Web viewBackground. Biotechnology Australia is an Australian Government agency responsible for managing the National Biotechnology Strategy. The Public Awareness Program is

PUBLIC AWARENESS RESEARCH 2005 OVERVIEW

BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA

SEPTEMBER, 2005

Contents1. Research context.......................................................................................1

Background................................................................................................................1The nature of public attitudes....................................................................................1Research objectives...................................................................................................2

2. Research design.........................................................................................3A three-phase research program...............................................................................3Samples.....................................................................................................................3

3. Findings....................................................................................................53.1 General attitudes towards biotechnology............................................................53.2 Applications of gene technology..........................................................................63.3 Gene technology techniques.............................................................................193.4 Using GM products.............................................................................................203.5 Gene technology in society................................................................................213.6 Information........................................................................................................213.7 Regulation.........................................................................................................22

Appendix A - Survey sample characteristics...................................................24Location...................................................................................................................24Age..........................................................................................................................24Gender.....................................................................................................................25Education.................................................................................................................25Culturally and linguistically diverse groups..............................................................26Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders......................................................................26Vegetarians.............................................................................................................27Children under 12....................................................................................................27

Appendix B - Questionnaire..........................................................................28Biotechnology Public Awareness Questionnaire.......................................................28

List of FiguresFigure 1. Methodology........................................................................................................3Figure 2. Awareness and knowledge of technologies..........................................................5Figure 3. Perceived impact of technologies........................................................................6Figure 4. Time frame for impact of technologies................................................................6Figure 5. Support for fields of gene technology application................................................7Figure 6. Perceived usefulness of applications...................................................................8Figure 7. Perceived risk associated with applications.........................................................9Figure 8. Acceptability of applications................................................................................9Figure 9. Perceived usefulness of GM food crops..............................................................10Figure 10. Perceived risk associated with GM food crops..................................................11Figure 11. Acceptability of GM food crops.........................................................................11Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology to produce medicines............12Figure 13. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology to produce medicines..12Figure 14. Acceptability of using gene technology to produce medicines.........................13Figure 15. Perceived usefulness of using stem cells to treat disease................................14Figure 16. Perceived risk associated with using stem cells to treat disease.....................14Figure 17. Acceptability of using stem cells to treat disease............................................15Figure 18. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology in human transplants............16Figure 19. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology in human transplants. .16Figure 20. Acceptability of using gene technology in human transplants.........................17

Figure 21. Perceived usefulness of cloning.......................................................................18Figure 22. Perceived risk associated with cloning.............................................................18Figure 23. Acceptability of cloning....................................................................................19Figure 24. Views on the uses of gene technology.............................................................21Figure 25. Views on rules and regulations........................................................................22Figure B-1. Location of respondents' residence................................................................24Figure B-2. Age profile of respondents..............................................................................25Figure B-3. Highest level of education attempted.............................................................26

List of TablesTable 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research..........................................3Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research.........................................4

Public Awareness Research 2005 Overview

1. Research contextBackgroundBiotechnology Australia is an Australian Government agency responsible for managing the National Biotechnology Strategy. The Public Awareness Program is one of the initiatives implemented under this strategy. Its aim is to provide members of the community with the information they need to make more informed choices regarding the adoption of biotechnologies.

Public attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian biotechnology sector. If Australians are not accepting of the applications of biotechnology, opportunities for individuals, industry and the nation in general may be lost. Public understanding of the science involved is thus considered to be important. However, there is perhaps as great a need for scientists (and policymakers) to understand the public's needs and concerns. In this way, research and development, public policy and communications strategies could be based more effectively on a sound understanding of what drives public acceptance and what must be addressed in order to meet the needs of the public and to address their concerns. Thus, there is a need to understand the underlying drivers of community attitudes towards biotechnology.

The nature of public attitudesResearch 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.

Indeed, there has been a trend towards increasingly complex analysis of applications of technology from a simple risk-benefit analysis with some consideration of its ethical underpinnings, to a more considered analysis in terms of both the process of development and the outcomes (for individuals, industry and society) of the application1. Some of the issues that may be considered include:

Is the process of development harmful to humans, animals or the environment?

Is the process controlled or regulated?

Does the outcome benefit humanity? Can it save or improve human life?

Is the outcome simply increased corporate profit or scientific career advancement?

What are the long-term outcomes likely to be? What potential exists for unforeseen outcomes to occur?

Interactions or trade-offs can also arise between different costs and benefits. For example, some people may consider a process that is harmful to animals to be acceptable when it is used to save or improve human life, but not where it simply results in increased profits.

Five key factors have been identified that underlie the public's acceptance of applications of biotechnologies2. These are:

1 Ethical underpinnings of changing community attitudes to biotechnology. By Craig Cormick. Accessed on the Biotechnology Australia website.

1


Information — Information on what biotechnologies are and are not capable of, provided by a credible source.

Regulation — Confidence that regulatory safeguards are in place to ensure the safety of the public and the environment.

Consultation — A belief that the public has been appropriately consulted and given the opportunity for input into the development of biotechnology.

Consumer choice — The ability of the consumer to either accept or reject each particular application of biotechnology.

Consumer benefit — A perceived societal and individual benefit for each application.

It should be borne in mind that public perceptions of these factors are as important as the reality. Ways in which both current perceptions and the reality of the situation can best be addressed need to be considered.

Finally, the rapid developments and advances in biotechnology mean that attitudes and acceptance relating to biotechnology, as well as the associations between them, are likely to change over time. It is important that these changes and explored and understood. To track these changes, research on behalf of Biotechnology Australia has been conducted every two years since 1999.

