26.6
SK
37.5
29.3
11.3
3.4
18.6
SK
3.8
1.4
14.5
23.0
57.2
SI
13.3
25.2
34.9
8.9
17.7
SI
24.8
53.7
7.9
2.4
11.2
SI
28.5
3.7
11.2
22.8
33.8
BG
44.1
17.9
20.3
4.7
13.0
BG
20.8
31.3
33.0
3.6
11.2
BG
29.7
2.0
9.9
19.1
39.3
RO
42.0
16.0
24.5
4.4
13.0
RO
19.2
37.1
30.3
3.9
9.5
RO
30.9
5.4
7.3
21.9
34.5
TR
30.7
18.2
33.2
7.9
10.0
TR
18.4
40.9
27.9
4.4
8.3
TR
6.3
1.1
13.3
23.1
56.2
IS
15.5
31.2
30.8
2.8
19.8
IS
22.0
38.1
11.2
7.6
21.0
IS
12.7
1.9
4.8
16.1
64.6
HR
21.7
19.2
39.3
8.8
11.0
HR
14.6
63.8
11.4
4.5
5.7
HR
4.1
3.5
7.0
17.9
67.6
CH
19.4
22.8
39.7
5.2
12.9
CH
21.9
51.4
14.2
5.0
7.4
CH
7.9
4.2
11.5
25.2
51.1
NO
26.0
24.1
25.4
8.6
15.9
NO
27.7
33.8
16.6
6.5
15.4
NO
14.7
EU27
3.2
12.2
25.5
44.5
27.7
23.7
25.1
EU27
5.3
18.1
25.5
37.0
20.8
EU27
3.2
13.5
143
15.8
6.1
16.7
8.7
1.3
DK
3.6
22.0
26.5
38.7
9.2
DE
3.7
14.7
20.3
53.2
8.1
GR
5.9
9.6
11.1
57.4
16.0
ES
4.2
12.8
18.2
53.0
11.8
FI
5.8
7.8
15.7
59.1
11.7
FR
12.5
16.1
16.4
49.1
5.8
IE
6.8
10.4
18.3
48.5
16.0
IT
6.4
15.8
20.4
45.0
12.4
LU
2.2
10.0
14.3
63.0
10.5
NL
4.5
31.3
26.5
31.8
5.9
AT
9.9
10.2
16.4
58.1
5.4
PT
2.4
5.6
21.3
63.7
7.0
SE
5.4
10.0
9.0
60.9
14.6
UK
7.5
20.7
20.7
45.7
5.3
1.9
21.1
25.7
43.2
8.0
Country
CY
CZ
12.7
4.3
15.4
6.7
1.9
DK
2.5
66.2
14.3
DK
59.9
16.1
BE
Approve as long as
this is regulated by
strict laws
Do not approve
except under very
special
circumstances
Do not approve under
any circumstances
Fully approve and do
not think that special
laws are necessary
stemcell_nonembryon
4.5
13.2
22.7
46.7
12.9
DE
3.9
9.2
16.2
62.7
8.0
GR
6.1
6.8
8.8
59.8
18.6
ES
4.9
5.2
11.4
60.9
17.6
FI
6.5
7.7
11.9
59.1
14.8
FR
11.9
10.0
11.8
56.6
9.7
IE
5.8
8.1
17.5
52.1
16.5
IT
8.3
8.6
12.1
56.7
14.3
LU
2.5
3.9
9.7
68.6
15.2
NL
3.8
20.9
28.6
39.3
7.6
AT
12.7
6.9
16.6
57.0
6.8
PT
3.2
2.8
12.1
67.1
14.8
SE
6.3
5.9
7.0
63.3
17.4
UK
9.3
9.5
26.9
47.4
6.9
2.0
12.5
30.9
43.2
11.4
Country
CY
CZ
qb6a
Now suppose scientists were able to use stem cells from other cells in the body, rather than from embryos. Would you say that...?
2.5
62.8
12.7
DK
59.9
13.3
BE
Approve as long as
this is regulated by
strict laws
Do not approve
except under very
special
circumstances
Do not approve under
any circumstances
Fully approve and do
not think that special
laws are necessary
stemcell_embryonic
12.6
8.7
12.4
54.3
12.0
EE
11.1
10.6
11.2
57.5
9.5
EE
3.8
6.4
19.6
63.0
7.2
HU
3.3
11.0
18.7
56.4
10.5
HU
7.6
11.2
20.7
47.7
12.7
LV
7.4
14.4
22.0
45.7
10.5
LV
10.1
11.8
19.9
44.2
14.0
LT
10.5
16.4
18.6
43.0
11.5
LT
17.5
9.9
13.2
53.9
5.6
MT
15.0
24.4
12.1
43.0
5.5
MT
14.0
16.5
15.8
36.8
16.9
PL
12.7
21.2
16.7
36.5
12.9
PL
5.4
11.5
21.2
49.2
12.7
SK
3.7
23.2
25.4
38.6
9.2
SK
2.5
20.6
24.1
48.6
4.3
SI
3.7
24.9
23.7
45.5
2.1
SI
20.5
8.5
17.3
46.1
7.5
BG
18.7
9.4
21.0
42.1
8.7
BG
24.6
7.7
9.5
44.9
13.4
RO
19.9
10.0
10.5
47.2
12.4
RO
27.6
15.7
11.4
34.5
10.9
TR
26.9
18.9
12.0
31.2
11.0
TR
3.6
4.0
11.0
70.0
11.4
IS
1.7
5.5
16.9
66.5
9.4
IS
11.4
13.8
20.9
45.3
8.7
HR
10.1
18.7
22.8
39.8
8.6
HR
4.7
11.4
20.4
52.8
10.6
CH
4.2
16.4
24.7
47.4
7.3
CH
2.8
2.6
9.4
73.2
11.9
NO
2.5
7.9
17.2
64.2
8.2
NO
7.2
9.2
15.0
53.9
14.7
EU27
6.5
13.5
17.3
50.6
12.1
EU27
Split ballot A
qb5a
Let’s speak now about regenerative medicine which is a new field of medicine and clinical applications that focuses on the repairing, replacing or growing of cells, tissues, or organs.
Stem cell research involves taking cells from human embryos that are less than 2 weeks old. They will never be transplanted into a woman’s body but are used to grow new cells which then can be used to treat diseases in any part of
the body. Would you say that...?
144
8.7
12.4
1.5
18.2
13.8
2.6
60.2
11.4
DK
57.7
13.4
BE
4.3
24.0
24.7
39.9
7.1
DE
4.5
26.9
25.2
38.4
4.9
GR
7.2
14.2
11.8
52.0
14.7
ES
5.0
23.2
24.1
39.6
8.0
FI
5.5
14.3
16.0
52.6
11.6
FR
9.7
19.4
11.2
53.5
6.2
IE
6.6
13.9
21.2
43.0
15.3
IT
4.7
14.2
17.2
52.1
11.9
LU
2.4
12.8
18.3
58.8
7.6
NL
3.1
32.5
27.3
28.0
9.1
AT
11.4
11.5
17.1
53.1
6.8
PT
3.4
10.3
17.5
58.5
10.3
SE
5.4
16.9
12.5
52.5
12.7
UK
6.2
32.4
21.4
35.2
4.7
2.0
17.8
29.1
42.3
8.9
Country
CY
CZ
10.5
17.6
15.8
44.7
11.4
EE
3.3
13.5
19.5
54.3
9.5
HU
7.7
20.6
21.6
41.5
8.7
LV
10.0
22.3
19.8
35.8
12.0
LT
16.4
21.7
10.5
45.4
21.7
8.7
13.2
7.4
2.7
DK
4.9
21.1
30.7
38.5
4.8
DE
3.9
8.6
20.4
59.7
7.3
GR
7.4
5.4
9.9
62.3
15.0
ES
4.8
10.6
17.9
56.3
10.4
FI
7.2
6.8
14.8
57.0
14.2
FR
12.0
11.0
14.0
57.1
5.8
IE
5.2
7.9
17.0
56.0
13.9
IT
6.7
11.0
15.8
53.9
12.7
LU
2.8
7.9
17.2
64.3
7.8
NL
5.0
22.4
35.5
32.5
4.6
AT
10.5
6.4
15.3
60.1
7.7
PT
4.0
5.5
19.3
60.9
10.2
SE
8.5
7.4
10.6
58.0
15.5
UK
5.5
7.7
23.3
52.8
10.7
2.7
13.8
34.0
42.7
6.8
Country
CY
CZ
10.4
10.2
12.3
53.4
13.6
EE
4.3
7.4
20.8
59.0
8.6
HU
5.8
9.6
19.7
50.5
14.3
LV
10.1
18.3
21.4
38.7
11.5
LT
18.9
12.6
9.8
49.2
9.4
MT
15.0
17.1
16.4
37.7
13.8
PL
12.2
20.1
20.0
36.3
11.5
PL
3.4
13.2
22.4
50.3
10.6
SK
3.5
15.5
25.4
44.7
10.9
SK
2.9
23.6
23.7
47.3
2.4
SI
1.7
31.0
22.4
41.7
3.1
SI
17.2
9.6
18.2
48.0
7.1
BG
16.5
14.2
20.0
42.0
7.2
BG
20.2
7.3
12.4
46.5
13.6
RO
20.1
13.5
12.5
39.7
14.1
RO
24.7
14.0
12.2
39.0
10.1
TR
21.0
18.1
13.5
38.1
9.3
TR
3.1
4.6
22.8
61.6
8.0
IS
1.3
9.3
21.1
60.6
7.7
IS
9.9
14.6
21.4
44.4
9.7
HR
9.2
23.1
21.8
39.1
6.8
HR
6.3
18.4
25.9
42.6
6.9
CH
5.7
21.9
20.8
41.5
10.1
CH
2.3
5.4
17.2
66.5
8.5
NO
1.6
8.9
18.6
61.5
9.4
NO
DK
Approve as long as
this is regulated by
strict laws
Do not approve
except under very
special
circumstances
Do not approve under
any circumstances
Fully approve and do
not think that special
laws are necessary
regenerative_medicine
18.9
16.5
4.0
26.2
21.2
2.5
42.6
8.3
DK
48.5
11.3
BE
4.8
26.0
29.5
34.2
5.4
DE
4.7
11.4
21.4
55.0
7.4
GR
7.9
11.3
9.2
54.3
17.3
ES
4.6
21.0
22.4
43.4
8.6
FI
6.1
19.3
21.0
42.8
10.8
FR
13.7
12.6
15.5
53.6
4.6
IE
6.9
15.6
18.1
45.8
13.5
IT
6.7
25.1
15.4
39.5
13.4
LU
1.9
18.8
29.2
43.8
6.4
NL
3.6
29.7
27.7
32.6
6.4
AT
10.3
8.8
13.3
57.8
9.8
PT
4.3
13.9
25.6
44.4
11.9
SE
6.7
14.5
14.9
50.2
13.7
UK
5.0
8.5
28.4
50.0
8.1
2.1
18.8
31.0
36.2
11.9
Country
CY
CZ
11.7
8.8
15.0
47.7
16.9
EE
3.4
23.5
20.1
47.6
5.4
HU
8.4
11.9
15.4
47.9
16.4
LV
10.2
13.0
15.5
41.9
19.3
LT
19.1
16.0
12.5
47.2
5.2
MT
15.4
15.6
16.1
38.5
14.3
PL
2.9
13.2
22.9
47.9
13.1
SK
2.2
27.9
16.9
47.9
5.2
SI
18.6
11.0
18.0
42.9
9.5
BG
19.6
9.6
11.7
45.2
13.8
RO
24.5
13.6
11.5
39.5
10.9
TR
1.2
11.4
26.4
50.3
10.8
IS
9.6
14.6
21.8
43.2
10.7
HR
4.8
35.2
25.8
27.4
6.8
CH
3.1
17.4
21.2
50.4
8.0
NO
7.4
17.2
19.7
44.4
11.3
EU27
7.5
10.8
18.1
52.1
11.4
EU27
6.7
17.2
18.5
46.5
11.2
EU27
qb9a
Regenerative medicine is not only about developing cures for people who are ill. It is also looking into ways of enhancing the performance of healthy people, for example to improve concentration or to increase memory. Would you
2.4
57.3
9.9
DK
63.0
13.6
BE
Approve as long as
this is regulated by
strict laws
Do not approve
except under very
special
circumstances
Do not approve under
any circumstances
Fully approve and do
not think that special
laws are necessary
gene_therapy
6.0
MT
qb8a
Scientists also work on gene therapy which involves treating inherited diseases by intervening directly in the human genes themselves. Would you say that...?
DK
Approve as long as
this is regulated by
strict laws
Do not approve
except under very
special
circumstances
Do not approve under
any circumstances
Fully approve and do
not think that special
laws are necessary
xeno_organs
qb7a
Scientists can put human genes into animals that will produce organs and tissues for transplant into humans, such as pigs for transplants or to replace pancreatic cells to cure diabetes. Would you say that...?
145
3.9
33.0
24.5
14.0
24.5
DK
6.5
31.0
13.6
23.7
25.2
DE
7.1
31.8
7.6
23.6
29.9
GR
10.5
30.2
27.8
10.3
21.2
ES
7.8
42.9
15.5
11.9
21.9
FI
9.3
37.7
20.7
13.2
19.2
FR
20.9
31.5
14.3
14.9
18.4
IE
IT
12.4
32.8
16.8
12.3
25.7
8.0
26.4
11.6
19.2
34.8
LU
3.6
42.2
20.5
15.4
18.4
NL
7.3
25.5
7.0
25.3
34.9
AT
18.3
32.0
10.1
8.6
31.0
PT
5.6
32.1
34.5
7.8
20.1
SE
8.6
40.7
24.0
10.1
16.7
UK
18.4
30.8
10.1
24.0
16.7
14.9
28.3
29.6
23.1
4.1
28.2
40.7
15.8
3.6
DK
11.6
BE
11.9
7.7
27.6
28.2
24.5
DE
5.3
7.4
31.0
26.4
29.8
GR
24.2
11.0
20.5
32.3
12.0
ES
FI
13.1
7.5
27.5
34.6
17.3
17.0
11.1
28.7
32.7
10.4
FR
11.1
20.9
24.0
27.7
16.3
IE
IT
17.9
11.4
28.0
30.0
12.7
7.2
8.9
32.5
29.8
21.6
LU
20.5
3.2
20.7
38.0
17.6
NL
6.6
6.6
34.9
24.8
27.1
AT
10.0
18.3
30.1
32.0
9.6
PT
33.0
3.0
24.2
28.4
11.4
SE
22.6
9.1
20.0
36.1
12.3
UK
4.9
11.6
30.7
16.1
36.7
11.1
7.5
28.3
37.6
15.4
Country
CY
CZ
11.4
20.4
26.1
29.2
13.0
EE
21.9
31.7
13.7
12.1
20.5
EE
10.6
5.7
31.4
34.1
18.2
HU
12.3
5.4
12.0
4.8
24.7
8.1
28.1
27.4
11.7
DE
23.6
7.4
30.0
28.2
10.9
GR
12.5
11.2
43.3
13.4
19.6
ES
10.6
6.5
41.9
25.1
15.9
FI
11.8
11.9
39.8
25.5
11.0
FR
14.2
21.5
30.4
22.0
11.8
IE
14.3
13.0
35.6
22.1
14.9
IT
21.8
9.2
29.5
30.2
9.2
LU
23.6
4.3
32.9
26.8
12.4
NL
27.1
8.0
30.9
27.1
7.0
AT
8.8
19.7
41.8
20.9
8.7
PT
15.2
3.3
35.8
25.6
20.2
SE
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
science_vs_ethics
13.3
31.6
30.6
18.5
6.0
12.4
6.0
DK
13.9
35.9
31.8
BE
16.8
8.5
12.8
29.4
32.5
DE
17.3
11.9
9.6
30.1
31.1
GR
10.7
16.8
20.9
34.3
17.3
ES
19.3
9.4
6.8
32.5
31.9
FI
18.4
15.7
9.9
29.9
26.2
FR
12.0
37.9
4.2
21.2
24.7
IE
13.8
16.6
11.7
37.3
20.6
IT
13.4
12.2
7.8
33.6
32.9
LU
27.7
6.4
5.4
22.0
38.5
NL
14.3
11.9
7.3
33.0
33.6
AT
6.1
24.4
8.6
37.5
23.5
PT
18.0
6.1
15.7
33.4
26.9
SE
Should ethical and scientific viewpoints on regenerative medicine differ, the scientific viewpoint should prevail
DK
34.0
27.2
41.6
29.6
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
21.0
DK
12.0
BE
Totally agree
duty_embryo_research
11.7
22.9
10.4
30.4
24.7
UK
11.9
9.9
42.5
17.5
18.2
UK
13.5
8.3
44.7
21.5
12.0
20.3
11.3
13.4
28.2
26.8
7.0
8.1
13.8
49.5
21.6
Country
CY
CZ
22.8
16.5
32.4
18.5
9.8
Country
CY
CZ
6.4
21.8
16.1
35.2
20.5
EE
11.8
22.6
35.2
18.1
12.2
EE
7.2
35.6
15.0
15.6
26.5
HU
7.0
11.0
14.9
43.3
23.8
HU
16.7
7.9
40.4
24.8
10.2
HU
We have a duty to allow research that might lead to important new treatments, even when it involves the creation or use of human embryos
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
ethics_embryo_resear
6.8
46.1
16.2
12.0
19.0
Country
CY
CZ
It is ethically wrong to use human embryos in medical research even if it might offer promising new medical treatments
5.4
43.2
18.4
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
8.2
24.7
BE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
forbid_embryo_researc
Research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if this means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people
qb10a
Now I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with each of the following issues regarding regenerative medicine.
