Mixed support for genetics

Two surveys assessing public opinion of genetic technology released this week show the public is positive yet circumspect about the uses of genetic technology. A brief survey of more than 1,000 consumers and physicians, commissioned by the life science supplier Amersham Biosciences, found the public generally optimistic about the impact of genetic testing on health, while concerned about keeping the information private. A more comprehensive survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University's (JHU) Genetics & Public Policy Center found the majority of respondents able to find merit in genetic technology for health-related purposes, but they were far less supportive for non-health related applications. A strikingly large number of respondents from all walks of life favor government regulation of genetic technology. The JHU survey, "Public Awareness and Attitudes About Genetic Technologies," funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts, surveyed 1,211 adults, mostly white, middle-class and with at least a high school education. The 36-question phone survey was designed to assess both knowledge of and attitude toward a set of genetic technologies (genetic testing, genetic engineering, cloning, and in vitro fertilization). Not surprising, yet somewhat disappointing to the Center's director Kathy Hudson, who worked on public education and policy while at the National Human Genome Research Institute, was the finding that the public's knowledge of genetics and genetic technology has not improved while the scientific understanding has been exploding. Twenty-two percent of respondents, for example, believe that a human has been cloned, and only 18 percent answered 6 or more of the 8 knowledge questions correctly.The survey revealed several factors that seem to influence people's attitudes toward genetic technology—most prominent among them gender and worldview. Men, young men in particular, were significantly more accepting of genetic technology than women. For example, almost half the men of all ages surveyed approve of animal cloning experiments, while only 26 percent of women approve. Ethicist Thomas Murray, president of The Hastings Center (and member of the JHU Center's advisory board), who has written on this topic, believes this might connote fundamental differences in the way the two sexes think about parenting issues and having a child. "To me, it signals a gender division on many of these questions that might be quite revealing and very important," he said.A respondent's worldview was determined by asking whether he or she thinks about technology in terms of health and safety or based on morality and religion. Of all the variables used in analyzing the data, this one correlated most strongly with attitudes toward genetic technologies, with those who view the technologies in terms of religion approving of them least. Most respondents, regardless of political affiliation, favor government regulation of genetic technologies. According to Hudson, this is unheard of in surveys of this kind. "You never see that. Ask about anything, from regulation of business to clean air, Republican support for government action is always much lower than Democratic," she explained. "I think people are getting at the same answer, but potentially by very different pathways. It will be interesting to explore that in more detail." Despite limited knowledge of the technologies, respondents clearly have a preference for how they are used, and make clear distinctions between health and non-health related applications. Two thirds of respondents support using genetic technologies for helping people have healthy babies or to avoid disease. Far fewer approved of its use for selecting the gender or for hypothetical improvements in traits like intelligence or attractiveness. To Murray, this was the most important finding of the survey. "That wasn't guaranteed, that people would grasp the distinction and that it would make a difference, but they did both. Of all the things, that might be the most important finding."The survey also showed that familiarity with genetic technology did not necessarily lead to acceptance. While in vitro fertilization, which will soon celebrate its 25th anniversary, has high approval ratings (72 percent), so too did prenatal genetic testing (66 percent), with which only 13 percent of the respondents (mothers only) had direct experience. Murray finds encouragement in this. "We don't want a society in which familiarity leads automatically to acceptance. We want a society where being educated means that you can critically evaluate and understand the meaning and impact of technology. You can make reasonable judgement whether it's a good or bad idea."This survey, the largest to date to explore attitudes toward genetic technology, is just the springboard, according to Hudson, for future studies that will "do more in-depth work with all different subgroups who have a meaningful role to play in this debate." While a proponent of educating the public, Hudson also wonders what people really need to make informed decisions. "I don't really feel I need to understand how my mother board works to make value judgements about who should have access to technology." She said future surveys will explore this question. Murray feels that it's important to address the cultural chasm between people who perceive this issue largely in terms of health and safety versus religion and morality. "We need a richer understanding of what lies beneath the superficial distinction between the health and safety concerns and moral and religious. Even if you ask the question that crudely, you get differences. We need to understand much more of what these differences signify and how to create a public policy that is respectful of that distinction."

Mixed support for genetics

Largest US survey ever finds public accepts some genetic technology, wants govt control.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of