Research objectivesIn 2005, Eureka Strategic Research was commissioned to conduct the fourth wave of this research. The primary aim of this project was to update and develop understanding of the public's awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive public acceptance. More specifically, the objectives of this research were to measure and understand; public awareness and acceptance of biotechnology, public confidence in its products and its applications, perceptions of usefulness and risks involved, and information and regulatory sources.

2 Social causes of public concerns about developments in biotechnology in Australia: Comparisons with other countries and lessons for Asia. By Craig Cormick. Accessed on the Biotechnology Australia website.

2


2. Research designA three-phase research programTo meet these objectives, a three-phase research program was employed, as illustrated in the following diagram.

Figure 1. Methodology

Initially, a brief phase of exploratory qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes, motivations and behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research. Following the qualitative phase, quantitative research using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) survey was carried out. Finally, an explanatory phase of qualitative research was conducted in order to investigate and explain in detail the findings from the survey.

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

Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research

Location

Sydney Goulburn

Education level Non-tertiary 18-30 years 31-65 yearsMainly tertiary 31-65 years 18-30 years

This phase was 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 between 11/2 to 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $60.

The sample for the quantitative survey consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age. A representative sample of this size provides a 95% confidence interval of no more than ±3.0%. This means that if we find that 50% of the sample, for instance, agrees that testing embryos for pre-disposition to diseases is useful to society, then we could be 95% confident (from this sample of 1,067), that between 47% and 53% of the population holds this view.

Respondents were selected from the electronic White Pages. The sample was stratified by location (by state and territory, and then into capital and non-capital) to ensure that the sample was in proportion to the population. Broad age and gender quotas were also applied, within each location, once again to ensure the sample was proportionally representative. The questionnaire averaged 24 minutes' duration.

3


The third phase (explanatory qualitative research) was conducted across three locations and with participants of varying levels of support for gene technology, as shown in the table below.

Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research

Location

Wagga Wagga Sydney (City) Hurstville

Level of support

Low 18-65 years 18-65 years 18-65 yearsMedium 18-65 years 18-65 years 18-65 yearsHigh 18-65 years 18-65 years 18-65 years

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 between 1% to 2 hours, and a $60 incentive was provided.

In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are combined and presented together for each issue.

4


3. Findings3.1 General attitudes towards biotechnologyWhen compared to other current societal issues (e.g. pollution of the environment), the largest proportion of people rated GM foods and cloning as the least concerning issues.

Many people felt they could explain cloning to a friend, whereas the largest proportion of people have heard of, but know very little about, stem cells, genetic engineering, biotechnology and gene therapy, as is shown in Figure 2.

The majority thought that cloning would make things worse, but that the other technologies could improve the way of life in the future. The greatest proportion of respondents felt that genetic engineering, biotechnology and cloning were already having an impact on society. The results of the questions regarding the impact of technologies are shown in more detail in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 2. Awareness and knowledge of technologies

5


Figure 3. Perceived impact of technologies

Figure 4. Time frame for impact of technologies

3.2 Applications of gene technologyAreas of application

Members of the public hold diverse opinions in relation to the various applications of gene technology. On the whole, people were more supportive of health and medical applications than agricultural and food applications, as can be seen in Figure 5.

6


Figure 5. Support for fields of gene technology application

As can be seen from the chart, there is no one "public view". Instead, members of the public are supportive of the use of gene technology in both health/medical and food/agricultural applications to varying degrees. On the whole, health/medical applications received a greater number of higher scores, and food/agriculture received a greater number of lower scores.

Most felt the use of gene technology in a medical context was acceptable. They valued the technology's potential to save lives or improve quality of life and considered its use to treat disease and injury a 'noble' pursuit. They acknowledged that almost any technology would be considered acceptable if it were going to benefit one's self or loved ones. Some considered medical applications of gene technology to pose fewer risks, partly as they were contained in scientific laboratories and hospitals and would be used infrequently, usually as a last resort.

In contrast, the application of gene technology in agricultural applications was perceived by many to be unnecessary. Many believed that agricultural practices had developed and improved "naturally" for many years without the help of gene technology and, therefore, that it was uncalled for in this context. Almost all participants had concerns about the potential risk to human health, especially if the produce of the genetically modified crop was to be consumed.

Perceptions of specific applications

Respondents were asked a series of questions about specific applications of biotechnology (e.g. using stem cells in medical research and treating disease, and using gene technology to modify food crops, to produce medicines and in human transplants).

The majority had heard of the use of stem cells in medical research and treating disease, and using gene technology to modify food plants. In contrast, the majority was not aware

7


of the use of gene technology in producing medicines or in transplants. The majority considered that each of the given gene technology applications was useful, with the greatest proportion of respondents perceiving stem cell research and treatment as useful.

Using gene technology to modify food plants was perceived to be risky by the highest proportion of respondents. The majority also considered the use of gene technology in human transplants and in the production of medicines to be risky. Despite this, most respondents found each of the applications of biotechnology to be acceptable, with the possible exception of genetically modified food crops.

Figures 6 to 8 display the above findings in greater detail.

Figure 6. Perceived usefulness of applications

8


Figure 7. Perceived risk associated with applications

Figure 8. Acceptability of applications

GM food crops

The public was split relatively evenly in its acceptability of the use of gene technology to alter food crops to achieve different objectives. The majority of people were aware of most of these objectives, and perceived them to be of some use, but 60% - 70% considered these applications risky. Figures 9 to 11 show the survey findings regarding the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of using gene technology to modify food crops.

9


When specific applications were further explored it was revealed that most people believed GM food crops to be unnecessary and unnatural, and to pose unknown health risks. Participants largely made judgements on the basis of how the applications would affect them personally. Mainly because of this, objectives intended to benefit producers, companies or wider society (as opposed to individuals) were generally considered to be unnecessary and of little value. Biotechnology applications in crops and food production were seen as more relevant to developing nations, in particular, because they have potential to address the problem of famine.

Regardless of whether the objectives sought were perceived as positive, participants believed there to be more natural and less risky alternative methods by which the same outcome could be achieved. It was generally felt that the risks of genetically modifying food crops were too great to justify use of the technology. Specific concerns were raised about the risks to human health and the risk of contamination surrounding fields, land and non-GM crops.

Figure 9. Perceived usefulness of GM food crops

10


Figure 10. Perceived risk associated with GM food crops

Figure 11. Acceptability of GM food crops

Producing medicine

The public generally perceived using gene technology to produce medicines to be useful and acceptable, but when provided with details of specific techniques they deemed the applications to be less useful, less acceptable and riskier. The survey findings regarding the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of using gene technology to produce medicines are shown in more detail in Figures 12 to 14.

In general, participants in the qualitative research supported the use of gene technology in producing medicines, as this application offered the potential to reduce disease, help

11


individuals and society. However, once specific techniques were discussed in the groups, participants' concerns increased. In particular, many participants had concerns regarding the use of gene transfers across kingdoms, especially those that involved combining human and bacterial genes.

Figure 12. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology to produce medicines

Figure 13. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology to produce medicines

12


Figure 14. Acceptability of using gene technology to produce medicines

Stem cells

There was widespread awareness of stem cells, used both in medical research and in the treatment of disease. The majority perceived stem cells (in both research and treatment contexts) to be useful and acceptable. The public was roughly divided as to whether these applications were risky. The survey findings regarding the use of stem cells to treat disease are shown in Figures 15 to 17.

Knowledge about stem cells varied considerably among group participants. Most had heard of stem cells, but were unaware of the existence of different kinds of stem cells, and had given little thought to the associated issues. Most needed additional information, particularly in relation to the distinction between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells. There was greater familiarity with the term "embryonic stem cells". There was some confusion regarding the terms "embryo" and "fetus" and the association of "embryonic" and "umbilical cord" due to their link with babies.

Issues relating to use of stem cells in medical research and treating disease were considered essentially the same, with the former simply being the precursor of the latter. Acceptability of using stem cells depended largely on the proposed use and context. If it is related to the treatment of serious injury and/or disease it is generally supported, particularly if it is a matter of life or death. Acceptability of stem cells used for any given purpose appeared to depend upon several factors including the origin of stem cells (i.e. from an embryo, fetus or umbilicus), the perceived point at which life begins and the intention in creating the embryo. Many were supportive of using embryos left over from IVF.

13


Figure 15. Perceived usefulness of using stem cells to treat disease

Figure 16. Perceived risk associated with using stem cells to treat disease

14


Figure 17. Acceptability of using stem cells to treat disease

Human transplants

Awareness of using gene technology in human transplants was reasonably low, but this increased once people were prompted with the specific methods used. People generally perceived using gene technology in human transplants to be useful and acceptable. When details of specific techniques used were given, these applications were perceived to be less useful, riskier and less acceptable. Figures 18 to 20 show the survey findings regarding the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of using gene technology to produce medicines.

In the qualitative research, many participants were supportive of using gene technology in human transplants. They generally considered that, in this context, the technology offered the potential to save human lives. Once again, as the details of specific techniques were discussed, additional concerns arose among participants which were often associated with religious beliefs, the potential for animal suffering and crossing of the species barrier between animals and humans.

15


Figure 18. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology in human transplants

Figure 19. Perceived risk associated with using gene technology in human transplants

16


Figure 20. Acceptability of using gene technology in human transplants

Cloning

Almost all respondents indicated awareness of cloning animals, with the majority also indicating their awareness of human and plant cloning. Respondents distinguished plant cloning from cloning of animals and humans, with more people perceiving the former to be useful and acceptable, than the latter. Nearly two-thirds considered plant cloning to be acceptable, whereas only a tenth were accepting of human cloning. The survey findings regarding the perceived usefulness, risk and acceptability of cloning are shown in Figures 21 to 23.

There was strong consensus that cloning was the least acceptable application of gene technology, with participants expressing how uncomfortable they felt with the notion of human cloning. Participants generally assumed that human cloning referred to the exact reproduction of an entire human, rather than the cloning of human cells or body parts. The word "cloning" appeared inherently negative, such that even cloning in plants was seen as unacceptable, until it was pointed out that propagation through cuttings, a perfectly acceptable technique, was in fact a case of cloning.

Some participants felt that animal cloning technology was being pursued for no justifiable reason, but purely in the name of science. The majority of participants expressed concerns about the uncertainties associated with cloning humans. Participants clearly did not have a good understanding of specifically what would be involved in cloning human cells to obtain healthy organs for transplant and most wanted more information before they could comment on the application.

For most people, their reaction to animal cloning was similar to their reaction to human cloning, although somewhat less vehement. People were aware that the cloning of animals was already taking place, citing the example of Dolly the sheep. Beyond this, however, there was little awareness of any work being done on cloning animals. As with human cloning, few understood the purpose of cloning animals or could identify legitimate potential uses.

