7/31/2019 File 14580

1/129

The Public Consultat ion onDevelopments in the Biosciences

A MORI Report Invest igat ingPublic Attitudes to the BiologicalSciences and their Oversight

Commissioned by

The Office of Science and Technology

December 1998 -April 1999

7/31/2019 File 14580

2/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

3/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

4/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

5/129

FOUR

Issues to be Taken into Account

in Oversight of Developments in the Biosciences 76

Issues to be Taken Into Account 77Factors Which Give Trust In Controls And Regulation 80

FIVE

What Information Should Be Made Available To The Public? 84

Amount Of Information Received 85

Information Which Should Be Available To The Public 86

Methods of Information Provision 89

Trust in People/Institutions To Provide Honest and Balanced Information 93

SIX

Conclusions 99

SEVEN

Lessons For Public Consultation 102

APPENDICES

Social Class Definitions

Marked-up Evaluation Questionnaire

Definitions of Category Combinations

Some of the Media Coverage During Fieldwork

References

Marked-up Questionnaire

7/31/2019 File 14580

6/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

7/129

Page 1

SUMMARY

The Level and Nature of People's Awareness of Technological

Advances in the Biosciences

The biosciences which are top of mind are: advances in human health (such as treatment of

diseases/new medicines and medical research) genetic modification (especially GM foods) and

cloning (in particular Dolly, the cloned sheep). When asked about in the broad context of major

scientific discoveries or developments, these three featured in particular. The main non-bioscience

developments, according to the public, are computers/the internet and 'sending people to the

moon'.

Findings from the qualitative and quantitative phases were largely consistent with each other.

However, there were perhaps fewer mentions of cloning, relative to genetic modification, in the

quantitative stage, while in the qualitative phase they were mentioned about equally. The heavy

media coverage of genetic modification/GM foods prior to and during the quantitative stage is

likely to have partly caused this. However, it was observed in the workshops that cloning tended

to be mentioned at first by just one or two participants, and then it became part of a wider

discussion.

At this spontaneous question, as many as 41% of the public named at least one bioscience

(increasing to 57% when treatments/cures for diseases was added in). Sixty-three per cent

mentioned one or more non-bioscience.

In the workshops, cloning was a development which many people felt apprehensive about. Some

feared that the logical extension of cloning Dolly the sheep, would be human cloning. Most

expressed a desire for more information, many saying they had heard of Dolly 'after the event'.

Discussions in the workshops about genetic modification often included comment that this was toproduce more food or larger tomatoes, plus comment about the need for clear labelling of food.

There was lower awareness of other types of genetic modification and many people didn't realise

that genes are naturally present in all living materials.

7/31/2019 File 14580

8/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

9/129

Page 3

Looking at 'net beneficial' scores, (ie the proportion saying something is beneficial to society,

minus the proportion saying it is not), we can see that development of new medicines receives a

net score of +56, transplants +50 and cures for/eradication of illnesses +42, yet cloning gets a -55.

Genetically modified food is also not regarded overall to be beneficial to society; it receives a net

score of -44. Genetic modification of animals and plants also gets a negative score (of -27).

There was very little connection in the qualitative phase between animal cloning and advances in

human health (the latter being of prime importance to the public).

In the quantitative phase, 77% gave a reason why genetic modification takes place, or why there is

GM food; 68% gave a reason why animal cloning takes place and 66% gave a reason why

'transplants of animal tissues to humans' (xenotransplantation) takes place. For GM/GM food, the

main reasons cited were: 'Production of more food' (27%), 'Companies want to make money'

(27%), 'To produce larger/nicer/tastier plants/fruits eg tomatoes' (19%) and 'To resist

diseases/fight pests' (17%).

The main reason given for animal cloning was 'To develop human clones' (14%), followed by 'To

get the perfect animal at 13% and 'To see if they could' (12%). A far higher proportion gave the

most commonly mentioned reason for xenotransplantation: 44% saying 'Because of a shortage of

human organs'. This was followed, but a long way behind, by 'To see if it's compatible with

humans (10%) and 'To save lives' (10%).

Extent of People's Knowledge of the Oversight and Regulatory Process

in the United Kingdom

The vast majority of the public (97%) believes that it is important that there are rules and

regulations in place to control biological developments and scientific research, and as many as

88% believe this is very important. In MORI's experience, to have over 30% saying something is

very important does indeed represent a high figure. These findings very much reflect people's

views in the qualitative phase. The main reasons given (spontaneously) for having rules and

regulations is because of the possibility that 'Things could go too far/get out of hand' (21%),

followed by 10% saying 'We do not know the long-term effects' and 'Because it is potentially

dangerous' (10%).

7/31/2019 File 14580

10/129

Page 4

On balance, people feel there is too little regulation to control biological developments and

scientific research, but this view is by no means expressed by a large majority of the public.

Approaching four in ten (38%) say there is too little regulation, but 28% say there is the right

amount and 3% that there is too much. Reflecting feelings in the workshops, as many as three in

ten said they really didn't know - quite a high proportion for a 'don't know' category. MORI

interviewers read out the 'don't know' category, which is unusual in surveys, because many

participants in the qualitative phase said they did not know much about regulation.

Despite the fact that on balance, most people feel there is too little control over the regulation of

biological developments and scientific research, most (71%) have at least a little confidence that

regulation is keeping pace with developments.

When asked who they think is currently involved in making decisions about the regulation of the

biological sciences, most people say 'Government' or 'Governments' (63%). This is followed, but

some way behind, by mention of scientists (23%). No other type of institution or group of people

was mentioned by more than 12% - and this mention was for an Advisory Board to Government

composed of experts, followed by 'industry/manufacturers' (8%). The above findings mirror what

came out of the qualitative research. Eighteen percent said they did not know who is involved, but

even when this is taken into account, it means that the Government figure at 63% reveals that

19% must have mentioned someone other than 'Government/Governments' and not 'Government/

Governments' as being involved in regulation.

After being shown a list of organisations possibly involved in regulation, the 'Governments' figure

increases to 83% currently involved (though this still seems low given that now, only two per cent

said 'don't know'). Scientists came second with 70% - much closer behind Governments after

people were presented with a list. Then follows 'an Advisory Body to Government composed of

experts' (62%). This was 30 points ahead of the other type of Advisory Body on the list - one

which is composed of people representing different viewpoints.

Environmental groups, mentioned by just two per cent spontaneously, were cited by 33% after

prompting. Perhaps their low spontaneous score is explained by comments from the qualitative

phase where participants said these groups are not actually involved but rather they play an

important policing role.

7/31/2019 File 14580

11/129

Page 5

Respondents were then asked to look at the same list and say which, if any, they felt should be

involved in making decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences. The

pattern which emerges is flatter than for 'currently involved', with many more groups receiving

higher mentions and the figures for Governments and scientists - the top two mentions previously

- falling considerably. The biggest falls can be seen for: Governments (-42), scientists (-23),

industry/manufacturers (-22) and an Advisory Body to Government composed of experts (-17).

The largest increases are evident for: the general public (+36), GPs/Family doctors (+18), an

Advisory Body to Government, composed of people representing different viewpoints (+16),

patients (+15) and hospital doctors (+13). Now, six different institutions/groups of people feature

prominently: an Advisory Body to Government comprising people with different viewpoints

(48%), scientists (47%), the general public (46%), an Advisory Body to Government composed of

experts (45%), Governments (41%) and environmental groups (40%). Different sub-groups of

the population tend to opt for different groups, which is discussed in the main body of the report.

Reflecting MORI's work for well over a decade in the area of trust, the public's trust in

GPs/Family doctors is high. Seventy-one per cent of the public said they would trust GPs/Family

doctors to make decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences. Just 13%

said they would not trust GPs - with the remainder undecided. The 'net trust ' figure is therefore

+58. Other groups with positive net trust scores are an Advisory Body to Government -

composed of different viewpoints (+53), or of experts (+43), pharmacists/chemists (+36),

environmental groups (+35), nurses (+34), vets (+32), scientists (+29) and consumer groups(+22). Groups with particularly large negative 'net trust' figures are: retailers (-61),

industry/manufacturers (-59), the media (-57), religious organisations (-29) and farmers (-24). In

the workshops, more negative comment emerged about industry (usually pharmaceutical and

chemical companies) than about retailers specifically. Most people did not spontaneously think

that retailers had an involvement.

Trust in 'Governments' to make decisions on 'your' behalf in the regulation of the biological

sciences is fairly evenly split, although on balance more people say they do not trust Government(43%) than say they do (35%). The remaining 23% said 'don't know'.

