Scientific innovations continue to advance the possibilities of human reproduction, raising important empirical and ethical questions. In vitro fertilization, disease reproductive genetic technologies, and enhancement reproductive genetic technologies are three reproductive technologies with varying moral support. Instead of assuming moral poles, we use original, nationally representative survey data of US adults (N = 8107) and multinomial logistic regression to examine how religiosity and orientations toward science shape the moral acceptability, amorality, and the moral rejection of in vitro fertilization, disease reproductive genetic technologies, and enhancement reproductive genetic technologies. We find that increased confidence and trust in science lowered the odds of holding moral concerns, while greater religiosity was associated with higher odds of viewing these technologies as morally wrong. Moral attitudes further varied across religious tradition as certain religious groups had significantly higher odds of viewing these technologies as amoral. Findings have implications for advancing understandings of morality around the faith-science interface beyond conceptions of a moral binary.
AbendG (2011) Thick concepts and the moral brain. European Journal of Sociology52(1): 143–172.
2.
AbendG (2013) What does the science of morality doesn’t say about morality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences43(2): 157–200.
3.
AllumNSibleyESturgisPStonemanP (2014) Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics. Public Understandings of Science23(7): 833–849.
BenedikterRSiepmannK (2016) Transhumanism: A new global political trend?Challenge59(1): 47–59.
6.
BossJ (1994) First trimester prenatal diagnosis: Earlier is not necessarily better. Journal of Medical Ethics20(3): 146–151.
7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) 2018 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report (Report for the US Department of Health and Human Services). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
8.
ChanE (2018) Are the religious suspicious of science? Investigating religiosity, religious context, and orientations towards science. Public Understanding of Science27(8): 967–984.
9.
CollinsSCChanE (2017) Sociocultural determinants of US women’s ethical views on various fertility treatments. Reproductive BioMedicine Online35(6): 669–677.
10.
Corbie-SmithG (1999) The continuing legacy of the tuskegee syphilis study: Considerations for clinical investigations. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences317(1): 5–8.
CyranoskiD (2019) The CRISPR-baby scandal: What’s next for human gene-editing. Nature566: 440–442.
13.
CyranoskiD (2020) What CRISPR-baby prison sentences mean for research. Nature577: 154–155.
14.
De Dios Vial CorreaJ (2000) Declaration on the Production of the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Rome: Pontifical Academy for Life.
15.
DijkstraAMSchuijffM (2016) Public opinions about human enhancement can enhance the expert-only debate: A review study. Public Understanding of Science25(5): 588–602.
16.
DoolinBMotionJ (2010) Christian lay understandings of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Public Understanding of Science19(6): 669–685.
DurkheimE (1995 [1912]) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York, NY: The Free Press.
19.
EcklundEHScheitleCP (2018) Religion Vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
EcklundEHPeiferJLWhiteVChanE (2017) Moral schemas in articulation and intuition: How religious people evaluate human reproductive genetic technologies. Sociological Forum32(2): 277–297.
21.
EvansJH (2010) Contested Reproduction: Genetic Technologies, Religion and Public Debate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
EvansJH (2014) Faith in science in global perspective: Implications for transhumanism. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 814–832.
23.
EvansJH (2018) Morals Not Knowledge: Recasting the Contemporary U.S. Conflict Between Religion and Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
24.
EvansJHEvansM (2008) Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology34(1): 87–105.
25.
EvansJHHudsonK (2007) Religion and reproductive genetics: Beyond views of embryonic life?Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion46(4): 565–581.
26.
FrostJ (2021) Religion for atheists? Transhumanism, mindfulness, and atheist churches. In: BullivantSRuseM (eds) The Cambridge History of Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1080–1094.
27.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77(2): 167–187.
28.
GreilALMcQuillanJBenjaminsMJohnsonDRJohnsonKMHeinzCR (2010) Specifying the effects of religion on medical help seeking: The case of infertility. Social Science and Medicine71(4): 734–742.
29.
GreilALSlauson-BlevinsKSShrefflerKMJohnsonKMLowryMHBurchAR, et al. (2016) Decline in ethical concerns about reproductive technologies among a representative sample of US women. Public Understandings of Science26(7): 789–805.
30.
HauskellerM (2012) Reinventing Cockaigne: Utopian themes in transhumanist thought. The Hastings Center Report42(2): 39–47.
31.
HitlinSVaiseyS (2013) The new sociology of morality. Annual Review of Sociology39(1): 51–68.
32.
HochschildJCrabillASenM (2012) Technology Optimism or Pessimism: How Trust in Science Shapes Policy Attitudes Toward Genomic Science. Washington, DC: Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings.
33.
JohnsonDJScheitleCPEcklundEH (2015) Individual religiosity and orientation towards science: Reformulating relationships. Sociological Science2: 106–124.
KronesTSchlüterENeuwohnerEEl AnsariSWissnerTRichterG (2006) What is the preimplantation embryo?Social Science & Medicine63(1): 1–20.
36.
McNellisD (2012) Prenatal Diagnosis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
37.
MannMSchleiferC (2020) Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces99(1): 305–322.
NorrisPInglehartR (2011) Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
ParensEAschA (2000) Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
41.
ParensEAschA (2007) The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: Reflections and recommendations. In ParensEAschA (eds) Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 3–43.
42.
PasekJ (2018) It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understandings of Science27(7): 787–806.
43.
PostSG (1992) Huntington’s disease: Prenatal screening for late onset disease. Journal of Medical Ethics18(2): 75–78.
44.
PutnamRDCampbellDE (2010) American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
45.
RobertsCFranklinS (2004) Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: Findings from an ethnographic study of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Human Fertility7(4): 285–293.
46.
RobertsDE (2009) Race, gender, and genetic technologies: A new reproductive dystopia?Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society34(4): 783–804.
SingerECouperMERaghunathanTEVan HoewykJAntonucciTC (2008) Trends in U.S. attitudes toward genetic testing, 1990–2004. The Public Opinion Quarterly72(3): 446–458.
SteenslandBRobinsonLDWilcoxWBParkJZRegnerusMDWoodberryRD (2000) The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces79(1): 291–318.
51.
SternAM (2015) Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America, 2nd edn.California: University of California Press.
52.
StockGCampbellJ (2000) Engineering the Human Germline. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
SusumuS (2011) The ethical issues of biotechnology: Religious culture and the value of life. Current Sociology59(2): 160–172.
54.
Tirosh-SamuelsonH (2012) Transhumanism as a secularist faith. Zygon47(4): 710–734.
55.
WashingtonH (2008) Medical Apartheid. New York, NY: Harlem Moon.
56.
WildeMJDanielsenS (2014) Fewer and better children: Race, class, religion and birth control reform in America. American Journal of Sociology119(6): 1710–1760.
57.
WilliamsB (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
YilmazOBahçekapiliHG (2015) When science replaces religion: Science as a secular authority bolsters moral sensitivity. PLoS One10(9): e0137499.
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.
