Background and Objective: New and more efficient methods of gene editing have intensified the ethical and legal issues associated with editing germlines. Yet no research has separated the impact of hereditary concern on public attitudes from moral concern. This research compares the impact these two concerns have on public attitudes across five applications including, the prevention of human disease, human and animal research, animals for the use of human food and the enhancement of human appearance. Methods: A sample of 1004 Australians responded to either a telephone (n = 501; randomly selected) or online survey (n = 503; sourced by Qualtrics). Both samples were representative in terms of States and Territories as well as gender (51% female), though the online sample was younger (M = 40.64, SD = 16.98; Range = 18-87) than the telephone sample (M = 54.79, SD = 18.13; Range = 18-96). A 5 (application) by 3 (type of cell) within groups design was utilized, where all respondents reported their level of approval with scientists editing genes across the 15 different contexts. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the impact of moral (embryo vs. germ) and hereditary (germ vs. somatic) concern on attitudes across all applications. Results: Australians were comfortable with editing human and animal embryos, but only for research purposes and to enhance human health. The effect of moral concern was stronger than hereditary concern, existing in all applications except for the use of animals for human purposes. Hereditary concern was only found to influence attitudes in two applications: improving human health and human research. Moral concern was found to be accentuated amongst, women, more religious individuals and those identifying as Australian, while hereditary concern was strongest amongst non-Australians, those with stronger trust in scientists, and more religious respondents. Critchley et al. Public Attitudes Toward Editing Germlines Conclusion: Moral and hereditary concerns are distinct, and require different approaches to public education, engagement and possibly regulation. Further research needs to explore hereditary concern in relation to non-human applications, and the reasons underlying cultural and gender differences.
This paper presents a theoretical argument that low carbon strivings -personal goals to reduce carbon footprint in the household -can predict a wide range of diverse behaviours to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reports four studies to validate Low Carbon Readiness Index (LCRI), a short, three-item measure of low carbon strivings. It is a simple and easy-to-use indicator of the general public's readiness to transition to a fully low carbon lifestyle. LCRI is associated with validated measures predicting environmentally significant reported behaviour (Study 1), multiple low carbon behavioural clusters (Study 2 & 3), and predicts reduction in actual energy use, arguably an aggregate measure of actual low carbon behaviours (Study 4).LCRI can be used to develop low carbon policies and monitor their implementation.
Various forms of private investment are considered necessary for the sustainability of biobanks, yet pose significant challenges to public trust. To manage this tension, it is vital to identify the concerns of relevant stakeholders to ensure effective and acceptable policy and practice. This research examines the aspects of commercialisation that are of most concern to the Australian public (n = 800) and patients who had donated their tissue to two large disease specific (cancer) public biobanks (n = 564). Overall, we found a commercialisation effect (higher support for public relative to private) in relation to funding, research location and access to stored biospecimens. The effect was strongest for research locations and access compared to funding. A latent class analysis revealed the pattern of concern differed, with the majority (34.1%) opposing all aspects of commercialisation, a minority supporting all (15.7%), one quarter (26.8%) opposing some (sharing and selling tissue) but not others (research locations and funding), and a group who were unsure about most aspects but opposed selling tissue (23.5%). Patient donors were found to be more accepting of and unsure about most aspects of commercialisation. Members of the (general) public who were motivated to participate in biobanking were more likely to oppose some aspects while supporting others, while those who indicated they would not donate to a biobank were more likely to oppose all aspects of commercialisation. The results suggest that approaches to policy, engagement and awareness raising need to be tailored for different publics and patient groups to increase participation.
Low carbon readiness (LCR) is an aspect of environmental identity, an individual citizen's willingness to reduce carbon emissions and transition to low carbon lifestyle as a personal striving. Nevertheless, individuals' personal strivings are strongly influenced by the social context in which they are situated. We propose the social context of environmental identity model, which postulates that social contexts for LCR have a nested structure. The micro-level Home is linked with other households through social networks at the meso-level Community, which are further embedded in a macro-level Society. These contexts are likely to influence LCR through different mechanisms. Home can exert direct influences by monitoring and reminding each other of the need to engage in low carbon behaviours. Community affects individuals' readiness by providing social capital. The macro-level Society exerts social influence through societal norms not only its current descriptive norm but also through its dynamic norms about the changing trends into the future. We have tested and found support for these propositions in three national cross-sectional data sets from Australia. Our discussions will centre around a need to investigate social and cultural processes involved in climate change mitigation, and to link these insights to public policies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.