AN ATTITUDINAL SURVEY ON HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING
AN hONORS TI-lESIS
PR~PARED
OF THE
IN FULFILLMENT
R~UIR~11NTS
for
ID 499
by
SARA McCORMACK
ADVISOR--DR. THOMAS h. MERTENS
BALL STATE UKIVERSITY
lVlUNCIE, INDIANA
fVIAY
13, 1975
SpCo\1
11, e.',,· (.~
~.T)
ClJJ '2 .~.!
~'j
f
.',
• !
i..~
TABLB OF CONT1NTS
Introduction •
..
,
• • •
•
13
Materials and Methods
Data and Discussion •
•
Summary and C,onclusions
Literature Cited •
Bibliography • •
1
•
•
•
15
•
25
•
• •
26
27
.
30
Appendix B •
37
Appendix C
52
Appendix A
INTRODUCTION
Man has always wondered about himself.
One main characteristic
that sets him apart from all other animals is his ,ability to
think abstractly, to reason.
throughout the ages:
function?
Who
Many questions have bothered man
am~?
How did I get here?
What is my
In seeking the answers to these questions, man has
turned to the fields of philosophy, theology, and science.
Some
have found answers here, some only more questions.
Many of those who have tried to find answers have been
scientists.
Some of the findings of scientific endeavors have
been accidental; many have not been realized for their full
significance until years after the experiments were originally
performed.
~
Such instances stand out in the field of genetics.
1865 the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel explained how traits were
passed from generation to generation in the garden pea, Pisum
sativum.
From his experiments he formulated laws that are basic
to the understanding of genetics today.
However, his work was
forgotten for many years until Correns, DeVries, and Von Tschermak
rediscovered it in 1900.
In 1869 Miescher discovered deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
It was not until 1944 that O.T. Avery and his associates determined
that DNA was indeed the genetic material, and not until 1953 that
James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick proposed a double helix
model for the molecular structure of DNA that could explain how
2
the genetic message was duplicated and the genetic information
passed on.
In the twenty-two years since the model for DNA was proposed,
genetics has advanced rapidly on a number of fronts.
Progress
in molecular genetics and human genetics have been especially
striking.
Many ideas have been put forth as ways to improve the
human species.
Genetic engineering is the term that has been
used to include the many facets of manipulating genes, in all
forms of life, from bacteria to humans so as to predetermine the
genetic constitution of the individual to be produced.
Some of
the proposed techniques have been used for centuries in breeding
livestock.
By controlling the breeding, it was possible to
develop superior lines of a variety of types of animals--cattle,
horses, dogs.
However, in human society, it is not socially
acceptable to control breeding; so, the application of such breeding
techniques to the improvement of the human genetic constitution
has not been possible.
Fairly recently, however, scientists have discovered much
more about techniques that could help improve the human species.
These techniques--some of which will be discussed presently-hold a great deal of hope ror some people; they also hold a great
deal of terror ror others.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize and report data
obtained from surveying
h~gh
school and college students to determine
how they react to the prospects of human genetic engineering.
These will be tomorrow's scientists and taxpayers.
Are they willing
to pay taxes for the continuing support of research into the field
3
of genetics and genetic engineering?
go with such
research?
How far are they willing to
Do they think it will benefit society
today and in the future, or do they fear that the techniques of
genetic engineering will fall into the wrong hands and be used to
some horrible purpose?
As Nobel geneticist Joshua Lederberg has
said:
It is indeed true that ] might fear the control of my
behavior through electri£al impulses directed into my
brain but • • • I do not accept the implantation of
the electrodes except at the point of a gun: the gun
is the problem. l
Artificial Insemination.
The possibilities of total control
of human life and activities proposed in Brave New World,
and Farenheit
halted.
~
1.2.rut..,
have not yet caused research in genetics to be
Therefore, it is interesting to look into some possible
techniques of genetic engineering.
In 1961 Nobel laureate Hermann
J. Muller suggested that sperm banks should be made available whereby
prospective parents could select the germ plasm of a donor whose
characteristics they would like to incorporate into their child.
Muller suggested that the donors be persons of some prominence
who had been dead long enough that their "worth" could be historically
verified. 2
In this way we would be more likely to be able to keep
in the gene pool those qualities for which the donor had been admired.
Muller "s idea has some drawbacks to it.
We would not only
increase the number of desirable genes from the sperm donor in
our gene pool, we would also increase the chance that any deleterious
genes that he carried would also be expressed.
If his germ plasm
were particularly popular, there might be a greater chance that
4
two of his descendents would marry and reproduce.
Consanguineous
marriages are known to increase the probability of the production
of individuals who express recessive deleterious genes.
Of course, to put Muller's plan into action, physicians or
scientists would have to employ artificial insemination.
~hile
Muller's idea has not seemed to gain much popularity, artificial
insemination has.
Artificial insemination is the technique
whereby
sperm from a donor or from the husband are placed artificially-with a syringe--at the cervix or sometimes in the uterus of a woman
wishing to be impregnated.
This technique is often used in instances
when the husband is sterile or in some cases when the husband merely
has a low sperm count and the sperm are delivered closer to the
egg to help insure fertilization.
Although this procedure is becoming more common, there are
still some questions concerning the legal status of the individuals
so produced.
If sperm from a donor are used, can the parents
legally claim the child as their own, or will they have to go
through adoption proceedings?
~uestions
such as this apparently
have no ready answers and must await the decisions of the courts
to settle them.
Amniocentesis.
The process of removing some of the amniotic
fluid from a pregnant woman by puncturing her abdominal and uterine
walls with a long needle and withdrawing some of the amniotic fluid
for analysis is referred to as amniocentesis.
This technique
permits researchers to obtain cells sloughed off the fetus into
the amniotic fluid.
Such cells may be cultured in vitro and analyzed
for chromosome aberrations and enzyme deficiencies.
Used in
5
conjunction with genetic counseling, this technique can help
couples who have reason to believe that their children may not be
genetically normal.
People seeking genetic counseling are often referred to genetic
counseling centers by their family physicians or, rarely, they
may seek out the conters on their own.
These people usually have
someone in their own family backgrounds who has some sort of genetic
defect.
They may even have already had a child with a defect and
wish to determine the likelihood of this event occurring again.
Such people are given counseling by a hUman geneticist who is
usually also a physician.
This counselor checks into the family
histories and tries to analyze the pedigrees of these people.
Affected individuals and sometimes other members of the family
are carefully examined so that the counselor may firmly establish
a diagnosis.
After it has been established that the disorder i$
either genetic or environmental, the counselor can explain to the
people seeking help the likelihood of this event occurring again.]
If the couple concerned about a genetic defect is already
expecting a child, amniocentesis may be performed after the fourteenth week of pregnancy to determine if the fetus has the defect.
However, it is not possible to diagnose all types of genetic
abnormali ties by using this technique, and the results i'rom amniocentesis are not 100% accurate.
It is possible that a child with
a genetic defect may go undetected or, in more rare cases, that
the amniotic fluid may become contaminated with some of the
mother"s own exfoliated cells and give an incorrect reading.
These sometimes incorrect readings are still the only basis the
6
parents have to go on, and, if a defect escapes unnoticed, the
parents may find that they have a defective offspring instead of
the healthy one they had anticipated.
In,light of these facts, many parents whose unborn children
have been detected as carrying a disease for which there is no hope
of cure or control elect to have therapeutic abortions.
These
are performed after the genetic counselor has spoken to the parents
about the characteristics of the disease.
very
traurr~tic
Abortions tend to be
for parents--especially mothers--and many elect to
be permanently sterilized if it appears that the genetic defect
is likely to occur again.
Some couples do come to the counseling
centers for the sole purpose of getting abortions when there is no
real danger of genetic defect.
However, such people are usually
readily identified and refused counseling and abortion at the
centers. 4
Gene Surgery.
Research is underway in another type of genetic
engineering that will, perhaps, cut down on the need for aborting
genetically defective fetuses.
surgery.
This is the technique of gene
This can be accomplished through processes known as
transformation and transduction.
