"Australian Support for Genetic
Engineering" Jonathan Kelley. Search: The Journal of the
Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of
Science. 28 (1995): 141-144.
Data from the "Genetic Engineering Module" of the 1994 International Social Science Survey/ Australia show that Australians hold positive attitudes towards a wide variety of potential genetic engineering projects (Kelley and Laird 1995; Kelley 1995a, 1995b). Hindmarsh, Lawrence and Norton (1995) critique these findings. Clearly, survey design is a difficult area, and this topic more difficult than most. But I am not without experience in survey design (16 large national surveys in three nations), nor without success in attitude measurement (4 major recent articles in the world's best sociology journals using new attitude measures: Kelley and Evans, 1993, 1995; Evans and Kelley 1991; Evans, Kelley and Kolosi 1992). Having carefully considered Hindmarsh et al's critique, I remain convinced that the ISSS results accurately reflect Australian opinion.
Let me note that, from the very beginning, we had a clear understanding with our colleagues at the Department of Industry, Science and Technology that we would "tell it like it is" and they were scrupulous in leaving us free to do the research correctly. Our finding that Australians approve of genetic engineering was not preordained by our methods, nor by their sponsorship.
Let us begin with evidence from some new questions that have few of the complexities that concern Hindmarsh et al. After the introduction and questions they discuss, we explicitly asked about potential risks -- whether genetic engineering could "create a new disease, something that might escape from the laboratory", whether genetically engineered plants might "get out of hand and spread on their own" or "be a long run danger to human health, if people ate them for years". Then we asked if people would use various genetically engineered products themselves. Finally we asked a straightforward summary:
Thinking back over the good things and the bad things that might come from it, over the next 20 years, do you think the benefits of genetic engineering are likely to outweigh the risks? Yes, definitely 14% Yes, probably 49% Mixed feelings; yes and no 27% No, probably not 7% No, definitely not 2% ---- 100%
Thus 63% of the Australian public think the benefits will outweigh the risks (N = 1378). Results from a recent Eurobarometer survey in 12 European Community nations using a similar question reveal similar levels of support (from 39% to 58% in different nations: Lemkow 1993: 14). Moreover most Australians would themselves wear clothing made of genetically engineered cotton (77%), eat genetically engineered pork (56%), and use genetically modified cooking oil (60%; Kelley 1995b). Most would eat genetically engineered tomatoes (61%), as would a plurality of Canadians (44% yes, 22% undecided, 32% no: Optima 1994: 15).
Hindmarsh et al. make much of international comparisons, suggesting that the Australian results must be wrong because they differ from results overseas. However:
"In summary, most Americans appear to be pragmatists on the issue of genetic engineering. They are concerned about both the morality and the risks of the technology. The survey finds that while the public expresses concern about genetic engineering in the abstract, it approves nearly every specific environmental or therapeutic application. ... This survey indicates that a majority of the public believes the expected benefits of science, biotechnology, and genetic engineering are sufficient to outweigh the risks" (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1987: Executive Summary; emphasis in the original).
Issues of Wording Hindmarsh et al. exercise themselves about details in the wording of our introductory question on genetically engineered tomatoes, and imagine all manner of dark motives. The question is indeed hypothetical, but hypothetical questions are common and pose few special problems -- citizens are quite accustomed to deciding about policies that do not exist and may never exist (for example, the GST). Our 'tomato' scenario actually paralleled events in the USA (Schibeci et al. 1994: 25-26): tomatoes were in fact carefully vetted by an appropriate government regulatory committee, met with little or no scientific opposition, and were labeled (although neither vetting nor labeling were legally required). Our genetic engineering questions followed a 15 minute International Social Survey Programme module which discussed an assortment of environmental risks, and so would, if anything, sensitize respondents to risk, not lull them into acquiescence. Moreover the tomato is the least popular genetically engineered product on our list. We might instead have introduced the subject with the leukemia cure, blood pressure treatment, or genetically engineered cotton. These are overwhelmingly popular and it is preposterous to imagine that any sensible wording would fail to discover that.
Hindmarsh et al. criticize our general measurement strategy and doubt that ordinary Australians have coherent views on genetic engineering. To be sure, there are no hard and fast rules about the best way to measure difficult concepts but the standard procedure, and the one that usually works best, is to ask a number of specific, concrete questions and then average the answers. For example, to discover what voters think about government regulation of business, best practice is to ask a number of specific questions about regulation in particular industries (railways, steel manufacturing, cars, farms, etc.) and then construct a combined 'government regulation' scale from the answers (Kelley 1988; Headey, Kelley and Wearing, 1993). This is the strategy we followed for genetic engineering, choosing projects from among those already well into development in Australia and overseas (Australian Science and Technology Council, 1993).
