Public Support For Controversial Technologies Could Increase If Applications Are Explained

A new public opinion survey has shown that support for controversial technologies in the Life Sciences may be increased if the public is given proof that those developments are necessary in order to achieve certain benefits. A poll conducted by MORI and commissioned by Novartis UK Ltd shows that if the public can see concrete benefits arising from research it is more willing to support new technologies.

Commenting on the results, Bill Fullager, President of Novartis UK Ltd said: "The research has implications for the way science is portrayed to the public and sends a message to the science community that their work is valued by the public but that openness and communication are vital. This fits closely to Novartis' commitment to pro-active, transparent and responsive communications."

The results of this survey will set the scene for a debate, Scientific Advances, and Choices in the 21st Century, being hosted by Novartis at the British Association Annual Festival of science, next week.

Approximately 1000 adults were interviewed for the survey. Interviewees were asked which, if any, scientific advances from a list they would like to happen. When given multiple choices of potential benefits from life science research, responses were: 86% for a permanent cure or vaccine for debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's disease; 82% for medicines which are guaranteed to work for the individual without any side effects; 62% for new agricultural methods that significantly benefit the environment; and 45% for nutritionally improved food that tastes and costs the same as current food. Thus the public seemingly approves of scientific advances that bring medical benefits more than those advances that apply to food, agriculture and the environment. (MORI note 1).

Interviewees were asked whether they supported or opposed various scientific approaches: scientific experiments on live animals; cloning of animals such as Dolly the sheep; cloning and growing human cells; genetic modification of plants; genetic modification of animals; human genetic testing for diseases; transplants of organs into humans from human donors; transplants of organs into humans from animal donors.

Approval rates varied from 90% for human to human transplants, to only 16% for the cloning of animals. (For results, see attached summary). (MORI note 2).

However, when the same categories were associated with medical benefits, the public appeared more willing to accept technologies. Without an application being stated, the approval rating for scientific experiments on live animals was only 31%. When asked the same question in connection with a permanent cure or vaccine for Alzheimer's, the approval rating increased 17 points to 48% (with 43% opposed). If animal experiments were used to develop medicines without side effects, the approval rating lifted 14 points to 45% (with 45% opposed). For the same categories, the approval ratings for cloning animals at least doubled. Approval for the cloning and growing of human cells rose by 18 (Alzheimer's) and 17 points (medicines without side effects).

"Novartis is very encouraged by these results. We believe biotechnology will enable us to deliver health, environmental and commercial benefits, for example new medicines and environmentally sustainable options for modern agriculture. We also remain guided by three principles for biotechnology: it must bring benefits, it must be used in a responsible manner and it must be safe."

The pattern of an increase in approval for technology when benefits were directly attached was also seen for agricultural biotechnology. Approval ratings for genetic modification of plants increased if it was proved to be necessary to achieve new agricultural methods that significantly benefit the environment (from 20% to 37%), or to obtain nutritionally improved food that tastes and costs the same as current food (from 20% to 34%).

Notes:

1. The figure for 'new agricultural methods that significantly benefit the environment' is lower than might have been expected given that we know that environmental issues are important to the general public, based on MORI's 30 years experience of tracking attitudes towards the environment. Arguably, this might be due to the fact that people are cautious about agricultural methods following the BSE scare and extensive media coverage of genetically modified food, as well as the fact that people fear the new and unknown.
2. These findings are in line with those of MORI's study on the Biosciences, in which a significant proportion of the sample found transplants and genetic testing to be beneficial for society (51% and 24% respectively), while cloning and genetic modification of animals and plants were only mentioned by a minority (2% and 1% respectively).

Technical details

MORI conducted face-to-face interviews with a nationally representative quota sample of 991 adults aged 15+ in 165 sampling points in Great Britain between 19-24 August 1999.