12.8
14.7
12.9
38.8
20.9
LV
23.8
13.3
28.1
27.2
7.7
LV
9.2
10.0
31.1
26.5
23.2
LV
11.0
31.9
12.1
19.2
25.8
LV
11.9
18.9
16.0
33.8
19.4
LT
19.7
21.4
29.3
18.7
11.0
LT
10.4
17.5
26.4
25.8
19.8
LT
18.5
35.0
14.3
15.2
17.0
LT
23.4
30.3
5.8
17.9
22.6
MT
28.2
22.2
22.9
22.9
3.8
MT
8.8
20.2
29.6
22.7
18.7
MT
21.5
29.4
11.9
15.2
22.0
MT
11.4
18.0
14.9
34.8
21.0
PL
12.5
21.0
29.8
23.5
13.1
PL
10.6
17.0
30.5
25.6
16.4
PL
13.9
31.7
12.8
14.9
26.7
PL
11.5
10.4
8.4
34.1
35.6
SK
17.7
7.9
37.4
29.9
7.2
SK
5.3
6.5
37.6
27.5
23.1
SK
7.5
33.8
9.4
18.3
30.9
SK
21.4
9.7
15.7
29.7
23.5
SI
25.7
4.2
29.9
27.5
12.8
SI
9.9
4.6
30.1
23.2
32.1
SI
5.7
25.9
14.9
24.9
28.6
SI
11.0
24.8
10.9
29.0
24.3
BG
13.6
23.4
33.7
18.5
10.8
BG
6.9
25.5
28.7
22.4
16.5
BG
27.2
26.9
12.3
14.5
19.1
BG
8.6
33.3
7.2
30.5
20.5
RO
12.3
23.1
34.5
20.8
9.3
RO
14.3
22.5
27.0
21.6
14.5
RO
26.0
25.4
13.1
15.3
20.3
RO
12.2
25.7
23.2
20.3
18.7
TR
18.5
21.9
21.9
22.6
15.2
TR
9.4
19.1
22.3
18.8
30.3
TR
20.3
24.3
13.2
23.9
18.3
TR
17.2
4.3
5.1
33.8
39.6
IS
7.6
3.9
45.4
21.5
21.6
IS
22.8
2.9
21.4
43.3
9.6
IS
4.6
45.6
25.0
5.8
18.9
IS
17.2
16.1
8.4
34.9
23.3
HR
27.0
12.1
30.5
22.3
8.1
HR
12.5
12.3
23.5
27.4
24.3
HR
15.0
28.5
14.5
24.2
17.8
HR
26.8
15.2
7.3
26.5
24.2
CH
25.3
8.7
28.0
26.1
12.0
CH
17.2
8.2
28.4
25.5
20.6
CH
10.3
29.7
19.0
18.7
22.3
CH
18.1
9.0
12.0
33.1
27.8
NO
15.5
5.2
38.7
18.8
21.7
NO
28.3
3.1
20.5
34.1
14.0
NO
6.1
36.3
32.2
9.0
16.4
NO
14.0
15.8
EU27
12.2
32.6
25.4
15.7
11.7
36.2
22.7
EU27
13.7
16.2
10.7
26.5
30.7
EU27
15.9
10.4
34.1
18.1
EU27
14.7
22.7
146
Totally disagree
DK
14.6
3.7
22.0
26.3
33.4
DK
8.9
7.2
28.7
27.0
28.1
DE
6.4
8.2
34.7
32.7
18.1
GR
14.8
11.5
20.9
28.4
24.4
ES
FI
8.2
6.5
32.5
25.5
27.3
13.4
10.3
27.5
25.2
23.5
FR
8.3
21.7
25.2
23.3
21.6
IE
IT
12.6
9.9
28.5
25.9
23.0
7.4
8.7
29.4
31.5
23.0
LU
9.3
6.9
26.7
20.9
36.3
NL
63.0
21.3
6.4
6.1
3.2
14.2
7.1
2.0
DK
50.0
26.7
BE
6.8
11.8
4.7
63.9
12.8
DE
10.8
2.0
5.1
57.0
25.0
GR
8.5
6.4
6.7
56.8
21.5
ES
10.1
3.4
5.8
55.2
25.5
FI
6.0
6.9
8.1
50.7
28.3
FR
12.8
9.2
23.3
29.1
25.6
IE
15.8
8.6
7.4
40.3
27.9
IT
10.3
10.7
5.9
50.8
22.3
LU
7.5
6.5
1.6
70.0
14.3
NL
13.4
3.7
2.9
50.2
29.8
AT
4.7
7.1
34.4
30.6
23.2
AT
25.6
23.0
24.2
21.2
6.0
25.6
10.0
3.1
DK
29.4
31.9
BE
5.8
19.7
8.5
42.7
23.4
DE
9.0
9.0
2.5
47.2
32.4
GR
12.5
20.4
18.2
21.4
27.5
ES
10.1
27.8
15.9
23.9
22.3
FI
8.8
17.8
14.0
30.3
29.1
FR
24.8
14.3
5.2
24.1
31.5
IE
11.2
21.3
13.6
24.7
29.3
IT
10.4
20.8
10.7
29.0
29.2
LU
2.1
27.2
17.9
30.1
22.7
NL
5.0
20.2
4.9
36.4
33.5
AT
17.4
17.8
5.5
18.6
40.7
PT
17.8
3.1
15.9
36.5
26.7
PT
7.2
20.3
15.8
33.1
23.6
PT
4.4
13.8
39.4
27.2
15.2
BE
5.0
18.6
34.4
25.5
16.6
DK
7.5
11.7
26.9
26.3
27.5
DE
7.1
7.4
29.3
31.7
24.6
GR
8.7
10.8
35.3
19.5
25.6
ES
8.5
8.3
35.7
26.9
20.5
FI
10.7
12.8
37.5
21.2
17.8
FR
30.8
7.2
30.0
20.0
12.1
IE
10.7
9.0
27.5
30.7
22.1
IT
9.1
5.7
33.8
23.5
27.9
LU
6.1
13.1
39.1
26.8
15.0
NL
7.0
10.3
30.5
23.4
28.9
AT
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
risks_regen_medicine
6.9
24.7
35.7
25.9
6.8
18.6
5.4
DK
6.9
31.5
37.6
BE
39.9
9.1
3.6
16.0
31.5
DE
41.1
6.2
3.2
14.6
35.0
GR
34.7
12.5
5.8
22.4
24.7
ES
29.2
7.4
6.4
31.1
25.8
FI
24.3
13.8
4.1
22.0
35.9
FR
22.2
33.0
3.3
16.6
24.9
IE
24.8
12.9
6.5
26.2
29.7
IT
28.1
11.0
5.6
21.5
33.8
LU
18.8
7.5
4.4
32.6
36.7
NL
42.0
4.5
6.6
16.3
30.7
AT
Research into regenerative medicine should go ahead, even if there are risks to future generations
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
benefits_regen_medic
20.1
22.0
3.3
27.7
26.9
PT
19.1
7.5
32.9
23.4
17.1
PT
Research on regenerative medicine should be supported, even though it will benefit only a few people
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
embryo_humanbeing
Immediately after fertilisation the human embryo can already be considered to be a human being
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
inequality_regen_med
You do not support developments in regenerative medicine if it only benefits rich people
11.6
4.0
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
BE
22.8
26.6
35.0
Totally agree
mix_genes
Mixing animal and human genes is unacceptable even if it helps medical research for human health
34.7
5.9
5.9
22.9
30.7
SE
5.9
14.6
30.5
22.3
26.7
SE
5.7
23.6
35.6
14.0
21.1
SE
6.1
11.0
3.7
69.4
9.7
SE
18.3
4.2
22.5
24.3
30.7
SE
18.3
15.9
6.1
24.2
35.4
UK
12.8
15.2
37.5
25.1
9.3
UK
12.8
27.0
15.2
19.9
25.1
UK
11.0
11.7
7.5
47.3
22.5
UK
12.1
9.0
25.6
25.1
28.2
UK
5.9
8.6
25.7
28.3
31.6
12.5
2.8
4.8
52.3
27.7
4.5
34.2
13.0
21.2
27.0
8.6
4.2
33.8
33.3
20.2
35.1
12.6
5.1
18.9
28.3
12.2
9.9
5.0
42.3
30.6
Country
CY
CZ
13.7
8.4
32.7
21.1
24.1
Country
CY
CZ
7.3
7.8
.8
71.4
12.6
Country
CY
CZ
4.0
4.1
7.5
75.8
8.6
Country
CY
CZ
7.7
9.7
48.7
17.5
16.4
Country
CY
CZ
43.2
15.6
3.6
14.8
22.9
EE
17.3
10.5
31.7
22.9
17.7
EE
19.2
20.2
10.4
26.8
23.4
EE
10.2
8.4
14.3
43.2
23.9
EE
8.5
15.2
28.0
26.7
21.6
EE
14.7
10.1
9.2
40.8
25.2
HU
7.1
9.3
35.3
24.3
24.0
HU
4.1
19.5
6.1
41.9
28.4
HU
10.6
4.6
2.9
55.1
26.8
HU
7.7
8.0
28.2
28.8
27.3
HU
41.3
10.7
5.0
8.9
34.0
LV
11.9
7.7
32.1
27.3
21.1
LV
9.8
18.3
7.4
42.7
21.8
LV
18.5
10.5
9.2
35.2
26.6
LV
11.0
9.8
33.8
24.7
20.7
LV
37.5
15.0
4.6
12.5
30.3
LT
16.5
12.7
34.5
22.7
13.5
LT
13.1
18.6
10.9
34.8
22.7
LT
11.3
7.6
12.7
42.3
26.1
LT
12.4
12.7
33.8
22.6
18.5
LT
35.0
20.1
1.9
13.4
29.6
MT
19.4
12.9
19.6
24.4
23.7
MT
18.2
4.6
5.1
39.2
32.9
MT
10.2
14.3
15.1
30.6
29.7
MT
14.7
22.2
19.5
26.1
17.4
MT
20.6
19.6
7.6
24.1
28.2
PL
21.5
12.6
32.0
22.2
11.7
PL
16.7
19.1
10.4
27.1
26.6
PL
8.9
5.2
12.9
43.5
29.5
PL
8.4
15.4
35.6
26.6
14.0
PL
13.8
9.8
5.3
35.7
35.4
SK
6.5
4.7
35.6
32.6
20.5
SK
6.6
21.6
5.4
34.2
32.2
SK
14.6
4.5
5.2
43.5
32.1
SK
5.0
7.9
26.5
33.6
27.0
SK
35.7
6.1
6.5
21.0
30.8
SI
4.1
13.9
24.9
23.6
33.6
SI
3.5
18.0
10.8
43.6
24.1
SI
5.9
7.8
2.3
68.5
15.6
SI
13.9
4.3
36.6
26.4
18.8
SI
28.9
21.4
1.9
14.4
33.4
BG
25.9
4.7
25.7
24.5
19.1
BG
27.8
16.3
6.7
21.8
27.4
BG
11.1
5.7
16.4
40.5
26.3
BG
7.5
21.5
20.2
24.3
26.4
BG
27.5
26.2
4.9
15.4
25.9
RO
24.4
6.3
22.8
24.7
21.9
RO
26.8
13.0
7.0
26.3
26.9
RO
15.8
11.7
21.2
27.7
23.6
RO
10.9
28.6
21.2
21.5
17.8
RO
25.5
23.1
14.3
18.0
19.1
TR
22.4
18.1
17.8
17.0
24.7
TR
20.6
13.0
12.1
39.0
15.3
TR
9.6
11.9
21.3
41.6
15.7
TR
12.7
20.0
36.3
17.2
13.9
TR
17.1
5.3
2.9
34.2
40.5
IS
2.7
9.5
59.7
17.7
10.3
IS
1.7
36.7
20.0
17.7
23.9
IS
12.3
6.4
1.2
62.5
17.7
IS
11.4
2.8
26.5
28.3
31.0
IS
40.5
16.3
3.7
12.0
27.6
HR
14.4
8.0
17.9
20.7
39.1
HR
13.4
15.1
11.0
37.9
22.5
HR
8.4
7.1
10.1
58.5
16.0
HR
10.1
14.2
37.0
22.4
16.3
HR
42.9
9.4
5.3
12.3
30.2
CH
7.9
11.7
24.4
29.6
26.3
CH
8.7
15.5
12.6
37.9
25.3
CH
9.1
9.5
4.6
57.0
19.8
CH
11.0
9.9
33.8
26.0
19.3
CH
32.0
8.6
6.1
19.3
34.1
NO
5.5
13.4
32.7
21.9
26.5
NO
6.3
23.5
34.7
17.0
18.4
NO
7.7
9.2
4.0
68.9
10.3
NO
13.7
5.8
25.2
25.3
29.9
NO
27.3
13.3
EU27
5.3
23.0
31.2
11.6
EU27
11.2
32.2
25.1
19.9
10.9
20.9
12.5
EU27
28.8
27.0
10.2
8.2
7.8
EU27
50.8
23.0
11.0
10.7
EU27
27.0
26.3
25.0
147
23.1
16.6
4.2
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
21.2
25.9
5.2
15.2
32.5
DK
24.8
26.3
9.6
14.7
24.6
DE
29.2
36.9
5.4
7.9
20.6
GR
22.0
18.2
11.5
16.6
31.7
ES
FI
25.1
19.5
5.6
15.1
34.7
35.5
19.1
8.7
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
33.0
21.9
10.4
7.0
27.7
DK
18.8
31.1
30.9
8.9
10.2
30.7
36.6
10.7
10.4
DK
11.6
BE
DK
54.9
30.1
7.7
4.3
2.9
BE
36.2
39.5
16.0
5.5
2.8
Totally agree
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
transapple_unnatural
It is fundamentally unnatural
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
transapple_environme
It will harm the environment
8.1
28.6
BE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
transapple_safe
7.5
5.2
31.3
15.2
40.9
DE
12.7
15.0
26.6
25.4
20.2
DE
30.0
27.2
13.9
7.7
21.2
DE
3.3
3.4
29.6
7.4
56.3
GR
5.6
8.5
36.2
15.0
34.7
GR
31.6
44.8
6.5
4.4
12.7
GR
7.9
6.3
32.6
13.6
39.6
ES
10.6
24.9
27.5
22.2
14.8
ES
25.8
21.3
21.1
7.6
24.2
ES
4.9
2.4
31.6
19.8
41.3
FI
8.3
10.4
34.3
27.9
19.1
FI
32.2
22.7
10.1
8.5
26.5
FI
Eating apples produced using this technique will be safe
14.9
41.2
BE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
transapple_promising
It is a promising idea
3.1
7.1
28.5
7.0
54.2
FR
7.1
22.8
29.1
18.2
22.8
FR
29.9
30.3
23.8
3.6
12.4
FR
18.6
27.3
11.6
10.8
31.7
FR
5.4
25.2
32.5
12.1
24.7
IE
7.9
37.9
22.4
20.0
11.8
IE
18.6
18.3
39.0
3.1
21.1
IE
18.8
16.8
23.4
6.0
35.1
IE
8.9
9.5
32.4
18.9
30.2
IT
12.6
25.4
21.7
26.9
13.3
IT
25.1
22.3
18.6
5.8
28.2
IT
24.6
18.5
17.1
7.4
32.4
IT
3.4
4.7
34.2
7.0
50.7
LU
4.7
16.1
33.5
17.9
27.8
LU
30.8
34.5
16.6
3.0
15.1
LU
27.2
27.0
7.9
7.3
30.6
LU
6.6
3.8
26.0
15.5
48.0
NL
12.8
14.9
23.1
36.7
12.4
NL
21.7
17.4
19.9
10.5
30.5
NL
14.8
20.3
5.9
21.4
37.5
NL
4.0
7.0
35.8
15.8
37.5
AT
6.9
16.1
33.2
22.2
21.6
AT
35.0
24.3
15.8
7.1
17.8
AT
28.5
22.3
11.6
7.2
30.4
AT
5.6
13.7
36.9
14.7
29.0
PT
9.7
27.9
29.4
22.6
10.3
PT
29.3
16.7
22.1
3.4
28.4
PT
23.5
16.8
13.5
5.7
40.5
PT
4.7
3.9
15.7
8.3
67.4
SE
7.4
14.7
33.8
18.9
25.1
SE
29.7
27.0
14.3
9.6
19.4
SE
20.6
30.2
4.7
16.3
28.2
SE
5.6
8.7
34.5
15.0
36.2
UK
10.1
23.2
27.3
26.0
13.5
UK
23.2
15.8
26.2
7.9
26.9
UK
18.4
20.7
9.3
14.6
37.1
UK
26.8
16.3
7.9
12.6
36.5
26.8
16.8
14.1
9.7
32.6
11.5
14.5
24.5
39.7
9.8
.8
9.9
19.7
8.9
60.7
4.3
3.7
34.9
19.6
37.5
Country
CY
CZ
5.3
38.2
19.1
13.7
23.7
Country
CY
CZ
24.3
31.7
30.1
3.9
9.9
Country
CY
CZ
20.8
22.9
26.0
7.8
22.5
Country
CY
CZ
4.8
13.6
32.0
15.1
34.5
EE
9.6
19.3
30.3
26.4
14.5
EE
31.6
23.2
17.9
4.3
23.1
EE
23.2
23.8
13.1
9.6
30.3
EE
7.0
2.9
33.0
17.8
39.2
HU
16.3
16.0
27.2
32.7
7.7
HU
29.3
20.0
12.7
8.0
29.9
HU
29.1
18.7
4.0
12.2
36.1
HU
4.0
8.4
27.5
10.2
49.9
LV
8.1
15.2
27.3
26.1
23.4
LV
33.1
34.7
11.1
3.5
17.6
LV
24.8
29.0
10.9
9.7
25.7
LV
6.3
12.0
33.9
8.7
39.1
LT
11.7
23.4
22.6
22.6
19.7
LT
23.9
29.6
20.4
5.5
20.5
LT
19.3
22.6
18.1
11.4
28.6
LT
9.1
16.6
39.6
13.1
21.5
MT
8.9
43.1
23.1
19.3
5.6
MT
20.9
19.7
37.9
3.9
17.5
MT
14.1
17.4
23.0
11.7
33.7
MT
2.7
10.8
42.1
13.4
31.0
PL
6.1
27.9
26.0
25.4
14.5
PL
25.8
17.8
28.4
5.1
22.9
PL
25.5
14.8
18.1
9.5
32.1
PL
6.1
3.2
47.0
13.6
30.1
SK
8.9
11.7
35.7
33.3
10.3
SK
34.0
19.7
13.0
7.1
26.1
SK
28.9
18.9
5.0
12.1
35.1
SK
2.7
3.3
29.2
8.2
56.6
SI
4.8
9.6
33.3
20.2
32.2
SI
32.0
36.8
10.7
3.9
16.6
SI
28.2
33.5
3.7
7.8
26.8
SI
6.6
24.7
33.4
12.5
22.7
BG
8.6
37.2
27.3
16.0
11.0
BG
23.8
24.7
30.6
5.4
15.6
BG
20.2
16.4
28.6
9.4
25.5
BG
8.0
29.6
27.1
15.5
19.8
RO
10.9
35.4
22.2
19.6
12.0
RO
22.8
22.2
32.0
6.6
16.4
RO
20.3
18.1
24.1
10.8
26.7
RO
10.1
30.9
16.2
10.0
32.8
TR
11.5
32.8
16.9
14.4
24.4
TR
16.4
29.9
31.2
8.5
14.0
TR
13.5
26.3
28.8
13.9
17.6
TR
3.9
5.3
36.1
22.8
32.0
IS
8.4
12.9
27.4
40.7
10.7
IS
24.5
12.7
14.7
6.6
41.4
IS
23.2
17.9
4.3
14.3
40.3
IS
7.0
5.4
29.5
9.3
48.8
HR
13.1
13.9
27.0
17.0
29.1
HR
24.2
41.5
11.3
6.4
16.6
HR
19.7
41.0
8.2
11.6
19.5
HR
7.6
3.3
27.6
10.7
50.8
CH
10.8
19.3
32.6
19.4
17.9
CH
29.9
30.2
19.8
6.7
13.4
CH
27.9
28.1
9.4
10.3
24.3
CH
6.6
4.3
19.1
12.0
58.0
NO
15.4
21.8
24.2
21.4
17.2
NO
22.1
16.0
18.6
17.6
25.7
NO
17.7
22.0
6.3
22.6
31.4
NO
6.0
8.5
32.5
14.0
EU27
38.9
10.2
21.7
26.9
24.8
EU27
16.5
27.2
23.0
20.4
EU27
6.6
22.7
22.5
21.5
12.1
EU27
12.3
31.5
Split ballot B
Some European researchers think there are new ways of controlling common diseases in apples– things like scab and mildew. There are two new ways of doing this. Both mean that the apples could be grown with limited use of
pesticides, and so pesticide residues on the apples would be minimal.
qb8b
The first way is to artificially introduce a resistance gene from another species such as a bacterium or animal into an apple tree to make it resistant to mildew and scab. For each of the following statements about this new technique
please tell me if you agree or disagree.
148
28.7
7.3
33.5
10.9
21.0
26.5
8.2
DK
4.7
17.4
8.0
39.6
30.2
DK
40.6
6.5
15.9
28.4
8.6
DE
3.5
15.7
10.1
41.3
29.4
DE
47.8
5.5
13.1
30.2
3.5
GR
2.2
9.4
3.3
53.2
31.8
GR
30.7
16.1
23.6
21.9
7.8
ES
4.5
25.1
16.7
20.6
33.2
ES
26.2
7.9
21.2
33.3
11.4
FI
2.1
24.0
13.8
27.4
32.7
FI
39.4
14.4
19.3
22.5
4.4
FR
6.7
20.7
17.1
28.3
27.1
FR
DK
These apples would
be like GM food and
should be clearly
identified with a
special label
These apples would
be the same as
ordinary apples and
would not need
special labelling
transapple_label
4.2
84.1
11.7
BE
2.4
89.1
8.5
DK
3.6
87.6
8.8
DE
2.0
92.6
5.4
GR
4.7
84.9
10.5
ES
1.8
89.2
9.1
FI
7.1
85.9
7.0
FR
qb9b
And which of the following statements is closest to your view?
