PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005 OVERVIEW
BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
SEPTEMBER, 2005
Contents
1. Research context ............................................................................................ 1
Background .................................................................................................. 1
The nature of public attitudes .......................................................................... 1
Research objectives ....................................................................................... 2
2. Research design ............................................................................................. 3
A three-phase research program ..................................................................... 3
Samples ....................................................................................................... 3
3. Findings .......................................................................................................... 5
3.1 General attitudes towards biotechnology ..................................................... 5
3.2 Applications of gene technology ................................................................. 6
3.3 Gene technology techniques .....................................................................19
3.4 Using GM products ..................................................................................20
3.5 Gene technology in society .......................................................................21
3.6 Information ............................................................................................21
3.7 Regulation ..............................................................................................22
Appendix A - Survey sample characteristics ..................................................... 24
Location ......................................................................................................24
Age .............................................................................................................24
Gender ........................................................................................................25
Education ....................................................................................................25
Culturally and linguistically diverse groups .......................................................26
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders ..............................................................26
Vegetarians .................................................................................................27
Children under 12 .........................................................................................27
Appendix B - Questionnaire .............................................................................. 28
Biotechnology Public Awareness Questionnaire ..................................................28
List of Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1. Methodology ............................................................................................ 3
2. Awareness and knowledge of technologies .................................................. 5
3. Perceived impact of technologies ................................................................ 6
4. Time frame for impact of technologies ........................................................ 6
5. Support for fields of gene technology application.......................................... 7
6. Perceived usefulness of applications ........................................................... 8
7. Perceived risk associated with applications .................................................. 9
8. Acceptability of applications ....................................................................... 9
9. Perceived usefulness of GM food crops .......................................................10
10. Perceived risk associated with GM food crops ............................................11
11. Acceptability of GM food crops ................................................................11
12. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology to produce medicines ...........12
13. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology to produce medicines..12
14. Acceptability of using gene technology to produce medicines ......................13
15. Perceived usefulness of using stem cells to treat disease ............................14
16. Perceived risk associated with using stem cells to treat disease ...................14
17. Acceptability of using stem cells to treat disease .......................................15
18. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology in human transplants ...........16
19. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology in human transplants ..16
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
20. Acceptability of using gene technology in human transplants ......................17
21. Perceived usefulness of cloning ...............................................................18
22. Perceived risk associated with cloning ......................................................18
23. Acceptability of cloning ..........................................................................19
24. Views on the uses of gene technology ......................................................21
25. Views on rules and regulations ................................................................22
B-1. Location of respondents' residence .........................................................24
B-2. Age profile of respondents ....................................................................25
B-3. Highest level of education attempted ......................................................26
List of Tables
Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research .................................... 3
Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research .................................... 4
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
1. Research context
Background
Biotechnology Australia is an Australian Government agency responsible for managing
the National Biotechnology Strategy. The Public Awareness Program is one of the
initiatives implemented under this strategy. Its aim is 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. If Australians are not accepting of the applications of biotechnology, opportunities
for individuals, industry and the nation in general may be lost. Public understanding of
the science involved is thus considered to be important. However, there is perhaps as
great a need for scientists (and policymakers) to understand the public's needs and
concerns. In this way, research and development, public policy and communications
strategies could be based more effectively on a sound understanding of what drives
public acceptance and what must be addressed in order to meet the needs of the public
and to address their concerns. Thus, there is a need to understand the underlying drivers
of community attitudes towards biotechnology.
The nature of public 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.
Indeed, 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 application1.
Some of the issues that may be considered include:

Is the process of development harmful to humans, animals or the environment?

Is the process controlled or regulated?

Does the outcome benefit humanity? Can it save or improve human life?

Is the outcome simply increased corporate profit or scientific career advancement?

What are the long-term outcomes likely to be? What potential exists for unforeseen
outcomes to occur?
Interactions or trade-offs can also arise between different costs and benefits. For
example, some people may consider a process that is harmful to animals to be
acceptable when it is used to save or improve human life, but not where it simply results
in increased profits.
Ethical underpinnings of changing community attitudes to biotechnology. By Craig
Cormick. Accessed on the Biotechnology Australia website.
1
1
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Five key factors have been identified that underlie the public's acceptance of applications
of biotechnologies2. 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.
It should be borne in mind that public perceptions of these factors are as important as
the reality. Ways in which both current perceptions and the reality of the situation can
best be addressed need to be considered.
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.
Research objectives
In 2005, Eureka Strategic Research was commissioned to conduct the fourth wave of this
research. The primary aim of this project was to update and develop understanding of
the public's awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of
biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive public acceptance. More specifically,
the objectives of this research were to measure and understand; public awareness and
acceptance of biotechnology, public confidence in its products and its applications,
perceptions of usefulness and risks involved, and information and regulatory sources.
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.
2
2
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
2. Research design
A three-phase research program
To meet these objectives, a three-phase research program was employed, as illustrated
in the following diagram.
Figure 1. Methodology
Initially, a brief 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. Following the qualitative phase, quantitative research using a
CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) survey was carried out. Finally, an
explanatory phase of qualitative research was conducted in order to investigate and
explain in detail the findings from the survey.
Samples
The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.
Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research
Location
Education level
Sydney
Goulburn
Non-tertiary
18-30 years
31-65 years
Mainly tertiary
31-65 years
18-30 years
This phase was 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 between 11/2 to 2 hours in duration, and all participants received
an incentive of $60.