In 1944 O.T. Avery, C.M.
~hcLeod,
and M. McCarty published their findings from research they had
done with Diplococcus pneumoniae.
In their experiments they found
that when a dead, virulent strain of pneumococcus was combined with
a living, avirulent strain and then injected into mice, the mice
were killed.
Apparently the DNA of the dead virulent bacterium
had been incorporated into the living avirulent bacterium, had
taken over the control mechanisms of the avirulent strain, and had
7
caused it to start producing the virulent type.
This occurence
was referred to as transformation.
In transduction a virus is the vector in transporting DNA
from one type of bacterium to
another~
Experiments testing this
phenomenon have been conducted as follows.
Bacteria of strain A
are placed on one side of a U-shaped tube and bacteria of strain B
on the other; these two kinds of bacteria are separated by a
porcelain filter at the base of the U-shaped tube.
Bacteria A
have the ability to produce a certain enzyme X while B do not have
this ability.
(virus).
Bacteria A are then infected with a bacteriophage
Both types of bacteria are too large to pass through the
porcelain filter, but the virus can pass through.
After a time
it is found that some of the bacteria B are producing enzyme X.
The logical explanation seems to be that the virus infected bacteria
A and took over their control mechanisms, causing them to produce
viruses instead of going through the normal fission processes to
produce more bacterial protoplasm.
In the process SOme of bacteria
A's DNA was incorporated into the viral DNA.
This DNA was trans-
ported through the filter to bacteria B via the virus.
Bacteria B
were then infected and some of the DNA from bacteria A, transported
by the virus, was incorporated into bacteria B cells, enabling
these "transduced" B cells to produce enzyme X.
Zinder and Lederberg
did the classic experiment in transduction with the mouse typhoid
organism Salmonella typhimurium.
Their experiments showed the
vehicle of transfer to be a virus. 5
Therefore, it has been shown
that transformation is genetic recombination in bacteria brought
about by adding foreign DNA to a culture, while transduction is
genetic recombination in bacteria mediated by a bacteriophage. 6
These principles are applicable to human genetics, too.
The
first case of experimental gene therapy occurred in Germany in
the 1960's.
Two sisters were afflicted with a rare genetic disease
called argininemia.
In this disease there is a very high level
of arginine in the blood because the affecti,ed individual fails to
produce the enzyme to break it down.
This condition inevitably
leads to severe mental retardation and early death.
In 1958 reports
'Vlere
published showing that scientists who
had been doing cancer research with the Shope papilloma virus (SPV)
for several years, had lower levels of arginine in their blood
than other people.
The Spy was known to increase the synthesis of
arginase; and, it was therefore believed that the virus carried
the gene that produced arginase.
For these reasons it was considered
worth the risk of inducing cancer in the two girls by injecting
them with the virus.
Hopefully, this would enable the girls to
start producing arginase of their own and halt or partially
reverse the course of the disease. 7
More recently, the interpretation that Shope papilloma
virus codes for an arginase has been seriously questioned.
It now appears more probable that the virus infection
stimulated the production of a cellular arginase. Whether
the induced arginase is coded for by viral or by cellular
genes is important to the rationale of this attempt at
gene therapy. If virus infection induces the synthesis
of cellular arginase, and if the children have hereditarily lost the ability to produce arginase, then infecting
the children with Shope papilloma virus mae not have any
possibility of correcting their condition.
Recently, there has been some concern in the scientific
community relative to the dangers of experiments such as this. Paul
9
Berg of Stanford University and a group of scientists working with
him asked for a moratorium on certain types of experiments involving the insertion of genes into bacteria.
Although great promise
in the field of genetic engineering lies in this direction, there
is also great danger to the general public if such experiments
should get out of control.
Through the use of
en~ymes
which break DNA molecules up into
manageable pieces with "sticky ends," it is now possible to combine
DNA from two entirely different organisms to form a "hybrid!! type
of DNA.
The main danger of these experiments revolves around the
fact that there is a need to use some type of bacteria in which
to allow the recombinant DNA to reproduce itself.
Many scientists
have used the standard laboratory organism Escherichia coli which
is also commonly found in the human gut.
If these bacteria, with
their recombinant DNA, should happen to be carried out of the
laboratory, they could be very easily dispersed in the human
population with disasterous results.
These bacteria could react
in a totally unpredictable fashion, and a worldwide epidemic with
few, if any, survivors could result.
For these reasons a committee met in California on February
27, 1975 to discuss control measures for such experiments.
The
results of this three-and-one-half day meeting of prominent
scientists from around the world was to establish stringent safety
measures for such experimentation.
It is hoped that this will be
sufficient to prevent any catastrophic events from occurring. 9
With more refined techniques of this type, however, it is
thought that it will be possible to infect a person who is suffering
10
from a disease such as diabetes mellitus, argininemia, or hemophilia with a virus carrying "good" DNA.
This "good" DNA could
then replace the missing or malfunctioning DNA in the afflicted
person, thereby alleviating the disease.
Because this new DNA
would not be passed on to future generations, since only the somatic
cells would be affected, work is being done to effect changes in
the germ plasm as well to completely prevent the transmission of
the undesirable trait.
Until more refinements in the field of gene surgery can be
brought about, many scientists have pointed out that the techniques
we presently use to help genetically defective individuals--giving
insulin to diabetics or a aoagulant to hemophiliacs--merely keep
these defective people alive through the reproductive years; so,
they have the opportunity to pass these genes rim to their offspring.
This increases the frequency of expression of these genes in the
population.
A few years ago such individuals would have had dif-
ficulty surviving.
Now the human gene pool has many more such
genes floating in it.
Therefore, more refined techniques of genetic
surgery are becoming more necessary daily.
Cloning.
The last type of genetic engineering to be described
to any great extent here is cloning.
Cloning is the process whereby
a somatic cell or, in some cases, an ovum from an individual may
be grown in a culture to produce another individual who is genetically identical to the first.
This has already been done with
plants (carrots) and Xenopus laevis (the African clawed frog),
and may soon be possible in humans when techniques become sufficiently
refined.
11
It is theoretically possible to secure a human ovum, destroy
its nucleus and chromosomes, introduce the nucleus from a donor
cell with its complete set of forty-six chromosomes, allow it to
develop to the blastocyst stage, and then implant the blastocyst
into the uterus of a host mother •.
R.H. Edwards and P.S. Steptoe
of Cambridge University in England, claim to have already successfully fertilized human eggs in vitro and then implanted them into
the uteri of host mothers. IO
This gives great hope to women with
blocked fallopian tubes who wish to bearr'their own children.
It
also leaves the door wide open for cloning.
Many people seem to have a fear of cloning.
They believe that
a dictator will force scientists to produce an army of clones like
himself or will make scientists design beings with special capabilities.
While this is indeed possible in the futur.e, it is not too likely.
Even if scientists did clone an army of dictators or an army of
morons, it would take these individuals as long to develop as any
other beings.
The dictator would have to wait twenty years for
his army.
The major problems with cloning humans seem to be of a more
practical nature.
What would be the legal status of clones2
Would
they be allowed to function in society in the same way as individuals who were products of sexual reproduction, or would they be
kept somewhere and used as donors for "spare parts"--hearts, kidneys, brains?
What would be the real use of clones?
Who can say that an
individual cloned from Einstein would be as brilliant as his predecessor1
We know that environment has a great deal to do with the
12
functioning of a person.
If we want identical copies of certain
individuals, the environmental factors of the donor's past will
have to be duplicated exactly.
This will pose grave difficulties.
Furthermore, what would happen to the human
raCE~
if asexual
reproduction became a very common way of engendering life?
One
of the criteria for a successful species is that it be adaptable.
The species must be able to change to suit the environment.
If we
move towards cloning, we move away from genetic variability and in
the direction of uniformity.
We thereby decrease the opportunity
for adaptability and increase the probability that we will find
ourselves unable to thrive in our constantly changing environment.
If we remove the possibility for new genetic combinations through
sexual reproduction, we remove one of the possibilities for adaptation and thereby remove one of the criteria for survival.
