Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
Biotechnology Australia
September, 2005
Contents
1. Research context 1
Background 1
The nature of public attitudes 1
Research objectives 2
2. Research design 3
A three-phase research program 3
Samples 3
3. Findings 5
3.1 General attitudes towards biotechnology 5
3.2 Applications of gene technology 6
3.3 Gene technology techniques 19
3.4 Using GM products 20
3.5 Gene technology in society 21
3.6 Information 21
3.7 Regulation 22
Appendix A - Survey sample characteristics 24
Location 24
Age 24
Gender 25
Education 25
Culturally and linguistically diverse groups 26
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 26
Vegetarians 27
Children under 12 27
Appendix B - Questionnaire 28
Biotechnology Public Awareness Questionnaire 28
List of Figures
Figure 1. Methodology 3
Figure 2. Awareness and knowledge of technologies 5
Figure 3. Perceived impact of technologies 6
Figure 4. Time frame for impact of technologies 6
Figure 5. Support for fields of gene technology application 7
Figure 6. Perceived usefulness of applications 8
Figure 7. Perceived risk associated with applications 9
Figure 8. Acceptability of applications 9
Figure 9. Perceived usefulness of GM food crops 10
Figure 10. Perceived risk associated with GM food crops 11
Figure 11. Acceptability of GM food crops 11
Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology to produce medicines 12
Figure 13. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology to produce medicines 12
Figure 14. Acceptability of using gene technology to produce medicines 13
Figure 15. Perceived usefulness of using stem cells to treat disease 14
Figure 16. Perceived risk associated with using stem cells to treat disease 14
Figure 17. Acceptability of using stem cells to treat disease 15
Figure 18. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology in human transplants 16
Figure 19. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology in human transplants 16
Figure 20. Acceptability of using gene technology in human transplants 17
Figure 21. Perceived usefulness of cloning 18
Figure 22. Perceived risk associated with cloning 18
Figure 23. Acceptability of cloning 19
Figure 24. Views on the uses of gene technology 21
Figure 25. Views on rules and regulations 22
Figure B-1. Location of respondents' residence 24
Figure B-2. Age profile of respondents 25
Figure B-3. Highest level of education attempted 26
List of Tables
Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research 3
Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research 4
Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview
1. Research context
Background
Biotechnology Australia is an Australian Government agency responsible for managing the National Biotechnology Strategy. The Public Awareness Program is one of the initiatives implemented under this strategy. Its aim is to provide members of the community with the information they need to make more informed choices regarding the adoption of biotechnologies.
Public attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian biotechnology sector. If Australians are not accepting of the applications of biotechnology, opportunities for individuals, industry and the nation in general may be lost. Public understanding of the science involved is thus considered to be important. However, there is perhaps as great a need for scientists (and policymakers) to understand the public's needs and concerns. In this way, research and development, public policy and communications strategies could be based more effectively on a sound understanding of what drives public acceptance and what must be addressed in order to meet the needs of the public and to address their concerns. Thus, there is a need to understand the underlying drivers of community attitudes towards biotechnology.
The nature of public attitudes
Research has shown that it is no longer sufficient to ask broad questions relating to attitudes towards, or acceptance of, biotechnology per se, as these measures vary markedly for different applications of biotechnology and gene technology.
Indeed, there has been a trend towards increasingly complex analysis of applications of technology from a simple risk-benefit analysis with some consideration of its ethical underpinnings, to a more considered analysis in terms of both the process of development and the outcomes (for individuals, industry and society) of the application[1]. Some of the issues that may be considered include:
· Is the process of development harmful to humans, animals or the environment?
· Is the process controlled or regulated?
· Does the outcome benefit humanity? Can it save or improve human life?
· Is the outcome simply increased corporate profit or scientific career advancement?
· What are the long-term outcomes likely to be? What potential exists for unforeseen outcomes to occur?
Interactions or trade-offs can also arise between different costs and benefits. For example, some people may consider a process that is harmful to animals to be acceptable when it is used to save or improve human life, but not where it simply results in increased profits.
Five key factors have been identified that underlie the public's acceptance of applications of biotechnologies[2]. These are:
· Information — Information on what biotechnologies are and are not capable of, provided by a credible source.
· Regulation — Confidence that regulatory safeguards are in place to ensure the safety of the public and the environment.
· Consultation — A belief that the public has been appropriately consulted and given the opportunity for input into the development of biotechnology.
· Consumer choice — The ability of the consumer to either accept or reject each particular application of biotechnology.
· Consumer benefit — A perceived societal and individual benefit for each application.
It should be borne in mind that public perceptions of these factors are as important as the reality. Ways in which both current perceptions and the reality of the situation can best be addressed need to be considered.
Finally, the rapid developments and advances in biotechnology mean that attitudes and acceptance relating to biotechnology, as well as the associations between them, are likely to change over time. It is important that these changes and explored and understood. To track these changes, research on behalf of Biotechnology Australia has been conducted every two years since 1999.