What Issues do People Believe Should be Taken into Account in any

Oversight of Developments in the Biosciences?

Words like 'ethics' and 'morals' came up spontaneously in the workshops when discussing

biological developments. People tended to define these words as being 'the difference between

right and wrong', often adding that 'everyone has their own ethics'.

7/31/2019 File 14580

12/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

13/129

Page 7

public to enable them to have trust in a regulatory system but they tend to express this 'top-of-

mind', in terms of having information and honesty/openness.

The 'honesty/openness' category increased to 71% and 'having information' to 61%. However,

three further categories were mentioned by almost as many. These were: 'having a system which

is open for anyone to have access to information, including the results of decisions and the reasons

behind decisions' (69%); 'having a system that monitors developments after they have become

available to the public and is prepared to withdraw them if there are concerns' (62%); and 'having

random spot checks of all regulated activities' (61%).

There was not an overwhelming feeling in the workshops that there is a lack of honesty about

developments in the biological sciences. Rather, there is a feeling that the public receives little

information about this complex area of science that matters to them. This was coupled with the

feeling that things are conducted without the opportunity for the public and other key groups to

express their opinion. The fact that this series of workshops was being undertaken received a very

warm response from participants - albeit with a few comments such as Is this a public relations

exercise? and But will they listen? Many participants felt proud of the opportunity to have been

given their say and welcomed receiving information about the biosciences during the course of the

workshops.

What Information Should be Made Available to the General Public

About Advances in the Biosciences and From The Regulatory System?

The thing which the public most wants in relation to the biosciences is more information on the

rules and regulations. Seventy-two per cent said they have received too little information, 20%

said about the right amount and just 2% said too much. The remaining 6% did not know.

7/31/2019 File 14580

14/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

15/129

Page 9

Government statements still feature prominently as a preferred way of receiving information about

the biosciences. Four categories, come a few percentage points off one another at the top of the

list, including Government statements. 'Through the door' comes top with 47% (which

Government statements could be). Government statements come a close second with 43%, and

then GPs' surgeries at 44% and libraries at 40%. The biggest increases can be seen for 'Through

the door' (+28 - an extremely large shift) and then GPs' surgeries (+17), libraries (+16) and

schools/colleges (+12).

We saw earlier that the public trusts some groups in society more than others to make decisions

on their behalf on the regulations of the biosciences - notably doctors and Government Advisory

Bodies, but a number of other groups too. It is entirely consistent then that doctors and

Government Advisory Bodies score highly for being trusted to provide the public with honest and

balanced information about biological developments and their regulation.

GPs/Family doctors come highest with 60%, then the two types of Government Advisory Body

with around 47%, followed by hospital doctors with 44%. Governments receive a relatively low

score of 19%, behind those already mentioned, plus scientists, consumer groups,

pharmacists/chemists, environmental groups, nurses and vets. The question that followed asked

about types of people and institutions that people did not trust to provide honest and balanced

information. Net trust 1 scores can therefore be calculated.

The most positive net trust scores are for GPs (+54), the Advisory Body composed of people with

different viewpoints (+39), and the Advisory Body composed of experts (+32). The most

negative scores can be seen for industry/manufacturers (-50), retailers (-42), the media (-33),

farmers (-26), religious organisations (-23), Governments (-20) and animal welfare groups (-19).

1 The proportion saying that they trust a part icular group minus the proportion who do not trust that group.

7/31/2019 File 14580

16/129

Page 10

While Governments by no means receive the lowest net score, this category ranks 15th out of 20

on being trusted to provide honest and balanced information about biological developments and

their regulations. Ten of those above it have positive net trust scores (varying in size), three have

small negative scores and only the fourteenth (animal welfare groups at -19) has a similar negative

score. Also, Governments fared a little better in terms of their rank order for being trusted to

make decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences, where they came 13th

out of 20 2

London Michele CorradoMay 1999 MORI/11626

Robert Cumming

2 The sizes of the net scores cannot be compared because of the different question techniques

7/31/2019 File 14580

17/129

Page 11

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of both qualitative and quantitative research conducted by MORI

(Market & Opinion Research International) on behalf of the Office of Science and Technology of

the Department of Trade and Industry.

Objectives

The objectives of the research were to examine the general publics attitudes towards the wider,

including ethical, implications of recent developments in the biosciences.

The focal point of the survey was to address the following questions set by Lord Sainsbury, TheMinister for Science:

What is the level and nature of peoples awareness of technological advances in the

biosciences?

What issues do people see arising from the developments in the biosciences and how

important are these compared to other major scientific issues?

What is the extent of peoples knowledge of the oversight and regulatory process in the

United Kingdom and Europe? What issues do people believe should be taken into account in any oversight of developments

in the biosciences?

What information should be made available to the general public about advances in the

biosciences and from the regulatory system?

Publication of the Data

Our standard terms and conditions apply to this research, as to all studies we carry out. We wouldlike to point out that no press release or publication of the findings of this research should be

made without the advance approval of Market & Opinion Research International (MORI). Such

approval, however, would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.

7/31/2019 File 14580

18/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

19/129

Page 13

An independent evaluator, Professor Alan Irwin, Head of Department at The Department of

Human Sciences at Brunel University, attended both days at Stafford and the second day at

Reading. He was there to assess both MORI and the workshop process in order to report back to

the Office of Science and Technology.

Workshop Structure - Day One

Before each workshop, participants were split into three syndicates each with about the same

numbers of people by age group, gender, socio-economic grade, urbanity and location. Each of

these groups was led by a MORI moderator. Following a brief introduction, the main group was

split into their selected syndicates where they spent the majority of Day One.

Day Ones agenda was as follows:

9.30 - 10.00 Arrival, tea/coffee

10.00 - 11.15 Session 1

A. General Issues - (Spontaneous Awareness of

Scientific Developments)

3 Syndicates

11.15 - 11.30 Break tea/coffee

11.30 - 12.45 Session 2B. General Issues - (Spontaneous Awareness of

Regulatory Issues)

3 Syndicates

12.45 - 1.45 Break for Lunch

1.45 - 3.00 Session 3

C. Specific Issues

3 Syndicates

3.00 - 3.15 Break tea/coffee

3.15 - 4.00 D. Specific Issues Continued 3 Syndicates

4.00 - 4.30 Session 4

E. Summing Up

All

4.30 Day End

7/31/2019 File 14580

20/129

Page 14

During Day One, participants dicussed the following:

-Awareness of the Biosciences

-Influence and Trust

-Regulation -who is currently involved?

-who should be involved?

-Information -what is currently made available to the public?

-what should be made available?

-how do you ensure it is trustworthy and reliable?

-Specific Topics (with Handouts and Showcards)

-Summing Up

The specific topics discussed are outlined in the table below:

Topic Work-

shop 1

(pilot)

Work-

shop 2

Work-

shop 3

Work-

shop 4

Work-

shop 5

Work-

shop 6

Stafford Reading Newcastle Belfast Cardiff Stirling

Human Health

Fertility & Reproduction

Genetic Testing/ Screening

Gene Therapy

Xenotransplantation

Drugs

Cloning

Animals & Microbes

Plants & Microbes

During the sessions entitled Specific Topics respondents initially discussed their spontaneous

knowledge of the topic including recent developments, who they feel is and should be involved,

and regulation. Showcards and handouts were then used to illustrate, in simple language and with

pictures, the science behind the specific topic. These materials were written by independent

science writers specifically for this survey and were used to stimulate discussion and raise

important issues.

7/31/2019 File 14580

21/129

Page 15

Workshop Structure - Day Two

Day Twos agenda was as follows:

9.30 - 10.00 Arrival, tea/coffee

10.00 - 10.30 Session 1

A. Introduction

B. Issues arising during the week

All

10.30 - 11.00 Session 2

C. Regulatory Issues - Preparation

All

11.00 - 11.15 Break for tea/coffee

11.15 - 12.30 Session 3

D. Regulatory Issues - Discussion Groups

Preparation of Material to Feed Back

3 Syndicates

(6 in Stafford)

12.30 - 1.30 Break for Lunch

1.30 - 2.30 Session 4

E. Feedback: Syndicates 1-3

All

2.30 - 2.45 Break for tea/coffee

2.45 - 3.15 Session 5

F. Cross-cutting Themes

All

3.15 - 3.45 Session 6

G. Information Session

All

3.45 - 4.15 Session 7

H. Summing Up

All

4.15 - 4.30 I. Evaluation Questionnaires All

4.30 Day End

The pilot workshop, in Stafford, explored on Day Two the regulatory issues of the following

topics: Safety; Ethics; Costs; National and International Boundaries; and Need. In Session 3,

participants were split into six roughly equal groups, each including individuals from each of the

three specific topics on Day One. These six groups were asked to prepare a short presentation to

be given to the main group in Session 4.