28.9
29.4
Totally disagree
DK
5.6
BE
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
transapple_encourage
It should be encouraged
4.4
28.4
12.7
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
21.7
32.8
BE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
transapple_uneasy
It makes you feel uneasy
23.7
69.2
7.1
IE
25.3
35.5
20.0
15.8
3.4
IE
24.7
17.0
6.4
23.1
28.9
IE
12.0
75.4
12.6
IT
22.3
20.2
24.5
27.6
5.4
IT
12.7
28.2
12.5
20.2
26.4
IT
1.7
87.6
10.6
LU
52.7
8.6
9.5
23.6
5.6
LU
6.2
15.0
9.5
37.9
31.4
LU
2.3
83.5
14.2
NL
31.9
5.7
29.2
25.3
7.8
NL
2.1
27.9
16.5
33.3
20.2
NL
9.0
77.8
13.2
AT
35.1
13.2
17.8
27.8
6.1
AT
5.6
14.2
4.9
36.7
38.6
AT
12.6
72.2
15.1
PT
21.1
22.0
26.3
27.2
3.4
PT
13.5
21.6
8.7
21.9
34.3
PT
2.6
89.5
8.0
SE
47.0
6.2
18.5
21.9
6.4
SE
3.4
17.6
20.3
33.1
25.7
SE
4.6
87.3
8.1
UK
25.4
11.8
25.2
27.9
9.8
UK
7.3
22.7
11.5
29.2
29.3
UK
6.8
29.9
11.4
18.9
33.1
20.1
10.6
31.3
29.9
8.1
3.3
95.9
.8
3.6
86.1
10.3
Country
CY
CZ
33.0
26.9
13.4
22.2
4.4
Country
CY
CZ
6.8
10.6
2.5
48.9
31.3
Country
CY
CZ
11.7
78.4
9.9
EE
29.7
15.8
17.3
31.4
5.8
EE
12.5
18.5
17.3
26.5
25.2
EE
3.1
82.4
14.5
HU
28.9
8.9
28.6
24.9
8.7
HU
6.5
25.7
13.7
23.8
30.4
HU
2.6
90.4
7.0
LV
41.0
10.6
17.4
26.9
4.2
LV
8.5
19.2
6.8
39.0
26.5
LV
8.0
79.5
12.5
LT
33.4
20.3
15.7
25.1
5.4
LT
13.4
15.9
11.3
31.4
27.9
LT
6.3
91.7
2.0
MT
24.1
31.5
19.7
18.7
5.9
MT
24.3
12.8
7.4
21.0
34.4
MT
8.4
81.2
10.4
PL
23.4
22.9
22.4
24.5
6.8
PL
9.8
23.4
6.0
24.4
36.5
PL
3.4
87.1
9.5
SK
23.1
6.4
29.6
34.6
6.3
SK
2.6
30.3
9.6
21.3
36.2
SK
2.5
93.8
3.7
SI
44.0
7.1
16.6
28.1
4.3
SI
2.3
16.4
4.6
47.4
29.2
SI
15.9
76.2
7.9
BG
26.7
30.5
16.4
22.2
4.3
BG
27.9
16.8
8.7
18.3
28.4
BG
19.1
70.6
10.3
RO
30.3
32.4
15.7
16.6
5.0
RO
27.9
18.6
11.9
16.0
25.6
RO
32.6
61.0
6.4
TR
30.6
34.7
11.3
15.5
8.0
TR
32.2
12.4
10.3
30.5
14.6
TR
1.3
88.7
10.0
IS
27.4
5.0
31.5
31.6
4.5
IS
.9
37.3
15.8
20.7
25.3
IS
11.9
81.5
6.7
HR
49.0
13.0
14.4
17.8
5.9
HR
6.2
12.0
10.7
41.8
29.4
HR
5.1
84.8
10.1
CH
44.9
8.4
16.0
25.4
5.4
CH
4.0
13.3
14.0
37.7
31.0
CH
3.5
85.2
11.4
NO
32.4
11.0
21.8
22.0
12.7
NO
4.7
18.4
25.0
27.2
24.6
NO
6.9
83.3
9.8
EU27
31.2
14.6
21.6
25.7
EU27
6.9
8.2
21.9
12.0
EU27
28.2
29.7
149
44.4
13.0
6.7
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
37.7
16.8
8.1
9.4
28.0
7.3
9.3
6.9
20.5
41.5
21.9
8.6
DK
24.8
44.8
14.5
BE
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
Totally agree
cisapple_unnatural
DK
35.7
31.8
17.4
11.5
3.6
BE
22.8
37.8
27.0
9.1
3.2
It is fundamentally unnatural
DK
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Totally agree
Tend to agree
cisapple_environment
It will harm the environment
9.5
26.3
DK
11.3
8.1
4.7
14.4
11.5
3.0
BE
31.5
44.5
DK
22.7
48.3
BE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
cisapple_risky
It will be risky
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
cisapple_useful
16.7
7.1
21.4
25.5
29.4
DE
17.0
19.0
31.5
20.5
12.0
DE
35.3
16.6
9.8
16.4
21.9
DE
15.1
12.6
8.3
26.1
37.9
DE
15.9
4.5
23.2
27.0
29.4
GR
8.2
21.5
33.8
22.3
14.2
GR
39.8
17.7
7.0
12.7
22.8
GR
21.7
10.6
5.7
19.5
42.5
GR
12.2
6.6
29.4
30.8
21.0
ES
24.0
22.9
26.2
16.8
10.1
ES
23.6
12.5
10.9
18.5
34.5
ES
13.9
9.8
11.3
23.0
42.0
ES
17.7
4.7
15.4
22.9
39.2
FI
6.5
18.2
43.4
21.9
10.0
FI
41.8
18.1
7.1
13.5
19.5
FI
11.7
8.1
5.5
37.1
37.6
FI
8.2
7.1
31.7
33.2
19.7
FR
19.6
23.5
29.7
14.7
12.6
FR
25.3
12.7
16.9
16.0
29.1
FR
13.3
14.8
11.4
19.2
41.4
FR
9.6
23.8
12.4
31.7
22.6
IE
35.4
18.0
29.7
10.6
6.2
IE
24.5
8.4
27.5
9.2
30.3
IE
10.1
7.1
24.1
14.1
44.7
IE
8.6
10.2
26.1
28.0
27.1
IT
24.8
20.4
31.5
13.5
9.8
IT
23.2
10.2
22.6
15.3
28.7
IT
19.9
13.3
17.1
11.2
38.6
IT
9.4
3.4
30.0
40.6
16.6
LU
16.2
32.2
25.6
10.6
15.4
LU
26.5
8.4
11.5
17.1
36.6
LU
21.6
15.6
4.3
13.5
45.0
LU
14.0
2.3
32.7
25.1
25.9
NL
12.3
16.2
42.9
20.7
7.9
NL
43.1
20.1
13.0
8.1
15.7
NL
11.2
9.4
3.9
34.4
41.1
NL
7.4
6.2
22.3
33.1
31.1
AT
12.5
26.3
36.2
9.3
15.7
AT
33.4
9.5
9.9
15.2
32.0
AT
20.5
10.2
8.1
12.3
48.9
AT
9.1
11.2
24.3
30.0
25.4
PT
25.1
26.0
29.2
13.6
6.1
PT
29.7
10.5
18.3
11.3
30.2
PT
17.6
7.4
14.8
13.9
46.4
PT
20.3
3.6
30.9
25.4
19.8
SE
13.1
20.1
32.4
26.2
8.2
SE
28.7
28.4
6.2
10.8
25.9
SE
6.8
13.4
5.2
40.4
34.2
SE
14.1
8.4
17.3
30.7
29.6
UK
19.1
19.7
35.9
18.4
6.8
UK
33.4
13.6
13.4
9.4
30.2
UK
10.6
7.5
9.4
27.0
45.5
UK
14.6
5.9
6.8
27.8
44.8
42.3
15.6
8.4
10.5
23.3
5.6
10.0
15.7
44.8
23.9
17.5
12.7
15.0
21.4
33.4
13.8
3.8
17.7
29.4
35.2
Country
CY
CZ
33.0
10.2
28.1
20.6
8.1
Country
CY
CZ
33.3
21.6
24.6
7.7
12.8
Country
CY
CZ
6.8
5.0
19.5
28.3
40.5
Country
CY
CZ
24.6
12.0
12.0
21.0
30.4
EE
15.6
13.2
35.5
30.3
5.5
EE
37.8
25.1
16.1
6.5
14.5
EE
12.5
5.8
12.5
30.3
38.9
EE
19.0
2.1
19.0
25.9
34.0
HU
9.3
14.5
41.0
30.6
4.6
HU
39.5
17.2
6.3
9.4
27.5
HU
16.6
5.9
5.0
27.8
44.8
HU
19.9
7.8
16.8
27.8
27.7
LV
13.8
20.5
33.8
23.8
8.2
LV
35.6
18.6
7.5
12.5
25.8
LV
15.0
9.4
6.6
31.6
37.3
LV
15.1
14.2
18.4
26.8
25.5
LT
23.0
14.3
30.6
22.1
10.0
LT
29.0
18.2
19.6
11.7
21.6
LT
9.9
9.2
15.4
28.9
36.7
LT
12.9
18.8
9.6
35.0
23.7
MT
37.9
16.5
29.2
11.9
4.6
MT
22.5
11.0
34.7
5.8
26.1
MT
10.7
7.3
18.9
22.2
40.9
MT
9.7
12.8
18.3
33.6
25.7
PL
20.9
18.3
36.7
12.6
11.6
PL
30.7
10.5
18.6
12.1
28.1
PL
15.3
7.2
17.4
22.9
37.2
PL
6.7
2.9
16.8
43.3
30.2
SK
7.7
21.4
48.3
14.2
8.5
SK
40.4
10.4
4.7
10.1
34.4
SK
16.5
7.6
4.1
22.5
49.2
SK
7.8
4.4
40.8
29.2
17.9
SI
8.9
24.4
28.2
15.7
22.8
SI
26.9
13.4
8.1
21.5
30.1
SI
18.1
19.0
5.9
19.1
38.0
SI
16.0
24.6
11.9
21.1
26.3
BG
30.8
15.0
26.5
20.2
7.4
BG
27.2
13.7
28.1
8.8
22.2
BG
13.2
9.8
25.0
15.6
36.5
BG
14.4
25.8
12.4
21.5
25.9
RO
30.5
14.5
29.3
15.5
10.1
RO
30.3
13.8
26.4
10.5
19.0
RO
12.4
9.5
25.0
17.4
35.7
RO
9.7
28.5
31.1
19.3
11.4
TR
32.0
16.8
14.1
12.1
25.0
TR
11.5
10.2
28.3
31.1
18.8
TR
11.8
22.6
27.9
18.4
19.3
TR
13.4
3.5
14.3
27.1
41.8
IS
10.6
12.6
55.3
18.6
2.9
IS
10.9
2.6
12.6
22.0
51.9
IS
12.7
4.5
6.8
29.6
46.4
IS
14.4
6.4
28.0
28.6
22.6
HR
13.3
20.4
28.1
22.0
16.2
HR
23.4
20.0
11.5
21.0
24.1
HR
17.2
21.8
9.2
22.9
28.9
HR
16.2
4.3
29.8
30.3
19.4
CH
17.6
18.6
31.5
20.1
12.3
CH
30.2
16.1
13.6
16.7
23.3
CH
14.6
17.3
9.3
21.4
37.4
CH
26.1
3.7
24.2
22.3
23.7
NO
19.4
12.7
29.2
33.2
5.5
NO
29.9
27.1
15.0
7.9
20.0
NO
4.9
4.5
7.7
52.7
30.1
NO
12.5
8.8
EU27
23.2
29.2
26.4
19.4
20.0
33.3
17.3
EU27
10.0
31.0
13.8
14.7
EU27
13.5
27.0
14.6
10.6
11.7
EU27
22.4
40.8
qb10b
The second way is to artificially introduce a gene that exists naturally in wild/ crab apples which provides resistance to mildew and scab. For each of the following statements about this new technique please tell me if you agree or
It will be useful
150
32.0
16.9
4.9
37.9
17.5
3.5
27.7
16.1
7.7
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
DK
20.8
18.4
9.4
17.5
33.9
23.9
23.2
7.7
17.2
28.0
DE
30.0
20.2
5.5
22.5
21.8
DE
22.2
15.5
9.3
17.7
35.3
GR
34.1
16.0
3.2
22.4
24.3
GR
16.8
22.4
16.5
9.6
34.6
ES
26.9
21.0
3.7
15.7
32.8
ES
FI
16.0
12.1
7.7
28.1
36.2
FI
38.4
30.1
2.6
12.8
16.1
17.8
26.9
13.2
11.6
30.5
FR
26.6
27.3
5.8
18.1
22.1
FR
DK
These apples would
be like GM food and
should be clearly
identified with a
special label
These apples would
be the same as
ordinary apples and
would not need
special labelling
cisapple_label
3.9
79.1
17.0
BE
2.5
77.9
19.6
DK
5.5
70.3
24.2
DE
3.8
72.2
24.0
GR
4.2
81.7
14.0
ES
2.4
57.6
40.0
FI
6.8
78.9
14.3
FR
qb11b
And which of the following statements is closest to your view?
12.1
36.5
BE
Totally agree
Tend to agree
cisapple_encourage
DK
19.2
27.0
DK
14.0
27.1
BE
It should be encouraged
Totally disagree
DK
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Totally agree
cisapple_uneasy
It makes you feel uneasy
22.1
66.2
11.8
IE
12.0
13.6
33.9
10.4
30.1
IE
27.0
10.4
22.8
11.3
28.5
IE
IT
12.8
70.7
16.5
IT
27.2
17.3
20.7
6.6
28.3
IT
28.7
13.3
13.2
16.5
28.3
2.3
84.8
12.9
LU
27.0
32.9
8.2
9.3
22.5
LU
25.9
16.0
5.7
20.5
32.0
LU
2.3
72.6
25.1
NL
24.4
21.2
6.4
15.3
32.7
NL
33.7
24.3
2.9
19.7
19.4
NL
8.4
64.7
26.9
AT
21.7
20.0
11.9
8.5
37.9
AT
32.8
10.4
4.9
21.2
30.6
AT
13.1
64.0
22.9
PT
19.9
15.2
19.3
9.3
36.3
PT
31.9
14.4
13.3
13.5
26.8
PT
3.1
67.1
29.8
SE
18.0
22.0
6.6
21.9
31.6
SE
24.8
43.5
3.1
11.7
16.9
SE
6.0
75.1
18.8
UK
20.0
12.4
13.4
17.1
37.1
UK
35.9
21.8
7.9
13.1
21.2
UK
41.4
22.2
4.2
7.6
24.7
20.9
7.1
10.3
21.1
40.6
4.5
80.2
15.3
3.6
68.3
28.1
Country
CY
CZ
10.2
6.9
27.7
22.4
32.9
Country
CY
CZ
31.3
21.2
9.6
14.9
23.0
Country
CY
CZ
10.2
55.0
34.7
EE
16.6
9.8
16.9
21.6
35.1
EE
29.2
36.7
13.7
6.9
13.5
EE
3.4
59.5
37.1
HU
17.3
10.6
6.6
21.8
43.8
HU
38.4
27.1
5.4
10.0
19.1
HU
3.3
68.1
28.6
LV
17.7
14.8
8.4
23.7
35.4
LV
30.7
27.8
8.4
12.3
20.8
LV
9.2
61.0
29.8
LT
16.5
13.5
22.2
19.1
28.7
LT
29.9
24.3
13.1
13.4
19.2
LT
7.6
86.6
5.8
MT
10.5
16.4
33.8
12.2
27.0
MT
27.5
12.0
21.5
7.3
31.7
MT
9.6
68.7
21.8
PL
16.5
12.1
21.4
16.7
33.3
PL
33.7
15.3
10.0
14.3
26.7
PL
3.3
73.3
23.4
SK
23.3
10.1
7.9
14.5
44.2
SK
46.9
14.3
2.0
9.8
27.0
SK
2.1
91.4
6.5
SI
22.6
24.7
8.8
16.2
27.7
SI
22.8
15.0
3.1
30.2
28.9
SI
17.0
57.5
25.6
BG
11.5
14.6
31.2
13.6
29.1
BG
26.2
19.4
26.4
8.7
19.3
BG
17.2
63.5
19.3
RO
12.1
14.9
32.5
13.1
27.4
RO
24.7
19.6
26.3
10.5
18.9
RO
26.7
62.7
10.7
TR
17.4
24.4
35.1
9.5
13.5
TR
12.3
10.3
30.5
27.1
19.8
TR
2.9
68.0
29.0
IS
23.5
12.6
6.9
10.7
46.4
IS
48.5
28.0
2.0
9.3
12.1
IS
9.0
68.9
22.1
HR
17.0
29.3
12.8
16.7
24.3
HR
26.1
17.9
7.9
25.1
23.0
HR
5.3
76.6
18.2
CH
20.9
30.0
9.4
14.1
25.6
CH
27.8
22.0
5.6
24.1
20.5
CH
2.7
64.5
32.8
NO
17.2
12.8
11.2
33.6
25.2
NO
23.4
46.4
3.1
8.7
18.4
NO
7.5
72.1
20.4
EU27
20.4
18.2
14.9
EU27
14.1
32.4
30.9
20.3
8.3
EU27
16.2
24.2
151
82.7
Not heard
85.1
14.9
DK
82.2
17.8
DE
84.7
15.3
GR
81.9
18.1
ES
71.9
28.1
FI
88.0
12.0
FR
78.1
21.9
IE
87.4
12.6
IT
73.1
26.9
LU
17.8
50.3
Yes, only once or
No, never
DK
30.3
57.6
4.8
7.2
DK
18.7
50.9
1.9
28.5
DE
36.2
44.2
4.3
15.3
GR
20.7
56.9
3.4
19.0
ES
18.9
50.3
1.3
2.9
26.6
FI
20.7
61.7
2.8
14.9
FR
33.2
43.1
2.9
2.4
18.4
IE
30.1
25.4
1.8
5.3
37.3
IT
DK
Yes, only once or
No, never
Yes, frequently
Yes, occasionally
infosearch_synbiology
4.0
12.5
83.5
2.5
67.8
DK
17.2
12.5
BE
73.8
12.3
13.6
.4
DE
60.4
12.0
24.7
2.9
GR
71.1
17.6
7.7
3.5
ES
63.3
.7
17.4
17.5
1.1
FI
71.7
13.1
13.7
1.4
FR
62.1
2.1
12.7
23.2
IE
59.5
16.7
15.5
8.4
IT
[IF YES] Have you ever searched for information about synthetic biology?
3.1
28.8
BE
Yes, frequently
Yes, occasionally
talked_synbiology
71.3
17.9
9.9
1.0
LU
19.6
47.6
2.2
30.6
LU
qb12a
[IF YES] Have you ever talked about synthetic biology with anyone before today?
17.3
BE
Heard
heard_synbiology
Split ballot A
qb11a
Before today, have you ever heard anything about synthetic biology?
71.7
14.7
9.2
4.4
NL
22.6
49.9
4.4
23.1
NL
80.1
19.9
NL
50.1
1.2
29.9
12.8
6.1
AT
27.1
23.0
1.3
10.6
38.0
AT
84.7
15.3
AT
57.5
18.0
24.5
PT
21.9
44.6
2.4
4.8
26.3
PT
83.5
16.5
PT
77.7
.8
9.0
10.5
2.0
SE
18.3
63.8
1.9
1.0
15.0
SE
77.4
22.6
SE
78.6
.1
7.9
9.1
4.3
UK
22.8
49.8
3.3
7.5
16.6
UK
79.3
20.7
UK
88.2
11.8
27.4
61.0
1.4
10.2
60.2
18.7
18.6
2.5
72.8
8.8
16.9
1.4
Country
CY
CZ
38.8
42.6
2.5
16.1
Country
CY
CZ
83.8
16.2
Country
CY
CZ
73.3
5.8
17.1
3.8
EE
28.7
53.6
3.4
14.3
EE
82.3
17.7
EE
62.4
11.9
20.4
5.2
HU
30.1
49.5
4.4
15.9
HU
79.6
20.4
HU
75.2
.9
9.5
13.5
1.0
LV
24.8
62.0
.9
12.3
LV
77.8
22.2
LV
65.6
13.9
18.3
2.1
LT
23.4
52.0
2.2
22.4
LT
81.5
18.5
LT
76.9
1.3
16.0
5.8
MT
13.7
63.0
1.3
2.1
19.9
MT
80.6
19.4
MT
71.0
9.3
15.4
4.3
PL
20.8
61.9
1.7
3.3
12.4
PL
85.0
15.0
PL
58.3
17.2
23.1
1.3
SK
24.5
47.6
1.3
26.5
SK
79.7
20.3
SK
71.0
15.0
10.7
3.4
SI
22.5
43.8
4.7
29.1
SI
78.4
21.6
SI
75.3
8.4
13.5
2.9
BG
17.8
51.7
3.4
27.1
BG
84.0
16.0
BG
65.9
3.7
7.4
21.4
1.7
RO
22.1
46.0
5.2
26.7
RO
79.5
20.5
RO
69.6
6.5
1.7
15.3
7.0
TR
12.3
69.8
6.5
7.0
4.5
TR
90.5
9.5
TR
72.7
10.3
17.1
IS
35.8
57.1
5.1
1.9
IS
85.3
14.7
IS
61.1
3.6
16.4
16.7
2.3
HR
25.4
47.0
1.5
5.9
20.1
HR
71.8
28.2
HR
69.1
13.8
13.4
3.8
CH
21.8
52.1
4.4
21.7
CH
70.8
29.2
CH
79.8
10.2
8.2
1.9
NO
22.1
53.5
.7
2.8
20.9
NO
76.1
23.9
NO
70.3
.3
12.6
13.7
EU27
3.1
22.6
50.0
1.3
EU27
3.8
22.3
83.1
EU27
16.9
152
What the scientific
processes and
techniques are
Who is funding the
research and why
What the claimed
benefits are
What the possible
risks are
Who will benefit and
who will bear the
risks
What is being done
to regulate and
control synthetic
biology
What is being done
to deal with the social
and ethical issues
involved
Other
(SPONTANEOUS)
None
(SPONTANEOUS)
DK
synbiology_info1
5.1
5.1
4.1
10.8
4.1
.3
9.7
15.1
1.4
13.0
30.1
.8
29.4
10.8
3.5
4.0
15.7
11.3
10.7
DK
14.9
BE
9.0
3.4
2.9
3.7
11.4
21.5
28.6
6.3
13.3
DE
4.3
2.1
2.5
1.0
10.4
32.8
24.5
8.9
13.5
GR
10.2
5.5
.9
3.7
3.1
7.1
22.4
25.0
7.0
15.0
ES
3.3
1.4
.2
6.4
1.7
10.9
19.8
22.6
7.4
26.4
FI
11.1
2.2
2.7
7.0
6.6
28.7
15.6
12.6
13.4
FR
12.5
1.2
6.0
6.5
8.7
19.3
15.6
11.5
18.7
IE
9.3
2.7
2.3
5.8
8.8
21.7
25.3
11.5
12.8
IT
11.5
1.7
3.3
6.9
6.4
17.6
16.1
10.8
25.7
LU
5.3
1.1
1.1
9.8
7.3
26.0
23.3
8.5
3.4
14.2
NL
5.2
3.0
.2
2.7
5.7
7.3
24.2
28.4
7.7
15.7
AT
10.3
1.8
.8
2.3
5.5
30.3
25.9
7.4
15.6
PT
7.6
1.0
.2
7.7
12.3
16.7
23.1
15.8
5.9
9.7
SE
14.2
4.4
3.8
7.1
8.7
24.4
17.6
5.0
14.8
UK
.5
5.1
5.0
2.0
7.8
33.5
24.6
8.4
13.0
3.2
1.3
.4
.9
2.8
14.9
19.9
6.0
5.2
45.6
Country
CY
CZ
15.3
1.6
.9
2.7
4.5
13.6
26.9
9.0
4.9
20.6
EE
9.2
3.5
.4
2.0
8.5
9.8
23.8
22.4
7.4
13.0
HU
12.2
9.2
4.4
4.7
10.9
18.9
12.7
5.0
22.0
LV
14.5
5.4
.2
1.0
5.9
9.4
17.5
32.1
3.5
10.4
LT
15.3
1.1
.7
2.8
8.3
23.4
25.7
7.5
15.2
MT
14.1
5.6
.2
2.6
3.5
9.9
24.9
19.0
8.9
11.5
PL
5.8
2.0
.3
3.6
5.7
22.5
18.4
23.9
7.8
9.9
SK
5.0
5.3
.7
6.2
4.9
10.8
18.4
16.6
4.9
27.3
SI
8.1
.4
.8
3.1
6.9
13.8
23.1
5.4
38.4
BG
14.4
1.5
.2
2.7
2.3
8.2
21.9
23.7
7.5
17.5
RO
38.5
1.4
3.6
1.8
9.5
13.4
17.8
2.9
11.0
TR
5.9
1.2
.3
7.9
8.3
12.3
19.5
28.1
3.3
13.3
IS
6.5
1.5
1.9
5.0
12.1
24.9
23.5
9.3
15.3
HR
11.4
2.2
.6
4.1
9.9
8.5
18.0
16.3
6.3
22.8
CH
3.8
1.2
.3
4.6
6.7
17.1
24.9
17.0
6.3
18.0
NO
Suppose, there was a referendum about synthetic biology and you had to make up your mind whether to vote for or against. Among the following, what would be the most important issue on which you would like to know more?