This
consequence of cloning would not seem to be beneficial.
While most people would not object to cloning ar any other
type of genetic engineering as applied to plants or ta animals
other than humans, the legal, moral, and technical problems of
applying these techniques to human beings are grave.
Before the
public can make intelligent decisions concerning the applications
of genetic engineering, they must be made aware of the facts and
possibilities.
Hopefully, the survey data that follow will give
some clues as to the knowledge and opinions about genetic engineering
of the population sampled.
13
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The survey instrument used in this study consisted of fortythree questions.
On the cover page, which was slightly different
for high school and college students, the respondents gave general
information about themselves to establish backgrounds, and were
then asked to define six terms having to do with genetics and
genetic engineering in an effort to establish what they actually
knew concerning these areas of genetics.
These six questions were
evaluated by the author on a scale of one to seven.
A score of
one indicates an excellent answer, while a score of seven indicates
a totally erroneous response.
The questions on the remaining three pages were exactly the
same for high school and college respondents, and the students
replied to the questions by circling the number, on a scale of one
to seven, which most closely matched their opinions.
~ted
A one indi-
strong agreement, while a seven indicated strong disagreement.
Ninety-five survey instruments were distributed to students
in general and advanced biology courses at Chrysler High School in
New Castle, Indiana.
~uestionnaires
were also distributed to three
hundred forty-one students at Ball State University in Muncie,
Indiana.
Two hundred of the questionnaires were distributed at
random in dormitories, while the remaining one hundred forty-one
were used in specific classes.
Approximately forty of these were
distributed in general genetics classes for biology majors and
14
twenty-one were distributed to a human genetics class, composed of
undergraduates and graduates, in which most of the students had
already had the general genetics course.
The remaining eighty
survey instruments were distributed in a general education class
where the guest lecturer was discussing genetic engineering.
Of
the three hundred forty-one surveys distributed on the college campus,
one hundred forty-four were returned to the author for tabulation.
The responses of the individuals were hand tabulated, and
the mean response for each question was determined.
'fue various
subpopulations within the college population were examined individually, and conclusions were drawn on the basis of
thE~se
data.
A copy of the survey instrument with its alternative cover
sheets is included in Appendix G.
Tabulations of the raw data for
the definitions on the alternate cover sheets for each group may
be found in Appendix A.
Tabulations of raw data for questions 12
through 43 for each of the groups may be found in Appendix B.
15
DATA AND DISCUSSION
The groups of individuals surveyed were quite varied and
included high school students in grades ten through twelve who were
enrolled in biology and advanced biology classes.
College students
surveyed included those in two types of genetics classes (one of
general genetics and one of human genetics}, a general education
class, and two random samplings of college undergraduates--one
from a women's dormitory and one from a men's dormitory.
In looking at all of the groups surveyed (see Table 1 and
Appendix
Bl, one notes that the differences in responses of the
various groups are really not too great.
11.11 of the groups feel
that genetic research is of value to man and society with mean
responses to question 12 ranging from 1.0 to 2.3 as shown in
columns A through G in Table 1 (a response of one indicates strong
agreement while a seven indicates strong disagreement).
Gene Surgery.
All respondents seem to favor the use of
genetic surgery to correct serious genetic defects such as hemophilia, nearsightedness, and subnormal intelligence (questions 17,
18, and 20 respectively).
The groups also favor using a virus to
transmit "good" DNA into their cells or into those of an affected
relative to correct a genetic defect (see question 32).
This
procedure involves the process of transduction, which has been
previously described, and is basic to the concept of gene surgery.
However, none of the groups favors using gene surgery merely to
-
- ---
--
-
- -
- --- -
-
--
-
Topic
~uestion
-
~
~
-
--
~
--
----
--
----
-- --
-
11
B
C
D
E
UG .-'.'
Males
F
Human
Genetics
General
Genetics
HS
Females
HS'"
.Males
UG'·' ....
Females
Gen. Ed.
Class
G-
12
is genetics valuable
1.0
1.6
2.1
2.1
l.b
2.3
1.5
13
agreement to gene
surgery
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.5
3.4
3.4
3.5
14
agreement to scientists changing human
characteristics
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.6
4.0
4.6
4.3
15
consider this
feasible
2.1
2.0
3.3
2.7
2.5
2.3
1.9
16
keep defective
humans alive
3.3
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.7
Gene Surgery For:
17
hemophilia
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.3
18
myopia
3.0
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.7
2.6
3.3
19
blue eyes vs. brown
5.B
5.1
5.3
5.1
6.0
5.5
5.5
20
subnormal intelligence
3.5
3.5
3.2
3.~
3.2
3.7
4.1
21
sterilization of
feeble-minded
3.8
4.5
4.9
5.0
4.2
4.4
4.4
22
tax support of
genetics
1.7
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.2
4.2
3.5
23
plant & animal
breeding tech. 's for
unborn children
4.1
4.7
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.4
4.3
-
-
r--'
Q'\
TABLE 1 Lcon t. )
I
Topic
~uestion
24
religious or moral
objections
A.
B
G
D
.h.
F
G
5.2
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.1
4.5
Amniocentesis to
Establish:
25
defects
1.6
2.4
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.6
26
followed by abortion
2.7
3.2
4.9
4.3
3.9
4.1
3.5
27
sex
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.0
5.2
4.9
4.5
2$
followed by abortion
6.9
6.7
6.$
6.5
6.7
6.3
5.8
I
Artificial Insemination
I
29
AIH
2.5
2.$
4.2
5.4
3.0
3.5
3.0
30
AID
4.4
5.0
6.1
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.1
31
voluntary choice of
.e:ermplasm
4.8
5.3
6.1
6.0
5.6
5.8
5.3
32
transduction
3.0
2.4
3.3
3,3
3.6
3.7
3.7
33
in vitro fertilization
and implantation
4.2
4.3
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.2
6.2
34
creating "special"
people
5.3
5.3
b.O
5.0
6.4
5.5
5.5
~
35
possible in own
lifetime?
3.3
4.0
4.4
4.1
4.1
3.4
2.2
36
possible ever?
1.7
1.8
3.1
2.8
2.'}
2.4
1.4
--.,J
TABLE 1 (cont.)
~uestion
Topic
37
38
A
B
C
D
h
F
G
scientists ordered to
create special people
4.1
4.4
5.1
4.8
4.7
4.3
3.7
expand genetic research
2.2
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.5
3.9
4.4
& apply results to
humans
39
our government impose
restrictions
4.4
4.3
4.2
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.5
40
only U.S. scientists
stop such research
6.7
6.7
6.1
6.4
6.2
5.8
5.9
41
only U.S. scientists
continue such research
6.9
6.6
6.2
5.8
6.0
5.8
b.3
42
worldwide restrictions
on such research
4.7
4.1
4.5
4.0
3.4
3.5
3.4
43
completely stop genetic
research
6.6
6.7
6.4
6.1
6.3
5.7
6.3
-
-
----
----
HS':<=high school
UG** = undergraduate
I-'
$)
19
insure that their offspring will have a certain desired characteristic
that is not necessary to the well-being of the offspring.
Thus,
they would not use gene surgery to insure that a child had blue
eyes instead of brown eyes (question 19}.
It is, however, inter-
esting to note that all of the groups surveyed apparently consider
nearsightedness to be more worthy of corrective genetic surgery
than subnormal intelligence.
Table 2 below gives the mean responses
of the groups surveyed to questions concerning genetic surgery.
These responses indicate that the groups feel that gene surgery
should be used only in cases where serious debilitating genetic
defects might otherwise be harmful to the life of an individual.
Mean responses to guestions concerning gene s~rgery.
Gene Surgery
Group Responding
(.Juestion
for:
ABC
D
E
F
TABLE 2
(i1
17
hemophilia
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.3
Ie
myopia
3.0
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.7
2.6
3.3
20
subnormal
intelligence
3.5
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.7
4.1
32
transmitting
"good'" DNA
3.0
2.4
3.3
3.3
3.6
19
preference of
eye color
5.8
5.1
5.3
5.1
6.0
3.7
5.5
5.5
*Identity of lettered groups is the same as in Table 1.
