Public perceptions of animal cloning: a hybrid of survey and focus groups as a participatory...
1
Public perceptions of animal cloning: a hybrid of survey and focus groups as a participatory exercise Erling Jelsøe * Roskilde University, Denmark, Ulla Vincentsen, Ida-Elisabeth Andersen and Rikke Petersen Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen * Department of Environment, Technology and Social Studies, Roskilde Univiversity, P7, P.O.Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark, e-mail: [email protected] Figure. Somatic cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) in animals (”animal cloning”). Source: “Genmodificerede og klonede dyr” [“Genetically modified and cloned animals”]. Ministry of science, technology and development. Copenhagen. October 2003. Quotations from focus group interviews regarding animal cloning: About risks and food applications: “I think the risks of animal cloning are too big to use it for production of foods” “I think that when we talk about foods it is difficult, because how far shall we go in creating technical solutions to something that might be a problem, that is, to provide food enough for all people in the world? But the next step, when you begin applying the technology is to ask whether they will benefit by it?” About diseases: “Animal cloning can be important as long as it will give improvements regarding dangerous diseases and fight against hunger and need” “It is not that I don’t value the health of humans but I think there are alternative solutions and furthermore, we shouldn’t ill-treat the animals for our own benefit – that is a selfish way of thinking.” Naturalness: “To me cloning is a kind of an artificial life-form in the sense that one removes the personal about the cloned individual. Even if it “only” is about a small pet, like for instance a cat, personally I would wish to get a cat, who was “its own”….” A study of citizens’ perceptions of animal cloning, and how they relate to ethical positions proposed by a governmental committee. This paper reports on a study of citizens’ attitudes to animal cloning. From the outset the intention was to construct a survey instrument in order to test a set of predefined categories of ethical positions related to new biotechnologies, which had been proposed by a Danish governmental committee. Subsequently, however, this was developed into a process of broader involvement of groups of citizens in the issue. Animal cloning was a topical issue because at the time of the construction of the survey new legislation on animal cloning and gene technology on animals was under preparation in Denmark. The study was a project carried out by the Danish Board of Technology, who did the design and planning. The idea was twofold. First, to see if the predefined categories of ethical positions were of any significance to the citizens’ attitudes to gene technology and, second, more generally to get knowledge about attitudes to animal cloning among Danish citizens and about what conditions that should be met for the citizen to find animal cloning acceptable. The first task was, therefore, to consider how the ethical criteria, which were quite general in character, could be transformed into a template of questions that the citizens could understand and give answers to. The second step was to relate the questions more specifically to animal cloning. This involved both an inclusion of those applications of animal cloning and their goals and possible risks, which had been mentioned by researchers and others as important in relation to the development of the technology. Furthermore, it involved an attention to the ideas and arguments that had formed part of the debate about animal cloning. A combination of survey and focus group interviews. A survey with closed questions, however, does not give the respondent the opportunity to define what is important to him- or her. That will be predefined through the design of the questionnaire. Since it was important to know whether the ethical criteria was of any significance to the citizens it was interesting also to conduct a qualitative interview. That would also make it possible to see, whether the citizens had different notions of what was important in relation to animal cloning than what was presupposed in the survey. Therefore it was decided to make group interviews after the questionnaires had been completed. Based on these considerations the process as a whole was organised in three steps. The first involved giving the participants information about animal cloning. This was done by sending written information (only a few pages) prior to the meeting and by giving an oral presentation at the meeting itself. Both implied not only an account of the technology itself and its potential applications but also introduction to known or anticipated risks and to the arguments that had been put forward in the debate about the issue. After that the survey was completed and finally as the third step the issue was discussed in focus groups. The process as whole was run in a dialogue oriented way. Through the information that was given in combination with reflecting on the survey questions the citizens seemed to be well prepared for discussions in the focus groups. The survey thus also acted as a learning process in addition to providing measures of the citizens’ perceptions of the ethical aspects of animal cloning. Four meetings were held in four different cities in Denmark. The citizens were recruited by sending an invitation to a relatively large and representative sample of citizen in each of the local areas. All in all 111 people (or 25 to 30 in each of the cities) responded positively to these invitations and participated in the meetings. In this way, of course, the actual group of participants at the four meetings was not a representative sample of Danish citizens. It consisted of interested citizens, who were willing to spend time on such an event. A group of people, who are interested in debates about new technologies