17


Figure 21. Perceived usefulness of cloning

Figure 22. Perceived risk associated with cloning

18


Figure 23. Acceptability of cloning

Attitudes towards applications

A general pattern can be seen across almost all the results presented in this section. People recognise a worthy objective and are generally supportive of pursuing it, despite concerns. If an objective is not perceived to be valuable, is not stated, or if there are perceived to be other means by which the objective could be achieved, people do not support gene technology, given the perceived risks involved.

Making the means by which an application is being pursued more salient tends to heighten concern, mostly due to people's lack of understanding of the science and the subsequent fear resulting from a lack of familiarity. Only a detailed technical knowledge, which few people have attained and of which not all are capable, is able to diffuse such concerns. It is likely that many people would prefer to live in ignorance, trusting that only worthy objectives will be pursued, with appropriate regulation in place.

3.3 Gene technology techniquesRespondents compared specific techniques involved in gene technology: introducing plant genes into other plants, introducing bacterial genes into plants, introducing animal genes into plants and modifying genetic material in human cells. Few respondents were confident that they could explain any of the techniques to a friend. The majority considered introducing plant genes into other plants to be acceptable, but it was only a minority who approved of the other techniques.

Cross kingdom gene transfers

Findings from the qualitative phase suggested that people are particularly uncomfortable with techniques that involve gene transfers across kingdoms as these were considered to be particularly unnatural. Many participants felt that, as a result, these techniques were frightening and had great potential to cause unforeseen outcomes. Such concerns appeared to be driven by a lack of understanding of the science involved. People also

19


appeared to make rather loose associations between these techniques and examples of scientific and health disasters (such as Bird Flu), which they could readily recall.

3.4 Using GM productsNon-food products

Respondents rated their confidence levels in using a range of products derived from genetically modified plants and animals such as plastics, fibres, building materials, packaging and fuel. Overall, as these products were not ingested, they were considered less of a risk to human health than GM food products. Some people were particularly supportive of using fuel sources derived from genetically modified plants. Participants were less enthusiastic about plastics and clothing fibres. They expressed doubt over whether these applications were necessary or whether it was useful to use GM plants and animals to manufacture such products. Many participants felt that the non-food products should be labelled as having been derived from GM sources.

GM food products

Many participants had a poor understanding of exactly what constituted a genetic modification, believing that any alteration of a plant or animal (e.g. spraying chemical pesticides, herbicides or even fertilizers or injecting hormones or steroids) constituted genetic modification.

Respondents had the least confidence in consuming food from genetically modified animals, followed by meat from animals fed GM stock feed, food containing a genetically modified ingredient and genetically modified fruit and vegetables. There was, however, great variation in participants' reactions to genetically modifying food, ranging from disgust to indifference. Most participants expressed an overriding concern about the potential health risks of consuming genetically modified foods and were concerned that any adverse effects might not be evident for several years. Some participants were also concerned about the cumulative effects of consuming GM foods over one's lifespan.

Many participants in the discussion groups believed that genetically modified foods were widely available in Australia and that consumers, including themselves, were already buying and eating them. A quarter of respondents (incorrectly) believed that most of Australia's fresh produce is genetically modified, whereas nearly half believed that most processed foods in Australian supermarkets are modified.

Participants were divided as to whether or not they would buy genetically modified foods. Some stated that they would stop purchasing a product if they found out that it was genetically modified, but most said they would be reluctant to change their buying habits. Some expressed no intention to cease buying familiar items if they learnt that they were genetically modified, given that they had not noticed any ill-effects to date.

Labelling was perceived by most participants to be very important as it allows consumers to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to purchase a genetically modified product.

It was clear from the qualitative research that GM food is not an issue to which most people give much thought in making everyday purchasing decisions, despite beliefs about the widespread availability of GM food, so that their stated opposition to GM food might be considered as analogous to a stated opposition to say, preservatives.

20


3.5 Gene technology in societyRespondents in the survey were read a series of statements about gene technology in society and, for each one, asked the extent to which they agreed. Whereas other issues were explored in greater detail, the content of these statements is very broad and the results (as displayed in Figure 24) can be seen as representing a cross section of views on gene technology.

Figure 24. Views on the uses of gene technology

The results showed that the majority of respondents were supportive of most uses of gene technology. The majority supported the use of left-over stem cells from IVF. In addition, more agreed than disagreed with using gene technology in pest control, although a tenth was unsure regarding this use.

The majority disagreed that research and development into, and commercial use of, gene technology should be stopped. However, the majority also felt that only traditional methods should be used to alter plant and animal characteristics.

Almost two-thirds of all respondents agreed strongly that discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics should be illegal.

3.6 InformationThe greatest proportion of respondents said that they would use the internet to search for information about gene technology, with newspapers and magazines being the next common source of information. When prompted, the greatest proportion of respondents was confident in information provided by the CSIRO, followed by universities and scientists. Sources which the fewest people had confidence in included religious organisations and the media. Such questions need to be viewed with caution, since it was clear that most had not searched for any such information and were unlikely to do so.

Throughout the discussions, participants frequently reported needing more information in order to judge the acceptability of various gene technology applications. However, it was rare that participants had actively sought to increase their awareness or understanding of biotechnology and few participants were sufficiently interested or perceived they had the capacity and/or time to do so. Largely due to this, participants' knowledge was mainly absorbed from that presented in the media, as well as from movies.

