Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

What is 'public opinion' about genetics?

Abstract

Every biotechnology success story increases the number of decisions that the lay public must make about genetics. But vibrant public discussion about these far-reaching changes has been rare, and research on the public's understanding of genetics has barely scratched the surface. This article reviews what we know about the public's attitudes towards genetics, proposes some concepts for thinking about public involvement and indicates some future lines of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Genetics in fiction.
Figure 2
Figure 3: Attitudes in US public discourse about breast cancer genetics in 1987–1997.

References

  1. Hallowell, N., Statham, H. & Murton, F. Women's understanding of their risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer before and after genetic counseling. J. Genet. Counsel. 7, 345–364 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cox, S. M. & McKellin, W. 'There's this thing in our family': predictive testing and the construction of risk for Huntington disease. Sociol. Hlth Illness 21, 622–646 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wertz, D. C., Sorenson, J. R. & Heeren, T. C. Clients' interpretation of risks provided in genetic counseling. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 39, 253–264 (1986).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sorenson J. R., Swazey, J. P., Scotch, N. A., Kavanagh, C. M. & Matthews, D. B. Reproductive pasts, reproductive futures. Genetic counseling and its effectiveness. Birth Defects Orig. Artic. Ser. 17, 1–192 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Singer, E., Corning, A. & Lamias, M. The polls — trends: genetic testing, engineering, and therapy. Publ. Opin. Quart. 62, 633–664 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Priest, S. H. US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnol. 18, 939–942 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, A., Barns, I. & Schibeci, R. Problematic publics: A critical review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology. Sci. Tech. Hum. Values 22, 317–348 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gaskell, G. et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 935–938 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci. Tech. Hum. Values 22, 98–124 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Morris, S. H. & Adley, C. C. Irish public perceptions about attitudes to modern biotechnology: an overview with a focus on GM foods. Trends Biotechnol. 19, 43–48 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Oda, L. M. & Soares, B. E. C. Genetically modified foods: economic aspects and public acceptance in Brazil. Trends Biotechnol. 18, 188–189 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Macer, D. & Chen Ng, M. A. Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 945–947 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Einsiedel, E. F. Cloning and its discontents — a Canadian perspective. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 943–944 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J. & Allum, N. C. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 285, 384–387 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mulkay, M. The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Page, B. & Shapiro, R. Y. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1992).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Frankel, M. S. Genetic privacy, discrimination, and the US Congress. Publ. Underst. Sci. 8, 215–222 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Garland, M. J. Experts and the public: a needed partnership for genetic policy. Publ. Underst. Sci. 8, 241–254 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. & Amos, A. 'Drawing the line': an analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics. Publ. Underst. Sci. 7, 113–133 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Barns, I., Shibeci, R., Davison, A. & Shaw, R. 'What do you think about genetic medicine?' Facilitating sociable public discourse on developments in the new genetics. Sci. Tech. Hum. Values 25, 283–308 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tessaro, I., Borstelmann, N., Regan, K., Rimer, B. K. & Winer, E. Genetic testing for susceptibility to breast cancer: findings from women's focus groups. J. Womens Hlth 6, 317–327 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Condit, C. M. How the public understands genetics: non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations of the 'blueprint' metaphor. Publ. Underst. Sci. 8, 169–180 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Condit, C. M. et al. An exploratory study of the impact of news headlines on genetic determinism. Sci. Commun. 22, 379–395 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ramsey, E. M., Achter, P. & Condit, C. M. Genetics, race, and crime: an audience study exploring the effects of The Bell Curve and book reviews. Crit. Stud. Mass. Commun. 18, 1–22 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rapp, R. Chromosomes and communication: the discourse of genetic counseling. Med. Anthropol. Quart. 2, 143–157 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cohen, L., Fine, B. A. & Pergament, E. An assessment of ethnocultural beliefs regarding the causes of birth defects and genetic disorders. J. Genet. Counsel. 7, 15–30 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mogilner, A., Otten, M., Cunningham, J. D. & Brower, S. T. Awareness and attitudes concerning BRCA gene testing. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 5, 607–612 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jackson, F. African-American response to the human genome project. Publ. Underst. Sci. 8, 181–192 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Simons, W., Mechling, E. W. & Schreier, H. N. in Handbook of Rhetorical and Communication Theory (eds Arnold, C. C. & Bowers, J. W.) 792–867 (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kay, L. E. The Molecular Vision of Life (Oxford Univ. Press, New York and Oxford, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hogan, J. M. The Nuclear Freeze Campaign: Rhetoric and Foreign Policy in the Telepolitical Age (Univ. of Michigan Press, Lansing, Michigan, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Vatz, R. & Weinberg, L. Media and polling: measuring and creating the salience of George Bush as 'wimp'. Mass Commun. Rev. 14, 23–27 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Condit, C. M. The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Crit. Stud. Mass Commun. 6, 103–122 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Conrad, P. Genetic optimism: framing genes and mental illness in the news. Cult. Med. Psychiatry 25, 225–247 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Conrad, P. & Weinberg, D. Has the gene for alcoholism been discovered three times since 1980? Persp. Soc. Problems 8, 3–25 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Henderson, L. H. & Kitzinger, J. The human drama of genetics: 'hard' and 'soft' media representations of inherited breast cancer. Soc. Hlth Illness 21, 560–578 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dijck, J. V. Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics (New York Univ. Press, New York, 1998).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. George, S. A. Not exactly 'of woman born': procreation and recreation in recent science fiction films. J. Pop. Film Tele. 28, 176–183 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Petersen, A. The portrayal of research into genetic-based differences of sex and sexual orientation: a study of 'popular' science journals, 1980 to 1997. J. Commun. Inq. 23,163–182 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Condit, C. M. The Meanings of the Gene (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Condit, C. M., Ofulue, N. & Sheedy, K. Determinism and mass media portrayals of genetics. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 62, 979–984 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sheedy, K. M. Transcending tragedy: a 'comic' critique of public discourse about breast cancer genetics, 1987–1997. Dissertation, Univ. Georgia (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Craign, D. Ethical language and themes in news coverage of genetic testing. Journalism Mass Commun. Quart. 77, 16–174 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jallinoja, P. & Aro, A. Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J. Hlth Commun. 5, 29–39 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Related links

Related links

DATABASES

OMIM 

Tay-Sachs disease

FURTHER INFORMATION

Geneforum

Genetic Alliance

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Condit, C. What is 'public opinion' about genetics?. Nat Rev Genet 2, 811–815 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35093580

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35093580

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing