Eureka report - Biotechnology Australia overall … · · 2015-02-03COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY REPORT ON OVERALL ... Prepared for Biotechnology Australia Eureka Project

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY REPORT ON OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GENERAL APPLICATIONS

Prepared for Biotechnology Australia Eureka Project 4001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Research context 1

Research design 3

Research findings 6 Knowledge and perceptions of biotechnologies 7 Aspirations for biotechnology 15 Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology 18

Conclusions and implications 32

Appendix A: Methodological comparisons 34

Appendix B – Initial/Exploratory Group Discussion Guide 42

Appendix C – Survey Sample Characteristics 50

Appendix D – Biotechnology Public Awareness Questionnaire 54

Appendix E – Exploratory Group Discussion Guide 70

Appendix F – Exploratory Group Notepad Exercise 79

BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY

JUNE 2007 | PAGE 1

RESEARCH CONTEXT

Biotechnology Australia

Biotechnology Australia is a multi-departmental Australian Government agency responsible for

managing, with its partners, the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS) and coordinating non-

regulatory biotechnology issues for the Australian Government. Biotechnology Australia’s goal

is to ensure Australia captures the benefits arising from the medical, agricultural and

environmental application of biotechnology, while protecting the safety of people and the

environment.

Importance of community attitudes

Community attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian biotechnology

sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain applications of biotechnology, efforts made by

scientists on research and development will be constricted, and a host of potential benefits in

fields ranging from medicine to food to textiles are likely to be lost. There is a need to

understand the underlying drivers of community acceptance of biotechnology and ways in

which public rejection of biotechnology may be minimised - both to inform the public about

biotechnology and to inform scientists of the public’s needs and concerns

The nature of community attitudes

Research has shown that it is no longer sufficient to ask broad questions relating to attitudes

towards, or acceptance of, biotechnology per se, as these measures vary markedly for different

applications of biotechnology and gene technology. Issues that may be taken into account

when evaluating an application are:

Potential harm to humans, animals or the environment

1 This section outlines the background

to the project, and specifies our understanding of the research

objectives


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 2

Regulation and control of the process of development

Scope of benefits: humanity, scientific career advancement, or corporate profit

Potential for unforeseen outcomes to occur

Trade-offs may occur among these factors. For instance, harm to animals may be acceptable

to some if the application can save human lives, but not if it only is for corporate profit.

The need for research

This research represents the fifth wave of Biotechnology Australia’s ongoing attitudinal

research. As such, it is an opportunity to identify and understand any new issues that have

arisen, as well as any changes in community attitudes and their drivers, since 2005. The

increased understanding of social drivers of attitudes regarding biotechnology will be used to

identify differences in the various audiences and stakeholders. Finally, the research will enable

the success of some aspects of the Public Awareness Program to be measured.

The enhanced understanding of community attitudes and concerns that will result from this

research will be used to guide the further development of the Public Awareness Program. It

will uncover any significant changes, new problem areas and priority targets in terms of public

attitudes to be addressed. It will also provide information on the most effective means by

which information can be imparted, and guidance in terms of the conduct of further community

consultations.

Research objectives

Overall, the aim of this project was to update and further develop understanding of the

community’s awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of

biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive community acceptance. In addition, research

aimed to understand community aspirations for biotechnology, information sources, and the

success of current public information and awareness strategies.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 3

RESEARCH DESIGN

To meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was undertaken,

as illustrated in the following diagram.

A multi-stage research program

Initially a brief literature review was conducted to ensure that Eureka was fully aware of any

new developments in the area of biotechnology. Following this, a phase of exploratory

2 In this section, details of our

proposed research design are provided, as well as our rationale for

using this methodology

Exploratory qualitative research

Questionnaire design and pre-piloting

Quantitative survey

Explanatory qualitative research

Reporting of findings and strategic recommendations

Review of recent research and literature

Exploratory qualitative research

Questionnaire design and pre-piloting

Quantitative survey

Explanatory qualitative research

Reporting of findings and strategic recommendations

Review of recent research and literature


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 4

qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes, motivations and

behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research. Quantitative research

was then carried out to measure the incidence of awareness, perceptions and attitudes relating

to biotechnology. This phase utilised a split sample CATI/ online methodology. Finally, an

explanatory phase of qualitative research was conducted in order to investigate and explain in

detail the findings from the survey.

Sample

Exploratory qualitative phase

The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.

Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research

Age

18-30 years 31-65 years

Non-tertiary Sydney Wagga Wagga Education level Tertiary Wagga Wagga Sydney

This phase comprised of four discussion groups, with the variables of education, age and

location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) factored into the structure. The discussion

groups were 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $70. (See

Appendix B for exploratory discussion guide).

Quantitative phase

This phase of the research has traditionally been conducted over the telephone via CATI

(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). This wave, however, Biotechnology Australia

sought to migrate the study to an online methodology. For a survey of this length, an online

methodology is beneficial to participants, as they are able to complete the survey at a time of

their choosing and over multiple sittings if desired. There are also notable cost savings.

A split CATI/online sample methodology was deemed the most prudent approach to facilitate

the migration as this would enable clean comparison of data over time. The total sample

consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age. Approximately half the

interviews (n=534) were conducted via CATI and the other half (n=533) were conducted

online.

The telephone sample was recruited using List Assisted Random Digit Dialling (LARDD)

methodology, to yield a more representative sample than the Electronic White Pages (EWP).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 5

The sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within these, by

rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in proportion to the

population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and gender quotas were

applied, again proportional to the population. (See Appendix C for survey sample

characteristics). Sampling methods employing a disproportionate chance of selection were

used to deal with groups who were known to be less inclined to do surveys or more difficult to

contact (e.g. males and younger persons) in order to be representative. Importantly, this

approach mirrors the approach of the previous wave of research, thus ensuring comparability.

The questionnaire averaged 29 minutes duration. (See Appendix D for questionnaire).

For the online methodology, samples were sourced from an online panel, that is, individuals

who have opted to receive email invitations to participate in surveys from our fieldwork

supplier. Stratification and quota sampling occurred as per the telephone methodology.

Explanatory qualitative phase

The sample structure for the explanatory qualitative phase was based on two main variables,

location and level of support, and is presented below. In the recruitment process, participants

were required to rate their attitude towards the use of gene technology in today’s society on a

scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 is completely opposed and 10 is fully supportive). Once again, the

duration of the groups was 2 hours, and a $70 incentive was provided. (See Appendix E for

explanatory discussion guide). Part of this group discussion focussed on the media’s

representation of the role of genes in human behaviour. The 6 newspaper articles were

deliberately chosen so as to be representative of tabloid-style reporting in this area. (See

Appendix F for newspaper articles).

Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research

Location

Bathurst Sydney (City) Hurstville

Low 31-65 years 18-30 years 31-65 years Level of support

Medium 18-30 years 31-65 years 18-30 years

High 18-30 years 18-30 years 31-65 years

In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are combined and

presented together for each issue.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 6

RESEARCH FINDINGS

This section details the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of research

pertaining to overall perceptions of biotechnology and its general applications. Where it would

assist the reader to understand the research findings, verbatim quotations from research

participants have been included to illustrate the range of views typically expressed.

The findings cover knowledge and perceptions of biotechnologies, aspirations for biotechnology

and awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology. A comparison of CATI and

online results, along with a discussion of the implications of the transition from CATI to online

methodologies, can also be found in Appendix A of this report.

The following points are relevant to the interpretation of the quantitative findings:

Data from telephone interviews (not online) has been used for this wave’s analysis, in order

to ensure methodologically consistent data are compared over time. Previous waves of

research were conducted over the telephone.

Significant trends over time are denoted with a circle (increase) or box (decrease)

A number of questionnaire changes were made to meet the needs of stakeholders involved

in the research. Comparisons over time are therefore only possible for some questions.

One important change was that definitions of biotechnology, gene technology and genetic

modification were provided at the commencement of the survey questionnaire and before

each of the later group discussions. This was done at the request of stakeholders, to avoid

any ambiguity in meaning when using these terms.

3 This section presents the findings of

the report


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 7

Knowledge and perceptions of biotechnologies

Knowledge and awareness of technology terminology

Participants were asked to indicate their self-assessed level of awareness and knowledge of six

technologies: IVF, cloning, genetic modification, stem cell research, gene technology and

biotechnology.

Figure 1. Knowledge and awareness of technology terminology

5950

35 3522 18

32 47

5158

57 60

8 413

721 22

0

20

40

60

80

100

IVF Cloning Geneticmodification

Stem cellresearch

Genetechnology

Biotechnology

%

You know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend You have heard of it, but know very little or nothing about

You have not heard of it Don't know

Base: all CATI (n=534)

Participants’ self-assessed level of understanding was highest for IVF, with 59% indicating that

they could explain the technology to a friend. One in two participants (50%) indicated an

equivalent level of knowledge for cloning, while just over one in three (35%) did so for genetic

modification and stem cell research. The technologies that participants felt least

knowledgeable about were gene technology and biotechnology. Twenty-two percent and 18%

signified that they could explain these technologies to a friend respectively.

Awareness of all technologies was high. More than nine in ten participants noted that they had

at least heard of cloning, IVF and stem cell research. Awareness of genetic modification, gene

technology and biotechnology was slightly lower, at 87%, 79% and 78% respectively.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 8

PREDICTORS OF KNOWLEDGE OF TERMINOLOGY

Analysis1 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic

variables, and knowledge of technology terminology. Table 1 below summarises the subgroups

found to be significantly more likely to indicate being able to explain a technology to a friend.

In sum, those who felt comfortable with new technologies expressed greater technology

knowledge than those who did not feel comfortable, those participants who were university

educated had greater self-assessed knowledge than those who were not, and finally, males

were more likely to indicate being able to explain technologies to a friend than females.

Table 1. Predictors of knowledge of terminology

More likely to be able to explain to a friend Item Subgroup %

Total for item %

Genetic modification 44 35 Stem cell research 42 35 Gene technology 32 22

Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me) Biotechnology 28 18

Technophiles (technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it - disagree)

Cloning 64 50

Cloning 60 50 Genetic modification 48 35 Stem cell research 45 35 Gene technology 31 22

University educated

Biotechnology 27 18

Cloning 55 50 Stem cell research 41 35 Gene technology 26 22

Males

Biotechnology 26 18

KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF TERMINOLOGY OVER TIME

The question on terminology was asked in the same way in 2005 for three of these

technologies: cloning, stem cell research and biotechnology. Comparative results over time for

these technologies are presented in Figure 2 below. Results indicate that there have been no

significant improvements in self-assessed knowledge of these technologies over time.

1 Pearson Chi square tests were conducted to test the significance of the relationship between variables. This test compares the actual frequencies of the cross tabulation to the frequencies we would expect if there was no relationship between the variables. Those relationships that have a probability of being due to chance that are less than 5% are described as being statistically significant.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 9

Figure 2. Understanding of terminology

5036

18 18

44 47

58 58

65 60

2 4 6 717 22

54

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005* 2007 2005 2007

Cloning Stem cell research Biotechnology

%

You know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend You have heard of it, but know very little or nothing aboutYou have not heard of it

Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)* 2005 Use of stem cells

5036

18 18

44 47

58 58

65 60

2 4 6 717 22

54

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2007 2005* 2007 2005 2007

Cloning Stem cell research Biotechnology

%

You know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend You have heard of it, but know very little or nothing aboutYou have not heard of it

Base: all CATI 2005 (n=1,068) 2007 (n=534)* 2005 Use of stem cells

QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK

There continues to be less comprehension of the exact meaning of the term ‘biotechnology’

when compared with ‘gene technology’. Some participants associated ‘biotechnology’ with

science fiction, computers, dual or combined technology and the potential impacts of such

technology on humans. Others had more accurate associations, including breakthroughs in

agriculture or medical research. Meanwhile, most participants were aware, or could guess, that

‘gene technology’ relates to the modification of genes. Some were able to provide quite

sophisticated definitions.

I think it (biotechnology) means combined technology like Mechanical plus computer combined.

It means changing gene structures in an organism usually for therapeutic or production purposes. Genes may be implanted, removed; sequences changed with the aim of altering organisms.

The science of working with the human genome. Molecular science?

Words that were associated with these terms predominantly focused on the health and medical

area, including DNA, chromosomes, gene mapping, research, stem cell research, cloning,


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 10

genetic engineering, studying or curing genetically inherited diseases and artificial

insemination.

Other terms mentioned related to food and agriculture, and included modified food or

organisms, new farming techniques, commercial gain, increased quantity or quality of food and

research on farm animals. Participants from the groups conducted in Wagga Wagga made

more frequent references to the agricultural dimensions of biotechnology.

After initial discussion of people’s interpretation of the terminology, a definition of

biotechnology was provided, so that the term could be used for the remainder of the group.

Despite this, there was widespread confusion regarding the distinction between biotechnology

and more general aspects of science and technology, including in particular the use of

chemicals in food production.

Perceptions of technologies

Participants of the survey were subsequently asked their views on the future impact that each

of these technologies will have in the future. They were asked whether they believed the

technology in question would improve our way of life in the future, have no effect or make

things worse. Figure 3 presents these results.

Figure 3. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life

8773 68

45

28

2

56

9

11

5

108

2948

612

18 17 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

Stem cellresearch

Genetechnology

Biotechnology Geneticmodification

Cloning

%

Don't know

Make things worse

Have no effect

Improve our way of lifein the future

Base: all CATI (n=534)

Of all technologies, participants were most likely to predict that stem cell research would have

a positive future impact on our way of life. Indeed, almost nine in ten (87%) indicated that it

would improve our way of life, while only 5% felt that it would make things worse. Predictions


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 11

for gene technology and biotechnology were positive from the majority of participants, with

73% and 68% respectively signifying that these technologies would improve our way of life,

and only a small number (10% and 8% respectively) predicting things being made worse.

Positive future perceptions drop markedly for genetic modification (45%) and cloning (28%),

while negative future perceptions increase correspondingly (29% and 48%).