21


The source of information was seen as critical in judging the credibility of the information. Participants expressed a desire for information from multiple independent sources in order to ensure they received balanced information and to have access to both sides of the debate. However, as discussed below, their main concern (and assumption) was that the government, appropriately advised, was making sensible rules on their behalf.

3.7 RegulationThe Federal Government was the source that was cited most often as being responsible for the regulation of gene technology in Australia, followed by the CSIRO. Almost all respondents had heard of Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and the majority was aware of Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). The organisations that the greatest proportion of respondents trusted to regulate were the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and AQIS.

The group discussions revealed that, while many had not necessarily given any thought to the regulation of gene technology, they assumed and hoped that someone was looking out for the public. Participants made frequent reference to the need for gene technology to be "controlled" or regulated. Some showed a basic awareness, citing legislation that was in place banning certain practices, such as cloning and growing GM crops.

Regulation was considered necessary as it could offer the general public some level of protection, but it was not sufficient as it provided no guarantee of safety. There was support for efforts by the government to ensure the public is informed and their views canvassed, despite many individuals admitting that they were not inclined to participate in such a process. Indeed, most participants felt that they were not equipped to make, nor wanted to be responsible for, decisions that impact upon the whole population. Participants also felt that, in order for rules to be policed effectively, the regulators would need sufficient expertise to ensure complete awareness and understanding of the technologies that were being pursued.

Survey respondents were also asked about the extent to which they agreed with several statements about the control and regulation of gene technology in Australia. Results are displayed in Figure 25.

Figure 25. Views on rules and regulations

The majority agreed that public consultation and participation improves regulation. A similar proportion believed that farmers need to be GM-free to stay competitive, as believed that farmers need access to GM technology in order to do so. A majority also agreed that we have to accept some risk from GM for Australia to remain competitive.

22


Many felt unable to comment on whether Australia's current rules are sufficient and whether they are being followed.

23


Appendix A - Survey sample characteristicsThe total sample for this research was 1,068. This sub-section provides demographic details of the sample.

LocationQuotas were imposed to ensure the sample was geographically representative of the Australian population. The geographic breakdown of the sample is shown in Figure B-13.

Figure B-1. Location of respondents' residence

AgeAll respondents 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.

3 Locations labelled 'other' include any area within the given state or territory that is outside of the capital city.

24


Figure B-2. Age profile of respondents

GenderGender 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 (49.9%) and females (50.1%).

EducationRespondents were asked to indicate the highest level of education they had ever attempted. The results are shown in Figure B-3.

25


Figure B-3. Highest level of education attempted

The largest proportion of respondents (44.5%) had at least attempted university studies. This is somewhat higher than 2004 census data which indicated that 19% of adult Australians had completed a bachelors degree or higher4. Thus, despite the fact that the current figures relate to anyone who has ever attempted university study, or is in the process of completing tertiary studies, it appears that more highly educated individuals may be overrepresented in the survey sample.

The next most frequent level of highest educational attainment was Year 12/6th Form (17.2%), followed by study at a technical school, commercial college or TAFE (15.7%). This is comparable to 2004 census data which indicated that 20% of adult Australians had year 12 (or equivalent) and 15% had a certificate III or IV as their highest level of educational attainment5.

Culturally and linguistically diverse groupsRespondents were asked what the main language spoken in their home was. The majority (94.8%) spoke English as their main language. Thirty one languages other than English were mentioned by respondents. Of these, the most frequently mentioned were Mandarin (0.5%) and Italian (0.5%).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslandersGeographic areas in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders reside in higher proportions were selectively over-sampled in order to ensure representation of this group in proportion to the population. As a result, 2.2% of respondents indicated that they identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

4 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6227.0 Education and Work, Australia.5 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6227.0 Education and Work, Australia.

26


VegetariansA small proportion of respondents indicated that they were vegetarian (4.9%).

Children under 12Almost a third of respondents (29.1%) indicated that there were children under 12 years of age living in their household.

27


Appendix B - QuestionnaireBiotechnology Public Awareness QuestionnaireFinal for re-do of fieldworkEureka project #3079

To be administered using computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Headings will not appear in field version.

OBSERVE QUOTAS

Proportions representative of population as per below. In total, please draw 2% (n=20) of the sample from the ATSIC areas supplied.

Location % of total sample Approximate n

Sydney 21.8 232Other NSW 12.5 133Melbourne 18.5 197Other Vic 6.5 70Brisbane 8.9 95Other Qld 10.5 112Adelaide 5.8 61Other SA 2.0 22Perth 7.3 78Other WA 2.7 29Hobart 1.0 11Other Tas 1.4 15Darwin 0.6 7Other NT 0.5 6Total 100 1,067

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%

28


Age Males Females Total

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 a few 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, Sam Cuming, on (02) 9519 2021.

IF QUERIED ABOUT HOW NAME WAS SOURCED: We are contacting people from the electronic White Pages.

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.

S.1 [RECORD LOCATION. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]

S.2 [RECORD GENDER. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]

Male 0

Female 1

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 129


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.

Survey questions

Q.1 Okay. Firstly, thinking about concerns with science and technology, I'm going to read you a list of five issues facing society today and I want you to rank them in order of the most important concern to the least important. The issues are . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v). RANDOMISE ORDER.] Which would be your most important concern? [ASSIGN RANK WHERE 5 IS MOST IMPORTANT AND 1 IS LEAST IMPORTANT].

Issue Rank(i) Genetically modified foods(ii) Cloning(iii) The greenhouse effect(iv) Pollution of the environment(v) Nuclear waste

So can I confirm that the order starts with the most important concern being…, then . . . [READ BACK FIVE ISSUES IN ORDER SPECIFIED BY RESPONDENT.]