The sample for the quantitative survey consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75
years of age. A representative sample of this size provides a 95% confidence interval of
no more than ±3.0%. This means that if we find that 50% of the sample, for instance,
agrees that testing embryos for pre-disposition to diseases is useful to society, then we
could be 95% confident (from this sample of 1,067), that between 47% and 53% of the
population holds this view.
Respondents were selected from the electronic White Pages. The sample was 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
3
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
applied, within each location, once again to ensure the sample was proportionally
representative. The questionnaire averaged 24 minutes' duration.
The third phase (explanatory qualitative research) was conducted across three locations
and with participants of varying levels of support for gene technology, as shown in the
table below.
Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research
Location
Level of
support
Wagga Wagga
Sydney (City)
Hurstville
Low
18-65 years
18-65 years
18-65 years
Medium
18-65 years
18-65 years
18-65 years
High
18-65 years
18-65 years
18-65 years
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 between
1% to 2 hours, and a $60 incentive was provided.
In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are
combined and presented together for each issue.
4
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
3. Findings
3.1 General attitudes towards biotechnology
When compared to other current societal issues (e.g. pollution of the environment), the
largest proportion of people rated GM foods and cloning as the least concerning issues.
Many people felt they could explain cloning to a friend, whereas the largest proportion of
people have heard of, but know very little about, stem cells, genetic engineering,
biotechnology and gene therapy, as is shown in Figure 2.
The majority thought that cloning would make things worse, but that the other
technologies could improve the way of life in the future. The greatest proportion of
respondents felt that genetic engineering, biotechnology and cloning were already having
an impact on society. The results of the questions regarding the impact of technologies
are shown in more detail in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 2. Awareness and knowledge of technologies
5
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 3. Perceived impact of technologies
Figure 4. Time frame for impact of technologies
3.2 Applications of gene technology
Areas of application
Members of the public hold diverse opinions in relation to the various applications of gene
technology. On the whole, people were more supportive of health and medical
applications than agricultural and food applications, as can be seen in Figure 5.
6
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 5. Support for fields of gene technology application
As can be seen from the chart, there is no one "public view". Instead, members of the
public are supportive of the use of gene technology in both health/medical and
food/agricultural applications to varying degrees. On the whole, health/medical
applications received a greater number of higher scores, and food/agriculture received a
greater number of lower scores.
Most felt the use of gene technology in a medical context was acceptable. They valued
the technology's potential to save lives or improve quality of life and considered its use to
treat disease and injury a 'noble' pursuit. They acknowledged that almost any technology
would be considered acceptable if it were going to benefit one's self or loved ones. Some
considered medical applications of gene technology to pose fewer risks, partly as they
were contained in scientific laboratories and hospitals and would be used infrequently,
usually as a last resort.
In contrast, the application of gene technology in agricultural applications was perceived
by many to be unnecessary. Many believed that agricultural practices had developed and
improved "naturally" for many years without the help of gene technology and, therefore,
that it was uncalled for in this context. Almost all participants had concerns about the
potential risk to human health, especially if the produce of the genetically modified crop
was to be consumed.
Perceptions of specific applications
Respondents were asked a series of questions about specific applications of
biotechnology (e.g. using stem cells in medical research and treating disease, and using
gene technology to modify food crops, to produce medicines and in human transplants).
7
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
The majority had heard of the use of stem cells in medical research and treating disease,
and using gene technology to modify food plants. In contrast, the majority was not
aware of the use of gene technology in producing medicines or in transplants. The
majority considered that each of the given gene technology applications was useful, with
the greatest proportion of respondents perceiving stem cell research and treatment as
useful.
Using gene technology to modify food plants was perceived to be risky by the highest
proportion of respondents. The majority also considered the use of gene technology in
human transplants and in the production of medicines to be risky. Despite this, most
respondents found each of the applications of biotechnology to be acceptable, with the
possible exception of genetically modified food crops.
Figures 6 to 8 display the above findings in greater detail.
Figure 6. Perceived usefulness of applications
8
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 7. Perceived risk associated with applications
Figure 8. Acceptability of applications
GM food crops
The public was split relatively evenly in its acceptability of the use of gene technology to
alter food crops to achieve different objectives. The majority of people were aware of
most of these objectives, and perceived them to be of some use, but 60% - 70%
considered these applications risky. Figures 9 to 11 show the survey findings regarding
the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of using gene technology to modify food
crops.
9
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
When specific applications were further explored it was revealed that most people
believed GM food crops to be unnecessary and unnatural, and to pose unknown health
risks. Participants largely made judgements on the basis of how the applications would
affect them personally. Mainly because of this, objectives intended to benefit producers,
companies or wider society (as opposed to individuals) were generally considered to be
unnecessary and of little value. Biotechnology applications in crops and food production
were seen as more relevant to developing nations, in particular, because they have
potential to address the problem of famine.
Regardless of whether the objectives sought were perceived as positive, participants
believed there to be more natural and less risky alternative methods by which the same
outcome could be achieved. It was generally felt that the risks of genetically modifying
food crops were too great to justify use of the technology. Specific concerns were raised
about the risks to human health and the risk of contamination surrounding fields, land
and non-GM crops.
Figure 9. Perceived usefulness of GM food crops
10
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 10. Perceived risk associated with GM food crops
Figure 11. Acceptability of GM food crops
Producing medicine
The public generally perceived using gene technology to produce medicines to be useful
and acceptable, but when provided with details of specific techniques they deemed the
applications to be less useful, less acceptable and riskier. The survey findings regarding
the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of using gene technology to produce
medicines are shown in more detail in Figures 12 to 14.
