Public attitudes to human cloning: evidence from mixed methods Richard Shepherd University of Surrey

UniS

Public attitudes to human cloning: evidence from mixed methods

Richard Shepherd

University of Surrey

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/SHS/genomics/

Co-investigators

• Julie Barnett• Helen Cooper• Adrian Coyle• Chris Fife-Schaw• Jo Moran-Ellis• Victoria Senior• Patrick Sturgis• Chris Walton• Martha Augoustinos (Adelaide – textual

analyses)

Outline of talk

• Advances in genomics • ‘Attitudes to Genomics’ project• Cloning

– reproductive– therapeutic

• Findings from:– Survey– Vignette studies– Focus groups– Textual analyses

• Concluding comments

Human genome

Genome sequences completed

• Human• Mouse• Rat• Chimpanzee• Fruit fly (Drosophila)• Plants

– E.g. Arabidopsis • Bacteria

– E.g. Streptomyces coelicolor • Yeast

– E.g. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker’s yeast)

UK stamp

Genomics applications

• Increasing importance of genomics in biological sciences– GM food/crops– Pharmaceuticals– Health treatments– Forensic

• Social and economic issues

• Public and media interest

ESRC Genomics Network

• CESAgen - ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics– Lancaster University – Cardiff University

• Egenis - the ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society– Exeter University

• ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum– University of Edinburgh

• Innogen – ESRC Centre for Social and Economic Research on Innovation in Genomics – University of Edinburgh– Open University

• ‘Genomics Survey’ – Attitudes to genomics– University of Surrey

Attitudes to Genomics project

• Funded by ESRC

• November 2002 - January 2006

• Includes both health and agricultural applications of genomics

Structure of project

• Survey

• Information intervention

• Vignette studies

• Focus groups

• Interviews

• Textual and visual analyses

Survey

• Included in British Social Attitudes Survey

• Approx 3200 members of the public – representative sample

• Approx 60 questions on genomics• Some repeated from earlier surveys• Plus demographics and other

information• Fieldwork: June - September 2003

Questionnaire topics

• Generic– Genetic knowledge– History of genetic illness– Awareness and engagement– General attitudes towards genomics– Trust– Values– Use of genetic data

• Applications– Gene therapy– Genetic testing– Human cloning– GM crops and food

Vignette studies

• Six vignette studies• Baseline, scenario, outcome• Scenarios designed to test

– Contextual factors on cognitive and affective responses– Ambivalence

• Topics– Stem cells– Genetic testing– GM crops– Gene patenting– Reproductive technologies– Cloning

Focus groups

• Personal stakeholder groups– 2 affected by genetic diseases– 4 concerned about environment/crops

• General public groups– 4 focusing on genetic diseases– 4 focusing on environment/crops– 4 wider concerns

• Analysed using discourse analysis

Textual and visual analyses

• Analysis of representations of genetic technologies • 1340 Newspaper articles: 12 Jan – 11 April 2004

– Times, Guardian, Daily Telegraph– Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror

• 31 TV programmes: 12 Jan – 11 April 2004 – News items, Documentaries/‘factual’ programmes

• Websites: 20 genetic-related groups: April 2003-04• UK Government texts: 12 April 2002 - 11 April

2004

Cloning

• Reproductive– Reproductive cloning is a technology used to

generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal.

• Therapeutic– Therapeutic cloning, also called "embryo

cloning," is the production of human embryos for use in research. The goal of this process is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml#whatis

Reproductive and therapeutic cloning

• UN – Discussions on world-wide ban on all human

cloning – US in favour of total ban– UK wanted ban only on reproductive– March 2005: Non-binding ban on all human

cloning passed

• UK– Banned reproductive cloning 2001– Therapeutic cloning still allowed and supported by government

Dolly

Claims for first human clone

Korean stem cell research

Breakthrough 2003/4 Fraud claims 2005/6

Clone breakthrough may lead to gene cures, say

scientists

Colin BlackstockThursday February 12, 2004The Guardian

Attitudes to cloning: survey

Question Type of cloning

Allow Not allow Base

... if a person needs an organ transplant.

Therap 65 24 2599

... if a person needs treatment for Parkinson’s Disease.

Therap 65 24 2587

…if a person is generally in good health and wants to live longer.

Therap 15 74 2578

…to treat a young couple who are infertile and cannot have a child.