7/31/2019 File 14580

22/129

Page 16

The remaining five workshops kept Day One syndicates together for Session 3 of Day Two. Each

syndicate was similarly asked to prepare a presentation for Session 4. All were asked to focus

primarily on the ideal mechanism for regulating their specific topic and address the following three

questions:

- How can it ensure trust in the process of regulation?

- How can it deal with scientific uncertainty?

- How should the new mechanism take account of public views?

Session 5, conducted as a large group, discussed the cross-cutting themes of the presentations.

For all the workshops, with the exception of Stafford, this included themes across the specific

topics. Session 6 addressed overall how information could be made accessible and understood by

the public.

During the last session, all participants were asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire. 121

questionnaires were completed; one person declined from completing a questionnaire and the

other non-response was due to one person not attending due to ill health.

A complete set of topic guides can be found in the appendices. Full anonymised transcripts and the

results of participants feedback (again anonymised) are available on request.

7/31/2019 File 14580

23/129

Page 17

Quantitative Research

Methodology

Following the initial qualitative stage of six two-day workshops, a pilot study was conducted prior

to the quantitative survey.

Pilot

Fieldwork was conducted from 6 - 16 February 1999 in the following areas:

ChelmsfordFalmouth

Kilmarnock

Llanelli

Telford

A total of 50 interviews was conducted. Due to the detailed nature of the topic, the pilot tested

the publics understanding of the questions, and the flow and length of the interview. It also gave

a rough indication of the extent of opinion and an average length of time to complete the

interview.

Main stage

The quantitative main stage drew on the Peoples Panel for its sample. This is a Panel which

MORI was commissioned to recruit by the Cabinet Office and which comprises 5,000 people

across the UK. The Peoples Panel is a random pre-selected addresses survey with each person

recruited agreeing to take part in future surveys. The Panel provides a major research resource forthe Government to investigate attitudes towards public services. A representative sample of 2,200

respondents was selected from this Panel for 1,000 completed interviews to be conducted, again

among a representative sample.

7/31/2019 File 14580

24/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

25/129

Page 19

Length of Interview

Shortest interview 15 minutes

Longest interview 75 minutes

Average length of interview: 37 minutes

Mode: 35 minutes

Weighting

The final data were rim-weighted, in the same way as the actual Peoples Panel, to: age within

gender, socio-economic group, tenure, work status, Government Official Region, MOSAIC code,

car ownership, and family composition. The table below gives the unweighted figures and the

weights used:

Unweighted Weighted

% %

Government Official Region

Northern Ireland 2.9 2.6

Great Britain, of which: 97.1 97.4

Scotland 9.0 8.8

North East 5.1 4.4

NW/Merseyside 9.6 11.7

Yorks & Humberside 12.0 8.6

East Midlands 6.0 7.1

West Midlands 8.2 9.0

Wales 3.9 5.0

Eastern 9.4 9.1

South West 10.9 8.4

Greater London 5.6 11.9

South East 17.3 13.4

7/31/2019 File 14580

26/129

Page 20

The following weights were used for UK data. The tables below outline the profile for GB.

Northern Ireland is shown separately overleaf.

Gender x Age GB weights

Men, of which

16-24 5.4 7.1

25-34 5.0 10.0 46.8% of the UK

35-54 14.7 15.9

55+ 16.7 13.8

Women, of which

16-24 5.3 7.2

25-34 8.9 10.0 50.7% of the UK

35-54 20.7 15.9

55+ 20.5 17.6

Socio-economic Grade

AB 26.4 21.2

C1 27.9 26.3

C2 17.5 22.0

DE 25.3 27.9

Work Status

Full-time 36.4 42.5

Part-time 13.5 9.6

Unemployed 4.6 4.0

Other 42.6 41.3

Tenure

Owner-occupier 73.4 68.5

Council Tenant 15.9 20.7

Other 7.8 8.2

7/31/2019 File 14580

27/129

Page 21

MOSAIC

1 High Income Families 9.0 11.0

2 Suburban Semis 16.1 11.4

3 Blue Collar Owners 12.5 13.6

4 Low Rise Council 16.2 14.5

5 Council Flats 3.3 5.6

6 Victorian Low Status 3.9 8.1

7 Town Houses & Flats 7.2 9.6

8 Stylish Singles 2.3 4.5

9 Independent Elders 5.0 4.9

10 Mortgaged Families 5.5 5.0

11 Country Dwellers 9.1 7.8

12 Institutional Areas - -

99 Others 6.9 1.5

Mosaic code analyses people according to the neighbourhood types in which they live. Group 11,

Country Dwellers, represent 7.8% of the population and this is the group that was classified as

rural in the computer tables and analysis of the report.

The following weights were used for Northern Ireland data only:

Gender x Age Northern Ireland weights

Men, of which 0.2 0.3

16-24 0.2 0.3 1.3% of the UK

25-34 0.4 0.4

35-54 0.2 0.3

55+

Women, of which

16-24 0.6 0.3

25-34 0.4 0.3 1.4% of the UK

35-54 0.4 0.4

55+ 0.6 0.4

7/31/2019 File 14580

28/129

Page 22

Statistical Reliability

The sample tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are given in the table

below. This table shows the possible variation that might be anticipated because a sample, rather

than the entire population, was interviewed.

For example, on a question where 50% of the people in a weighted sample of 1,109 respond with

a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary by more than 2.9

percentage points, plus or minus, from a complete coverage of the entire population using the

same procedures. However, it is not true to conclude that the "actual" result (95 times out of

100) lies anywhere between 47.1% and 52.9%. It is proportionately more likely to be closer to the

centre of this band (ie be 50%) than lie at the extreme of this band (ie be 47.1% or 52.9%).

As indicated in the table below, the sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the

size of the percentage results.

Approximate sampling tolerancesSize of sample on which applicable to percentages atsurvey result is based or near these levels

10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50% + + +

1,109 Interviews 1.8 2.7 2.9

1,008 Interviews 1.9 2.8 3.1

437 Interviews 2.7 4.1 4.5

251 Interviews 2.3 3.6 3.9

101 Interviews 5.9 9.0 9.8

7/31/2019 File 14580

29/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

30/129

Page 24

MAIN FINDINGS

7/31/2019 File 14580

31/129

Page 25

ONE

THE LEVEL AND NATURE OF PEOPLES AWARENESS OFTECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN THE BIOSCIENCES

7/31/2019 File 14580

32/129

Page 26

Spontaneous Awareness Of The Biosciences

This research shows that top of mind awareness of developments in the biosciences focuses mostly

on:

advances in human health and medical research (such as treatment of diseases/new

medicines),

genetic modification (especially GM foods) 3

and cloning (particularly Dolly, the cloned sheep).

The question was asked about in the broad context of major scientific discoveries or

developments that spring to mind. 4 Computers - especially the internet, and sending people to

the moon are seen to represent the main non-biological scientific developments:

They can screen things that genetically are in you that are not going to do any good, for instance heart disease or things like that,or cancer, and try and screen those out

Woman, Reading

Ive got an article at home about an ear on a mouse, a human ear being grown on the back of a mouse ready for transplant

Woman, Newcastle IVF...a breakthrough for those who cant have children

Woman, Cardiff

You can use animals, parts of animals to transplant into humansnow

Woman, Cardiff

Dolly. She was that sheep that was cloned. The Frankenstein of thesheep world

Man, Stafford

There was a programme the other day about perfect babies, youcan choose the colour of the babies eyes, the colour of their hair Woman, Cardiff

3 Fieldwork for the pilot and main quantitative phases was conducted at the time of intense media coverage aboutGM foods. (The earlier qualitative phase was mostly carried out during [less intense] media coverage of

biotechnology issues in general. Then from around 20 January onwards, with some workshops still to go, intensecoverage of GM foods began).4 The qualitative phase referred to recent developments.