11
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
In general, participants in the qualitative research supported the use of gene technology
in producing medicines, as this application offered the potential to reduce disease, help
individuals and society. However, once specific techniques were discussed in the groups,
participants' concerns increased. In particular, many participants had concerns regarding
the use of gene transfers across kingdoms, especially those that involved combining
human and bacterial genes.
Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology to produce medicines
Figure 13. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology to produce
medicines
12
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 14. Acceptability of using gene technology to produce medicines
Stem cells
There was widespread awareness of stem cells, used both in medical research and in the
treatment of disease. The majority perceived stem cells (in both research and treatment
contexts) to be useful and acceptable. The public was roughly divided as to whether
these applications were risky. The survey findings regarding the use of stem cells to treat
disease are shown in Figures 15 to 17.
Knowledge about stem cells varied considerably among group participants. Most had
heard of stem cells, but were unaware of the existence of different kinds of stem cells,
and had given little thought to the associated issues. Most needed additional information,
particularly in relation to the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic stem
cells. There was greater familiarity with the term "embryonic stem cells". There was
some confusion regarding the terms "embryo" and "fetus" and the association of
"embryonic" and "umbilical cord" due to their link with babies.
Issues relating to use of stem cells in medical research and treating disease were
considered essentially the same, with the former simply being the precursor of the latter.
Acceptability of using stem cells depended largely on the proposed use and context. If it
is related to the treatment of serious injury and/or disease it is generally supported,
particularly if it is a matter of life or death. Acceptability of stem cells used for any given
purpose appeared to depend upon several factors including the origin of stem cells (i.e.
from an embryo, fetus or umbilicus), the perceived point at which life begins and the
intention in creating the embryo. Many were supportive of using embryos left over from
IVF.
13
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 15. Perceived usefulness of using stem cells to treat disease
Figure 16. Perceived risk associated with using stem cells to treat disease
14
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 17. Acceptability of using stem cells to treat disease
Human transplants
Awareness of using gene technology in human transplants was reasonably low, but this
increased once people were prompted with the specific methods used. People generally
perceived using gene technology in human transplants to be useful and acceptable. When
details of specific techniques used were given, these applications were perceived to be
less useful, riskier and less acceptable. Figures 18 to 20 show the survey findings
regarding the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of using gene technology to
produce medicines.
In the qualitative research, many participants were supportive of using gene technology
in human transplants. They generally considered that, in this context, the technology
offered the potential to save human lives. Once again, as the details of specific
techniques were discussed, additional concerns arose among participants which were
often associated with religious beliefs, the potential for animal suffering and crossing of
the species barrier between animals and humans.
15
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 18. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology in human transplants
Figure 19. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology in human
transplants
16
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 20. Acceptability of using gene technology in human transplants
Cloning
Almost all respondents indicated awareness of cloning animals, with the majority also
indicating their awareness of human and plant cloning. Respondents distinguished plant
cloning from cloning of animals and humans, with more people perceiving the former to
be useful and acceptable, than the latter. Nearly two-thirds considered plant cloning to
be acceptable, whereas only a tenth were accepting of human cloning. The survey
findings regarding the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of cloning are shown in
Figures 21 to 23.
There was strong consensus that cloning was the least acceptable application of gene
technology, with participants expressing how uncomfortable they felt with the notion of
human cloning. 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.
The word "cloning" appeared inherently negative, such that even cloning in plants was
seen as unacceptable, until it was pointed out that propagation through cuttings, a
perfectly acceptable technique, was in fact a case of cloning.
Some participants felt that animal cloning technology was being pursued for no justifiable
reason, but purely in the name of science. The majority of participants expressed
concerns about the uncertainties associated with cloning humans. Participants clearly did
not have a good understanding of specifically what would be involved in cloning human
cells to obtain healthy organs for transplant and most wanted more information before
they could comment on the application.
For most people, their reaction to animal cloning was similar to their reaction to human
cloning, although somewhat less vehement. 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. As with
human cloning, few understood the purpose of cloning animals or could identify
legitimate potential uses.
17
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 21. Perceived usefulness of cloning
Figure 22. Perceived risk associated with cloning
18
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure 23. Acceptability of cloning
Attitudes towards applications
A general pattern can be seen across almost all the results presented in this section.
People recognise a worthy objective and are generally supportive of pursuing it, despite
concerns. If an objective is not perceived to be valuable, is not stated, or if there are
perceived to be other means by which the objective could be achieved, people do not
support gene technology, given the perceived risks involved.
Making the means by which an application is being pursued more salient tends to
heighten concern, mostly due to people's lack of understanding of the science and the
subsequent fear resulting from a lack of familiarity. Only a detailed technical knowledge,
which few people have attained and of which not all are capable, is able to diffuse such
concerns. It is likely that many people would prefer to live in ignorance, trusting that
only worthy objectives will be pursued, with appropriate regulation in place.
3.3 Gene technology techniques
Respondents compared specific techniques involved in gene technology: introducing plant
genes into other plants, introducing bacterial genes into plants, introducing animal genes
into plants and modifying genetic material in human cells. Few respondents were
confident that they could explain any of the techniques to a friend. The majority
considered introducing plant genes into other plants to be acceptable, but it was only a
minority who approved of the other techniques.