Firstly?
Split ballot A
qb13a
10.1
3.3
.2
3.4
5.1
10.0
23.7
21.3
7.9
15.1
EU27
153
What the scientific
processes and
techniques are
Who is funding the
research and why
What the claimed
benefits are
What the possible
risks are
Who will benefit and
who will bear the
risks
What is being done
to regulate and
control synthetic
biology
What is being done
to deal with the social
and ethical issues
involved
Other
(SPONTANEOUS)
None
(SPONTANEOUS)
DK
synbiology_info3
And thirdly?
What the scientific
processes and
techniques are
Who is funding the
research and why
What the claimed
benefits are
What the possible
risks are
Who will benefit and
who will bear the
risks
What is being done
to regulate and
control synthetic
biology
What is being done
to deal with the social
and ethical issues
involved
Other
(SPONTANEOUS)
None
(SPONTANEOUS)
DK
synbiology_info2
And secondly?
5.6
18.9
19.1
14.4
.3
1.3
16.1
18.4
14.0
1.1
.3
3.6
13.8
16.8
.3
.4
10.5
21.3
18.8
17.7
14.8
7.7
8.8
12.5
9.2
8.5
DE
7.2
DK
.2
.5
14.5
9.7
BE
.4
.2
.8
9.9
10.2
26.0
14.2
15.7
10.5
12.5
GR
.2
2.5
2.9
4.0
7.8
14.7
2.1
.9
1.5
8.0
12.4
21.9
18.8
12.8
9.2
12.3
ES
1.9
.6
12.2
5.2
10.5
18.5
31.9
1.6
9.5
14.0
17.0
34.1
24.8
6.0
6.8
ES
.6
12.7
19.8
25.0
30.2
5.8
5.7
GR
.2
27.7
26.8
23.4
9.2
7.4
22.8
9.2
8.5
DE
7.1
DK
13.7
10.5
BE
1.3
1.5
1.4
10.3
12.6
25.1
18.2
13.6
7.2
8.7
FI
.6
.1
.6
4.6
6.4
14.8
29.4
26.3
6.7
10.6
FI
2.0
2.6
9.5
20.3
20.5
15.6
12.3
9.5
7.7
FR
1.1
.4
3.0
17.0
13.1
31.5
16.1
8.7
8.9
FR
4.6
.1
10.3
16.2
17.8
15.2
15.6
11.3
8.9
IE
.9
.5
.1
6.4
13.3
13.7
24.9
19.8
10.1
10.4
IE
.9
.2
.2
7.6
13.9
21.4
17.6
16.3
10.0
11.9
IT
.5
3.8
10.0
11.2
31.4
24.5
8.6
10.0
IT
1.3
1.4
9.8
16.8
17.1
21.2
14.2
9.7
8.5
LU
3.6
11.8
11.1
30.2
20.4
13.4
9.3
LU
1.3
.6
1.0
17.4
15.2
18.1
15.8
13.1
7.6
9.9
NL
.5
.5
.8
11.8
15.8
19.4
22.9
17.2
4.3
6.8
NL
.3
.5
8.4
16.4
27.1
14.8
14.5
8.3
9.5
AT
.2
.5
3.8
6.2
18.9
30.7
21.3
8.9
9.4
AT
2.8
.4
7.2
15.1
17.9
20.1
15.9
9.0
11.6
PT
2.4
.2
.2
3.7
6.0
14.3
23.9
29.4
10.0
9.9
PT
.4
.3
.2
15.5
20.5
14.2
16.0
12.8
7.5
12.6
SE
.4
.1
.2
10.1
14.5
16.7
22.9
17.5
8.4
9.1
SE
1.7
2.6
10.7
19.5
15.8
13.8
12.3
12.3
11.4
UK
1.6
.9
7.7
12.6
17.1
25.2
17.2
10.5
7.3
UK
.8
.3
.4
17.0
6.2
26.8
16.8
11.3
7.3
13.2
.4
.6
10.0
13.3
22.5
21.1
15.5
7.8
8.8
3.8
.2
5.9
.6
.3
8.2
15.1
17.2
17.8
15.2
7.4
12.2
EE
.4
5.4
10.0
16.9
28.5
16.6
7.0
11.3
EE
.3
5.0
7.2
22.5
29.2
13.5
7.1
14.9
Country
CY
CZ
5.1
3.8
19.3
34.2
24.0
8.0
5.6
Country
CY
CZ
1.2
.2
8.3
18.9
18.0
18.7
14.2
9.5
11.0
HU
.3
.2
2.8
11.8
13.6
34.0
25.4
4.8
7.1
HU
1.7
.7
9.7
13.6
16.2
19.1
18.0
10.7
10.3
LV
1.1
.6
4.0
8.2
17.2
22.7
23.9
11.5
10.9
LV
3.3
.8
7.4
15.2
27.4
17.3
13.9
7.2
7.4
LT
.5
.5
.2
3.7
7.1
14.6
39.7
21.4
5.6
6.6
LT
3.0
.4
8.7
12.0
21.1
17.9
17.1
11.1
8.8
MT
2.7
4.5
7.6
16.1
32.3
25.4
4.4
6.9
MT
.7
1.3
6.2
15.2
24.4
16.6
11.2
10.8
13.6
PL
1.8
.2
.2
5.0
7.4
12.6
28.1
22.8
11.1
10.7
PL
11.0
14.5
22.0
20.1
15.2
9.9
7.2
SK
4.4
9.9
19.0
28.6
20.1
10.2
7.7
SK
.8
1.3
.5
14.1
14.7
18.1
17.3
11.2
11.5
10.7
SI
.8
.5
6.5
10.1
20.5
25.2
21.2
5.6
9.6
SI
3.4
8.1
16.4
22.5
19.6
15.6
7.0
7.4
BG
.2
1.7
6.1
12.5
35.4
30.3
6.8
6.9
BG
1.4
.7
1.9
10.1
9.5
23.3
16.8
11.7
15.4
9.1
RO
.7
1.0
2.8
5.8
11.2
32.7
25.8
10.8
9.1
RO
4.3
.4
.8
14.5
12.7
19.5
15.5
13.9
5.5
12.8
TR
1.2
6.0
6.5
22.3
27.2
20.1
10.4
6.3
TR
.3
15.4
19.1
16.2
18.2
11.1
8.8
10.8
IS
.3
13.0
13.8
14.7
27.3
19.9
5.2
5.7
IS
1.4
.7
10.4
14.9
21.3
16.3
16.0
9.7
9.4
HR
.6
.2
4.8
6.4
18.6
30.0
19.9
11.6
7.9
HR
1.8
.5
.3
15.7
21.1
19.1
14.7
11.3
7.7
7.8
CH
.3
.4
9.0
9.0
16.9
23.5
23.8
6.3
10.8
CH
.4
1.4
.1
11.4
16.2
15.6
17.7
19.0
9.3
8.7
NO
.5
1.3
.2
5.7
11.0
18.2
23.2
21.0
9.3
9.5
NO
1.3
1.0
.4
9.7
16.7
20.3
16.9
13.7
9.7
10.3
EU27
.8
.5
.2
5.1
10.6
15.1
28.7
21.7
8.6
8.7
EU27
154
24.0
76.0
66.5
DK
33.5
BE
71.8
28.2
DE
19.1
80.9
71.8
DK
28.2
BE
48.7
51.3
63.2
DK
36.8
BE
68.0
32.0
29.6
DK
70.4
BE
41.2
58.8
DE
38.0
62.0
DE
78.9
21.1
DE
21.9
78.1
GR
32.5
67.5
GR
75.8
24.2
GR
69.5
30.5
GR
42.3
57.7
51.8
DK
48.2
BE
57.3
42.7
DE
48.0
52.0
GR
62.5
37.5
ES
35.2
64.8
ES
43.6
56.4
ES
80.4
19.6
ES
69.1
30.9
ES
51.1
48.9
FI
35.0
65.0
FI
39.5
60.5
FI
79.4
20.6
FI
55.2
44.8
FI
64.6
35.4
FR
30.7
69.3
FR
59.9
40.1
FR
71.7
28.3
FR
72.3
27.7
FR
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_regulate
36.2
63.8
66.0
DK
34.0
BE
68.6
31.4
DE
86.7
13.3
GR
80.1
19.9
ES
80.2
19.8
FI
60.9
39.1
FR
What is being done to regulate and control synthetic biology
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_equity
Who will benefit and who will bear the risks
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_risks
What the possible risks are
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_benefits
What the claimed benefits are
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_funding
Who is funding the research and why
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_process
What the scientific processes and techniques are
Mentioned (first, second or third)
68.2
31.8
IE
64.3
35.7
IE
46.2
53.8
IE
54.0
46.0
IE
70.1
29.9
IE
64.7
35.3
IE
73.2
26.8
IT
62.6
37.4
IT
35.3
64.7
IT
38.8
61.2
IT
72.3
27.7
IT
68.0
32.0
IT
68.2
31.8
LU
69.1
30.9
LU
37.9
62.1
LU
53.8
46.2
LU
69.1
30.9
LU
58.8
41.2
LU
63.9
36.1
NL
39.0
61.0
NL
40.6
59.4
NL
63.3
36.7
NL
85.5
14.5
NL
70.3
29.7
NL
73.6
26.4
AT
50.5
49.5
AT
33.9
66.1
AT
38.8
61.2
AT
76.5
23.5
AT
66.9
33.1
AT
79.5
20.5
PT
66.6
33.4
PT
31.5
68.5
PT
34.7
65.3
PT
76.1
23.9
PT
65.8
34.2
PT
55.8
44.2
SE
55.1
44.9
SE
41.3
58.7
SE
56.5
43.5
SE
79.5
20.5
SE
70.6
29.4
SE
67.1
32.9
UK
64.8
35.2
UK
44.2
55.8
UK
58.7
41.3
UK
76.7
23.3
UK
70.1
29.9
UK
31.8
68.2
80.6
19.4
66.4
33.6
32.1
67.9
42.2
57.8
88.6
11.4
77.8
22.2
Country - labels
CY
CZ
48.7
51.3
Country
CY
CZ
18.4
81.6
Country
CY
CZ
42.1
57.9
Country
CY
CZ
77.1
22.9
Country
CY
CZ
69.2
30.8
Country - labels
CY
CZ
75.2
24.8
EE
58.6
41.4
EE
35.2
64.8
EE
65.1
34.9
EE
83.3
16.7
EE
60.3
39.7
EE
64.8
35.2
HU
62.8
37.2
HU
30.2
69.8
HU
43.1
56.9
HU
80.2
19.8
HU
71.3
28.7
HU
78.3
21.7
LV
63.1
36.9
LV
48.4
51.6
LV
54.6
45.4
LV
77.8
22.2
LV
61.5
38.5
LV
76.3
23.7
LT
57.1
42.9
LT
37.0
63.0
LT
39.7
60.3
LT
86.3
13.7
LT
78.4
21.6
LT
81.0
19.0
MT
61.1
38.9
MT
35.0
65.0
MT
39.1
60.9
MT
79.8
20.2
MT
71.9
28.1
MT
78.6
21.4
PL
60.8
39.2
PL
39.5
60.5
PL
53.9
46.1
PL
73.7
26.3
PL
69.2
30.8
PL
71.7
28.3
SK
39.6
60.4
SK
36.8
63.2
SK
43.5
56.5
SK
73.7
26.3
SK
76.3
23.7
SK
73.0
27.0
SI
54.8
45.2
SI
43.6
56.4
SI
54.4
45.6
SI
79.9
20.1
SI
54.7
45.3
SI
76.3
23.7
BG
61.0
39.0
BG
36.0
64.0
BG
34.9
65.1
BG
82.0
18.0
BG
48.6
51.4
BG
84.9
15.1
RO
63.1
36.9
RO
36.6
63.4
RO
44.9
55.1
RO
70.7
29.3
RO
67.4
32.6
RO
86.8
13.2
TR
65.5
34.5
TR
61.0
39.0
TR
61.8
38.2
TR
87.5
12.5
TR
77.6
22.4
TR
61.1
38.9
IS
59.0
41.0
IS
38.1
61.9
IS
43.1
56.9
IS
83.6
16.4
IS
71.4
28.6
IS
75.5
24.5
HR
51.3
48.7
HR
32.5
67.5
HR
43.6
56.4
HR
71.1
28.9
HR
68.9
31.1
HR
64.2
35.8
CH
60.4
39.6
CH
49.1
50.9
CH
53.5
46.5
CH
81.6
18.4
CH
61.1
38.9
CH
67.7
32.3
NO
51.0
49.0
NO
36.6
63.4
NO
45.3
54.7
NO
76.1
23.9
NO
64.8
35.2
NO
71.4
28.6
EU27
59.6
40.4
EU27
37.0
63.0
EU27
48.2
51.8
EU27
76.3
23.7
EU27
68.6
31.4
EU27
155
64.4
77.2
99.4
98.7
97.3
96.0
5.1
94.9
4.1
95.9
BE
91.0
9.0
DE
95.9
4.1
DE
100.0
DE
83.1
16.9
DE
95.7
4.3
GR
96.9
3.1
GR
100.0
GR
85.9
14.1
GR
89.8
10.2
ES
93.3
6.7
ES
97.8
2.2
ES
86.3
13.7
ES
96.7
21.0
21.4
21.5
15.1
12.0
DK
11.6
44.3
1.7
DK
47.3
4.2
BE
Approve as long as
this is regulated by
strict laws
Do not approve
except under very
special
circumstances
Do not approve under
any circumstances
Fully approve and do
not think that special
laws are necessary
synbiology_approve
19.1
20.8
30.8
26.6
2.7
DE
8.7
26.3
22.6
40.2
2.2
GR
29.2
11.4
14.9
38.5
5.9
ES
3.3
FI
97.1
2.9
FI
98.6
1.4
FI
79.5
20.5
FI
11.8
24.5
27.1
31.6
4.9
FI
qb14a
Overall, what would you say about synthetic biology?
DK
(some non-DK
response)
synbiology_DK
DK
2.7
4.0
BE
DK (SPONTANEOUS)
No issue
(SPONTANEOUS)
(some issue
mentioned)
synbiology_none
DK
.6
1.3
BE
None (SPONTANEOUS)
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_other
DK
35.6
DK
22.8
BE
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Mentioned (first,
second or third)
Not mentioned
synbiology_ethics
19.1
16.5
17.3
44.0
3.2
FR
88.9
11.1
FR
95.2
4.8
FR
100.0
FR
86.5
13.5
FR
.2
38.5
7.4
13.2
39.2
1.7
IE
87.5
12.5
IE
98.4
1.6
IE
99.8
IE
79.7
20.3
IE
What is being done to deal with the social and ethical issues involved
.2
25.3
18.8
16.0
36.2
3.7
IT
90.7
9.3
IT
96.7
3.3
IT
99.8
IT
87.7
12.3
IT
25.6
19.0
12.9
38.6
3.9
LU
88.5
11.5
LU
98.3
1.7
LU
98.8
1.2
LU
85.1
14.9
LU
17.4
20.7
23.0
37.0
1.9
NL
94.7
5.3
NL
97.9
2.1
NL
98.7
1.3
NL
63.0
37.0
NL
.9
14.1
22.5
29.8
31.1
2.5
AT
94.8
5.2
AT
97.0
3.0
AT
99.1
AT
86.1
13.9
AT
.2
24.4
9.8
14.3
48.0
3.5
PT
89.7
10.3
PT
97.6
2.4
PT
99.8
PT
89.8
10.2
PT
16.3
16.7
27.9
36.2
2.9
SE
92.4
7.6
SE
98.7
1.3
SE
99.8
.2
SE
68.9
31.1
SE
20.0
14.7
20.7
41.7
2.8
UK
85.8
14.2
UK
92.8
7.2
UK
100.0
UK
81.5
18.5
UK
99.6
97.8
2.2
96.8
3.2
15.0
33.6
15.9
35.1
.4
17.0
15.3
34.2
31.3
2.2
Country
CY
CZ
99.5
.5
Country
CY
CZ
94.5
5.5
Country
CY
CZ
99.7
.3
.4
84.8
15.2
Country
CY
CZ
74.1
25.9
Country
CY
CZ
23.3
16.9
13.1
40.9
5.9
EE
84.7
15.3
EE
97.6
2.4
EE
98.8
1.2
EE
86.2
13.8
EE
18.7
8.8
23.8
44.8
3.9
HU
90.8
9.2
HU
96.1
3.9
HU
99.6
.4
HU
88.3
11.7
HU
24.9
18.6
22.5
31.5
2.6
LV
87.8
12.2
LV
89.8
10.2
LV
100.0
LV
84.9
15.1
LV
.6
30.8
14.7
19.5
31.2
3.8
LT
85.5
14.5
LT
94.2
5.8
LT
99.4
LT
90.1
9.9
LT
35.2
19.1
11.4
32.3
2.1
MT
84.7
15.3
MT
98.9
1.1
MT
99.7
.3
MT
88.5
11.5
MT
.2
31.4
18.2
18.1
28.5
3.8
PL
85.9
14.1
PL
93.2
6.8
PL
99.8
PL
88.5
11.5
PL
18.6
12.8
28.9
37.9
1.8
SK
94.2
5.8
SK
98.0
2.0
SK
99.7
.3
SK
82.1
17.9
SK
.9
10.5
36.9
17.9
33.4
1.4
SI
95.0
5.0
SI
92.8
7.2
SI
99.1
SI
75.5
24.5
SI
36.4
13.5
21.0
27.2
1.9
BG
91.9
8.1
BG
99.6
.4
BG
100.0
BG
90.2
9.8
BG
34.7
11.4
12.2
36.7
5.0
RO
85.6
14.4
RO
97.1
2.9
RO
98.2
1.8
RO
86.5
13.5
RO
43.0
13.8
12.0
24.4
6.8
TR
61.5
38.5
TR
98.4
1.6
TR
99.5
.5
TR
84.1
15.9
TR
.3
11.3
21.8
32.8
32.3
1.8
IS
94.1
5.9
IS
98.8
1.2
IS
99.7
IS
65.7
34.3
IS
18.9
22.0
22.2
34.6
2.3
HR
93.5
6.5
HR
98.5
1.5
HR
99.3
.7
HR
84.2
15.8
HR
23.9
14.1
25.3
32.7
4.1
CH
88.6
11.4
CH
97.2
2.8
CH
99.0
1.0
CH
74.6
25.4
CH
12.7
13.5
25.9
45.8
2.0
NO
96.2
3.8
NO
96.3
3.7
NO
99.4
.6
NO
79.4
20.6
NO
22.5
16.8
20.9
36.4
3.4
EU27
89.9
EU27
10.1
95.5
4.5
EU27
99.5
.5
EU27
83.9
16.1
EU27
156
49.7
36.1
9.3
2.9
2.0
41.7
14.7
7.0
2.1
DK
34.5
BE
4.8
13.6
17.2
32.1
32.3
DE
5.8
7.3
18.0
37.1
31.8
GR
9.1
5.4
9.5
37.6
38.4
ES
2.1
5.7
15.7
42.7
33.7
FI
5.7
10.9
17.2
41.2
24.9
FR
16.1
4.6
6.2
36.2
36.9
IE
13.2
7.4
13.4
33.1
32.9
IT
7.7
12.6
15.4
32.0
32.3
LU
2.7
8.4
16.1
36.1
36.7
NL
5.6
6.7
11.6
46.1
30.0
AT
12.3
2.4
10.9
46.2
28.2
PT
3.0
5.7
17.0
40.7
33.5
SE
10.3
3.7
12.1
43.2
30.6
UK
7.3
3.2
10.0
27.8
51.7
3.3
4.4
14.4
39.2
38.8
Country
CY
CZ
3.5
4.6
8.7
38.4
44.9
EE
3.8
3.9
7.8
43.8
40.7
HU
3.5
2.2
6.7
37.2
50.4
LV
10.4
2.5
5.5
34.5
47.0
LT
18.6
17.0
17.9
31.3
15.2
MT
8.3
2.3
9.5
40.8
39.2
PL
3.4
.7
7.9
43.4
44.7
SK
4.5
8.6
13.2
38.7
35.1
SI
15.9
6.2
11.7
41.5
24.7
BG
18.0
4.2
9.8
30.4
37.5
RO
43.8
16.1
6.5
15.4
18.2
TR
1.9
7.8
24.0
44.4
21.9
IS
3.9
5.2
10.6
37.8
42.4
HR
3.3
21.6
22.1
28.0
25.0
CH
4.4
9.7
22.1
47.6
16.1
NO
Should definitely be
encouraged
Should probably be
encouraged
Should probably not
be encouraged
Should definitely not
be encouraged
DK
sustainable_biofuel_en
74.8
20.8
2.0
.2
2.1
34.1
9.1
1.7
1.9
DK
53.1
BE
4.1
5.7
7.1
29.9
53.1
DE
5.4
4.6
7.9
34.1
48.0
GR
7.9
3.8
5.9
30.6
51.8
ES
.2
.9
4.1
36.3
58.4
FI
5.8
3.6
7.9
30.8
52.0
FR
16.2
1.2
3.7
34.3
44.6
IE
11.3
6.6
8.8
31.2
42.1
IT
5.3
5.1
15.4
32.3
41.9
LU
1.7
1.7
4.6
26.4
65.6
NL
3.3
4.4
10.3
43.3
38.7
AT
8.8
1.9
9.2
42.7
37.3
PT
2.9
1.2
5.3
30.1
60.5
SE
7.7
3.4
4.7
31.5
52.8
UK
7.0
.4
3.2
14.4
75.1
1.5
2.9
8.8
36.8
50.0
Country
CY
CZ
3.1
2.6
5.6
34.0
54.6
EE
2.4
2.3
4.4
36.8
54.1
HU
3.1
1.2
4.5
33.9
57.2
LV
9.2
1.2
2.0
30.1
57.6
LT
11.4
7.7
4.6
35.0
41.4
MT
7.6
1.9
4.4
38.8
47.4
PL
2.4
.8
4.3
42.6
49.8
SK
2.7
2.6
5.3
30.8
58.6
SI
12.1
3.6
4.1
36.3
43.8
BG
18.8
3.2
6.8
26.9
44.3
RO
43.2
11.8
7.3
16.3
21.5
TR
1.5
2.3
3.6
28.8
63.8
IS
4.4
2.3
4.7
35.1
53.4
HR
4.4
10.6
14.0
33.5
37.5
CH
2.2
1.2
5.9
32.1
58.7
NO
7.0
3.8
6.5
32.1
50.5
EU27
8.2
7.1
13.3
37.9
33.5
EU27
Now, scientists are working on more sustainable biofuels. These can be made from plant stems and leaves - the things we don’t eat, or from trees and algae. With these second generation biofuels, there is no longer the need to use
food crops.
qb16a
To what extent do you think these sustainable biofuels should be encouraged or not be encouraged?
