Wellcome survey reveals public mistrust of scientists
David Dickson
London
A detailed study of public attitudes to research using cloned human embryos has revealed widespread distrust of the effectiveness of any attempt to regulate the activities of the biomedical research community.
The survey was carried out by the Medicine in Society program of Britain's Wellcome Trust. Its results were published last month, shortly before a government advisory panel recommended that scientists be allowed to do research on human embryos if the goal was to produce medical therapies such as replacement organs.
The survey found that many people were ignorant of current restrictions on cloning research and unaware of the role of the two groups that constitute the cloning panel—the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Advisory Committee.
Even when the rules were explained to them, most of those interviewed expressed skepticism that they would have much impact. For example, it was generally felt that many scientists carried out controversial research in secret, and that those thwarted by British regulations would merely take their work abroad. Scientists were seen as always keen "to take another step," with disregard for any negative consequences, and commercial pressures were cited as likely to lead to the manipulation of research for negative ends. "For many, illegal research seemed inevitable and impossible to prevent," says the Public Attitudes to Human Cloning report.
"With the recent fiasco over BSE in cattle, it did not come as a huge surprise that people did not trust the regulators," says sociologist Suzanne King of the Wellcome Trust, who did the survey. "But we were surprised at how skeptical people were."
The survey was based on detailed interviews with 79 adults, carefully selected to provide a representative spectrum of differing points of view on human cloning. Thus, participants ranged from women who had lost young children, to lesbians who might be expected to be in favor of reproductive techniques that did not involve men.
All participants attended an initial session, either in groups or as couples, at which they were introduced to the scientific aspects of human cloning and ethical debates about its applications. A follow-up session was held several weeks later, after the individuals had had time to reflect on the information.
According to King, one of the strongest results to emerge was an across-the-board antipathy to the idea of cloning adult humans. "This seems to contradict the suggestion by some that attitudes towards cloning will differ between different social groups, depending on their relationship to the issue," she says.
King admits that the relatively small sample size means that the results have limitations; however she argues that the survey reveals that the problem of creating public confidence in the regulation of controversial research is even bigger than many realize. A copy of the report is available at
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/wellcomegraphic/a2/c6index.html