Cross kingdom gene transfers
Findings from the qualitative phase suggested that people are particularly uncomfortable
with techniques that involve gene transfers across kingdoms as these were considered to
be particularly unnatural. Many participants felt that, as a result, these techniques were
frightening and had great potential to cause unforeseen outcomes. Such concerns
appeared to be driven by a lack of understanding of the science involved. People also
19
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
appeared to make rather loose associations between these techniques and examples of
scientific and health disasters (such as Bird Flu), which they could readily recall.
3.4 Using GM products
Non-food products
Respondents rated their confidence levels in using a range of products derived from
genetically modified plants and animals such as plastics, fibres, building materials,
packaging and fuel. Overall, as these products were not ingested, they were considered
less of a risk to human health than GM food products. Some people were particularly
supportive of using fuel sources derived from genetically modified plants. Participants
were less enthusiastic about plastics and clothing fibres. They expressed doubt over
whether these applications were necessary or whether it was useful to use GM plants and
animals to manufacture such products. Many participants felt that the non-food products
should be labelled as having been derived from GM sources.
GM food products
Many participants had a poor understanding of exactly what constituted a genetic
modification, believing that any alteration of a plant or animal (e.g. spraying chemical
pesticides, herbicides or even fertilizers or injecting hormones or steroids) constituted
genetic modification.
Respondents had the least confidence in consuming food from genetically modified
animals, followed by meat from animals fed GM stock feed, food containing a genetically
modified ingredient and genetically modified fruit and vegetables. There was, however,
great variation in participants' reactions to genetically modifying food, ranging from
disgust to indifference. Most participants expressed an overriding concern about the
potential health risks of consuming genetically modified foods and were concerned that
any adverse effects might not be evident for several years. Some participants were also
concerned about the cumulative effects of consuming GM foods over one's lifespan.
Many participants in the discussion groups believed that genetically modified foods were
widely available in Australia and that consumers, including themselves, were already
buying and eating them. A quarter of respondents (incorrectly) believed that most of
Australia's fresh produce is genetically modified, whereas nearly half believed that most
processed foods in Australian supermarkets are modified.
Participants were divided as to whether or not they would buy genetically modified foods.
Some stated that they would stop purchasing a product if they found out that it was
genetically modified, but most said they would be reluctant to change their buying
habits. Some expressed no intention to cease buying familiar items if they learnt that
they were genetically modified, given that they had not noticed any ill-effects to date.
Labelling was perceived by most participants to be very important as it allows consumers
to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to purchase a genetically modified
product.
It was clear from the qualitative research that GM food is not an issue to which most
people give much thought in making everyday purchasing decisions, despite beliefs about
the widespread availability of GM food, so that their stated opposition to GM food might
be considered as analogous to a stated opposition to say, preservatives.
20
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
3.5 Gene technology in society
Respondents in the survey were read a series of statements about gene technology in
society and, for each one, asked the extent to which they agreed. Whereas other issues
were explored in greater detail, the content of these statements is very broad and the
results (as displayed in Figure 24) can be seen as representing a cross section of views
on gene technology.
Figure 24. Views on the uses of gene technology
The results showed that the majority of respondents were supportive of most uses of
gene technology. The majority supported the use of left-over stem cells from IVF. In
addition, more agreed than disagreed with using gene technology in pest control,
although a tenth was unsure regarding this use.
The majority disagreed that research and development into, and commercial use of, gene
technology should be stopped. However, the majority also felt that only traditional
methods should be used to alter plant and animal characteristics.
Almost two-thirds of all respondents agreed strongly that discrimination on the basis of
genetic characteristics should be illegal.
3.6 Information
The greatest proportion of respondents said that they would use the internet to search
for information about gene technology, with newspapers and magazines being the next
common source of information. When prompted, the greatest proportion of respondents
was confident in information provided by the CSIRO, followed by universities and
scientists. Sources which the fewest people had confidence in included religious
organisations and the media. Such questions need to be viewed with caution, since it was
clear that most had not searched for any such information and were unlikely to do so.
Throughout the discussions, participants frequently reported needing more information in
order to judge the acceptability of various gene technology applications. However, it was
rare that participants had actively sought to increase their awareness or understanding of
biotechnology and few participants were sufficiently interested or perceived they had the
capacity and/or time to do so. Largely due to this, participants' knowledge was mainly
absorbed from that presented in the media, as well as from movies.
21
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
The source of information was seen as critical in judging the credibility of the
information. Participants expressed a desire for information from multiple independent
sources in order to ensure they received balanced information and to have access to both
sides of the debate. However, as discussed below, their main concern (and assumption)
was that the government, appropriately advised, was making sensible rules on their
behalf.
3.7 Regulation
The Federal Government was the source that was cited most often as being responsible
for the regulation of gene technology in Australia, followed by the CSIRO. Almost all
respondents had heard of Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and the
majority was aware of Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). The
organisations that the greatest proportion of respondents trusted to regulate were the
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and AQIS.
The group discussions revealed that, while many had not necessarily given any thought
to the regulation of gene technology, they assumed and hoped that someone was looking
out for the public. Participants made frequent reference to the need for gene technology
to be "controlled" or regulated. Some showed a basic awareness, citing legislation that
was in place banning certain practices, such as cloning and growing GM crops.
Regulation was considered necessary as it could offer the general public some level of
protection, but it was not sufficient as it provided no guarantee of safety. There was
support for efforts by the government to ensure the public is informed and their views
canvassed, despite many individuals admitting that they were not inclined to participate
in such a process. Indeed, most participants felt that they were not equipped to make,
nor wanted to be responsible for, decisions that impact upon the whole population.