Amniocentesis.
v~hile
all of the groups surveyed seem to favor
the use of amniocentesis to detect genetically defective fetuses
(question 25, Table 1 and Table 3), it is interesting to note that
the human genetics class (column A, Table 1 and Table 3) appears
to be more willing to make use of this technique than any of the
other groups surveyed.
The high school students surveyed (columns
20
C and D, Table 1 and Table 3) appear to be the least willing of
any of the groups surveyed to utilize this technique.
however,
it should be noted that most of the high school students were unable to satisfactorily define the term "amniocentesis" (see Appendix
A, Table E).
This fact may have considerable bearing on their
responses.
In response to question 26, all of the groups surveyed indicated a willingness to at
~ast
consider aborting a defective
fetus if one were found.
However, the high school students (see
columns C and D, Tables 1 and 3), again were least willing of all
of the groups surveyed to make use of this procedure.
All of the groups surveyed would seriously question the use
of amniocentesis merely to establish the sex of the offspring
(question 27).
These mean responses indicate some awareness on
the parts of the respondents that this technique carries with it
some dangers and should not be used unless there is good reason
to suspect that a fetus may be carrying a serious genetic defect.
Each group surveyed was definitely against aborting one sex in
preference to another (question 28),.
Table 3- below exemplifies
these points.
These data agree with those obtained from a study on sex preselection which showed that most people did not wish to be able
to predetermine the sex of their children. ll Since amniocentesis
followed by abortion is the only means we have at our
disposal for
determining and selecting sex at the present, the results of the
two studies seem to be in agreement.
21
TABLE 3
~uestion
Mean responses of groups surveyed to questions concerning
amniocentesis.
Group Responding''''
Amniocentesis
B
D
G
F
G
E
to Establish:
A
25
defects
1.6
2.4
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.6
26
followed by
abortion
'l..7
3.2
4.9
4.3
3.9
4.1
3.5
27
sex
4.9
5.1
5>.3
5.0
5.2
4.9
4.5
2$
followed by
abortion
6.9
6.7
6.$
6.5
6.7
6.3
5.8
*Identity of lettered groups is the same as in Table 1.
Artificial Insemination.
In responding to questions 29 through
31, all of the groups surveyed showed a definite preference for
artificial insemination using the husband's own sperm (AIH) over
artificial insemination using donor sperm (AID1 and voluntary
choice of germ plasm.
The genetics students (see columns A and B
in Table 1 and Table 4 below);, seem to be the most willing of any
of the groups to try AlH, although, they do not seem to be in
favor of AID.
The mean responses of groups A and B to question
31 on voluntary choice of germ plasm show at best a l.ack of interest
in this idea.
The two groups of high school students (columns C and D,
Table 1 and Table 4 below) do not appear to favor any 1"orm of
artificial insemination.
The high school l"emales (column G) do,
however, appear to be significantly more willing to try AlH than
do the high school males.
This trend is again borne out in groups
E and F, Table 1 and Table 4 below.
While the difference is not
so striking, the college undergraduate females do appear to be
more willing to consider using AlH than do the college undergraduate
males.
22
None of the groups surveyed really seemed to be in favor of
AID.
The mean responses of the groups indicate that the respondents
have little interest in Muller's plan for making use of sperm
banks to choose germ plasm that would give their offspring certain
desired characteristics.
Table 4 below exemplifies these points.
These data compare favorably with those from a Harris poll which
show that " • • • well over half of the American public approves
of artinicial insemination with the husband's own sperm
. . . .,,12
TABLE 4
Mean responses of groups surveyed to questions concerning
artificial insemination.
Artificial
Gl.roup Responding'"
F
G.
Question Insemination
ABC
D
E
29
AIH
2.5
2.8
4.2
5.4
3.0
3.5
3.0
30
AID
4.4
5.0
6.1
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.1
31
voluntary
choice of
germ plasm
4.8
5.3
6.1
6.0
5.6
5.8
5.3
*Identi ty of lettered groups is the same as in 'rable 1.
Additional Information.
Most of the groups surveyed seemed
willing to at least consider using various types of genetic
engineering.
However, the mean responses to question 33 (see
Table l);indicate that all groups except groups A and B are strongly
against in vitro insemination of human eggs with subsequent implantation into a host mother.
None of the groups is in favor of
allowing scientists to create people with special abilities such
as an Einstein or a great musician (Table 1, question 34).
However,
all of the groups believe that scientists will one day have the
ability to perform these kinds of genetic engineering feats {Table 1,
question 361, and some groups believe that scientists will have
23
these abilities in the respondents' lifetimes {question 351.
Of all the groups surveyed, only group G (general education
class} seemed to fear that politicians would one day order scientists
to create armies of slaves or warriors (see question 37, column
Table 1).
u~
Nevertheless, in question 38 all groups give mean
responses that indicate that they are either in favor of or at
least willing to consider greatly expanding genetic research and
applying the results of such research to humans.
The groups all seemed to think it might be wise to impose some
type of worldwide restrictions on genetic research (question 42).
Still, none of the groups favored completely halting such research
(question 43), and all showed varying degrees of willingness to
support genetic research with tax dollars (question 221.
Apparently,
the benefits of this type of research outweigh the dangers in the
minds of the respondents.
If these responses reflect the opinions
of the general public, scientists may look forward to support from
the public as long as scientific researchers are willing to operate
under certain government restrictions.
Throughout the survey the two genetics classes have appeared
to be much more liberal in their mean responses than the rest of
the groups--especially the high school students.
This is not
too surprising as most of the high school students were unable to
satisfactorily define the terms concerning genetic engineering
on the first page of the survey (see Appendix A, Tables A through
G).
The majority of the genetics students, on the other hand,
had already had some background in science and genetics and were
reasonably familiar with the terms mentioned (see Appendix A,
24
Tables A through U).
However, the human genetics group was con-
sistently more liberal in giving responses than was the general
genetics group (see Table 1, columns A and B, and Appendix B,
Tables A and B).
This interesting difference could possibly be
due to the fact that most of the students in the human genetics
class had already had a general genetics course while those students
in the general genetics course were just starting their formal
instruction in genetics.
The human genetics students were generally
older than the general genetics students and may have had a
little more experience in reading about various genetic techniques.
Finally, the human genetics course was an elective class while the
general genetics course was required for all biology majors.
This
in itself might have been enough to ensure that the human genetics
students were more kindly disposed to this field of science than
the general genetics students.
25
SUlVIMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this survey the author obtained responses from 239 high
school and college students concerning various types of genetic
engineering and reactions to situations that could occur if scientists had the ability to perform a variety of types of genetic
manipulation.
In general the respondents seemed to favor employing
genetic engineering to:
1.
2.
3.
correct serious debilitating genetic diseases;
detect and abort geneticaily defective fetuses;
transmit "good" DNA to genetically defective
individuals.
The respondents were against using genetic engineering to:
1. create people with "special" abilities;
2. choose the sex of offspring;
3. choose certain other non-essential characteristics
of offspring.
The respondents favored continued worldwide research in the
field of genetics but desired that some type of restrictions be
placed on such research.
26
LITERATURE CITED
IJoseph Fletcher. "Ethical Aspects of Genetic Controls." The
New England Journal of Medicine, 285 (1971)1, pp. 776-83.
2Thomas a~ Mertens and Sandra K. Robinson, ed. Human Genetics
and Social Problems. (New York: MSS Information Corporation, 1973),
pp. 79-90.
3Amy Selwyn. "Gienetic Counseling." National Foundation/March
of Dimes pamphlet, current.
4John Fletcher. "The Brink: The Parent-Child Bond in the
Genetic Revolution. If Theological Studies, 33 (September 1972},
pp. 457-485.
York:
5Eldon J. Gardner. Principles of Genetics, 4th edition, (New
John Wiley &. Sons, Inc., 19721, p. 202.
6Ibid., p. 460.