Should definitely be
encouraged
Should probably be
encouraged
Should probably not
be encouraged
Should definitely not
be encouraged
DK
firstgen_biofuel_encou
Let’s speak now about biofuels. Biofuels are made from crops like maize and sugar cane that are turned into ethanol and biodiesel for airplanes, cars and lorries. Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable, would reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and make the European Union less dependent on imported oil. Critics, however, say that these biofuels take up precious agricultural land and may lead to higher food prices in the European Union and food shortages in the
developing world.
qb15a
To what extent do you think these biofuels should be encouraged or not be encouraged?
157
40.2
28.0
72.0
Heard
Not heard
71.2
28.8
DE
60.7
39.3
GR
44.9
55.1
ES
37.3
62.7
FI
75.6
24.4
FR
68.6
31.4
IE
19.5
56.1
Yes, only once or
No, never
DK
18.8
54.3
5.4
21.4
DK
19.5
49.8
.8
7.4
22.5
DE
31.6
34.6
1.4
5.0
27.5
GR
27.2
50.5
1.8
20.4
ES
19.2
54.7
5.5
20.5
FI
18.5
56.0
3.1
22.4
FR
3.9
9.3
12.5
73.9
.4
8.1
10.4
78.3
DK
3.2
BE
77.3
.3
8.1
10.1
4.2
DE
63.7
.7
8.4
23.6
3.7
GR
80.7
7.8
10.5
1.0
ES
71.2
11.6
12.6
4.6
FI
77.7
10.3
8.7
3.3
FR
.6
73.4
4.8
11.2
10.0
IE
24.6
42.4
4.1
2.1
26.8
IE
59.5
25.3
12.8
2.4
IT
22.0
34.7
.6
4.5
38.2
IT
69.1
30.9
IT
68.6
3.0
15.4
8.1
4.9
LU
14.5
60.3
1.0
3.6
20.5
LU
47.6
52.4
LU
74.2
.7
10.7
10.1
4.4
NL
19.7
49.6
.2
7.1
23.4
NL
56.0
44.0
NL
66.3
13.9
18.7
1.2
AT
34.7
33.6
3.9
27.8
AT
81.6
18.4
AT
58.4
21.0
16.5
4.1
PT
32.0
26.3
10.8
31.0
PT
80.8
19.2
PT
78.9
.2
8.7
10.5
1.8
SE
25.6
50.9
.2
4.4
18.9
SE
25.3
74.7
SE
83.0
.7
6.5
6.7
3.1
UK
17.2
57.9
.4
7.1
17.3
UK
65.8
34.2
UK
48.7
51.3
22.8
64.0
.7
.3
12.2
73.2
6.5
18.3
1.9
79.4
.4
8.5
11.7
Country
CY
CZ
38.5
48.4
1.9
11.2
Country
CY
CZ
56.0
44.0
Country
CY
CZ
81.6
5.7
10.7
2.0
EE
27.7
47.5
3.6
21.2
EE
32.4
67.6
EE
79.8
6.0
12.0
2.3
HU
27.9
57.3
3.5
11.3
HU
68.6
31.4
HU
.4
80.2
1.0
6.7
11.7
LV
21.8
64.6
.5
.9
12.2
LV
54.2
45.8
LV
.5
79.0
10.3
10.2
LT
23.9
58.0
.6
17.5
LT
65.3
34.7
LT
73.9
18.5
4.2
3.4
MT
10.2
63.2
3.4
23.2
MT
76.9
23.1
MT
80.4
6.5
11.2
1.9
PL
16.5
59.7
2.0
2.3
19.6
PL
71.5
28.5
PL
64.2
.5
12.5
21.7
1.0
SK
31.4
45.6
1.0
2.1
19.9
SK
66.4
33.6
SK
74.5
.5
10.1
12.8
2.0
SI
26.2
43.4
.8
2.0
27.6
SI
47.9
52.1
SI
74.3
4.0
8.9
12.8
BG
29.4
45.6
2.8
22.2
BG
72.2
27.8
BG
76.8
.9
8.3
10.8
3.2
RO
20.2
52.8
2.0
2.9
22.1
RO
68.5
31.5
RO
84.7
1.1
8.0
6.2
TR
17.6
66.9
1.1
3.3
11.1
TR
84.5
15.5
TR
.4
74.6
16.0
9.0
IS
22.0
20.0
16.6
41.5
IS
19.7
80.3
IS
69.6
.8
14.4
13.5
1.6
HR
26.4
42.8
.9
6.0
23.9
HR
49.7
50.3
HR
77.4
.6
7.7
11.0
3.3
CH
24.5
49.8
.6
5.7
19.4
CH
58.0
42.0
CH
80.7
7.5
9.8
1.9
NO
25.3
46.7
.4
2.9
24.8
NO
35.5
64.5
NO
75.8
.3
10.4
10.9
EU27
2.6
21.9
50.6
.6
EU27
4.3
22.6
65.7
EU27
34.3
Ask for permission for
every new piece of
research
Ask for permission
only once
No need to ask for
permission
DK
biobanks_consent
51.5
24.6
16.4
7.5
21.7
6.1
3.2
DK
69.0
BE
7.0
2.9
15.4
74.8
DE
1.8
2.2
11.7
84.3
GR
7.0
9.1
17.1
66.8
ES
3.8
9.9
31.7
54.5
FI
6.8
6.3
11.9
75.1
FR
12.3
6.4
22.0
59.3
IE
14.7
6.8
20.6
57.9
IT
3.9
11.0
17.3
67.9
LU
3.2
6.9
33.1
56.8
NL
8.3
4.3
17.6
69.7
AT
14.5
3.7
19.1
62.6
PT
4.4
6.1
26.4
63.1
SE
5.4
8.1
21.4
65.1
UK
4.2
9.4
12.8
73.6
6.3
6.5
16.6
70.6
Country
CY
CZ
6.1
9.5
18.9
65.6
EE
4.2
4.4
13.7
77.7
HU
10.0
6.4
12.3
71.3
LV
13.8
4.2
16.2
65.7
LT
8.4
4.5
13.9
73.3
MT
13.0
3.5
22.1
61.4
PL
4.6
5.3
22.6
67.5
SK
4.4
3.1
19.2
73.4
SI
13.4
1.8
9.3
75.5
BG
24.8
7.0
13.2
55.0
RO
28.3
9.0
6.7
56.0
TR
1.4
6.5
32.3
59.8
IS
11.0
6.0
14.1
68.9
HR
8.6
5.8
14.9
70.7
CH
3.3
10.8
26.5
59.4
NO
8.9
6.0
18.3
66.9
EU27
qb14b
In a hospital doctors ask the patient to sign a form giving permission to carry out an operation – this is called ‘informed consent’ and it is also required of medical researchers who do research involving members of the public. When
a scientist does research on data in a biobank, what do you think about the need for this kind of permission? Researchers should…
DK
Yes, only once or
No, never
Yes, frequently
Yes, occasionally
infosearch_biobanks
[IF YES] Have you ever searched for information about biobanks?
3.9
20.5
BE
Yes, frequently
Yes, occasionally
talked_biobanks
qb13b
[IF YES] Have you ever talked about biobanks with anyone before today?
59.8
DK
BE
heard_biobanks
Split ballot B
And now thinking about biobanks for biomedical research: These are collections of biological materials (such as blood and/or tissues) and personal data (medical records, lifestyle data) from large numbers of people. Using biobanks,
researchers will try to identify the genetic and environmental factors in diseases, to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Participation in biobanks is voluntary. Critics, however, raise questions about privacy, confidentiality
and commercial interests regarding the biobanks and about who is going to regulate them.
qb12b
Before today, have you ever heard anything about biobanks?
158
Other
(SPONTANEOUS)
None
(SPONTANEOUS)
DK
National Data
Protection Authorities
Ethics committees
International
organisations such as
the European Union
or World Health
Organisation
Medical doctors
Researchers
Public institutions
(universities,
hospitals)
National governments
biobanks_publicinteres
And secondly?
Other
(SPONTANEOUS)
None
(SPONTANEOUS)
DK
National Data
Protection Authorities
Ethics committees
International
organisations such as
the European Union
or World Health
Organisation
Medical doctors
Researchers
Public institutions
(universities,
hospitals)
National governments
biobanks_publicinteres
Firstly?
4.4
1.1
12.3
14.0
10.5
9.4
13.0
11.6
.2
2.4
.3
.5
.2
15.0
13.3
16.0
15.0
10.7
19.5
16.4
12.9
18.7
20.9
.9
.5
.1
16.4
14.0
13.8
10.9
10.7
DK
BE
DE
5.2
.0
1.3
.2
23.2
.5
13.3
12.8
11.0
.8
5.6
11.5
9.1
13.9
14.0
20.7
9.7
9.8
9.4
16.2
11.9
14.3
11.8
30.8
16.8
14.8
6.0
DK
BE
DE
.6
7.6
15.4
10.2
9.3
15.9
17.7
23.3
GR
1.3
1.7
.4
5.2
10.0
7.0
10.1
10.5
35.2
18.6
GR
1.8
1.3
.4
7.6
16.7
4.0
15.8
15.3
16.1
21.0
ES
3.6
.9
.2
6.0
9.6
2.7
17.8
10.5
32.3
16.4
ES
1.6
1.4
.6
13.9
14.2
6.9
12.8
18.5
11.5
18.6
FI
1.8
.2
.8
11.2
18.9
7.0
9.4
15.5
16.8
18.3
FI
2.4
1.3
.4
10.5
17.4
12.1
9.6
14.1
16.3
16.0
FR
6.6
1.2
.2
7.4
10.2
19.8
7.5
9.1
25.7
12.3
FR
2.8
.6
9.2
14.7
10.6
11.0
14.4
17.3
19.3
IE
6.2
.2
.1
5.8
14.6
8.7
11.4
9.2
36.7
7.1
IE
1.9
.2
6.8
15.3
4.3
8.9
22.6
15.7
24.2
IT
7.1
1.1
.2
4.9
9.8
3.2
9.9
16.5
25.1
22.4
IT
.4
12.7
13.2
7.5
10.3
16.9
16.2
22.9
LU
1.2
.3
.3
13.0
16.2
6.1
7.7
10.1
33.7
11.6
LU
.9
.7
15.7
15.0
9.7
16.2
16.7
14.3
10.7
NL
2.2
.5
19.1
16.4
10.8
19.1
8.8
14.8
8.4
NL
1.0
1.2
.3
12.8
12.4
14.4
8.8
20.2
18.5
10.4
AT
6.5
2.7
.6
11.4
6.5
10.5
6.4
20.1
26.4
8.9
AT
3.4
.6
5.6
13.3
8.7
9.0
14.9
16.4
28.1
PT
8.4
.2
4.1
9.4
5.8
4.2
9.8
45.0
13.2
PT
.7
1.1
.2
8.7
15.7
14.9
13.7
23.5
8.7
12.9
SE
5.8
.2
.3
6.3
19.9
16.2
14.6
21.5
7.9
7.2
SE
1.9
2.5
14.8
13.8
11.8
14.2
11.7
16.5
12.7
UK
9.5
1.1
.0
11.1
9.1
9.2
20.9
5.2
25.1
8.8
UK
4.2
6.9
16.8
2.1
23.8
11.6
21.4
17.4
.3
.4
9.9
12.0
4.5
9.2
10.3
20.4
28.8
.8
10.9
12.9
8.4
5.4
16.7
17.9
27.1
Country
CY
CZ
2.0
5.0
20.4
2.1
19.1
4.8
35.6
11.0
Country
CY
CZ
3.1
.4
.2
14.6
4.8
5.2
11.9
13.9
21.5
24.4
EE
6.7
.5
1.0
17.2
4.8
2.8
9.1
3.8
31.2
22.8
EE
.3
.2
.2
10.6
14.8
10.6
9.3
13.1
16.6
24.3
HU
1.3
1.0
11.0
17.1
9.4
7.1
7.2
24.7
21.2
HU
1.1
.5
12.8
13.4
5.4
11.9
3.9
25.0
26.1
LV
8.5
1.0
8.5
8.7
3.3
11.5
2.2
31.2
25.2
LV
1.3
.4
.5
16.9
9.7
2.2
8.6
18.6
21.6
20.2
LT
10.0
1.2
.2
14.6
16.5
.2
7.5
8.2
22.3
19.3
LT
4.5
11.5
19.6
4.2
15.8
10.7
17.9
15.7
MT
9.3
.8
8.1
12.2
2.0
12.0
6.7
41.9
6.9
MT
3.0
.5
3.9
6.6
10.9
13.1
16.9
15.8
29.2
PL
14.1
1.5
.5
4.8
7.0
4.8
9.4
9.2
31.1
17.8
PL
9.6
14.1
5.6
11.4
11.8
21.3
26.1
SK
3.7
5.4
13.1
3.0
8.4
8.4
27.6
30.4
SK
1.8
.6
.1
12.2
10.5
8.1
8.6
16.4
24.2
17.5
SI
3.6
2.9
.7
15.6
12.7
5.2
8.7
10.9
21.1
18.6
SI
2.1
10.1
13.0
4.5
10.9
15.0
15.9
28.7
BG
4.8
.8
5.9
9.0
2.0
11.8
10.4
31.3
24.0
BG
.6
1.7
.5
9.4
16.0
4.8
14.0
10.2
18.0
24.6
RO
14.6
.3
5.7
7.9
.9
8.4
7.0
34.4
20.8
RO
3.6
.7
.7
2.2
15.6
5.1
15.6
17.4
17.8
21.3
TR
26.5
.6
.9
2.4
4.6
2.1
17.5
9.1
28.1
8.4
TR
.5
.8
18.0
13.4
17.2
5.2
21.9
12.9
10.0
IS
.3
35.9
12.5
12.9
7.2
13.2
10.9
7.2
IS
1.0
.5
11.0
9.9
10.8
11.5
18.4
17.6
19.3
HR
6.3
1.5
.3
7.8
10.4
7.9
4.5
8.5
32.4
20.5
HR
2.2
1.3
.5
17.9
11.7
14.2
10.8
18.6
12.3
10.6
CH
6.1
.7
.5
23.3
11.0
13.0
8.8
10.1
19.5
7.0
CH
.5
1.1
.5
13.7
16.2
14.7
13.2
20.2
8.6
11.2
NO
3.4
1.2
.8
16.8
14.1
10.6
17.9
13.3
16.0
5.8
NO
1.6
.9
.2
10.8
14.2
9.6
12.0
16.5
EU27
15.5
18.7
6.8
1.0
.2
10.2
10.7
8.6
12.4
10.5
EU27
25.2
14.4
Biobanks will follow up participants over long periods of time. And many biobanks will work with industrial companies to develop new medicines. Who do you think should be primarily responsible for protecting the public interest?
qb15b
159
24.1
75.9
37.3
62.7
DK
70.0
50.9
BE
30.0
DK
49.1
BE
84.0
16.0
DE
75.0
25.0
DE
58.8
41.2
GR
47.5
52.5
GR
74.9
75.9
34.0
66.0
29.0
71.0
DK
74.3
81.0
BE
25.7
19.0
BE
76.1
23.9
DE
73.7
26.3
DE
69.9
30.1
DE
83.1
16.9
GR
80.8
19.2
GR
74.1
25.9
GR
93.5
6.5
ES
67.2
32.8
ES
74.9
25.1
ES
63.5
36.5
ES
52.3
47.7
ES
86.2
13.8
FI
78.0
22.0
FI
66.3
33.7
FI
63.5
36.5
FI
71.9
28.1
FI
69.0
31.0
FR
83.7
16.3
FR
77.9
22.1
FR
73.0
27.0
FR
59.3
40.7
FR
81.4
18.6
IE
78.3
21.7
IE
77.3
22.7
IE
74.9
25.1
IE
47.1
52.9
IE
92.8
7.2
IT
81.9
18.1
IT
62.8
37.2
IT
55.4
44.6
IT
60.5
39.5
IT
86.5
13.5
LU
82.2
17.8
LU
73.2
26.8
LU
65.9
34.1
LU
50.4
49.6
LU
Not mentioned
Mentioned (first or
second)
biobanks_int_orgs
79.5
20.5
BE
78.4
21.6
DK
74.1
25.9
DE
75.1
24.9
GR
74.4
25.6
ES
67.2
32.8
FI
73.8
26.2
FR
71.6
28.4
IE
76.1
23.9
IT
70.8
29.2
LU
International organisations such as the European Union or World Health Organisation
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobanks_ethicscomm
Ethics committees
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobanks_government
DK
25.1
DK
24.1
BE
National governments
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobanks_institute
Public institutions (universities, hospitals)
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobanks_researchers
Researchers
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobanks_doctors
Medical doctors
Mentioned (first or second)
68.9
31.1
NL
79.7
20.3
NL
65.1
34.9
NL
74.9
25.1
NL
81.2
18.8
NL
71.2
28.8
NL
82.2
17.8
AT
76.4
23.6
AT
85.6
14.4
AT
61.5
38.5
AT
81.7
18.3
AT
56.8
43.2
AT
78.5
21.5
PT
86.2
13.8
PT
87.6
12.4
PT
76.6
23.4
PT
61.1
38.9
PT
40.0
60.0
PT
65.4
34.6
SE
69.8
30.2
SE
72.5
27.5
SE
56.5
43.5
SE
80.7
19.3
SE
83.9
16.1
SE
78.6
21.4
UK
80.2
19.8
UK
66.5
33.5
UK
84.3
15.7
UK
79.9
20.1
UK
60.1
39.9
UK
62.5
37.5
45.4
54.6
73.7
26.3
85.6
14.4
87.5
12.5
63.1
36.9
75.7
24.3
Country
CY
CZ
95.8
4.2
Country
CY
CZ
57.6
42.4
Country
CY
CZ
83.8
16.2
Country
CY
CZ
72.0
28.0
Country
CY
CZ
43.5
56.5
Country
CY
CZ
90.7
9.3
EE
92.4
7.6
EE
79.9
20.1
EE
83.4
16.6
EE
54.5
45.5
EE
48.8
51.2
EE
68.4
31.6
HU
80.2
19.8
HU
83.8
16.2
HU
80.0
20.0
HU
55.1
44.9
HU
59.1
40.9
HU
79.2
20.8
LV
91.8
8.2
LV
77.8
22.2
LV
94.3
5.7
LV
51.2
48.8
LV
46.3
53.7
LV
74.9
25.1
LT
97.8
2.2
LT
84.9
15.1
LT
75.4
24.6
LT
62.7
37.3
LT
58.5
41.5
LT
70.1
29.9
MT
94.3
5.7
MT
73.8
26.2
MT
83.6
16.4
MT
79.0
21.0
MT
41.9
58.1
MT
87.5
12.5
PL
86.1
13.9
PL
79.5
20.5
PL
76.6
23.4
PL
57.6
42.4
PL
55.6
44.4
PL
73.3
26.7
SK
91.6
8.4
SK
80.6
19.4
SK
80.2
19.8
SK
44.5
55.5
SK
51.8
48.2
SK
77.5
22.5
SI
87.3
12.7
SI
83.3
16.7
SI
73.8
26.2
SI
65.1
34.9
SI
56.3
43.7
SI
78.7
21.3
BG
93.7
6.3
BG
77.9
22.1
BG
75.5
24.5
BG
49.0
51.0
BG
53.7
46.3
BG
78.5
21.5
RO
95.0
5.0
RO
79.6
20.4
RO
84.4
15.6
RO
58.3
41.7
RO
50.3
49.7
RO
84.0
16.0
TR
94.2
5.8
TR
71.2
28.8
TR
78.2
21.8
TR
76.0
24.0
TR
59.0
41.0
TR
74.2
25.8
IS
70.0
30.0
IS
87.6
12.4
IS
64.9
35.1
IS
82.9
17.1
IS
76.2
23.8
IS
80.5
19.5
HR
82.2
17.8
HR
84.9
15.1
HR
74.6
25.4
HR
61.7
38.3
HR
51.4
48.6
HR
78.2
21.8
CH
73.8
26.2
CH
81.1
18.9
CH
72.6
27.4
CH
83.1
16.9
CH
69.1
30.9
CH
70.4
29.6
NO
75.4
24.6
NO
69.4
30.6
NO
67.5
32.5
NO
83.5
16.5
NO
75.7
24.3
NO
76.2
23.8
EU27
82.6
17.4
EU27
76.5
23.5
EU27
74.3
25.7
EU27
68.3
31.7
EU27
60.5
39.5
EU27
160
72.3
83.9
99.8
99.5
4.4
95.6
1.1
98.9
DK
99.7
99.0
BE
.3
1.0
BE
94.8
5.2
DE
98.2
1.8
DE
99.9
.1
DE
61.4
38.6
DE
98.7
1.3
GR
97.8
2.2
GR
99.6
.4
GR
87.4
12.6
GR
.6
96.4
3.6
ES
97.9
2.1
ES
99.4
ES
86.8
13.2
ES
98.2
1.8
FI
98.5
1.5
FI
99.0
1.0
FI
75.1
24.9
FI
93.4
6.6
FR
97.7
2.3
FR
99.4
.6
FR
82.8
17.2
FR
.6
.2
93.8
6.2
IE
99.8
IE
99.4
IE
85.6
14.4
IE
9.0
3.6
20.5
2.4
DK
37.6
16.0
35.5
25.6
Yes, probably
No, probably not
No, never
33.8
DK
16.1
BE
Yes, definitely
biobank_participate
26.2
6.9
30.7
25.2
11.0
DE
36.9
4.7
30.5
23.8
4.0
GR
24.6
8.3
30.5
17.7
18.8
ES
9.8
3.7
43.5
18.6
24.4
FI
29.4
6.6
29.3
16.8
17.9
FR
22.7
12.2
35.6
17.2
12.3
IE
.4
92.9
7.1
IT
98.9
1.1
IT
99.6
IT
88.9
11.1
IT
16.6
16.4
33.9
18.8
14.4
IT
qb16b
Would you be willing to provide information about yourself to a biobank?
