Poll: Public understands less about research cloning
Posted by Jesse Reynolds December 27, 2006
Biopolitical Times
Public support in the US for embryonic stem cell research is on the decline, surprisingly, after four years of increases (see the first graph). But I don't think this, the top conclusion of the press release accompanying the latest [PDF] annual Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey, is the most relevant inference from the results. VCU's several years of consistent polling offer two more relevant inferences concerning research cloning.
First, the American public holds a slight net opposition to research cloning, and this has been generally been the case (see the second graph). Despite researchers and advocates asserting that research cloning is just another critical component of stem cell research, the public seems to draw a distinction.
What's also interesting is comparing the two different wordings the pollsters asked this question. They've always asked for sentiment concerning "human cloning technology IF it is used ONLY to help medical research develop new treatments for disease," and this yields a six percent net opposition - the same as in 2002. In the last two years, VCU also asked about "human cloning technology IF it is used to create human embryos that will provide stem cells for human therapeutic purposes," which this year gave a 22 point net negative. Why such a difference? The first question mentions neither "embryos" nor "stem cells," which have negative connotations. And it also used the more positive "develop new treatments" instead of "for therapeutic purposes."
The second key conclusion that I draw is around the respondents' self-reporting of their understanding (see the third graph). I've been concerned that poor reporting and political polarization around stem cell research is contributing to public misconceptions, particularly around the differences among cloning and stem cell techniques. The latest VCU data bears this out. The respondents' understanding of the difference between reproductive and "therapeutic" cloning is not only a net negative, but has been getting worse for years. This is something to worry about.
First, the American public holds a slight net opposition to research cloning, and this has been generally been the case (see the second graph). Despite researchers and advocates asserting that research cloning is just another critical component of stem cell research, the public seems to draw a distinction.
What's also interesting is comparing the two different wordings the pollsters asked this question. They've always asked for sentiment concerning "human cloning technology IF it is used ONLY to help medical research develop new treatments for disease," and this yields a six percent net opposition - the same as in 2002. In the last two years, VCU also asked about "human cloning technology IF it is used to create human embryos that will provide stem cells for human therapeutic purposes," which this year gave a 22 point net negative. Why such a difference? The first question mentions neither "embryos" nor "stem cells," which have negative connotations. And it also used the more positive "develop new treatments" instead of "for therapeutic purposes."
The second key conclusion that I draw is around the respondents' self-reporting of their understanding (see the third graph). I've been concerned that poor reporting and political polarization around stem cell research is contributing to public misconceptions, particularly around the differences among cloning and stem cell techniques. The latest VCU data bears this out. The respondents' understanding of the difference between reproductive and "therapeutic" cloning is not only a net negative, but has been getting worse for years. This is something to worry about..jpg){kind=link}