What do individuals in different science groups within a life sciences organization think about genetic modification?

Abstract

An assessment was undertaken of the attitudes of individuals within the science community towards a program to produce genetically modified cattle for altered milk composition, expectantly allowing for research into the treatment of multiple sclerosis in humans. The majority of respondents to an electronic survey expressed favorable attitudes to the program, thought it beneficial, respected individual freedom and was fair and just and disagreed that it was harmful. A passion for science and having a suitable lifestyle were the most important motivating factors for individuals. Finally, there were a wide range of responses to a number of cultural beliefs or myths. Science grouping significantly affected the responses. Compared with Systems and Land groups, Plant and Reproduction groups more strongly agreed with the project, thought it less harmful to interest groups, felt that genetic modification of animals was more morally acceptable, and more strongly agreed with the myth statements. These results indicate a diversity of beliefs and attitudes towards genetic modification amongst those within the science community, and highlight the importance of understanding ethics and myths in dealing with them. It is suggested that the diversity of beliefs could be better used to help shape public policy and understanding of biotechnology.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (1994) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Brophy, B. , Smolenski, G. , Wheeler, T. , Wells, D. , L’Huillier, P. and Laibile, G. (2003) “Cloned Transgenic Cattle Produce Milk with Higher Levels of Beta-casein and Kappa-casein,” Nature Biotechnology 21: 157-162 .

Browne, W.P. , Skees, J.R. , Swanson, L.E. , Thompson, P.B. and Unnevehr, L.J. (1992) Sacred Cows and Hot Potatoes. Agrarian Myths in Agricultural Policy. Boulder: Westview Press .

Cooper, R. (2002) “Democratically Modified Science,” in M. Fisher , J. Marbrook and G. Sutherland (eds) Learning, Animals and the Environment; Changing the Face of the Future, pp. 68-74. Wellington: ANZCCART .

Davis, S.L. (1999) “What Should Animal Science Departments Be Doing to Address Contemporary Issues?,” Journal of Animal Science 77: 353 .

Eichelbaum, T. , Allan, J. , Fleming J. and Randerson, R. (2001) Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Wellington: Royal Commission on Genetic Modification .

Evans, G. and Durant, J. (1995) “The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain,” Public Understanding of Science 4: 57-74 .

Fisher, M.W. , Small, B.H. , Kenny, G.J. , Mackay, A.D. , Jerebine, B.C. and Parminter, T.G. (2004) “Understanding Shepherding during Lambing and Organic Farming Systems through Acknowledging Cultural, Community and Individual Influences,” Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64: 183-187 .

Forsyth, D.R. (1980) “A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 175-184 .

10.

Germer, C.K. , Efran, J.S. and Overton, W.F. (1982) “The Organicism-Mechanism Paradigm Inventory: Toward the Measurement of Metaphysical Assumptions,” 53rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Baltimore, Maryland.

11.

Hagelin, J. , Carlsson, H.-E. and Hau, J. (2003) “An Overview of Surveys on How People View Animal Experimentation: Some Factors that may Influence the Outcome,” Public Understanding of Science 12: 67-81 .

12.

Ho, M.-W. (1998) Genetic Engineering. Dream or Nightmare? Dublin: Gateway .

13.

Krimsky, S. and Wrubel, R.P. (1996) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment. Science, Policy, and Social Issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press .

14.

Lindsey, J.W. and Wolinsky, J.S. (2001) “Demyelinating Diseases,” Scientific American Medicine, Volume III, Section 11 (Neurology). New York: Scientific American .

15.

Meyer, A.L. , Benson, J.M. , Gienapp, I.E. , Cox, K.L. and Whitacre, C.C. (1996) “Suppression of Murine Chronic Relapsing Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis by the Oral Administration of Myelin Basic Protein,” The Journal of Immunology 157: 4230-4238 .

16.

Midgley, M. (1991) “The Origin of Ethics,” in P. Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics, pp3-13. Oxford: Blackwell .

17.

Midgley, M. (2003) The Myths We Live By. London: Routledge .

18.

Pepper, S.C. (1942) World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press .

19.

Peters, C.J. (2000) “Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: Who Stands to Benefit?,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13: 313-327 .

20.

Russell, B. (1952) The Impact of Science on Society. London: Unwin .

21.

Saunders, C. and Cagatay, S. (2003) “Commercial Release of First-generation Genetically Modified Food Products in New Zealand: Using a Partial Equilibrium Trade Model to Assess the Impact on Producer Returns in New Zealand,” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47: 233-259 .

22.

Shibata, J. (1996) “A New Approach to Surveying Public Opinion on Different Areas of Scientific Research,” Public Understanding of Science 5: 29-40 .

23.

Small, B.A. , Wilson, J.A. , Pedersen, J.A. and Parminter, T.G. (2002) “Genetic Engineering and the Public: Attitudes, Beliefs, Ethics and Cows,” Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 62: 179-182 .

24.

Sparks, P. , Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L.J. (1994) “Gene Technology, Food Production, and Public Opinion: a UK Study,” Agriculture and Human Values 11(1): 19-28 .

25.

Strohman, R.C. (1997) “Epigenesis and Complexity: the Coming Kuhnian Revolution in Biology,” Nature Biotechnology 15: 194-200 .

26.

Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science 13: 55-74 .

27.

Weiner, H.L. , Mackin, G.A. , Matsui, M. , Orav, E.J. , Khoury, S.J. , Dawson, D.M. and Hafler, D.A. (1993) “Double-blind Pilot Trial of Oral Tolerization with Myelin Antigens in Multiple Sclerosis,” Science 259: 1321-1324 .