COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY
REPORT ON OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GENERAL APPLICATIONS
PREPARED FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
EUREKA PROJECT 4001
Contents
1. Research Context ........................................................................................... 1
Biotechnology Australia .................................................................................. 1
Importance of community attitudes ................................................................. 1
The nature of community attitudes .................................................................. 1
The need for research .................................................................................... 1
Research objectives ....................................................................................... 2
2. Research Design ............................................................................................. 3
A multi-stage research program ...................................................................... 3
Sample......................................................................................................... 4
3. Research Findings .......................................................................................... 6
Knowledge and perceptions of biotechnologies .................................................. 6
Aspirations for biotechnology .........................................................................14
Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology ...............................17
4. Conclusions and Implications ....................................................................... 31
Appendix A: Methodological Comparisons ........................................................ 33
Response differences in online and CATI methodologies ....................................33
'Direct' comparison of online and CATI responses .............................................34
'Non-direct' comparison of online and CATI responses .......................................36
Concluding remarks ......................................................................................38
Appendix B - Initial/Exploratory Group Discussion Guide ................................ 39
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology ............................................................39
Appendix C - Survey Sample Characteristics..................................................... 47
Location ......................................................................................................47
Age .............................................................................................................47
Gender ........................................................................................................48
Education ....................................................................................................48
Culturally and linguistically diverse groups .......................................................49
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders ..............................................................49
Vegetarians .................................................................................................49
Children under 12 .........................................................................................50
Appendix D - Biotechnology Public Awareness Questionnaire .......................... 51
Quantitative CATI questionnaire .....................................................................51
Appendix E - Exploratory Group Discussion Guide ............................................ 69
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology ............................................................69
Appendix F - Exploratory Group Notepad Exercise ............................................ 78
1. Your kids are ratbags? Them's fightin' genes ................................................78
2. Don't feel guilty 'it's in the genes' ...............................................................78
3. 'Gene for panic attacks' .............................................................................79
4. Reading skills are in the genes, study shows ................................................80
5. Gene mutation may raise the risk of alcoholism ............................................81
6. Violence Gene ..........................................................................................81
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
1. Research Context
This section outlines the background to the project, and specifies our
understanding of the research objectives
Biotechnology Australia
Biotechnology Australia is a multi-departmental Australian Government agency
responsible for managing, with its partners, the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS)
and coordinating non-regulatory biotechnology issues for the Australian Government.
Biotechnology Australia's goal is to ensure Australia captures the benefits arising from
the medical, agricultural and environmental application of biotechnology, while protecting
the safety of people and the environment.
Importance of community attitudes
Community attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian
biotechnology sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain applications of
biotechnology, efforts made by scientists on research and development will be
constricted, and a host of potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to food to
textiles are likely to be lost. There is a need to understand the underlying drivers of
community acceptance of biotechnology and ways in which public rejection of
biotechnology may be minimised - both to inform the public about biotechnology and to
inform scientists of the public's needs and concerns
The nature of community attitudes
Research has shown that it is no longer sufficient to ask broad questions relating to
attitudes towards, or acceptance of, biotechnology per se, as these measures vary
markedly for different applications of biotechnology and gene technology. Issues that
may be taken into account when evaluating an application are:

Potential harm to humans, animals or the environment

Regulation and control of the process of development

Scope of benefits: humanity, scientific career advancement, or corporate profit

Potential for unforeseen outcomes to occur
Trade-offs may occur among these factors. For instance, harm to animals may be
acceptable to some if the application can save human lives, but not if it only is for
corporate profit.
The need for research
This research represents the fifth wave of Biotechnology Australia's ongoing attitudinal
research. As such, it is an opportunity to identify and understand any new issues that
have arisen, as well as any changes in community attitudes and their drivers, since 2005.
The increased understanding of social drivers of attitudes regarding biotechnology will be
used to identify differences in the various audiences and stakeholders. Finally, the
1
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
research will enable the success of some aspects of the Public Awareness Program to be
measured.
The enhanced understanding of community attitudes and concerns that will result from
this research will be used to guide the further development of the Public Awareness
Program. It will uncover any significant changes, new problem areas and priority targets
in terms of public attitudes to be addressed. It will also provide information on the most
effective means by which information can be imparted, and guidance in terms of the
conduct of further community consultations.
Research objectives
Overall, the aim of this project was to update and further develop understanding of the
community's awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of
biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive community acceptance. In addition,
research aimed to understand community aspirations for biotechnology, information
sources, and the success of current public information and awareness strategies.
2
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
2. Research Design
In this section, details of our proposed research design are provided, as well as
our rationale for using this methodology
To meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was
undertaken, as illustrated in the following diagram.
A multi-stage research program
Initially a brief literature review was conducted to ensure that Eureka was fully aware of
any new developments in the area of biotechnology. Following this, a phase of
exploratory qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes,
motivations and behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research.
Quantitative research was then carried out to measure the incidence of awareness,
perceptions and attitudes relating to biotechnology. This phase utilised a split sample
CATI/ online methodology. Finally, an explanatory phase of qualitative research was
conducted in order to investigate and explain in detail the findings from the survey.
3
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Sample
Exploratory qualitative phase
The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.
Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research
Age
Education level
Non-teriary
Tertiary
18-30 years
31-65 years
Sydney
Wagga Wagga
Wagga Wagga
Sydney
This phase comprised of four discussion groups, with the variables of education, age and
location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) factored into the structure. The discussion
groups were 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $70. (See
Appendix B for exploratory discussion guide).
Quantitative phase
This phase of the research has traditionally been conducted over the telephone via CATI
(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). This wave, however, Biotechnology
Australia sought to migrate the study to an online methodology. For a survey of this
length, an online methodology is beneficial to participants, as they are able to complete
the survey at a time of their choosing and over multiple sittings if desired. There are also
notable cost savings.
A split CATI/online sample methodology was deemed the most prudent approach to
facilitate the migration as this would enable clean comparison of data over time. The
total sample consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age.
Approximately half the interviews (n=534) were conducted via CATI and the other half
(n=533) were conducted online.
The telephone sample was recruited using List Assisted Random Digit Dialling (LARDD)
methodology, to yield a more representative sample than the Electronic White Pages
(EWP).
The sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within these, by
rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in proportion to the
population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and gender quotas were
applied, again proportional to the population. (See Appendix C for survey sample
characteristics). Sampling methods employing a disproportionate chance of selection
were used to deal with groups who were known to be less inclined to do surveys or more
difficult to contact (e.g. males and younger persons) in order to be representative.
Importantly, this approach mirrors the approach of the previous wave of research, thus
ensuring comparability. The questionnaire averaged 29 minutes duration. (See Appendix
D for questionnaire).
For the online methodology, samples were sourced from an online panel, that is,
individuals who have opted to receive email invitations to participate in surveys from our
4
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
fieldwork supplier. Stratification and quota sampling occurred as per the telephone
methodology.
Explanatory qualitative phase
The sample structure for the explanatory qualitative phase was based on two main
variables, location and level of support, and is presented below. In the recruitment
process, participants were required to rate their attitude towards the use of gene
technology in today's society on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 is completely opposed and
10 is fully supportive). Once again, the duration of the groups was 2 hours, and a $70
incentive was provided. (See Appendix E for explanatory discussion guide). Part of this
group discussion focussed on the media's representation of the role of genes in human
behaviour. The 6 newspaper articles were deliberately chosen so as to be representative
of tabloid-style reporting in this area. (See Appendix F for newspaper articles).
Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research
Location
Bathurst
Sydney (City)
Hurstville
31-65 years
18-30 years
31-65 years
Medium
18-30 years
31-65 years
18-30 years
High
18-30 years
18-30 years
31-65 years
Level of support Low
In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are
combined and presented together for each issue.
5
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
3. Research Findings
This section presents the findings of the report
This section details the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of research
pertaining to overall perceptions of biotechnology and its general applications. Where it
would assist the reader to understand the research findings, verbatim quotations from
research participants have been included to illustrate the range of views typically
expressed.
The findings cover knowledge and perceptions of biotechnologies, aspirations for
biotechnology and awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology. A
comparison of CATI and online results, along with a discussion of the implications of the
transition from CATI to online methodologies, can also be found in Appendix A of this
report.
The following points are relevant to the interpretation of the quantitative findings:

Data from telephone interviews (not online) has been used for this wave's analysis,
in order to ensure methodologically consistent data are compared over time.
Previous waves of research were conducted over the telephone.

Significant trends over time are denoted with a circle (increase) or box (decrease)

A number of questionnaire changes were made to meet the needs of stakeholders
involved in the research. Comparisons over time are therefore only possible for
some questions.

