BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
November, 2005
PUBLIC AWARENESS
RESEARCH 2005
CLONING
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
Table of contents
Index of figures
2
Research context
3
Research findings
2.1 Cloning in context
2.2 Awareness and knowledge of cloning
2.3 Perceived impact of cloning
2.4 Attitudes towards cloning
2.5 Human cloning
2.6 Animal cloning
5
5
6
7
8
11
13
1
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
Index of figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4
Rankings of concern for current societal issues............................................................. 5
Awareness and knowledge of technologies .................................................................... 6
Perceived impact of technologies .................................................................................... 7
Time frame for impact of technologies .......................................................................... 8
Awareness of cloning......................................................................................................... 9
Perceived usefulness of cloning ....................................................................................... 9
Perceived risk associated with cloning .......................................................................... 10
Acceptability of cloning................................................................................................... 11
2
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
1
Research context
Biotechnology Australia’s Public Awareness Program aims to provide
Background
members of the community with the information they need to make
more informed choices regarding the adoption of biotechnologies.
Public attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian biotechnology sector,
and public understanding of the science involved is important. However, there is as great a
need for scientists (and policymakers) to understand the public’s needs and concerns.
Therefore, a need to understand the underlying drivers of community attitudes relating to
biotechnology is crucial.
There has been a trend towards increasingly complex analysis of
The nature of
public attitudes
applications of technology from a simple risk-benefit analysis with
some consideration of its ethical underpinnings, to a more considered
analysis in terms of both the process of development and the outcomes (for individuals,
industry and society) of the application.
Five key factors have been identified that underlie the public’s acceptance of applications of
biotechnologies1. These are:
ƒ
Information
– Information on what biotechnologies are and are not capable of,
provided by a credible source.
ƒ
Regulation
– Confidence that regulatory safeguards are in place to ensure the
safety of the public and the environment.
ƒ
Consultation
– A belief that the public has been appropriately consulted and
given the opportunity for input into the development of biotechnology.
Social causes of public concerns about developments in biotechnology in Australia: Comparisons with other
countries and lessons for Asia. By Craig Cormick. Accessed on the Biotechnology Australia website.
1
3
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
ƒ
Consumer choice
– The ability of the consumer to either accept or reject each
particular application of biotechnology.
ƒ
Consumer benefit
– A perceived societal and individual benefit for each
application.
Finally, the rapid developments and advances in biotechnology mean that attitudes and
acceptance relating to biotechnology, as well as the associations between them, are likely
to change over time. It is important that these changes and explored and understood. To
track these changes, research on behalf of Biotechnology Australia has been conducted
every two years since 1999. This report provides details on the 2005 research conducted
by Eureka Strategic Research.
Research design
A three-phase research program was employed, as illustrated in the
following diagram.
Figure 1. Methodology
Exploratory
qualitative research
4 discussion groups
National CATI survey
N = 1,067
Explanatory
qualitative research
9 discussion groups
The CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) survey involved 1,067 respondents,
between 18 and 75 years of age, which provided a 95% confidence interval of no more than
±3.0%. Survey respondents were selected from the electronic White Pages and were stratified
by location (by state and territory, and then into capital and non-capital) to ensure that the
sample was in proportion to the population. Broad age and gender quotas were also applied,
within each location, once again to ensure the sample was proportionally representative.
(More details on the research design are in the document Public Awareness Research 2005
Overview.)
4
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
2
Research findings
2.1 Cloning in context
In the survey, respondents were presented with five issues facing society today – cloning,
genetically modified foods, pollution of the environment, the greenhouse effect and nuclear
waste – and asked to rank them in order of concern to them, from the most important to the
least important. Figure 2 shows the distribution of ranks for each issue2.
Figure 2. Rankings of concern for current societal issues
Genetically modified foods
11.9
Cloning
11.6
0%
9.2
23.8
29.9
20.3
14.1
46.8
20.3
12.1
20%
10.5
22.7
29.2
21.1
16.5
Nuclear waste
6.3
12.1
14.9
19.8
27.2
26.0
The greenhouse effect
11.7
18.5
28.7
34.8
Pollution of the environment
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
When compared to other current societal issues, cloning was nominated the top concern by
the fewest people, indicating that other issues dominated respondents’ concerns.
Furthermore, cloning was allocated fewer second to fourth rankings and twice as many fifth
rankings as GM foods (which was nominated the top concern by the least number of people
In terms of the level of concern regarding GM foods and cloning, it should be kept in mind that this is a relative,
rather than an absolute, measure of concern. Findings will depend upon the levels of concern with other societal
issues.
2
5
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
after cloning). Rather than suggesting that cloning is less concerning than GM foods as an
issue per se, these findings may reflect participants’ views as revealed in discussion groups,
that cloning is less widespread and likely to have less impact upon society than GM foods.