Participants also felt that, in order for rules to be policed effectively, the regulators would
need sufficient expertise to ensure complete awareness and understanding of the
technologies that were being pursued.
Survey respondents were also asked about the extent to which they agreed with several
statements about the control and regulation of gene technology in Australia. Results are
displayed in Figure 25.
Figure 25. Views on rules and regulations
22
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
The majority agreed that public consultation and participation improves regulation. A
similar proportion believed that farmers need to be GM-free to stay competitive, as
believed that farmers need access to GM technology in order to do so. A majority also
agreed that we have to accept some risk from GM for Australia to remain competitive.
Many felt unable to comment on whether Australia's current rules are sufficient and
whether they are being followed.
23
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Appendix A - Survey sample characteristics
The total sample for this research was 1,068. This sub-section provides demographic
details of the sample.
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-13.
Figure B-1. Location of respondents' residence
Age
All respondents 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 that is
outside of the capital city.
3
24
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure B-2. Age profile of respondents
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 (49.9%) and females (50.1%).
Education
Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level of education they had ever
attempted. The results are shown in Figure B-3.
25
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Figure B-3. Highest level of education attempted
The largest proportion of respondents (44.5%) had at least attempted university studies.
This is somewhat higher than 2004 census data which indicated that 19% of adult
Australians had completed a bachelors degree or higher4. Thus, despite the fact that the
current figures relate to anyone who has ever attempted university study, or is in the
process of completing tertiary studies, it appears that more highly educated individuals
may be overrepresented in the survey sample.
The next most frequent level of highest educational attainment was Year 12/6 th Form
(17.2%), followed by study at a technical school, commercial college or TAFE (15.7%).
This is comparable to 2004 census data which indicated that 20% of adult Australians
had year 12 (or equivalent) and 15% had a certificate III or IV as their highest level of
educational attainment5.
Culturally and linguistically diverse groups
Respondents were asked what the main language spoken in their home was. The
majority (94.8%) spoke English as their main language. Thirty one languages other than
English were mentioned by respondents. Of these, the most frequently mentioned were
Mandarin (0.5%) and Italian (0.5%).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
Geographic areas in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders reside in higher
proportions were selectively over-sampled in order to ensure representation of this group
4
5
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6227.0 Education and Work, Australia.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6227.0 Education and Work, Australia.
26
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
in proportion to the population. As a result, 2.2% of respondents indicated that they
identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
Vegetarians
A small proportion of respondents indicated that they were vegetarian (4.9%).
Children under 12
Almost a third of respondents (29.1%) indicated that there were children under 12 years
of age living in their household.
27
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Appendix B - Questionnaire
Biotechnology Public Awareness Questionnaire
Final for re-do of fieldwork
Eureka project #3079
To be administered using computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Headings will not
appear in field version.
OBSERVE QUOTAS
Proportions representative of population as per below. In total, please draw 2% (n=20)
of the sample from the ATSIC areas supplied.
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%
28
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Age
Males
Females
Total
51-75
7.5%
7.5%
15.0%
Total
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
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 a few 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, Sam Cuming, on (02) 9519 2021.
IF QUERIED ABOUT HOW NAME WAS SOURCED: We are contacting people from the
electronic White Pages.
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
0
Female 1
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.]
29
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Under 18 years DOES NOT QUALIFY
18 - 20 years
1
21 — 30 years 2
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.
Survey questions
Q.1
Okay. Firstly, thinking about concerns with science and technology, I'm going to
read you a list of five issues facing society today and I want you to rank them in
order of the most important concern to the least important. The issues are . . .
[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v). RANDOMISE ORDER.] Which would be your most
important concern? [ASSIGN RANK WHERE 5 IS MOST IMPORTANT AND 1 IS LEAST
IMPORTANT].
Issue
Rank
(i) Genetically modified foods
(ii) Cloning
(iii) The greenhouse effect
(iv) Pollution of the environment
(v) Nuclear waste
So can I confirm that the order starts with the most important concern being…,
. . . [READ BACK FIVE ISSUES IN ORDER SPECIFIED BY RESPONDENT.]
Q.3
then
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). ROTATE ORDER.]
30
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Technology
You have You have heard
not heard of it, but know
of it
very little or
nothing about
it, OR
You know
[DO NOT READ
enough about it OUT] Don't
that you could know
explain it to a
friend
(i) Biotechnology
1
2
3
9
(ii) Gene therapy
1
2
3
9
(iii) Genetic engineering
1
2
3
9
(iv) Cloning
1
2
3
9
(v) Fibre optics
1
2
3
9
(vi) Use of stem cells
1
2
3
9
Q.4
a) [ASK FOR EACH ITEM (i)-(vi) IN Q.3 CODED 2 OR 3 (I.E. IF THE RESPONDENT
HAS AT LEAST HEARD OF IT).] And do you think these technologies will . . . [READ
OUT RESPONSE OPTIONS.]? [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(vi). PRESERVE ROTATION
FROM Q.3.]
Technology
Improve our
way of life in
the future
Have no
effect, OR
Make things
worse
[DO NOT
READ OUT]
Don't know
(i) Biotechnology
1
2
3
9
(ii) Gene therapy
1
2
3
9
(iii) Genetic engineering
1
2
3
9
(iv) Cloning
1
2
3
9
(v) Fibre optics
1
2
3
9
(vi) Use of stem cells
1
2
3
9
Q.4
b) [ASK FOR EACH ITEM IN Q.4 a) CODED 1 OR 3 (I.E. IF THEY THINK IT WILL
HAVE SOME SORT OF EFFECT).] When do you think this will happen for . . . [READ
OUT ITEMS (i)-(vi). PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q.3/Q4a). DO NOT READ
RESPONSE OPTIONS, BUT CAN PROMPT IF NECESSARY.]
