Use of Human Tissue

Ipsos was commissioned to examine general public perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the use of human tissue. Qualitative discussion groups in April-May 2007 were followed up with a quantitative survey.

Ipsos was recently commissioned by the Human Tissue Authority (HTA) to examine general public perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the use of human tissue. Qualitative discussion groups were conducted in April / May 2007 in two locations across Great Britain. The qualitative research was followed up with quantitative questions placed on Ipsos's Public Affairs Monitor in May 2007 to gauge views on the same issues from a representative sample of adults in Great Britain.

The British public shows good and accurate knowledge of what constitutes 'human tissue' in both phases of the research. For example, more than eight in ten GB adults are able to give unprompted and accurate perceptions of the phrase 'human tissue'. Generally, the main potential uses that people think of in relation to human tissue come under the banners of 'medical research' and 'medical procedures'. The largest proportion of respondents in the quantitative survey mentioned medical research as a use for human tissue. In the discussion groups, participants indicated that they would generally prefer their donated tissue to be used to save a life, rather than to help private companies' profits. Uses of human tissue that respondents from the qualitative work believe to be 'unacceptable' are: any research aimed at refining human characteristics (such as human cloning), and any situation where an individual or organisation profits from the human tissue donated or used.

Alder Hey was mentioned spontaneously in all the focus groups in the context of regulation. This event, or series of events was generally seen as having been a major problem with the system of regulation, but apart from that, regulation was deemed by focus group participants to be 'ok'. However, the public (by their own admission) knows little, if anything about how regulation works — they just assume it is there, and want more communication about how it works. The results suggest that if the public feels informed, they are likely to be more trusting of regulation. The quantitative research reveals that just over half (52%) are confident about the way that donation, removal, storage and use of human tissue and organs is regulated; but just under a quarter (24%) are not confident. An equal proportion (24%) express no opinion. This level of confidence in regulation of human tissue is broadly in line with other Ipsos work in this area [see note].

Far more people are likely, rather than unlikely to donate their body, organs or tissues for the purposes of medical research, education or transplants (59%, compared with 27%). This suggests that there is positive feeling towards the use of human tissue for medical research, education or transplants, which also emerged in the qualitative research. Consent emerged strongly in the focus groups as something which is essential for all uses of human tissue. It was also evident in the focus groups that if the public feels in control of their tissue and its uses, they are likely to be more inclined to feel they can fully place their trust in any human tissue donation system.

Note

  1. E.g. OST/MORI 2004/5 Science in Society for the proportion (of those who think scientists are regulated) who are confident in the way that science is regulated.

Technical details

This programme of research involved both qualitative and quantitative research among the GB general public. The details of each stage of the research project are as follows:

  • General Public Qualitative Research: four discussion groups were conducted on 24 and 25 April 2007 in two locations across GB (Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Surbiton, Surrey), supplemented by four in-depth telephone interviews among the 'hard-to-reach'.
  • General Public Quantitative Research: Questions were placed on the Ipsos Public Affairs Monitor. A nationally representative quota sample of 2,058 adults (aged 16 and over) was interviewed throughout Great Britain. Interviews were carried out face-to-face in respondents' homes. Fieldwork was conducted between 17 and 22 May 2007. Data are weighted to match the profile of the GB population.

Related news