Agnes Allansdottir

Biotechnology and the European public

The latest European sample survey of public perceptions of biotechnology reveals widespread opposition to genetically modified (GM) food in much of Europe, but public attitudes to medical and environmental applications remain positive.

The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences

Since 1991, the triennial Eurobarometer survey has assessed public attitudes about biotech and the life sciences in Europe. The latest 2010 Eurobarometer survey on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology (http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf), based on representative samples from 32 European countries, hints at a new era in the relations between science and society. We see less criticism of technology based on distrust in government and industry; more enthusiasm for novel technologies; and a more sophisticated appraisal of what technologies offer in terms of benefits, safety and sustainability. Europeans want regulation in the public interest and want a voice in such regulation when social values are at stake; we highlight an emerging European landscape of social value differences that shape peoples views of technologies.

Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?

George Gaskell and colleagues designed, analysed and interpreted the Eurobarometer 73.1 on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology as part of the research project Sensitive Technologies and European Public Ethics (STEPE), funded by the Science in Society Programme of the EC’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7).

Public views on gene editing and its uses

This paper reports on an online contrastive vignette study investigating the publics views of gene editing for therapy and enhancement in adult and prenatal contexts. The study, comprising quota samples of 1000 respondents per country, involved 10 European countries and the United States. Vignettes featuring gene editing for therapy compared to enhancement are seen as more morally acceptable and gain more support. Adult therapy attracts majority support, while prenatal enhancement elicits almost complete rejection. The assessment of adult enhancement and prenatal therapy are more ambivalent. These results and the respondents’ accounts of the reasons behind the decision point to a focus on the uses of gene editing, rather than the technology itself. The study is a contribution to understanding the practical dimensions of the ethical question: how can gene editing contribute to human flourishing?

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

We examine international public opinion towards stem-cell research during the period when the issue was at its most contentious. We draw upon representative sample surveys in Europe and North America, fielded in 2005 and find that the majority of people in Europe, Canada and the United States supported stem-cell research, providing it was tightly regulated, but that there were key differences between the geographical regions in the relative importance of different types of ethical position. In the U.S., moral acceptability was more influential as a driver of support for stem-cell research; in Europe the perceived benefit to society carried more weight; and in Canada the two were almost equally important. We also find that public opinion on stem-cell research was more strongly associated with religious convictions in the U.S. than in Canada and Europe, although many strongly religious citizens in all regions approved of stem-cell research. We conclude that if anything public opinion or ‘public ethics’ are likely to play an increasingly important role in framing policy and regulatory regimes for sensitive technologies in the future.

Bottom up ethics - neuroenhancement in education and employment

Neuroenhancement involves the use of neurotechnologies to improve cognitive, affective or behavioural functioning, where these are not judged to be clinically impaired. Questions about enhancement have become one of the key topics of neuroethics over the past decade. The current study draws on in-depth public engagement activities in ten European countries giving a bottom-up perspective on the ethics and desirability of enhancement. This informed the design of an online contrastive vignette experiment that was administered to representative samples of 1000 respondents in the ten countries and the United States. The experiment investigated how the gender of the protagonist, his or her level of performance, the efficacy of the enhancer and the mode of enhancement affected support for neuroenhancement in both educational and employment contexts. Of these, higher efficacy and lower performance were found to increase willingness to support enhancement. A series of commonly articulated claims about the individual and societal dimensions of neuroenhancement were derived from the public engagement activities. Underlying these claims, multivariate analysis identified two social values. The Societal/Protective highlights counter normative consequences and opposes the use enhancers. The Individual/Proactionary highlights opportunities and supports use. For most respondents these values are not mutually exclusive. This suggests that for many neuroenhancement is viewed simultaneously as a source of both promise and concern.