One important change was that definitions of biotechnology, gene technology and
genetic modification were provided at the commencement of the survey
questionnaire and before each of the later group discussions. This was done at the
request of stakeholders, to avoid any ambiguity in meaning when using these
terms.
Knowledge and perceptions of biotechnologies
Knowledge and awareness of technology terminology
Participants were asked to indicate their self-assessed level of awareness and knowledge
of six technologies: IVF, cloning, genetic modification, stem cell research, gene
technology and biotechnology.
6
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure 1. Knowledge and awareness of technology terminology
Base: all CATI (n=534)
Participants' self-assessed level of understanding was highest for IVF, with 59%
indicating that they could explain the technology to a friend. One in two participants
(50%) indicated an equivalent level of knowledge for cloning, while just over one in three
(35%) did so for genetic modification and stem cell research. The technologies that
participants felt least knowledgeable about were gene technology and biotechnology.
Twenty-two percent and 18% signified that they could explain these technologies to a
friend respectively.
Awareness of all technologies was high. More than nine in ten participants noted that
they had at least heard of cloning, IVF and stem cell research. Awareness of genetic
modification, gene technology and biotechnology was slightly lower, at 87%, 79% and
78% respectively.
Predictors of Knowledge of Terminology
Analysis1 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic
variables, and knowledge of technology terminology. Table 1 below summarises the
subgroups found to be significantly more likely to indicate being able to explain a
technology to a friend. In sum, those who felt comfortable with new technologies
expressed greater technology knowledge than those who did not feel comfortable, those
participants who were university educated had greater self-assessed knowledge than
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted to test the significance of the relationship
between variables. This test compares the actual frequencies of the cross tabulation to
the frequencies we would expect if there was no relationship between the variables.
Those relationships that have a probability of being due to chance that are less than 5%
are described as being statistically significant.
1
7
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
those who were not, and finally, males were more likely to indicate being able to explain
technologies to a friend than females.
Table 1. Predictors of knowledge of terminology
More likely to be able to explain
to a friend
Item
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Genetic modification
44
35
Stem cell research
42
35
Gene technology
32
22
Biotechnology
28
18
Technophiles (technological change
happens too fast for me to keep up
with it - disagree)
Cloning
64
50
University educated
Cloning
60
50
Genetic modification
48
35
Stem cell research
45
35
Gene technology
31
22
Biotechnology
27
18
Cloning
55
50
Stem cell research
41
35
Gene technology
26
22
Biotechnology
26
18
Males
Knowledge and Awareness of Terminology Over Time
The question on terminology was asked in the same way in 2005 for three of these
technologies: cloning, stem cell research and biotechnology. Comparative results over
time for these technologies are presented in Figure 2 below. Results indicate that there
have been no significant improvements in self-assessed knowledge of these technologies
over time.
8
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure 2. Understanding of terminology
Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)
* 2005 Use of stem cells
Qualitative Feedback
There continues to be less comprehension of the exact meaning of the term
'biotechnology' when compared with 'gene technology'. Some participants associated
'biotechnology' with science fiction, computers, dual or combined technology and the
potential impacts of such technology on humans. Others had more accurate associations,
including breakthroughs in agriculture or medical research. Meanwhile, most participants
were aware, or could guess, that 'gene technology' relates to the modification of genes.
Some were able to provide quite sophisticated definitions.
I think it (biotechnology) means combined technology like Mechanical plus
computer combined.
It means changing gene structures in an organism usually for therapeutic or
production purposes. Genes may be implanted, removed; sequences changed with
the aim of altering organisms.
The science of working with the human genome. Molecular science?
Words that were associated with these terms predominantly focused on the health and
medical area, including DNA, chromosomes, gene mapping, research, stem cell research,
cloning, genetic engineering, studying or curing genetically inherited diseases and
artificial insemination.
Other terms mentioned related to food and agriculture, and included modified food or
organisms, new farming techniques, commercial gain, increased quantity or quality of
food and research on farm animals. Participants from the groups conducted in Wagga
Wagga made more frequent references to the agricultural dimensions of biotechnology.
9
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
After initial discussion of people's interpretation of the terminology, a definition of
biotechnology was provided, so that the term could be used for the remainder of the
group. Despite this, there was widespread confusion regarding the distinction between
biotechnology and more general aspects of science and technology, including in particular
the use of chemicals in food production.
Perceptions of technologies
Participants of the survey were subsequently asked their views on the future impact that
each of these technologies will have in the future. They were asked whether they
believed the technology in question would improve our way of life in the future, have no
effect or make things worse. Figure 3 presents these results.
Figure 3. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life
Base: all CATI (n=534)
Of all technologies, participants were most likely to predict that stem cell research would
have a positive future impact on our way of life. Indeed, almost nine in ten (87%)
indicated that it would improve our way of life, while only 5% felt that it would make
things worse. Predictions for gene technology and biotechnology were positive from the
majority of participants, with 73% and 68% respectively signifying that these
technologies would improve our way of life, and only a small number (10% and 8%
respectively) predicting things being made worse. Positive future perceptions drop
markedly for genetic modification (45%) and cloning (28%), while negative future
perceptions increase correspondingly (29% and 48%).
Participants were least able to respond to this question in relation to biotechnology and
genetic modification.
10
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Predictors of Positive Perceptions of Technologies
Analysis2 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic
variables, and positive perceptions of technologies. Table 2 below summarises the
subgroups found to be significantly more likely to view technologies improving our way of
life in the future. In sum, those who feel more comfortable with new technologies had
more positive outlooks for technologies in the future than others, males had more
positive perceptions of cloning and genetic modification than females, females had more
positive perceptions of IVF than males, and lastly, those who are university educated and
those aged 18-30 were more likely than others to predict that cloning will have a positive
impact on our future way of life.
Table 2. Predictors of positive perceptions of technologies
Will improve our way of life in
the future
Item
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
'Technophiles' (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Biotechnology
77
68
Gene technology
82
73
Genetic modification
61
45
Cloning
34
28
Stem cell research
94
87
IVF
88
83
Cloning
33
28
Genetic modification
52
45
Females
IVF
86
83
University educated
Cloning
34
28
18-30
Cloning
39
28
Males
Perceptions of Technologies Over Time
This question was asked in 2005 for three of the technologies: stem cell research,
biotechnology and cloning. Figure 4 below presents these results over time.
2
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
11
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure 4. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life - trends
over time
Base: those aware CATI
* 2005 Use of stem cells
There have been significant increases in positive perceptions of the future impact of all
three technologies. The proportion of participants indicating that stem cell research
would improve our way of life in the future rose from 82% to 87%. For biotechnology the
proportion of positive future predictions rose from 60% to 68%, while for cloning the
proportion rose from 19% to 28%.
Later in the survey, participants were asked for their views on the likely impact of gene
technology on problems faced by society and on the impact it would have on their
personal lives. The views expressed are presented in Figure 5 below.
12
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure 5. Perceived impact of gene technology on society and on personal life
Base: all CATI, n=534
There were mixed views regarding the perceived impact of gene technology. Two in five
participants (40%) indicated that gene technology was very likely to solve significant
problems faced by society, with a further 51% indicating that it was somewhat likely to
do so. At the same time, however, the majority of participants felt that gene technology
was likely to create significant problems in the future (26% very likely, 61% somewhat
likely).
An analysis3 of differences by subgroup indicated that those aged 18-30 and those who
are more comfortable with new technologies were significantly more likely to think that
gene technology will solve significant problems faced by society. Almost all (98%) 18-30
years olds indicated that this was either somewhat or very likely. Fifty-six percent of
'technophiles' indicated that this was very likely. In contrast, those aged 51-75 and those
who advocated the use of more natural farming practices were significantly less likely to
predict problems being solved, with 12% and 13% respectively indicating this was not all
likely.
Positive predictions for the impact of gene technology on one's life personally were lower
than positive predictions for society in general. Less than one in five 5 participants (18%)
felt that gene technology would be very likely to improve their life personally, and 54%
predicted it to be somewhat likely. However, an analysis4 of subgroup differences
determined that positive predictions were significantly more likely among 'technophiles'5
3
4
5
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
Ibid
Agree that 'new technologies excite me more than concern me'
13
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
and those aged 18-30. Twenty-eight percent and 23% respectively indicated it was very
likely that their life would improve personally. In contrast, those aged 51-75, those with
the lowest level of educational attainment and those who advocated natural farming
practices had a significantly more negative outlook, with 38%, 41% and 34% indicating
gene technology was not at all likely to improve their life personally.
Figure 6 below further demonstrates the concurrent positive and negative outlooks for
gene technology's future impact on society. The analysis isolates participants who
indicated that gene technology was 'very' or 'somewhat' likely to help solve significant
problems faced by society, and presents their predictions of the likelihood of significant
problems to be created by gene technology.
Figure 6. Perceived impact of gene technology on society
The majority of participants who predicted that gene technology would help solve
significant problems in the future also believed that gene technology would create
significant problems in the future. Among those who indicated that assistance in solving
society's problems was very likely, 23% felt that problem creation was very likely and a
further 56% felt that it was somewhat likely. Among those who thought that assistance
in solving society's problems was somewhat likely, the corresponding figures were 21%
and 73%.
Aspirations for biotechnology
This wave of the research saw the addition of a new discussion topic on aspirations for
biotechnology. Participants were initially asked what kind of breakthroughs and benefits
14
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
that biotechnology might provide in the future. The majority of participants made
references to medical breakthroughs, such as cures for diseases, providing a better
quality of life, increasing the availability of organs for transplant, understanding the
causes of diseases, curing plant diseases and improving prosthetics or mechanical limbs.
[WHAT KIND OF BREAK THROUGHS DO YOU THINK BIOTECHNOLOGY MIGHT
PROVIDE IN THE FUTURE?] Helping paraplegics, quadriplegics possibly...Finding
cures for certain illness or diseases and the cause of it, including in plant life.
There were numerous other unprompted suggestions that focused on the potential
benefits of biotechnology to society. These included ways to address water pollution,
developing crops that can endure the harsher conditions we can expect due to climate
change, preventing the extinction of endangered animals and addressing food shortages.
If they could like nearly extinct animals, if they could get it 100% right, I think it
would be great to make sure that we had enough of those animals and stuff and we
could actually use it, like see them again.
When asked specifically about what benefits participants would like to see biotechnology
provide for them individually, suggestions included cosmetic surgery breakthroughs,
ways to improve the look of their garden, ways to increase their fitness levels without
expending effort, purifying waterways and drinking water and experiencing more
consistent weather patterns. The medical benefits discussed earlier were also included
here.
Participants were subsequently prompted with a number of world problems. They were
asked if they felt that biotechnology could potentially play a role in addressing any of
these and how they would feel about biotechnology if this were the case.
Understandably, participants claim to be very welcoming of any applications of
biotechnology that would serve a noble purpose. However, there was some scepticism
around how such large problems could be tackled. Furthermore, participants wondered
how it could be guaranteed that negative outcomes would not result and how all relevant
parties could be brought to agreement.
Because that is a pretty big deal, that has been important for ages and just to pull
it out of nowhere I would be like, 'where did it come from?'...It sounds too good to
be true.
It is a global thing, it can't be implemented in one country, there has to be laws
and other policies that govern this, it is not an easy or small thing, it is a big global
sell, so it is not at all simple.
There was also the strong proviso accompanying participants' responses to all potential
applications of biotechnology that significant research would need to be conducted to
explore all potential negative impacts. Several were hesitant to make further comment
on this without having more information on how it would be carried out, what research
had been conducted and what the potential side effects could be.
As found in the previous wave of research, a small number of people were against the
idea of any 'tampering' with nature. These individuals felt that the potential for
unforeseen consequences is too strong and that the environmental problems we are
currently witnessing are the result of previous actions in the name of science and
technology. They felt this was an argument to take things slower rather than to keep
going along the same path.
15
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
I think that there is so much pollution now because they are trying too many
things. It might be time to slow it down because we are trying too many things... in
100 years we have done so much damage to the earth. I think it is going to make it
worse.
Climate change: Many participants found it hard to imagine how biotechnology could
influence climate change, although they make the link to pollution more readily. A couple
of participants suggested that trees could be genetically modified to grow faster and
subsequently reduce the level of carbon in the air. Certainly this is an area of high
concern and interest and people are very receptive to potential solutions.
If you could plant more trees that would reduce your carbon like that, you could
genetically modify the trees so that you could grow them quicker, that would
change the climate but I don't see how basic biology could change the climate.
Water shortages: This was another area that many people did not particularly associate
with biotechnology. Some made the link with reducing water use in agricultural practices.
Others spoke of sowing clouds, water recycling, purification and desalination, although
they were undecided as to whether this would qualify as biotechnology.
I guess if you can sow clouds, you know have you ever seen those planes that fly
across, have you ever heard of them, they sow clouds and so they put something
up there and it makes clouds form but I don't think it would be enough.
Is desalination classed as biotechnology? ... I didn't know, like what part of the
science would it be classed in?
I didn't really think biotechnology or gene technology would work with water but if
they are trying it that is good.
Pollution: There is some awareness of the use of bacteria to break down waste. Some
people then suggested it could be possible to use this technology to clean waterways. In
general people could fairly readily imagine that use of biotechnology in this area.
I read something about enzymes or something that they are putting in the water,
bacteria and that kind of stuff. Well they just cleaned up Parramatta River
Fatal diseases: Many participants spontaneously remarked that in the future,
biotechnology would be used to cure fatal diseases. There was strong support for this
application from the majority of those consulted.
Global poverty/ hunger: Many participants were able to suggest how biotechnology
could help address global poverty and hunger, providing examples such as developing
crops to survive in harsher conditions or to produce higher yields. The general feeling
was that it would be great if crops could be developed for the purpose of feeding
populations in need. However, as mentioned previously, it was thought to be more likely
that biotechnology would be used to the benefit of private corporations. In this instance,
biotechnology was not supported.
(It could help solve) food shortages...genetically engineer food, crops that can grow
in bad soil basically. Things like that.
Fossil fuel dependency: There were unprompted mentions of biofuels from a couple of
participants, but the majority did not link biotechnology with fuel. Again, this was an area
16
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
of high concern and interest for participants. Hence, they were welcoming of any
applications of biotechnology that could help address this issue.
There might be some fuel that might come out of it but other than that I am not
really sure. [AND WOULD THAT BE A GOOD OR A BAD THING?] Good if it solved
the fuel problem.
Despite the very positive response to the concept of using biotechnology to address
world problems, it is not obvious that knowledge of such applications would change the
way most people feel about other areas of biotechnology, with participants expressing
very different attitudes towards different applications of biotechnology. Individuals
tended to assess various applications on their merits, and did not regard 'biotechnology'
as a single concept. Applications perceived as having 'noble' purposes (e.g. curing
disease) tended to be supported, while those perceived as benefiting producers or
corporations (e.g. GM food) tended to be regarded with suspicion or opposed outright.
Awareness and perceptions of applications of
biotechnology
Support for fields of gene technology applications
Survey participants were asked to indicate their overall support for the use of gene
technology in the area of health and medicine and in the area of food and agriculture.
This was done by providing a rating out of 10, where 0 indicated that they were
'completely against it' and 10 indicated that they were 'fully supportive'. The frequency
distribution chart in Figure 7 below presents the results for both fields of application. The
average support rating for both fields of application is displayed in the legend at the head
of the chart.
17
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure 7. Overall support for fields of gene technology application
A comparison of the mean support ratings indicates a greater level of support for health
and medical applications (6.9) than for food and agriculture applications (5.5). A more
detailed comparison is depicted in the frequency distributions of the responses.
Responses regarding health and medical applications are clearly skewed to the right
compared to responses regarding food and agriculture applications. In particular, there
are almost twice as many 'fully supportive' responses for health medical compared with