Participants were least able to respond to this question in relation to biotechnology and genetic

modification.

PREDICTORS OF POSITIVE PERCEPTIONS OF TECHNOLOGIES

Analysis2 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic

variables, and positive perceptions of technologies. Table 2 below summarises the subgroups

found to be significantly more likely to view technologies improving our way of life in the

future. In sum, those who feel more comfortable with new technologies had more positive

outlooks for technologies in the future than others, males had more positive perceptions of

cloning and genetic modification than females, females had more positive perceptions of IVF

than males, and lastly, those who are university educated and those aged 18-30 were more

likely than others to predict that cloning will have a positive impact on our future way of life.

Table 2. Predictors of positive perceptions of technologies

Will improve our way of life in the future

Item Subgroup % Total for item %

Biotechnology 77 68 Gene technology 82 73 Genetic modification 61 45 Cloning 34 28 Stem cell research 94 87

‘Technophiles’ (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

IVF 88 83

Cloning 33 28 Males

Genetic modification 52 45

Females IVF 86 83 University educated Cloning 34 28 18-30 Cloning 39 28

2 Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 12

PERCEPTIONS OF TECHNOLOGIES OVER TIME

This question was asked in 2005 for three of the technologies: stem cell research,

biotechnology and cloning. Figure 4 below presents these results over time.

Figure 4. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life – trends over time

82 87

6068

1928

22

56

11

11

75

7

8

5848

9 6

2818 13 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005* 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

(n=1,000) (n=498) (n=880) (n=415) (n=1,044) n=515)

Stem cell research Biotechnology Cloning

%

Improve our way of life in the future Have no effect Make things worse Don't know

Base: those aware CATI* 2005 Use of stem cells

There have been significant increases in positive perceptions of the future impact of all three

technologies. The proportion of participants indicating that stem cell research would improve

our way of life in the future rose from 82% to 87%. For biotechnology the proportion of

positive future predictions rose from 60% to 68%, while for cloning the proportion rose from

19% to 28%.

Later in the survey, participants were asked for their views on the likely impact of gene

technology on problems faced by society and on the impact it would have on their personal

lives. The views expressed are presented in Figure 5 below.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 13

Figure 5. Perceived impact of gene technology on society and on personal life

4026

18

51

61

54

8 11

26

1 2 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Likelihood of genetechnology to solve

significant problems facedby society

Likelihood of genetechnology to create

significant problems in thefuture

Likelihood of genetechnology to improve life

personally

%

Very likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely Dont know

Base: all CATI, n=534

There were mixed views regarding the perceived impact of gene technology. Two in five

participants (40%) indicated that gene technology was very likely to solve significant problems

faced by society, with a further 51% indicating that it was somewhat likely to do so. At the

same time, however, the majority of participants felt that gene technology was likely to create

significant problems in the future (26% very likely, 61% somewhat likely).

An analysis3 of differences by subgroup indicated that those aged 18-30 and those who are

more comfortable with new technologies were significantly more likely to think that gene

technology will solve significant problems faced by society. Almost all (98%) 18-30 years olds

indicated that this was either somewhat or very likely. Fifty-six percent of ‘technophiles’

indicated that this was very likely. In contrast, those aged 51-75 and those who advocated the

use of more natural farming practices were significantly less likely to predict problems being

solved, with 12% and 13% respectively indicating this was not all likely.

Positive predictions for the impact of gene technology on one’s life personally were lower than

positive predictions for society in general. Less than one in five 5 participants (18%) felt that

gene technology would be very likely to improve their life personally, and 54% predicted it to

be somewhat likely. However, an analysis4 of subgroup differences determined that positive

3 Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05 4 Ibid


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 14

predictions were significantly more likely among ‘technophiles’5 and those aged 18-30.

Twenty-eight percent and 23% respectively indicated it was very likely that their life would

improve personally. In contrast, those aged 51-75, those with the lowest level of educational

attainment and those who advocated natural farming practices had a significantly more

negative outlook, with 38%, 41% and 34% indicating gene technology was not at all likely to

improve their life personally.

Figure 6 below further demonstrates the concurrent positive and negative outlooks for gene

technology’s future impact on society. The analysis isolates participants who indicated that

gene technology was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ likely to help solve significant problems faced by

society, and presents their predictions of the likelihood of significant problems to be created by

gene technology.

Figure 6. Perceived impact of gene technology on society

21 23

7356

518

1 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Somewhat likely (n=270) Very likely (n=212)

Likelihood of gene technology to help solve significant problems

%

Don't knowNot at all likely to create significant problemsSomewhat likely to create significant problemsVery likely to create significant problems

The majority of participants who predicted that gene technology would help solve significant

problems in the future also believed that gene technology would create significant problems in

the future. Among those who indicated that assistance in solving society’s problems was very

likely, 23% felt that problem creation was very likely and a further 56% felt that it was

somewhat likely. Among those who thought that assistance in solving society’s problems was

somewhat likely, the corresponding figures were 21% and 73%.

5 Agree that ‘new technologies excite me more than concern me’


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 15

Aspirations for biotechnology

This wave of the research saw the addition of a new discussion topic on aspirations for

biotechnology. Participants were initially asked what kind of breakthroughs and benefits that

biotechnology might provide in the future. The majority of participants made references to

medical breakthroughs, such as cures for diseases, providing a better quality of life, increasing

the availability of organs for transplant, understanding the causes of diseases, curing plant

diseases and improving prosthetics or mechanical limbs.

[WHAT KIND OF BREAK THROUGHS DO YOU THINK BIOTECHNOLOGY MIGHT PROVIDE IN THE FUTURE?] Helping paraplegics, quadriplegics possibly…Finding cures for certain illness or diseases and the cause of it, including in plant life.

There were numerous other unprompted suggestions that focused on the potential benefits of

biotechnology to society. These included ways to address water pollution, developing crops

that can endure the harsher conditions we can expect due to climate change, preventing the

extinction of endangered animals and addressing food shortages.

If they could like nearly extinct animals, if they could get it 100% right, I think it would be great to make sure that we had enough of those animals and stuff and we could actually use it, like see them again.

When asked specifically about what benefits participants would like to see biotechnology

provide for them individually, suggestions included cosmetic surgery breakthroughs, ways to

improve the look of their garden, ways to increase their fitness levels without expending effort,

purifying waterways and drinking water and experiencing more consistent weather patterns.

The medical benefits discussed earlier were also included here.

Participants were subsequently prompted with a number of world problems. They were asked if

they felt that biotechnology could potentially play a role in addressing any of these and how

they would feel about biotechnology if this were the case. Understandably, participants claim

to be very welcoming of any applications of biotechnology that would serve a noble purpose.

However, there was some scepticism around how such large problems could be tackled.

Furthermore, participants wondered how it could be guaranteed that negative outcomes would

not result and how all relevant parties could be brought to agreement.

Because that is a pretty big deal, that has been important for ages and just to pull it out of nowhere I would be like, ‘where did it come from?’…It sounds too good to be true.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 16

It is a global thing, it can't be implemented in one country, there has to be laws and other policies that govern this, it is not an easy or small thing, it is a big global sell, so it is not at all simple.

There was also the strong proviso accompanying participants’ responses to all potential

applications of biotechnology that significant research would need to be conducted to explore

all potential negative impacts. Several were hesitant to make further comment on this without

having more information on how it would be carried out, what research had been conducted

and what the potential side effects could be.

As found in the previous wave of research, a small number of people were against the idea of

any ‘tampering’ with nature. These individuals felt that the potential for unforeseen

consequences is too strong and that the environmental problems we are currently witnessing

are the result of previous actions in the name of science and technology. They felt this was an

argument to take things slower rather than to keep going along the same path.

I think that there is so much pollution now because they are trying too many things. It might be time to slow it down because we are trying too many things… in 100 years we have done so much damage to the earth. I think it is going to make it worse.

Climate change: Many participants found it hard to imagine how biotechnology could

influence climate change, although they make the link to pollution more readily. A couple of

participants suggested that trees could be genetically modified to grow faster and subsequently

reduce the level of carbon in the air. Certainly this is an area of high concern and interest and

people are very receptive to potential solutions.

If you could plant more trees that would reduce your carbon like that, you could genetically modify the trees so that you could grow them quicker, that would change the climate but I don't see how basic biology could change the climate.

Water shortages: This was another area that many people did not particularly associate with

biotechnology. Some made the link with reducing water use in agricultural practices. Others

spoke of sowing clouds, water recycling, purification and desalination, although they were

undecided as to whether this would qualify as biotechnology.

I guess if you can sow clouds, you know have you ever seen those planes that fly across, have you ever heard of them, they sow clouds and so they put something up there and it makes clouds form but I don't think it would be enough.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 17

Is desalination classed as biotechnology? ... I didn’t know, like what part of the science would it be classed in?

I didn’t really think biotechnology or gene technology would work with water but if they are trying it that is good.

Pollution: There is some awareness of the use of bacteria to break down waste. Some people

then suggested it could be possible to use this technology to clean waterways. In general

people could fairly readily imagine that use of biotechnology in this area.

I read something about enzymes or something that they are putting in the water, bacteria and that kind of stuff. Well they just cleaned up Parramatta River

Fatal diseases: Many participants spontaneously remarked that in the future, biotechnology

would be used to cure fatal diseases. There was strong support for this application from the

majority of those consulted.

Global poverty/ hunger: Many participants were able to suggest how biotechnology could

help address global poverty and hunger, providing examples such as developing crops to

survive in harsher conditions or to produce higher yields. The general feeling was that it would

be great if crops could be developed for the purpose of feeding populations in need. However,

as mentioned previously, it was thought to be more likely that biotechnology would be used to

the benefit of private corporations. In this instance, biotechnology was not supported.

(It could help solve) food shortages…genetically engineer food, crops that can grow in bad soil basically. Things like that.

Fossil fuel dependency: There were unprompted mentions of biofuels from a couple of

participants, but the majority did not link biotechnology with fuel. Again, this was an area of

high concern and interest for participants. Hence, they were welcoming of any applications of

biotechnology that could help address this issue.

There might be some fuel that might come out of it but other than that I am not really sure. [AND WOULD THAT BE A GOOD OR A BAD THING?] Good if it solved the fuel problem.

Despite the very positive response to the concept of using biotechnology to address world

problems, it is not obvious that knowledge of such applications would change the way most

people feel about other areas of biotechnology, with participants expressing very different

attitudes towards different applications of biotechnology. Individuals tended to assess various


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 18

applications on their merits, and did not regard ‘biotechnology’ as a single concept.

Applications perceived as having ‘noble’ purposes (e.g. curing disease) tended to be supported,

while those perceived as benefiting producers or corporations (e.g. GM food) tended to be

regarded with suspicion or opposed outright.

Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology

Support for fields of gene technology applications

Survey participants were asked to indicate their overall support for the use of gene technology

in the area of health and medicine and in the area of food and agriculture. This was done by

providing a rating out of 10, where 0 indicated that they were ‘completely against it’ and 10

indicated that they were ‘fully supportive’. The frequency distribution chart in Figure 7 below

presents the results for both fields of application. The average support rating for both fields of

application is displayed in the legend at the head of the chart.

Figure 7. Overall support for fields of gene technology application

3 2 24 4

16

9

15

18

5

23

8

4 46 5

22

11

14

9

3

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

Health and medical (mean=6.9) Food and agriculture (mean=5.5)

A comparison of the mean support ratings indicates a greater level of support for health and

medical applications (6.9) than for food and agriculture applications (5.5). A more detailed

comparison is depicted in the frequency distributions of the responses. Responses regarding

health and medical applications are clearly skewed to the right compared to responses

regarding food and agriculture applications. In particular, there are almost twice as many ‘fully

supportive’ responses for health medical compared with food and agriculture applications.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 19

Analysis6 was conducted to determine any demographic or psychographic differences in overall

support. Results are summarised in Table 3 below. In sum, overall support for the use of gene

technology in health and medical applications was significantly greater among males and

among those who are more excited than concerned by new technologies. These subgroups

were also significantly more likely to support the use of gene technology in food and agriculture

applications. As we would anticipate, those who agreed that we should use more natural ways

of farming were significantly less likely to support the use of gene technology in food

agriculture.

Table 3. Subgroup differences in level of overall support

Mean overall support Item Subgroup mean rating

Overall mean rating for item

More positive Males Food and agriculture 5.8 5.5 Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

Food and agriculture 6.6 5.5

Males Health and medical 7.3 6.9 Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

Health and medical 8.1 6.9

Less positive Natural farming enthusiasts Food and agriculture 4.7 5.5

These questions were also asked in 2005. The results over time for these questions are

presented in Figures 8 and 9 below.

6 Anova tests and Spearman’s correlation were conducted where appropriate using a significance criterion of p<.05


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 20

Figure 8. Overall support for health and medical applications: trends over time

5

24

6 5

22

9

14 15

6

14

3 2 24 4

16

9

15

18

5

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

2005 (mean=6.1) 2007 (mean =6.9)

Base: All CATI, 2005 n=1,068, 2007 n=534

There has been a significant increase since last wave in the mean rating of support for the use

of gene technology in human health and medical applications. The average rating given by

participants in the current wave was 6.9 out of 10, while the average rating given in 2005 was

6.1. There has also been a notable increase over time in the proportion of participants

indicating that were ‘fully supportive’, up from 14% in 2005 to 23% in 2007. There has been a

corresponding decline in the proportion of participants giving a support rating of 5 or lower.

This wave, only 3% of participants noted that they were ‘completely against it’.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 21

Figure 9. Overall support for food and agriculture applications: trends over time

11

3

6

108

23

10

12

8

3

68

4 4

6 5

22

11

14

9

3

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

2005 (mean=4.9) 2007 (mean =5.5)

Base: All CATI, 2005 n=1,068, 2007 n=534

There has been an increase in overall support for the use of gene technology in food and

agriculture applications since 2005. This is indicated by the significant increase in the mean

rating (up from 4.9 in 2005 to 5.5 in 2007), as well as the shift in the frequency distribution

towards the right hand side. The largest movement in an individual rating was seen for ‘fully

supportive’, up from 6% to 12%.

QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

Based on group discussion feedback, the significant increase in support for biotechnology in

food and agriculture (as compared to support in 2005) appears to be largely related to greater

familiarity with the notion of GM crops and foods. A lack of negative publicity about these

issues over time also appears to have softened many people’s views.

As discussed later in this report, the major contributors to greater support for biotechnology in

health and medicine (as compared to food and agriculture) include perceptions of: the balance

of benefits to risks, the purpose of the application and the degree to which each sector is

regulated and monitored.

Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology

Participants in the survey were asked a series of questions relating to different applications of

biotechnology. For each set of applications, questions were asked regarding participants’

awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risks and acceptability of the technology. Each


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 22

question was first asked in relation to a general area (e.g. use of stem cells for medical

research and for treating diseases) and then more specifically in relation to the techniques used

in that area. Figures 11 to 14 below present the results for the general areas of application.

AWARENESS

Figure 10. Awareness of applications

9585

74 70 6855

515

24 30 3143

2 2 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Using stem cellsto conduct

medicalresearch andtreat disease

(n=267)

Modifying thegenes of plantsto produce food

(n=266)

Usingbiotechnology inthe production offood from plants

(n=254)

Using genetechnology to

producemedicines(n=256)

Using genetechnology in

humantransplants

(n=285)

Modifying thegenes of plantsto produce non-

food crops(n=274)

% Don't knowNoYes

Base: rotated questions CATI

Awareness of the use of stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease was very

high, at 95%. This was followed by the two food crop applications: modifying the genes of

plants to produce food (85%) and using biotechnology in the production of food from plants

(74%). Awareness levels for the remaining two medical applications of biotechnology were

fairly similar, with 70% indicating awareness for the use of gene technology to produce

medicines and 68% indicating awareness for the use of gene technology in human transplants.

Awareness of modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops was notably lower than

other applications, at 55%.

A summary of demographic and psychographic differences7 in awareness of applications is

presented in Table 4. In sum, there was significantly higher awareness of GM food crops and



JUNE 2007 | PAGE 23

GM non-food crops among males, but significantly higher awareness of use of gene technology

in human transplants among females.

Table 4. Subgroup differences in awareness of applications

Awareness Item Subgroup % Total for item %

GM food crops 91 85 Males

GM non-food crops 66 55 Females Human transplants 73 68

Figure 11 below presents the awareness levels over time for those applications included in both

waves of the survey.

Figure 11. Awareness of applications: trends over time

93 95

7685

38

70

45

68

6 5

2315

60

30

52

31

0 1 2 3 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005* 2007 2005** 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

(n=515) (n=267) (n=537) (n=268) (n=539) (n=256) (n=548) (n=285)

Using stem cells toconduct medical research

and treat disease

Modifying the genes ofplants to produce food

Using gene technology toproduce medicines

Using gene technology inhuman transplants

%

Don't know

No

Yes

Base: rotated questions CATI * 2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research** 2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food

There were significant increases in awareness for three of the four applications: awareness of

modifying the genes of plants to produce food increased from 76% in 2005 to 85% in 2007;

awareness of using gene technology to produce medicines increased from 38% to 70%, and

awareness of using gene technology in human transplants increased from 45% to 68%. Stem

cell research awareness remained high, and is likely to have reached a ceiling level.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 24

PERCEIVED USEFULNESS

Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of applications

96 96 9183 83

70

2 3 712 13

21

2 1 2 5 4 8

0

20

40

60

80

100



Using stem cellsto conduct


(n=267)


humantransplants

(n=285)

Usingbiotechnology inthe production offood from plants

(n=254)


(n=266)


food crops(n=274)

% Don't knowNoYes


The majority of participants viewed all applications as useful. Perceived utility was particularly

high for the three health and medical applications, with more than nine in ten nominating each

of these applications as useful.

Of the food and agriculture applications, applications relating to food crops were perceived to

be more useful (83%) than the application related to non-food crops (70%).

As demonstrated in Table 5 below, an analysis8 of subgroup differences established that

‘technophiles’ were significantly more likely to perceive a number of applications as useful. In

addition, males were significantly more likely to see use of gene technology to produce

medicines as useful.



JUNE 2007 | PAGE 25

Table 5. Subgroup differences in perceived usefulness of applications

Perceived usefulness Item Subgroup % Total for item %

GM food crops 92 83 GM non-food crops

83 70

Human transplants

99 91

Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

Medicines 100 96 Males Medicines 99 96

The results over time for this question are presented below in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Usefulness of applications: trends over time

90 96

73

96

7791

64

83

73

15

2

15

7

30

13

3 112

2 8 2 6 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005* 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005** 2007

(n=514) (n=267) (n=539) (n=256) (n=548) (n=285) (n=537) (n=266)


and treat disease




%

Don't knowNoYes

Base: rotated questions CATI*2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research **2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food

90 96

73

96

7791

64

83

73

15

2

15

7

30

13

3 112

2 8 2 6 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005* 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005** 2007

(n=514) (n=267) (n=539) (n=256) (n=548) (n=285) (n=537) (n=266)


and treat disease




%

Don't knowNoYes

Base: rotated questions CATI*2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research **2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food

There have been significant increases since last wave in the perceived utility of all applications.

Increases have been particularly marked for using gene technology to produce medicines (up

form 73% to 96%), using gene technology in human transplants (up from 77% to 91%) and

modifying the genes of plants to produce food (up from 64% to 83%).


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 26

PERCEIVED RISK

Figure 14. Perceived risk associated with applications

54 48 47 44 42 37

42 46 48 50 53 59

5 6 5 6 5 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Modifying thegenes ofplants to

produce food(n=266)

Usingbiotechnology

in theproduction of

food fromplants (n=254)


humantransplants

(n=285)



Modifying thegenes ofplants to

produce non-food crops

(n=274)

Using stemcells toconductmedical

research andtreat disease

(n=267)

% Don't knowNoYes


There were notable levels of risk associated with each application. The application perceived to

be least ‘risky’ was the use of stem cells, at just over one third (37%), while the application

perceived to be most ‘risky’ was modifying the genes of plants to produce food, at just over one

in two (54%).

Of the food and agriculture applications, the non-food crops application (42%) was perceived to

be less risky than the food crops applications (54% and 48%). Of the health and medical

applications, the use of stem cells was perceived to be less risky (37%) than the use of gene

technology in human transplants (47%) and the use of gene technology to produce medicines

(44%).

A summary of the demographic and psychographic differences9 in perceived risk is presented in

Table 6. In sum, the only significant differences to emerge were that those who disagreed that

‘new technologies excite me more than concern me’ were more likely to perceive the use of

stem cells and the use of gene technology in the production of medicines to be risky.



JUNE 2007 | PAGE 27

Table 6. Subgroup differences in perceived risk of applications

Risks Item Subgroup % Total for item %

Medicines 59 44 Technophobes (disagree that new technologies excite me more than they concern me) Stem cells 49 37

Results over time for this question are presented in Figure 15 below.

Figure 15. Perceived risk associated with applications: trends over time

7154 56

47 5344 39 37

2342 37

48 35 5052 59

6 5 6 5 12 6 9 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005*(n=537)

2007(n=266)

2005(n=547)

2007(n=285)

2005(n=539)

2007(n=256)

2005**(n=515)

2007 (n=267)

Modifying the genesof plants to produce

food

Using genetechnology in human

transplants

Using genetechnology to produce

medicines

Using stem cells toconduct medical

research and treatdisease

%

Don't know

No

Yes

Base: rotated questions CATI *2005 Using gene technology to modify plants to produce food**2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research

7154 56

47 5344 39 37

2342 37

48 35 5052 59

6 5 6 5 12 6 9 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005*(n=537)

2007(n=266)

2005(n=547)

2007(n=285)

2005(n=539)

2007(n=256)

2005**(n=515)

2007 (n=267)


food


transplants

Using genetechnology to produce

medicines



%

Don't know

No

Yes

Base: rotated questions CATI *2005 Using gene technology to modify plants to produce food**2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research

There has been a significant decline in perceptions of risk for three of the four applications.

The most notable movement occurred for modifying the genes of plants to produce food, with a

shift from 71% to 54%. Significant shifts also occurred for using gene technology in human

transplants (down from 56% to 47%), and using gene technology to produce medicines (down

from 53% to 44%). Perceived risk for the use of stem cells to conduct medical research and

treat disease remained stable.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 28

PERCEIVED ACCEPTABILITY

Figure 16. Perceived acceptability of applications

92 89 8476 73 73

5 9 1320 24 24

3 2 3 4 3 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Using stemcells to conduct


(n=267)




humantransplants

(n=285)

Usingbiotechnology

in theproduction of

food fromplants (n=254)


(n=266)


food crops(n=274)

%

Don't knowNoYes


Perceived acceptability of all applications was high, ranging from 92% for using stem cells to

73% for modifying the genes of plants to produce both food and non-food crops. Applications

in the health and medical field were seen to be more acceptable than applications in the food

and agriculture field.

As indicated in Table 7 below, the only significant predictor10 of perceived acceptance of

technologies was attitude towards new technologies. ‘Technophiles’ were significantly more

accepting of all applications.



JUNE 2007 | PAGE 29

Table 7. Subgroup differences in perceived acceptability of applications

Acceptance Item Subgroup % Total for item %

GM food crops 84 73 GM non-food crops 91 73 Biotechnology in the production of food from plants

89 76

Medicines 94 89 Stem cells 98 92

Technophiles (new technologies excite me more than they concern me)

Human transplants 93 84

The trends over time for this question are presented in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17. Perceived acceptability of applications: trends over time

8092

65

89

65

84

48

73

135

24

9

27

13

47

24

7 310

2 8 3 5 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005*(n=515)

2007(n=267)

2005(n=539)

2007(n=256)

2005(n=548)

2007(n=285)

2005**(n=536)

2007(n=266)




produce medicines


transplants


food

%

Don't know

No

Yes

Base: rotated questions CATI *2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research** 2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food

8092

65

89

65

84

48

73

135

24

9

27

13

47

24

7 310

2 8 3 5 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005*(n=515)

2007(n=267)

2005(n=539)

2007(n=256)

2005(n=548)

2007(n=285)

2005**(n=536)

2007(n=266)




produce medicines


transplants


food

%

Don't know

No

Yes

Base: rotated questions CATI *2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research** 2005 Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food

There was a marked significant increase since last wave in perceived acceptability of all

applications, in particular for using gene technology to produce medicines (up from 65% to

89%), using gene technology in human transplants (up from 65% to 84%) and modifying the

genes of plants to produce food (up from 48% to 73%).

Drivers of acceptability

Group discussions revealed a range of factors that contribute to the overall acceptability of

biotechnology’s different fields of application. The most important factors included:


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 30

Awareness and familiarity. Generally speaking, applications with which participants were

more familiar generally received greater support.

Perceived purpose behind the application. Applications which were seen to have a

humanitarian or environmental objective (e.g. medical research, drought resistant crops)

received approval. Applications which were seen to have a commercial objective (e.g. seedless

GM plants) or as making largely cosmetic changes (e.g. “bigger, shinier” fruits and vegetables)

received much less support, and were opposed by many participants. In general there was

greater understanding of the potential benefits of gene technology in medicine. The quotes

below are illustrative of such sentiments.

I think if there’s a benefit, like if it’s going to feed the third world or make wheat that grows in the desert, then that’s acceptable. If it’s because you want to copyright your genes and only have certain growers paying you money to get the seed, if it’s about money then it’s not acceptable to me.

I’m happy if it’s to help out with global warming or something like that, or with medicine, or research to make food more drought resistant or store resistant or bug-resistant if there’s some particular species of frog that’s eating crops … because I don’t want it to be used for cosmetic use – to make things look better, but not any real benefit.

Perceptions of the risks and benefits of each technology. Many people perceived the

benefits of biotechnology in health and medicine as far outweighing the risks. The potential to

make significant breakthroughs in treating common diseases was particularly highly regarded.

These applications were seen to benefit patients directly and not to involve wider risk. By

contrast, the risks of biotechnology in food and agriculture were sometimes seen as much

higher (with the prospect of GM crops “taking over” the environment and “contaminating the

food chain”), and as bringing less benefit to ordinary people and society. Instead, benefits of

GM food crops were largely perceived as flowing to corporations.

There are risks with GM crops, and the risk could be that it overruns the natural crops, the unmodified crops.

My understanding is the person who owns [the patent] get the majority benefit. Because generally GM crops are designed to be non-regenerative, so you have to buy the seed off that, so the farmer can't take 10% of the crop and re-grow that.

Research vs application/implementation. Group participants were generally supportive of

all types of research (with a few exceptions, such as research using embryonic stem cells

without strict guidelines in place), even into agricultural technologies. There was much greater

concern about applications that are used outside of the laboratory.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 31

Numbers of people potentially affected positively and negatively. Participants who had

concerns for environmental and health risks posed by GM crops commented that negative

consequences would be far-reaching, due to the release of GM organisms in the environment

and into the food chain. In contrast, the potential for negative consequences within the health

and medical realm were seen to be contained as medical treatments are only administered to

those who need them – rather than whole populations.

Perceptions of regulation. There was agreement across the group discussions that

regulation of the health sector is much stricter than regulation of the agricultural sector.

Greater trust was therefore placed in human health-related biotechnology that is approved for

general use, with less trust in gene technology used in agriculture.

In medical research they generally have much higher ethical standards and more rigorous review of the work that goes on by your peers before that work is accepted. Whereas with the other ones where they’re modifying plants – that’s a lot more about making money than it is about helping people. They’re going to push the boundaries of what’s acceptable and what’s not.

