IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i2p377-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning

Author

Listed:
  • Shepherd, Richard
  • Barnett, Julie
  • Cooper, Helen
  • Coyle, Adrian
  • Moran-Ellis, Jo
  • Senior, Victoria
  • Walton, Chris

Abstract

The ability of scientists to apply cloning technology to humans has provoked public discussion and media coverage. The present paper reports on a series of studies examining public attitudes to human cloning in the UK, bringing together a range of quantitative and qualitative methods to address this question. These included a nationally representative survey, an experimental vignette study, focus groups and analyses of media coverage. Overall the research presents a complex picture of attitude to and constructions of human cloning. In all of the analyses, therapeutic cloning was viewed more favourably than reproductive cloning. However, while participants in the focus groups were generally negative about both forms of cloning, and this was also reflected in the media analyses, quantitative results showed more positive responses. In the quantitative research, therapeutic cloning was generally accepted when the benefits of such procedures were clear, and although reproductive cloning was less accepted there was still substantial support. Participants in the focus groups only differentiated between therapeutic and reproductive cloning after the issue of therapeutic cloning was explicitly raised; initially they saw cloning as being reproductive cloning and saw no real benefits. Attitudes were shown to be associated with underlying values associated with scientific progress rather than with age, gender or education, and although there were a few differences in the quantitative data based on religious affiliation, these tended to be small effects. Likewise in the focus groups there was little direct appeal to religion, but the main themes were 'interfering with nature' and the 'status of the embryo', with the latter being used more effectively to try to close down further discussion. In general there was a close correspondence between the media analysis and focus group responses, possibly demonstrating the importance of media as a resource, or that the media reflect public discourse accurately. However, focus group responses did not simply reflect media coverage.

Suggested Citation

  • Shepherd, Richard & Barnett, Julie & Cooper, Helen & Coyle, Adrian & Moran-Ellis, Jo & Senior, Victoria & Walton, Chris, 2007. "Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 377-392, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:2:p:377-392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00146-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petersen, Alan, 2001. "Biofantasies: genetics and medicine in the print news media," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(8), pages 1255-1268, April.
    2. I. Wilmut & A. E. Schnieke & J. McWhir & A. J. Kind & K. H. S. Campbell, 1997. "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," Nature, Nature, vol. 385(6619), pages 810-813, February.
    3. Calnan, Michael & Montaner, David & Horne, Rob, 2005. "How acceptable are innovative health-care technologies? A survey of public beliefs and attitudes in England and Wales," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1937-1948, May.
    4. Bates, Benjamin R. & Lynch, John A. & Bevan, Jennifer L. & Condit, Celeste M., 2005. "Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 331-344, January.
    5. I. Wilmut & A. E. Schnieke & J. McWhir & A. J. Kind & K. H. S. Campbell, 1997. "Erratum: Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," Nature, Nature, vol. 386(6621), pages 200-200, March.
    6. Kitzinger, Jenny & Williams, Clare, 2005. "Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 731-740, August.
    7. Bowring, Finn, 2004. "Therapeutic and reproductive cloning: a critique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 401-409, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shazia Kiyani & Sohaib Ahmed Hashmi, 2019. "The Emergent Bioethics of Human Cloning Debate in Global Context," Global Regional Review, Humanity Only, vol. 4(3), pages 145-153, September.
    2. Luca Verginer & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Stem cell legislation and its impact on the geographic preferences of stem cell researchers," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(1), pages 163-189, March.
    3. Ruimin Xu & Qianshu Zhu & Yuyan Zhao & Mo Chen & Lingyue Yang & Shijun Shen & Guang Yang & Zhifei Shi & Xiaolei Zhang & Qi Shi & Xiaochen Kou & Yanhong Zhao & Hong Wang & Cizhong Jiang & Chong Li & Sh, 2023. "Unreprogrammed H3K9me3 prevents minor zygotic genome activation and lineage commitment in SCNT embryos," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. David Johnson & Adam J. Bock, 2017. "Coping with uncertainty: entrepreneurial sensemaking in regenerative medicine venturing," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 33-58, February.
    5. Zhaodi Liao & Jixiang Zhang & Shiyu Sun & Yuzhuo Li & Yuting Xu & Chunyang Li & Jing Cao & Yanhong Nie & Zhuoyue Niu & Jingwen Liu & Falong Lu & Zhen Liu & Qiang Sun, 2024. "Reprogramming mechanism dissection and trophoblast replacement application in monkey somatic cell nuclear transfer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Sayaka Wakayama & Daiyu Ito & Erika Hayashi & Takashi Ishiuchi & Teruhiko Wakayama, 2022. "Healthy cloned offspring derived from freeze-dried somatic cells," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Y. Tao & W. Han & M. Zhang & Y. Zhang & J. Fang & J. Liu & R. Zhang & H. Chen & F. Fang & N. Tian & D. Huo & Y. Liu & F. Li & J. Ding & P. Maddox-Hyttel & X. Zhang, 2009. "Production of Boer goat (Capra hircus) by nuclear transfer of cultured and cryopreserved fibroblast cells into slaughterhouse-derived oocytes," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 54(10), pages 448-460.
    8. Waters, Erika A. & Ball, Linda & Gehlert, Sarah, 2017. "“I don’t believe it.” Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 153-160.
    9. Steven Kettell, 2010. "Rites of Passage: Discursive Strategies in the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill Debate," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 789-808, October.
    10. M. Samiec & M. Skrzyszowska, 2005. "Microsurgical nuclear transfer by intraooplasmic karyoplast injection as an alternative embryo reconstruction method in somatic cloning of pigs and other mammal species; application value of the metho," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 50(6), pages 235-242.
    11. Ozgun, Burcu & Broekel, Tom, 2021. "The geography of innovation and technology news - An empirical study of the German news media," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    12. Kitzinger, Jenny & Williams, Clare, 2005. "Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 731-740, August.
    13. Monaghan, Conal & Bizumic, Boris & Van Rooy, Dirk, 2020. "An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    14. Parry, Sarah, 2006. "(Re)constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2349-2359, May.
    15. Miller, Fiona Alice & Ahern, Catherine & Smith, Christopher A. & Harvey, Erin A., 2006. "Understanding the new human genetics: A review of scientific editorials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2373-2385, May.
    16. Prainsack, Barbara & Spector, Tim D., 2006. "Twins: A cloning experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(10), pages 2739-2752, November.
    17. Gail E. Henderson, 2008. "Introducing Social and Ethical Perspectives on Gene—Environment Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(2), pages 251-276, November.
    18. Racine, Eric & Gareau, Isabelle & Doucet, Hubert & Laudy, Danielle & Jobin, Guy & Schraedley-Desmond, Pamela, 2006. "Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992-2001) in Québec," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 1278-1290, March.
    19. Kuo, Wen-Hua, 2011. "Techno-politics of genomic nationalism: Tracing genomics and its use in drug regulation in Japan and Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(8), pages 1200-1207.
    20. Heather Skirton & Lorraine Q Frazier & Amy O Calvin & Marlene Z Cohen, 2006. "A legacy for the children – attitudes of older adults in the United Kingdom to genetic testing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 565-573, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:2:p:377-392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.