Using evidence from a 2010 survey of 32 European publics, this article argues that belief in God increases disapproval for synthetic biology through two different mechanisms, depending on the strength of the individual’s belief. Among weak believers, belief in God appears to be associated with the increased availability and accessibility of the idea that genetic manipulation interferes with nature. Strong believers, in contrast, appear to also engage in an explicitly theological evaluation of synthetic biology, with opposition to synthetic biology resulting from the perception that the creation of new types of organisms encroaches on a domain of activity (creation) that has traditionally been considered to be a divine prerogative. Overall, our findings suggest that value predispositions can influence public attitudes towards synthetic biology even when individuals engage in explicit deliberation about the technology in question.
AiCNortonEC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters80: 123–29.
2.
AndersonNHZalinskiJ (1991) Functional measurement approach to self-estimation in multiattribute evaluation. In: AndersonNH (ed.) Contributions to Information Integration Theory, Volume 1: Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.145–85.
3.
BainbridgeWS (2003) Religious opposition to cloning. Journal of Evolution and Technology13. Available at: www.jetpress.org/volume13/bainbridge.html (accessed 9 April 2012).
4.
BedauMAParkeECTangenUHantsche-TangenB (2009) Social and ethical checkpoints for bottom-up synthetic biology, or proto-cells. Systems and Synthetic Biology3(1–4): 65–75.
5.
BoerJ d (2009) The role of prevention-oriented attitudes towards nature in people’s judgment of new applications of genomics techniques in soil ecology. Public Understanding of Science1: 1–15.
BrossardDScheufeleDAKimELewensteinBV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science18: 546–58.
8.
ChopraPKammaA (2005) Engineering life through synthetic biology. Silico Biology5(5): 401–10.
9.
Costa-FontJMossialosE (2006) The public as a limit to technology transfer: The influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK. Journal of Technology Transfer31: 629–45.
10.
DecosterJClaypoolHM (2004) A meta-analysis of priming effects on impression formation supporting a general model of informational biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review8(1): 2–27.
11.
DragojlovicNI (2011) Priming and the Obama effect on public evaluations of the United States. Political Psychology32(6): 989–1006.
12.
DruckmanJNBolsenT (2010) Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication2011(61): 4.
13.
DworkinR (2000) Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
EndyD (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature438(7067): 449–53.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17.
FiskeSTTaylorSE (1991) Social Cognition (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
GarfinkelMEndyDEpsteinGLFriedmanR (2007) Synthetic genomics: Options for governance. Industrial Biotechnology3(4): 333–65.
19.
GaskellGAllansdottirAAllumNCastroPEsmerYFischlerCJacksonJKronbergerNHampelJMejlgaardNQuintanilhaARammerARevueltaGStaresSTorgersonHWagerW (2011) The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology29(2): 113–14.
20.
GaskellGStaresSAllansdottirAAllumNCastroPEsmerYFischlerCJacksonJKronbergerNHampelJMejlgaardNQuintanilhaARammerARevueltaGStonemanPTorgersonHWagerW (2010) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change?Brussels: European Commission.
21.
GschemeidlerBSeiringerA (2011) ‘Knight in shining armour’ or ‘Frankenstein’s creation’? The coverage of synthetic biology in German-language media. Public Understanding of Science20(3): 1–11.
22.
HoSSBrossardDScheufeleDA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research20(2): 171–92.
23.
IsasiRKnoppersB (2006) Mind the gap: Policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries. European Journal of Health Law13: 9–26.
24.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2010) New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, D.C.
25.
IyengarS (1990) The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research2(1): 1–15.
26.
IyengarSKinderD (1987) The News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
KaebnickG (2009) Should moral objections to synthetic biology affect public policy?Nature Biotechnology27(12): 1106–08.
28.
KahanDMBramanDMandelG (n.d.) Risk and Culture: Is Synthetic Biology Different? Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 29. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
29.
KeeneON (1995) The log transformation is special. Statistics in Medicine14: 811–19.
30.
KellerCSiegristMGutscherH (2006) The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis26(3): 631–9.
31.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 341–55.
32.
MillerKC (2009) The limitations of heuristics for political elites. Political Psychology30(6): 863–94.
33.
NelsonTEClawsonRAOxleyZM (1997) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effects on tolerance. American Political Science Review91(3): 567–83.
34.
NelsonTEOxleyZMClawsonRA (1997) Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior19(3): 221–46.
35.
NisbetMC (2005) The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(1): 90–112.
36.
PauwelsE (2009) Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on US public perceptions of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology3, 37–46.
37.
PetersEMBurrastonBMertzCK (2004) An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Analysis24, 1349–67.
38.
PetersHPLangJTSawickaMHallmanWK (2007) Culture and technological innovation: Impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(2): 191–220.
39.
PetersT (2003) Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. London: Routledge.
40.
PligtJV dEiserJR (1984) Dimensional salience, judgment, and attitudes. In: EiserJR. (ed.) Attitudinal judgment. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp.161–77.
PriceVTewksburyD (1997) News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In: BarettGABosterFJ (eds) Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion, Vol. 13. Greenwich, CT: Ablex, pp.173–212.
43.
PriceVTewksburyDPowersE (1997) Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research24(5): 481–506.
44.
Royal Society of Chemistry. (2008) Engineering Life: The Emerging Field of Synthetic BiologyLondon: Institute of Physics.
45.
ScheitleCP (2005). In God we trust: Religion and optimism toward biotechnology. Social Science Quarterly86(4): 846–56.
46.
ScheufeleDA (2000) Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society3(2&3): 297–316.
47.
ScheufeleDACorleyEAShihT-jDalrympleKEHoSS (2008) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology4: 91–4.
SjobergL (2000) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research3(4): 353–67.
50.
SnidermanPBrodyRTetlockPE (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Synthetic Biology. (n.d.) What is synthetic biology? Available at: syntheticbiology.org/FAQ.html (accessed 4 April 2012).
52.
TomzMWittenbergJKingG (2001) Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Unviersity. Available at: gking.harvard.edu (accessed 30 April 2012).
53.
TulvingEWatkinsMJ (1975) Structure of memory traces. Psychological Review82(4): 261–75.
54.
VandermoereFBlanchemancheSBiebersteinAMaretteSRoosenJ (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: About God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research12: 373–81.
55.
VandermoereFBlanchemancheSBiebersteinAMaretteSRoosenJ (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views of science, technology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science20(2): 195–206.
56.
VriendH d (2006) Constructing Life: Early Social Reflections on the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
57.
WyerRSSrullTK (1986) Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review93(3): 322–59.
58.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ZallerJFeldmanS (1992) Theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36(3): 579–616.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