7Paul Ramsey. "Gene Therapy: A Theologian "s Response."
The New Genetics and the Future of Man. (Eerdmans, 197a), pp. 162-3.
8Theodore Friedmann and Richard Roblin. "Gene Therapy for
Human Genetic Disease?:" SCience, 175 (March 3, 1972), p. 953.
9Nicholas Wade. "Genetics: Conference Sets Strict Controls
to Replace Moratorium." Science, 187 (March 14, 1975}, pp. 931-5..10James D. Watson. "Moving Toward The Clonal Nian .. " The Atlantic,
(May 1971), pp. 50-3.
--llMarc Lapp{. "Choosing the Sex of Our Chi Idren. tt Hastings
Center Report, Vol. 4, No. 1 (February 19741, p. 3.
12Charles F. Westoff and Ronald R. Rindfuss. "Sex Preselection
in the United States: Some Implications." Science J 184 (May 10,
1974}, p. 636.
27
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berg, Paul, et ale "Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA
Molecules." SCience, 1.85 (July 26, 1974);, p. 303.
Bok, Sissela. "The Threat of Hemopr:ilia." Hastings Center Report,
(April 1974);, pp. 8-10.
Danielli, James F. "Industry, Society and Genetic hngineering."
Readings, The Hastings Center, (May 2, 1972)., pp. 5-7.
Davis, Bernard D. "Genetic Engineering: How Great Is the Danger?lf
Science, 1.86 (October 25, 1974), p. 309.
Davis, Bernard D. "Prospects for Genetic Intervention in IVan. It
Science, 170 (December 18, 1970), pp. 1279-83.
Duncombe, David C., et ale "Ethical Issues in Genetic Screening."
The New England Journal of lVledicine, 287 (1972)" pp. 204-5.
Eckhart , Walter. "Genetic lVlodification of Cells by Viruses. '"
BioScience, 21 (19711, pp. 171-3.
Edwards, R.G. and Ruth E. Fowler. "Human hlnbryos in the Laboratory."
Scientific American, ~23 {December 19701, pp. 44-54.
Fletcher, John. "The Brink: The Parent-Child Bond in the Genetic
Revolution." Theological Studies, 33 (September 1972), pp. 457485.
Fletcher, Joseph. "Ethical Aspects of Genetic Controls." The New
England Journal of Medicine, 285 (1971), pp. '176-83.
Fletcher, Joseph. "Indicators of Humanhood: A Tentative Profile
of llfan." The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 2, No. 5 (November
1972 ), pp. 1-4.
Friedmann, Theodore and Richard Roblin. "Gene Therapy for Human
Genetic Disease?" Science, 1.75 (lV'J8.rch 3, 1972), pp. 949-55.
Gardner, Eldon J. Principles of Genetics, 4th edition. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1.972.
Gaylin, Willard. "Genetic Screening: The Ethics of Knowing. It
The New England Journal of Medicine, 286 {19721, pp. 1361-2.
Glass, Bentley. "'Human Heredity and Ethical Problems." Perspectives
in Biology and Medicine, 1.5 (Winter 1.972), pp. 237-53.
28
Gustafson, James M. "Genetic 1ngineering and the Normative View
of the Human .. " Ethical Issues in Biology and IVledicine (1973),
pp. 46-58.
Hemphill, Ivlichael. "Pretesting for Huntington's Disease." Hastings
Center Report (July 19731, pp. 12-13.
Lappe", Marc. "Choosing the Sex of Our Children. 1T Hastings Center
Report, Vol. 4, No.1 (February 1974}, pp. 1-4.
Lappe, Marc, et ale "Ethical and Social Issues in Screening for
Genetic Disease." The New 1ngland Journal of IVledicine, 286
(May 25, 197~), pp. 1129-32.
Lappe, Marc, et ale "The Genetic Counselor: Responsible to vvhom?"
Hastings Center Report, Vol. 1, No.2 (September 1971), pp. 6-11.
LappEt, iVlarc. "Human Genetics." Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 216 (Iv~y 18, ~973), pp. 152-9.
Lappe'", Marc. "Moral Obligations and the Fallacies of 'Genetic
Control. '" TIleological Studies, Vol. 33, No.3 (September 1972),
pp. 411-27.
Lappe", Marc. "Risk-taking for the Unborn." Hastings Center H.eport,
Vol. 2, No.1 (February 1972), pp. 1-4.
Mertens, TIlomas R. and Sandra K. Robinson, ed. Human Genetics and
Social Problems. New York: MSS Information Corporation, ~973.
Motulsky, A.G. "Brave New World? Ethical Issues Raised by Current
Approaches to Prevention, Treatment, and Research of Genetic
Diseases." Science, 185 (August 23, 1974), pp. 653-62.
Murray, Robert F., Jr. "Problems Behind the .Promise: Ethical
Issues in Iviass Genetic Screening. 1T Hastings Center Heport,
Vol. 2, No.2 (April 1972), pp. 10-13.
Osmundsen, John A. "We Are All IvIutants--Preventive Genetic lV'ledicine: A Growing Clinical ~ield Troubled by a Confusion of
1thicists." Medical Dimensions, (February 1973), pp. 5-7 & 26-8.
Powledge, Tabitha IVlo ITNew Trends in Genetic Legislation. t1 Hastings
Center Report, (December 1973), pp. 6-7.
Ramsey, Paul. ITGenetic Therapy: A Theologian's Hesponse. IT The New
Genetics and the Future of Ivan, Eerdmans, 1972, pp. 157-75.
Ramsey, Paul. ITScreening: An 1thicist's View.!! Ethical Issues in
Human Genetics. Plenum Press, 1973, pp. 147-61.
Selwyn, Amy. ITGenetic Counseling." National Foundat ion/ l~larch of
Dimes, current.
Shaw, Margery
p. 751.
w.
If
Genetic Counseling." SCience, 184 (Nay 1.7, 1974),
29
Sinsheimer, Robert 1. "Prospects for Future Scientific Developments: Ambush or Opportunity." Ethical Issues in human
Genetics. Plenum Press, 1973, pp. 341-351.
Stenchever, Morton A... "An Abuse of Prenatal Diagnosis." Journal
of the American Medical Association, 221, No.4 (July 24, 1972),
p •• 408.
Veatch, Robert M. "The Unexpected Chromosome • • • A Counselor's
Dilemma." The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 2, No.1 (February
1972 ), pp. 8-9.
Wade, Nicholas. "Genetic NJanipulati on: Temporary .bmbargo Proposed
On Research." Science, 185 (July 26, 1974), pp. 332-4.
Wade, Nicholas. "Genetics: Conference Sets Strict Controls to
Replace IVlora torium." Science, 1$7 (r-1arch 14, 1975), pp. 931-5.
Watson, James D. "Moving Toward The Clonal lVlan." The Atlantic
(May 1971), pp. 50-3.
Westoff, Charles F. and Ronald R. Rindfuss; "Sex Rreselection in
the United States: £Orne Implications." Science, 184 (May 10,
1974), pp. 633-36.
Congressional Research Service. Genetic E.ngineering: hvolutiorf
of ~ Technological Issue. washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, December 1974.
APPENDIX A
31
The following are data tables showing how well the various
groups were able to defi ne the terms (items 6-11) on the first
page of the survey. These responses were ranked subjectively by
the author with a score of one indicating a correct response and
a score of seven indicating a totally erroneous response.
Table A
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of All Groups
Concerning ~uestion 6; Define Genetics.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
Human
Gene ti cs
14
7
0
0
0
0
0
33
1.6
General
Genetics
20
10
0
1
0
0
0
44
1.4
High
School
Females
4
13
14
6
3
4
6
177
3.5
High
School
Males
4
6
10
9
4
1
11
185
4 .1
College
UG""
Females
25
9
5
0
1
0
0
63
1.6
College
UG':'
Males
10
18
2
2
1
1
1
74
2.1
0
0
0
0
0
21
1.4
Group
Gen. Ed.