Reaction against religion as a basis for scientific decision-making. Group discussion

members consistently expressed a belief that decisions about biotechnology should be based on

expert scientific advice. Frequent references were made to the influence of religion on the

recent parliamentary debate stem cells, which was regarded as inappropriate.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 32

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Broadly speaking, this research uncovered major shifts in public attitudes, with greater levels of

acceptance of biotechnology and gene technology than in the past. Compared with the results

of the 2005 wave of this research, there are now higher levels of awareness of biotechnology,

more positive perceptions of its usefulness, and reduced concerns over the risks involved.

These findings apply both to general fields of application (such as medical research and

treatment, or genetically modified foods) and to more specific techniques.

Qualitative and quantitative findings both indicate that increased familiarity – rather than

increased understanding – has contributed to rising acceptance levels.

In addition to greater familiarity, the group discussions identified a number of important factors

contributing to community acceptance of biotechnology:

Perceived purpose behind the application: For many people, the assumed purpose behind

any given application of biotechnology is much more important than the technique or science

involved. Applications perceived as having a humanitarian or environmental purpose (such as

tacking climate change, drought or food shortage) are generally supported, whereas

applications perceived as primarily benefiting the corporate sector are more likely to be

regarded with some suspicion.

Perceived risks and benefits: Of all fields of application, GM food crops are seen to present

the greatest risk relative to the potential benefits, with many consumers worried that GM foods

might ‘contaminate the food chain’. In the medical realm, there is a greater appreciation of the

potential for significant and widespread benefits, with lower reported risk.

Perceived level of control: Research into biotechnology is more widely accepted than its

wider application in the real world – largely because it is believed that greater control can be

exercised over any adverse consequences in a laboratory context. Another consideration is the

4 This section presents the conclusions

and implications of the research


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 33

number of people potentially affected by a given application, with GM foods regarded as the

most risky (or least controllable) in this regard. In addition, there is greater acceptance of the

use of biotechnology in the medical realm (compared to agriculture) because ethical and

regulatory standards are regarded as tighter and more strictly enforced.

Rational decision-making: Many people appear to believe that scientific rather than moral

considerations should determine whether a particular application is acceptable. That said,

there was an appreciation that the stem cell debate had allowed these views to be aired and

heard, so that the eventual decision could be said to have been made after a full exploration of

different viewpoints.

Broadly speaking, it appears that people have simply become more familiar with biotechnology

and gene technology over the last two years. The technology is increasingly familiar, if not

better understood. Moreover, the negative consequences that some may have feared have

failed to eventuate, despite a belief that the technology is already widely used. There is no

reason to suppose that this trend towards greater acceptance will not continue, as these

technologies become more a part of everyday life.

There is no great public appetite for detailed factual information about how things are done.

People are generally more interested in learning about the potential benefits of technology.

The community seems to want to know that policy and regulation is soundly based and the

result of informed debate, in which all relevant considerations have been addressed by experts.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 34

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGICAL COMPARISONS

As articulated in the methodology section, the quantitative survey was partially migrated online

this wave, with a view to fully migrating online in the next wave of research. The partial

migration step was taken in order to ensure a clean comparison of data over time.

This section presents comparative results for the online and CATI components of the survey, in

order to identify any systematic differences that result from the methodology change that will

need to be take into account when the full migration occurs.

Response differences in online and CATI methodologies

There are a number of factors that contribute to differences in responses in an online and a

CATI context, due to both methodological factors and participant factors. In this particular

study there is an additional contributing factor due to the difference in the way the ‘don’t know’

response option was presented to respondents. These factors are explained below:

Methodological factors

Visual versus verbal presentation of questions: there tends to be increased positive

responses in the online methodology for questions involving recall due to visual cues.

Increased demand characteristics for the CATI methodology: there tends to be higher

agreement for socially desirable items in the CATI methodology due to the presence of the

interviewer

Greater control of script present for online methodology: the online script adheres more

strictly to the intended script than is possible for a CATI administered survey involving

multiple interviewers

Participant (sample) factor

Attitudinal differences of those with email access compared to general population: online

participants tend to be more favourably disposed to technologies than the general

population and of CATI participants

A


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 35

“Don’t know” factor specific to the current study

In this survey, the “don’t know” response option was necessarily presented differently in

the two survey versions for the majority of questions. In the CATI version, the ‘don’t know’

option was (historically) not read out to participants for the majority of questions, although

it was accepted if offered voluntarily by the participant. In the online version of these

questions, the ‘don’t know’ option was necessarily visually presented to participants in

order for participants to have this response as an option. As a result, we would expect a

greater proportion of ‘don’t know’ responses among participants in the online version and a

subsequent decline in other responses.

The section below presents the comparative data for those questions in which ‘don’t know’ was

not allowed as a response option. Consequently, any differences that arise in the data are due

to methodological or participant factors. For the purposes of clarification this is referred to as a

‘direct’ comparison of data. The following section presents the comparative data for those

questions in which the ‘don’t know’ option was presented differently across methodologies.

‘Direct’ comparison of online and CATI responses

Figures 18 and 19 below present the results for overall support of gene technology in the health

and medical and the food and agriculture fields. Respondents were asked to rate their level of

support on a scale from 0-10, where 0 was indicative of ‘no support’ and 10 was indicative of

‘full support’.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 36

Figure 18. Overall support for the use of gene technology in health and medical applications: online versus CATI

3 2 24 4

16

9

15

18

5

23

31

3 3 4

20

8

12

15

9

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

CATI (mean=6.9) Online (mean=6.8)

Base: CATI, n=534, Online, n=584


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 37

Figure 19. Overall support for the use of gene technology in food and agriculture applications: online versus CATI

8

4 46 5

22

11

14

9

3

12

7

3 45 5

22

10

16

13

5

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

%

CATI (mean=5.5) Online (mean=5.8)

Base: CATI, n=534, Online, n=584

The results indicate greater support for the use of gene technology in food and agriculture

applications but no difference in support for the use of gene technology in health and medical

applications.

Table A1 below presents the comparative data for participants’ willingness to eat different types

of foods. Participants were asked to rate their willingness on a scale from 0-10, where 0

indicated extreme hesitation and 10 indicated extreme willingness.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 38

Table A1. Willingness to eat foods: online versus CATI

3.74.1Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals

3.64.0Meat and other products from cloned animals

4.24.4Meat and other products from genetically modified animals

4.74.9Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with genetically modified stock feed

4.95.1Genetically modified fruit and vegetables

5.25.2Food that contains a small amount of genetically modified ingredients

5.15.2Food made from GM crops

6.16.2Non-organic food

8.77.9Organic food

4.64.9Food grown with the use of pesticides

5.25.3Food containing preservatives

CATIOnlineHow willing would you be to eat the following?

3.74.1Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals

3.64.0Meat and other products from cloned animals

4.24.4Meat and other products from genetically modified animals

4.74.9Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with genetically modified stock feed

4.95.1Genetically modified fruit and vegetables

5.25.2Food that contains a small amount of genetically modified ingredients

5.15.2Food made from GM crops

6.16.2Non-organic food

8.77.9Organic food

4.64.9Food grown with the use of pesticides

5.25.3Food containing preservatives

CATIOnlineHow willing would you be to eat the following?

CATI participants indicated that they were significantly more willing to eat organic food than

online participants. There are no further significant differences between the two

methodologies. However, there is a consistent directional trend for all other food categories

(involving ‘unnatural’ production methods), with online participants indicating more willingness

to eat foods than CATI participants. This result is consistent with the expectation that online

participants will be more accepting of technologies than CATI participants.

‘Non-direct’ comparison of online and CATI responses

The tables below provide some examples of the differences in responses by methodology for

those questions in which the ‘don’t know’ responses were differentially presented to

participants.

Table A2 presents the data for participants’ perceived future impact of technologies.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 39

Table A2. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life: online versus CATI

718382873228504568736068

Improve way of life

1886CATIBiotechnology

3324Online

449CATI

652CATI

134811CATI

17299CATI

12105CATI

Online

Online

Online

Online

Online

14

4

9

5

3

No Effect

5

3

33

18

6

Make things worse

10

10

27

26

23

DK

IVF

Stem cell research

Cloning

Genetic modification

Gene technology

718382873228504568736068

Improve way of life

1886CATIBiotechnology

3324Online

449CATI

652CATI

134811CATI

17299CATI

12105CATI

Online

Online

Online

Online

Online

14

4

9

5

3

No Effect

5

3

33

18

6

Make things worse

10

10

27

26

23

DK

IVF

Stem cell research

Cloning

Genetic modification

Gene technology

The impact of the differential presentation of the ‘don’t know’ response option is clear. There is

a much higher incidence of ‘don’t know’ among online participants, which is the direct result of

the presentation of this option in the online version and the lack of verbal presentation of this

option in the CATI version. There is a corresponding reduction in other response options

among online participants.

This table also provides strong evidence for greater support of genetic modification and for

cloning among online participants. Despite the significantly greater proportion of ‘don’t know’

responses among online participants, a larger (directional only) proportion of online participants

indicated that these technologies were likely to improve our way of life. It is therefore likely

that this difference would be enhanced, if the differential presentation of the ‘don’t know’

response option was not a factor.

Again these results are consistent with the expectation that online participants will be more

accepting of technologies than CATI participants.

Tables A3 and A4 present online and CATI results for awareness and perceived usefulness of

general applications of biotechnology. They again clearly indicate the impact of the ‘don’t

know’ factor.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 40

Table A3. Awareness of applications

01585CATIModifying the genes of plants to produce food

10882Online

23168CATI

0595CATI

03070CATI

22474CATI

14355CATI

Online

Online

Online

Online

Online

62

86

60

66

45

Yes

20

4

21

20

36

No

18

10

19

14

19

DK

Using gene technology in human transplants

Using stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease

Using gene technology to produce medicines

Using biotechnology in the production of food from plants

Modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops


10882Online

23168CATI

0595CATI

03070CATI

22474CATI

14355CATI

Online

Online

Online

Online

Online

62

86

60

66

45

Yes

20

4

21

20

36

No

18

10

19

14

19

DK






Table A4. Usefulness of applications


171272Online

2791CATI

1396CATI

2296CATI

51283CATI

82170CATI

Online

Online

Online

Online

Online

77

85

77

69

50

Yes

6

5

4

11

19

No

17

11

19

20

31

DK







171272Online

2791CATI

1396CATI

2296CATI

51283CATI

82170CATI

Online

Online

Online

Online

Online

77

85

77

69

50

Yes

6

5

4

11

19

No

17

11

19

20

31

DK






Concluding remarks

The valid analysis of trends over time requires that the data is methodologically consistent, in

order to minimise the influence of confounding variables. Analysis of some of the key questions

demonstrates that there are significant differences between the CATI and online results, due to

a number of factors. Consequently, analysis of the current wave of research was conducted

with CATI data only. This enabled a clean comparison of data from the 2005 survey.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 41

Looking forward, Eureka recommends that the survey is migrated fully online as the current

survey in its CATI form is very demanding of participants due to its length. The dual

methodology approach employed this wave will facilitate this migration. A clean comparison of

2007 and 2009 data will be possible through the use of 2007 online data. Further, the

comparison of the 2007 online and CATI data can be used to estimate the slight online bias

towards support of biotechnology.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 42

APPENDIX B – INITIAL/EXPLORATORY GROUP DISCUSSION

GUIDE

Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Introduction

Introduction to market research/group discussions

Our discussion tonight will be about science and technology and their applications in different fields. The discussion will be guided by a number of main themes – I’ll introduce one theme at a time, ask a question or two, and let the conversation take its course. If we begin to stray from the topic, I will have to lead us back to it, but as far as possible you should feel free to approach the topic from your own personal point of view – your own experiences, anecdotes and thoughts are all valuable.

There are no right or wrong answers – we just want to hear about your experiences and opinions. Please be honest, and feel free to disagree with others in the group.

Also I am not an expert in this area. I am here to raise the issues, and get your responses, but I won’t necessarily be able to answer any questions you have. (At the end of the group I’ll let you know where you can find more information if you are interested.)

The discussion is completely confidential, and we won’t be telling anyone who we’ve spoken to. However, we are hoping to record the discussion for our own reference. We may pass on the tape to the client for whom we are conducting the research, but it will go no further, and it will only be used for research purposes. Does anyone have an objection before we proceed?

For the benefit of the tape, please speak one at a time, and wait until others have finished before having your say.

(Where observers are present) Point out the one-way mirror. Explain that “other people working on the project” are viewing the group tonight, and that they are simply interested in participants’ opinions. Reassure confidentiality, anonymity.

The session will take up to two hours. There is food and drinks for those who would like them, and toilets are available outside.

Ask participants to turn off mobile phones.

Ask participants to introduce themselves (first name, occupation).

B


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 43

Notepad exercises – Awareness of Biotechnology (Ask Everyone)

[Notepad exercises are where participants are asked to think about and record on paper their responses to certain topics, before opening up the discussion.]

Complete notepad exercises 1-3. Discuss.

Notepad exercise 1: What does “biotechnology” or “gene technology” mean to you?

o [Follow-up] Where have you heard about biotechnology or gene technology? In what sort of situations have these words come up (e.g. watching the news, talking to a friend, reading the newspaper, buying groceries)?

Notepad exercise 2: What words and images come to mind when you think of “biotechnology” and “gene technology”?

o [Follow-up] Are these positive, negative or neutral words and images?

Notepad exercise 3: What is “biotechnology” or “gene technology” used for? What are some of its applications?

o [Follow-up] Is biotechnology or gene technology confined to laboratory and scientific settings? How is biotechnology or gene technology used outside the laboratory? [Probe on genetically modified crops, genetically modified foods, gene technology in health/medicine.]

Note on terminology: As you may have gathered, tonight we’ll be talking about biotechnology, and I’ll be asking you for your views on different aspects of biotechnology. Before we proceed, please be aware that biotechnology is a broad term generally used to describe the use of biology in industrial, agricultural and medical processes. There are a number of different phrases that are also used to describe the kinds of techniques we’ll be discussing, including gene technology, genetic modification, recombinant DNA technology, genetic engineering, and other terms. I’ll use the term biotechnology to cover all of these, except where another term is clearly more appropriate.

