Literature DB >> 17449156

Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning.

Richard Shepherd1, Julie Barnett, Helen Cooper, Adrian Coyle, Jo Moran-Ellis, Victoria Senior, Chris Walton.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17449156     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  5 in total

Review 1.  The stem cell research environment: a patchwork of patchworks.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Amy Zarzeczny; Jennifer McCormick; Tania Bubela; Christine Critchley; Edna Einsiedel; Jacques Galipeau; Shawn Harmon; Michael Huynh; Insoo Hyun; Judy Illes; Rosario Isasi; Yann Joly; Graeme Laurie; Geoff Lomax; Holly Longstaff; Michael McDonald; Charles Murdoch; Ubaka Ogbogu; Jason Owen-Smith; Shaun Pattinson; Shainur Premji; Barbara von Tigerstrom; David E Winickoff
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 5.739

2.  Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions.

Authors:  Christine Grady; Lisa Eckstein; Ben Berkman; Dan Brock; Robert Cook-Deegan; Stephanie M Fullerton; Hank Greely; Mats G Hansson; Sara Hull; Scott Kim; Bernie Lo; Rebecca Pentz; Laura Rodriguez; Carol Weil; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Wendler
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 3.  Diversity in public views toward stem cell sources and policies.

Authors:  Edna Einsiedel; Shainur Premji; Rose Geransar; Noelle C Orton; Thushaanthini Thavaratnam; Laura K Bennett
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 5.739

Review 4.  Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review.

Authors:  Jonas Lander; Tobias Hainz; Irene Hirschberg; Daniel Strech
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Religion and the public ethics of stem-cell research: Attitudes in Europe, Canada and the United States.

Authors:  Nick Allum; Agnes Allansdottir; George Gaskell; Jürgen Hampel; Jonathan Jackson; Andreea Moldovan; Susanna Priest; Sally Stares; Paul Stoneman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.