7/31/2019 File 14580

33/129

Page 27

A number of differences were perceived in the qualitative research between biological and non-

biological scientific developments. Biological ones involve living, breathing things and were

therefore seen to be less predictable and harder to make progress with because the material can

change, adapt or become resistant:

We can send a man to the moon but we cant cure the common cold

Man, Stafford

There is also seen to be far less financial support for and money to be made in biological research

than the computer industry - leading to rapid obsolescence and updating of computers, while

biological developments are seen to lack this kind of financial backing and therefore to lag behind

the IT industry. That said, the pace of developments in individual areas of biotechnology (notably

cloning) is seen to be too fast, which is discussed in more detail overleaf. Vested interests were

also thought to be at play by some, with some suggestion that industry does not wish to find cures

for diseases as it is not in its financial interest to do so, that scientists may be operating behind

closed doors to be the first to make a breakthrough or to conceal information and (mentioned by a

few people) that scientists findings are being suppressed by Government. This last point seemed

to stem from a strong feeling that people felt they sorely lacked information about the biosciences

(which is discussed in more detail later). The combination for people of trying to get to grips with

a complex area of science, coupled with their feeling that they hear little of biological

developments until they have occurred, appears to have led to some feeling of suspicion:

If we cure the common cold, the drugs industry would go out of business

Man, Stafford

Kleenex would go bankrupt

Man, Stafford

7/31/2019 File 14580

34/129

Page 28

The following verbatims highlight the feeling that there is knowledge in existence, if not

necessarily available and accessible to everyone:

I think scientists have probably got all the answers but theyre

actually squashed by the higher people because they just dont want this information to come out. They probably have it earlier and then they say Oh, no, no, wed better keep that to ourselves

Man, Reading

Moderator Q. So who are these higher people?

The people in Government

Man, Reading

or, in the context of GM foods:

I think also they could be designing some sort of plant, even behind closed doors and sneak it through the back door

Man, Reading

Which is what they probably do

Woman, Reading

Do you think so?

Man, Reading

Yes

Woman, Reading

Look what they did with Dolly the sheep

Man, Reading

Findings from the qualitative and quantitative phases were largely consistent with one another

though with perhaps fewer mentions of cloning relative to genetic modification in the quantitative

stage, while in the qualitative phase they were mentioned about equally. In the quantitative

phase, 26% spontaneously mentioned genetic modification or GM foods, compared with 12%

who cited cloning. This is likely to be because of the intense media coverage of GM foods during

the quantitative fieldwork but also perhaps because cloning tended to be mentioned initially by just

one or two participants in each workshop and was then discussed by others present, as part of a

wider discussion. Generally speaking, some workshop participants at every location were able to

mention some biological and some non-biological developments fairly quickly.

7/31/2019 File 14580

35/129

Page 29

In the quantitative stage the highest spontaneous mention, with 30%, was for treatments or cures

for diseases. This is followed by the 26% mentioning genetic modification or GM food and then

21% saying sending people to the moon and 20% citing computers. These percentage responses

(between 20% and 30%) are entirely consistent with what one would expect on a spontaneous

question asking for technical information. It seems that treatments/cures for diseases genuinely

comes ahead of computers and space science, given that the survey was introduced not as being

about biological developments but rather about Issues affecting everyone in this country ..and

public attitudes towards science

Men and women were equally likely to mention a bioscience development (41% each), 1 but men

were significantly more likely to mention a non-bioscience development (67% v 59%).

Treatments/Cures for diseases was more often mentioned by men (32%) and C1s (40%) 2 as was

computers (23% men and 27% C1s). Those in rural areas (41%) and ABs (36%) cited genetic

modification/GM food more often than average, with mentions of it falling with descending social

class to 17% among DEs. Men and women were equally likely to mention GM or GM food (26%

v 27%).

Apart from treatment for diseases, cloning and genetic modification - all mentioned in both phases,

other mentions of biological developments at both stages include: organ transplantation,

xenotransplantation specifically (but by fewer and not named as such), replacement body parts,

tissue cultures (with someone in every location recalling the pictures showing a human eargrown on the mouse) and IVF. In relation to IVF, the case of Mrs Diane Blood was mentioned in

many locations - her baby being born a few days after the first (5 December 1998) workshop.

Most respondents (74%) did mention at least one scientific development at this spontaneous

question. As mentioned, 41% mentioned one or more biological developments (increasing to

53% among ABs) and 63% cited at least one non-biological development 5 (as mentioned,

increasing to 67% among men). As mentioned eariler, when Treatments/Cures for diseases is

included with other bioscience mentions this rises to 57%. A considerable minority (35%) gavetwo or more mentions of the biosciences, with a 1% citing five or more.

1 This definition of bioscience does not include treatment/cures for diseases. If this is added to the combination, the41% increases to 57%.2

Please see Appendices for social class definitions5 The 41% and the 63%, when added together exceed the 74% who mentioned at least one scientific developmentbecause 30% mentioned both.

7/31/2019 File 14580

36/129

Page 30

The following comments from the workshops illustrate the thought processes which many

participants seemed to have when discussing biological developments. Feelings that the pace of

development is too quick were common (though this was not mentioned by a majority in the

quantitative phase), as was uncertainty about why some developments are taking place, along with

feelings that the public hears about developments after the event and before it has had a say

(particularly in the case of Dolly, the cloned sheep):

Cloning and the internet. Sometimes the developments move so fast. There doesnt seem to be enough time to think of theimplications and whats happening and it seems as if its alreadygone ahead without anybody having a say - like the majority, I suppose. The first anyone gets to hear about it is when its on thenews. There doesnt seem like theres any kind of control. It seemsthe scientists can go ahead and do anything

Woman, Cardiff

(They are cloning) to prove they can do it. It is like going to themoon (was). The only thing that came out of going to the moonwas Teflon saucepansand to prove the Americans could get there before the Russians. The internet is entirely different (fromcloning or going to the moon). That has a use

Man, Cardiff

Where will it end? Why is it (biological development) being done?

Belfast

Clearly, in any future communications programme, the reasons why certain biological

developments are taking or may take place need to be explained to the public. We will see later

that as many as 72% of the public believes that they have had too little information on the rules

and regulations about biological developments. This research exercise (and the forthcoming

dissemination of its findings) will demonstrate that the public was consulted about their views but

the public also view it as critical that their views are listened to. There is a theme emerging that

the public wants to know what developments are taking place and be asked for their views aboutthem before the results of the experiments are reached.

7/31/2019 File 14580

37/129

Page 31

Q1 Thinking about major scientific discoveries or developments, do any spring to mind?

Highest Mentioned 6 Categories (spontaneous) %Treatments/Cures for/Eradication of

illnesses/diseases/Medicines/New drugs/Penicillin/ Antibiotics/Vaccines etc./Operations/Surgery 32

Genetic modification/GM food (combination) 26Space/Sending people to the moon/Life on Mars 21Computers/The Internet/Email/Millennium bug/Millennium

Compliance 20Genetically modified, Genetically altered or Genetically engineered

food 18Medical research 15

Cloning/Dolly the sheep 12TV/New TV sets/Cable TV/ Satellite TV/Digital TVs 12New telecommunications (fax machine/mobile phone) 10Genetic modification/Genetic engineering (unspecified) 8Transplants (unspecified)/ Transplants of heart, liver, kidneys etc 8

Base: All (1,109)

The table below indicates the proportion of the public spontaneously mentioning at least one of

the bioscience and non-bioscience categories at Q1. Each respondent was only counted once, even

if they mentioned more than one category.

Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions

%

Bioscience Not including Treatments/Cures for/Eradication of

illnesses/diseases/Medicines/New

drugs/Penicillin/Antibiotics/Vaccines

etc./Operations/Surgery

41

Bioscience Including Treatments/Cures for/Eradication of

illnesses/diseases/Medicines/New

drugs/Penicillin/Antibiotics/Vaccines

etc./Operations/Surgery

57

Non-

Bioscience

63

For a full definition of the combinations, please refer to the appendices.

6 The marked-up questionnaire gives percentage responses for all categories

7/31/2019 File 14580

38/129

Page 32

Biology And Genes

The level of understanding of the phrases biology and genes was examined in the quantitative

survey to gauge the degree of awareness of words likely to be used in communication about

biological developments, and also to act as questions which would move in gently to subsequent

questions about the more complex subject of biotechnology.

The vast majority of the public (89%) was able to name at least one thing which springs to mind

when they hear the word biology - and all responses were correct . Most common are mentions

of: the human body (39%), plants or the study of plants (30%) and animals or the study of

animals (24%). This was followed by school lessons/biology teachers (14%), human

biology/microbiology (13%), reproduction/fertilisation/birth (10%) and then genetic modification

(9%). One per cent specifically mentioned GM food, and these people also mentioned genetic

modification more generally (so, genetic modification/GM food is still 9%). Treatment of diseases

was mentioned by 6%.