Developments in biotechnology (Ask everyone)

What do you think are the most important or interesting developments in biotechnology so far? Why?

o What do you see as the benefits of these developments? What do you see as the risks?

o How might these developments affect you? The community or society? The environment?

What kinds of benefits or breakthroughs do you think biotechnology might provide in the future? Why is that?

o Do you think biotechnology has the potential to provide solutions to problems in the world? What sort of problems might it solve? [Probe generally on solutions to problems faced by the community/society, the environment]

o [Probe specifically] Do you think biotechnology might help to solve problems like: Climate change? Water shortages? Pollution? Fatal diseases? Global poverty/hunger? Fossil fuel dependency/fuel shortages? Ever-increasing amounts of land fill? Why/why not?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 44

o If biotechnology could help solve these problems, would you feel differently about it? Why/why not?

What kinds of problems do you think biotechnology might create in the future? [Probe on problems faced by the community/society, the environment]

o What are your greatest concerns about biotechnology? Why?

Biotechnology and your life (Ask everyone)

Do you think that your life has been influenced by biotechnology so far? How so? Is this a positive or a negative thing?

Do you think you are aware of all the ways in which biotechnology directly affects your life? Why do you say that?

o Do you think you could be using the products of biotechnology without knowing about it?

In the future, do you think biotechnology will have a greater impact on your life than it does currently? In what ways?

What do you hope biotechnology might be able to do to that would change or improve your life?

o How likely do you think it is that this will happen?

o How far in the future do you think it might be?

Genetically modified crops/foods (Ask everyone)

In the field of agriculture or farming, what sorts of biotechnology do you know about? What do you know about the sorts of techniques or methods that are used to modify crops? [Probe on transfer of genes from bacteria/animals/other plants into plants, other techniques]

For what purposes are crops genetically modified? [Probe specifically on resistance to pests and diseases, yield and quality. For food crops: nutrient content/health benefits (e.g. higher in protein), flavour/taste, shelf life, health properties.]

What sorts of crops are currently genetically modified? Food crops? Non-food crops?

o What sorts of foods are genetically modified or contain ingredients from genetically modified crops?

o What are genetically modified crops used for other than producing food? [Probe on plastics, textiles, building materials, packaging.]

In general, how do you feel about genetically modified or “GM” crops? [Probe on positive, negative, neutral]

o What sort of benefits might GM crops offer? [Probe generally on individual, society, environment.]

o What sort of risks might GM crops pose? [Probe generally on individual, society, environment. Probe specifically on contamination, illness, immunity, cost, ‘playing God’, endangering human life, concentration of power, monopolies.]


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 45

o What sort of GM crops do you approve of? Which don’t you approve of? Why is that?

Do you eat GM foods? Which ones? How do you feel about that? Why do you eat them?

o Which GM foods would you definitely not eat? Why is that?

What do you think about genetically modified wheat? Why is that?

o How do you feel about eating food that has GM wheat as an ingredient? [Probe: Does it make a difference which type of food it is used in - Bread? Pasta? Cakes? Other processed foods?]

o Would it make any difference to how you feel if:

- The wheat was genetically modified to be drought resistant (i.e. have low water requirements)?

- The GM wheat was certified as more nutritious than non-GM wheat? Or if it was certified to have added health benefits?

- If GM wheat was verified as safe through government regulation?

- A government-funded body, such as the CSIRO, developed GM wheat? A private corporation developed GM wheat?

Do you believe that GM foods should be clearly labelled as GM? Why? Why not?

o Are you aware of any labelling requirements for GM foods? Do you recall having seen any products labelled as containing GM foods or ingredients?

How would you feel about using products other than food that are made from GM crops? [Probe on plastics, textiles, building materials, packaging] Why is that?

o Do you believe that non-food products made from GM crops should be clearly labelled as GM? Why? Why not?

Genetically modified animals/food (Rotate A)

So far, we have been talking about foods from crops or plants. What do you know about the purposes for which animals might be genetically modified? [Probe on faster growth, improved quality, disease resistance, healthier for humans]

How would you feel about eating food products (e.g. meat) that came from genetically modified animals?

o Do you feel differently about eating food products from GM animals and GM plants? Why/why not?

o Would you feel differently about eating food products from different kinds of GM animals? (e.g. fish vs. pigs vs. cows) Why/why not?

How do you think food products (e.g. meat) that come from genetically modified animals should be labelled?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 46

Medical applications (Rotate B)

In the field of health and medicine, what sorts of biotechnology or gene technology do you know about? What do you know about the sorts of techniques or methods used in this field? [Probe on use of stems cells, embryos, genetic testing, transfer of genes from humans to animals/bacteria]

What are some of the uses or applications of gene technology within the health and medical field?

In general, how do you feel about the use of gene technology in health and medicine?

o What sort of benefits or breakthroughs might gene technology provide in this field?

o What sort of risks might gene technology in this field pose?

o What sort of applications do you approve of? Which don’t you approve of? Why is that?

How would you feel about receiving treatments derived from gene technology yourself? What about your family? Under what circumstances would you agree?

What do you know about the different sorts of science or techniques used in this area?

o Using gene technology to produce medicines and vaccines

o Using stem cells to conduct medical research

o Using stem cells to treat disease or injury

o Using gene technology in human transplants

Cloning (Rotate A)

What do you know about cloning? Can you think of examples where cloning technology has been used? What has it been used for? [Probe: Humans? Animals? Bacteria (diabetes)? Yeast (food and beverage production)?]

Why do you think animals are cloned? For what sort of purposes would they be cloned?

In general, how do you feel about cloning in animals?

o What sort of benefits might cloning animals provide?

o What sort of risks might cloning animals pose?

o How would you feel about eating meat from a cloned animal? Why is that?

o Would you feel differently about eating the offspring of cloned animals (i.e. breeding stock)? Why is that?

What about cloning in humans? Why do you think humans or human cells would be cloned? For what sort of purposes would they be cloned? [Probe onto produce babies, ‘therapeutic cloning/ somatic cell nuclear transfer’ – to produce embryos for human stem cell research or treatment.]


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 47

How do you feel about cloning of human cells?

o What sort of benefits might the cloning of human cells provide?

o What sort of risks might the cloning of human cells pose?

o Are there some conditions under which you would approve of the cloning of human cells and others that you wouldn’t?

Biotechnology and the environment (Ask everyone)

In what ways do you think biotechnology or gene technology has had an impact on the environment?

Do you know of any ways in which biotechnology could help the environment? What about ways it could harm the environment? How do you feel about this?

Have you heard of:

o Biofuels? What are they and what do they do? (If necessary prompt – alternatives to fossil fuels, derived from biomass. They are a renewable energy source, unlike other natural resources such as petroleum, coal, and nuclear fuels. They will help to reduce harmful emissions/fuel costs)? What do you think about biofuels?

o Bioplastic? What is and what does it do? (If necessary prompt – a form of plastics derived from plant sources such as hemp oil, soy bean oil and corn starch rather than traditional plastics which are derived from petroleum. Some of these biodegrade over time, which will help to reduce landfill and harm to wildlife)? What do you think about bioplastic?

Pest Control (Rotate B)

In general, how do you feel about the use of genetically modified organisms for the control of pests?

o What sort of benefits or breakthroughs do you think GM organisms might provide in this area? (e.g. cane toad)

o What sort of risks might GM organisms in this area pose?

o Would you approve of it? Why/why not?

o Would it depend on what sort of pests it was used to control? [Probe: Cane toads, mice, carp, foxes, etc]

o How would you feel about this approach being used in the area you live in?

Other uses of biotechnology (Rotate B)

Are you aware of any other applications or potential applications of biotechnology or gene technology?

How do you feel about using DNA tests to:

o Help solve crimes?

o Determine paternity or family relationships?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 48

o Help set life insurance premiums?

o Make employment decisions?

Regulatory and decision-making issues (Ask everyone)

Are you aware of any laws regulating the development or use of biotechnology or gene technology in Australia?

Which organisations do you think are responsible for regulating the development and use of

biotechnology in Australia? [Probe on Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Food

Standards Australia and New Zealand, Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, The

CSIRO, Biotechnology Australia]

o How are these organisations involved in regulating activity making use of biotechnology?

o How much trust do you have in these organisations? Why?

Do you think that the State and Federal governments have your best interests at heart when they make decisions about the uses and limits of biotechnology or gene technology? Why/why not?

o Who do you think should have input into the decisions made about the uses and limits of biotechnology? Scientists, industry/businesses, the general public? Who should have the most influence? Why?

o How could and should the views of the public be incorporated into decision-making?

Do you think that the current level of regulation of the biotechnology industry in Australia is appropriate? Do you think it:

o Enables the potential benefits of biotechnology or gene technology to be realised? Why/why not?

o Protects the public against any risks? Why/why not?

Sources of information (Ask everyone)

In general, what kinds of messages about biotechnology or gene technology have you read or seen in the media? Were these positive or negative towards biotechnology and its potential uses? Have you seen/read anything about biotechnology in the media that you think was untrue or doubtful? Can you describe what you read/saw?

From which other sources have you read/seen information about biotechnology? [Probe: internet, government, regulators, etc.]

Where could you go to get more information about biotechnology? Which of these sources do you think provide reliable, trustworthy information? Which don’t? Why do you think this?

Are you interested in obtaining more information on biotechnology? What sort of information would you be interested in obtaining?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 49

Close

This research is being conducted on behalf of Biotechnology Australia, which is an Australian Government agency. The findings will be used to help them to ensure that the public’s need for information about gene technology is adequately met.

Hand out incentives and thank participants for attending. Briefly explain the group sign-on sheet and pass it around to be signed.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 50

APPENDIX C – SURVEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

The total survey sample was n=1118. This comprised n=534 participants in the CATI survey

and n=584 participants in the online survey. This appendix provides demographic details of

the CATI sample that formed the basis of the report results.

Location

Quotas were imposed to ensure the sample was geographically representative of the Australian

population. The geographic breakdown of the sample is shown in Figure B-111.

Figure B-1. Location of participants’ residence

22

12

16

7

11

10

5

2

7

2

1

2

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Sydney

Other NSW

Melbourne

Other VIC

Brisbane

Other Qld

Adelaide

Other SA

Perth

Other WA

Hobart

Other TAS

Darwin

Other NT

Percent

11 Locations labelled ‘other’ include any area within the given state or territory outside of the capital city.

C


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 51

Age

All participants were aged between 18 and 75 years of age. Broad age quotas (within location)

were applied in sampling to ensure that the sample was representative of the Australian

population. The age profile of the sample is shown in Figure B-2.

Figure B-2. Age profile of participants

5

16

22

22

19

13

4

0 5 10 15 20 25

18 - 20 years

21 - 30 years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 70 years

71 - 75 years

Percent

Gender

Gender quotas (within location) were applied to reflect the composition of the Australian

population. The resulting sample was approximately equal in terms of the proportion of males

(48%) and females (52%).

Education

Participants were asked to indicate the highest level of education they had ever attempted.

The results are shown in Figure B-3.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 52

Figure B-3. Highest level of education attempted

1

4

10

4

13

16

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Primary school Some highschool

Year 10/4thForm

Year 11/5thForm

Year 12/6thForm

Technicalschool,

commercialcollege or

TAFE

Universitydegree ordiploma

Perc

ent

The majority of participants (52%) had at least attempted university studies. This is somewhat

higher than 2006 ABS data which indicated that 21% of adult Australians had completed a

bachelors degree or higher12. While the sample figures relate to anyone who is currently

completing a degree or equivalent, or has completed one in the past, it appears that those with

a university degree or diploma may be overrepresented in the sample. This also occurred in

the 2005 sample. The next most frequent level of highest educational attainment was technical

school, commercial college or TAFE (16%).

Culturally and linguistically diverse groups

Participants were asked what the main language spoken in their home was. The majority

(97%) spoke English as their main language. Seventeen languages other than English were

mentioned by participants.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders

Participants were asked if they identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. In line with

population statistics, 2% of the sample indicated that they did so.

12 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6227.0 Education and Work, Australia, May 2006. Accessed June 18th, 2007


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 53

Vegetarians

One in twenty participants indicated that they were vegetarian (5%) and a further 2% indicated

that they were vegan (2%).

Children under 12

Just over a quarter of participants (28%) indicated that there were children under 12 years of

age living in their household.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 54

APPENDIX D – BIOTECHNOLOGY PUBLIC AWARENESS

QUESTIONNAIRE

Quantitative CATI questionnaire

To be administered using computer-assisted telephone interviewing and online surveying.

Headings will not appear in field version.

OBSERVE QUOTAS. Proportions representative of population as per below.

Location % of total

sample Approximate n

Sydney 21.8 232

Other NSW 12.5 133

Melbourne 18.5 197

Other Vic 6.5 70

Brisbane 8.9 95

Other Qld 10.5 112

Adelaide 5.8 61

Other SA 2.0 22

Perth 7.3 78

Other WA 2.7 29

Hobart 1.0 11

Other Tas 1.4 15

Darwin 0.6 7

Other NT 0.5 6

Total 100 1,067

D


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 55

Within each location, loosely apply the following percentage breakdowns.

Age Males Females Total 18-30 13.0% 13.0% 26.0% 31-40 11.0% 11.0% 22.0% 41-60 18.5% 18.5% 37.0% 51-75 7.5% 7.5% 15.0% Total 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Introduction

Hello, my name is [INTERVIEWER] and I’m calling from Eureka Strategic Research.

We are conducting some research on important technological developments in society. It is a

confidential, anonymous survey. We are not trying to sell you anything; we’re just interested

in your opinions. The survey will take around [DURATION]. If you participate, the information

you provide will be used only for research purposes.

Would you be willing to answer some questions?

YES 1 – CONTINUE. NO 2 – ASK TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE ELSE 18 YEARS OR OLDER IN

HOUSEHOLD WHO MAY BE INTERESTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE WITH THANKS.

IF TIME INCONVENIENT, ARRANGE CALL BACK.