Class
"-
5
UG-"= undergradua te
32
Table B
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of All Groups
Concerning ~uestion 7: Define Genetic hngineering.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
Human
Genetics
13
5
2
0
1
0
0
34
1.6
General
Genetics
10
7
6
3
1
2
2
85
2.7
High
School
Females
0
4
9
2
2
5
28
279
5.6
High
School
Males
0
3
4
6
2
1
29
261
5.8
College
UG
Females
5
7
6
4
2
2
14
173
4.3
College
UG
Males
7
10
3
4
2
0
9
125
3.6
Gen. Ed.
Class
5
4
4
1
0
0
1
29
1.9
Group
33
Table G
Group
Human
Genetics
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of All Groups
Concerning Iq/uestion 8: Define Gene burgery.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
12
4
2
0
0
0
3
47
2.2
11
4
4
0
0
4
~6
2.8
6
3
6
20
249
5.0
General
Genetics
Mean
High
School
Females
4
3
High
School
Males
4
4
4
4
4
2
23
228
5.1
College
UG
Females
8
11
5
1
3
2
10
146
3.7
College
UG
Males
4
11
6
5
0
0
9
127
3.6
2
5
4
1
1
0
2
47
3.1
Gen. Ed.
C"lass
34
Table
D
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of All Groups
Concerning ~uestion 9: Define Cloning.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7,
Total
lVlean
Human
Genetics
10
1
0
2
0
0
8
76
3.6
General
Gene tics
7
4
2
3
1
1
13
135
4.4
High
School
Females
3
2
0
0
0
1
44
321
6.4
High
School
Males
5
1
0
1
0
0
38
277
6.2
C,ollege
UG
Females
5
0
1
1
0
1
32
~42
6.1
College
UG
Males
1
2
1
1
1
1
28
219
6.3
Gen. Ed.
Class
1
3
1
1
0
2
7
75
5.0
Group
35
Table E
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of All Groups
Concerning ~uestion 10: Define Amniocentesis.
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
Total
HUman
Genetics
15
2
0
1
0
0
3
44
2.1
General
Genetics
12
3
2
0
0
1
13
121
3.9
High
School
Females
3
0
3
2
1
0
41
312
6.2
High
School
Males
0
4
1
1
2
2
35
282
b.3
College
UG
Females
15
7
1
2
0
0
15
143
3.b
College
UG
Males
4
3
0
2
1
2
23
196
5.6
2
0
0
0
0
5
47
3.1
Group
Gen. Ed.
Class
IVlean
36
Table F
Frequencies, Totals, and lVlean Responses of All Groups
Concerning ~uestion 11: Define Artificial Insemination.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
Human
Genetics
15
2
0
0
1
0
0
27
1.3
General
Genetics
le;
7
2
1
0
0
3
63
2.0
High
School
Females
10
3
0
2
1
3
3l
264
5.3
High
School
Males
3
6
4
1
3
2
26
240
5.3
College
UG
Females
26
6
1
1
1
0
5
85
2.1
College
UG
Males
17
9
2
2
0
1
4
e;3
2.4
Gen. Ed.
Class
11
2
0
0
0
0
2
29
1.9
Group
APPENDIX It
38
Table A
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of the Human
Genetics Students to Questions 12 Through 43.
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
12
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
22
1.0
13
4
3
3
1
1
1
64
3.0
14
1
1
4
9
2
2
2
87
4.1
15
10
6
2
1
0
1
1
45
2.1
16
4
4
3
6
1
2
1
69
3.3
17
10
5
3
2
1
0
0
42
2.0
18
6
2
4
6
2
1
0
62
3.0
19
1
0
0
4
1
5
10
122
5.8
20
3
4
1
3
2
0
73
3.5
21
0
1
1
5
2
6
6
80
3.8
10
6
4
0
0
0
0
34
1.7
23
1
3
5
3
2
3
3
87
4.1
24
1
1
1
5
2
3
8
110
5.2
25
13
4
4
0
0
0
0
33
1.6
26
5
8
0
6
0
2
0
57
2.7
27
1
3
1
3
3
4
6
103
4.9
28
0
0
0
1
0
0
20
144
6.9
22
1 ~c
39
Table A
(cont.)
iqiuestion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
29
10
2
2
4
2
0
1
53
2.5
30
2
3
2
4
3.
1
6
93
4.4
31
1
2
3
4
2
2
7
101
4.8
32
4
4
4
0
1
0
62
3.0
33
3
1
3
4
3
5
2
89
4.2
34
0
1
1
5
2
7
5
112
5.3
35
3
6
4
2
2
3
1
'}O
3.3
36
1~
5
3
1
0
0
0
35
1.7
37
2
1
6
4
1
5
2
87
4.1
38
7
5
7
2
0
0
0
46
2.2
39
3
3
0
2
7
1
5
93
4.4
40
0
0
0
1
0
3
17
141
6.7
41
0
0
0
0
0
3
18
144
6.9
42
2
2
2
4
;c
2
7
99
4.7
43
1
0
0
0
0
2
18
139
6.6
"-
-"number of persons not responding to question.
l\IJ.ean
40
Table B
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of the General
Genetics Classes to ~uestions 12 Through 43.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
12
23
6
2
0
0
2
0
53
1.6
13
9
7
6
4
3
2
2
98
3.0
14
2
4
8
7
3
1
139
4.2
15
13
12
4
3
0
1
0
67
2.0
3
4
7
6
2
1
113
3.6
Question
16
2*
17
16
18
13
3
19
1....,',
IVlean
6
2
1
0
0
63
1.9
9
2
6
1
1
1
79
2.4
3
0
4
5
5
12
164
5.1
2
5
5
2
4
114
3.5
20
7
21
3
7
1
9
3
1
9
147
4.5
22
7
6
14
1
1
1
3
97
2.9
1
3
3
10
4
4
7
149
4.7
1
2
4
9
1
7
9
163
4.9
..o,
13
6
4
2
0
2
2
71
2.4
..o,
8
5
5
7
1
3
2
98
3.2
2
1
2
4
7
4
10
154
5.1
0
0
0
1
1
4
25
208
6.7
23
1*
24
25
3'"
26
2'"1'
27
3*
28
2 ,:~
41
Table 2
(cont. )
Wuestion
1
29 *
1
2
10
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
6
3
0
0
5
91
2.8
165
5.0
30
1
0
5
9
3
7
31
2
1
4
4
2
7
13
175
5.3
32
9
9
9
6
0
0
0
78
2.4
3
2
5
9
3
3
6
133
4.3
34 *
2
1
2
4
3
2
7
12
165
5.3
35
5
3
2
7
3
3
124
4.0
36 *
2
16
9
2
3
1
0
0
57
1.8
37 *
2
2
3
4
9
4
5
4
135
4.4
38 2)j<.
6
6
7
8
2
1
1
94
3.0
39
2
4
2
5
5
5
132
4.3
40 *
2
0
0
0
1
0
5
25
209
6.7
41 2 ):<
0
0
0
1
1
6
23
206
6.6
42
5
5
4
3
3
2
122
4.1
0
0
0
1
1
3
209
6.7
33
y,
2-'-
y,
2"1'
y,
2"1'
3*
43 2 ,',
26
''-
~<number
of persons not responding to question.
42
Table G,
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of the high
School Females to ~uestions 12 Through 43.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
20
13
10
2
2
0
1
101
2.1
13
9
14
11
7
3
5
1
144
2.9
14
3
9
5
5
197
3.9
Question
12 .'.....
2
15 *
1
10
16 -'.
2 ."
12
9
5
16
3
4
2
160
3.3
12
7
10
6
2
3
156
3.3
17
29
13
6
1
0
1
0
83
1.7
18
23
13
4
5
1
4
0
110
2.2
19
1
0
7
11
4
9
18
266
5.3
20
9
14
7
9
3
4
4
161
3.2
21
2
2
6
10
11
7
12
245
4.9
22
9
7
14
14
4
2
0
153
3.1
23
5
8
12
11
5
7
2
184
3.7
24
5
1
7
4
9
16
245
4.9
25
10
6
7
6
3
5
3
133
3.3
b
3
3
11
2
4
18
228
4.9
0
4
3
11
2
5
18
227
5.3
0
0
0
0
1
5
37
294
6.8
26
27
10>:<
:2*
i,-
7"
28 ....
