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