food and agriculture applications.
Analysis6 was conducted to determine any demographic or psychographic differences in
overall support. Results are summarised in Table 3 below. In sum, overall support for the
use of gene technology in health and medical applications was significantly greater
among males and among those who are more excited than concerned by new
technologies. These subgroups were also significantly more likely to support the use of
gene technology in food and agriculture applications. As we would anticipate, those who
agreed that we should use more natural ways of farming were significantly less likely to
support the use of gene technology in food agriculture.
Anova tests and Spearman's correlation were conducted where appropriate using a
significance criterion of p<.05
6
18
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Table 3. Subgroup differences in level of overall support
Mean overall support
Item
Subgroup
mean
rating
Overall mean
rating for
item
More positive
Males
Food and agriculture
5.8
5.5
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Food and agriculture
6.6
5.5
Males
Health and medical
7.3
6.9
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Health and medical
8.1
6.9
Food and agriculture
4.7
5.5
Less positive
Natural farming enthusiasts
These questions were also asked in 2005. The results over time for these questions are
presented in Figures 8 and 9 below.
Figure 8. Overall support for health and medical applications: trends over time
Base: All CATI, 2005 n=1,068, 2007 n=534
There has been a significant increase since last wave in the mean rating of support for
the use of gene technology in human health and medical applications. The average rating
19
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
given by participants in the current wave was 6.9 out of 10, while the average rating
given in 2005 was 6.1. There has also been a notable increase over time in the
proportion of participants indicating that were 'fully supportive', up from 14% in 2005 to
23% in 2007. There has been a corresponding decline in the proportion of participants
giving a support rating of 5 or lower. This wave, only 3% of participants noted that they
were 'completely against it'.
Figure 9. Overall support for food and agriculture applications: trends over time
Base: All CATI, 2005 n=1,068, 2007 n=534
There has been an increase in overall support for the use of gene technology in food and
agriculture applications since 2005. This is indicated by the significant increase in the
mean rating (up from 4.9 in 2005 to 5.5 in 2007), as well as the shift in the frequency
distribution towards the right hand side. The largest movement in an individual rating
was seen for 'fully supportive', up from 6% to 12%.
Qualitative Findings
Based on group discussion feedback, the significant increase in support for biotechnology
in food and agriculture (as compared to support in 2005) appears to be largely related to
greater familiarity with the notion of GM crops and foods. A lack of negative publicity
about these issues over time also appears to have softened many people's views.
As discussed later in this report, the major contributors to greater support for
biotechnology in health and medicine (as compared to food and agriculture) include
perceptions of: the balance of benefits to risks, the purpose of the application and the
degree to which each sector is regulated and monitored.
20
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology
Participants in the survey were asked a series of questions relating to different
applications of biotechnology. For each set of applications, questions were asked
regarding participants' awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risks and acceptability
of the technology. Each question was first asked in relation to a general area (e.g. use of
stem cells for medical research and for treating diseases) and then more specifically in
relation to the techniques used in that area. Figures 11 to 14 below present the results
for the general areas of application.
Awareness
Figure 10. Awareness of applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
Awareness of the use of stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease was
very high, at 95%. This was followed by the two food crop applications: modifying the
genes of plants to produce food (85%) and using biotechnology in the production of food
from plants (74%). Awareness levels for the remaining two medical applications of
biotechnology were fairly similar, with 70% indicating awareness for the use of gene
technology to produce medicines and 68% indicating awareness for the use of gene
technology in human transplants. Awareness of modifying the genes of plants to produce
non-food crops was notably lower than other applications, at 55%.
A summary of demographic and psychographic differences 7 in awareness of applications
is presented in Table 4. In sum, there was significantly higher awareness of GM food
crops and GM non-food crops among males, but significantly higher awareness of use of
gene technology in human transplants among females.
7
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
21
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Table 4. Subgroup differences in awareness of applications
Awareness
Item
Males
GM food crops
91
85
GM non-food crops
66
55
Human transplants
73
68
Females
Subgroup % Total for item
%
Figure 11 below presents the awareness levels over time for those applications included
in both waves of the survey.
Figure 11. Awareness of applications: trends over time
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
** 2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food
There were significant increases in awareness for three of the four applications:
awareness of modifying the genes of plants to produce food increased from 76% in 2005
to 85% in 2007; awareness of using gene technology to produce medicines increased
from 38% to 70%, and awareness of using gene technology in human transplants
increased from 45% to 68%. Stem cell research awareness remained high, and is likely
to have reached a ceiling level.
22
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Perceived Usefulness
Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
The majority of participants viewed all applications as useful. Perceived utility was
particularly high for the three health and medical applications, with more than nine in ten
nominating each of these applications as useful.
Of the food and agriculture applications, applications relating to food crops were
perceived to be more useful (83%) than the application related to non-food crops (70%).
As demonstrated in Table 5 below, an analysis8 of subgroup differences established that
'technophiles' were significantly more likely to perceive a number of applications as
useful. In addition, males were significantly more likely to see use of gene technology to
produce medicines as useful.
Table 5. Subgroup differences in perceived usefulness of applications
Perceived usefulness
Item
Technophiles (new technologies excite
me more than they concern me)
GM food crops
92
83
GM non-food
crops
83
70
Human
transplants
99
91
100
96
Medicines
8
Subgroup % Total for item
%
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
23
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Perceived usefulness
Item
Males
Medicines
Subgroup % Total for item
%
99
96
The results over time for this question are presented below in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Usefulness of applications: trends over time
Base: rotated questions CATI
*2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
**2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food
There have been significant increases since last wave in the perceived utility of all
applications. Increases have been particularly marked for using gene technology to
produce medicines (up from 73% to 96%), using gene technology in human transplants
(up from 77% to 91%) and modifying the genes of plants to produce food (up from 64%
to 83%).
24
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Perceived Risk
Figure 14. Perceived risk associated with applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
There were notable levels of risk associated with each application. The application
perceived to be least 'risky' was the use of stem cells, at just over one third (37%), while
the application perceived to be most 'risky' was modifying the genes of plants to produce
food, at just over one in two (54%).
Of the food and agriculture applications, the non-food crops application (42%) was
perceived to be less risky than the food crops applications (54% and 48%). Of the health
and medical applications, the use of stem cells was perceived to be less risky (37%) than
the use of gene technology in human transplants (47%) and the use of gene technology
to produce medicines (44%).
A summary of the demographic and psychographic differences 9 in perceived risk is
presented in Table 6. In sum, the only significant differences to emerge were that those
who disagreed that 'new technologies excite me more than concern me' were more likely
to perceive the use of stem cells and the use of gene technology in the production of
medicines to be risky.
Table 6. Subgroup differences in perceived risk of applications
Risks
Item
Technophobes (disagree that new
Medicines
9
Subgroup % Total for item
%
59
44
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
25
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Risks
Item
technologies excite me more than they
concern me)
Stem cells
Subgroup % Total for item
%
49
37
Results over time for this question are presented in Figure 15 below.
Figure 15. Perceived risk associated with applications: trends over time
Base: rotated questions CATI
*2005 Using gene technology to modify plants to produce food
**2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
There has been a significant decline in perceptions of risk for three of the four
applications. The most notable movement occurred for modifying the genes of plants to
produce food, with a shift from 71% to 54%. Significant shifts also occurred for using
gene technology in human transplants (down from 56% to 47%), and using gene
technology to produce medicines (down from 53% to 44%). Perceived risk for the use of
stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease remained stable.
26
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Perceived Acceptability
Figure 16. Perceived acceptability of applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
Perceived acceptability of all applications was high, ranging from 92% for using stem
cells to 73% for modifying the genes of plants to produce both food and non-food crops.
Applications in the health and medical field were seen to be more acceptable than
applications in the food and agriculture field.
As indicated in Table 7 below, the only significant predictor 10 of perceived acceptance of
technologies was attitude towards new technologies. 'Technophiles' were significantly
more accepting of all applications.
Table 7. Subgroup differences in perceived acceptability of applications
Acceptance
Item
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
10
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
GM food crops
84
73
GM non-food crops
91
73
Biotechnology in the
production of food
from plants
89
76
Medicines
94
89
Stem cells
98
92
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
27
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Acceptance
Item
Human transplants
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
93
84
The trends over time for this question are presented in Figure 17 below.
Figure 17. Perceived acceptability of applications: trends over time
Base: rotated questions CATI
*2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
** 2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food
There was a marked significant increase since last wave in perceived acceptability of all
applications, in particular for using gene technology to produce medicines (up from 65%
to 89%), using gene technology in human transplants (up from 65% to 84%) and
modifying the genes of plants to produce food (up from 48% to 73%).
Drivers of acceptability
Group discussions revealed a range of factors that contribute to the overall acceptability
of biotechnology's different fields of application. The most important factors included:
Awareness and familiarity. Generally speaking, applications with which participants
were more familiar generally received greater support.
Perceived purpose behind the application. Applications which were seen to have a
humanitarian or environmental objective (e.g. medical research, drought resistant crops)
received approval. Applications which were seen to have a commercial objective (e.g.
seedless GM plants) or as making largely cosmetic changes (e.g. "bigger, shinier" fruits
and vegetables) received much less support, and were opposed by many participants. In
general there was greater understanding of the potential benefits of gene technology in
medicine. The quotes below are illustrative of such sentiments.
28
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
I think if there's a benefit, like if it's going to feed the third world or make wheat
that grows in the desert, then that's acceptable. If it's because you want to
copyright your genes and only have certain growers paying you money to get the
seed, if it's about money then it's not acceptable to me.
I'm happy if it's to help out with global warming or something like that, or with
medicine, or research to make food more drought resistant or store resistant or
bug-resistant if there's some particular species of frog that's eating crops ...
because I don't want it to be used for cosmetic use - to make things look better,
but not any real benefit.
Perceptions of the risks and benefits of each technology. Many people perceived
the benefits of biotechnology in health and medicine as far outweighing the risks. The
potential to make significant breakthroughs in treating common diseases was particularly
highly regarded. These applications were seen to benefit patients directly and not to
involve wider risk. By contrast, the risks of biotechnology in food and agriculture were
sometimes seen as much higher (with the prospect of GM crops "taking over" the
environment and "contaminating the food chain"), and as bringing less benefit to
ordinary people and society. Instead, benefits of GM food crops were largely perceived as
flowing to corporations.
There are risks with GM crops, and the risk could be that it overruns the natural
crops, the unmodified crops.
My understanding is the person who owns [the patent] get the majority benefit.
Because generally GM crops are designed to be non-regenerative, so you have to
buy the seed off that, so the farmer can't take 10% of the crop and re-grow that.
Research vs application/implementation. Group participants were generally
supportive of all types of research (with a few exceptions, such as research using
embryonic stem cells without strict guidelines in place), even into agricultural
technologies. There was much greater concern about applications that are used outside
of the laboratory.
Numbers of people potentially affected positively and negatively. Participants who
had concerns for environmental and health risks posed by GM crops commented that
negative consequences would be far-reaching, due to the release of GM organisms in the
environment and into the food chain. In contrast, the potential for negative
consequences within the health and medical realm were seen to be contained as medical
treatments are only administered to those who need them - rather than whole
populations.
Perceptions of regulation. There was agreement across the group discussions that
regulation of the health sector is much stricter than regulation of the agricultural sector.
Greater trust was therefore placed in human health-related biotechnology that is
approved for general use, with less trust in gene technology used in agriculture.
In medical research they generally have much higher ethical standards and more
rigorous review of the work that goes on by your peers before that work is
accepted. Whereas with the other ones where they're modifying plants - that's a lot
more about making money than it is about helping people. They're going to push
the boundaries of what's acceptable and what's not.
Reaction against religion as a basis for scientific decision-making. Group
discussion members consistently expressed a belief that decisions about biotechnology
29
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
should be based on expert scientific advice. Frequent references were made to the
influence of religion on the recent parliamentary debate stem cells, which was regarded
as inappropriate.
30
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
4. Conclusions and Implications
This section presents the conclusions and implications of the research
Broadly speaking, this research uncovered major shifts in public attitudes, with greater
levels of acceptance of biotechnology and gene technology than in the past. Compared
with the results of the 2005 wave of this research, there are now higher levels of
awareness of biotechnology, more positive perceptions of its usefulness, and reduced
concerns over the risks involved. These findings apply both to general fields of
application (such as medical research and treatment, or genetically modified foods) and
to more specific techniques.
Qualitative and quantitative findings both indicate that increased familiarity - rather than
increased understanding - has contributed to rising acceptance levels.
In addition to greater familiarity, the group discussions identified a number of important
factors contributing to community acceptance of biotechnology:
Perceived purpose behind the application: For many people, the assumed purpose
behind any given application of biotechnology is much more important than the
technique or science involved. Applications perceived as having a humanitarian or
environmental purpose (such as tacking climate change, drought or food shortage) are
generally supported, whereas applications perceived as primarily benefiting the corporate
sector are more likely to be regarded with some suspicion.
Perceived risks and benefits: Of all fields of application, GM food crops are seen to
present the greatest risk relative to the potential benefits, with many consumers worried
that GM foods might 'contaminate the food chain'. In the medical realm, there is a
greater appreciation of the potential for significant and widespread benefits, with lower
reported risk.
Perceived level of control: Research into biotechnology is more widely accepted than
its wider application in the real world - largely because it is believed that greater control
can be exercised over any adverse consequences in a laboratory context. Another
consideration is the number of people potentially affected by a given application, with GM
foods regarded as the most risky (or least controllable) in this regard. In addition, there
is greater acceptance of the use of biotechnology in the medical realm (compared to
agriculture) because ethical and regulatory standards are regarded as tighter and more
strictly enforced.
Rational decision-making: Many people appear to believe that scientific rather than
moral considerations should determine whether a particular application is acceptable.
That said, there was an appreciation that the stem cell debate had allowed these views to
be aired and heard, so that the eventual decision could be said to have been made after
a full exploration of different viewpoints.
Broadly speaking, it appears that people have simply become more familiar with
biotechnology and gene technology over the last two years. The technology is
increasingly familiar, if not better understood. Moreover, the negative consequences that
some may have feared have failed to eventuate, despite a belief that the technology is
already widely used. There is no reason to suppose that this trend towards greater
acceptance will not continue, as these technologies become more a part of everyday life.
31
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
There is no great public appetite for detailed factual information about how things are
done. People are generally more interested in learning about the potential benefits of
technology.
The community seems to want to know that policy and regulation is soundly based and
the result of informed debate, in which all relevant considerations have been addressed
by experts.
32
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Appendix A: Methodological Comparisons
As articulated in the methodology section, the quantitative survey was partially migrated
online this wave, with a view to fully migrating online in the next wave of research. The
partial migration step was taken in order to ensure a clean comparison of data over time.
This section presents comparative results for the online and CATI components of the
survey, in order to identify any systematic differences that result from the methodology
change that will need to be take into account when the full migration occurs.
Response differences in online and CATI methodologies
There are a number of factors that contribute to differences in responses in an online and
a CATI context, due to both methodological factors and participant factors. In this
particular study there is an additional contributing factor due to the difference in the way
the 'don't know' response option was presented to respondents. These factors are
explained below:
Methodological factors

