Public attitudes to human cloning: evidence from mixed methods

1. Public attitudes to human cloning: evidence from mixed methods Richard Shepherd University of Surrey http://www.surrey.ac.uk/SHS/genomics/

2. 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)

3. Outline of talk • Advances in genomics • ‘Attitudes to Genomics’ project • Cloning • reproductive • therapeutic • Findings from: • Survey • Vignette studies • Focus groups • Textual analyses • Concluding comments

4. Human genome

5. 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)

6. UK stamp

7. Genomics applications • Increasing importance of genomics in biological sciences • GM food/crops • Pharmaceuticals • Health treatments • Forensic • Social and economic issues • Public and media interest

8. 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

9. Attitudes to Genomics project • Funded by ESRC • November 2002 - January 2006 • Includes both health and agricultural applications of genomics

10. Structure of project • Survey • Information intervention • Vignette studies • Focus groups • Interviews • Textual and visual analyses

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Dolly

19. Claims for first human clone

20. 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

21. Attitudes to cloning: survey % saying cloning should ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ be allowed or not allowed…

22. Attitudes to cloning: vignettes * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001 Response scale 1 to 5

23. 60 50 40 30 20 10 therapeutic cloning Count 0 reproductive cloning Strongly agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree Agree Disagree Cloning should be banned

24. 80 60 40 20 therapeutic cloning Count 0 reproductive cloning Strongly agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree Agree Disagree Cloning should be allowed under certain circumstances

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

26. Multiple regression predicting overall attitude to cloning * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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’

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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/