Research objectives
In 2005, Eureka Strategic Research was commissioned to conduct the fourth wave of this research. The primary aim of this project was to update and develop understanding of the public's awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive public acceptance. More specifically, the objectives of this research were to measure and understand; public awareness and acceptance of biotechnology, public confidence in its products and its applications, perceptions of usefulness and risks involved, and information and regulatory sources.
2. Research design
A three-phase research program
To meet these objectives, a three-phase research program was employed, as illustrated in the following diagram.
Figure 1. Methodology
Initially, a brief phase of exploratory qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes, motivations and behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research. Following the qualitative phase, quantitative research using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) survey was carried out. Finally, an explanatory phase of qualitative research was conducted in order to investigate and explain in detail the findings from the survey.
Samples
The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.
Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research
/ Location /Sydney / Goulburn /
Education level / Non-tertiary / 18-30 years / 31-65 years
Mainly tertiary / 31-65 years / 18-30 years
This phase was comprised of four discussion groups, with the variables of education, age and location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) factored into the structure. The discussion groups were between 11/2 to 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $60.
The sample for the quantitative survey consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age. A representative sample of this size provides a 95% confidence interval of no more than ±3.0%. This means that if we find that 50% of the sample, for instance, agrees that testing embryos for pre-disposition to diseases is useful to society, then we could be 95% confident (from this sample of 1,067), that between 47% and 53% of the population holds this view.
Respondents were selected from the electronic White Pages. The sample was stratified by location (by state and territory, and then into capital and non-capital) to ensure that the sample was in proportion to the population. Broad age and gender quotas were also applied, within each location, once again to ensure the sample was proportionally representative. The questionnaire averaged 24 minutes' duration.
The third phase (explanatory qualitative research) was conducted across three locations and with participants of varying levels of support for gene technology, as shown in the table below.
Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research
/ Location /Wagga Wagga / Sydney (City) / Hurstville /
Level of support / Low / 18-65 years / 18-65 years / 18-65 years
Medium / 18-65 years / 18-65 years / 18-65 years
High / 18-65 years / 18-65 years / 18-65 years
In the recruitment process, participants were required to rate their attitude towards the use of gene technology in today's society on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 is completely opposed and 10 is fully supportive). Once again, the duration of the groups was between 1% to 2 hours, and a $60 incentive was provided.
In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are combined and presented together for each issue.
3. Findings
3.1 General attitudes towards biotechnology
When compared to other current societal issues (e.g. pollution of the environment), the largest proportion of people rated GM foods and cloning as the least concerning issues.
Many people felt they could explain cloning to a friend, whereas the largest proportion of people have heard of, but know very little about, stem cells, genetic engineering, biotechnology and gene therapy, as is shown in Figure 2.
The majority thought that cloning would make things worse, but that the other technologies could improve the way of life in the future. The greatest proportion of respondents felt that genetic engineering, biotechnology and cloning were already having an impact on society. The results of the questions regarding the impact of technologies are shown in more detail in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 2. Awareness and knowledge of technologies
Figure 3. Perceived impact of technologies
Figure 4. Time frame for impact of technologies
3.2 Applications of gene technology
Areas of application
Members of the public hold diverse opinions in relation to the various applications of gene technology. On the whole, people were more supportive of health and medical applications than agricultural and food applications, as can be seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Support for fields of gene technology application
As can be seen from the chart, there is no one "public view". Instead, members of the public are supportive of the use of gene technology in both health/medical and food/agricultural applications to varying degrees. On the whole, health/medical applications received a greater number of higher scores, and food/agriculture received a greater number of lower scores.
Most felt the use of gene technology in a medical context was acceptable. They valued the technology's potential to save lives or improve quality of life and considered its use to treat disease and injury a 'noble' pursuit. They acknowledged that almost any technology would be considered acceptable if it were going to benefit one's self or loved ones. Some considered medical applications of gene technology to pose fewer risks, partly as they were contained in scientific laboratories and hospitals and would be used infrequently, usually as a last resort.
In contrast, the application of gene technology in agricultural applications was perceived by many to be unnecessary. Many believed that agricultural practices had developed and improved "naturally" for many years without the help of gene technology and, therefore, that it was uncalled for in this context. Almost all participants had concerns about the potential risk to human health, especially if the produce of the genetically modified crop was to be consumed.
Perceptions of specific applications
Respondents were asked a series of questions about specific applications of biotechnology (e.g. using stem cells in medical research and treating disease, and using gene technology to modify food crops, to produce medicines and in human transplants).
The majority had heard of the use of stem cells in medical research and treating disease, and using gene technology to modify food plants. In contrast, the majority was not aware of the use of gene technology in producing medicines or in transplants. The majority considered that each of the given gene technology applications was useful, with the greatest proportion of respondents perceiving stem cell research and treatment as useful.
Using gene technology to modify food plants was perceived to be risky by the highest proportion of respondents. The majority also considered the use of gene technology in human transplants and in the production of medicines to be risky. Despite this, most respondents found each of the applications of biotechnology to be acceptable, with the possible exception of genetically modified food crops.
Figures 6 to 8 display the above findings in greater detail.
Figure 6. Perceived usefulness of applications