Technology
Now/Already
In the
next 5
years
In the
In the
Don't
next 6-10 next 11 + know
years
years
(i) Biotechnology
1
2
3
4
9
(ii) Gene therapy
1
2
3
4
9
(iii) Genetic engineering
1
2
3
4
9
(iv) Human cloning
1
2
3
4
9
(v) Fibre optics
1
2
3
4
9
31
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Technology
Now/Already
In the
next 5
years
In the
In the
Don't
next 6-10 next 11 + know
years
years
(vi) Use of stem cells
1
2
3
Q.6
4
9
a) Now I'm going to ask you about a number of different applications of gene
technology. Firstly, I'd like you to tell me whether you've heard of ... [READ OUT
ITEMS. RANDOMLY SELECT 3 BLOCKS TO PRESENT PER RESPONDENT. PROCEED
THROUGH Q.6 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) to make the food healthier
0
1
9
(iii) to make the food last longer
0
1
9
(iv) to make the food taste better
0
1
9
(v) to make the plants herbicide tolerant
0
1
9
(vi) to make the plants pest resistant
0
1
9
(vii) to make the plants grow more
quickly
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by introducing human genes into
bacteria
0
1
9
(iii) by introducing human genes into
animals
0
1
9
0
1
9
BLOCK A
(i) Using gene technology to modify
plants used to produce food
What about where this is done . . .
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK B
(i) Using gene technology to produce
medicines
What about where this is done . . .
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK C
(i) Using stem cells to conduct medical
research
What about where this is done . . .
[ROTATE ORDER.]
32
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Application
No
Yes
[DO NOT READ
OUT] Don't know
(ii) with non-embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
(iii) with embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) with non-embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
(iii) with embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by transplanting the body parts of
animals into humans
0
1
9
(iii) by transplanting human body parts
grown in animals into humans
0
1
9
(i) Cloning plants
0
1
9
(ii) Cloning animals
0
1
9
(iii) Cloning humans
0
1
9
BLOCK D
(i) Using stem cells to treat disease
What about where this is done . . .
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK E
(i) Using gene technology in human
transplants
What about where this is done . . .
[ROTATE ORDER.]
BLOCK F
[ROTATE ORDER.]
[RANDOMISE ORDER OF Q.6b) AND Q.6c) FOR RESPONDENTS. RECORD ORDER
PRESENTED.]
Q.6
b) Now I'd like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be
useful to society.
Q.6
c) Now I'd like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be
risky for society.
Q.6
d) I'd like you to tell me whether these applications would be acceptable to you.
33
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Application
Q.6b)
Q.6c)
Q.6d)
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) to make the food healthier
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) to make the food last longer
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iv) to make the food taste better
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(v) to make the plants herbicide tolerant
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(vi) to make the plants pest resistant
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(vii) to make the plants grow more
quickly
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by introducing human genes into
bacteria
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) by introducing human genes into
animals
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) with non-embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) with embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) with non-embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) with embryonic stem cells
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
BLOCK A
(i) Using gene technology to modify
plants used to produce food
[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).]
BLOCK B
(i) Using gene technology to produce
medicines
[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).]
BLOCK C
(i) Using stem cells to conduct medical
research
[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).]
BLOCK D
(i) Using stem cells to treat disease
[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).]
BLOCK E
34
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Application
Q.6b)
Q.6c)
Q.6d)
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
No
Yes
DK
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) by transplanting the body parts of
animals into humans
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) by transplanting human body parts
grown in animals into humans
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(i) Cloning plants
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(ii) Cloning animals
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(iii) Cloning humans
0
1
9
0
1
9
0
1
9
(i) Using gene technology in human
transplants
[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).]
BLOCK F
[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).]
Q.7
Now I'm going to read you a list of gene technologies and I want you to tell me
whether . . . [READ OUT RESPONSE OPTIONS.]. The first one is . . . [READ OUT
ITEMS (i)-(iv). ROTATE ORDER.]
Gene technology
You have You have
You know
not heard heard of it, enough about
of it
but know
it that you
very little could explain it
or nothing
to a friend
about it, OR
[DO NOT
READ OUT]
Don't know
(i) Modifying genetic material in
human cells
1
2
3
9
(ii) Introducing plant genes into
other plants
1
2
3
9
(iii) Introducing animal genes into
plants
1
2
3
9
(iv) Introducing bacterial genes
into plants
1
2
3
9
Q.10 b) And are these gene technologies acceptable to you? [READ OUT ITEMS (i)- (iv).
PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q.7.]
Gene technology
(i) Modifying genetic material in human cells
No
Yes
[DO NOT
READ OUT]
Don't know
0
1
9
35
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Gene technology
No
Yes
[DO NOT
READ OUT]
Don't know
(ii) Introducing plant genes into other plants
0
1
9
(iii) Introducing animal genes into plants
0
1
9
(iv) Introducing bacterial genes into plants
0
1
9
Q.10 c) Now I'd like you to tell me if these same gene technologies are acceptable to you
if used for the following purposes. [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(iv). PRESERVE ROTATION
FROM Q.7.]
