Human Genetic Engineering: Chapter 9, Manipulating Public Opinion

People don't like biotechnology. They are willing to pick and choose some possible benefits, but, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF) annual survey for 2004, "In no NSF survey year has a majority of Americans agreed that the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the harmful results."Similarly the third annual Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Life Sciences Survey was headlined, with delicate understatement: "Public Values Science But Concerned About Biotechnology."

All four VCU surveys conducted from 2001 to 2004 showed majority agreement with the statement "Scientific research has created as many problems for society as it has solutions" (51–45 in 2004, down from a high of 59–39 in 2002). Genetic testing is generally favored, although there is concern about what is seen as likely discrimination. So are some applications, and the continuance of genetic research, but overall: "NSF survey data show a slight, gradual decline in the American public's support for genetic engineering between 1985 and 2001. The shift can be seen most clearly among college-educated respondents and those classified as attentive to S&T [science & technology] issues. That last sentence may the most significant of all. If genetic engineering is losing its allure among those most likely to support it — and also most likely to vote and influence policy — then we may be able to get appropriate regulations to curb abuses. ...

	CHAPTER 9 MANIPULATING PUBLIC OPINION

	Public opinion on some biotechnology topics is well-formed and fixed. For example, by overwhelming and consistent majorities — about 10 to 1 — people are against reproductive human cloning and in favor of genetically modified food being labeled. Strangely, however, cloning is not illegal in most of the US, and labeling is not required. Why not? Well, to be blunt: rich, white, secular men with graduate degrees are far more likely to approve of cloning than are poor, black, women who didn't go to college but regularly go to church. The political consequences of this are extremely important, and briefly discussed at the end of the chapter. On other issues, it seems likely that public opinion is not fully formed. Certainly the advocates of Human GE hope so, because all the indications are that people reject the idea of "improving" humans. The chapter's section titles, below, are followed by a list of the text boxes the chapter's short introduction the annotated FURTHER READING list, which includes links to Free Documents from the Web There are many more resources in the Appendix.

	INTRODUCTION FIXED AND FLUCTUATING VIEWS MEDICALIZING THE BUSINESS OF RESEARCH TRUST US, WE'RE EXPERTS HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING POLLS POLLING ON EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH CHOOSING OUR CHILDREN'S TRAITS? MISCELLANEOUS POLL DATA ANIMAL CLONING POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS FURTHER READING BOX 9.1 Slanting the Polls BOX 9.2 Spinning the Results BOX 9.3 The (Lack of) Evolution of Public Opinion About IVF BOX 9.4 An Industry Poll on Public Awareness BOX 9.5 Pass or Fail — Who's Grading the Test?

	INTRODUCTION People don't like biotechnology. They are willing to pick and choose some possible benefits, but, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF) annual survey for 2004, "In no NSF survey year has a majority of Americans agreed that the benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the harmful results."Similarly the third annual Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Life Sciences Survey was headlined, with delicate understatement: "Public Values Science But Concerned About Biotechnology." All four VCU surveys conducted from 2001 to 2004 showed majority agreement with the statement "Scientific research has created as many problems for society as it has solutions" (51–45 in 2004, down from a high of 59–39 in 2002). Genetic testing is generally favored, although there is concern about what is seen as likely discrimination. So are some applications, and the continuance of genetic research, but overall: "NSF survey data show a slight, gradual decline in the American public's support for genetic engineering between 1985 and 2001. The shift can be seen most clearly among college-educated respondents and those classified as attentive to S&T [science & technology] issues. That last sentence may the most significant of all. If genetic engineering is losing its allure among those most likely to support it — and also most likely to vote and influence policy — then we may be able to get appropriate regulations to curb abuses. ...

	FURTHER READING Free Documents from the Web Links were checked and functioning as of 5/09/05; they are supposed to open in new windows. Please report broken ones. Matthew C. Nisbet, "Public Opinion About Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning," Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 04 Health Poll Search is an archive of public opinion questions on health issues, the result of a partnership between the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut. You can search by topic or by key words, and also by polling organization. Polling Report summarizes polls, and groups them into categories, including Science and Nature, Health and Medicine, and Values, which are all cross-linked. There is a subscription service ($95/year), which provides extras, including a newsletter, but plenty of data is available free, covering everything from political campaigns to the likelihood of Elvis being alive. The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology claims to be impartial but is tightly connected with the establishment, with former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman at the helm. It conducts annual surveys of "Public Sentiment About Genetically Modified Food" and related issues. The Center for Genetics and Society has an excellent compilation of relevant polls from all round the world, at least up to 2003. The True Food Network maintains a list of polls about GE food. The Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Life Sciences Surveys are conducted annually.