DK
(some non-DK
response)
biobanks_DK
DK
No actor
(SPONTANEOUS)
(some actor
mentioned)
biobanks_none
DK
.2
.5
BE
None (SPONTANEOUS)
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobanks_other
DK
27.7
DK
16.1
BE
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobanks_data_orgs
National Data Protection Authorities
.3
.3
17.9
7.5
36.6
22.8
15.2
LU
98.8
1.2
LU
99.7
LU
99.7
LU
74.5
25.5
LU
.5
.7
11.8
4.9
38.7
23.7
20.9
NL
97.8
2.2
NL
99.3
NL
99.5
NL
65.5
34.5
NL
.9
26.4
7.7
30.5
31.1
4.2
AT
93.5
6.5
AT
96.2
3.8
AT
99.1
AT
77.0
23.0
AT
.7
11.6
15.9
36.8
20.0
15.6
PT
91.6
8.4
PT
99.3
PT
100.0
PT
90.8
9.2
PT
3.2
3.9
41.7
11.2
39.9
SE
94.2
5.8
SE
98.7
1.3
SE
99.5
.5
SE
85.5
14.5
SE
23.6
5.4
34.6
21.5
14.9
UK
90.5
9.5
UK
96.6
3.4
UK
100.0
.0
UK
75.7
24.3
UK
99.7
95.8
4.2
20.1
15.6
24.3
11.4
28.5
16.7
5.8
37.5
30.4
9.6
Country
CY
CZ
98.0
2.0
Country
CY
CZ
100.0
.3
99.6
Country
CY
CZ
100.0
.4
79.7
20.3
Country
CY
CZ
88.2
11.8
Country
CY
CZ
16.9
3.1
32.7
21.2
26.1
EE
93.3
6.7
EE
99.1
.9
EE
98.8
1.2
EE
69.3
30.7
EE
24.6
4.0
28.8
29.9
12.6
HU
98.7
1.3
HU
98.8
1.2
HU
99.8
.2
HU
78.6
21.4
HU
39.4
6.4
18.9
29.7
5.5
LV
91.5
8.5
LV
98.5
1.5
LV
100.0
LV
79.9
20.1
LV
.6
36.1
8.5
24.5
22.9
8.0
LT
90.0
10.0
LT
98.5
1.5
LT
99.4
LT
70.4
29.6
LT
17.8
17.2
33.0
18.7
13.2
MT
90.7
9.3
MT
99.2
.8
MT
100.0
MT
81.5
18.5
MT
.5
17.6
16.3
29.6
26.7
9.8
PL
85.9
14.1
PL
98.0
2.0
PL
99.5
PL
91.9
8.1
PL
23.9
5.1
33.7
31.0
6.3
SK
96.3
3.7
SK
100.0
SK
100.0
SK
85.3
14.7
SK
.8
22.7
5.2
34.7
26.7
10.7
SI
96.4
3.6
SI
96.5
3.5
SI
99.2
SI
73.0
27.0
SI
18.2
21.4
26.4
27.5
6.6
BG
95.2
4.8
BG
99.2
.8
BG
100.0
BG
84.6
15.4
BG
21.2
27.0
23.4
18.7
9.7
RO
85.4
14.6
RO
98.2
1.8
RO
99.5
.5
RO
86.3
13.7
RO
26.8
33.2
12.6
16.5
11.0
TR
73.5
26.5
TR
98.9
1.1
TR
98.8
1.2
TR
96.0
4.0
TR
.8
.3
2.6
.5
38.7
4.4
53.8
IS
99.7
IS
99.2
IS
100.0
IS
46.1
53.9
IS
18.7
14.5
29.6
22.1
15.1
HR
93.7
6.3
HR
97.9
2.1
HR
99.7
.3
HR
82.0
18.0
HR
21.2
9.3
29.6
22.3
17.6
CH
93.9
6.1
CH
98.0
2.0
CH
99.1
.9
CH
60.0
40.0
CH
4.0
2.4
45.9
11.5
36.2
NO
96.6
3.4
NO
97.8
2.2
NO
98.7
1.3
NO
70.1
29.9
NO
22.1
9.7
31.9
21.8
EU27
14.4
93.2
EU27
6.8
98.1
1.9
EU27
99.7
.3
EU27
79.8
20.2
EU27
161
18.8
81.2
69.2
DK
30.8
BE
63.0
37.0
DE
63.6
36.4
GR
27.2
72.8
32.7
67.3
DK
77.2
67.6
BE
22.8
DK
32.4
BE
27.1
72.9
64.1
DK
35.9
BE
54.1
45.9
DE
52.3
47.7
DE
60.6
39.4
DE
67.7
32.3
GR
57.6
42.4
GR
58.6
41.4
GR
67.2
32.8
ES
67.6
32.4
ES
68.8
31.2
ES
65.2
34.8
ES
71.4
28.6
FI
72.9
27.1
FI
84.2
15.8
FI
83.6
16.4
FI
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobankinfo_lifestyle
20.5
79.5
73.8
DK
26.2
BE
61.4
38.6
DE
77.8
22.2
GR
74.3
25.7
ES
85.7
14.3
FI
Lifestyle (what you eat, how much exercise you take, etc.)
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobankinfo_records
Medical record from your doctor
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobankinfo_genes
Your genetic profile
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobankinfo_tissue
Tissue collected during medical operations
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobankinfo_blood
Blood samples
75.2
24.8
FR
62.8
37.2
FR
64.7
35.3
FR
71.5
28.5
FR
70.5
29.5
FR
82.5
17.5
IE
64.1
35.9
IE
72.1
27.9
IE
71.3
28.7
IE
70.0
30.0
IE
84.7
15.3
IT
79.9
20.1
IT
73.7
26.3
IT
72.3
27.7
IT
75.5
24.5
IT
87.1
12.9
LU
78.3
21.7
LU
80.5
19.5
LU
93.2
6.8
LU
82.2
17.8
LU
66.4
33.6
NL
57.4
42.6
NL
63.3
36.7
NL
74.2
25.8
NL
78.5
21.5
NL
71.4
28.6
AT
61.8
38.2
AT
58.9
41.1
AT
56.9
43.1
AT
65.2
34.8
AT
88.2
11.8
PT
78.9
21.1
PT
77.0
23.0
PT
72.8
27.2
PT
72.6
27.4
PT
79.8
20.2
SE
72.1
27.9
SE
75.5
24.5
SE
84.4
15.6
SE
83.4
16.6
SE
77.3
22.7
UK
67.1
32.9
UK
68.9
31.1
UK
72.6
27.4
UK
74.2
25.8
UK
64.8
35.2
71.6
28.4
59.7
40.3
63.9
36.1
83.6
16.4
76.6
23.4
Country
CY
CZ
69.7
30.3
Country
CY
CZ
65.4
34.6
Country
CY
CZ
72.5
27.5
Country
CY
CZ
70.0
30.0
Country
CY
CZ
79.6
20.4
EE
73.8
26.2
EE
75.1
24.9
EE
73.5
26.5
EE
75.3
24.7
EE
81.7
18.3
HU
69.0
31.0
HU
59.7
40.3
HU
67.8
32.2
HU
68.9
31.1
HU
73.0
27.0
LV
64.3
35.7
LV
68.2
31.8
LV
70.5
29.5
LV
68.3
31.7
LV
78.8
21.2
LT
72.6
27.4
LT
68.8
31.2
LT
72.8
27.2
LT
75.2
24.8
LT
82.3
17.7
MT
68.2
31.8
MT
77.9
22.1
MT
77.8
22.2
MT
71.9
28.1
MT
82.8
17.2
PL
77.5
22.5
PL
68.5
31.5
PL
72.9
27.1
PL
70.8
29.2
PL
80.7
19.3
SK
58.5
41.5
SK
55.8
44.2
SK
61.9
38.1
SK
60.7
39.3
SK
74.8
25.2
SI
67.6
32.4
SI
58.1
41.9
SI
67.5
32.5
SI
67.5
32.5
SI
82.9
17.1
BG
80.4
19.6
BG
76.5
23.5
BG
73.8
26.2
BG
69.1
30.9
BG
80.8
19.2
RO
72.7
27.3
RO
75.9
24.1
RO
77.9
22.1
RO
64.9
35.1
RO
90.9
9.1
TR
82.5
17.5
TR
77.9
22.1
TR
77.1
22.9
TR
73.9
26.1
TR
83.9
16.1
IS
76.3
23.7
IS
81.9
18.1
IS
82.9
17.1
IS
87.2
12.8
IS
85.5
14.5
HR
73.9
26.1
HR
66.2
33.8
HR
74.9
25.1
HR
76.1
23.9
HR
75.0
25.0
CH
64.6
35.4
CH
64.0
36.0
CH
74.6
25.4
CH
74.3
25.7
CH
82.2
17.8
NO
63.1
36.9
NO
71.2
28.8
NO
87.5
12.5
NO
88.6
11.4
NO
75.9
24.1
EU27
67.4
32.6
EU27
65.9
34.1
EU27
70.0
30.0
EU27
70.0
30.0
EU27
qb17b
In order to understand the causes of diseases researchers need as much information as possible about the people in the biobank. Would you personally be concerned or reluctant about the collection of any of the following types of
data and materials from you?
162
99.3
98.5
6.8
93.2
2.7
97.3
DK
55.3
73.5
BE
44.7
26.5
BE
92.8
7.2
DE
84.2
15.8
DE
99.7
.3
DE
95.7
4.3
GR
69.9
30.1
GR
99.6
.4
GR
92.9
7.1
ES
67.2
32.8
ES
97.2
2.8
ES
95.5
4.5
FI
59.5
40.5
FI
97.7
2.3
FI
94.2
5.8
FR
68.6
31.4
FR
99.8
.2
FR
85.4
14.6
IE
70.3
29.7
IE
98.5
1.5
IE
.9
88.3
11.7
IT
69.1
30.9
IT
99.1
IT
96.0
4.0
LU
86.6
13.4
LU
96.1
3.9
LU
.5
97.1
2.9
NL
70.5
29.5
NL
99.5
NL
90.9
9.1
AT
81.5
18.5
AT
97.9
2.1
AT
85.3
14.7
PT
74.9
25.1
PT
98.6
1.4
PT
95.8
4.2
SE
51.0
49.0
SE
98.2
1.8
SE
90.6
9.4
UK
62.9
37.1
UK
99.2
.8
UK
81.1
18.9
87.5
12.5
92.3
7.7
Country
CY
CZ
60.9
39.1
.2
99.8
Country
CY
CZ
99.6
.4
Country
CY
CZ
88.2
11.8
EE
62.5
37.5
EE
99.8
.2
EE
96.5
3.5
HU
73.1
26.9
HU
99.1
.9
HU
91.6
8.4
LV
69.9
30.1
LV
100.0
LV
83.8
16.2
LT
74.5
25.5
LT
97.6
2.4
LT
70.9
29.1
MT
78.4
21.6
MT
99.1
.9
MT
82.1
17.9
PL
78.8
21.2
PL
100.0
PL
95.3
4.7
SK
88.3
11.7
SK
100.0
SK
93.7
6.3
SI
74.1
25.9
SI
96.7
3.3
SI
72.2
27.8
BG
79.0
21.0
BG
100.0
BG
74.1
25.9
RO
81.4
18.6
RO
99.1
.9
RO
63.0
37.0
TR
86.8
13.2
TR
99.1
.9
TR
Yes, definitely
Yes, probably
No, probably not
No, definitely not
DK
biobank_international
DK
30.6
32.2
18.6
13.5
5.1
BE
25.6
42.8
16.3
10.7
4.7
18.0
25.4
20.8
26.0
9.8
DE
12.0
39.2
19.0
21.8
8.0
GR
27.2
33.6
13.6
14.0
11.6
ES
19.8
48.7
18.2
9.2
4.1
FI
27.2
30.3
13.6
16.7
12.1
FR
13.9
35.3
15.2
13.9
21.7
IE
14.2
42.5
14.9
10.1
18.3
IT
25.1
35.5
17.5
11.4
10.6
LU
25.3
29.0
20.4
19.5
5.8
NL
6.4
32.9
25.5
21.6
13.6
AT
18.8
38.7
16.1
5.0
21.3
PT
21.6
37.1
18.9
13.6
8.8
SE
16.4
32.3
21.1
18.6
11.5
UK
51.6
25.1
6.8
3.9
12.6
16.9
41.4
22.8
7.4
11.6
Country
CY
CZ
18.6
39.5
17.6
15.2
9.1
EE
16.8
39.5
19.6
13.9
10.3
HU
13.5
37.7
20.0
14.5
14.2
LV
20.9
38.1
13.1
11.9
15.9
LT
20.4
31.5
10.5
12.8
24.8
MT
11.8
38.7
16.1
5.2
28.2
PL
17.0
47.1
18.1
9.1
8.8
SK
19.0
41.1
15.8
13.6
10.5
SI
8.5
38.8
10.4
4.6
37.8
BG
13.7
31.5
10.8
7.7
36.3
RO
12.1
12.0
12.3
16.2
47.4
TR
qb18b
Some countries in the European Union have one or more biobanks. Do you think the sharing and exchange of personal data and biological materials tissue across Member States should be encouraged?
DK
(some non-DK
response)
biobankinfo_DK
DK
No information
(SPONTANEOUS)
(some information
mentioned)
biobankinfo_none
DK
.7
DK
1.5
BE
None (SPONTANEOUS)
Mentioned (first or
second)
Not mentioned
biobankinfo_other
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
.9
.9
29.3
39.9
16.9
9.2
4.7
IS
99.1
IS
34.9
65.1
IS
99.1
IS
20.9
35.3
13.2
9.3
21.4
HR
84.0
16.0
HR
78.6
21.4
HR
99.6
.4
HR
23.1
25.3
21.0
18.9
11.8
CH
88.4
11.6
CH
75.6
24.4
CH
99.8
.2
CH
25.1
41.9
16.9
10.4
5.7
NO
96.5
3.5
NO
60.0
40.0
NO
98.3
1.7
NO
EU27
18.7
34.3
17.1
15.1
14.8
90.2
EU27
9.8
72.5
27.5
EU27
99.2
.8
EU27
163
71.5
19.8
8.7
18.3
6.4
DK
75.3
BE
19.3
18.6
62.1
DE
5.3
17.4
77.3
GR
13.6
19.6
66.9
ES
2.6
9.1
88.4
FI
68.1
18.4
13.5
15.2
8.6
DK
76.2
BE
29.8
24.0
46.3
DE
11.3
39.6
49.2
GR
20.9
19.6
59.5
ES
7.3
13.4
79.3
FI
12.6
21.0
66.3
FR
7.5
6.8
19.6
5.2
7.3
4.0
DE
72.9
DK
88.0
88.7
BE
6.5
12.6
81.0
GR
13.0
7.7
79.3
ES
2.2
2.3
95.6
FI
8.0
5.7
86.3
FR
86.2
6.3
7.6
6.9
3.3
DK
89.8
BE
16.5
5.6
77.9
DE
8.6
19.6
71.8
GR
19.3
11.2
69.6
ES
2.9
9.8
87.3
FI
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_envgroups
69.4
18.8
11.8
20.1
7.2
DK
72.7
BE
20.7
10.1
69.2
DE
6.4
7.4
86.1
GR
18.4
10.4
71.2
ES
6.3
18.9
74.8
FI
Environmental groups who campaign about biotechnology
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_consumerorg
11.5
18.2
70.3
FR
7.3
9.2
83.5
FR
Consumer organisations which test biotechnological products
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_university
8.5
39.1
52.4
FR
University scientists who conduct research in biotechnology
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_industry
Industries which develop new products with biotechnology
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_news
37.6
14.3
48.1
IE
35.6
13.5
50.9
IE
30.0
10.5
59.5
IE
36.4
17.9
45.7
IE
28.1
18.8
53.1
IE
26.4
15.8
57.8
IT
22.1
14.3
63.6
IT
19.5
13.2
67.2
IT
30.5
19.7
49.8
IT
24.6
20.3
55.1
IT
14.8
21.4
63.8
LU
9.7
11.3
79.0
LU
7.4
10.0
82.5
LU
13.3
19.0
67.7
LU
6.1
9.9
83.9
LU
10.7
25.9
63.4
NL
3.2
4.4
92.4
NL
6.7
3.4
89.9
NL
14.4
15.6
70.0
NL
6.8
12.5
80.7
NL
14.0
14.1
71.9
AT
9.4
10.5
80.2
AT
13.0
12.5
74.5
AT
20.1
20.2
59.6
AT
10.0
14.3
75.8
AT
29.3
9.0
61.7
PT
30.8
8.6
60.6
PT
26.6
5.8
67.5
PT
37.4
15.4
47.2
PT
24.8
16.4
58.7
PT
10.1
6.8
83.1
SE
10.0
5.3
84.7
SE
10.1
1.7
88.3
SE
16.1
12.6
71.3
SE
9.4
11.1
79.5
SE
28.4
22.7
48.9
UK
27.9
11.4
60.7
UK
22.7
6.7
70.7
UK
29.5
15.7
54.7
UK
20.3
33.2
46.4
UK
5.3
11.3
83.4
11.5
10.3
78.2
7.7
4.7
87.6
6.8
5.9
87.3
7.3
4.0
88.8
12.0
17.6
70.4
Country
CY
CZ
10.5
7.6
81.9
Country
CY
CZ
7.9
4.6
87.4
Country
CY
CZ
14.4
11.9
73.7
Country
CY
CZ
7.1
8.6
84.3
Country
CY
CZ
22.6
21.0
56.5
EE
21.1
20.2
58.7
EE
13.6
6.7
79.7
EE
20.5
20.8
58.8
EE
14.3
34.1
51.5
EE
All respondents - no split ballot
qb19
For each of the following people and groups, do you think they are doing a good job for society or not doing a good job for society?