This approach allows us to use standard multivariate statistical procedures to discover whether the public really does have coherent attitudes toward genetic engineering or whether, as Hindmarsh et al. argue, the issue is so novel and complex that ordinary people as yet have no clear views. The evidence comes from the correlations among answers: if people have no clear views, their answers to different genetic engineering questions will be uncorrelated (and measurement reliability will be zero). But if they have well-defined views on genetic engineering, as they do on many political and economic issues, correlations will be positive, typically in the range of .20 to .60, and factor analysis will find a single factor. Table 1 gives the evidence.
Table 1: Genetic engineering questions: Correlations and factor analysis show that attitudes are well-formed. Australia, 1994.
Question |
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
(8) |
(9) |
Factor loading |
|
1 Cure cancer |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.72 |
|
2 Blood pressure |
.79 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.80 |
|
3 Cotton |
.61 |
.67 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.72 |
|
4 Cooking oil |
.45 |
.51 |
.49 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
.73 |
|
5 Control animals |
.35 |
.43 |
.46 |
.48 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
.66 |
|
6 Control insects |
.40 |
.46 |
.50 |
.47 |
.72 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
.68 |
|
7 Lean pork |
.39 |
.44 |
.44 |
.68 |
.53 |
.50 |
1.00 |
|
|
.74 |
|
8 Tomatoes |
.31 |
.34 |
.32 |
.46 |
.31 |
.32 |
.53 |
1.00 |
|
.55 |
|
9 Benefit vs. risk |
.36 |
.39 |
.35 |
.43 |
.34 |
.33 |
.45 |
.52 |
1.00 |
.56 |
Source: International Social Science Survey / Australia, 1995. N=1378.
These results clearly show that the Australian public has well-formed attitudes about genetic engineering. The correlations among questions average a substantial .46 and the factor analysis shows a single, clear factor. For comparison, correlations average .31 among items measuring attitudes toward government regulation, .42 among price control items, and .56 among trade union questions. Thus attitudes to genetic engineering are well within the normal range for Australian political and social attitudes (Evans and Kelley 1995; Kelley 1988:60-70; Kelley, Evans and Headey 1993).
Hindmarsh et al. highlight the public's allegedly low level of knowledge of genetic engineering. But in answer to one of our questions, 68% of Australians say they have "heard much about genetic engineering" and in answer to another, 63% claim to have "a basic understanding" of it (Kelley 1995b). So in fact there is a fair level of comprehension. Moreover, in a democracy voters routinely make decisions about policies about which they have no detailed academic understanding (Bean and Kelley 1995).
Importantly, even those who are less knowledgeable about genetic engineering nonetheless have reasonably coherent attitudes about it (table 2). Correlations among their answers (.39) are well within the normal range, although lower than correlations for more knowledgeable respondents (.50).
Moreover, knowledge of genetic engineering
does not lead to opposition, as Hindmarsh et al. suggest.
Quite to the contrary (table 2). There is little systematic
difference in support for most of the genetically modified
products on our list. And knowledgeable respondents are keener
on genetically modified tomatoes, more likely to say they
would themselves use genetically modified cotton, pork and
cooking oil, and more likely to believe that the benefits
of genetic engineering will outweigh the risks.
Table 2: Knowledge of genetic engineering. Australia, 1994.
Less knowledgeable |
More knowledgeable |
||
Correlation among attitude questions (mean) |
.39 |
.50 |
|
Support for genetic engineering: |
|||
Cure cancer (% favour) |
93% |
94% |
|
Blood pressure (% favour) |
92% |
93% |
|
Cotton (% favour) |
92% |
93% |
|
Cooking oil (% favour) |
84% |
82% |
|
Control animals (% favour) |
75% |
74% |
|
Control insects (% favour) |
76% |
72% |
|
Lean pork (% favour) |
75% |
73% |
|
Tomatoes (% favour) |
57% |
70% |
|
Personally use products: |
|||
Wear cotton (% yes) |
68% |
84% |
|
Eat tomatoes (% yes) |
51% |
68% |
|
Eat lean pork (% yes) |
47% |
63% |
|
Use cooking oil (% yes) |
59% |
73% |
|
Benefits outweigh risks (% yes) |
55% |
70% |
|
(Number of cases) |
(589) |
(737) |
Source: International Social Science Survey / Australia, 1995.
The Future I propose that the public's views about genetic engineering can be understood with the aid of a simple model which also gives a plausible estimate of how opinion is likely to change in the future as people become more knowledgeable about the technology (Kelley 1995b):
Attitudes to genetic engineering project X =
+ Worth of potential benefits offered by X
- Rational worries about potential costs of genetic engineering generally
- Irrational worries
+ Knowledge of genetic engineering
+ Scientific world-view
+/- Various minor factors [Eq. 1]
where the potential benefits are the
agricultural and other gains on offer; the rational worries
are perceived risks of disease, environmental damage, and the
like; irrational worries are the (surprisingly widespread)
fears of fluoridated drinking water; knowledge is the
public's level of information and understanding; and the scientific
world-view is acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution and
modern astronomy (e.g. the 'big bang') rather than creationism
and related pre-scientific views. Details of measurement and
method are in Kelley (1995b). Table 3 gives the results,
estimated by ordinary least squares regression.