to the extent that they accept an invitation for a meeting like this, are likely to be a kind of opinion makers that actors in the public debate about new biotechnology, including politicians, should listen to. Survey results The survey results on the one hand revealed attitudes to animal cloning that resembled results from other opinion measurements related to biotechnology. Thus applications of animal cloning for medical purposes were seen as most acceptable, whereas food applications ranged much lower in acceptability. Production of threatened animal species ranged in between medical and food applications, whereas applications of animal cloning to reproduce pets were almost unanimously rejected. Overall women were more critical towards animal cloning than men. Regarding the ethical criteria the survey results pointed to the rather careful weighing of utility versus negative consequences and risks that most of the citizens made. It was seen as more acceptable to use small animals like mice or hamsters for medical tests than larger animals like dogs or monkeys. Likewise, most respondents regarded the respect for animal welfare as an important issue but many were willing to make a compromise if human suffering was involved. Overall, however, the citizens saw animal cloning as a technology that should be used with great care even when it was used for important purposes like curing serious disease. Most citizens also found that alternatives to animal cloning should always be taken into consideration. Ethical dilemmas and conflicts These results showed that the general framework of ethical principles that many of the citizens would agree in from an overall consideration gave rise to dilemmas and difficult priorities when used to assess more concrete questions. This became even clearer through the discussions in the focus groups. Here it became clear how the citizens had coped with many of the contradictions and conflicts between various ethical dimensions that were built-in to the framework because of its general character. In addition several of the citizens expressed deeper concerns, for instance about animal cloning as a slippery slope that would eventually lead to eugenics with connotations to nazism or the like. Furthermore, many of the citizens had reflected upon basic questions that went beyond the scope of the ethical framework and its implementation in the survey. Such questions included for instance as already mentioned the need for looking at possible alternative solutions, when use of animal cloning is considered. Another example is that several asked whether animal cloning in reality could fulfil the promises that might be expressed by researchers and others. The combination of survey and focus groups that we have described here worked as a participatory exercise in the sense that it turned out to give the citizens an opportunity to express views on a complex issue during which the values and priorities of the citizens themselves were expressed in a transparent way. The attitudes expressed by the citizens can also be seen as recommendations to politicians and other decision makers from citizens, who are interested in and concerned about the issue in question.
-
Upload
raymond-bryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Public perceptions of animal cloning: a hybrid of survey and focus groups as a participatory...
Public perceptions of animal cloning: a hybrid of survey and focus groups as a participatory exercise
Erling Jelsøe* Roskilde University, Denmark,
Ulla Vincentsen, Ida-Elisabeth Andersen and Rikke Petersen
Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen
* Department of Environment, Technology and Social Studies, Roskilde Univiversity, P7, P.O.Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark, e-mail: [email protected]
Figure. Somatic cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) in animals (”animal cloning”). Source: “Genmodificerede og klonede dyr” [“Genetically modified and cloned animals”]. Ministry of science, technology and development. Copenhagen. October 2003.
Quotations from focus group interviews regarding animal cloning:
About risks and food applications:
“I think the risks of animal cloning are too big to use it for production of foods”
“I think that when we talk about foods it is difficult, because how far shall we go in creating technical solutions to something that might be a problem, that is, to provide food enough for all people in the world? But the next step, when you begin applying the technology is to ask whether they will benefit by it?”
About diseases:
“Animal cloning can be important as long as it will give improvements regarding dangerous diseases and fight against hunger and need”
“It is not that I don’t value the health of humans but I think there are alternative solutions and furthermore, we shouldn’t ill-treat the animals for our own benefit – that is a selfish way of thinking.”
Naturalness:
“To me cloning is a kind of an artificial life-form in the sense that one removes the personal about the cloned individual. Even if it “only” is about a small pet, like for instance a cat, personally I would wish to get a cat, who was “its own”….”
A study of citizens’ perceptions of animal cloning, and how they relate to ethical positions proposed by a governmental committee.
This paper reports on a study of citizens’ attitudes to animal cloning. From the outset the intention was to construct a survey instrument in order to test a set of predefined categories of ethical positions related to new biotechnologies, which had been proposed by a Danish governmental committee. Subsequently, however, this was developed into a process of broader involvement of groups of citizens in the issue. Animal cloning was a topical issue because at the time of the construction of the survey new legislation on animal cloning and gene technology on animals was under preparation in Denmark.
The study was a project carried out by the Danish Board of Technology, who did the design and planning.