2.2 Awareness and knowledge of cloning
Respondents in the survey were asked to indicate their self-assessed level of awareness and
knowledge of six technologies – cloning, biotechnology, use of stem cells, genetic engineering,
gene therapy and fibre optics. Results are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Awareness and knowledge of technologies
0.3
100%
0.4
17.5
35.6
80%
31.6
15.9
32.7
53.6
Don't know
60%
Percent
52.6
65.0
40%
58.1
60.1
You know enough about it that
you could explain it to a friend
You have heard of it, but know
very little or nothing about
52.2
You have NOT heard of it
44.2
20%
31.5
0%
2.2
Cloning
6.4
8.2
Use of stem
cells
Genetic
engineering
14.9
17.1
Fibre optics Biotechnology Gene therapy
Just over half of respondents (53.6%) felt that they could explain cloning to friend, with most
of the remainder indicating that they had at least heard of it. Only a very small proportion of
respondents (2.2%) reported not having heard of cloning.
It should be noted that these findings relate to familiarity with the terms presented. In group
discussions, while participants’ awareness and understanding of specific terms was sometimes
low, it increased when provided with an explanation of the sorts of applications the term
encompassed.
6
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
2.3 Perceived impact of cloning
Respondents in the survey were then asked whether they believed each of the technologies
was likely to improve our way of life in the future, have no effect or make things worse. The
results are illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Perceived impact of technologies
100%
12.6
8.8
17.7
18.9
17.9
9.0
6.6
28.0
1.8
80%
28.1
5.2
Don't know
5.0
Make things worse
58.2
Percent
60%
6.8
6.7
2.2
Have no effect
7.8
Improve our way of life in the
future
82.3
40%
60.2
10.5
66.9
73.7
46.5
20%
18.6
0%
Cloning
Genetic
Biotechnology Gene therapy Fibre optics
engineering
Use of stem
cells
The highest proportion (58.2%) of respondents believed that cloning is likely to make things
worse. In contrast, the majority of respondents believed that biotechnology, gene therapy,
fibre optics and in particular the use of stem cells, were likely to improve our way of life in the
future.
Lastly in this series of questions, for each of the technologies, respondents who indicated that
they believed it would have some effect on our way of life (either positive or negative) were
asked when they thought this would happen. The findings are shown in Figure 5.
7
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
Figure 5. Time frame for impact of technologies
100%
12.1
80%
5.7
6.6
9.1
8.8
15.3
13.4
9.8
5.9
1.6
16.0
10.1
9.7
10.5
11.9
15.0
60%
3.9
6.3
16.4
Percent
5.2
17.5
9.9
23.9
18.9
40%
20%
78.1
43.0
46.0
Gene therapy
Use of stem
cells
56.2
56.3
57.1
Genetic
engineering
Biotechnology
Cloning
Don't know
In the next 11+ years
In the next 6-10 years
In the next 5 years
Now / already
0%
Fibre optics
Profiles for cloning, genetic engineering and biotechnology were similar, with just over half
claiming they were already having effect (57.1%, 56.2% and 56.3% respectively). Cloning was
perceived to be the technology likely to have its effect most distantly in the future (in the next
11 or more years), with sixteen percent indicating that it would not be felt for over 11 years.
2.4 Attitudes towards cloning
Respondents were asked their opinions about cloning plants, animals and humans. They were
asked about their awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risk and acceptability of using
gene technology in this way. Results are displayed in Figure 6 to Figure 9.
8
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
Figure 6. Awareness of cloning
0.5
100%
1.3
80%
76.1
60%
Don't know
Percent
86.2
Yes
97.6
No
40%
20%
22.6
13.3
0%
2.4
Cloning animals
Cloning humans
Cloning plants
Almost all respondents (97.6%) indicated awareness of cloning animals. Awareness of cloning
humans was also reasonably high (86.2%), although awareness of cloning plants, the most
common procedure, was somewhat lower (76.1%).
Figure 7. Perceived usefulness of cloning
100%
3.5
4.6
4.0
18.0
80%
40.4
67.2
Don't know
Percent
60%
Yes
No
40%
78.0
55.0
20%
29.3
0%
Cloning plants
Cloning animals
Cloning humans
9
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
Cloning plants was considered useful by the greatest proportion of respondents (67.2%), with
cloning animals considered useful by two-fifths (40.4%) and cloning humans considered
useful by less than one-fifth (18.0%).
Figure 8. Perceived risk associated with cloning
100%
2.0
3.1
3.3
80%
47.0
67.4
Percent
60%
Don't know
90.3
Yes
No
40%
49.7
20%
29.5
7.7
0%
Cloning humans
Cloning animals
Cloning plants
Cloning humans was considered risky by most respondents (90.3%), cloning animals by over
two-thirds (67.4%) and cloning plants by almost half (47.0%).
10
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
Figure 9. Acceptability of cloning
100%
3.6
3.6
3.3
10.9
80%
35.9
64.1
60%
Percent
Don't know
Yes
85.8
40%
No
60.5
20%
32.2
0%
Cloning plants
Cloning animals
Cloning humans
Acceptability was greatest for cloning plants, although still not very high at less than twothirds of respondents (64.1%). Around a third (35.9%) found cloning animals acceptable and
only a tenth (10.9%) found cloning humans acceptable.
2.5 Human cloning
Almost without exception, the issue of cloning humans resulted in strong reactions from
participants in the group discussions.
“Horrific, mind boggling.”
“It opens a big can of worms.”