Table 3. Who thinks the benefits of genetic engineering are likely to outweigh the risks? Regression analysis, Australia, 1995.
Standardized regression coefficient |
t-test,significance |
||
Potential benefits |
.18 |
t=6.6, p<.001 |
|
Rational worries about potential costs |
-.18 |
t=-6.0, p<.001 |
|
Irrational worries (fluoridation) |
-.09 |
t=-3.1, p<.01 |
|
Knowledge of genetic engineering |
.09 |
t=3.1, p<.01 |
|
Scientific world-view |
.14 |
t=4.3, p<.001 |
|
Gender (male=1, female=0) |
.03 |
Not significant |
|
Age (years) |
.00 |
Not significant |
|
Education (years) |
.04 |
Not significant |
|
Christian belief (5 item scale) |
-.01 |
Not significant |
|
Environmentalists (rating, 0 to 100) |
-.07 |
t=2.6, p<.01 |
Source: International Social Science Survey / Australia, 1995. N=1378.
Note that the model of Eq. 1 implies that asking questions about genetic engineering generally, without naming the benefits, will bring up the negatives but not the positives, and so is misleading. I believe this is the cause of much of the confusion in Hindmarsh et al.'s critique, and in the literature generally.
The results show that Australians supportive of genetic engineering -- the majority -- tend to be those who:
Conversely, those hostile to genetic engineering -- the minority -- tend to be those who:
These results suggest that Australian public will become more supportive of genetic engineering in the future if levels of knowledge increase, or if creationist world-views decline.
References Australian Science and Technology Council. (1993) Gene Technology: Issues for Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Bean, Clive and Jonathan Kelley. (1995) The Electoral Impact of New Politics Issues. Comparative Politics 27: 339-356.
Evans, M.D.R. and Jonathan Kelley (1995) What Sources of Pay Differences are Legitimate? Worldwide Attitudes. 19950410 :1-7.
Evans, M.D.R. and Jonathan Kelley. (1991) Prejudice, Discrimination and the Labor Market: Attainments of Immigrants in Australia. American Journal of Sociology, 99: 721-759.
Evans, M.D.R., Jonathan Kelley, and Tamas Kolosi. (1992) Images of Class: A Comparative Analysis of Public Perceptions in Hungary and Australia. American Sociological Review, 57: 461-482.
Headey, Bruce, Jonathan Kelley and Alex Wearing. (1993) Dimensions of Mental Health: Life Satisfaction, Positive Affect, Anxiety and Depression" Social Indicators Research 29:63-82.
Hindmarsh, Richard, Geoffrey Lawrence and Janet Norton (1995) Manipulating Genes or Public Opinion? Search 25: 117-121.
Kelley, Jonathan. (1988) Political Ideology in Australia, Pages 58-77 in Australian Attitudes: Social and Political Analyses from the National Social Science Survey (Jonathan Kelley and Clive Bean, editors) Sydney: Allen and Unwin,
Kelley, Jonathan (1995a) Australians' Evaluation of Genetic Engineering. Worldwide Attitudes 19950522: 1-8.
Kelley, Jonathan (1995b) Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering: Australia, 1994. Canberra: Biotechnology Section, Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
Kelley, Jonathan and M.D.R. Evans. (1993) The Legitimation of Inequality: Norms on Occupational Earnings in Nine Nations. American Journal of Sociology, 99: 75-125.
Kelley, Jonathan and M.D.R. Evans. (1995) Class and Class Conflict in Six Western Nations. American Sociological Review, 60: 157-178.
Kelley, Jonathan, M.D.R. Evans, and Bruce Headey. (1993) Moral Reasoning and Political Conflict: The Abortion Controversy. British Journal of Sociology, 44: 589-612.
Kelley, Jonathan and Alan Laird. (1995) Public Attitudes toward Genetic Engineering, 1994. Paper presented to the 4th Pacific Rim Biotechnology Conference, Melbourne, February.
Lemkow, Louis. (1993) Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Some European Perspectives. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.
Optima Consultants. (1994) Understanding the Consumer Interest in the New Biotechnology Industry. Ottawa: Distribution Services, Communications Branch, Industry Canada.
Schibeci, Renato, Ian Barns, Aidan Davison and Shona Kennealy. (1994) Public Perceptions of Biotechnology: First Report. Murdoch WA, Australia: School of Education, Murdoch University.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). New Developments in Biotechnology -- Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. OTA-BP-BA-45. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Biographical Note Jonathan Kelley is Senior Fellow in the Institute of Advanced Studies, the Australian National University, Director of the International Social Science Survey, Australian principal investigator for the International Social Survey Programme, and principal investigator for the International Survey of Economic Attitudes. (Details and CV)
To Australian Attitudes to Genetic Engineering, 1994
To International
Survey Center