The idea was twofold. First, to see if the predefined categories of ethical positions were of any significance to the citizens’ attitudes to gene technology and, second, more generally to get knowledge about attitudes to animal cloning among Danish citizens and about what conditions that should be met for the citizen to find animal cloning acceptable. The first task was, therefore, to consider how the ethical criteria, which were quite general in character, could be transformed into a template of questions that the citizens could understand and give answers to. The second step was to relate the questions more specifically to animal cloning. This involved both an inclusion of those applications of animal cloning and their goals and possible risks, which had been mentioned by researchers and others as important in relation to the development of the technology. Furthermore, it involved an attention to the ideas and arguments that had formed part of the debate about animal cloning.
A combination of survey and focus group interviews.
A survey with closed questions, however, does not give the respondent the opportunity to define what is important to him- or her. That will be predefined through the design of the questionnaire. Since it was important to know whether the ethical criteria was of any significance to the citizens it was interesting also to conduct a qualitative interview. That would also make it possible to see, whether the citizens had different notions of what was important in relation to animal cloning than what was presupposed in the survey. Therefore it was decided to make group interviews after the questionnaires had been completed.
Based on these considerations the process as a whole was organised in three steps. The first involved giving the participants information about animal cloning. This was done by sending written information (only a few pages) prior to the meeting and by giving an oral presentation at the meeting itself. Both implied not only an account of the technology itself and its potential applications but also introduction to known or anticipated risks and to the arguments that had been put forward in the debate about the issue. After that the survey was completed and finally as the third step the issue was discussed in focus groups. The process as whole was run in a dialogue oriented way. Through the information that was given in combination with reflecting on the survey questions the citizens seemed to be well prepared for discussions in the focus groups. The survey thus also acted as a learning process in addition to providing measures of the citizens’ perceptions of the ethical aspects of animal cloning.
Four meetings were held in four different cities in Denmark. The citizens were recruited by sending an invitation to a relatively large and representative sample of citizen in each of the local areas. All in all 111 people (or 25 to 30 in each of the cities) responded positively to these invitations and participated in the meetings. In this way, of course, the actual group of participants at the four meetings was not a representative sample of Danish citizens. It consisted of interested citizens, who were willing to spend time on such an event. A group of people, who are interested in debates about new technologies to the extent that they accept an invitation for a meeting like this, are likely to be a kind of opinion makers that actors in the public debate about new biotechnology, including politicians, should listen to.
Survey results
The survey results on the one hand revealed attitudes to animal cloning that resembled results from other opinion measurements related to biotechnology. Thus applications of animal cloning for medical purposes were seen as most acceptable, whereas food applications ranged much lower in acceptability. Production of threatened animal species ranged in between medical and food applications, whereas applications of animal cloning to reproduce pets were almost unanimously rejected. Overall women were more critical towards animal cloning than men.
Regarding the ethical criteria the survey results pointed to the rather careful weighing of utility versus negative consequences and risks that most of the citizens made. It was seen as more acceptable to use small animals like mice or hamsters for medical tests than larger animals like dogs or monkeys. Likewise, most respondents regarded the respect for animal welfare as an important issue but many were willing to make a compromise if human suffering was involved. Overall, however, the citizens saw animal cloning as a technology that should be used with great care even when it was used for important purposes like curing serious disease. Most citizens also found that alternatives to animal cloning should always be taken into consideration.
Ethical dilemmas and conflicts
These results showed that the general framework of ethical principles that many of the citizens would agree in from an overall consideration gave rise to dilemmas and difficult priorities when used to assess more concrete questions. This became even clearer through the discussions in the focus groups. Here it became clear how the citizens had coped with many of the contradictions and conflicts between various ethical dimensions that were built-in to the framework because of its general character. In addition several of the citizens expressed deeper concerns, for instance about animal cloning as a slippery slope that would eventually lead to eugenics with connotations to nazism or the like. Furthermore, many of the citizens had reflected upon basic questions that went beyond the scope of the ethical framework and its implementation in the survey. Such questions included for instance as already mentioned the need for looking at possible alternative solutions, when use of animal cloning is considered. Another example is that several asked whether animal cloning in reality could fulfil the promises that might be expressed by researchers and others.
The combination of survey and focus groups that we have described here worked as a participatory exercise in the sense that it turned out to give the citizens an opportunity to express views on a complex issue during which the values and priorities of the citizens themselves were expressed in a transparent way. The attitudes expressed by the citizens can also be seen as recommendations to politicians and other decision makers from citizens, who are interested in and concerned about the issue in question.