Repro 38 48 2608

% saying cloning should ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ be allowed or not allowed…

Attitudes to cloning: vignettes

Question Therap(n=183)

Repro(n=181)

As described, should be banned 2.85 3.55***

As described, should be allowed under certain circumstances

3.63 2.94***

Threatens natural order 3.56 3.87**

No threat to future generations 2.41 2.16*

* p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001Response scale 1 to 5

Cloning should be banned

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagreeAgree

Strongly agree

Co

un

t

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

therapeutic cloning

reproductive cloning

Cloning should be allowed under certain circumstances

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagreeAgree

Strongly agree

Co

un

t

80

60

40

20

0

therapeutic cloning

reproductive cloning

Percentage saying human cloning should ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ NOT be allowed by religious affiliation

Religion Organ transplant

Live longer

Parkinson's disease

Have a child

Base

None 11 47 10 27 1129

C of E 12 46 11 26 722

Roman Catholic

19 49 18 34 230

Other Christian

15 46 14 27 378

Non-Christian

14 44 13 26 97

All 13 47 12 27 2456

Multiple regression predicting overall attitude to cloning

Variable Beta

Gender -0.09***

Age -0.05

No religion 0.03

Church of England 0.07

Roman Catholic -0.05

Christian – Other -0.01

Non-Christian 0.01

* p<0.05** p<0.01***p<0.001

Cloning – underlying values: focus groups

• Front-line resource– Early on in the discussion

• Bottom-line resource– Further discussion of permissibility closed down

• Status of the embryo– Not usually specifically religious but sanctity of human life– Bottom-line resource

• Interfering with nature– More readily contestable than status of the embryo– Questioning historical and cultural stability of concept of

‘nature’– Used across focus groups on many topics of discussion

Cloning – underlying values

• Status of the embryo– Megan: That’s absolutely fine if they take your own stem cells

but taking embryonic stem cells I don’t think is right.– [ ]– Well, they’re experimenting on embryos at the moment to

extract their stem cells and then the thing dies, basically.– Amy: Not fully-grown embryos.– Megan: It’s still human life, isn’t it?

• Interfering with nature– Ethan: Yes, and as Thomas said earlier, you’re just tampering

with nature. Knowing about nature is one thing but to start changing things.

– Archie: Just leave things alone. You don’t know what you’re doing. You know, the Frankenstein thing. What…? You’re interfering with nature. You’re playing God. Whatever.

Reproductive vs therapeutic cloning: focus groups

• Initial discussion of cloning implicitly reproductive• References to Dolly (and early death)• Reproductive

– No real benefits– Morally questionable unscrupulous scientists and people

with money• Michael Jackson

– Status of the embryo and interfering with nature

• Therapeutic– When therapeutic cloning introduced then also included

utilitarian arguments– Slippery slope

Cloning: focus groups

• Reproductive cloning – Charlie: Reproductive cloning, I don’t really understand

why they would want an exact copy of yourself or you want to copy a sheep or a horse. An exact copy.

• Therapeutic cloning – Megan: The government have already said ‘yes’ to the

therapeutic cloning. We’re already allowed to do that. The government decided for us that that’s okay, which is a bit worrying, I think. I think we’re the only European country that approved therapeutic cloning, I believe. It’s one thing experimenting on embryos but also, it’s a bit of a slippery slope into reproductive cloning, isn’t it? That’s the logical next step. Okay, they said ‘yes, that’s wrong, everyone agrees, we’re not going to clone a baby’ but of course they will.

Cloning: media coverage

• The very idea– Building blocks of life, ‘mother cells’– Considerable ambivalence: human

identity– Unnatural/naturalised; historical

precedents (e.g. transplants)

• The science– Contested status of cells/embryos

involved– Deployed by both those for and against

Reproductive cloning: media

• Dr Panos Zavos– Maverick

• Abuse/misuse of genetic science• Highly experimental• Potentially dangerous

• Dolly the sheep– Early death

• Unethical• Scientific community opposed

Therapeutic cloning – Korean research: media

• Highly ambivalent– Celebration and fear in same headlines/articles– Constructions of hope and promise

• Moral contrast between reproductive and therapeutic– The slippery slope metaphor– Opponents argue both forms of cloning the

same

• Scientific discourse– High technology– Science fact/fiction allusions

Ambivalence on Korean cloning

• Headlines from articles in the Daily Telegraph – ‘Human cells cloned: babies next? Scientists

celebrate a milestone for medicine - Pro-life groups fear misuse of new technique’

– ‘Cloning human cells is not the beginning of the slippery slope’

– ‘The ugly new world of human cloning’ – ‘After the mavericks and cults, this cloning

could mark a turning point’

Conclusions - cloning

• Cloning = reproductive cloning• Therapeutic cloning generally positive in

quantitative data (depending on application)• Reproductive cloning reasonably positive in

quantitative data• Very negative for both types of cloning in focus

groups and in media coverage• Values important in determining attitudes

– Interfering with nature – Status of embryo

• Religion – Limited effects in quantitative data– Not explicit in focus groups but possibly drawing on

resources associated with religious beliefs

Conclusions - mixed methods

• Triangulation– Similarities of findings– Differences in findings

• Participants sensitive to the cues in the research environment

• Examine in more depth and in different contexts• Media analysis allows examination of the

background• Similarity between discourse used in media and in

focus groups– Impact of media on public responses– Media well attuned to public beliefs

Overall conclusions

• Genomic developments will affect many areas of life in the future

• Cloning thought of as reproductive cloning– No benefits– Difficult to differentiate therapeutic applications

• Different methods show both agreement and disagreement

• Allows exploration of responses and also the wider milieu within which responses given

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/SHS/genomics/