To give an indication of the breadth of responses which emerges at such a spontaneous question,

one per cent mentioned soap powder (the same proportion that MORI found when testing the

phrase biodiversity in a four country study for WWF International 7 in 1988), and similar small

proportions mentioned research/laboratory experiments/animal testing (3%) , hospital

doctors/medical care (2%), IVF/test tube babies (1%) and food/food hygiene/nutrition (1%).

Men more often mentioned genetic modification and cloning than did women, while women more

often cited the human body and reproduction. Genetic modification was also more often

mentioned by younger people aged 16-34, and cloning by those from white collar households.

7 The World Wide Fund for Nature

7/31/2019 File 14580

39/129

Page 33

An even higher proportion of the public was able to give a meaning of the word genes (95%)

than biology (89%) - perhaps indicating the level of awareness provoked by intense media

coverage of Genetic Modification, particularly with regard to food. Virtually all responses were

again correct. Evidently then, if communication on biotechnology is to use the phrases biology

and genes, most people would at least have some understanding of these phrases. Approaching

two-thirds (63%) said that the phrase genes means inheriting characteristics from your father and

mother (37%), or/and the basic building blocks of life (23%), or/and passing on your genetic

make-up to your offspring (21%), or/and childrens appearances/how they take after you (13%)

or/and family/blood relations (2%). 8 The 63% increases to 68% among women, 70% among the

25-34s and 71% among C1s.

Genetic modification is mentioned by 20% (unspecified by 11%, GM foods/plants 11%, of animals

3%, of humans 4%). DNA is mentioned by 18%, the body by 15% and Downs

Syndrome/genetic disorders by 14%. Genetic testing/screening and gene therapy are each

mentioned by 4%.

However, while most peoples associations with the word genes were correct, some people in

the qualitative phase demonstrated their confusion over the function of genes, and some did not

realise that they currently eat them. The following quotes illustrate the confusion, but also the

concern people have, in the aftermath of BSE, about eating anything they regard as unusual or

unnatural:

Does a gene actually go through the digestive tract and come out?

Woman, Reading

This was often immediately linked to the concern which followed from the BSE situation:

It is like mad cow disease. That came through eating infected meat

Man, Reading

8 The sum of these four percentages exceeds the total of 63% because some people will have mentioned more thanone category.

7/31/2019 File 14580

40/129

Page 34

Q2 When I say 'biology', what, if anything, springs to mind?%

The human body 39Plants/study of plants 30Animals/Study of animals 24School lessons/Biology teachers 14Human biology/Microbiology etc 13Reproduction/Fertilisation/Birth 10Genetic Engineering/Genetic Modification 9Science 7Health 6Man/Study of man/Human race 6Nature 6Treatment of diseases 6

Cloning/Dolly the sheep 5The study of life/Living things 5Dont know 6Nothing 5

Base: All (1,109)

Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions%

2 Genetic Engineering/Genetic Modification 9%

GM Foods

3 Genetic Engineering/Genetic Modification 9%

GM Foods

Genetics

4 Reproduction/Fertilisation/Birth 10%

IVF/Test tube babies

7/31/2019 File 14580

41/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

42/129

Page 36

5 DNA 21Chromosomes/Cells

6 DNA

Chromosomes/Cells 21Genetics/Genetic science

7 Childrens appearances/How they take afteryou/Family traits 15

Family/blood relations

8 Having genes from your mother andfather/Inheriting characteristics/traits from yourparents

Passing on your genetic make-up to your offspringBasic building blocks of life/Blueprint of life/What

you are/The way you look/Genetic Make-up of personality/Human body/Human genes

63

Childrens appearances/How they take afteryou/Family traits

Family/blood relations

7/31/2019 File 14580

43/129

Page 37

Total 9 Awareness Of The Biosciences

After showing respondents a list of biological developments, almost everyone had heard of the

transplantation of human organs (93%). Indeed, it is surprising that not everyone had, thirty years

or so after the first such transplant. Almost as many (90%) had heard of test tube babies or in-

vitro fertilisation and (topical at the time of the survey), GM food (89%). Genetic modification

of animals and plants, a separate category on the showcard, came twenty points behind GM food.

Combining GM and GM food (and excluding the overlap) increases the figure to 91%, placing it

second highest after transplantation of human organs. Cloning came just behind GM food with

87% - narrowing the 14% gap seen at the earlier spontaneous question about scientific

developments.

Awareness of most biological developments is higher among men than women, the exceptions

being transplants of human organs and IVF - both mentioned equally by each gender (though

women in the qualitative phase seemed better informed about IVF and more confident to talk in

detail. One man referred to IVF as the womens domain). By age, the 25-64s generally show

greatest awareness of each development, with the youngest and oldest groups tending to be a bit

less aware. The exception is for transplants of human organs, where the 65+ group has almost as

high awareness as average (90% against 93%), presumably because it is a less recent development

and one which can prolong life or/and enhance quality of life. Awareness of each development

tends to fall with descending social class, often more markedly from C2s to DEs 10. The figures for

the four highest mentions are: transplants of human organs - ABs 99%, DEs 87%; genetic

modification/GM food - ABs 97%, DEs 79%; IVF/test tube babies - ABs 96%, DEs 83%; and

cloning/Dolly the sheep - ABs 97%, DEs 70%.

IVF. Not that I need it, but it is a breakthrough for those who cant have children

Woman, Cardiff

Taking eggs from dead children after miscarriages. Apparently,the priests were up in armsMan, Cardiff

Cloning. Theyre going on about it all the time. Skin, tissue, bitsand pieces. Its on the news. The mouse and the ear

Man, Cardiff

9 ie spontaneous and prompted awareness combined10

which reflects the correlation between age and the DE social class. A higher proportion of the 65+ group isclassed as DE. Ds are unskilled manual workers and Es are those on the lowest level of subsistence, includingState pensioners.

7/31/2019 File 14580

44/129

Page 38

Development of new medicines at 77% seems low, perhaps because it was misinterpreted as

development of new medicines which is taking place at this precise moment, rather than

development of vaccines, antibiotics etc. In contrast, transplants of animal tissues at 72% seems

high though it too received media coverage during the time of the survey: 11

They can use parts of animals to transplant into humans now. I heard it on the radio this morning. But theyre not allowed to do it now while theyre investigating. Theyre not entirely sure about itssafety

Woman, Cardiff

If it can save someones life, definitely

Woman, Cardiff

Two in three had heard of genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg diseases, which

was followed closely by tissue cultures/artificial tissue:

There was a man who had his fingers sewn on his arm

Man, Cardiff

Lowest mention was for gene therapy at 42% but even that seems higher than indicated in the

qualitative phase. It is likely that the word gene in the phrase has artificially enhanced awareness

of this development.

11 eg File on 4, Radio 4, 6 December 1998

7/31/2019 File 14580

45/129

Page 39

Q6 As you may know, there have been a number of developments in biology in recent years. Which, if any, of the following have you heard of? If you mentioned any of them at any previous question or questions, could you read those out again, along withany others you may recall hearing about, so that I make sure I get everything downthat you have heard of. You could just read out the letter or letters. If you haven't heard of any, please say 'none'.

Total Awareness(Spontaneous Q1 and

Prompted Q6)%

Transplants of human organs (eg heart, liver, kidneys) to

another human

93

Test tube babies (also known as in-vitro fertilisation) 90Genetically modified food 89

Cloning/Dolly the sheep 87

Development of new medicines 77

Transplants of animal tissues (eg pig tissues) to a

human/Xenotransplantation

72

Genetic modification/engineering of animals and plants 69

Genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg

diseases

67

Tissue cultures/Art ificial tissue eg skin 62

Gene therapy 42

None 1

Dont know *

Base:All (1,109)

7/31/2019 File 14580

46/129

Page 40

This table shows the proportions who mentioned each biological development spontaneously at

Q1, followed by the proportions giving total awareness at Q6.