Gene technology & application
No
Yes
[DO NOT
READ OUT]
Don't know
(i) Modifying genetic material in human cells
. . . to treat genetic diseases
0
1
9
(ii) Introducing plant genes into other plants
. . . to reduce the amount of pesticides
needed
0
1
9
(iii) Introducing animal genes into plants
. . . to make them more resistant to frost
0
1
9
(iv) Introducing bacterial genes into plants
. . . to make them resistant to herbicides
that would kill weeds
0
1
9
Q.10 d) [ASK FOR EACH ITEM NOT CODED 1/YES IN Q.10c). PROCEED THROUGH ITEMS
(i)-(iii) BELOW FOR EACH APPROPRIATE ITEM FROM Q.10c).] And, would you be
accepting of [READ OUT FIRST APPROPRIATE ITEM FROM Q.10c) (i)-(iv).] if . . .
[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(iii). ROTATE ORDER.]
No
Yes
[DO NOT
REA D OUT ]
Don't know
10c (i) Modifying genetic material in human cells ... to treat genetic diseases
(i) You were provided with more information
about it
0
1
9
(ii) It was regulated more strictly
0
1
9
(iii) There was more community consultation
about it
0
1
9
10c (ii) Introducing plant genes into other plants ... to reduce the amount of
pesticides needed
(i) You were provided with more information
about it
0
1
9
36
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
(ii) It was regulated more strictly
0
1
9
(iii) There was more community consultation
about it
0
1
9
10c (iii) Introducing animal genes into plants ... to make them more resistant to
frost
(i) You were provided with more information
about it
0
1
9
(ii) It was regulated more strictly
0
1
9
(iii) There was more community consultation
about it
0
1
9
10c (iv) Introducing bacterial genes into plants ... to make them resistant to
herbicides that would kill weeds
(i) You were provided with more information
about it
0
1
9
(ii) It was regulated more strictly
0
1
9
(iii) There was more community consultation
about it
0
1
9
Q.11 a) Now I'd like you to think about different types of materials that could be made
from genetically modified plants and animals. How confident would you be in doing
each of the following? Please use a scale of 0-10, where 10 means that you would
be extremely confident and 0 means that you would be extremely hesitant. The
first one is . . . [READ OUT. RANDOMLY PRESENT 2 OF ITEMS (i)-(vi) PER
RESPONDENT.].
RECORD 0-10
(i) Wearing a garment made with fibres (such as cotton) from genetically
modified plants
(ii) Wearing a garment made with fibres (such as wool) from genetically
modified animals
(iii) Being in a building made with materials (such as fibreboard) from
genetically modified plants
(iv) Opening a package made with materials (such as cardboard) from
genetically modified plants
(v) Driving a vehicle powered by fuel derived from genetically modified
plants
(vi) Using a product with plastic components made from genetically
modified plants
Q.11 b) Now I'd like you to think about different types of foods. How confident would you
be eating each of the following? Please use a scale of 0-10, where 10 means that
you would be extremely confident and 0 means that you would be extremely
hesitant. The first one is . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(viii). RANDOMISE ORDER.].
37
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
RECORD 0-10
(i) Food containing preservatives
(ii) Food grown with the use of pesticides
(iii) Organic food
(iv) Non-organic food
(v) Meat from animals that have been fed with genetically modified
stock feed
(vi) Food that contains a genetically modified ingredient
(vii) Genetically modified fruit and vegetables
(viii) Meat from genetically modified animals
Q.12 People have different views about the benefits and risks of gene technology and
about how they should be regulated or controlled. I am going to read you a number
of statements and for each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree. The
first one is … [READ OUT STATEMENTS (i)-(viii). RANDOMISE ORDER.] Is that
strongly or a little bit?
Statement
Agree
strongly
Agree a
little bit
[DON'T Disagree Disagree
READ
a little bit strongly
OUT]
Neither
agree,
nor
disagree
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(i) The current rules in
Australia are sufficient
5
4
3
2
1
9
(ii) The current rules in
Australia are followed
by those working on
gene technology
5
4
3
2
1
9
(iii) The characteristics
of plants and animals
should only be changed
through traditional
breeding methods, not
gene technology
5
4
3
2
1
9
(v) We have to accept
some degree of risk
from gene technology if
it enhances Australia's
economic
competitiveness
5
4
3
2
1
9
38
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Statement
Agree
strongly
Agree a
little bit
[DON'T Disagree Disagree
READ
a little bit strongly
OUT]
Neither
agree,
nor
disagree
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(vi) Public consultation
and participation
improves the regulation
of gene technology
5
4
3
2
1
9
(vii) Australian farmers
need access to gene
technology to stay
internationally
competitive
5
4
3
2
1
9
(viii) Australian farms
and foods need to be
free of genetically
modified organisms to
stay internationally
competitive
5
4
3
2
1
9
Q.17 a) Now I'm going to read to you a number of statements that other people have
made about the use of gene technology in society. For each one, please tell me
whether you agree or disagree. The first one is . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v).
RANDOMISE ORDER.] Is that strongly or a little bit?
Statement
Agree
strongly
Agree a
little bit
[DON'T
Disagree
READ
a little bit
OUT]
Neither
agree, nor
disagree
Disagree
strongly
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
(i) All research and
development into
gene technology
should be stopped
5
4
3
2
1
9
(ii) All commercial use
of gene technology
and its products
should be stopped
5
4
3
2
1
9
(iii) It should be illegal
to discriminate
against someone on
the basis of their
genetic make-up
5
4
3
2
1
9
39
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Statement
Agree
strongly
Agree a
little bit
[DON'T
Disagree
READ
a little bit
OUT]
Neither
agree, nor
disagree
(iv) Embryonic stem
cells left over from
IVF treatments should
be made available for
research purposes
5
4
3
(v) Gene technology is
an acceptable form of
control for introduced
pest animals
5
4
3
Disagree
strongly
[DON'T
READ
OUT]
Don't
know
2
1
9
2
1
9
Q.17 b) 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
Q.13 c) If you wanted to find out more about gene technology, what sources of
information would you use? [RECORD VERBATIM. ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES.