IF CLIENT QUERIED: I’m sorry, I can’t tell you the client’s name until the end of the survey,

because it might affect the way you answer the questions, but I will be able to tell you at the

end.

IF QUERIED ABOUT BONA FIDES OF RESEARCH: I can provide the names of people who will

verify the legitimate nature of this research project. The first is the Australian Market and

Social Research Society enquiry line on 1300 36 4830. The second is the Project Manager at

Eureka Strategic Research, Josh Fear, on (02) 6247 2700.

IF QUERIED ABOUT HOW NAME WAS SOURCED: We are contacting people using numbers

generated randomly by a computer.

IF THE INTERVIEW WILL BE MONITORED: My supervisor may be monitoring the interview for

quality control purposes. If you do not wish this to occur, please let me know.

Screening

First let me check that you are one of the people who we need to talk to.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 56

S.1 [RECORD LOCATION. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]

S.2 [RECORD GENDER. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]

Male 1 Female 2

S.3 Are you aged under or over 40 years? Which of the following age groups do you belong

to? [READ OUT APPROPRIATE AGE BRACKETS. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]

Under 18 years DOES NOT QUALIFY 18 – 20 years 1 21 – 30 years 2 31 – 40 years 3 41 – 50 years 4 51 – 60 years 5 61 – 70 years 6 71 – 75 years 7 Over 75 years DOES NOT QUALIFY [DON’T READ OUT] Refused

DOES NOT QUALIFY

IF DOES NOT QUALIFY OR QUOTA EXCEEDED: Unfortunately you’re not one of the people who

we need to talk to for this particular survey. Thanks for being willing to participate.

A. UNDERSTANDING OF TERMINOLOGY

Q1a. Now I’m going read you a list of technologies and I’d like you to tell me whether …

[READ OUT RESPONSE OPTIONS.]. The first one is … [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(vi). RANDOMISE

ORDER.]

Technology

You have not heard of it, OR

You have heard of it, but know

very little or nothing

about it, OR

You know enough about

it that you could explain it to a friend

[DO NOT READ OUT] Don’t know

(i) Biotechnology 1 2 3 9 (ii) Gene technology 1 2 3 9 (iii) Genetic modification 1 2 3 9 (iv) Cloning 1 2 3 9 (v) Stem cell research 1 2 3 9 (vi) IVF 1 2 3 9

Q1b. [ASK FOR EACH ITEM (i)-(vi) in Q1a CODED 2 or 3. (I.E. IF PARTICIPANT HAS HEARD

OF IT] And do you think these technologies will [READ OUT RESPONSE OPTIONS.]? [READ OUT

ITEMS (i)-(vi). PRESERVE ORDER FROM Q1a.]


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 57

[IF NECESSARY SAY If you’re not sure please select the answer that best reflects what

you think]

Technology

Improve our way of life in

the future,

OR

Have no effect, OR

Make things worse


(i) Biotechnology 1 2 3 9 (ii) Gene technology 1 2 3 9 (iii) Genetic modification 1 2 3 9 (iv) Cloning 1 2 3 9 (v) Stem cell research 1 2 3 9 (vi) IVF 1 2 3 9

SAY TO ALL: Throughout this survey the terms ‘genetic modification’, ‘gene technology’ and

‘biotechnology’ will be used. I will define these now so that you understand what I am referring

to. You can ask me to repeat these definitions at any time.

o Genetic modification refers to any process that alters the genetic material of a living

organism. This generally means inserting a gene from another organism, or modifying

or removing genes within an organism.

o Gene technology is a broader term than genetic modification and includes processes

that use genes without moving or modifying them, such as testing for genetic

conditions in humans.

o Biotechnology is the broadest term of the three. Biotechnology is the application of

the science of living things, and is used widely in agriculture, beer and wine production,

food processing and drug development. It includes gene technology and genetic

modification, but also includes processes that do not involve the use of genes.

B. APPLICATIONS

Q2a. Now I’m going to ask you about a number of different applications of biotechnology.

Firstly, I’d like you to tell me whether you’ve heard of ... [READ OUT ITEMS. RANDOMLY

SELECT 3 BLOCKS TO PRESENT PER PARTICIPANT. PROCEED THROUGH Q2 a)-d) FOR THE 1ST

BLOCK, THEN DO THE SAME FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD BLOCKS.]

Application No Yes [DO NOT READ

OUT] Don’t know

BLOCK A


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 58

(i) Modifying the genes of plants to produce food

0 1 9

What about where this is done … [ROTATE ORDER.]

(ii) by introducing the genes of a plant of the same species

0 1 9

(iii) by introducing the genes of a plant of a different species

0 1 9

(iv) by introducing the genes of an animal

0 1 9

(v) by introducing the genes of a bacterium

0 1 9

BLOCK B (i) Modifying the genes of plants to

produce non-food crops 0 1 9


(ii) To produce fuels 0 1 9 (iii) To produce plastics 0 1 9 (iv) To produce clothing and other

textiles 0 1 9

BLOCK C (i) Using biotechnology in the

production of food from plants 0 1 9


(ii) by changing the genes of a plant without introducing new DNA

0 1 9

(iii) to assist in conventional breeding 0 1 9 BLOCK D (i) Using gene technology to

produce medicines 0 1 9


(ii) by introducing genes from humans into bacteria

0 1 9

(iii) by introducing genes from humans into animals

0 1 9

(iv) by introducing genes from humans into plants

0 1 9

BLOCK E (i) Using stem cells to conduct

medical research and treat disease

0 1 9


(ii) using non-embryonic or adult stem cells

0 1 9

(iii) using embryonic stem cells 0 1 9 (iv) using stem cells cloned from the

patient’s own cells 0 1 9

BLOCK F (i) Using gene technology in human 0 1 9


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 59

transplants What about where this is done … [ROTATE ORDER.]

(ii) by transplanting animal tissue or organs into humans

0 1 9

(iii) by transplanting human tissue or organs grown in animals into humans

0 1 9

[RANDOMISE ORDER OF Q2b) AND Q2c) FOR PARTICIPANTS. RECORD ORDER PRESENTED.]

Q2b. I’d like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be useful to

society.

Q2c. I’d like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be risky for

society.

Q2d. I’d like you to tell me whether these applications would be acceptable to you.

Q2b) Q2c) Q2d) Application

No Yes

DK

No Yes

DK

No Yes

DK

BLOCK A (i) Modifying the genes of plants to

produce food 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


(ii) by introducing the genes of a plant of the same species

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iii) by introducing the genes of a plant of a different species

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iv) by introducing the genes of an animal

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(v) by introducing the genes of a bacterium

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

BLOCK B (i) Modifying the genes of plants to

produce non-food crops 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


(ii) To produce fuels 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9 (iii) To produce plastics 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9 (iv) To produce clothing and other

textiles 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

BLOCK C (i) Using biotechnology in the

production of food from plants 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


(ii) by changing the genes of a plant without introducing new DNA

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 60

(iii) to assist in conventional breeding 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9 BLOCK D (i) Using gene technology to

produce medicines 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


(ii) by introducing genes from humans into bacteria

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iii) by introducing genes from humans into animals

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iv) by introducing genes from humans into plants

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

BLOCK E (i) Using stem cells to conduct

medical research and treat disease

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


(ii) using non-embryonic or adult stem cells

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iii) using embryonic stem cells 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9 (iv) using stem cells cloned from the

patient’s own cells 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

BLOCK F (i) Using gene technology in human

transplants 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


(ii) by transplanting animal tissue or organs into humans

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iii) by transplanting human tissue or organs grown in animals into humans

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 61

Q3. [IF 2d FOR ITEM A(i) = 0, I.E. IF MODIFYING THE GENES OF PLANTS TO PRODUCE FOOD

IS NOT ACCEPTABLE] You said that modifying the genes of plants to produce food would not

be acceptable to you. Would you be more accepting of modifying the genes of plants to produce

food if … [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v). RANDOMISE ORDER.]

No Yes


(i) The food was certified as safe by a government regulator

0 1 9

(ii) It was developed by a government funded research body

0 1 9

(iii) It was developed by an Australian company

0 1 9

(iv) It was developed by a company based overseas

0 1 9

(v) The food was labelled as genetically modified, in accordance with food regulations

0 1 9

Q4. Now I’m going to ask you about different objectives of genetically modifying plants to

produce food. [EMPHASISE NEW CODE FRAME] I’d like you to tell me how valuable you feel

these objectives are to individuals or society. Please tell me whether you think these objectives

are very valuable, somewhat valuable, not very valuable or not at all valuable. So what

about genetically modifying plants…[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(viii). RANDOMISE ORDER.]?

Very valuab

le

Some-what

valuable

Not very

valuable

Not at all

valuable


(i) to make the food healthier 4 3 2 1 9 (ii) to make the food last longer 4 3 2 1 9 (iii) to make the plants herbicide

tolerant 4 3 2 1 9

(iv) to make the plants pest resistant 4 3 2 1 9 (v) to make the plants frost resistant 4 3 2 1 9 (vi) to make the plants mature more

quickly 4 3 2 1 9

(vii) to make plants drought resistant 4 3 2 1 9 (viii) to make the food cheaper 4 3 2 1 9

Q5. Now I’m going to ask you about some broader objectives of biotechnology, using

applications that do not involve gene technology. I’d like you to tell me how valuable you feel

these objectives are to individuals or society. Please tell me whether you think these

applications are very valuable, somewhat valuable, not very valuable or not at all


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 62

valuable. So, what about using biotechnology……[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(x). RANDOMISE

ORDER.]?

Very valuab

le

Some-what

valuable

Not very

valuable

Not at all

valuable


(i) to reduce fossil fuel consumption 4 3 2 1 9 (ii) to encourage the development of

more environmentally friendly fuels for vehicles

4 3 2 1 9

(iii) to lower the cost of petrol 4 3 2 1 9 (iv) to lower the cost of plastic

products 4 3 2 1 9

(v) to help address climate change 4 3 2 1 9 (vi) to recycle water more effectively 4 3 2 1 9 (vii) to clean up pollution 4 3 2 1 9 (viii) to address declining

biodiversity or the gradual extinction of plants and animals

4 3 2 1 9

(ix) to combat salinity 4 3 2 1 9 (x) [ENSURE PROMPT IS READ OUT

HERE] that doesn’t involve gene technology to enable farmers to use less pesticides

4 3 2 1 9

Q6. Thinking about the environmental problems that society currently faces, would you be in

favour of…(READ OUT, SINGLE RESPONSE)?

Using only natural or traditional methods of agriculture and environmental management OR

1

Pursuing only technologies made available through advances in gene technology OR

2

Pursuing all avenues available 3 [DO NOT READ OUT] Don’t know 9

D. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE

Q7. Now I’d like you to think about different types of foods. How willing would you be to

eat the following? Please use a scale of 0-10, where 10 means that you would be extremely

willing and 0 means that you would be extremely hesitant. How willing would you be to eat …

[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(xi). RANDOMISE ORDER.].

RECORD 0-10 (i) Food containing preservatives (ii) Food grown with the use of pesticides (iii) Organic food (iv) Non-organic food


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 63

(v) Food made from GM crops (vi) Food that contains a small amount of genetically modified

ingredients

(vii) Genetically modified fruit and vegetables (viii) Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with

genetically modified stock feed

(ix) Meat and other products from genetically modified animals (x) Meat and other products from cloned animals (xi) Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals

E. ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS

Q8. I am going to read you a number of statements and for each one, please tell me how

much you agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Disagree Strongly and 5 is Agree

Strongly. The first one is … [RANDOMLY SELECT 8 ITEMS TO PRESENT PER PARTICIPANT.

READ OUT STATEMENTS (i)-(xvi). RANDOMISE ORDER.]

Statement Agree

strongly Disagree strongly

[DON’T READ OUT] Don’t know

(i) The characteristics of plants and animals should only be changed through traditional breeding methods

5 4 3 2 1 9

(ii) We should accept some degree of risk from gene technology if it enhances Australia’s economic competitiveness

5 4 3 2 1 9

(iii) We should reject gene technology if it reduces Australia’s economic competitiveness

5 4 3 2 1 9

(iv) Public consultation and participation improves the regulation of gene technology

5 4 3 2 1 9

(v) Australian farms need genetically modified organisms to stay financially viable

5 4 3 2 1 9

(vi) Australian farms need to be free of genetically modified organisms to stay financially viable

5 4 3 2 1 9


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 64

Statement Agree

strongly

Disagree strongly


(vii) Genetic modification in agriculture is mostly for the benefit of commercial companies

5 4 3 2 1 9

(viii) Research and development into genetic modification should be stopped

5 4 3 2 1 9

(ix) Commercial use of genetic modification and its products should be stopped

5 4 3 2 1 9

(x) Privacy laws should prevent governments and other organisations from accessing information on people’s genetic make-up

5 4 3 2 1 9

(xi) Gene technology is an acceptable form of control for introduced pest animals

5 4 3 2 1 9

(xii) The Australian Government should be doing more to provide the public with factual and balanced information on biotechnology

5 4 3 2 1 9

(xiii) The Australian government should enable the community to participate more in decisions on biotechnology issues

5 4 3 2 1 9

(xiv) Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it

5 4 3 2 1 9

(xv) We should use more natural ways of farming

5 4 3 2 1 9

(xvi) New technologies excite me more than they concern me

5 4 3 2 1 9


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 65

Q9. Now I’d like to read a number of statements to you and I’d like you to tell me whether

you think each one is true or false. The first statement is … [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(iv).

RANDOMISE ORDER.] Do you think that is true or false?

Statement True False [DON’T

READ OUT] Don’t know

(i) Most of the processed foods in Australian supermarkets contain genetically modified ingredients

1 2 9

(ii) Most of the fresh fruit and vegetables grown in Australia are genetically modified

1 2 9

(iii) Most of the cotton grown in Australia is genetically modified

1 2 9

(iv) Most of the vegetable oils produced in Australia are made from genetically modified crops

1 2 9

G. REGULATION

Q10. For your information, the government sets rules that regulate the use of gene technology.