Newspapers, magazines and television which report on biotechnology
11.8
14.7
73.5
HU
6.9
7.1
86.0
HU
6.5
5.9
87.6
HU
12.3
14.6
73.2
HU
9.9
14.7
75.4
HU
10.7
11.2
78.0
LV
9.4
7.4
83.1
LV
7.3
3.2
89.5
LV
11.0
11.7
77.4
LV
6.0
6.8
87.2
LV
15.5
7.9
76.6
LT
13.5
8.6
77.9
LT
12.0
5.7
82.3
LT
21.0
16.3
62.7
LT
10.6
8.8
80.5
LT
30.9
8.8
60.3
MT
34.3
8.1
57.5
MT
32.6
5.9
61.6
MT
38.0
15.6
46.3
MT
25.6
19.6
54.8
MT
22.5
10.2
67.2
PL
19.5
10.4
70.1
PL
17.2
6.6
76.2
PL
23.7
13.4
62.9
PL
16.7
11.6
71.7
PL
10.3
12.5
77.2
SK
6.3
9.8
83.9
SK
5.0
6.6
88.4
SK
8.6
10.1
81.3
SK
3.8
10.0
86.2
SK
8.5
14.6
76.9
SI
8.4
22.5
69.2
SI
7.5
14.2
78.3
SI
10.2
40.3
49.5
SI
8.3
26.0
65.8
SI
26.6
11.8
61.5
BG
28.3
17.9
53.8
BG
23.2
11.1
65.8
BG
34.1
20.0
45.9
BG
12.0
8.6
79.4
BG
20.9
8.7
70.3
RO
23.6
9.4
67.0
RO
21.7
9.0
69.3
RO
27.2
10.9
61.9
RO
10.0
7.5
82.5
RO
42.2
16.2
41.6
TR
43.2
15.4
41.4
TR
38.6
14.2
47.3
TR
40.8
18.3
40.8
TR
36.9
15.1
47.9
TR
5.4
56.2
38.4
IS
4.2
8.9
86.9
IS
1.9
1.0
97.1
IS
5.8
14.2
80.1
IS
2.2
19.0
78.9
IS
11.2
22.4
66.4
HR
11.0
17.0
72.0
HR
6.8
8.3
84.9
HR
11.5
15.8
72.7
HR
6.3
11.1
82.6
HR
15.0
15.0
70.1
CH
11.4
9.3
79.3
CH
15.4
6.2
78.4
CH
24.3
19.1
56.5
CH
13.2
22.8
64.0
CH
18.0
20.5
61.4
NO
17.4
11.8
70.8
NO
15.3
11.1
73.6
NO
23.6
20.4
56.0
NO
13.6
28.5
57.9
NO
19.5
14.6
65.9
EU27
17.0
9.9
73.1
EU27
15.6
7.7
76.7
EU27
23.2
18.6
58.2
EU27
15.2
20.9
63.8
EU27
164
63.8
23.5
12.8
17.6
8.6
DK
73.8
BE
33.0
24.8
42.2
DE
55.2
37.3
7.6
15.5
4.4
DK
80.0
BE
20.4
20.6
58.9
DE
9.3
25.4
65.3
GR
12.0
18.9
69.1
GR
16.2
24.0
59.8
ES
19.5
16.2
64.3
ES
4.2
16.6
79.2
FI
5.1
8.0
86.9
FI
10.0
25.8
64.2
FR
17.3
26.5
56.3
FR
28.6
19.1
52.3
IE
43.7
23.8
32.5
IE
22.9
25.9
51.2
IT
33.5
19.0
47.5
IT
55.2
27.3
17.5
15.1
6.4
DK
78.5
BE
35.4
19.5
45.1
DE
10.8
17.6
71.6
GR
19.3
8.8
71.9
ES
5.3
14.8
79.9
FI
16.4
19.2
64.4
FR
43.1
17.4
39.5
IE
28.3
15.5
56.2
IT
12.2
15.9
71.9
LU
71.9
13.9
14.2
15.9
7.1
DK
77.0
BE
29.5
14.6
55.9
DE
9.2
12.8
78.0
GR
21.0
18.5
60.5
ES
6.6
10.2
83.2
FI
16.6
21.0
62.3
FR
43.0
15.9
41.1
IE
28.1
19.2
52.7
IT
13.6
19.9
66.6
LU
7.6
11.2
81.1
NL
10.0
10.3
79.7
NL
10.6
20.0
69.4
NL
11.5
9.0
79.5
NL
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_doctors
Medical doctors
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_religion
10.1
7.5
84.2
9.7
6.0
90.2
6.8
3.0
DK
75.9
67.9
BE
14.0
DK
24.6
BE
12.3
7.7
80.1
DE
32.1
43.2
24.7
DE
4.3
7.9
87.9
GR
11.7
27.2
61.1
GR
5.5
4.8
89.7
ES
17.4
45.8
36.8
ES
1.7
2.2
96.1
FI
7.0
79.3
13.8
FI
8.4
9.5
82.0
FR
10.7
75.0
14.3
FR
31.6
10.1
58.2
IE
44.3
30.0
25.7
IE
16.9
11.9
71.3
IT
29.8
35.1
35.1
IT
6.7
9.9
83.3
LU
15.5
59.4
25.2
LU
4.4
2.5
93.2
NL
8.9
73.4
17.7
NL
Religious leaders who say what is right and wrong in the development of biotechnology
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_ethicscomms
Ethics committees who consider the moral and ethical aspects of biotechnology
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_EU
5.6
13.3
81.1
LU
14.5
16.9
68.6
LU
The European Union making laws about biotechnology for all EU Member States
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_retailers
Retailers who ensure our food is safe
Doing a good job for
society
Not doing a good job
for society
DK
goodjob_government
(NATIONALITY) Government making laws about biotechnology
5.1
7.3
87.6
AT
21.8
40.3
37.9
AT
17.8
15.7
66.6
AT
18.4
25.2
56.4
AT
7.8
10.5
81.7
AT
16.5
20.2
63.3
AT
19.2
6.7
74.1
PT
37.6
23.0
39.5
PT
36.7
8.2
55.0
PT
33.4
9.9
56.7
PT
29.3
16.1
54.5
PT
33.1
20.9
46.0
PT
8.2
6.1
85.7
SE
10.9
81.0
8.1
SE
17.4
13.5
69.0
SE
13.8
9.5
76.7
SE
11.3
23.5
65.1
SE
13.6
9.7
76.7
SE
12.2
6.9
80.9
UK
28.1
46.8
25.1
UK
30.8
18.3
50.9
UK
35.9
23.0
41.1
UK
14.0
21.6
64.4
UK
31.8
22.8
45.4
UK
13.7
17.3
69.1
6.6
16.1
77.3
10.8
9.8
79.4
10.7
11.8
77.5
15.8
41.7
42.5
6.1
1.7
92.2
4.4
4.1
91.5
Country
CY
CZ
12.3
24.5
63.2
Country
CY
CZ
14.1
7.6
78.3
Country
CY
CZ
11.2
4.6
84.1
Country
CY
CZ
14.7
16.0
69.3
Country
CY
CZ
14.9
6.0
79.1
Country
CY
CZ
9.8
13.4
76.8
EE
29.4
51.6
19.0
EE
29.6
22.2
48.2
EE
27.4
20.5
52.2
EE
18.2
42.9
38.9
EE
27.7
36.1
36.2
EE
4.3
4.5
91.3
HU
17.3
38.4
44.2
HU
10.2
9.2
80.5
HU
8.0
7.6
84.4
HU
11.3
10.6
78.0
HU
12.4
13.4
74.2
HU
6.0
4.1
89.9
LV
17.4
30.1
52.5
LV
11.0
13.4
75.5
LV
12.7
9.1
78.2
LV
9.6
17.7
72.7
LV
13.6
21.0
65.4
LV
9.1
6.2
84.7
LT
23.4
27.0
49.6
LT
20.8
13.1
66.1
LT
19.4
7.5
73.1
LT
13.9
18.6
67.5
LT
21.1
20.5
58.4
LT
19.1
3.8
77.1
MT
34.5
15.5
50.0
MT
39.5
6.3
54.2
MT
33.8
6.7
59.5
MT
32.6
16.8
50.6
MT
37.2
11.8
51.0
MT
11.8
11.2
77.0
PL
25.2
29.3
45.5
PL
23.9
12.0
64.1
PL
24.5
11.1
64.4
PL
24.0
23.2
52.9
PL
28.5
15.2
56.3
PL
2.3
4.0
93.7
SK
10.8
31.5
57.7
SK
8.0
10.2
81.9
SK
7.8
9.0
83.2
SK
5.7
10.0
84.3
SK
9.4
15.0
75.6
SK
7.0
10.1
82.9
SI
14.1
50.5
35.4
SI
11.3
18.1
70.6
SI
11.0
22.0
67.0
SI
8.1
39.6
52.3
SI
12.2
31.1
56.7
SI
23.3
8.9
67.8
BG
36.0
39.4
24.6
BG
31.1
14.3
54.6
BG
27.9
16.6
55.5
BG
24.6
47.5
27.9
BG
25.3
25.9
48.8
BG
16.8
4.3
78.9
RO
29.7
15.3
55.0
RO
26.8
10.3
62.9
RO
22.9
8.9
68.2
RO
25.6
11.5
63.0
RO
27.1
13.1
59.8
RO
37.8
9.9
52.3
TR
45.7
17.8
36.5
TR
45.4
15.5
39.1
TR
43.7
16.9
39.4
TR
43.0
17.3
39.7
TR
43.2
16.4
40.4
TR
2.0
98.0
IS
3.3
84.8
11.9
IS
2.9
7.9
89.2
IS
6.2
15.8
78.0
IS
4.7
15.6
79.6
IS
5.0
14.1
80.9
IS
6.6
5.9
87.4
HR
14.6
41.1
44.3
HR
12.9
12.6
74.5
HR
13.3
15.3
71.5
HR
12.1
19.3
68.6
HR
12.6
20.9
66.6
HR
13.1
7.0
79.8
CH
20.1
63.7
16.2
CH
18.8
18.1
63.1
CH
25.0
20.5
54.5
CH
14.6
17.2
68.2
CH
19.2
18.5
62.3
CH
15.4
10.0
74.6
NO
18.1
71.6
10.3
NO
22.1
17.3
60.6
NO
29.7
25.6
44.7
NO
13.3
37.3
49.3
NO
20.5
33.4
46.1
NO
10.8
7.7
81.4
EU27
23.0
45.9
31.1
EU27
23.1
15.9
61.0
EU27
24.3
15.8
60.0
EU27
16.7
22.1
61.2
EU27
24.8
19.9
55.2
EU27
165
DK
46.5
46.9
6.6
BE
64.6
28.0
7.4
13.4
52.3
34.3
DE
8.3
45.5
46.2
GR
16.0
24.5
59.5
ES
4.8
40.2
55.0
FI
14.3
26.9
58.8
FR
35.7
5.7
6.3
58.7
DK
24.1
69.5
BE
12.9
41.1
46.0
DE
6.6
38.6
54.8
GR
12.5
23.9
63.6
ES
tightly regulated by
Government
allowed to operate in
the market place like
a business
DK
synbiology_market
79.8
15.3
4.8
19.6
7.5
DK
72.9
BE
9.9
11.1
79.0
DE
5.8
5.5
88.7
GR
12.4
7.0
80.6
ES
qb22a
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
Synthetic biology should be…
what the majority of
people in a country
thinks
DK
the advice of experts
synbiology_expert
6.2
9.2
84.7
FI
4.4
22.5
73.1
FI
13.1
11.2
75.6
FR
13.3
26.9
59.8
FR
qb21a
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
Decisions about synthetic biology should be based mainly on…
scientific evidence
the moral and ethical
issues
DK
synbiology_science
Split ballot A
qb20a
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
Decisions about synthetic biology should be based primarily on…
24.7
9.6
65.7
IE
28.5
30.1
41.4
IE
29.8
32.9
37.3
IE
14.9
14.4
70.7
IT
11.0
24.3
64.8
IT
13.6
28.7
57.8
IT
15.4
10.6
74.0
LU
17.3
27.2
55.5
LU
19.2
22.2
58.6
LU
6.9
10.0
83.0
NL
8.4
21.2
70.4
NL
8.3
40.3
51.4
NL
8.7
13.0
78.4
AT
7.6
42.5
49.9
AT
11.9
44.1
44.0
AT
18.9
8.9
72.2
PT
18.0
26.1
56.0
PT
16.5
35.3
48.2
PT
8.7
8.3
83.0
SE
11.6
26.7
61.8
SE
8.9
31.7
59.4
SE
11.2
6.9
81.9
UK
13.2
27.5
59.4
UK
16.0
28.7
55.3
UK
4.9
32.5
62.6
4.9
22.1
72.9
8.2
3.3
88.5
6.9
15.0
78.1
Country
CY
CZ
9.9
31.4
58.7
Country
CY
CZ
10.1
50.1
39.8
Country
CY
CZ
11.6
8.1
80.4
EE
11.1
28.0
60.9
EE
13.7
31.9
54.4
EE
8.0
14.7
77.4
HU
7.4
22.0
70.6
HU
9.4
21.8
68.7
HU
12.0
17.4
70.6
LV
10.4
35.0
54.6
LV
9.0
30.2
60.8
LV
17.0
7.1
75.9
LT
18.1
24.9
57.0
LT
18.2
23.4
58.4
LT
18.8
3.8
77.4
MT
17.1
25.3
57.6
MT
26.4
43.6
29.9
MT
13.6
15.3
71.1
PL
13.0
30.9
56.1
PL
15.6
33.0
51.4
PL
5.5
11.5
83.1
SK
5.0
26.5
68.5
SK
6.8
31.6
61.6
SK
9.4
7.6
83.0
SI
10.3
33.4
56.3
SI
10.3
47.3
42.4
SI
15.4
7.4
77.2
BG
16.2
37.3
46.6
BG
19.5
39.2
41.3
BG
25.7
6.9
67.5
RO
18.3
22.4
59.3
RO
20.7
23.2
56.0
RO
39.8
11.2
48.9
TR
43.3
21.9
34.8
TR
42.0
23.5
34.5
TR
7.4
9.1
83.5
IS
9.0
24.5
66.5
IS
11.9
48.2
39.9
IS
9.1
11.3
79.6
HR
8.7
33.4
57.9
HR
9.2
38.5
52.3
HR
15.1
10.5
74.4
CH
14.8
31.9
53.4
CH
15.9
41.7
42.4
CH
7.5
9.5
83.0
NO
10.8
22.2
66.9
NO
10.2
36.7
53.2
NO
12.3
10.7
77.0
EU27
12.2
29.0
58.8
EU27
13.9
33.7
EU27
52.4
166
DK
31.1
65.5
3.3
BE
52.5
42.3
5.2
13.3
59.7
27.0
DE
4.1
53.6
42.3
GR
11.8
29.1
59.0
ES
5.6
49.2
45.2
FI
9.8
48.0
42.1
FR
43.9
4.1
4.6
51.9
DK
31.7
63.7
BE
13.4
47.5
39.1
DE
4.0
45.3
50.6
GR
10.6
27.5
61.9
ES
tightly regulated by
Government
allowed to operate in
the market place like
a business
DK
animalcloning_market
92.7
4.6
2.7
9.0
4.3
DK
86.7
BE
9.2
5.2
85.6
DE
2.3
4.5
93.2
GR
6.6
8.7
84.8
ES
qb22b
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
Animal cloning should be…
what the majority of
people in a country
thinks
DK
the advice of experts
animalcloning_expert
3.2
6.0
90.7
FI
5.4
33.1
61.5
FI
8.6
4.2
87.2
FR
11.4
38.6
50.0
FR
qb21b
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
Decisions about animal cloning should be based mainly on…
scientific evidence
the moral and ethical
issues
DK
animalcloning_science
Split ballot B
qb20b
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
Decisions about animal cloning should be based primarily on…
17.8
6.6
75.6
IE
19.1
38.0
42.9
IE
25.2
38.1
36.7
IE
15.5
13.7
70.8
IT
13.8
27.8
58.3
IT
13.5
34.1
52.4
IT
11.5
6.6
82.0
LU
10.3
37.5
52.2
LU
10.0
47.1
42.9
LU
6.7
5.0
88.2
NL
11.5
30.4
58.0
NL
9.6
49.9
40.5
NL
9.5
11.2
79.3
AT
7.0
58.2
34.9
AT
7.7
64.6
27.6
AT
16.6
6.6
76.7
PT
18.0
34.7
47.3
PT
19.5
44.2
36.3
PT
3.5
2.7
93.8
SE
10.2
43.6
46.2
SE
7.9
55.6
36.5
SE
8.2
4.1
87.7
UK
11.2
39.0
49.8
UK
12.9
45.3
41.8
UK
5.8
49.0
45.2
4.9
34.8
60.3
1.9
1.6
96.5
6.6
5.8
87.6
Country
CY
CZ
6.2
36.4
57.4
Country
CY
CZ
6.6
58.3
35.1
Country
CY
CZ
11.0
1.9
87.1
EE
10.6
29.7
59.7
EE
10.4
43.2
46.4
EE
3.3
5.9
90.8
HU
4.9
33.7
61.4
HU
4.3
34.8
60.9
HU
8.9
12.3
78.8
LV
6.6
46.9
46.5
LV
6.0
43.2
50.7
LV
12.6
4.7
82.7
LT
15.1
30.6
54.3
LT
12.4
35.4
52.2
LT
17.7
3.5
78.8
MT
16.8
30.3
52.9
MT
24.8
38.4
36.8
MT
14.6
5.8
79.6
PL
15.0
35.0
50.0
PL
13.4
40.8
45.8
PL
4.0
5.9
90.1
SK
4.1
41.4
54.5
SK
4.8
46.8
48.4
SK
6.9
5.1
88.0
SI
5.7
37.5
56.8
SI
8.3
51.2
40.5
SI
13.7
7.3
79.0
BG
16.0
48.0
36.0
BG
23.3
42.6
34.1
BG
24.8
3.7
71.5
RO
22.2
26.0
51.9
RO
24.8
27.1
48.1
RO
24.5
13.7
61.7
TR
26.6
24.4
49.0
TR
28.7
31.5
39.8
TR
3.1
8.0
88.9
IS
9.6
31.1
59.4
IS
6.7
56.3
37.0
IS
6.9
9.6
83.5
HR
6.3
42.4
51.3
HR
7.3
50.7
42.0
HR
8.6
6.3
85.1
CH
10.7
49.4
40.0
CH
9.7
59.5
30.8
CH
6.0
3.4
90.7
NO
11.3
25.6
63.1
NO
6.7
53.2
40.1
NO
10.2
6.6
83.3
EU27
12.0
36.8
51.2
EU27
12.2
44.6
EU27
43.2
167
73.4
22.3
4.3
15.7
3.6
DK
80.6
BE
8.1
12.6
79.3
DE
3.1
14.6
82.2
GR
5.2
8.7
86.1
ES
3.8
19.2
77.0
FI
50.0
45.2
4.9
44.0
3.1
DK
52.9
BE
4.0
39.9
56.1
DE
1.9
41.3
56.8
GR
6.1
36.2
57.7
ES
5.0
35.2
59.8
FI
DK
Reducing economic
inequalities among
people in the
European Union
Having strong
European companies
to compete in global
markets
values_econ
3.8
56.3
40.0
BE
5.6
37.9
56.5
DK
10.3
56.0
33.7
DE
2.7
74.2
23.1
GR
6.0
67.1
26.9
ES
5.8
76.7
17.6
FI
7.5
60.3
32.2
FR
4.3
36.5
59.2
FR
qb25
And which of the following do you think is most important?
Protecting freedom of
speech and human
rights
Fighting crime and
terrorism
DK
values_freedom
9.1
16.8
74.2
FR
qb24
And which of the following do you think is most important?
The Government
should take
responsibility to
ensure that new
technologies benefit
everyone
It is up to people to
seek out the benefits
from new
technologies
themselves
DK
newtech_benefits
All respondents - no split ballot
qb23
Which of the following views is closest to your own?
16.6
42.8
40.6
IE
8.0
40.9
51.1
IE
15.5
12.0
72.5
IE
9.7
55.8
34.5
IT
8.1
43.3
48.6
IT
9.8
15.1
75.1
IT
8.0
51.5
40.5
LU
2.3
36.9
60.8
LU
6.2
15.6
78.2
LU
5.1
50.4
44.5
NL
2.2
31.3
66.5
NL
3.6
10.9
85.5
NL
9.1
48.3
42.7
AT
3.7
39.7
56.6
AT
6.5
20.6
72.9
AT
9.1
63.4
27.5
PT
7.6
38.0
54.4
PT
13.5
10.5
76.0
PT
6.1
61.8
32.0
SE
3.6
30.5
65.8
SE
8.2
35.3
56.5
SE
17.6
46.5
35.9
UK
6.4
52.6
41.0
UK
6.5
12.5
81.0
UK
5.2
12.9
81.9
2.2
48.1
49.8
7.1
77.0
15.9
4.0
58.3
37.7
Country
CY
CZ
.6
40.2
59.2
Country
CY
CZ
2.8
18.9
78.4
Country
CY
CZ
7.8
67.0
25.1
EE
6.5
50.1
43.4
EE
7.5
15.9
76.6
EE
3.1
69.8
27.1
HU
2.7
55.1
42.2
HU
4.1
17.9
78.0
HU
6.7
74.4
18.9
LV
4.2
45.6
50.2
LV
8.2
24.3
67.6
LV
10.6
63.2
26.2
LT
5.3
41.8
52.9
LT
12.7
20.2
67.2
LT
14.2
48.1
37.7
MT
5.2
38.0
56.8
MT
4.6
9.7
85.7
MT
11.6
56.5
31.8
PL
7.7
40.7
51.6
PL
15.6
29.7
54.8
PL
2.2
64.5
33.2
SK
2.3
50.8
46.9
SK
2.7
17.2
80.1
SK
4.1
61.5
34.5
SI
3.9
39.4
56.7
SI
5.9
13.8
80.3
SI
4.9
71.6
23.5
BG
3.8
66.7
29.5
BG
4.0
18.3
77.7
BG
15.2
57.3
27.5
RO
6.3
46.6
47.0
RO
18.5
23.2
58.3
RO
22.3
47.5
30.3
TR
11.5
33.0
55.5
TR
20.2
12.1
67.7
TR
6.5
68.1
25.4
IS
2.9
34.3
62.8
IS
4.7
41.3
53.9
IS
6.7
78.2
15.1
HR
4.2
55.0
40.8
HR
6.9
17.8
75.3
HR
8.3
65.0
26.7
CH
4.8
31.6
63.6
CH
8.7
21.6
69.7
CH
8.9
68.7
22.4
NO
5.3
36.8
57.9
NO
6.0
15.1
79.0
NO
9.6
57.6
32.9
EU27
5.4
42.3
52.4
EU27
8.5
16.0
75.6
EU27
168
4.8
31.1
64.1
BE
4.1
31.6
64.3
DK
7.7
12.4
79.9
DE
2.2
27.3
70.6
GR
9.0
22.3
68.8
ES
2.0
14.6
83.4
FI
10.7
24.1
65.2
FR
18.8
25.0
56.2
IE
10.6
29.5
59.9
IT
7.1
21.7
71.2
LU
4.5
29.0
66.4
NL
4.4
24.4
71.2
AT
18.0
25.0
57.0
PT
4.5
24.3
71.2
SE
2.2
74.1
20.8
.1
2.7
63.1
23.7
1.6
5.5
DK
6.0
BE
9.2
.9
28.6
58.9
2.4
DE
6.1
3.6
19.9
58.8
11.6
GR
14.6
.7
28.1
52.8
3.9
ES
4.1
.7
16.4
76.3
2.5
FI
12.8
1.4
33.5
48.6
3.7
FR
29.3
3.7
14.5
49.5
3.0
IE
20.2
.7
15.1
58.1
5.9
IT
11.4
2.2
34.8
46.2
5.4
LU
6.4
50.1
28.9
6.3
8.3
BE
8.0
48.0
35.5
4.2
4.4
DK
3.4
36.3
36.5
13.6
10.2
DE
13.3
54.0
19.2
5.3
8.2
GR
8.3
38.7
25.1
8.9
19.1
ES
10.9
63.7
17.0
2.2
6.1
FI
10.2
40.7
25.5
7.4
16.2
FR
4.7
40.5
17.1
4.0
33.7
IE
5.0
42.4
23.5
6.0
23.2
IT
10.5
46.0
24.0
5.3
14.2
LU
4.3
46.9
36.5
5.0
7.4
NL
9.0
49.5
26.2
4.2
11.0
AT
9.8
.6
29.7
55.1
4.8
AT
4.3
32.3
24.9
11.1
27.3
PT
20.4
3.0
36.2
35.6
4.9
PT
8.5
52.2
29.0
2.9
7.4
SE
5.4
.3
14.7
78.4
1.2
SE
4.4
37.0
37.8
6.5
14.3
UK
12.5
1.7
29.7
52.0
4.0
UK
10.8
31.0
58.2
UK
6.2
35.8
58.0
14.8
22.3
47.6
13.5
1.2
15.4
.7
15.8
65.2
3.5
4.8
35.9
30.4
11.0
17.8
Country
CY
CZ
12.8
2.6
37.0
41.1
6.5
Country
CY
CZ
4.2
32.0
63.8
Country
CY
CZ
6.0
38.1
30.2
9.5
16.2
EE
12.1
Extremely strongly
Very strongly
Somewhat strongly
Not at all strongly
DK
feelings_biotech
4.0
16.5
51.8
26.4
1.1
BE
4.5
30.3
49.9
13.5
1.8
DK
8.8
32.8
42.9
12.4
3.1
DE
9.7
33.4
44.0
11.2
1.7
GR
3.1
22.7
39.7
33.3
1.2
ES
2.7
29.8
60.1
5.0
2.3
FI
6.3
31.6
50.1
10.8
1.3
FR
4.4
21.6
37.9
16.1
20.0
IE
3.3
17.9
42.8
27.3
8.7
IT
4.3
19.6
46.2
23.8
6.1
LU
4.9
21.4
58.2
14.1
1.5
NL
5.1
31.8
38.9
19.3
4.8
AT
4.7
28.8
49.2
8.4
9.0
PT
3.5
21.8
58.1
13.8
2.7
SE
5.1
23.0
45.3
18.9
7.8
UK
14.5
33.2
37.9
10.2
4.1
3.1
22.7
46.7
23.5
4.0
Country
CY
CZ
4.8
43.1
37.7
2.3
EE
13.4
34.7
51.8
EE
2.0
7.2
36.8
51.2
2.8
EE
qb29
Overall how strongly would you say you feel about issues concerning biotechnology that we have been talking about in this survey?