Visual versus verbal presentation of questions: there tends to be increased positive
responses in the online methodology for questions involving recall due to visual
cues.

Increased demand characteristics for the CATI methodology: there tends to be
higher agreement for socially desirable items in the CATI methodology due to the
presence of the interviewer

Greater control of script present for online methodology: the online script adheres
more strictly to the intended script than is possible for a CATI administered survey
involving multiple interviewers
Participant (sample) factor

Attitudinal differences of those with email access compared to general population:
online participants tend to be more favourably disposed to technologies than the
general population and of CATI participants
"Don't know" factor specific to the current study

In this survey, the "don't know" response option was necessarily presented
differently in the two survey versions for the majority of questions. In the CATI
version, the 'don't know' option was (historically) not read out to participants for
the majority of questions, although it was accepted if offered voluntarily by the
participant. In the online version of these questions, the 'don't know' option was
necessarily visually presented to participants in order for participants to have this
response as an option. As a result, we would expect a greater proportion of 'don't
know' responses among participants in the online version and a subsequent decline
in other responses.
The section below presents the comparative data for those questions in which 'don't
know' was not allowed as a response option. Consequently, any differences that arise in
33
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
the data are due to methodological or participant factors. For the purposes of clarification
this is referred to as a 'direct' comparison of data. The following section presents the
comparative data for those questions in which the 'don't know' option was presented
differently across methodologies.
'Direct' comparison of online and CATI responses
Figures 18 and 19 below present the results for overall support of gene technology in the
health and medical and the food and agriculture fields. Respondents were asked to rate
their level of support on a scale from 0-10, where 0 was indicative of 'no support' and 10
was indicative of 'full support'.
Figure 18. Overall support for the use of gene technology in health and medical
applications: online versus CATI
Base: CATI, n=534, Online, n=584
34
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure 19. Overall support for the use of gene technology in food and
agriculture applications: online versus CATI
Base: CATI, n=534, Online, n=584
The results indicate greater support for the use of gene technology in food and
agriculture applications but no difference in support for the use of gene technology in
health and medical applications.
Table A1 below presents the comparative data for participants' willingness to eat different
types of foods. Participants were asked to rate their willingness on a scale from 0-10,
where 0 indicated extreme hesitation and 10 indicated extreme willingness.
Table A1. Willingness to eat foods: online versus CATI
How willing would you be to eat the following?
Online
CATI
Food containing preservatives
5.3
5.2
Food grown with the use of pesticides
4.9
4.6
Organic food
7.9
8.7
Non-organic food
6.2
6.1
Food made from GM crops
5.2
5.1
Food that contains a small amount of genetically modified ingredients
5.2
5.2
Genetically modified fruit and vegetables
5.1
4.9
Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with
genetically modified stock feed
4.9
4.7
35
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
How willing would you be to eat the following?
Online
CATI
Meat and other products from genetically modified animals
4.4
4.2
Meat and other products from cloned animals
4.0
3.6
Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals
4.1
3.7
CATI participants indicated that they were significantly more willing to eat organic food
than online participants. There are no further significant differences between the two
methodologies. However, there is a consistent directional trend for all other food
categories (involving 'unnatural' production methods), with online participants indicating
more willingness to eat foods than CATI participants. This result is consistent with the
expectation that online participants will be more accepting of technologies than CATI
participants.
'Non-direct' comparison of online and CATI responses
The tables below provide some examples of the differences in responses by methodology
for those questions in which the 'don't know' responses were differentially presented to
participants.
Table A2 presents the data for participants' perceived future impact of technologies.
Table A2. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life: online
versus CATI
Improv No Effect Make
e way
things
of life
worse
Biotechnology
Gene technology
Genetic modification
Cloning
Stem cell research
IVF
DK
CATI
68
6
8
18
Online
60
4
2
33
CATI
73
5
10
12
Online
68
3
6
23
CATI
45
9
29
17
Online
50
5
18
26
CATI
28
11
48
13
Online
32
9
33
27
CATI
87
2
5
6
Online
82
4
3
10
CATI
83
9
4
4
Online
71
14
5
10
The impact of the differential presentation of the 'don't know' response option is clear.
There is a much higher incidence of 'don't know' among online participants, which is the
36
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
direct result of the presentation of this option in the online version and the lack of verbal
presentation of this option in the CATI version. There is a corresponding reduction in
other response options among online participants.
This table also provides strong evidence for greater support of genetic modification and
for cloning among online participants. Despite the significantly greater proportion of
'don't know' responses among online participants, a larger (directional only) proportion of
online participants indicated that these technologies were likely to improve our way of
life. It is therefore likely that this difference would be enhanced, if the differential
presentation of the 'don't know' response option was not a factor.
Again these results are consistent with the expectation that online participants will be
more accepting of technologies than CATI participants.
Tables A3 and A4 present online and CATI results for awareness and perceived
usefulness of general applications of biotechnology. They again clearly indicate the
impact of the 'don't know' factor.
Table A3. Awareness of applications
Modifying the genes of plants to produce food
Modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food
crops
Using biotechnology in the production of food from
plants
Using gene technology to produce medicines
Using stem cells to conduct medical research and
treat disease
Using gene technology in human transplants
Yes
No
DK
CATI
85
15
0
Online
82
8
10
CATI
55
43
1
Online
45
36
19
CATI
74
24
2
Online
66
20
14
CATI
70
30
0
Online
60
21
19
CATI
95
5
0
Online
86
4
10
CATI
68
31
2
Online
62
20
18
Yes
No
DK
CATI
83
13
4
Online
72
12
17
CATI
70
21
8
Online
50
19
31
Table A4. Usefulness of applications
Modifying the genes of plants to produce food
Modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food
crops
37
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Using biotechnology in the production of food from
plants
Using gene technology to produce medicines
Using stem cells to conduct medical research and
treat disease
Using gene technology in human transplants
Yes
No
DK
CATI
83
12
5
Online
69
11
20
CATI
96
2
2
Online
77
4
19
CATI
96
3
1
Online
85
5
11
CATI
91
7
2
Online
77
6
17
Concluding remarks
The valid analysis of trends over time requires that the data is methodologically
consistent, in order to minimise the influence of confounding variables. Analysis of some
of the key questions demonstrates that there are significant differences between the
CATI and online results, due to a number of factors. Consequently, analysis of the
current wave of research was conducted with CATI data only. This enabled a clean
comparison of data from the 2005 survey.
Looking forward, Eureka recommends that the survey is migrated fully online as the
current survey in its CATI form is very demanding of participants due to its length. The
dual methodology approach employed this wave will facilitate this migration. A clean
comparison of 2007 and 2009 data will be possible through the use of 2007 online data.
Further, the comparison of the 2007 online and CATI data can be used to estimate the
slight online bias towards support of biotechnology.
38
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Appendix B - Initial/Exploratory Group Discussion
Guide
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology
Introduction

Introduction to market research/group discussions

Our discussion tonight will be about science and technology and their applications in
different fields. The discussion will be guided by a number of main themes - I'll
introduce one theme at a time, ask a question or two, and let the conversation take
its course. If we begin to stray from the topic, I will have to lead us back to it, but
as far as possible you should feel free to approach the topic from your own personal
point of view - your own experiences, anecdotes and thoughts are all valuable.

There are no right or wrong answers - we just want to hear about your experiences
and opinions. Please be honest, and feel free to disagree with others in the group.

Also I am not an expert in this area. I am here to raise the issues, and get your
responses, but I won't necessarily be able to answer any questions you have. (At
the end of the group I'll let you know where you can find more information if you
are interested.)

The discussion is completely confidential, and we won't be telling anyone who we've
spoken to. However, we are hoping to record the discussion for our own reference.
We may pass on the tape to the client for whom we are conducting the research,
but it will go no further, and it will only be used for research purposes. Does
anyone have an objection before we proceed?

For the benefit of the tape, please speak one at a time, and wait until others have
finished before having your say.

(Where observers are present) Point out the one-way mirror. Explain that "other
people working on the project" are viewing the group tonight, and that they are
simply interested in participants' opinions. Reassure confidentiality, anonymity.

The session will take up to two hours. There is food and drinks for those who would
like them, and toilets are available outside.

Ask participants to turn off mobile phones.

Ask participants to introduce themselves (first name, occupation).
Notepad exercises - Awareness of Biotechnology (Ask Everyone)
[Notepad exercises are where participants are asked to think about and record on paper
their responses to certain topics, before opening up the discussion.]

Complete notepad exercises 1-3. Discuss.
39
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications

Notepad exercise 1: What does "biotechnology" or "gene technology" mean to
you?
–

Notepad exercise 2: What words and images come to mind when you think of
"biotechnology" and "gene technology"?
–

[Follow-up] Are these positive, negative or neutral words and images?
Notepad exercise 3: What is "biotechnology" or "gene technology" used for? What
are some of its applications?
–

[Follow-up] Where have you heard about biotechnology or gene technology?
In what sort of situations have these words come up (e.g. watching the news,
talking to a friend, reading the newspaper, buying groceries)?
[Follow-up] Is biotechnology or gene technology confined to laboratory and
scientific settings? How is biotechnology or gene technology used outside the
laboratory? [Probe on genetically modified crops, genetically modified foods,
gene technology in health/medicine.]
Note on terminology: As you may have gathered, tonight we'll be talking about
biotechnology, and I'll be asking you for your views on different aspects of
biotechnology. Before we proceed, please be aware that biotechnology is a broad
term generally used to describe the use of biology in industrial, agricultural and
medical processes. There are a number of different phrases that are also used to
describe the kinds of techniques we'll be discussing, including gene technology,
genetic modification, recombinant DNA technology, genetic engineering, and other
terms. I'll use the term biotechnology to cover all of these, except where another
term is clearly more appropriate.
Developments in biotechnology (Ask everyone)


What do you think are the most important or interesting developments in
biotechnology so far? Why?
–
What do you see as the benefits of these developments? What do you see as
the risks?
–
How might these developments affect you? The community or society? The
environment?
What kinds of benefits or breakthroughs do you think biotechnology might provide
in the future? Why is that?
–
Do you think biotechnology has the potential to provide solutions to problems
in the world? What sort of problems might it solve? [Probe generally on
solutions to problems faced by the community/society, the environment]
–
[Probe specifically] Do you think biotechnology might help to solve problems
like: Climate change? Water shortages? Pollution? Fatal diseases? Global
poverty/hunger? Fossil fuel dependency/fuel shortages? Ever-increasing
amounts of land fill? Why/why not?
40
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–

If biotechnology could help solve these problems, would you feel differently
about it? Why/why not?
What kinds of problems do you think biotechnology might create in the future?
[Probe on problems faced by the community/society, the environment]
–
What are your greatest concerns about biotechnology? Why?
Biotechnology and your life (Ask everyone)

Do you think that your life has been influenced by biotechnology so far? How so? Is
this a positive or a negative thing?

Do you think you are aware of all the ways in which biotechnology directly affects
your life? Why do you say that?
–
Do you think you could be using the products of biotechnology without
knowing about it?

In the future, do you think biotechnology will have a greater impact on your life
than it does currently? In what ways?

What do you hope biotechnology might be able to do to that would change or
improve your life?
–
How likely do you think it is that this will happen?
–
How far in the future do you think it might be?
Genetically modified crops/foods (Ask everyone)

In the field of agriculture or farming, what sorts of biotechnology do you know
about? What do you know about the sorts of techniques or methods that are used
to modify crops? [Probe on transfer of genes from bacteria/animals/other plants
into plants, other techniques]

For what purposes are crops genetically modified? [Probe specifically on resistance
to pests and diseases, yield and quality. For food crops: nutrient content/health
benefits (e.g. higher in protein), flavour/taste, shelf life, health properties.]

What sorts of crops are currently genetically modified? Food crops? Non-food
crops?

–
What sorts of foods are genetically modified or contain ingredients from
genetically modified crops?
–
What are genetically modified crops used for other than producing food?
[Probe on plastics, textiles, building materials, packaging.]
In general, how do you feel about genetically modified or "GM" crops? [Probe on
positive, negative, neutral]
–
What sort of benefits might GM crops offer? [Probe generally on individual,
society, environment.]
41
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications

–
What sort of risks might GM crops pose? [Probe generally on individual,
society, environment. Probe specifically on contamination, illness, immunity,
cost, 'playing God', endangering human life, concentration of power,
monopolies.]
–
What sort of GM crops do you approve of? Which don't you approve of? Why
is that?
Do you eat GM foods? Which ones? How do you feel about that? Why do you eat
them?
–


What do you think about genetically modified wheat? Why is that?
–
How do you feel about eating food that has GM wheat as an ingredient?
[Probe: Does it make a difference which type of food it is used in - Bread?
Pasta? Cakes? Other processed foods?]
–
Would it make any difference to how you feel if:
o
The wheat was genetically modified to be drought resistant (i.e. have
low water requirements)?
o
The GM wheat was certified as more nutritious than non-GM wheat? Or if
it was certified to have added health benefits?
o
If GM wheat was verified as safe through government regulation?
o
A government-funded body, such as the CSIRO, developed GM wheat? A
private corporation developed GM wheat?
Do you believe that GM foods should be clearly labelled as GM? Why? Why not?
–

Which GM foods would you definitely not eat? Why is that?
Are you aware of any labelling requirements for GM foods? Do you recall
having seen any products labelled as containing GM foods or ingredients?
How would you feel about using products other than food that are made from GM
crops? [Probe on plastics, textiles, building materials, packaging] Why is that?
–
Do you believe that non-food products made from GM crops should be clearly
labelled as GM? Why? Why not?
Genetically modified animals/food (Rotate A)

So far, we have been talking about foods from crops or plants. What do you know
about the purposes for which animals might be genetically modified? [Probe on
faster growth, improved quality, disease resistance, healthier for humans]

How would you feel about eating food products (e.g. meat) that came from
genetically modified animals?
–
Do you feel differently about eating food products from GM animals and GM
plants? Why/why not?
42
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–

Would you feel differently about eating food products from different kinds of
GM animals? (e.g. fish vs. pigs vs. cows) Why/why not?
How do you think food products (e.g. meat) that come from genetically modified
animals should be labelled?
Medical applications (Rotate B)

In the field of health and medicine, what sorts of biotechnology or gene technology
do you know about? What do you know about the sorts of techniques or methods
used in this field? [Probe on use of stems cells, embryos, genetic testing, transfer
of genes from humans to animals/bacteria]

What are some of the uses or applications of gene technology within the health and
medical field?