Q1Spontaneous

Awareness

Q1/Q6Total

Awareness% %

A Cloning/Dolly the sheep 12 87

B Medical research 1538 N/A*

Treatment/Cures for diseases 32

C Genetic modification/Genetic engineering (unspecified) 811

Genetic modification/engineering of animals and/or plants 4 26 69

D Genetically modified food 18 89

E Genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg diseases 3 67

F Gene therapy 2 42

G Test tube babies (also known as in-vitro fertilisation) 6 90

H Tissue cultures/Artificial tissue eg skin 1 62

I Transplants of human organs (eg heart, liver, kidneys) to

another human

8 93

J Transplants of animal tissues (eg pig tissues) to a

human/Xenotransplantation

1 72

Base: All (1,109)

* N/A = Not asked

7/31/2019 File 14580

47/129

Page 41

TWO

ISSUES WHICH PEOPLE SEE ARISING FROMDEVELOPMENTS IN THE BIOSCIENCES AND HOW

IMPORTANT THESE ARE COMPARED TO OTHER MAJORSCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS

7/31/2019 File 14580

48/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

49/129

Page 43

some who currently feel unsure or unhappy about cloning may become more positive. However,

many people in the workshops said that the idea of cloning was odd (and therefore rejected it).

Animals should not be harmed (and some said should not be used at all) and doubts existed about

whether cloning may stop at animals and not move to humans. Typical comments were:

I cant see why they want to clone anyway. I cant see the point. Awaste of fundsWoman, Cardiff

To prove they can do it, I suppose

Man, Cardiff

I mean, cloning a sheep hasnt done us any good. I dont know if they intend to keep doing that sort of thing, but what good is it

doing?Man, Reading

They could save endangered species with cloning, as long as itsnot affecting humans. They could clone vegetables. If you werecloning vegetables that were resistant to certain types of insects etcit must be good for the Third World

Man, Stirling

Genetically modified food is also not regarded overall to be beneficial to society; it receives a net

score of - 44 with just one per cent of the public describing it as beneficial. Genetic modificationof animals and plants also gets a negative score (of -27) and again only one per cent rate it as

being beneficial to society. Unlike cloning, there was some idea both in the workshops and in the

quantitative stage about why genetic modification takes place. This focused mostly on food issues

and specifically the production of more food or larger/more colourful tomatoes:

Id like to know more, especially with what foods, which foodscontain genetically modified products so that I am aware, and if I choose to eat it then thats my choice. It would make me muchmore aware because there is a lot out thereWoman, Reading

They should have a label on every food that is genetically modified

Man, Reading

7/31/2019 File 14580

50/129

Page 44

Combining the bioscience categories we can see that 71% of the public regarded one or more

bioscience to be beneficial to society, and 79% regarded them as not beneficial. This gives a

negative net beneficial score of -8. This gap may not be a high as indicated in the earlier text -

suggesting that in some cases it is the same people that are negative about different biological

developments, (each person is counted only once for the combinations). The highest (positive)

net scores are for: development of new medicines (+56), transplants (+50) and cures/eradication

of illnesses (+42). The worst net scores are for: cloning (-55), GM food (-44), Genetic

modification of animals/plants (-27) and, from the physical sciences, space research (-20).

Participants in the workshops were asked what, if anything, are the good things about

biotechnology and what, if anything, are the bad things. The following merits were mentioned,

though by relatively small numbers of people:

production of more food

cheaper food production

benefits for the Third World in feeding the population

a longer food product shelf life

a longer human life span (though this was not always perceived as a benefit)

better health/improving the quality of life/cures for diseases

cloning to prevent extinction and the correction of deformities.

Participants did, of course, have a relatively low level of awareness about the reasons why

biological developments are taking place so it is probably fair to assume that one reason for the

merits (and indeed the drawbacks of biological developments) being mentioned by relatively few

people is that most people lack knowledge about them. However, it is also true to say that many

people were critical of developments in the biosciences, as discussed in the next paragraph.

Many different perceived drawbacks to the biosciences were cited in the workshops, though as

with merits, by relatively small numbers of people. Again, most people felt they lacked

information about the biosciences (which they sorely wanted) and were not therefore able to give

an informed view. They were, however, able to express their concerns very readily as outlined

below:

about biological developments being unnatural

interfering with nature

being of unknown consequence and (said many about cloning in particular), immoral.

7/31/2019 File 14580

51/129

Page 45

Their concerns about cloning centred on the danger of creating a super race at which point

Hitler was often quoted. Other concerns, mentioned by a handful, were:

that too much food could be produced

there could be food shortages if we all live longer

crops could become resistant to pesticides, leading to more pesticides being used and therefore

more pollution

soil erosion could develop from having monoculture agriculture/lack of biodiversity

one or two people in every workshop referred to biological warfare and Saddam Hussein

it was felt that cloning could result in population growth

some concern was expressed about what to do with cloning mistakes. Concern was also

expressed both about who is paying/would pay for these developments, and who is making the

profit on them, at the end of the day.

Other points mentioned in the qualitative phase as arising from biological developments (but not

cited as being either positive or negative) are: that family/personal DNA testing results could be

used by insurance companies and that the development of the biosciences will lead to more

farming and medical regulation.

Turning to sub-groups from the quantitative phase, women are more likely than men to name one

or more of the biological developments as being beneficial to society (65% men, 76% women) but

they are also more likely to select a biological development as not being beneficial to society

(77% men, 82% women). This is largely because women were significantly more likely to cite

genetic testing/screening, transplants and cures for illnesses as being beneficial to society, but they

were also significantly more likely than men to say that GM food is not beneficial to society.

Other slight, though not significant, differences can be seen for cloning and genetic modification of

animals and plants - where women were a little more critical.

7/31/2019 File 14580

52/129

Page 46

Q4 On this card is a list of various scientific developments. Which two or three would you

say have been beneficial for society as far as you are aware?

Q5 And which two or three would you say have not been beneficial for society, as far as you are aware?

Q4 Q5 NetBeneficial Not

BeneficialBeneficial

Score% % %

Medicines/New drugs/Penicillin/Antibiotics/ Vaccines etc

57 1 +56

Transplants eg of heart, liver, kidneys etc 51 1 +50

Cures for or eradication of illnesses/diseases 43 1 +42New operations/Surgery 31 * +31Computers/The Internet/Email 28 4 +24Genetic testing or screening for particular

things, eg diseases24 2 +22

Discovering global warming/Climate Change/ Disruption to weather patterns/GreenhouseEffect

19 6 +13

New and alternative sources of energy 17 4 +13New telecommunications (fax machine/ mobile

phone/TV)14 5 +9

Test-tube babies/In-vitro fertilisation 11 9 +2Faster/cheaper travel 6 16 -10Splitting the atom 4 20 -16Robots in industry and medicine 3 18 -15Cloning/Dolly the sheep 2 57 -55Space Research/Sending people to the moon 2 25 -20Genetic modification/engineering of animals

and plants1 28 -27

Genetically modified food 1 45 -44Other * *No, none spring to mind * 5Dont know * 1

Base: All (1,109)

7/31/2019 File 14580

53/129

Page 47

Q4 On this card is a list of various scientific developments. Which two or three would you sayhave been beneficial for society as far as you are aware?

Q5 And which two or three would you say have not been beneficial for society, as far as you are aware?

Q4 Q5 Net

BeneficialNot

BeneficialBeneficial

Score% % %

Biosciences excluding 'Cures foror eradication of illness/diseases'and 'New operations/Surgery' 71 79 -8

Biosciences including 'cures foror eradication of illness/diseases'and 'New operations/Surgery' 92 80 +12

Non-Biosciences 98 67 +31

7/31/2019 File 14580

54/129

Page 48

Perceived Reasons Why Particular Biological Developments Are

Taking Place

In the quantitative phase, respondents were asked, without being prompted, why they think three

particular biological developments are taking place: animal cloning (asked of those who said they

had heard of Cloning/Dolly the sheep), Genetic modification/engineering/Genetically modified

food (asked of those who said they had heard of one or more of these) and Transplants of animal

tissues [eg pig tissues] to a human/xenotransplantation (asked of those who had heard of this).

As mentioned earlier, relatively few people in the qualitative phase were able to give reasons as to

why animal cloning is taking place (beyond responses like to see if they could or to develop

human clones), though more were able to give a reason why food , if not animals or plants, may

be genetically modified (generally saying to produce more food, for companies to make profit or

to produce larger tomatoes etc. Some said to fight diseases or pests). For xenotransplantation, 13

those few participants with awareness of this development in the qualitative research generally

said this was because there is a shortage of human organs for transplantation.

The table overleaf illustrates that in fact, very high proportions of the public in the quantitative

gave reasons why these developments are taking place. Seventy-seven per cent gave one or more

spontaneous reasons why they believe genetic modification, or GM food, is taking place; 68%

gave a reason why they believe animal cloning is taking place and 66% gave a reason why

xenotransplantation is taking place. The spontaneous answers were coded into a pre-coded list

and then other answers broken out and some new categories formed.