Yes, definitely
Yes, probably
No, probably not
No, definitely not
DK
climate_policy
6.0
.9
21.3
69.8
1.9
NL
qb28
Do you think (OUR COUNTRY) will adopt policies in line with your view on this matter?
Everyone shares my
views
A lot of people share
my views
A few people share
my views
No one shares my
views
DK
climate_consensus
qb27
To what extent do you think your view on climate change and global warming is shared in (OUR COUNTRY)?
DK
Technology will stop
climate change and
global warming so we
can maintain our way
of life and economic
growth
To halt climate
change and global
warming, have to
rethink ways of living
even if it means lower
economic growth
values_climate
qb26
And which of the following do you think is most important?
4.4
29.2
46.6
13.3
6.5
HU
5.9
48.3
25.0
4.4
16.5
HU
12.5
1.8
26.2
55.3
4.3
HU
5.3
32.2
62.5
HU
.4
3.4
43.3
50.7
2.3
LV
1.6
34.2
36.5
12.1
15.5
LV
12.2
1.4
30.0
53.7
2.6
LV
8.8
45.8
45.4
LV
3.7
22.3
54.2
13.2
6.6
LT
2.6
35.8
21.5
8.6
31.5
LT
27.1
3.4
21.9
42.9
4.6
LT
19.0
29.7
51.3
LT
3.4
22.9
41.8
20.0
11.8
MT
8.0
39.0
14.7
6.0
32.3
MT
31.4
1.2
16.9
46.3
4.3
MT
12.2
51.9
35.9
MT
3.6
19.8
37.5
18.2
20.9
PL
4.6
34.4
22.9
3.8
34.3
PL
29.4
1.4
20.3
44.8
4.1
PL
17.5
29.9
52.6
PL
3.4
37.7
44.6
11.9
2.4
SK
4.5
46.2
29.6
7.5
12.2
SK
10.1
.8
31.3
53.0
4.8
SK
4.0
36.8
59.2
SK
6.0
19.2
53.6
16.9
4.2
SI
3.1
44.8
27.8
11.7
12.6
SI
7.8
1.8
35.7
51.9
2.8
SI
3.6
18.6
77.9
SI
2.8
8.8
45.9
36.4
6.0
BG
5.6
38.1
16.1
5.2
35.1
BG
32.1
2.6
16.9
43.9
4.4
BG
10.9
35.7
53.4
BG
1.6
8.6
43.0
35.8
11.1
RO
5.5
33.4
15.9
10.3
34.9
RO
41.3
5.1
16.4
34.4
2.9
RO
16.7
34.4
48.9
RO
6.6
14.8
30.7
15.6
32.2
TR
8.9
23.8
17.9
16.5
32.9
TR
31.1
12.6
23.4
23.2
9.7
TR
17.9
18.6
63.6
TR
.5
2.6
17.0
65.4
13.7
1.3
IS
6.6
54.1
30.7
4.6
4.1
IS
3.3
.4
48.3
47.5
IS
4.2
30.6
65.2
IS
5.6
19.2
46.0
22.3
6.9
HR
5.3
43.6
23.2
5.3
22.6
HR
16.1
2.1
22.1
53.4
6.2
HR
8.7
27.5
63.8
HR
5.5
29.2
51.7
10.9
2.7
CH
12.0
48.9
21.6
5.4
12.1
CH
6.2
.8
35.6
54.1
3.3
CH
7.5
19.2
73.3
CH
1.0
11.2
56.6
28.5
2.7
NO
6.8
50.2
29.3
5.7
8.0
NO
4.6
.4
42.2
52.3
.5
NO
7.1
28.6
64.3
NO
EU27
5.0
24.3
44.9
19.7
6.1
EU27
6.0
40.0
28.2
7.8
18.1
15.7
1.4
24.9
54.0
4.0
EU27
9.9
25.8
64.3
EU27
169
DK
2.8
97.2
1.6
98.4
3.2
96.8
3.3
96.7
BE
DK
BE
1.8
98.2
DE
5.4
94.6
DE
DK
26.1
73.9
BE
17.1
82.9
30.4
21.6
.5
99.5
1.0
99.0
DK
69.6
78.4
BE
DK
BE
98.2
1.8
DE
24.5
75.5
DE
18.8
81.2
DE
98.7
1.3
GR
15.4
84.6
GR
12.5
87.5
GR
1.1
98.9
GR
1.2
98.8
GR
.6
99.4
ES
20.9
79.1
ES
18.7
81.3
ES
.8
99.2
ES
1.0
99.0
ES
.6
99.4
FI
25.0
75.0
FI
20.0
80.0
FI
2.7
97.3
FI
3.2
96.8
FI
99.4
.6
FR
24.3
75.7
FR
22.2
77.8
FR
1.3
98.7
FR
1.5
98.5
FR
96.5
3.5
IE
28.7
71.3
IE
22.1
77.9
IE
1.1
98.9
IE
2.9
97.1
IE
95.9
4.1
IT
17.7
82.3
IT
9.4
90.6
IT
2.2
97.8
IT
2.7
97.3
IT
98.1
Yes, studied at
university
No, not studied at
university
study_science
5.6
94.4
88.1
DK
11.9
BE
90.4
9.6
DE
91.8
8.2
GR
92.0
8.0
ES
87.9
12.1
FI
88.1
11.9
FR
92.6
7.4
IE
95.0
5.0
IT
1.9
LU
32.9
67.1
LU
28.5
71.5
LU
.9
99.1
LU
2.1
97.9
LU
94.6
5.4
LU
qb31 (modified)
Have you ever studied natural science, technology or engineering at university?
Don't know
Some non-DK
response
dkfamily_science
DK
No family member
Some family member
nofamily_science
No, no one in your family
Yes
No
otherfamily_science
Yes, another member of your family
Yes
No
mother_science
Yes, your mother
Yes
No
father_science
Yes, your father
.3
93.0
7.0
NL
99.7
NL
21.9
78.1
NL
18.1
81.9
NL
1.1
98.9
NL
4.1
95.9
NL
.5
96.2
3.8
AT
99.5
AT
17.1
82.9
AT
11.3
88.7
AT
2.3
97.7
AT
4.0
96.0
AT
94.8
5.2
PT
95.8
4.2
PT
21.1
78.9
PT
13.8
86.2
PT
2.7
97.3
PT
1.2
98.8
PT
90.6
9.4
SE
98.9
1.1
SE
38.0
62.0
SE
30.2
69.8
SE
3.0
97.0
SE
8.7
91.3
SE
90.4
9.6
UK
99.0
1.0
UK
27.5
72.5
UK
21.3
78.7
UK
3.2
96.8
UK
4.2
95.8
UK
1.7
98.3
1.1
98.9
10.7
89.3
99.8
94.0
6.0
96.6
3.4
Country
CY
CZ
98.8
1.2
.2
13.3
86.7
Country
CY
CZ
23.5
76.5
Country
CY
CZ
21.2
78.8
Country
CY
CZ
.9
99.1
Country
CY
CZ
1.1
98.9
Country
CY
CZ
85.5
14.5
EE
98.5
1.5
EE
27.6
72.4
EE
19.7
80.3
EE
4.2
95.8
EE
4.7
95.3
EE
97.3
2.7
HU
99.9
.1
HU
15.5
84.5
HU
12.1
87.9
HU
1.7
98.3
HU
2.5
97.5
HU
85.6
14.4
LV
98.4
1.6
LV
18.3
81.7
LV
11.9
88.1
LV
3.6
96.4
LV
2.5
97.5
LV
91.2
8.8
LT
97.1
2.9
LT
17.4
82.6
LT
11.2
88.8
LT
2.4
97.6
LT
1.7
98.3
LT
94.9
5.1
MT
96.5
3.5
MT
25.0
75.0
MT
19.9
80.1
MT
.9
99.1
MT
1.1
98.9
MT
93.7
6.3
PL
97.6
2.4
PL
18.8
81.2
PL
13.4
86.6
PL
2.4
97.6
PL
1.3
98.7
PL
qb30
Does/Did any of your family have a job or a university qualification in natural science, technology or engineering (for instance, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine)?
94.2
5.8
SK
99.4
.6
SK
21.3
78.7
SK
16.5
83.5
SK
2.7
97.3
SK
2.2
97.8
SK
.2
91.4
8.6
SI
99.8
SI
18.8
81.2
SI
15.7
84.3
SI
2.6
97.4
SI
2.2
97.8
SI
91.3
8.7
BG
97.4
2.6
BG
14.8
85.2
BG
9.1
90.9
BG
2.3
97.7
BG
1.8
98.2
BG
95.6
4.4
RO
97.7
2.3
RO
15.9
84.1
RO
12.2
87.8
RO
.8
99.2
RO
.7
99.3
RO
95.8
4.2
TR
92.0
8.0
TR
24.8
75.2
TR
13.1
86.9
TR
1.3
98.7
TR
2.7
97.3
TR
.5
88.4
11.6
IS
99.5
IS
37.1
62.9
IS
32.8
67.2
IS
3.4
96.6
IS
4.1
95.9
IS
93.7
6.3
HR
99.3
.7
HR
13.2
86.8
HR
11.0
89.0
HR
.5
99.5
HR
1.3
98.7
HR
92.7
7.3
CH
99.6
.4
CH
33.9
66.1
CH
28.1
71.9
CH
1.2
98.8
CH
5.6
94.4
CH
92.2
7.8
NO
99.1
.9
NO
44.3
55.7
NO
37.4
62.6
NO
2.7
97.3
NO
7.6
92.4
NO
92.0
8.0
EU27
98.3
EU27
1.7
21.9
EU27
78.1
EU27
16.9
83.1
EU27
1.9
98.1
EU27
2.9
97.1
170
24.4
46.9
27.7
1.0
31.3
37.2
4.6
DK
26.9
BE
.8
3.1
15.6
20.4
2.4
1.6
18.6
6.5
4.9
2.5
.3
.3
6.6
.3
2.9
34.0
1.5
29.0
3.6
.1
1.9
1.8
.2
60.9
9.6
.1
1.7
56.5
.5
1.1
4.5
.1
5.2
.1
.8
DE
DK
BE
.3
.4
2.5
2.6
.4
.2
2.4
2.5
18.3
4.5
.4
67.8
1.5
.3
1.8
ES
2.1
58.6
20.2
19.1
ES
.2
93.6
.1
.1
GR
.9
78.9
15.9
4.4
GR
5.1
1.6
8.0
3.4
.3
.6
.9
70.9
9.1
.2
.1
FI
3.1
33.1
41.4
22.3
FI
7.2
3.7
28.7
.9
.1
12.9
2.1
41.2
.1
1.4
1.7
FR
6.2
27.1
26.5
40.2
FR
1.4
1.4
4.4
.1
.1
2.3
82.6
1.2
1.6
4.7
.2
.2
IE
3.2
69.8
20.2
6.7
IE
2.8
1.2
2.6
3.3
.3
87.1
.7
.6
1.4
.1
IT
74.4
19.7
6.0
IT
2.6
4.2
15.2
.1
5.1
67.8
.6
1.5
2.1
.2
.6
LU
7.7
45.7
22.2
24.5
LU
About each two or
three months
Only on special holy
days
About once a year
Less often
Never
DK
More than once a
week
Once a week
About once a month
religious_attendance
19.8
18.2
21.1
24.5
.1
13.9
7.1
17.4
39.7
.9
6.2
4.7
6.2
2.9
8.1
5.8
1.1
DK
2.3
BE
13.3
11.8
27.8
.9
19.3
8.8
9.1
7.5
1.5
DE
4.6
6.3
4.1
35.2
17.2
17.1
13.3
2.2
GR
3.8
14.8
40.8
.4
14.4
6.0
6.3
11.6
2.0
ES
.5
18.6
28.4
17.4
.8
22.9
5.7
4.3
1.4
FI
10.3
9.3
53.2
1.2
13.1
2.9
4.7
4.4
1.0
FR
6.9
10.6
12.0
.7
7.4
10.4
12.7
32.3
7.2
IE
6.4
10.1
9.2
.8
24.8
9.9
12.1
21.7
5.0
IT
12.8
13.4
20.4
.9
26.2
7.5
6.5
9.5
2.8
LU
qb34
Apart from weddings or funerals, about how often do you attend religious services?
Other
(SPONTANEOUS)
DK
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
Other Christian
Jewish
Muslim
Sikh
Buddhist
Hindu
Atheist
Non believer/agnostic
denomination
3.8
44.6
24.8
26.7
DE
qb33
Do you consider yourself to be…?
Don't believe there is
any sort of spirit, God
or life force
Believe there is some
sort of spirit or life
force
Believe there is a
God
DK
believegod
qb32
Which of these statements comes closest to your beliefs?
11.3
9.7
46.3
.4
8.8
7.0
4.7
8.2
3.7
NL
.9
7.3
27.7
14.9
.9
22.2
.1
16.6
8.5
.2
.8
NL
3.3
27.8
39.1
29.8
NL
9.1
19.1
16.5
1.4
23.9
6.5
13.2
9.2
1.1
AT
2.3
1.9
6.2
.1
.1
.6
78.7
1.3
6.2
1.5
.1
1.1
AT
5.7
44.0
38.1
12.2
AT
4.9
8.8
18.4
1.2
24.4
8.2
11.8
19.6
2.7
PT
1.5
.2
9.6
2.5
84.1
.4
.6
1.0
PT
2.8
69.8
15.4
12.1
PT
12.2
20.2
29.6
.1
20.6
7.6
4.6
3.7
1.4
SE
1.3
5.0
28.9
12.3
1.2
1.1
.3
40.3
8.2
.2
1.1
SE
2.5
18.3
45.2
34.0
SE
9.3
13.8
45.5
1.4
6.9
5.3
5.7
8.8
3.3
UK
5.1
1.9
24.4
14.1
1.6
24.9
16.8
.1
2.6
.4
.6
1.4
6.2
UK
4.9
37.4
33.2
24.6
UK
2.8
16.1
44.4
36.7
4.7
2.1
2.4
.2
35.5
14.8
16.7
17.0
6.6
5.0
13.5
60.5
1.3
8.9
2.0
3.3
5.1
.4
7.2
.4
42.6
17.7
.3
29.6
.3
.7
1.2
Country
CY
CZ
.4
1.6
1.1
.5
1.4
2.1
92.8
Country
CY
CZ
1.3
87.6
8.5
2.6
Country
CY
CZ
18.6
21.3
34.0
1.1
17.2
2.8
2.9
1.3
.8
EE
29.8
3.2
11.1
18.0
.2
2.2
13.9
5.6
15.9
.1
.2
EE
3.5
18.2
49.7
28.6
EE
8.7
20.3
30.3
1.6
18.4
5.9
5.4
8.0
1.4
HU
14.7
.1
18.6
1.4
.1
53.4
.6
7.7
3.3
.1
HU
1.4
44.8
33.7
20.0
HU
16.8
17.8
25.0
.7
20.7
6.4
8.0
3.3
1.2
LV
6.8
.1
24.8
.1
.1
3.9
23.5
16.4
12.5
11.5
.3
.1
LV
2.8
38.1
47.9
11.2
LV
9.9
13.4
8.5
.3
37.1
11.2
10.4
8.2
1.1
LT
3.0
2.2
7.5
1.1
.1
.3
80.0
3.4
.3
2.0
LT
3.9
46.9
36.9
12.2
LT
3.6
4.0
5.1
.1
4.9
2.5
7.7
45.3
27.0
MT
.2
.7
1.0
.3
.6
1.1
.5
95.7
MT
.2
94.2
4.1
1.5
MT
2.5
2.5
4.7
3.0
8.9
8.0
19.3
45.4
5.7
PL
2.1
.2
4.1
1.6
90.0
.9
.4
.7
PL
1.8
79.6
13.7
4.8
PL
4.9
9.8
18.6
.9
13.1
4.0
8.5
27.7
12.4
SK
1.7
1.2
8.1
9.5
.1
66.7
.9
5.1
6.8
SK
.7
62.7
23.1
13.6
SK
6.1
18.8
28.3
.7
21.6
5.4
6.5
9.9
2.7
SI
2.5
3.1
10.9
13.2
.2
3.0
64.0
2.4
.7
.1
SI
6.2
32.3
36.1
25.4
SI
6.8
14.7
15.0
2.2
38.5
9.9
8.4
3.7
.7
BG
3.9
1.0
2.9
1.8
5.1
.1
83.8
.4
1.0
BG
6.1
35.5
43.1
15.3
BG
4.6
17.1
2.9
1.8
20.3
13.2
18.8
18.3
3.0
RO
.2
1.4
.2
.5
.1
6.2
86.2
3.0
2.3
RO
92.1
7.2
.6
RO
2.8
8.6
23.6
7.9
13.7
6.3
7.2
12.3
17.6
TR
.8
.5
.7
.4
.4
97.2
.1
TR
3.9
94.5
.8
.8
TR
17.9
18.0
19.3
.6
22.7
10.1
5.7
4.3
1.4
IS
1.4
7.2
16.5
10.1
.4
3.6
.7
49.6
10.5
IS
2.4
30.8
48.5
18.3
IS
7.2
9.5
8.6
1.1
27.7
10.1
14.0
17.6
4.1
HR
.7
.4
6.1
.2
3.0
.7
82.4
5.8
.3
.4
HR
1.9
69.0
21.7
7.4
HR
13.5
13.5
21.6
.4
17.1
12.2
12.7
7.0
1.9
CH
.4
4.6
8.8
.7
.1
3.3
40.4
.8
34.8
3.4
.1
2.5
CH
5.7
44.0
39.0
11.3
CH
13.8
19.0
37.7
.6
15.5
5.2
2.9
3.3
2.0
NO
2.0
5.3
31.0
.7
.4
8.9
.7
1.2
.9
38.8
10.4
NO
5.1
21.6
44.1
29.2
NO
8.3
12.1
28.9
1.1
16.6
7.3
9.2
13.6
2.8
EU27
3.6
2.0
16.0
EU27
46.2
8.4
11.4
4.5
.0
1.2
.1
.4
.2
6.1
3.1
51.0
25.6
20.3
EU27
European Commission
EUR 24537 – Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010
Winds of change ?
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2010 — 172 pp. — B5, 17,6 x 25 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-16878-9
doi
10.2777/23393
Interested in European research?
Research*eu is our monthly magazine keeping you in touch with main
developments (results, programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French,
German and Spanish. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research
Communication Unit
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Fax (32-2) 29-58220
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu
How to obtain EU publications
Free publications :
•
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•
at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications :
•
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union
and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union) :
•
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research
Directorate L – Science, Economy and Society
Unit L.3 – Governance and Ethics
Contact: Lino Paula
European Commission
Office SDME 07/80
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. +32 2 29 63873
Fax +32 2 29 84694
E-mail: [email protected]
Directorate E – Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food
Unit E.2 – Biotechnology
Contact: John Claxton
European Commission
Office SDME 08/07
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. +32 2 29 84375
Fax +32 2 29 91860
E-mail: [email protected]
via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
KI-NA-24537-EN-C
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Europeans and
Biotechnology in 2010
Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010 - Winds of change?
This is the seventh in a series of Eurobarometer surveys on life sciences and biotechnology conducted
in 1991, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2010. This latest survey, carried out in February 2010,
was based on a representative sample of 30,800 respondents from the 27 Member States, plus
Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Issues such as regenerative medicine, production
of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs, both transgenic and cisgenic), biobanks, biofuels and other
innovations such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology, in addition to broader issues such as the
governance of science and the engagement of citizens, were investigated. These surveys provide an
indication of the distribution of opinions and attitudes in the public at large and evidence of changes in
these perceptions over time. To ensure the continuing independence and high reputation of this series
of surveys, the Commission charged a team of social scientists throughout Europe with designing the
questionnaire and analysing the responses.
European
Research Area
Winds of change?
projects
Studies and reports