T"
43
Table C
(cont. )
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
29
13"--'-
5
2
4
12
4
3
7
.1:,6
4.2
...-
.1
0
0
4
4
6
21
220
6.1
~<
0
1
4
2
6
4
32
300
6.1
32 -'2"'-
7
7
10
18
4
0
2
157
3.3
33
0
2
2
5
3
5
28
271
6.0
~:<
0
2
1
6
6
5
27
280
6.0
35 -'3"-
4
5
5
12
3
10
205
4.4
36 _'_
10
10
8
2
2
142
3.1
37 -'3'"
38 _,_
3-'-
0
6
15
239
5.1
7
6
39 _,_
4'"
4
40 -')"41
30
31
34
14'"
1
~:<
5
3
4'''
6
Mean
5
5
9
14
7
4
0
.157
3.3
5
11
6
6
6
8
.193
4.2
0
0
5
2
7
3
30
286
6.1
0
0
1
4
6
6
30
291
6.2
42 . ._
3"-
3
7
5
9
7
4
12
211
4.5
43
I
0
1
3
3
3
36
301
6.4
3>:<
,,-
)"-
-'"'number
of persons not responding to question.
44
Table D
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of the High
School Males to ~uestions ~2 Through 4~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
~2
16
19
3
4
2
0
1
96
2.1
13 '"
1'"
16
9
10
3
2
1
3
113
2.5
14
9
7
7
6
9
1
6
161
3.6
15
~2
~2
10
5
1
3
2
123
2.7
10
7
5
13
5
4
0
140
3.2
17
27
13
1
2
0
2
0
76
1.7
18
17
11
11
2
2
1
1
103
2.3
19
3
0
7
6
6
10
~3
229
5.1
20
9
6
13
7
2
2
145
3.2
21 ....
1'"
1
2
5
13
3
5
15
222
5.0
22
4
15
10
10
3
1
2
139
3.1
23
6
3
9
15
4
1
7
174
3.9
24
5
2
3
6
11
4
14
219
4.9
7
6
8
15
1
0
2
122
3.1
4
6
5
10
4
2
12
187
4.3
1
3
6
9
3
6
12
199
5.0
0
1
1
1
2
7
32
285
b.5
Wuestion
16
,'.
1-"
25
6*
26
27
28
2 ,'--,'
5 -,',"
1';':
1VIean
45
Table D
(cont.)
iq1uestion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
29
1
2
4
12
1
3
11
185
5.4
30 I,'.'.
2
0
1
10
1
2
20
202
5.6
31 .,2 . .·
0
0
3
5
3
9
23
259
6.0
32 .'.
4'"
6
8
10
9
4
2
2
134
3.3
33 2 I,'.'_
0
0
4
4
6
8
21
253
5.9
34
4
0
5
9
4
7
16
223
5.0
35
2
9
4
7
185
4.1
36
15
2
1
127
2.8
37
2
8
11
218
4.8
38
3
)'.
11 "
Total
lVlean
2
39
7
7
10
5
3
8
7
12
12
6
3
2
163
3.6
6
9
6
4
5
7
170
3.8
3
40
0
0
0
2
4
14
25
287
6.4
41
3
0
1
3
6
10
22
262
5.8
5
5
9
6
3
9
181
4.0
0
0
3
2
11
26
273
6.1
42
43
3
*number of persons not responding to question.
46
Table
F.;
\q(uestion
Frequencies, Totals, and lVlean Hesponses of the College
Undergraduates to ~uestions 12 Through 43.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
12
25
9
4
2
0
0
0
63
1.6
13
6
6
9
11
4
1
3
136
3.4
14
3
3
14
6
6
3
5
158
4.0
15
15
5
7
3
2
0
101
2.5
6
6
10
2
0
6
132
3.5
16."
2 ....
17
24
10
4
1
0
0
1
67
1.7
18
14
10
7
2
2
2
3
106
2.7
19
1
1
2
3
7
6
21
?39
6.0
10
7
6
6
3
4
3
126
3.2
2
4
7
6
5
168
4.2
20
1'"
-"
21
22
4
9
11
9
2
3
1
126
3.2
23
1
4
6
16
4
3
6
171
4.3
24 .',
1''-
3
3
1
9
5
7
11
192
4.9
25 .',
1''-
14
7
7
4
3
2
2
106
2.7
26
7
4
5
11
3
3
7
156
3.9
27
1
2
5
2
5
16
204
5.2
28
0
0
0
2
4
33
269
6.7
1 .',
. .·
1
47
Table l!.
(cont.)
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
29
15
6
4
7
1
2
5
119
3.0
30
1
2
5
2
2
20
214
5.4
31
2
1
5
4
2
2
24
225
5.6
32
6
5
8
11
5
2
3
142
3.6
33
0
2
3
4
7
16
223
5.6
34
0
1
1
2
4
9
23
256
6.4
35
5
4
6
10
4
4
7
164
4.1
10
4
2
4
1
113
2.9
5
5
11
184
4.7
2
0
141
3.5
36 .'_
1-"
10
37 .'_
1'"
4
2
4
8
38
5
5
6
14
39
9
3
7
6
7
4
4
147
3.7
0
0
1
3
7
5
23
241
6.2
41
0
0
1
7
6
4
22
239
6.0
42
10
4
5
6
5
2
136
3.4
43
0
0
1
4
13
21
252
6.3
40
1):'
1
*number of persons not responding to question.
48
Table F
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of the College
Undergraduate ~ales to Questions 12 Through 43.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
12
12
10
9
2
0
1
1
80
2.3
13
6
9
9
2
2
4
3
119
3.4
14
2
2
7
2
4
.10
.162
4.6
15
15
7
4
5
3
1
0
82
2.3
16
8
6
3
7
4
2
5
124
3.5
17
15
.13
1
4
1
1
(~
71
2.0
18
11
9
6
5
1
1
2
,92
2.6
19
2
1
3
2
4
11
12
191
5.5
20
5
6
6
6
5
3
130
3.7
21
4
2
7
2
1
.11
.154
4.4
22
0
6
5
1
7
.146
4.2
~uestion
23
24
25
2"-. -
2
6
4
5
6
0
10
146
4.4
~<
4
5
3
6
5
9
2
.140
4.1
t-
3
10
4
9
1
0
1
76
2.7
4
6
4
7
2
5
7
145
4.1
0
3
3
.13
4
4
5
146
4.9
0
1
0
2
4
4
23
215
6.3
1
-',
26
27
28
IVlean
3~<
1*
49
Table F
(cont.)
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
29 ....
7
5
3
4
2
0
0
94
3.5
30
1
2
2
6
2
4
12
153
5.3
0
0
3
7
0
4
18
187
5.8
4
3
9
10
3
3
3
131
3.7
1
3
1
8
0
7
11
161
5.2
~~
0
1
4
5
1
9
12
177
5.5
~,
5
7
5
6
3
5
1
110
3.4
,0.
15
6
3
3
3
1
1
76
2.4
3 '} ....
3'"
2
3
7
6
6
3
5
136
4.3
38
1
3
13
4
5
3
3
126
3.9
39 ,'.
4'"
2
6
4
11
4
2
2
116
3.7
40 ':'
3
1
1
0
4
3
8
15
187
5.8
41 ,'.
3'"
1
0
1
4
5
7
14
185
5.8
42
4
7
3
10
3
4
1
113
3.5
1
0
0
5
6
9
11
182
5.7
8'"
31
,0.
6'"
~~
3
32
33
34
35
36
43
lVlean
,0.
4'"
3
3
3 '"
,0.
3'"
3~'
3*
,'.
','
number of persons not responding to question.
50
Table G
Frequencies, Totals, and Mean Responses of the C,ollege
General Education Class to ~uestions 12 Through 41.