At first sight, these results seem much higher than those found in the qualitative phase. However,

they can perhaps be explained by a number of points (in the case of genetic modification and

xenotransplantations at least. Genetic modification/GM food was covered extensively in the

media throughout the quantitative fieldwork (and, in many cases, reasons were offered for why it

is taking place). This could explain not only why so many people gave a reason for it but also why

over thirty different reasons were given (the pre-coded list contained 24 categories), though many

by very low proportions.

13 The transplantation of animal tissues or organs into humans

7/31/2019 File 14580

55/129

Page 49

We are not too sure why the public more readily offered reasons why animal cloning is taking

place in the quantitative stage than appeared in the qualitative phase. There was some media

coverage of cloning during the quantitative stage which could have stimulated discussion.

The highest reason given for cloning, at 14% of all respondents, was to develop human clones -

also cited in the qualitative stage and among the other highest reasons were: to see if they could

(12%) and to see how far they can go (7%). However, as we will see in a moment, other reasons

were cited and in fact over thirty different reasons were also given for animal cloning taking place

(this pre-coded list also contained 24 categories), though again, many by few people.

Xenotransplantation received the lowest awareness of the three developments, at 72% (though

even this seems high and no doubt the description within the category made people feel they had

heard of this development). By far the most commonly mentioned category was because of a

shortage of human organs/tissues, cited by 44% of the public as a whole. It is likely that many of

these people were able to give this reason purely by listening to the question wording transplants

of animal tissues to a human. In other words, it seemed in the qualitative phase as if

relatively few people had heard of this development, but once they have been told about it in many

cases it seems that they are able to surmise the reason why it takes place.

Question Q7b Q7a Q7cGM/GM

FoodCloning Xenotransplanta-

tion

% % %Spontaneous awareness (Q1) 14 26 12 1

Total awareness (Q1/Q6) 91 87 72

Gave reason why developmenttaking place (Q7a/Q7b/Q7c)

77 68 66

No particular reason whytaking place

1 1 *

Dont know why taking place 13 18 6

Not heard of development 9 13 28

Base: All respondents (1,109)

The tables overleaf (for Q7a, Q7b and Q7c) each show two columns worth of data. The first

column bases the responses on those who said they had heard of that development at Q1 or Q6,

while the second column re-percentages these figures to base them on all respondents (which is

why the percentages for each answer category are lower).

14 Asked about in the broad context of major scientific discoveries or developments

7/31/2019 File 14580

56/129

Page 50

Perceived Reasons For Genetic Modification/GM Food

The most common reason given for genetic modification or genetic modification of food is to

produce more food/have high yields/boost agriculture (27% of the public), which is followed by

22% saying companies want to make money /have profit. Producing larger/nicer/tastier

plants/fruits eg tomatoes (the focus of quite a lot of the media coverage) came third with 19%,

with resistance of diseases/fighting pests coming fourth with 17%. To have cheaper food

comes fifth with 15%, followed by to lengthen the shelf life of foods with 14%. To eradicate,

treat or understand diseases/cancer etc follows with 10% and then To feed the Third

World/Africa/Asia etc comes next with 9%.

By combining certain categories and excluding the overlap we can see that 65% of the public gave

a reason for GM/GM food that related to agriculture (having cheaper food, lengthening shelf life,

making new foods, producing larger/nicer/tastier foods, producing more food/high yields, resisting

diseases/fighting pests, making food safer, feeding the Third World, making plants withstand

extreme temperatures/drought/poor soils, reducing the use of pesticides and producing more

nutritious food/healthier food/added vitamins; adding in appearance/making food look better still

keeps the percentage at 65%). Ten per cent gave a reason that related to human health - though

arguably a number of the agriculture reasons also relate to human health, but they were not

included (removing allergic substances and eradicating, treating or understanding diseases/cancer

etc).

The male/female sub-group difference at this question is interesting. Men are more likely than

women to give a reason for genetic modification/GM food (83% of all men v 72% of all women -

this is partly explained by the fact that men are more likely to have heard of this development,

because these percentages are based on all respondents) yet women were more likely to say that

GM food is not beneficial to society). The following are also more likely to give a reason: 45-54s

(87%), ABs (91%, which then falls with descending social class to 71% of DEs), and (a difference

which is almost significant) those in rural areas (77% in urban areas v 84% in rural areas).

7/31/2019 File 14580

57/129

Page 51

In particular, men are more likely to mention producing more food/high yields (31% versus 24%

for women), as are the 45-54s (42%) and ABC1s (33%). However, the group that said they do

not trust Governments to provide them with honest and balanced information about biological

developments and their regulation at a subsequent question 15 was also significantly more likely to

say that a reason for genetic modification/GM food is to produce more foods/have high

yields/boost agriculture (21% for the trust group, 28% for the not trust group). This group is

also more likely to say that a reason for GM/GM food is to have cheaper food (11% versus 17%).

Men are also more likely than women to say Companies want to make profit (26% v 18%), as

are the 45-54 year olds (27%) and ABC1s (27%). To feed the Third World was also more often

cited by men than women (12% v 6%).

The following comments from the qualitative research illustrate that while some participants were

able to give a range of reasons why they thought genetic modification or GM food was happening,

they felt unsure about the motives behind it:

I really would like to do the food production stuff because I am not sure whether its a good thing or a bad thing. I am not surewhether its motivated by profit or whether its motivated by, youknow, good reasons to get more food or a wider range in food. I am not sure what the ethics behind the modified crops stuff is

Woman, Belfast

You see, the cloning of food. I mean, thats done for a variety of reasons. Theyre genetically modifying food so that, for example,things which will not grow in Third World countries where theyrestarving, theyre genetically modifying them so that they will grow,so that the people that are starving will actually be able to grow acrop of food. But the problem is theyre also genetically modifyingso that normal plants which you could grow here like say, wheat will produce a heavier crop and thats done for commercial

purposes so they will make more money out of it. So its never actually black and white. Theres always a grey area

Belfast

I think we havent got enough information on it. I think anythingthats genetically engineered or irradiated - it should say so on the

package, which we dont have

Man, Stirling

15 Q25; 39% of the public.

7/31/2019 File 14580

58/129

Page 52

The problem with genetic modification is you dont get your variation; theres no variation involved. Lack of variation in anyspecies leads to that species being wiped out; scientifically proven

fact

Belfast

Other key points to emerge from the workshops are that during the sessions on Plants and

Microbes (see appendices for topic guide and separate volume for stimulus materials) there were

discussions (led by the moderators) about plant breeding and how plant breeding with genetic

modification is faster than plant breeding without it. Various handouts/showcards showed how

plants can be genetically modified and discussed the fact that genes are present in all living

organisms and all types of food - genetically modified, unmodified, organic. It was at this point

that it became apparent that some respondents were completely unaware that we currently eatgenes. Clearly, with the public calling for more information about the biosciences and their

regulation a critical point is not only that information should be clear, impartial and balanced, but

that it must be developed with an understanding of where peoples initial knowledge levels are.

Further points from the qualitative phase are: that initial attitudes towards genetic modification of

plants/(microbes) were negative, but softened during the sessions where they were debated; the

use of microbial or plant genes in plants was positively received by some (but against a backdrop

of very low awareness). However, the idea of using animal or human genes in any plants peoplemight eat was not generally considered acceptable. Participants felt that all developments were at

too early a stage for them to feel secure about the long-term effects (good or bad) of genetic

modification. With respect to information and regulation, a number of respondents felt that a

kitemark label on food/food products would instil trust and confidence that the regulatory system

was being properly controlled. There was comment by some that genetic modification needs to

be better policed (discussed in more detail later); and a few respondents wondered whether

GMOs could come under the jurisdiction of The Food Standards Agency.