In general, how do you feel about the use of gene technology in health and
medicine?
–
What sort of benefits or breakthroughs might gene technology provide in this
field?
–
What sort of risks might gene technology in this field pose?
–
What sort of applications do you approve of? Which don't you approve of?
Why is that?

How would you feel about receiving treatments derived from gene technology
yourself? What about your family? Under what circumstances would you agree?

What do you know about the different sorts of science or techniques used in this
area?
–
Using gene technology to produce medicines and vaccines
–
Using stem cells to conduct medical research
–
Using stem cells to treat disease or injury
–
Using gene technology in human transplants
Cloning (Rotate A)

What do you know about cloning? Can you think of examples where cloning
technology has been used? What has it been used for? [Probe: Humans? Animals?
Bacteria (diabetes)? Yeast (food and beverage production)?]

Why do you think animals are cloned? For what sort of purposes would they be
cloned?

In general, how do you feel about cloning in animals?
–
What sort of benefits might cloning animals provide?
43
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–
What sort of risks might cloning animals pose?
–
How would you feel about eating meat from a cloned animal? Why is that?
–
Would you feel differently about eating the offspring of cloned animals (i.e.
breeding stock)? Why is that?

What about cloning in humans? Why do you think humans or human cells would be
cloned? For what sort of purposes would they be cloned? [Probe onto produce
babies, 'therapeutic cloning/ somatic cell nuclear transfer' - to produce embryos for
human stem cell research or treatment.]

How do you feel about cloning of human cells?
–
What sort of benefits might the cloning of human cells provide?
–
What sort of risks might the cloning of human cells pose?
–
Are there some conditions under which you would approve of the cloning of
human cells and others that you wouldn't?
Biotechnology and the environment (Ask everyone)

In what ways do you think biotechnology or gene technology has had an impact on
the environment?

Do you know of any ways in which biotechnology could help the environment?
What about ways it could harm the environment? How do you feel about this?

Have you heard of:
–
Biofuels? What are they and what do they do? (If necessary prompt alternatives to fossil fuels, derived from biomass. They are a renewable
energy source, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal, and
nuclear fuels. They will help to reduce harmful emissions/fuel costs)? What do
you think about biofuels?
–
Bioplastic? What is and what does it do? (If necessary prompt - a form of
plastics derived from plant sources such as hemp oil, soy bean oil and corn
starch rather than traditional plastics which are derived from petroleum.
Some of these biodegrade over time, which will help to reduce landfill and
harm to wildlife)? What do you think about bioplastic?
Pest Control (Rotate B)

In general, how do you feel about the use of genetically modified organisms for the
control of pests?
–
What sort of benefits or breakthroughs do you think GM organisms might
provide in this area? (e.g. cane toad)
–
What sort of risks might GM organisms in this area pose?
–
Would you approve of it? Why/why not?
44
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–
Would it depend on what sort of pests it was used to control? [Probe: Cane
toads, mice, carp, foxes, etc]
–
How would you feel about this approach being used in the area you live in?
Other uses of biotechnology (Rotate B)

Are you aware of any other applications or potential applications of biotechnology
or gene technology?

How do you feel about using DNA tests to:
–
Help solve crimes?
–
Determine paternity or family relationships?
–
Help set life insurance premiums?
–
Make employment decisions?
Regulatory and decision-making issues (Ask everyone)

Are you aware of any laws regulating the development or use of biotechnology or
gene technology in Australia?

Which organisations do you think are responsible for regulating the development
and use of biotechnology in Australia? [Probe on Office of the Gene Technology
Regulator, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, Australian Quarantine
Inspection Service, The CSIRO, Biotechnology Australia]


–
How are these organisations involved in regulating activity making use of
biotechnology?
–
How much trust do you have in these organisations? Why?
Do you think that the State and Federal governments have your best interests at
heart when they make decisions about the uses and limits of biotechnology or gene
technology? Why/why not?
–
Who do you think should have input into the decisions made about the uses
and limits of biotechnology? Scientists, industry/businesses, the general
public? Who should have the most influence? Why?
–
How could and should the views of the public be incorporated into decisionmaking?
Do you think that the current level of regulation of the biotechnology industry in
Australia is appropriate? Do you think it:
–
Enables the potential benefits of biotechnology or gene technology to be
realised? Why/why not?
–
Protects the public against any risks? Why/why not?
45
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Sources of information (Ask everyone)

In general, what kinds of messages about biotechnology or gene technology have
you read or seen in the media? Were these positive or negative towards
biotechnology and its potential uses? Have you seen/read anything about
biotechnology in the media that you think was untrue or doubtful? Can you describe
what you read/saw?

From which other sources have you read/seen information about biotechnology?
[Probe: internet, government, regulators, etc.]

Where could you go to get more information about biotechnology? Which of these
sources do you think provide reliable, trustworthy information? Which don't? Why
do you think this?

Are you interested in obtaining more information on biotechnology? What sort of
information would you be interested in obtaining?
Close

This research is being conducted on behalf of Biotechnology Australia, which is an
Australian Government agency. The findings will be used to help them to ensure
that the public's need for information about gene technology is adequately met.

Hand out incentives and thank participants for attending. Briefly explain the group
sign-on sheet and pass it around to be signed.
46
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Appendix C - Survey Sample Characteristics
The total survey sample was n = 1118. This comprised n=534 participants in the CATI
survey and n=584 participants in the online survey. This appendix provides demographic
details of the CATI sample that formed the basis of the report results.
Location
Quotas were imposed to ensure the sample was geographically representative of the
Australian population. The geographic breakdown of the sample is shown in Figure B-111.
Figure B-1. Location of participants' residence
Age
All participants were aged between 18 and 75 years of age. Broad age quotas (within
location) were applied in sampling to ensure that the sample was representative of the
Australian population. The age profile of the sample is shown in Figure B-2.
Locations labelled 'other' include any area within the given state or territory outside of
the capital city.
11
47
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure B-2. Age profile of participants
Gender
Gender quotas (within location) were applied to reflect the composition of the Australian
population. The resulting sample was approximately equal in terms of the proportion of
males (48%) and females (52%).
Education
Participants were asked to indicate the highest level of education they had ever
attempted. The results are shown in Figure B-3.
48
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Figure B-3. Highest level of education attempted
The majority of participants (52%) had at least attempted university studies. This is
somewhat higher than 2006 ABS data which indicated that 21% of adult Australians had
completed a bachelors degree or higher12. While the sample figures relate to anyone who
is currently completing a degree or equivalent, or has completed one in the past, it
appears that those with a university degree or diploma may be overrepresented in the
sample. This also occurred in the 2005 sample. The next most frequent level of highest
educational attainment was technical school, commercial college or TAFE (16%).
Culturally and linguistically diverse groups
Participants were asked what the main language spoken in their home was. The majority
(97%) spoke English as their main language. Seventeen languages other than English
were mentioned by participants.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
Participants were asked if they identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. In line
with population statistics, 2% of the sample indicated that they did so.
Vegetarians
One in twenty participants indicated that they were vegetarian (5%) and a further 2%
indicated that they were vegan (2%).
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6227.0 Education and Work, Australia, May 2006.
Accessed June 18th, 2007
12
49
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Children under 12
Just over a quarter of participants (28%) indicated that there were children under 12
years of age living in their household.
50
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Appendix D - Biotechnology Public Awareness
Questionnaire
Quantitative CATI questionnaire
To be administered using computer-assisted telephone interviewing and online surveying.
Headings will not appear in field version.
OBSERVE QUOTAS. Proportions representative of population as per below.
Location
% of total sample
Approximate n
Sydney
21.8
232
Other NSW
12.5
133
Melbourne
18.5
197
Other Vic
6.5
70
Brisbane
8.9
95
Other Qld
10.5
112
Adelaide
5.8
61
Other SA
2.0
22
Perth
7.3
78
Other WA
2.7
29
Hobart
1.0
11
Other Tas
1.4
15
Darwin
0.6
7
Other NT
0.5
6
Total
100
1,067
Within each location, loosely apply the following percentage breakdowns.
Age
Males
Females
Total
18-30
13.0%
13.0%
26.0%
31-40
11.0%
11.0%
22.0%
41-60
18.5%
18.5%
37.0%
51-75
7.5%
7.5%
15.0%
Total
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
51
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Introduction
Hello, my name is [INTERVIEWER] and I'm calling from Eureka Strategic Research.
We are conducting some research on important technological developments in society. It
is a confidential, anonymous survey. We are not trying to sell you anything; we're just
interested in your opinions. The survey will take around [DURATION]. If you participate,
the information you provide will be used only for research purposes.
Would you be willing to answer some questions?
YES
1 - CONTINUE.
NO
2 - ASK TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE ELSE 18 YEARS OR OLDER IN HOUSEHOLD
WHO MAY BE INTERESTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE WITH THANKS.
IF TIME INCONVENIENT, ARRANGE CALL BACK.
IF CLIENT QUERIED: I'm sorry, I can't tell you the client's name until the end of the
survey, because it might affect the way you answer the questions, but I will be able to
tell you at the end.
IF QUERIED ABOUT BONA FIDES OF RESEARCH: I can provide the names of people who
will verify the legitimate nature of this research project. The first is the Australian Market
and Social Research Society enquiry line on 1300 36 4830. The second is the Project
Manager at Eureka Strategic Research, Josh Fear, on (02) 6247 2700.
IF QUERIED ABOUT HOW NAME WAS SOURCED: We are contacting people using
numbers generated randomly by a computer.
IF THE INTERVIEW WILL BE MONITORED: My supervisor may be monitoring the
interview for quality control purposes. If you do not wish this to occur, please let me
know.
Screening
First let me check that you are one of the people who we need to talk to.
S.1
[RECORD LOCATION. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]
S.2
[RECORD GENDER. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]
Male
1
Female
2
S.3
Are you aged under or over 40 years? Which of the following age groups do you
belong to? [READ OUT APPROPRIATE AGE BRACKETS. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]
Under 18 years
DOES NOT QUALIFY
18 - 20 years
1
21 - 30 years
2
52
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
31 - 40 years
3
41 - 50 years
4
51 - 60 years
5
61 - 70 years
6
71 - 75 years
7
Over 75 years
DOES NOT QUALIFY
[DON'T READ OUT] Refused
DOES NOT QUALIFY
IF DOES NOT QUALIFY OR QUOTA EXCEEDED: Unfortunately you're not one of the people
who we need to talk to for this particular survey. Thanks for being willing to participate.
A. Understanding of Terminology
Q1a. Now I'm going read you a list of technologies and I'd like you to tell me whether ...
[READ OUT RESPONSE OPTIONS.]. The first one is ... [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(vi).
RANDOMISE ORDER.]
Technology
You have You have heard
You know
[DO NOT READ
not heard of it, but know enough about it
OUT] Don't
of it, OR
very little or
that you could
know
nothing about explain it to a
it, OR
friend
(i) Biotechnology
1
2
3
9
(ii) Gene technology
1
2
3
9
(iii) Genetic modification
1
2
3
9
(iv) Cloning
1
2
3
9
(v) Stem cell research
1
2
3
9
(vi) IVF
1
2
3
9
Q1b. [ASK FOR EACH ITEM (i)-(vi) in Q1a CODED 2 or 3. (I.E. IF PARTICIPANT HAS
HEARD OF IT] And do you think these technologies will [READ OUT RESPONSE
OPTIONS.]? [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(vi). PRESERVE ORDER FROM Q1a.]
[IF NECESSARY SAY If you're not sure please select the answer that best reflects what
you think]
Technology
(i) Biotechnology
Improve Have no effect,
our way of
OR
life in the
future, OR
1
2
Make things
worse
[DO NOT READ
OUT] Don't
know
3
9
53
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Technology
Improve Have no effect,
our way of
OR
life in the
future, OR
Make things
worse
[DO NOT READ
OUT] Don't
know
(ii) Gene technology
1
2
3
9
(iii) Genetic modification
1
2
3
9
(iv) Cloning
1
2
3
9
(v) Stem cell research
1
2
3
9
(vi) IVF
1
2
3
9
SAY TO ALL: Throughout this survey the terms 'genetic modification', 'gene technology'
and 'biotechnology' will be used. I will define these now so that you understand what I
am referring to. You can ask me to repeat these definitions at any time.

Genetic modification refers to any process that alters the genetic material of a
living organism. This generally means inserting a gene from another organism, or
modifying or removing genes within an organism.

Gene technology is a broader term than genetic modification and includes
processes that use genes without moving or modifying them, such as testing for
genetic conditions in humans.