Mean
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
12
11
2
1
0
1
0
0
23
1.5
13
3
0
4
4
3
1
0
52
3.5
14
1
2
2
4
1
2
3
65
4.3
15
6
6
2
1
0
0
0
28
1.9
16
4
1
1
3
4
0
2
55
3.7
17
7
4
1
1
1
0
1
34
2.3
18
4
2
2
3
2
0
2
50
3.3
19
0
1
0
2
4
4
4
82
5.5
20
1
2
4
3
1
1
3
bl
4.1
21
1
2
1
2
5
3
1
66
4.4
22
1
4
4
4
1
0
1
)2
3.5
23 1 .',
1
2
2
4
2
3
60
4.3
24
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
67
4.5
6
1
3
3
0
0
1
36
2.6
4
0
3
4
1
2
1
53
3.5
27 ....
3
1
1
1
2
1
5
63
4.5
28
2
0
0
1
0
1
9
75
5.8
'0'
25
1*
26
r"
2 .-".·
51
Table G
(cont.)
~uestion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
29
7
2
0
1
2
1
2
45
3.0
30
3
0
0
2
2
1
7
76
5.1
31
1
2
0
2
0
3
7
80
5.3
32
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
56
3.7
0
0
0
1
2
4
7
87
6.2
*
1
0
1
1
2
4
5
77
5.5
35 -',
5
5
1
2
1
0
0
31
2.2
10
3
1
0
0
0
0
1.9
1.4
37 *
1
1
3
3
3
2
0
2
52
3.7
*
0
2
1
4
4
0
2
57
4.4
39 -"
1'"
2
3
4
2
3
1
0
49
3.5
40
0
0
1
1
4
1
7
82
5.9
41 ,;.:
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
88
6.3
*
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
48
3.4
*
0
0
0
1
2
3
8
88
1
6.3
33
34
.0,
1'"
1
r'
36
38
42
43
.0,
1 . .·
2
1*
*number of persons not responding to question.
APPENDIX C
•
(' <
,~.
(","
:)
)Ot~iL::
~"'ft,"' ..
c-_, __
'IJ,v
't,
a
,.i t"
!:
QUESTIO~NAIRE
Age:
-------------------
Year of School:
Fr.
Sex:
---- ,
M
So.
----- ,
ON
H~N ~ETICS
F ___________
Jr. _____ , Sr. ______ , Graduate _______
1.
Have you had any college biology courses?
Yes ________ No________
2.
If so, which ones?_____________________________________________________________
3.
Have you discussed genetics in any of them?
4.
If yes, in how many courses? ______________________________________________
5.
Have you read any magazine or newspaper articles or seen any TV productions
on human genetics, genetic engineering, etc?
Yes ________ No__________
Yes________
----------
No
6.
What does the term genetics mean to you? ___________________________________
7.
What does the term human genetic engineering mean to you? ___________________
8.
What does the term gene surgery mean to you? __________________________________
9.
What does the term cloning mean to you? _______________________________________
10.
What does the term amniocentesis mean to you? ___________________________________
11.
What does the term artificial insemination mean to you? _____________________
2
12-43.
For the follu'\;ing questions indicate ycur opir..ion by circling the l:PPL"(\t'c iate number on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 indi~ates your strong agreemer.t or
support and 7 indicates yolir strong negative reaction or disagreement.
12.
Do you think research in the field of
genetics is of value to man and society?
4
Strong
Negative
567
13.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Would you agree to adding or removing
genes from animal cells to "improve"
certain characteristics of the animal, if
such a procedure were to be developed?
14.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Would you endorse scientists using the
ability to change human characteristics
by adding or removing genes when and if
this possibility exists?
15.
Do you believe scientists will ever have
this ability?
4
Strong
Negative
567
16.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Do you think it is acceptable to socle~y
to use medical procedures to keep genet·,
ically defective humans (i.e., diabetics,
hemophiliacs, children with Down's
Syndrome or monogolism) alive so that
they can marry and reproduce?
17.
4
Strong
Negative
567
If you had a child suffering from
hemophilia, do you think it would be
acceptable to employ gene surgery to
modify the gene and thus prevent this
trait from being passed on to any offspring, assuming the techniques to do so
were available?
18.
4
Strong
Negative
567
If you were nearsighted, do you think it
would be acceptable to employ gene surgery
to modify the appropriate genes and thus
prevent you from passing the trait on to
your offspring?
19.
4
Strong
Negative
567
If you preferred blue eyes to brown eyes,
do you think it would be acceptable to
employ gene surgery to modify the
appropriate genes and thus insure that
all your offspring were blue-eyed?
20.
If your child had below normal intellig-·
4
Strong
Negative
567
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
Strong
Positive
1
2
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
3
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
,Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
Strong
Positive
I
2
Strong
Positive
I
2
3
3
3
ence, do you think it would be acceptable
to employ gene surgery to modify
appropriate genes to insure that your
child's offspring were of normal
intelligence?
21.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Do you favor the pra~r~\.:e some state j::1.stitutions have used in the past of steriJiLing
the "feeble-minded"?
22.
Are you in favor of using your tax dollars to
support genetic research?
4
Strong
Negative
567
23.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Would you be willing to make use of plant ar.d
animal breeding techniques to improve the
genetic constitutions of your own yet-to-beconceived children?
24.
Do you have any religious or moral objectioL"
to the use of gene surgery?
4
Strong
Negative
567
25.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Would you use amniocentesis to establish
whether a fetus that you or your wife is
carrying is genetically defective - for instance has Down's Syndrome (mongolism)?
26.
Would you abort the fetus if it were shown
to be genetically defective?
4
Strong
Negative
567
Strong
Negative
27.
Would you use amniocentesis to establish the
sex of a fetus?
S::::..ong
I'ositive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
4
5
28.
4
Strong
Negative
567
If you and your mate wanted a boy, would you
favor using amniocentesis to discover and
abort a female fetus?
29.
Would you be willing to use artificial insemination if the husband were the donor?
4
Strong
Negative
567
30.
Would you be willing to use artificial insemination if the husband were not the donor?
4
Strong
Negative
567
4
Strong
Negative
567
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
6
7
Strong
Negative
3
4
5
6
7
31.
32.
Would you be willing to go to a "sperm bank"
and choose germ plasm that would be likely to
give your offspring certain desired characteristics (i.e., high intelligence, brown eyes,
musical ability)?
Would you be willing to use a virus to transmit
"good" DNA into your own cells or those of a
defective relative to correct a genetic defect
if this technique becomes feasible?
33.
V:)uld you be ';.Jillir.iS to ,[.:Joke u.:;e of i.t.!. v::.t~,:·r:..
(in the test tube) insemination of hUlnan ego;s
and then im?lantation in a host mother, i~,:;.,
"test tube" babies?
34.
Would you endorse scientists employing genetic
engineering to create people with specinl
abilities (an Einstein, a great musician) if
the necessary technology were possible?
35.
Do you think it likely that scientists will
have this ability in your lifetime?
4
Strong
Negntive
567
36.
Do you think it likely that scientists will
ever have this ability?
4
Strong
Negative
567
37.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Do you think it likely that politicians will
one day order scientists to create individuals with certain genetic traits, (i.e.,
a race of warriors, a rnce of feeble-minded
slaves, etc.)?
38.
Do you favor greatly expanding genetic research and applying the results to humans?
4
Strong
Negative
567
39.
4
Strong
Neg:ltive
567
Do you think our government should impose
some type of restrictions on nll genetic
research?
40.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Do you think it would be desirable if only
American scientists were ordered to stop
genetic research but scientists in other
countries were allowed to continue?
41.
4
Strong
Negative
567
Do you think it would be desirable if only
American scientists were allowed to continue
genetic research and scientists in other
countries were ordered to stop?
42.
Do you favor having all governments impose
some type of restrictions on genetic research?
4
Stron8
Negative
567
43.
Do you think genetic research should be
completely stopped?
4
Strong
Negative
567
S~T;)nG
Str0n8
~~o3itive
~le8ative
234
5
Strong
Positive
12345
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
Strong
Positive
1
2
3
6
7
Strong
Negative
6
7