I am going to read you two statements and for each one, please tell me whether you agree or

disagree on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Disagree Strongly and 5 is Agree Strongly. The first

one is … [READ OUT STATEMENTS (i)-(ii). RANDOMISE ORDER.]

Statement Agree

strongly Disagree strongly


(i) The rules that regulate the use of gene technology are sufficiently rigorous

5 4 3 2 1 9

(ii) The rules that regulate the use of gene technology are complied with

5 4 3 2 1 9

Q11a. Which organisation or organisations do you believe are responsible for the regulation of

gene technology in Australia? [DO NOT READ OUT. DO NOT PROMPT. PROBE FULLY – “Can you

tell me anything more/be more specific?”. MULTIPLE RESPONSE.]

Q11b. And which organisation or organisations do you believe provide balanced and factual

information on biotechnology to the Australian community? [DO NOT READ OUT. DO NOT

PROMPT. PROBE FULLY – “Can you tell me anything more/be more specific?”. MULTIPLE

RESPONSE.]

Q11c. And, have you heard of … So this variable represents prompted awareness of

organizations.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 66

Q11d. And, would you trust … [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v) IF NOMINATED IN Q11a) OR CODED

1/YES AT Q11c)] to regulate gene technology? The skip was not done correctly on this

question – too many people were asked. Use recoded variables instead in SPSS file – these

variables will represent trust of organizations among those who are aware

Q11e. [ASK ALL] And, would you trust Biotechnology Australia, which is an Australian

Government agency, to provide balanced and factual information on biotechnology to the

Australian community?

Q. 11a

Q. 11b

Q.11c) Q.11d) Q.11e)

No Yes

DK [

DO

N’T

READ

]

No Yes DK

[DO

N’T

READ

No Yes

DK [

DO

N’T

READ

(i) FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ)

1 1 0 1 99 0 1 99

(ii) THE OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY REGULATOR

2 2 0 1 99 0 1 99

(iii) THE AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE AND INSPECTION SERVICE

3 3 0 1 99 0 1 99

(iv) BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA 4 4 0 1 99 0 1 99

(v) THE AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AUTHORITY (APVMA)

5 5 0 1 99 0 1 99

(vi) BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA 6 6 0 1 99 0 1 99

(vii) NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NH&MRC)

7 7

(viii) THERAPUTIC GOODS ADMINISTRATION (TGA)

8 8


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 67

(ix) AUSTRALIAN HEALTH ETHICS COMMITTEE (AHEC)

9 9

(x) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & AGEING

10 10

(xi) CSIRO 11 11 (xii) FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT – NFI

12 12

(xiii) LOCAL GOVERNMENT – NFI

13 13

(xiv) STATE GOVERNMENT – NFI

14 14

(xv) OTHER [RECORD VERBATIM]

15 15

(xvi) NONE 98 98 (xvii) DON’T

KNOW 99 99

Q12. [ASK ALL] As far as you know, are commercial GM crops allowed to be grown in your

state?

Yes 1 No 2 [DON’T READ OUT] Don’t know 9

Q13. [ASK IF Q12=1] Can you name any GM crops that are grown in your state? [DO NOT

READ OUT. DO NOT PROMPT. MULTIPLE RESPONSE]

YES NO Canola 1 0 Corn 1 0 Cotton 1 0 Soya 1 0 Strawberries 1 0 Tomatoes 1 0 Other [RECORD VERBATIM] 1 0 None 1 0 [DO NOT READ OUT] Don’t know 1 0

Q14. [ASK ALL] Are you in favour of growing GM crops in your state?

Yes 1 No 2 [DON’T READ OUT] Don’t know 9

Q15a. [ASK IF Q14=2 or 9] Would you be in favour of growing GM crops in your state if…?

(READ OUT (i)-(iii), RANDOMISE ORDER)


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 68

Yes No


(i) the crops passed stringent regulations pertaining to health and the environment?

1 2 9

(ii) there was evidence that it would enhance Australia’s economic competitiveness?

1 2 9

(iii) there was evidence that many farmers wanted to plant GM crops

1 2 9

Q15b. [ASK IF Q14=1 or 9] Would you be in favour of growing GM crops in your state if…

(READ OUT (i)-(iii), RANDOMISE ORDER)

Yes No


(i) the health and the environmental impacts of the crops could not be established?

1 2 9

(ii) there was evidence that it would diminish Australia’s economic competitiveness?

1 2 9

(iii) there was evidence that very few farmers wanted to plant GM crops

1 2 9

H. OVERALL SUPPORT, EXPECTATIONS, ASPIRATIONS

We’re almost finished now. Overall, [RANDOMISE Q16a AND Q16b]

Q16a. How would you rate your level of support for the use of gene technology in human

health and medical applications today? Please use a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is fully

supportive and 0 is completely against it. [RECORD 0-10.]

Q16b. How would you rate your level of support for the use of gene technology in food and

agriculture applications today? Please use a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is fully supportive and 0

is completely against it. [RECORD 0-10.]

[RANDOMISE Qs 17, 18, 19]

Q17. How likely do you think gene technology is to help solve significant problems faced by

society? Is it not at all likely, somewhat likely or very likely?

Not at all likely 1 Somewhat likely 2 Very likely 3 [DON’T READ OUT] Don’t know 9

Q18. How likely do you think gene technology is to create significant problems in the future? Is

it not at all likely, somewhat likely or very likely?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 69


Q19. How likely do you think gene technology is to improve your life personally? Is it not at

all likely, somewhat likely or very likely?


Demographics

Finally, I’d like to ask you a couple of questions to ensure that we’ve included a good range of

people in our survey.

Q20. Are you a vegan or vegetarian?

Vegan 1 Vegetarian 2 Neither 3

Q21. Are there children under 12 years of age living in your household?

No 0 Yes 1

Q22. What is the highest level of education you have ever attempted, whether or not you

finished? [PROMPT IF NECESSARY]

No formal schooling 1 Primary school 2 Some high school 3 Year 10/4th Form 4 Year 11/5th Form 5 Year 12/6th Form 6 Technical school, commercial college or TAFE 7 University degree or diploma 8 Something else [RECORD VERBATIM] 9

Q23. Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

No 0 Yes 1

Q24. What is the main language spoken in your home?

English 0 Other [RECORD] 1

Q25. What is your residential postcode? [RECORD.]


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 70

APPENDIX E – EXPLORATORY GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

Community Attitudes to Biotechnology

Introduction

Introduction to market research/group discussions

Our discussion tonight will be about science and technology and their applications in different fields. The discussion will be guided by a number of main themes – I’ll introduce one theme at a time, ask a question or two, and let the conversation take its course. If we begin to stray from the topic, I will have to lead us back to it, but as far as possible you should feel free to approach the topic from your own personal point of view – your own experiences, anecdotes and thoughts are all valuable.

There are no right or wrong answers – we just want to hear about your experiences and opinions. Please be honest, and feel free to disagree with others in the group.

Also I am not an expert in this area. I am here to raise the issues, and get your responses, but I won’t necessarily be able to answer any questions you have. (At the end of the group I’ll let you know where you can find more information if you are interested.)

The discussion is completely confidential, and we won’t be telling anyone who we’ve spoken to. However, we are hoping to record the discussion for our own reference. We may pass on the tape to the client for whom we are conducting the research, but it will go no further, and it will only be used for research purposes. Does anyone have an objection before we proceed?

For the benefit of the tape, please speak one at a time, and wait until others have finished before having your say.

(Where observers are present) Point out the one-way mirror. Explain that “other people working on the project” are viewing the group tonight, and that they are simply interested in participants’ opinions. Reassure confidentiality, anonymity.

The session will take up to two hours. There are food and drinks for those who would like them, and toilets are available outside.

Ask participants to turn off mobile phones.

Ask participants to introduce themselves (first name, occupation).

E


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 71

Genetic modification refers to any process that alters the genetic material of a living

organism. This generally means inserting a gene from another organism, or modifying or

removing genes within an organism.

Gene technology is a broader term than genetic modification and includes processes that use

genes without moving or modifying them, such as testing for genetic conditions in humans.

Biotechnology is the broadest term of the three. Biotechnology is the application of the

science of living things, and is used widely in agriculture, beer and wine production, food

processing and drug development. It includes gene technology and genetic modification, but

also includes processes that do not involve the use of genes.

(Ask all) Applications

I’m going to show you some cards that have different applications of biotechnology. [Show cards Set A]

o Modifying the genes of plants to produce food

o Modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops

o Using biotechnology in the production of food from plants

o Using gene technology to produce medicines

o Using stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease

o Using gene technology in human transplants

Split into 2 groups. In your group, I want you to sort the cards in order of most acceptable to you to least acceptable to you. Please talk it out as you go, so that you get the order on which as many as possible of you agree. I won’t interfere. Once you’ve finished I’ll get you to present back to the other group and explain the way you’ve ordered them and why.

Why have they been placed in that order? [Probe on the basis for acceptability.] What makes some techniques more acceptable and others less acceptable?

o Is it moral/ethical, potential for benefit – to whom or what, potential for harm – to whom or what, balance between benefits and risks, based on knowledge, lack of knowledge or something else?

(Notes to moderator: What, if anything, do individuals disagree on? Observe and probe on the way in which disagreements are argued and or settled. How do some people attempt to persuade others? What is effective in this regard? Are some intransigent on certain points or principles. Probe fully.)

Are there any things that you found hard to understand or hard to place, relative to the other things? Why?

What further information would have made the task easier?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 72

o Do you think trustworthy information would be easy to find? What source or organisation would you most trust to provide that information?

[Give each person an arrow and ask them to write their name on it] Now, I want you to see if you can find a place in the order to put your arrow, a sort-of cut off point, of what you personally think is acceptable or you are comfortable with. It should be so that you accept most of the things above the arrow, and don’t accept most of the things below the arrow.

o Why have you placed your arrow where you have?

o If you can’t decide where to place your arrow, why is that?

[Focus on applications below the arrow] Is there anything that would make the application more or less acceptable to you? What? [Probe on: What if the technology was …]

o Certified as safe by a government regulator

o Developed by a government funded research body (e.g. CSIRO)

o Developed by an Australian company (private)

o Developed by a company based overseas (private)

o [For food] What if the food was labelled as genetically modified

Do you think the government regulates what can and can’t be done in the field of biotechnology? If you knew that there were strict rules in place governing these applications, would this make you feel differently?

Did you used to feel differently about any of these applications, a year or more ago? (How so? Why did you change your mind?

o Probe on each application:

o What has changed? Increased knowledge/understanding (of what?)? Increased knowledge of regulation? More convinced of value?

o Heard/read/seen more information? Different information? Information on regulation? something else?

o What information (type, source) is your understanding of these issues based on?

(Rotation A) Biotechnology/ GM food crops

GM food crops

Let’s talk specifically about modifying the genes of plants to produce food.

What do the following terms mean to you?

o Internal Genetic Modification-

o Close Family Genetic Modification –.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 73

o Cross species Genetic Modification –

How acceptable are each of these types of genetic modification?

[Show list A]

o Internal Genetic Modification – that is working with the genes within an organism.

o Close Family Genetic Modification – that is transferring genes from a closely related organism, which could also be done by natural breeding.

o Cross species Genetic Modification – that is transferring genes from an unrelated species or cross animal-plant species.

Which would be the most acceptable, which the least? Why?

o Is it moral/ethical, potential for benefit – to whom or what, potential for harm – to whom or what, balance between benefits and risks, based on knowledge, lack of knowledge or something else? Other?

Benefits of GM food crops

[Show cards Set B] These are some possible objectives of genetically modifying plants to produce food.

o Make the food healthier

o Make the food last longer

o Make the plants herbicide tolerant

o Make the plants pest resistant

o Make the plants frost resistant

o Make the plants mature more quickly

o Make plants drought resistant

o Make the food cheaper

Do any of these objectives make you feel differently about GM food crops?

(Split in 2 groups if time) As a group, I want you to sort the cards in order of most valuable to least valuable. You can group together those that you feel are of equal value. (Present back to other group if time). Why have they been placed in that order? [Probe according to confidence and any difficulties placing in order.]

What do you understand each of these things to mean? Who would want to do each of these things, and why? [Probe on: Make the plants herbicide tolerant have lower herbicide requirements, make the plants pest resistant have lower pesticides requirements, make plants drought resistant have low water requirements, make the plants mature more quickly shorten growing period/increase number of seasons per year]


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 74

Do you think that the use of GM crops has any effect on the viability of Australian farms? What kind of effect?

o Probe: do you think GM crops could help farmers sell their produce overseas? Do you think the use of GM crops by farmers puts other farmers at risk? How so?

GM foods

[Present cards Set C] These are some different types of food produced through the use of biotechnology.

o Processed food made from GM crops

o Processed food that contains a small amount of genetically modified ingredients

o Genetically modified fruit and vegetables

o Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with genetically modified stock feed

o Meat and other products from genetically modified animals

o Meat and other products from cloned animals

o Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals

(In 2 groups if time) As a group, I want you to sort the cards in order of those you’d feel most willing to eat, to those you’d feel least willing to eat. (Present back to other group if time) Why have they been placed in that order? [Probe on the basis for confidence and any difficulties placing in order.]

(Show list B)

o Where would you place food grown with the use of pesticides?

o Where would you place meat grown from animals that have been given growth hormones?

o Where would you place food containing preservatives?

Thinking about food production and agricultural methods, which of the following would you be in favour of? Why?

o Using only natural or traditional methods of agriculture and farming

o Pursuing only methods made available through advances in gene technology

o Pursuing all avenues available

(Rotation A) Moratorium

As far as you know, are commercial GM crops allowed to be grown in NSW?

Can you name any GM crops that are grown in NSW?

o Where have you come across this information?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 75

Are you in favour of growing GM crops in NSW? Why?

o Who do you think would benefit from growing GM crops in NSW? Who would be at risk? Why?

Who should choose if GM crops are grown? Why?

o Probe on:

Farmers

Government

research bodies like the CSIRO

food manufacturers

the general public.