“Abhorrent.”
Participants were quick to identify it as the issue with which they felt most uncomfortable
in the field of gene technology. There was strong consensus that this was the least
acceptable application of gene technology. Participants tended to think that, thankfully,
the cloning of humans was not yet being carried out.
Participants generally assumed that human cloning referred to the exact reproduction of
an entire human, rather than the cloning of human cells or body parts. While it was
11
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
apparent that the acceptability of human cloning depended upon the purpose to which it
was being put, few participants could envisage any legitimate potential uses. Some
participants felt that the technology was being pursued for no justifiable reason, but purely
in the name of science.
“Being able to do something to a human doesn’t mean you should do it. A lot
of the time with cloning there doesn’t seem to seem to be a reason for doing it.”
Some participants claimed they were wholly against human cloning, rejecting the
application at a moral or ethical level. Some expressed concerns that it was “playing
around with life” and “against nature”. Several people claimed that their religious or
spiritual beliefs prescribed their opposition to the technology.
“I’m a Christian so for me issues like cloning aren’t even up for discussion.”
“There’s a sort of spiritual argument against it … regardless of whatever religion
they are …I think some people might be afraid of what they might perceive as
playing God.”
“Because there’s only one of me – we’re made to be unique. Attempts to
replicate ourselves seem against everything, against reproduction, even though
I’m not especially religious.”
The majority of participants expressed concerns about the uncertainties associated with
cloning humans. Many were anxious about the limits or boundaries of the technology.
“I’m a bit uneasy with humans playing around with life. They might go too far.”
“[It] could be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands.”
Some were also concerned that permitting one application would open the floodgates and
that, once this had been done, it would be difficult to control.
“What can you do with them [clones]? Whatever you like! What’s their status
as people?”
After some discussion, participants were asked their views on cloning humans to ‘obtain
healthy body organs for transplant’. Some assumed that this still involved the cloning of
12
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
entire humans in order to sacrifice and harvest body parts and they, therefore, continued
to strongly oppose the technology.
“It just could not be allowed under any circumstances.”
“You’re cloning a human for it to die healthy? The whole idea is not very
humane.”
Bringing a ‘clone’ into the world to provide healthy organs that they could live without
(e.g. one kidney) for a family member who needed a transplant was a concept that some
participants were willing to entertain. There was a general consensus that this still posed a
serious ethical dilemma, but that one might feel differently if it were their family involved.
Participants clearly did not have a good understanding of specifically what would be
involved in cloning humans to obtain healthy organs for transplant and most wanted
more information before they could comment on the application. For example, a number
of participants said that, if the technology could work at the level of organs, as opposed to
cloning an entire human, they would find it more acceptable.
“Organs of humans is OK.”
“You could use a heart or a lung … that would be marvellous.”
“Definitely with the amount of people waiting for transplants.”
The similarity to technology being used to grow skin for burns victims, and the huge
potential benefits of this, was also raised.
2.6 Animal cloning
For most people, their reaction to animal cloning was similar to their reaction to human
cloning, although somewhat less vehement. Most groups felt very uncomfortable with
the idea of animal cloning and placed it second only to human cloning in this regard.
People were aware that the cloning of animals was already taking place, citing the example
of Dolly the sheep. Beyond this, however, there was little awareness of any work being
done on cloning animals. Although cloning animals was seen as more acceptable than
cloning humans, participants were concerned that it was a ‘slippery slope’ and that
approval for animal cloning to proceed would lead to human cloning.
13
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
As with human cloning, few understood the purpose of cloning animals or could identify
legitimate potential uses. Several participants suggested that it was mostly likely science for
science’s sake and did not find this acceptable.
“Being able to do it doesn’t justify doing it.”
“A lot of these things seem to be great scientific endeavours, but so what?”
Others considered cloning animals to be practice for cloning humans, which led to anxiety
about when the practise would be taken to the next (human) level.
Cloning animals was perceived by some to have had achieved limited success to date. Several
participants mentioned the health problems and perceived premature death of Dolly the
sheep.
“Dolly died within four years due to chronic arthritis.”
Some participants were concerned that there was insufficient knowledge about the longerterm consequences of animal cloning, such as reduced life expectancy. A few participants felt
that cloning animals may become more acceptable once it is proven over time (and
presumably once the public has an understanding of the purpose).
Participants were asked how they would feel if cloning animals was used ‘to obtain better
breeding stock’. On the whole, the provision of information about this ‘purpose’ did not
increase the acceptability of cloning animals. Most agreed that cloning was unnecessary to
achieve this objective and, thus, that this purpose did not justify the technology. Many
participants were aware of alternative methods of achieving better breeding stock, which
were considered to be natural, tried and tested and safe.
“They do it naturally though, through selective breeding.”
“There doesn’t seem to be a problem. In agricultural shows the bulls are all
wearing ribbons. It’s not like we have weedy stock. The stock is good.”
Cloning animals for the purpose of obtaining better breeding stock was also felt by some
to pose greater potential for cruelty to farm animals.
14
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005: CLONING
Although they thought there was no need for cloning animals in agriculture, some
participants identified a potential role in cloning endangered species.
15