PROBE FULLY - "Can you tell me anything more/be more specific?". EUREKA TO DO
ALL CODING.]
Q.14 a) Now I would like to know which of the following sources you would have
confidence in to provide you with reliable information about gene technology. Would
you have confidence in . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(xviii). RANDOMISE ORDER.]
(i) CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS
No
Yes
[DON'T
READ OUT]
Don't Know
0
1
9
40
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
No
Yes
[DON'T
READ OUT]
Don't Know
(ii) ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
0
1
9
(iii) ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANISATIONS
0
1
9
(iv) CSIRO
0
1
9
(v) FARMERS' ORGANISATIONS
0
1
9
(vi) RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS
0
1
9
(vii) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
0
1
9
(viii) STATE GOVERNMENT
0
1
9
(ix) OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY
REGULATOR
0
1
9
(x) BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
0
1
9
(xi) UNIVERSITIES
0
1
9
(xii) SCIENTISTS
0
1
9
(xiii) INDUSTRY
0
1
9
(xiv) MEDIA
0
1
9
(xv) INTERNET SITES
0
1
9
(xvi) BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA
0
1
9
(xvii) AUSTRALIAN PEST AND VETERINARY
MEDICINE AUTHORITY
0
1
9
(xviii) GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
0
1
9
Q.14 b) Of the sources you mentioned you have confidence in, which would you say you
would have MOST confidence in to provide you with reliable information about gene
technology? [SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY. PROMPT WITH THOSE CODED 1 IN 14a) IF
NECESSARY.]
(i) CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS
1
(ii) ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
2
(iii) ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANISATIONS
3
(iv) CSIRO
4
(v) FARMER'S ORGANISATIONS
5
(vi) RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS
6
(vii) FEDERAL ORGANISATIONS
8
(viii) STATE GOVERNMENT
9
41
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
(ix) OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY
REGULATOR
10
(x) BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
11
(xi) UNIVERSITIES
12
(xii) SCIENTISTS
13
(xiii) INDUSTRY
14
(xiv) MEDIA
15
(xv) INTERNET SITES
16
(xvi) BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA
17
(xvii) AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND
VETERINARY MEDICINES AUTHORITY
(APVMA)
18
(xviii) GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
19
(xix) DON'T KNOW
99
Q.15 a) Which 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.]
Q.15 b) And, have you heard of . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v) IF NOT NOMINATED AT
Q.15a).]
Q.15 c) And, in terms of regulating gene technology, would you trust . . . [READ OUT
ITEMS (i)-(v) IF NOMINATED IN Q.15a) OR CODED 1/YES AT Q15b).]
Q.15a)
Q.15b)
Q.15c)
No
Yes
No
Yes
(i) FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ)
1
0
1
0
1
(ii) OFFICE OF THE GENE
TECHNOLOGY REGULATOR
2
0
1
0
1
(iii) AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE
AND INSPECTION SERVICE
3
0
1
0
1
(iv) BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA
4
0
1
0
1
(v) AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND
VETERINARY MEDICINES
AUTHORITY (APVMA)
5
0
1
0
1
(vi) NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL (NH&MRC)
6
42
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Q.15a)
Q.15b)
No
(vii) THERAPUTIC GOODS
ADMINISTRATION (TGA)
7
(viii) AUSTRALIAN HEALTH ETHICS
COMMITTEE (AHEC)
8
(ix) DEPTARTMENT OF HEALTH &
AGEING
9
(x) CSIRO
10
(xi) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT -NFI
11
(xii) LOCAL GOVERNMENT - NFI
12
(xiii) STATE GOVERNMENT - NFI
13
(xiv) OTHER [RECORD VERBATIM]
14
(xv) DON'T KNOW
15
Yes
Q.15c)
No
Yes
[RANDOMISE Q.18b) AND Q.18c). NOTE WORDING HAS CHANGED SLIGHTLY TO
ACCOUNT FOR REMOVED QUESTION.] Now, thinking overall about the benefits and risks
of gene technology . . .
Q.18 b) 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.]
Q.18 c) 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.]
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.
Q.19 Are you a vegetarian?
No
0
Yes
1
Refused 9
Q.20 Are there children under 12 years of age living in your household?
No
0
Yes
1
43
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Q.21 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
Q.22 Do you identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
No
0
Yes
1
Q.23 What is the main language spoken in your home?
English 0
Other [RECORD]
1
Q.24 What is your residential postcode? [RECORD.]
That's the end of the interview. Thank you very much for your time. This research is
being carried out on behalf of Biotechnology Australia. The answers you provided today
will be combined with those of other participants to give Biotechnology Australia a better
understanding of Australians' views on gene technology.
IF NAME NEEDED FOR VALIDATION: As part of quality control procedures, someone from
our project team may wish to re-contact you to verify some of the information we just
collected. Would that be okay? [IF SO, COLLECT FIRST NAME.]
Just to remind you, I'm calling from Eureka Strategic Research. If you have any queries,
you can call the Market Research Society's Survey Line on 1300 364 830.
44