Biotechnology is the broadest term of the three. Biotechnology is the application
of the science of living things, and is used widely in agriculture, beer and wine
production, food processing and drug development. It includes gene technology and
genetic modification, but also includes processes that do not involve the use of
genes.
B. Applications
Q2a. Now I'm going to ask you about a number of different applications of biotechnology.
Firstly, I'd like you to tell me whether you've heard of ... [READ OUT ITEMS. RANDOMLY
SELECT 3 BLOCKS TO PRESENT PER PARTICIPANT. PROCEED THROUGH Q2 a)-d) FOR
THE 1st BLOCK, THEN DO THE SAME FOR THE 2nd AND 3rd BLOCKS.]
Application
No
Yes
[DO NOT READ
OUT] Don't know
0
1
9
(ii) by introducing the genes of a plant of
the same species
0
1
9
(iii) by introducing the genes of a plant of
a different species
0
1
9
BLOCK A
(i) Modifying the genes of plants to
produce food
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
54
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Application
No
Yes
[DO NOT READ
OUT] Don't know
(iv) by introducing the genes of an animal
0
1
9
(v) by introducing the genes of a
bacterium
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) To produce fuels
0
1
9
(iii) To produce plastics
0
1
9
(iv) To produce clothing and other textiles
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by changing the genes of a plant
without introducing new DNA
0
1
9
(iii) to assist in conventional breeding
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by introducing genes from humans
into bacteria
0
1
9
(iii) by introducing genes from humans
into animals
0
1
9
(iv) by introducing genes from humans
into plants
0
1
9
0
1
9
BLOCK B
(i) Modifying the genes of plants to
produce non-food crops
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK C
(i) Using biotechnology in the production
of food from plants
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK D
(i) Using gene technology to produce
medicines
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK E
(i) Using stem cells to conduct medical
research and treat disease
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
55
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Application
No
Yes
[DO NOT READ
OUT] Don't know
(ii) using non-embryonic or adult stem
cells
0
1
9
(iii) using embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
(iv) using stem cells cloned from the
patient's own cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by transplanting animal tissue or
organs into humans
0
1
9
(iii) by transplanting human tissue or
organs grown in animals into humans
0
1
9
BLOCK F
(i) Using gene technology in human
transplants
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
[RANDOMISE ORDER OF Q2b) AND Q2c) FOR PARTICIPANTS. RECORD ORDER
PRESENTED.]
Q2b. I'd like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be useful to
society.
Q2c. I'd like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be risky for
society.
Q2d. I'd like you to tell me whether these applications would be acceptable to you.
Application
Q2b)
No
Q2c)
Yes D K
No
Q2d)
Yes D K
No
Yes D K
BLOCK A
(i) Modifying the genes of plants to
produce food
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by introducing the genes of a plant of
the same species
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) by introducing the genes of a plant of
a different species
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iv) by introducing the genes of an animal
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
56
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Application
Q2b)
No
(v) by introducing the genes of a
bacterium
Q2c)
Yes D K
No
Q2d)
Yes D K
No
Yes D K
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) To produce fuels
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) To produce plastics
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iv) To produce clothing and other textiles
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by changing the genes of a plant
without introducing new DNA
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) to assist in conventional breeding
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by introducing genes from humans
into bacteria
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) by introducing genes from humans
into animals
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iv) by introducing genes from humans
into plants
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
BLOCK B
(i) Modifying the genes of plants to
produce non-food crops
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK C
(i) Using biotechnology in the production
of food from plants
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK D
(i) Using gene technology to produce
medicines
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK E
(i) Using stem cells to conduct medical
research and treat disease
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
57
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Application
Q2b)
No
Q2c)
Yes D K
No
Q2d)
Yes D K
No
Yes D K
(ii) using non-embryonic or adult stem
cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) using embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iv) using stem cells cloned from the
patient's own cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by transplanting animal tissue or
organs into humans
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) by transplanting human tissue or
organs grown in animals into humans
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
BLOCK F
(i) Using gene technology in human
transplants
What about where this is done ...
[ROTATE ORDER.]
Q3.
[IF 2d FOR ITEM A(i) = 0, I.E. IF MODIFYING THE GENES OF PLANTS TO PRODUCE
FOOD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE] You said that modifying the genes of plants to
produce food would not be acceptable to you. Would you be more accepting of
modifying the genes of plants to produce food if ... [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v).
RANDOMISE ORDER.]
No
Yes
[DO NOT READ
OUT] Don't
know
(i) The food was certified as safe by a government
regulator
0
1
9
(ii) It was developed by a government funded
research body
0
1
9
(iii) It was developed by an Australian company
0
1
9
(iv) It was developed by a company based
overseas
0
1
9
(v) The food was labelled as genetically modified,
in accordance with food regulations
0
1
9
Q4.
Now I'm going to ask you about different objectives of genetically modifying plants
to produce food. [EMPHASISE NEW CODE FRAME] I'd like you to tell me how
valuable you feel these objectives are to individuals or society. Please tell me
whether you think these objectives are very valuable, somewhat valuable, not
very valuable or not at all valuable. So what about genetically modifying
plants...[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(viii). RANDOMISE ORDER.]?
58
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Very
valuable
Some- Not very Not at
what valuable
all
valuable
valuable
[DO
NOT
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(i) to make the food healthier
4
3
2
1
9
(ii) to make the food last longer
4
3
2
1
9
(iii) to make the plants herbicide tolerant
4
3
2
1
9
(iv) to make the plants pest resistant
4
3
2
1
9
(v) to make the plants frost resistant
4
3
2
1
9
(vi) to make the plants mature more
quickly
4
3
2
1
9
(vii) to make plants drought resistant
4
3
2
1
9
(viii) to make the food cheaper
4
3
2
1
9
Q5.
Now I'm going to ask you about some broader objectives of biotechnology, using
applications that do not involve gene technology. I'd like you to tell me how
valuable you feel these objectives are to individuals or society. Please tell me
whether you think these applications are very valuable, somewhat valuable,
not very valuable or not at all valuable. So, what about using
biotechnology......[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(x). RANDOMISE ORDER.]?
Very
valuable
SomeNot
Not at
what
very
all
valuable valuable valuable
1
[DO
NOT
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(i) to reduce fossil fuel consumption
4
3
2
9
(ii) to encourage the development of
more environmentally friendly fuels for
vehicles
4
3
2
(iii) to lower the cost of petrol
4
3
2
1
9
(iv) to lower the cost of plastic products
4
3
2
1
9
(v) to help address climate change
4
3
2
1
9
(vi) to recycle water more effectively
4
3
2
1
9
(vii) to clean up pollution
4
3
2
1
9
(viii) to address declining biodiversity or
the gradual extinction of plants and
animals
4
3
2
9
9
59
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Very
valuable
SomeNot
Not at
what
very
all
valuable valuable valuable
[DO
NOT
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(ix) to combat salinity
4
3
2
1
9
(x) [ENSURE PROMPT IS READ OUT
HERE] that doesn't involve gene
technology to enable farmers to use less
pesticides
4
3
2
1
9
Q6.
Thinking about the environmental problems that society currently faces, would you
be in favour of...(READ OUT, SINGLE RESPONSE)?
Using only natural or traditional methods of agriculture and
environmental management OR
1
Pursuing only technologies made available through advances in gene
technology OR
2
Pursuing all avenues available
3
[DO NOT READ OUT] Don't know
9
D. Consumer Confidence
Q7.
Now I'd like you to think about different types of foods. How willing would you be to
eat the following? Please use a scale of 0-10, where 10 means that you would be
extremely willing and 0 means that you would be extremely hesitant. How willing
would you be to eat . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(xi). RANDOMISE ORDER.].
RECORD 0-10
(i) Food containing preservatives
(ii) Food grown with the use of pesticides
(iii) Organic food
(iv) Non-organic food
(v) Food made from GM crops
(vi) Food that contains a small amount of genetically modified
ingredients
(vii) Genetically modified fruit and vegetables
(viii) Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with
genetically modified stock feed
(ix) Meat and other products from genetically modified animals
60
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
RECORD 0-10
(x) Meat and other products from cloned animals
(xi) Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals
E. Attitudes and Beliefs
Q8.
I am going to read you a number of statements and for each one, please tell me
how much you agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Disagree Strongly
and 5 is Agree Strongly. The first one is ... [RANDOMLY SELECT 8 ITEMS TO
PRESENT PER PARTICIPANT. READ OUT STATEMENTS (i)-(xvi). RANDOMISE
ORDER.]
Statement
Agree
strongly
Disagree
strongly
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(i) The characteristics of
plants and animals
should only be changed
through traditional
breeding methods
5
4
3
2
1
9
(ii) We should accept
some degree of risk
from gene technology if
it enhances Australia's
economic
competitiveness
5
4
3
2
1
9
(iii) We should reject
gene technology if it
reduces Australia's
economic
competitiveness
5
4
3
2
1
9
(iv) Public consultation
and participation
improves the regulation
of gene technology
5
4
3
2
1
9
(v) Australian farms
need genetically
modified organisms to
stay financially viable
5
4
3
2
1
9
(vi) Australian farms
need to be free of
genetically modified
organisms to stay
financially viable
5
4
3
2
1
9
61
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Statement
Agree
strongly
Disagree
strongly
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(vii) Genetic
modification in
agriculture is mostly for
the benefit of
commercial companies
5
4
3
2
1
9
(viii) Research and
development into
genetic modification
should be stopped
5
4
3
2
1
9
(ix) Commercial use of
genetic modification
and its products should
be stopped
5
4
3
2
1
9
(x) Privacy laws should
prevent governments
and other organisations
from accessing
information on people's
genetic make-up
5
4
3
2
1
9
(xi) Gene technology is
an acceptable form of
control for introduced
pest animals
5
4
3
2
1
9
(xii) The Australian
Government should be
doing more to provide
the public with factual
and balanced
information on
biotechnology
5
4
3
2
1
9
(xiii) The Australian
government should
enable the community
to participate more in
decisions on
biotechnology issues
5
4
3
2
1
9
(xiv) Technological
change happens too
fast for me to keep up
with it
5
4
3
2
1
9
62
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Statement
Agree
strongly
Disagree
strongly
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(xv) We should use
more natural ways of
farming
5
4
3
2
1
9
(xvi) New technologies
excite me more than
they concern me
5
4
3
2
1
9
Q9.
Now I'd like to read a number of statements to you and I'd like you to tell me
whether you think each one is true or false. The first statement is ... [READ OUT
ITEMS (i)-(iv). RANDOMISE ORDER.] Do you think that is true or false?
Statement
True
False
[DON'T
READ OUT]
Don't know
(i) Most of the processed foods in Australian
supermarkets contain genetically modified
ingredients
1
2
9
(ii) Most of the fresh fruit and vegetables grown
in Australia are genetically modified
1
2
9
(iii) Most of the cotton grown in Australia is
genetically modified
1
2
9
(iv) Most of the vegetable oils produced in
Australia are made from genetically modified
crops
1
2
9
G. Regulation
Q10. For your information, the government sets rules that regulate the use of gene
technology. I am going to read you two statements and for each one, please tell me
whether you agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Disagree Strongly
and 5 is Agree Strongly. The first one is ... [READ OUT STATEMENTS (i)-(ii).
RANDOMISE ORDER.]
Statement
(i) The rules that
regulate the use of
gene technology are
sufficiently rigorous
Agree
strongly
5
4
3
2
Disagree
strongly
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
1
9
63
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Statement
Agree
strongly
(ii) The rules that
regulate the use of
gene technology are
complied with
5
4
3
Disagree
strongly
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
1
9
2
Q11a. Which organisation or organisations do you believe are responsible for the
regulation of gene technology in Australia? [DO NOT READ OUT. DO NOT PROMPT.
PROBE FULLY - "Can you tell me anything more/be more specific?". MULTIPLE
RESPONSE.]
Q11b. And which organisation or organisations do you believe provide balanced and
factual information on biotechnology to the Australian community? [DO NOT READ
OUT. DO NOT PROMPT. PROBE FULLY - "Can you tell me anything more/be more
specific?". MULTIPLE RESPONSE.]
Q11c. And, have you heard of . So this variable represents prompted awareness of
organizations.
Q11d. And, would you trust ... [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v) IF NOMINATED IN Q11a) OR
CODED 1/YES AT Q11c)] to regulate gene technology? The skip was not done
correctly on this question - too many people were asked. Use recoded variables
instead in SPSS file - these variables will represent trust of organizations among
those who are aware
Q11e. [ASK ALL] And, would you trust Biotechnology Australia, which is an
Australian Government agency, to provide balanced and factual information on
biotechnology to the Australian community?
Q.11 Q.11
a
b
Q.11c)
Q.11d)
Q.11e)
No
Yes
DK
[DO
N'T
REA
D
No
Yes
DK
[DO
N'T
REA
D
(i) FOOD
STANDARDS
AUSTRALIA NEW
ZEALAND (FSANZ)
1
1
0
1
99
0
1
99
(ii) THE OFFICE OF
THE GENE
TECHNOLOGY
REGULATOR
2
2
0
1
99
0
1
99
No
Yes
DK
[DON
'T
REA
D
64
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
(iii) THE
AUSTRALIAN
QUARANTINE AND
INSPECTION
SERVICE
3
3
0
1
99
0
1
99
(iv) BIOSECURITY
AUSTRALIA
4
4
0
1
99
0
1
99
(v) THE AUSTRALIAN
PESTICIDES AND
VETERINARY
MEDICINES
AUTHORITY (APVMA)
5
5
0
1
99
0
1
99
(vi) BIOTECHNOLO
GY AUSTRALIA
6
6
0
1
99
(vii) NATIONAL
HEALTH AND
MEDICAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL (NH&MRC)
7
7
(viii) THERAPUTIC
GOODS
ADMINISTRATI ON
(TGA)
8
8
(ix) AUSTRALIAN
HEALTH ETHICS
COMMITTEE (AHEC)
9
9
(x) DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & AGEING
10
10
(xi) CSIRO
11
11
(xii) FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT - NFI
12
12
(xiii) LOCAL
GOVERNMENT - NFI
13
13
(xiv) STATE
GOVERNMENT - NFI
14
14
(xv) OTHER
[RECORD
VERBATIM]
15
15
(xvi) NONE
98
98
(xvii) DON'T KNOW
99
99
0
1
99
Q12. [ASK ALL] As far as you know, are commercial GM crops allowed to be grown in
your state?
Yes
1
65
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
No
2
[DON'T READ OUT] Don't know
9
Q13. [ASK IF Q12 = 1] Can you name any GM crops that are grown in your state? [DO
NOT READ OUT. DO NOT PROMPT. MULTIPLE RESPONSE]
YES
NO
Canola
1
0
Corn
1
0
Cotton
1
0
Soya
1
0
Strawberries
1
0
Tomatoes
1
0
Other [RECORD VERBATIM]
1
0
None
1
0
[DO NOT READ OUT] Don't know
1
0
Q14. [ASK ALL] Are you in favour of growing GM crops in your state?
Yes
1
No
2
[DON'T READ OUT] Don't know
9
Q15a. [ASK IF Q14=2 or 9] Would you be in favour of growing GM crops in your state
i f . ? (READ OUT (i)-(iii), RANDOMISE ORDER)
Yes
No
[DON'T
READ OUT]
Don't know
(i) the crops passed stringent regulations pertaining to
health and the environment?
1
2
9
(ii) there was evidence that it would enhance Australia's
economic competitiveness?
1
2
9
(iii) there was evidence that many farmers wanted to plant
GM crops
1
2
9
Q15b. [ASK IF Q14=1 or 9] Would you be in favour of growing GM crops in your state
if... (READ OUT (i)-(iii), RANDOMISE ORDER)
66
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Yes
No
[DON'T
READ OUT]
Don't know
(i) the health and the environmental impacts of the crops
could not be established?
1
2
9
(ii) there was evidence that it would diminish Australia's
economic competitiveness?
1
2
9
(iii) there was evidence that very few farmers wanted to
plant GM crops
1
2
9
H. Overall Support, Expectations, Aspirations
We're almost finished now. Overall, [RANDOMISE Q16a AND Q16b]
Q16a. How would you rate your level of support for the use of gene technology in human
health and medical applications today? Please use a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is
fully supportive and 0 is completely against it. [RECORD 0-10.]
Q16b. How would you rate your level of support for the use of gene technology in food
and agriculture applications today? Please use a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is fully
supportive and 0 is completely against it. [RECORD 0-10.]
[RANDOMISE Qs 17, 18, 19]
Q17. How likely do you think gene technology is to help solve significant problems faced
by society? Is it not at all likely, somewhat likely or very likely?
Not at all likely
1
Somewhat likely
2
Very likely
3
[DON'T READ OUT] Don't know
9
Q18. How likely do you think gene technology is to create significant problems in the
future? Is it not at all likely, somewhat likely or very likely?
Not at all likely
1
Somewhat likely
2
Very likely
3
[DON'T READ OUT] Don't know
9
Q19. How likely do you think gene technology is to improve your life personally? Is it not
at all likely, somewhat likely or very likely?
Not at all likely
1
Somewhat likely
2
67
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Very likely
3
[DON'T READ OUT] Don't know
9
Demographics
Finally, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions to ensure that we've included a good
range of people in our survey.
Q20. Are you a vegan or vegetarian?
Vegan
1
Vegetarian
2
Neither
3
Q21. Are there children under 12 years of age living in your household?
No
0
Yes
1
Q22. What is the highest level of education you have ever attempted, whether or not you
finished? [PROMPT IF NECESSARY]
No formal schooling
1
Primary school
2
Some high school
3
Year 10/4th Form
4
Year 11/5th Form
5
Year 12/6th Form
6
Technical school, commercial college or TAFE
7
University degree or diploma
8
Something else [RECORD VERBATIM]
9
Q23. Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
No
0
Yes
1
Q24. What is the main language spoken in your home?
English
0
Other [RECORD]
1
Q25. What is your residential postcode? [RECORD.]
68
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Appendix E - Exploratory Group Discussion Guide
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology
Introduction