(Rotation B) GM non-food crops

[Show list A] Let’s talk specifically about modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops.

Are there particular circumstances under which this would be acceptable or unacceptable? What? Why?

What if it was done to produce … [show list B]

o Fuels

o Plastics

o Clothing and other textiles

How acceptable would each be? Which would be the most acceptable, which the least? Why?

o Is it moral/ethical, potential for benefit – to whom or what, potential for harm – to whom or what, balance between benefits and risks, based on knowledge, lack of knowledge or something else? Other?

What if genetically modified plants were grown in order to … [show list C]

o Reduce fossil fuel consumption

o Encourage the development of more environmentally friendly fuels for vehicles

o Lower the cost of petrol

o Lower the cost of plastic products

How acceptable would each be? Which would be the most acceptable, which the least? Why?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 76

(Rotation B) Biotechnology and the environment

[Present cards Set B] These are some possible environmental objectives of some broader objectives of biotechnology.

o To help address climate change

o To recycle water more effectively

o To clean up pollution

o To address declining biodiversity or the gradual extinction of plants and animals

o To combat salinity

o To enable farmers to use less pesticides (without using gene technology)

(In 2 groups if time) As a group, I want you to sort the cards in order of those you feel are most valuable, to those you feel are least valuable. (Present back to other group if time) Why have they been placed in that order? [Probe on the basis for confidence and any difficulties placing in order.]

If you knew that there were applications of biotechnology that were able to meet some of these objectives, would that influence your opinion about some of the other areas of biotechnology that we have already talked about - such as food and agriculture or medicine?

(Rotation B) Regulation

What do you know about the government’s role in regulating gene technology? How well regulated do you think gene technology is?

In which of these areas have you heard about laws and regulations covering what can and can’t be done? (Show list D)

o Medical research

o Medical applications of gene technology

o Research into crops and farm animals

o Agricultural practices

o Food standards

o Use of gene technology to address environmental issues

Do you think that the people and organisations working in gene technology follow the regulations? Which of these groups do you think are most likely to/ least likely to? What makes you say that? (Show list E)

o Farmers

o Agricultural researchers


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 77

o Government bodies

o Companies that make agricultural products

o Medical researchers

o Health practitioners

o Pharmaceutical companies

What information (type, source) is your opinion of regulation based on? Have you heard/seen/read more information about this recently? Did it influence your opinions? In what ways?

(Ask all) Media

We’re going to talk about genes now and their role in human behaviour.

Firstly, what have you heard, seen or read lately about genes and human behaviour?

o What did you think about that? Where did you hear that?

There have been some stories in the media about the role of genes in … [INSERT 1 (MATCHED TO SELECTED MEDIA STORY) OR MORE IF TIME FROM LIST BELOW]?

o Behavioural problems

o Obesity

o Panic attacks

o Reading skills

o Alcohol craving

o Violence

o Have you seen, read or heard anything like that in the media? Can you remember, more specifically, what the story was about?

o What did you think about that? Was it believable? Credible? Why/why not?

o In what ways did it influence or change your views about this issue? Why?

o Where did you hear these stories? In what types of media? [Probe on TV, print, internet etc as well as specifics like channel/type of show, publication/type of publication, etc]

o Do you think these sources are trustworthy?

Notepad exercise: [Participants are presented with 1 newspaper headline and story. A notepad exercise is completed and responses discussed.] Please read the newspaper clipping provided. How would you describe this article? [Observe reactions while reading. Discuss responses to notepad exercises.]

o [Follow up:] What do you think about the article?


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 78

o Is it believable? Credible? Why/why not?

o Is it an accurate portrayal of the connection between genes and human characteristics and behaviour? Why do you say that?

o Have you come across anything like that before? If so, where? If not, where would you expect to come across it?

Closing

This research is being conducted on behalf of Biotechnology Australia. The findings will be

used to help them to ensure the public’s need for information about gene technology is

adequately met.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 79

APPENDIX F – EXPLORATORY GROUP NOTEPAD EXERCISE

Participants were presented with one of the following media exercises and were asked to write

a response to the question ‘How would you describe this article?’ This notepad exercise was

followed by a discussion of participants’ responses.

1. Your kids are ratbags? Them's fightin' genes

8 February 2007

Herald Sun

Fighting between parents is not to blame for "ratbag" behaviour in children, according to new

Australian research that says it's all in the genes.

Scientists have discredited the well-worn theory that rows in the home can be responsible for

bullying, shoplifting, vandalism and other conduct problems among kids.

Instead it seems the link is more direct - parents who argue a lot pass their genes for

disruptive behaviour on to their children, who develop a juvenile version of the same traits.

The findings, from a study of more than 1000 Australian twins, could prompt a shift in the way

delinquency is treated in therapy.

"Our data shows that marital conflict is not a major culprit," said epidemiologist Nick Martin,

from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research.

"Rows have often been blamed for ratbag behaviour but we've got no evidence to suggest that

they are the problem."

Researchers, including some from the US, studied 1045 pairs of twins and their children to see

if the link between parental fighting and kids' conduct problems was genetic or environmental.

They found children of an identical twin had the same levels of behavioural problems regardless

of whether it was their parent or their parent's identical sibling that had marital rows.

F


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 80

Children whose own parents don't fight, but the genetically-identical aunt or uncle does, had

the same level of delinquency as children living in the opposite situation, the researchers found.

Prof Martin said this was because this child could pick up the "disruptive" traits from the

identical aunt or uncle, proving the link was genetic.

2. Don't feel guilty 'it's in the genes'

5 September 2006

The Advertiser

Big boned people shouldn't feel guilty about their weight because their genes are to blame, an

international congress has been told.

But the comments sparked debate, with a leading Australian scientist saying people should take

more personal responsibility for their diets to end the obesity epidemic.

Dr Sadaf Farooqi, of the University of Cambridge, said people with the genetic mutation -

responsible for 6 per cent of all cases of severe early-onset obesity - felt hungrier and could

appear tall, strong or "big boned". She said they were predisposed to eat more.

But Emma Whitelaw, from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, said genetic

predisposition let obese people off the hook for not looking after their diet.

3. 'Gene for panic attacks'

Anxiety may be genetic13

A gene may be partly responsible for causing psychological disorders such as panic attacks, say

researchers.

A team from Ohio State University has found that people with a particular variation in the

serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT) showed a greater fear response during a laboratory

experiment.

Lead researcher Professor Norman Schmidt said: "While a single gene cannot be held

accountable for complex emotional states - such as anxiety disorders - we're beginning to

pinpoint which genetic traits may make a person susceptible to developing psychological

disorders."

13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/790561.stm Accessed 21st June, 2007


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 81

The 5-HTT gene is responsible for regulating the chemical serotonin, which helps transmit

messages in the brain.

The people who showed a greater fear response during an experiment had a variation in the

gene that caused the brain to take up serotonin faster, leaving less available.

A lack of serotonin is thought to be linked to the development of psychological disorders.

In the study, 72 participants took two breaths of pressurised air through a mouthpiece.

The breaths were spaced 10 minutes apart. One breath consisted of pressurised room air, and

the other was a carbon dioxide-oxygen mix designed to make subjects feel they are

momentarily short of breath.

This can produce symptoms of anxiety in some people.

Subjects with the "long" form of the 5-HTT gene - the one implicated in the increased

regulation of serotonin - reported feeling more anxiety when they took the carbon dioxide

breath.

Dr Schmidt said. "It's clear that a single gene is rarely the culprit - there are multiple genes

that are involved in most types of psychological disorders.

"But I think that the combination of genetic traits and psychological traits may ultimately be

the best way to predict psychological disorders."

John Fraise, a chartered clinical psychologist at the Adult Psychological Therapy Service in

Wakefield, said the research was interesting, but would not, in the short-term, make any

difference to the practicalities of managing anxiety disorders.

He said: "My hands on experience of dealing with individuals for many years has led me to

believe that some people may be more pre-disposed to stress than others.

"But I would suggest that many factors play a part.

"The presence or absence of a piece of genetic code will not necessarily determine how

somebody reacts to stress.

"Some people may have developed skills to enable them to manage anxiety sufficiently well

that they never manifest the problem even though the pre-disposition is there."

The study appears in the new issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 82

4. Reading skills are in the genes, study shows

21 September 2006

The Age

Genes are credited for many personal traits, ranging from height and weight to poor eyesight.

Now, it seems, reading skills can be added to the list.

A study of twins has found different genes influence whether a child can learn to read by

phonics - the sounding out of words - or by recognising words visually.

"This study gives valuable insights into these two reading processes that policymakers might

like to use in developing policy about how reading is taught to children," said researcher Anne

Castles, from the University of Melbourne.

The study tested the reading and spelling ability of about 600 pairs of identical and non-

identical twins, aged from 12 to 18. If reading skills had a genetic basis, identical twins, who

share all their genes, would be more similar in their abilities than non-identical twins, who

share about half their genes.

The researchers used made-up words to test the youths' sounding-out technique. Words that

could not be read or spelt by phonics, such as "yacht", were used to measure their ability with

the whole-word recognition approach.

"What we found was that both of these reading skills have a genetic basis . . . and different

sets of genes seemed to be involved in acquiring the two different skills," Associate Professor

Castles said.

The three-year study also showed reading and spelling involved the same sets of genes.

"People often say 'I'm fine at reading, but I'm hopeless at spelling'," she said. "(But) in terms

of what your inherited characteristics bring you, it seems to be essentially the same skill."

Associate Professor Castles said the results showed it was important to teach and test children

using both the phonics and whole-word approach, to ensure that any problems were detected

and treated early. "Just because something is genetically based . . . it's not some kind of

sentence for life. It just means that a child might need help in a particular area."


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 83

5. Gene mutation may raise the risk of alcoholism

10 January 200714

Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=&storyid=2007-01-

10T142530Z_01_TON014235_RTRUKOC_0_US-GENE-ALCOHOLISM.xml&src=nl_ushealth1100

Researchers have identified a gene variation that seems to influence a person's craving for

alcohol; a finding they believe could have important implications for identifying at-risk drinkers

as well as for selecting the best treatment for a patient's dependence.

The gene mutation involves a cell structure called the mu-opioid receptor. In previous studies,

this receptor has been shown to bind beta-endorphin, a pain-relieving chemical the body

releases in response to alcohol intake and other stimuli.

Further research has shown that when the gene variant, or the "G allele," is present, the

receptor binds to beta-endorphin more strongly than when the more common "A allele" is

present.

Dr Esther van den Wildenberg, from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, and

colleagues investigated the impact of the A and G alleles on alcohol craving.

The study included 84 men who carried only the A allele and 24 who carried at least one copy

of the G allele. Family histories of alcoholism were comparable in each group. G allele carriers

showed significantly more craving than did subjects with only the A allele.

In addition, the authors found that G allele carriers were more likely to also report illicit drug

use at some point in their lives.

6. Violence Gene

We all get angry sometimes. But some people turn that anger into violence... and scientists are

discovering that may be partly due to genetics. This ScienCentral News video explains.

Genetically Wired Brains

With swelling prison populations, researchers are trying to understand the biology behind

aggressive behavior. National Institute of Mental Health scientist Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg is

looking for clues to how genes wire our brains early in life.

14 Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=&storyid=2007-01-10T142530Z_01_TON014235_RTRUKOC_0_US-GENE-ALCOHOLISM.xml&src=nl_ushealth1100. Accessed 21st June, 2007


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 84

He's focusing on a specific gene that was previously linked to impulsive violence in certain

populations of people. A study in 2002 found that subjects with a particular form of a gene had

a significantly higher risk of violence only if they were abused as children. While this gene-

environment interaction is important in understanding this behavior, Meyer-Lindenberg wanted

to focus on the genetic facets of violence.

The study also found that a variation in this gene, called the L version of MAO-A,

disproportionately affects men, because this gene is located on the X chromosome, which

determines sex. Since men only have one X chromosome, they are more prone to the effects of

the gene. Women have two X chromosomes, but the chances of having the gene variation on

both chromosomes is very rare.

"One of the most fascinating things," Meyer-Lindenberg says, about this field of science called

psychiatric genetics, "is how it is possible that genes [can] encode for molecules that affect

something as complex as behavior, even psychiatric illness such as depression and social

behavior."

Genes direct the production of proteins, which are the building blocks of living systems. Meyer-

Lindenberg is investigating a gene that directs the creation of a special type of protein, an

enzyme, that breaks down a chemical in the brain called serotonin.

Serotonin is a chemical messenger in the brain that affects how brain cells communicate with

each another. Meyer-Lindenberg says that different forms of the gene can affect the brain's

wiring and, "will then presumably contribute to behaviors and emotions such as fear or

aggression."

To isolate how this gene variation might affect the brain, Meyer-Lindenberg took MRI brain

scans of more than 100 healthy volunteers. Since this genetic variation is common in our

population, some of the volunteers had this genetic variation, and some didn't.

He showed them pictures of angry and fearful faces, and other disturbing images, like those of

an angry dog or of a gun pointed towards the screen.

As he wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences those with the aggression-

related form of the gene responded to the pictures with increased activity in the amygdala —

the brain area that detects danger, but less activity in the cingulate cortex — the brain region

which controls aggression.

These brain patterns have been linked to impulsive violence, but Meyer-Lindenberg cautions in

his paper, " ...because our sample was psychiatrically normal, the variation observed is clearly

compatible with normal mental health and does not imply or suggest increased risk for violence

in our sample."


JUNE 2007 | PAGE 85

There are many possible factors at work, he says, and violence is an extremely complex

behavior. "Whether or not any given person in any given situation will become violent is known

to be almost impossible to predict," he explains.

So while this gene may contribute to aggressive behavior, that doesn't mean we're chained to

our genetic makeup.

Meyer-Lindenberg's research was published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences on March 28, 2006 and was funded by the National Institutes of

Health.


JUNE 2007

Documents

Eureka report - Biotechnology Australia overall … · · 2015-02-03COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY REPORT ON OVERALL ... Prepared for Biotechnology Australia Eureka Project