Q.3 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). ROTATE ORDER.]

Technology You have not heard of it

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 therapy 1 2 3 9

30


Technology You have not heard of it

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


(iii) Genetic engineering 1 2 3 9(iv) Cloning 1 2 3 9(v) Fibre optics 1 2 3 9(vi) Use of stem cells 1 2 3 9

Q.4 a) [ASK FOR EACH ITEM (i)-(vi) IN Q.3 CODED 2 OR 3 (I.E. IF THE RESPONDENT HAS AT LEAST HEARD OF IT).] And do you think these technologies will . . . [READ OUT RESPONSE OPTIONS.]? [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(vi). PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q.3.]

Technology Improve our way of life in

the future

Have no effect, OR

Make things worse


(i) Biotechnology 1 2 3 9(ii) Gene therapy 1 2 3 9(iii) Genetic engineering 1 2 3 9(iv) Cloning 1 2 3 9(v) Fibre optics 1 2 3 9(vi) Use of stem cells 1 2 3 9

Q.4 b) [ASK FOR EACH ITEM IN Q.4 a) CODED 1 OR 3 (I.E. IF THEY THINK IT WILL HAVE SOME SORT OF EFFECT).] When do you think this will happen for . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(vi). PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q.3/Q4a). DO NOT READ RESPONSE OPTIONS, BUT CAN PROMPT IF NECESSARY.]

Technology Now/Already In the next 5 years

In the next 6-10 years

In the next 11 + years

Don't know

(i) Biotechnology 1 2 3 4 9(ii) Gene therapy 1 2 3 4 9(iii) Genetic engineering 1 2 3 4 9(iv) Human cloning 1 2 3 4 9(v) Fibre optics 1 2 3 4 9(vi) Use of stem cells 1 2 3 4 9

Q.6 a) Now I'm going to ask you about a number of different applications of gene technology. Firstly, I'd like you to tell me whether you've heard of ... [READ OUT ITEMS. RANDOMLY SELECT 3 BLOCKS TO PRESENT PER RESPONDENT. PROCEED

31


THROUGH Q.6 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

(i) Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food

0 1 9

What about where this is done . . . [ROTATE ORDER.](ii) to make the food healthier 0 1 9(iii) to make the food last longer 0 1 9(iv) to make the food taste better 0 1 9(v) to make the plants herbicide tolerant 0 1 9(vi) to make the plants pest resistant 0 1 9(vii) to make the plants grow more quickly

0 1 9

BLOCK B

(i) Using gene technology to produce medicines

0 1 9

What about where this is done . . . [ROTATE ORDER.](ii) by introducing human genes into bacteria

0 1 9

(iii) by introducing human genes into animals

0 1 9

BLOCK C

(i) Using stem cells to conduct medical research

0 1 9

What about where this is done . . . [ROTATE ORDER.](ii) with non-embryonic stem cells 0 1 9(iii) with embryonic stem cells 0 1 9BLOCK D

(i) Using stem cells to treat disease 0 1 9What about where this is done . . . [ROTATE ORDER.](ii) with non-embryonic stem cells 0 1 9

32


Application No Yes [DO NOT READ OUT] Don't know

(iii) with embryonic stem cells 0 1 9BLOCK E

(i) Using gene technology in human transplants

0 1 9

What about where this is done . . . [ROTATE ORDER.](ii) by transplanting the body parts of animals into humans

0 1 9

(iii) by transplanting human body parts grown in animals into humans

0 1 9

BLOCK F

[ROTATE ORDER.](i) Cloning plants 0 1 9(ii) Cloning animals 0 1 9(iii) Cloning humans 0 1 9

[RANDOMISE ORDER OF Q.6b) AND Q.6c) FOR RESPONDENTS. RECORD ORDER PRESENTED.]

Q.6 b) Now I'd like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be useful to society.

Q.6 c) Now I'd like you to tell me whether you feel these applications are likely to be risky for society.

Q.6 d) I'd like you to tell me whether these applications would be acceptable to you.

Application Q.6b) Q.6c) Q.6d)No Yes DK No Yes DK No Yes DK

BLOCK A

(i) Using gene technology to modify plants used to produce food

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).](ii) to make the food healthier 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(iii) to make the food last longer 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(iv) to make the food taste better 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(v) to make the plants herbicide tolerant 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(vi) to make the plants pest resistant 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

33


Application Q.6b) Q.6c) Q.6d)No Yes DK No Yes DK No Yes DK

(vii) to make the plants grow more quickly

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

BLOCK B

(i) Using gene technology to produce medicines

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).](ii) by introducing human genes into bacteria

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iii) by introducing human genes into animals

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

BLOCK C

(i) Using stem cells to conduct medical research

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).](ii) with non-embryonic stem cells 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(iii) with embryonic stem cells 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9BLOCK D

(i) Using stem cells to treat disease 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).](ii) with non-embryonic stem cells 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(iii) with embryonic stem cells 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9BLOCK E

(i) Using gene technology in human transplants

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).](ii) by transplanting the body parts of animals into humans

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

(iii) by transplanting human body parts grown in animals into humans

0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

BLOCK F

[PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q6a).](i) Cloning plants 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(ii) Cloning animals 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9(iii) Cloning humans 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 1 9

34


Q.7 Now I'm going to read you a list of gene technologies and I want you to tell me whether . . . [READ OUT RESPONSE OPTIONS.]. The first one is . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(iv). ROTATE ORDER.]