7/31/2019 File 14580

59/129

Page 53

Q7b You mentioned ...... (Genetic modification/engineering/Genetically modified food),could you tell me the reasons why you think ...... is taking place? If you dont know,

please just say dont know% %

Base: All those who have heard of Genetic modification/engineering/ genetically modified food (1,024)

Base:All(1,109)

To produce more food/high yields/boost agriculture 30 27Companies want to make money/have profit 24 22To produce larger/nicer/tastier plants/fruits eg tomatoes 21 19To resist diseases/fight pests 19 17To have cheaper food 16 15To lengthen the shelf life of foods 15 14To eradicate, treat or understand diseases/cancer etc 11 10

To feed the Third World/Africa/Asia etc 10 9No particular reason 1 1Don't know 14 13Not heard of GM/engineering/Genetically modified food N/A 9

Combination Percentage Mentions

%Any mention of a reason 77Human Health 10Agriculture 65

Agriculture/appearance of food 65

Base: All (1,109)

7/31/2019 File 14580

60/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

61/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

62/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

63/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

64/129

Page 58

Perceived Reasons For Transplants Of Animal Tissues To A

Human/Xenotransplantation

As mentioned earlier, the main reason cited by the public for xenotransplantation was Because

there is a shortage of human organs/tissues (44%). No other reason was mentioned by more than

10% (two categories) and these responses were anyway related to the highest mention: To see if

its compatible with humans (10%) and To save lives (10%). In a sense though,

xenotransplantation is one of the biological developments that is easier to understand (whether or

not the public agrees with it, which is a different issue) - given that human transplants have been

taking place for around thirty years and animals are used for food and in various products,

including medicines like insulin. Cloning, on the other hand, does not have a forerunner with

which it can be compared and while plant and animal breeding has been taking place for years,

many people did not make the link between this and genetic modification. They also often

expressed concerns about genetic modification because it seemed unnatural and some, in the

aftermath of BSE and other food scares, voiced concern about altering the food chain.

A number of issues were raised in the workshops about xenotransplantation, particularly in the

sessions which were dedicated to this topic (on the afternoon of Day 1). While stimulus materials

in the form of handouts and showcards were used to create debate, in fact many of the issues were

raised spontaneously by participants as the discussion unfolded, and before that particular

handout/showcard was passed around for comment.

Generally speaking, the idea of xenotransplantation received a warm response in the qualitative

phase. The following issues were raised in relation to it:

that people may have no choice about having an animal organ or tissue/ it would depend on the

circumstances/their need might dictate that they have an animal organ

queries were raised about whether for example, a pigs heart would be rejected by a human

(but some then said rejection happens with human transplants anyway)

whether disease could occur in humans that the pig had been resistant to but had passed to the

human

some participants wondered how long a pigs life was and whether the organ would wear out;

several commented on the long waiting lists for human organs and said that human donation

should be promoted

some people said they could not accept an animal organ - either for animal welfare reasons

(saying that it may be morally/ethically easier to accept a culture than to kill an animal) or

because they felt they might not be totally human if they had an animal organ inside them

7/31/2019 File 14580

65/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

66/129

Page 60

Q7c You mentioned ...... (transplants of animal tissues [eg pig tissues] to ahuman/xenotransplantation) could you tell me the reasons why you think ...... istaking place? If you dont know, please just say dont know.

% %Base: All those who have heard of transplants of animal tissues (eg pigtissues) to human/ xenotransplantation (831)

Base:All(1,109)

Because of a shortage of human organs/tissues 61 44To see if its compatible with humans 14 10To save lives 14 10Because animal organs are the right size/similar size to

humans9 6

Better to use animal organs than humans 9 6A method of extending life 8 6

To benefit mankind 7 5To see if they could/To prove a point/Science trying to

achieve what nobody else has6 4

A cheaper method of extending life 5 4To advance our understanding of science/research/biology 5 4To see how far they can go 4 3No particular reason * *Don't know 8 6Never heard of transplants of animal tissues to humans/

xenotransplantationN/A 28

Combination Percentage Mentions

%Any mention of a reason 66Human Health 61

Base: All (1,109)

7/31/2019 File 14580

67/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

68/129

Page 62

Importance Of Rules And Regulations To Control Biological

Developments And Scientific Research

The vast majority of the public (97%) believes that it is important that there are rules and

regulations in place to control biological developments and scientific research and as many as 88%

believe this is very important. In MORIs experience, to have over 30% saying something is very

important does indeed represent a high figure. These findings very much reflect peoples views in

the qualitative phase.

Q8 Here is the card I showed you earlier with various recent developments in biology on it.

How important would you say it is that there are rules and regulations in place to

control biological developments and scientific research? Would you say controls are ...

%

Very important 88 97%

Fairly important 9

Not very important 12%

Not at all important *

Don't know/not sure 1

Base: All (1,109)

7/31/2019 File 14580

69/129

Page 63

Reasons for Rating of Importance

Respondents were asked to say, in their own words, why they felt the way they did. The main

reason why people believe rules and regulations are important is because of the possibility that

things could go too far or get out of hand. One in five mentioned this, followed by one in ten

expressing caution about the possible long-term effects or/and saying that these developments are

potentially dangerous. Almost as many said you cant trust scientists, they get carried away

or/and 'are naturally inquisitive', or and that 'without regulations, people would play God'.

7/31/2019 File 14580

70/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

71/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

72/129

Page 66

Q10 And thinking again about rules and regulations to control biological developments and

scientific research in general, would you say .... (there is too much regulatory control,

too little, about the right amount) or dont you know?

%

Too much 3

About right amount 28

Too little 38

Dont know 31

Base: All (1,109)

7/31/2019 File 14580

73/129

Page 67

Degree of Confidence That Rules And Regulations Are Keeping Pace

With Biological Developments And Scientific Research

Despite the fact that on balance, most people felt there is too little control over the regulation of

biological developments and scientific research, most people (71%) have at least a little

confidence that rules and regulations in this area are keeping pace with biological developments

and scientific research. However, just 2% have a great deal of confidence. Thirty-one per cent

have a fair amount and 39% a little.

Looking at the 32% 16 who said they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence, we can

see that the 55-64s (41%) and ABs (40%) are the most likely to say they have confidence that

rules are keeping pace with developments - and ABs in particular were more inclined to be aware

of various developments.

Turning to the 56% who said they have a little or no confidence at all that rules and regulations

are keeping pace, we can see that this increases among men (59%), 16-24s (63%), C1s (64%) and

those living in rural areas (64%).

These figure have to be considered against the background of a self-reported low level of

knowledge regarding the regulatory process.

16 The sum of 2% (Great deal) and 31% (Fair amount) comes to 32%, not 33%, because the 2% and the 31%had been computer rounded.

7/31/2019 File 14580

74/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

75/129

Page 69

Involvement In Making Decisions In The Regulation Of

The Biosciences

Most people (63%) spontaneously mention Government or Governments when asked who theythink is currently involved in making decisions in the regulation of the biological sciences. This is

followed, but some way behind, by mention of scientists (23%). No other type of institution or

group of people was mentioned by more than 12% - and this mention was for an Advisory Body

to Government, composed of experts, followed by 'industry' or manufacturers with 8% (both

were words used to describe industry in the workshops).

The above findings mirror what came out of the qualitative research. If people were able to give a

response, Government was generally mentioned pretty soon after the question was asked in theworkshops. This was then often followed with a pause before some people said scientists, and

occasionally people mentioned 'the experts' or industry. The fact that 18% in the quantitative

stage said they did not know who is currently involved in making decisions about regulating the

biosciences also reflects the qualitative findings - some people remained quiet in the workshops

when the groups were asked, or said they didnt know.

However, even when the 18% who did not know who is involved in regulation are taken into

account, the 63% saying Government/Governments seems low. It means that 19% mentioned

someone other than Government/Governments as being involved in regulation, and did not also

mention 'Government/Governments'.

When respondents were then presented with a list of eighteen different institutions and types of

people and asked who is currently involved in making decisions about regulation of the biological

sciences, the figure for Governments increased to 83% (though this still seems low given that only

2% said dont know after prompting with a list). Scientists came second with 70% - much

closer behind Governments after people were shown a list, and then An Advisory Body to

Government, composed of experts (62%, more often mentioned by 35-54s [70%] and ABC1s [

77%]). This was thirty points ahead of the other mention of Advisory Body on the list - An

Advisory Body to Government, composed of people representing different viewpoints (32%,

increasing to 41% among the 35-44s and 40% among ABs). Industry/manufacturers, which had

been barely mentioned at the spontaneous question or in the workshops, was mentioned by 38%

after prompting - and more often by men (44%) and ABC1s (49%).

7/31/2019 File 14580

76/129

7/31/2019 File 14580

77/129

Page 71

The biggest falls can be seen for: Governments (-42; ie there has been a fall of 42 points in the

proportion saying Governments should be involved, compared with those saying they are currently

involved), scientists (-23), industry/manufacturers (-22) and An Advisory Body to Government,

composed of experts (-17).

The largest increases can be seen for: the general public (+36; ie there has been an increase of 36

points in the proportion who feel the general public shoul