Introduction to market research/group discussions

Our discussion tonight will be about science and technology and their applications in
different fields. The discussion will be guided by a number of main themes - I'll
introduce one theme at a time, ask a question or two, and let the conversation take
its course. If we begin to stray from the topic, I will have to lead us back to it, but
as far as possible you should feel free to approach the topic from your own personal
point of view - your own experiences, anecdotes and thoughts are all valuable.

There are no right or wrong answers - we just want to hear about your experiences
and opinions. Please be honest, and feel free to disagree with others in the group.

Also I am not an expert in this area. I am here to raise the issues, and get your
responses, but I won't necessarily be able to answer any questions you have. (At
the end of the group I'll let you know where you can find more information if you
are interested.)

The discussion is completely confidential, and we won't be telling anyone who we've
spoken to. However, we are hoping to record the discussion for our own reference.
We may pass on the tape to the client for whom we are conducting the research,
but it will go no further, and it will only be used for research purposes. Does
anyone have an objection before we proceed?

For the benefit of the tape, please speak one at a time, and wait until others have
finished before having your say.

(Where observers are present) Point out the one-way mirror. Explain that "other
people working on the project" are viewing the group tonight, and that they are
simply interested in participants' opinions. Reassure confidentiality, anonymity.

The session will take up to two hours. There are foods and drinks for those who
would like them, and toilets are available outside.

Ask participants to turn off mobile phones.

Ask participants to introduce themselves (first name, occupation).
Genetic modification refers to any process that alters the genetic material of a living
organism. This generally means inserting a gene from another organism, or modifying or
removing genes within an organism.
Gene technology is a broader term than genetic modification and includes processes
that use genes without moving or modifying them, such as testing for genetic conditions
in humans.
Biotechnology is the broadest term of the three. Biotechnology is the application of the
science of living things, and is used widely in agriculture, beer and wine production, food
69
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
processing and drug development. It includes gene technology and genetic modification,
but also includes processes that do not involve the use of genes.
(Ask all) Applications

I'm going to show you some cards that have different applications of biotechnology.
[Show cards Set A]
–
Modifying the genes of plants to produce food
–
Modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops
–
Using biotechnology in the production of food from plants
–
Using gene technology to produce medicines
–
Using stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease
–
Using gene technology in human transplants

Split into 2 groups. In your group, I want you to sort the cards in order of most
acceptable to you to least acceptable to you. Please talk it out as you go, so that
you get the order on which as many as possible of you agree. I won't interfere.
Once you've finished I'll get you to present back to the other group and explain the
way you've ordered them and why.

Why have they been placed in that order? [Probe on the basis for acceptability.]
What makes some techniques more acceptable and others less acceptable?
–
Is it moral/ethical, potential for benefit - to whom or what, potential for harm
- to whom or what, balance between benefits and risks, based on knowledge,
lack of knowledge or something else?

(Notes to moderator: What, if anything, do individuals disagree on? Observe and
probe on the way in which disagreements are argued and or settled. How do some
people attempt to persuade others? What is effective in this regard? Are some
intransigent on certain points or principles. Probe fully.)

Are there any things that you found hard to understand or hard to place, relative to
the other things? Why?

What further information would have made the task easier?
–

Do you think trustworthy information would be easy to find? What source or
organisation would you most trust to provide that information?
[Give each person an arrow and ask them to write their name on it] Now, I want
you to see if you can find a place in the order to put your arrow, a sort-of cut off
point, of what you personally think is acceptable or you are comfortable with. It
should be so that you accept most of the things above the arrow, and don't accept
most of the things below the arrow.
–
Why have you placed your arrow where you have?
–
If you can't decide where to place your arrow, why is that?
70
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications

[Focus on applications below the arrow] Is there anything that would make the
application more or less acceptable to you? What? [Probe on: What if the
technology was ...]
–
Certified as safe by a government regulator
–
Developed by a government funded research body (e.g. CSIRO)
–
Developed by an Australian company (private)
–
Developed by a company based overseas (private)
–
[For food] What if the food was labelled as genetically modified

Do you think the government regulates what can and can't be done in the field of
biotechnology? If you knew that there were strict rules in place governing these
applications, would this make you feel differently?

Did you used to feel differently about any of these applications, a year or more
ago? (How so? Why did you change your mind?
–
Probe on each application:
o
What has changed? Increased knowledge/understanding (of what?)?
Increased knowledge of regulation? More convinced of value?
o
Heard/read/seen more information? Different information? Information
on regulation? something else?
o
What information (type, source) is your understanding of these issues
based on?
(Rotation A) Biotechnology/ GM food crops
GM food crops

Let's talk specifically about modifying the genes of plants to produce food.

What do the following terms mean to you?
–
Internal Genetic Modification-
–
Close Family Genetic Modification -.
–
Cross species Genetic Modification -

How acceptable are each of these types of genetic modification?

[Show list A]
–
Internal Genetic Modification - that is working with the genes within an
organism.
–
Close Family Genetic Modification - that is transferring genes from a closely
related organism, which could also be done by natural breeding.
71
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–

Cross species Genetic Modification - that is transferring genes from an
unrelated species or cross animal-plant species.
Which would be the most acceptable, which the least? Why?
–
Is it moral/ethical, potential for benefit - to whom or what, potential for harm
- to whom or what, balance between benefits and risks, based on knowledge,
lack of knowledge or something else? Other?
Benefits of GM food crops

[Show cards Set B] These are some possible objectives of genetically modifying
plants to produce food.
–
Make the food healthier
–
Make the food last longer
–
Make the plants herbicide tolerant
–
Make the plants pest resistant
–
Make the plants frost resistant
–
Make the plants mature more quickly
–
Make plants drought resistant
–
Make the food cheaper

Do any of these objectives make you feel differently about GM food crops?

(Split in 2 groups if time) As a group, I want you to sort the cards in order of most
valuable to least valuable. You can group together those that you feel are of equal
value. (Present back to other group if time). Why have they been placed in that
order? [Probe according to confidence and any difficulties placing in order.]

What do you understand each of these things to mean? Who would want to do each
of these things, and why? [Probe on: Make the plants herbicide tolerant -> have
lower herbicide requirements, make the plants pest resistant -> have lower
pesticides requirements, make plants drought resistant -> have low water
requirements, make the plants mature more quickly -> shorten growing
period/increase number of seasons per year]

Do you think that the use of GM crops has any effect on the viability of Australian
farms? What kind of effect?
–
Probe: do you think GM crops could help farmers sell their produce overseas?
Do you think the use of GM crops by farmers puts other farmers at risk? How
so?
GM foods

[Present cards Set C] These are some different types of food produced through the
use of biotechnology.
72
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–
Processed food made from GM crops
–
Processed food that contains a small amount of genetically modified
ingredients
–
Genetically modified fruit and vegetables
–
Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with genetically
modified stock feed
–
Meat and other products from genetically modified animals
–
Meat and other products from cloned animals
–
Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals

(In 2 groups if time) As a group, I want you to sort the cards in order of those
you'd feel most willing to eat, to those you'd feel least willing to eat. (Present back
to other group if time) Why have they been placed in that order? [Probe on the
basis for confidence and any difficulties placing in order.]

(Show list B )

–
Where would you place food grown with the use of pesticides?
–
Where would you place meat grown from animals that have been given
growth hormones?
–
Where would you place food containing preservatives?
Thinking about food production and agricultural methods, which of the following
would you be in favour of? Why?
–
Using only natural or traditional methods of agriculture and farming
–
Pursuing only methods made available through advances in gene technology
–
Pursuing all avenues available
(Rotation A) Moratorium

As far as you know, are commercial GM crops allowed to be grown in NSW?

Can you name any GM crops that are grown in NSW?
–

Are you in favour of growing GM crops in NSW? Why?
–

Where have you come across this information?
Who do you think would benefit from growing GM crops in NSW? Who would
be at risk? Why?
Who should choose if GM crops are grown? Why?
–
Probe on:
73
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
o
Farmers
o
Government
o
research bodies like the CSIRO
o
food manufacturers
o
the general public.
(Rotation B) GM non-food crops

[Show list A] Let's talk specifically about modifying the genes of plants to produce
nonfood crops.

Are there particular circumstances under which this would be acceptable or
unacceptable? What? Why?