Gene technology You have not heard

of it

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


(i) Modifying genetic material in human cells

1 2 3 9

(ii) Introducing plant genes into other plants

1 2 3 9

(iii) Introducing animal genes into plants

1 2 3 9

(iv) Introducing bacterial genes into plants

1 2 3 9

Q.10 b) And are these gene technologies acceptable to you? [READ OUT ITEMS (i)- (iv). PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q.7.]

Gene technology No Yes [DO NOT READ OUT] Don't know

(i) Modifying genetic material in human cells

0 1 9

(ii) Introducing plant genes into other plants 0 1 9(iii) Introducing animal genes into plants 0 1 9(iv) Introducing bacterial genes into plants 0 1 9

Q.10 c) Now I'd like you to tell me if these same gene technologies are acceptable to you if used for the following purposes. [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(iv). PRESERVE ROTATION FROM Q.7.]

Gene technology & application No Yes [DO NOT READ OUT] Don't know

(i) Modifying genetic material in human cells . . . to treat genetic diseases

0 1 9

(ii) Introducing plant genes into other plants . . . to reduce the amount of pesticides needed

0 1 9

(iii) Introducing animal genes into plants . . . to make them more resistant to frost

0 1 9

35


Gene technology & application No Yes [DO NOT READ OUT] Don't know

(iv) Introducing bacterial genes into plants . . . to make them resistant to herbicides that would kill weeds

0 1 9

Q.10 d) [ASK FOR EACH ITEM NOT CODED 1/YES IN Q.10c). PROCEED THROUGH ITEMS (i)-(iii) BELOW FOR EACH APPROPRIATE ITEM FROM Q.10c).] And, would you be accepting of [READ OUT FIRST APPROPRIATE ITEM FROM Q.10c) (i)-(iv).] if . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(iii). ROTATE ORDER.]

No Yes [DO NOT REA D OUT ]

Don't know10c (i) Modifying genetic material in human cells ... to treat genetic diseases(i) You were provided with more information about it

0 1 9

(ii) It was regulated more strictly 0 1 9(iii) There was more community consultation about it

0 1 9

10c (ii) Introducing plant genes into other plants ... to reduce the amount of pesticides needed(i) You were provided with more information about it

0 1 9


0 1 9

10c (iii) Introducing animal genes into plants ... to make them more resistant to frost(i) You were provided with more information about it

0 1 9


0 1 9

10c (iv) Introducing bacterial genes into plants ... to make them resistant to herbicides that would kill weeds(i) You were provided with more information about it

0 1 9


0 1 9

36


Q.11 a) Now I'd like you to think about different types of materials that could be made from genetically modified plants and animals. How confident would you be in doing each of the following? Please use a scale of 0-10, where 10 means that you would be extremely confident and 0 means that you would be extremely hesitant. The first one is . . . [READ OUT. RANDOMLY PRESENT 2 OF ITEMS (i)-(vi) PER RESPONDENT.].

RECORD 0-10(i) Wearing a garment made with fibres (such as cotton) from genetically modified plants(ii) Wearing a garment made with fibres (such as wool) from genetically modified animals(iii) Being in a building made with materials (such as fibreboard) from genetically modified plants(iv) Opening a package made with materials (such as cardboard) from genetically modified plants(v) Driving a vehicle powered by fuel derived from genetically modified plants(vi) Using a product with plastic components made from genetically modified plants

Q.11 b) Now I'd like you to think about different types of foods. How confident would you be eating each of the following? Please use a scale of 0-10, where 10 means that you would be extremely confident and 0 means that you would be extremely hesitant. The first one is . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(viii). RANDOMISE ORDER.].

RECORD 0-10(i) Food containing preservatives(ii) Food grown with the use of pesticides(iii) Organic food(iv) Non-organic food(v) Meat from animals that have been fed with genetically modified stock feed(vi) Food that contains a genetically modified ingredient(vii) Genetically modified fruit and vegetables(viii) Meat from genetically modified animals

Q.12 People have different views about the benefits and risks of gene technology and about how they should be regulated or controlled. I am going to read you a number of statements and for each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree. The first one is … [READ OUT STATEMENTS (i)-(viii). RANDOMISE ORDER.] Is that strongly or a little bit?

37


Statement Agree strongly

Agree a little bit

[DON'T READ OUT]

Neither agree,

nor disagree

Disagree a little bit

Disagree strongly

[DON'T READ OUT] Don't know

(i) The current rules in Australia are sufficient

5 4 3 2 1 9

(ii) The current rules in Australia are followed by those working on gene technology

5 4 3 2 1 9

(iii) The characteristics of plants and animals should only be changed through traditional breeding methods, not gene technology

5 4 3 2 1 9

(v) We have to accept some degree of risk from gene technology if it enhances Australia's economic competitiveness

5 4 3 2 1 9

(vi) Public consultation and participation improves the regulation of gene technology

5 4 3 2 1 9

(vii) Australian farmers need access to gene technology to stay internationally competitive

5 4 3 2 1 9

(viii) Australian farms and foods need to be free of genetically modified organisms to stay internationally competitive

5 4 3 2 1 9

Q.17 a) Now I'm going to read to you a number of statements that other people have made about the use of gene technology in society. For each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree. The first one is . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v). RANDOMISE ORDER.] Is that strongly or a little bit?

