7. Social Differences in Approval of Genetically Engineered Products

7.1 The Model
7.2 Results
7.3 Summary: Social Differences

7.1 The model

We have seen that the public endorses a wide array of specific genetic engineering products. We have also seen that underlying the surface differences in attitudes towards genetically engineered organisms there is a general dimension indicating overall approval or disapproval of genetic engineering. So there are good statistical reasons for combining desirability ratings for the different products into one summary scale measuring approval or disapproval of genetic engineering, as described above. We use this scale as a dependent variable in a regression analysis of the sources of differences of opinion on genetic engineering.

What about the causes of approval of genetic engineering why do some people approve and other not? Most public policies are controversial to varying degrees, with some groups in favour and others opposed. Genetic engineering is no exception. To assess the social sources of differences of opinion about genetic engineering, we need a model that specifies causal connections.

This is an overview of the model:

7.1.1 Causes

Our model begins with potential causes that are stable characteristics, and are known to affect many attitudes and values.

Demographic characteristics (age, gender) must be included, because some researchers have argued that the continuing process of scientific discovery leaves older people far behind (perhaps because for many people scientific knowledge acquired at school is rarely updated), and because men and women are known to differ on a number of sciencerelated and technologyrelated topics.
Education (mostly acquired by young adulthood) needs to be included because of its strong connections with knowing and learning.
Occupation: People's work shapes many aspect of their lives, including some of their attitudes and values, so we include occupation to assess the impact of socialclass differences (occupational status is very stable over time).
Political Party: Many political scientists hold that people follow the lead offered by their political party, especially on new, lowsalience, possibly obscure issues; it is also true that Labor, Coalition, and Green partisans differ on many longstanding issues, particularly regarding the economy. Political party identification is also an enduring characteristic, and so can reasonably be regarded as causally prior to highly specific attitudes on very new topics, notably genetic engineering.
Religious denomination and religious belief are also enduring characteristics that shape many social and political opinions on a wide range of topics (e.g. sexual behaviour, abortion, women's employment). They are actually especially pertinent here; religious and scientific elites have reached a (sometimes uneasy) truce, but it is far from clear that the laity endorses this truce instead, as we shall see, the conflict between science and religion is a strong one in the mass public.

7.1.2 Intermediate causes

I examine several groups of intermediate potential causes:

Information. The information base -- separate measures for selfrated knowledge of science in general and knowledge of genetic engineering in particular -- is included because one theory of decisionmaking holds that people only form attitudes about technologies and techniques after they have acquired relevant information. Some researchers in this tradition would hold that more knowledge makes people more sympathetic to genetic engineering, other researchers would posit the opposite effect, so it is important to allow these possibilities in the model.
Goals. Other theories of decisionmaking hold that people are less concerned with understanding mechanisms when they evaluate techniques and technologies than with judging whether techniques and technologies help attain valued goals: they judge the "means" by the "ends". Accordingly the desirability of goals -- here the desirability of scientists striving for improvements to health and agriculture -- are also included as potential intermediate goals in the model.
Fears. Fears about possible risks in genetically engineered products.
Scientific World-view. Finally, adherence to an overarching scientific worldview (measured by adherence to modern cosmology and evolutionary theory) will, on some arguments, substantially affect attitudes towards genetic engineering. In particular, people who reject the scientific world-view might be inclined to see genetic engineering as tampering with divine creation, and hence tremendously dangerous.

7.2 Results

The measurement of these causes (and intermediate causes) has been described in previous sections. These are the basic results:

The results of the analysis, estimated by ordinaryleastsquares regression, show that :

7.2.1 Age and Gender

The demographic forces of gender and age do not immediately affect approval of genetic engineering (their effects are not statistically significant).
But gender and age do affect some of the intermediate variables, thereby exerting (very weak) flowon (or "indirect") effects. In particular, men exhibit higher levels of scientific knowledge and they are more inclined to adopt a scientific worldview.
But, interestingly, men and women do not differ in their assessment of the desirability of improvements in health and agriculture as goals for Australian scientists.
The old know less about science than the young but their knowledge of genetic engineering is no worse than that of young people. And the old are less inclined than the young to accept the scientific world-view.
Old and young agree on the importance of improving health as a goal for Australian scientists, but the old are more favorable than the young towards improving agriculture as a goal for Australian scientists.

7.2.2 Education and Class

There are strong educational differences in respect to knowledge but not in respect to attitudes:

As expected, education has a very large effect on scientific knowledge and a large effect on knowledge of genetic engineering.
But education has no direct impact on attitudes towards genetic engineering, and neither does occupational status.

Working class and middle class Australians are opposed on many political issues, but they are:

Equally positive towards health improvements as a goal for Australian scientists,
Equally positive towards improvements in agriculture as a goal for Australian scientists, and
Equally positive towards genetic engineering.

7.2.3 Politics and Religion

Political differences on these issues are modest:

People who are warm supporters of Labor, of the Coalition, and of the Greens do not differ in their knowledge of genetic engineering, nor in their general scientific knowledge, nor in their inclination to accept a scientific worldview, nor in their endorsement of improvements in health as a goal for Australians scientists. These matters are closer to common ground than to political cleavages.
But Coalition supporters differ in one respect: they more warmly endorse improvements in agriculture as a goal for Australian scientists.
Green supporters also differ in one respect: they are less favorable towards genetic engineering (this is a direct effect, not mediated by differences in worldview or knowledge). This too is a substantial effect (see the standardized regression coefficient, or beta, of .09).

Religion has no direct connection to approval of genetic engineering, but most people with strong Christian beliefs reject the scientific worldview, which thereby indirectly reduces their support for genetic engineering by a small amount.

7.2.4 Knowledge

Interestingly, neither of our informationbase indicators -- scientific knowledge and knowledge of genetic engineering -- has any impact on. approval of the projects we have asked about.

One might venture the interpretation that this reflects the fact that both effects posited by (opposing) informationbase decision theorists are real: increases in knowledge lead some people to be more supportive of genetic engineering, but lead other people to be less supportive, and the two effects cancel each other out.

7.2.5 Health Goals

By contrast, there is substantial support for a goal-oriented model of judgments about genetic engineering. People who value goals that genetic engineering could serve are much more supportive of it:

People who warmly endorse health improvement as a goal for Australian scientists are more favorable towards genetic engineering (this is a substantial effect, beta=.14).

7.2.6 Agricultural Goals

People who warmly endorse agricultural improvements as a goal for Australian scientists are very favorable towards genetic engineering (this is a very large effect with a standardized regression coefficient of .33)

7.2.7 The Scientific World-View

Adherence to an overarching scientific worldview -- as measured by adherence to modern cosmology and evolutionary theory -- leads people to favour genetic engineering . This is a substantial effect (see the standardized regression coefficient of .12). Another way of putting the same fact is that opposition to genetic engineering is substantially greater among those who reject the theory of evolution and those who reject modern astronomy.

7.3 Summary: Social Differences

Most Australians approve of genetic engineering, and there are few social differences in approval. They approve of genetic engineering mainly because they see it as serving goals that they value, not because they understand much about it. Indeed, knowledge of genetic engineering has no net impact on approval of the projects we have asked about (although it does, as we will see later, have some impact on people's personal willingness to use genetically modified products, and on their overall evaluation of the balance of costs and benefits to be expected from genetic engineering). Opposition to genetic engineering is concentrated among people who put a low priority on improvements in health and agriculture as goals for Australians scientists, among supporters of the Greens, and among people who dissent from the scientific worldview.

To top of page
To next Chapter
Table of Contents