What if it was done to produce ... [show list B]

–
Fuels
–
Plastics
–
Clothing and other textiles
How acceptable would each be? Which would be the most acceptable, which the
least? Why?
–


Is it moral/ethical, potential for benefit - to whom or what, potential for harm
- to whom or what, balance between benefits and risks, based on knowledge,
lack of knowledge or something else? Other?
What if genetically modified plants were grown in order to ... [show list C]
–
Reduce fossil fuel consumption
–
Encourage the development of more environmentally friendly fuels for
vehicles
–
Lower the cost of petrol
–
Lower the cost of plastic products
How acceptable would each be? Which would be the most acceptable, which the
least? Why?
(Rotation B) Biotechnology and the environment

[Present cards Set B] These are some possible environmental objectives of some
broader objectives of biotechnology.
–
To help address climate change
74
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–
To recycle water more effectively
–
To clean up pollution
–
To address declining biodiversity or the gradual extinction of plants and
animals
–
To combat salinity
–
To enable farmers to use less pesticides (without using gene technology)

(In 2 groups if time) As a group, I want you to sort the cards in order of those you
feel are most valuable, to those you feel are least valuable. (Present back to other
group if time) Why have they been placed in that order? [Probe on the basis for
confidence and any difficulties placing in order.]

If you knew that there were applications of biotechnology that were able to meet
some of these objectives, would that influence your opinion about some of the
other areas of biotechnology that we have already talked about - such as food and
agriculture or medicine?
(Rotation B) Regulation

What do you know about the government's role in regulating gene technology? How
well regulated do you think gene technology is?

In which of these areas have you heard about laws and regulations covering what
can and can't be done? (Show list D)

–
Medical research
–
Medical applications of gene technology
–
Research into crops and farm animals
–
Agricultural practices
–
Food standards
–
Use of gene technology to address environmental issues
Do you think that the people and organisations working in gene technology follow
the regulations? Which of these groups do you think are most likely to/ least likely
to? What makes you say that? (Show list E)
–
Farmers
–
Agricultural researchers
–
Government bodies
–
Companies that make agricultural products
–
Medical researchers
75
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications

–
Health practitioners
–
Pharmaceutical companies
What information (type, source) is your opinion of regulation based on? Have you
heard/seen/read more information about this recently? Did it influence your
opinions? In what ways?
(Ask all) Media

We're going to talk about genes now and their role in human behaviour.

Firstly, what have you heard, seen or read lately about genes and human
behaviour?
–


What did you think about that? Where did you hear that?
There have been some stories in the media about the role of genes in ... [INSERT 1
(MATCHED TO SELECTED MEDIA STORY) OR MORE IF TIME FROM LIST BELOW]?
o
Behavioural problems
o
Obesity
o
Panic attacks
o
Reading skills
o
Alcohol craving
o
Violence
–
Have you seen, read or heard anything like that in the media? Can you
remember, more specifically, what the story was about?
–
What did you think about that? Was it believable? Credible? Why/why not?
–
In what ways did it influence or change your views about this issue? Why?
–
Where did you hear these stories? In what types of media? [Probe on TV,
print, internet etc as well as specifics like channel/type of show,
publication/type of publication, etc]
–
Do you think these sources are trustworthy?
Notepad exercise: [Participants are presented with 1 newspaper headline and
story. A notepad exercise is completed and responses discussed.] Please read the
newspaper clipping provided. How would you describe this article? [Observe
reactions while reading. Discuss responses to notepad exercises.]
–
[Follow up:] What do you think about the article?
–
Is it believable? Credible? Why/why not?
76
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
–
Is it an accurate portrayal of the connection between genes and human
characteristics and behaviour? Why do you say that?
–
Have you come across anything like that before? If so, where? If not, where
would you expect to come across it?
Closing

This research is being conducted on behalf of Biotechnology Australia. The findings
will be used to help them to ensure the public's need for information about gene
technology is adequately met.
77
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
Appendix F - Exploratory Group Notepad Exercise
Participants were presented with one of the following media exercises and were asked to
write a response to the question 'How would you describe this article?' This notepad
exercise was followed by a discussion of participants' responses.
1. Your kids are ratbags? Them's fightin' genes
8 February 2007
Herald Sun
Fighting between parents is not to blame for "ratbag" behaviour in children, according to
new Australian research that says it's all in the genes.
Scientists have discredited the well-worn theory that rows in the home can be
responsible for bullying, shoplifting, vandalism and other conduct problems among kids.
Instead it seems the link is more direct - parents who argue a lot pass their genes for
disruptive behaviour on to their children, who develop a juvenile version of the same
traits.
The findings, from a study of more than 1000 Australian twins, could prompt a shift in
the way delinquency is treated in therapy.
"Our data shows that marital conflict is not a major culprit," said epidemiologist Nick
Martin, from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research.
"Rows have often been blamed for ratbag behaviour but we've got no evidence to
suggest that they are the problem."
Researchers, including some from the US, studied 1045 pairs of twins and their children
to see if the link between parental fighting and kids' conduct problems was genetic or
environmental. They found children of an identical twin had the same levels of
behavioural problems regardless of whether it was their parent or their parent's identical
sibling that had marital rows.
Children whose own parents don't fight, but the genetically-identical aunt or uncle does,
had the same level of delinquency as children living in the opposite situation, the
researchers found.
Prof Martin said this was because this child could pick up the "disruptive" traits from the
identical aunt or uncle, proving the link was genetic.
2. Don't feel guilty 'it's in the genes'
5 September 2006
The Advertiser
Big boned people shouldn't feel guilty about their weight because their genes are to
blame, an international congress has been told.
78
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
But the comments sparked debate, with a leading Australian scientist saying people
should take more personal responsibility for their diets to end the obesity epidemic.
Dr Sadaf Farooqi, of the University of Cambridge, said people with the genetic mutation responsible for 6 per cent of all cases of severe early-onset obesity - felt hungrier and
could appear tall, strong or "big boned". She said they were predisposed to eat more.
But Emma Whitelaw, from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, said genetic
predisposition let obese people off the hook for not looking after their diet.
3. 'Gene for panic attacks'
Anxiety may be genetic13
A gene may be partly responsible for causing psychological disorders such as panic
attacks, say researchers.
A team from Ohio State University has found that people with a particular variation in the
serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT) showed a greater fear response during a laboratory
experiment.
Lead researcher Professor Norman Schmidt said: "While a single gene cannot be held
accountable for complex emotional states - such as anxiety disorders - we're beginning
to pinpoint which genetic traits may make a person susceptible to developing
psychological disorders."
The 5-HTT gene is responsible for regulating the chemical serotonin, which helps
transmit messages in the brain.
The people who showed a greater fear response during an experiment had a variation in
the gene that caused the brain to take up serotonin faster, leaving less available.
A lack of serotonin is thought to be linked to the development of psychological disorders.
In the study, 72 participants took two breaths of pressurised air through a mouthpiece.
The breaths were spaced 10 minutes apart. One breath consisted of pressurised room
air, and the other was a carbon dioxide-oxygen mix designed to make subjects feel they
are momentarily short of breath.
This can produce symptoms of anxiety in some people.
Subjects with the "long" form of the 5-HTT gene - the one implicated in the increased
regulation of serotonin - reported feeling more anxiety when they took the carbon
dioxide breath.
Dr Schmidt said. "It's clear that a single gene is rarely the culprit - there are multiple
genes that are involved in most types of psychological disorders.
"But I think that the combination of genetic traits and psychological traits may ultimately
be the best way to predict psychological disorders."
13
http://news,bbc,co,uk/2/hi/health/790561,stm Accessed 21st June, 2007
79
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
John Fraise, a chartered clinical psychologist at the Adult Psychological Therapy Service
in Wakefield, said the research was interesting, but would not, in the short-term, make
any difference to the practicalities of managing anxiety disorders.
He said: "My hands on experience of dealing with individuals for many years has led me
to believe that some people may be more pre-disposed to stress than others.
"But I would suggest that many factors play a part.
"The presence or absence of a piece of genetic code will not necessarily determine how
somebody reacts to stress.
"Some people may have developed skills to enable them to manage anxiety sufficiently
well that they never manifest the problem even though the pre-disposition is there."
The study appears in the new issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
4. Reading skills are in the genes, study shows
21 September 2006
The Age
Genes are credited for many personal traits, ranging from height and weight to poor
eyesight. Now, it seems, reading skills can be added to the list.
A study of twins has found different genes influence whether a child can learn to read by
phonics - the sounding out of words - or by recognising words visually.
"This study gives valuable insights into these two reading processes that policymakers
might like to use in developing policy about how reading is taught to children," said
researcher Anne Castles, from the University of Melbourne.
The study tested the reading and spelling ability of about 600 pairs of identical and nonidentical twins, aged from 12 to 18. If reading skills had a genetic basis, identical twins,
who share all their genes, would be more similar in their abilities than non-identical
twins, who share about half their genes.
The researchers used made-up words to test the youths' sounding-out technique. Words
that could not be read or spelt by phonics, such as "yacht", were used to measure their
ability with the whole-word recognition approach.
"What we found was that both of these reading skills have a genetic basis . . . and
different sets of genes seemed to be involved in acquiring the two different skills,"
Associate Professor Castles said.
The three-year study also showed reading and spelling involved the same sets of genes.
"People often say 'I'm fine at reading, but I'm hopeless at spelling'," she said. "(But) in
terms of what your inherited characteristics bring you, it seems to be essentially the
same skill."
Associate Professor Castles said the results showed it was important to teach and test
children using both the phonics and whole-word approach, to ensure that any problems
were detected and treated early. "Just because something is genetically based . . . it's
80
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
not some kind of sentence for life. It just means that a child might need help in a
particular area."
5. Gene mutation may raise the risk of alcoholism
10 January 200714
Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=&storyid=2007-0110T142530Z_01_TON014235_RTRUKOC_0_US-GENEALCOHOLISM.xml&src=nl_ushealth1100
Researchers have identified a gene variation that seems to influence a person's craving
for alcohol; a finding they believe could have important implications for identifying at-risk
drinkers as well as for selecting the best treatment for a patient's dependence.
The gene mutation involves a cell structure called the mu-opioid receptor. In previous
studies, this receptor has been shown to bind beta-endorphin, a pain-relieving chemical
the body releases in response to alcohol intake and other stimuli.
Further research has shown that when the gene variant, or the "G allele," is present, the
receptor binds to beta-endorphin more strongly than when the more common "A allele" is
present.
Dr Esther van den Wildenberg, from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, and
colleagues investigated the impact of the A and G alleles on alcohol craving.
The study included 84 men who carried only the A allele and 24 who carried at least one
copy of the G allele. Family histories of alcoholism were comparable in each group. G
allele carriers showed significantly more craving than did subjects with only the A allele.
In addition, the authors found that G allele carriers were more likely to also report illicit
drug use at some point in their lives.
6. Violence Gene
We all get angry sometimes. But some people turn that anger into violence... and
scientists are discovering that may be partly due to genetics. This ScienCentral News
video explains.
Genetically Wired Brains
With swelling prison populations, researchers are trying to understand the biology behind
aggressive behavior. National Institute of Mental Health scientist Andreas MeyerLindenberg is looking for clues to how genes wire our brains early in life.
He's focusing on a specific gene that was previously linked to impulsive violence in
certain populations of people. A study in 2002 found that subjects with a particular form
of a gene had a significantly higher risk of violence only if they were abused as children.
Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=&storyid=2007-0110T142530Z_01_TON014235_RTRUKOC_0_US-GENEALCOHOLISM.xml&src=nl_ushealth1100
14
81
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Overall Perceptions of Biotechnology and General Applications
While this gene-environment interaction is important in understanding this behavior,
Meyer-Lindenberg wanted to focus on the genetic facets of violence.
The study also found that a variation in this gene, called the L version of MAO-A,
disproportionately affects men, because this gene is located on the X chromosome, which
determines sex. Since men only have one X chromosome, they are more prone to the
effects of the gene. Women have two X chromosomes, but the chances of having the
gene variation on both chromosomes is very rare.
"One of the most fascinating things," Meyer-Lindenberg says, about this field of science
called psychiatric genetics, "is how it is possible that genes [can] encode for molecules
that affect something as complex as behavior, even psychiatric illness such as depression
and social behavior."
Genes direct the production of proteins, which are the building blocks of living systems.
Meyer-Lindenberg is investigating a gene that directs the creation of a special type of
protein, an enzyme, that breaks down a chemical in the brain called serotonin.
Serotonin is a chemical messenger in the brain that affects how brain cells communicate
with each another. Meyer-Lindenberg says that different forms of the gene can affect the
brain's wiring and, "will then presumably contribute to behaviors and emotions such as
fear or aggression."
To isolate how this gene variation might affect the brain, Meyer-Lindenberg took MRI
brain scans of more than 100 healthy volunteers. Since this genetic variation is common
in our population, some of the volunteers had this genetic variation, and some didn't.
He showed them pictures of angry and fearful faces, and other disturbing images, like
those of an angry dog or of a gun pointed towards the screen.
As he wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences those with the
aggression-related form of the gene responded to the pictures with increased activity in
the amygdala — the brain area that detects danger, but less activity in the cingulate
cortex — the brain region which controls aggression.
These brain patterns have been linked to impulsive violence, but Meyer-Lindenberg
cautions in his paper, "...because our sample was psychiatrically normal, the variation
observed is clearly compatible with normal mental health and does not imply or suggest
increased risk for violence in our sample."
There are many possible factors at work, he says, and violence is an extremely complex
behavior. "Whether or not any given person in any given situation will become violent is
known to be almost impossible to predict," he explains.
So while this gene may contribute to aggressive behavior, that doesn't mean we're
chained to our genetic makeup.
Meyer-Lindenberg's research was published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences on March 28, 2006 and was funded by the National
Institutes of Health.
82