38


Statement Agree strongly

Agree a little bit

[DON'T READ OUT]

Neither agree, nor disagree

Disagree a little bit

Disagree strongly

[DON'T READ OUT] Don't know

(i) All research and development into gene technology should be stopped

5 4 3 2 1 9

(ii) All commercial use of gene technology and its products should be stopped

5 4 3 2 1 9

(iii) It should be illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their genetic make-up

5 4 3 2 1 9

(iv) Embryonic stem cells left over from IVF treatments should be made available for research purposes

5 4 3 2 1 9

(v) Gene technology is an acceptable form of control for introduced pest animals

5 4 3 2 1 9

Q.17 b) 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

39


Q.13 c) If you wanted to find out more about gene technology, what sources of information would you use? [RECORD VERBATIM. ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES. PROBE FULLY - "Can you tell me anything more/be more specific?". EUREKA TO DO ALL CODING.]

Q.14 a) Now I would like to know which of the following sources you would have confidence in to provide you with reliable information about gene technology. Would you have confidence in . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(xviii). RANDOMISE ORDER.]

No Yes [DON'T READ OUT] Don't Know

(i) CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS 0 1 9(ii) ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS 0 1 9(iii) ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANISATIONS 0 1 9(iv) CSIRO 0 1 9(v) FARMERS' ORGANISATIONS 0 1 9(vi) RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS 0 1 9(vii) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 0 1 9(viii) STATE GOVERNMENT 0 1 9(ix) OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY REGULATOR

0 1 9

(x) BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA 0 1 9(xi) UNIVERSITIES 0 1 9(xii) SCIENTISTS 0 1 9(xiii) INDUSTRY 0 1 9(xiv) MEDIA 0 1 9(xv) INTERNET SITES 0 1 9(xvi) BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA 0 1 9(xvii) AUSTRALIAN PEST AND VETERINARY MEDICINE AUTHORITY

0 1 9

(xviii) GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 0 1 9

Q.14 b) Of the sources you mentioned you have confidence in, which would you say you would have MOST confidence in to provide you with reliable information about gene technology? [SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY. PROMPT WITH THOSE CODED 1 IN 14a) IF NECESSARY.]

(i) CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS 1(ii) ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS 2

40


(iii) ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANISATIONS 3(iv) CSIRO 4(v) FARMER'S ORGANISATIONS 5(vi) RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS 6(vii) FEDERAL ORGANISATIONS 8(viii) STATE GOVERNMENT 9(ix) OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY REGULATOR

10

(x) BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA 11(xi) UNIVERSITIES 12(xii) SCIENTISTS 13(xiii) INDUSTRY 14(xiv) MEDIA 15(xv) INTERNET SITES 16(xvi) BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA 17(xvii) AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AUTHORITY (APVMA)

18

(xviii) GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 19(xix) DON'T KNOW 99

Q.15 a) Which 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.]

Q.15 b) And, have you heard of . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v) IF NOT NOMINATED AT Q.15a).]

Q.15 c) And, in terms of regulating gene technology, would you trust . . . [READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v) IF NOMINATED IN Q.15a) OR CODED 1/YES AT Q15b).]

Q.15a) Q.15b) Q.15c)No Yes No Yes

(i) FOOD STANDARDS AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND (FSANZ)

1 0 1 0 1

(ii) OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY REGULATOR

2 0 1 0 1

(iii) AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE AND INSPECTION SERVICE

3 0 1 0 1

41


Q.15a) Q.15b) Q.15c)No Yes No Yes

(iv) BIOSECURITY AUSTRALIA 4 0 1 0 1(v) AUSTRALIAN PESTICIDES AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AUTHORITY (APVMA)

5 0 1 0 1

(vi) NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NH&MRC)

6

(vii) THERAPUTIC GOODS ADMINISTRATION (TGA)

7

(viii) AUSTRALIAN HEALTH ETHICS COMMITTEE (AHEC)

8

(ix) DEPTARTMENT OF HEALTH & AGEING

9

(x) CSIRO 10(xi) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT -NFI 11(xii) LOCAL GOVERNMENT - NFI 12(xiii) STATE GOVERNMENT - NFI 13(xiv) OTHER [RECORD VERBATIM] 14(xv) DON'T KNOW 15

[RANDOMISE Q.18b) AND Q.18c). NOTE WORDING HAS CHANGED SLIGHTLY TO ACCOUNT FOR REMOVED QUESTION.] Now, thinking overall about the benefits and risks of gene technology . . .

Q.18 b) 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.]

Q.18 c) 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.]

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.

Q.19 Are you a vegetarian?

No 0

Yes 1

Refused 9

42


Q.20 Are there children under 12 years of age living in your household?

No 0

Yes 1

Q.21 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

Q.22 Do you identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

No 0

Yes 1

Q.23 What is the main language spoken in your home?

English 0

Other [RECORD] 1

Q.24 What is your residential postcode? [RECORD.]

That's the end of the interview. Thank you very much for your time. This research is being carried out on behalf of Biotechnology Australia. The answers you provided today will be combined with those of other participants to give Biotechnology Australia a better understanding of Australians' views on gene technology.

IF NAME NEEDED FOR VALIDATION: As part of quality control procedures, someone from our project team may wish to re-contact you to verify some of the information we just collected. Would that be okay? [IF SO, COLLECT FIRST NAME.]

Just to remind you, I'm calling from Eureka Strategic Research. If you have any queries, you can call the Market Research Society's Survey Line on 1300 364 830.

43

Documents

Web viewBackground. Biotechnology Australia is an Australian Government agency responsible for managing the National Biotechnology Strategy. The Public Awareness Program is