The Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Public</strong> <strong>Consultation</strong> on
Developments in the Biosciences
A MORI Report Investigating
<strong>Public</strong> Attitudes to the Biological
Sciences and their Oversight
Commissioned by
<strong>The</strong> Office of Science and Technology
December 1998 -
April 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 11
MAIN FINDINGS 24
ONE
TWO
Awareness of the Biosciences 25
Spontaneous Awareness Of <strong>The</strong> Biosciences 26
‘Biology’ And ‘Genes’ 32
Overall Awareness of the Biosciences 37
Issues Arising From Developments In <strong>The</strong>
Biosciences 41
Issues Arising From Development in the Biosciences 42
Perceived Reasons Why Particular Biological Developments Are Taking Place 48
THREE
Knowledge of the Oversight and Regulatory Process 61
Importance Of Rules And Regulations To Control Biological
Developments And Scientific Research 62
Perceived Degree Of Control 65
Degree of Confidence That Rules And Regulations Are Keeping Pace With
Biological Developments And Scientific Research 67
Decisions Making and Regulation Of <strong>The</strong> Biosciences 69
Trust 74

FOUR
FIVE
SIX
Issues to be Taken into Account
in Oversight of Developments in the Biosciences 76
Issues to be Taken Into Account 77
Factors Which Give Trust In Controls And Regulation 80
What Information Should Be Made Available To <strong>The</strong> <strong>Public</strong>? 84
Amount Of Information Received 85
Information Which Should Be Available To <strong>The</strong> <strong>Public</strong> 86
Methods of Information Provision 89
Trust in People/Institutions To Provide Honest and Balanced Information 93
Conclusions 99
SEVEN
Lessons For <strong>Public</strong> <strong>Consultation</strong> 102
APPENDICES
Social Class Definitions
Marked-up Evaluation Questionnaire
Definitions of Category Combinations
Some of the Media Coverage During Fieldwork
References
Marked-up Questionnaire

SUMMARY
<strong>The</strong> Level and Nature of People's Awareness of Technological
Advances in the Biosciences
<strong>The</strong> biosciences which are ‘top of mind’ are: advances in human health (such as treatment of
diseases/new medicines and medical research) genetic modification (especially GM foods) and
cloning (in particular Dolly, the cloned sheep). When asked about in the broad context of major
scientific discoveries or developments, these three featured in particular. <strong>The</strong> main non-bioscience
developments, according to the public, are computers/the internet and 'sending people to the
moon'.
Findings from the qualitative and quantitative phases were largely consistent with each other.
However, there were perhaps fewer mentions of cloning, relative to genetic modification, in the
quantitative stage, while in the qualitative phase they were mentioned about equally. <strong>The</strong> heavy
media coverage of genetic modification/GM foods prior to and during the quantitative stage is
likely to have partly caused this. However, it was observed in the workshops that cloning tended
to be mentioned at first by just one or two participants, and then it became part of a wider
discussion.
At this spontaneous question, as many as 41% of the public named at least one bioscience
(increasing to 57% when treatments/cures for diseases was added in). Sixty-three per cent
mentioned one or more non-bioscience.
In the workshops, cloning was a development which many people felt apprehensive about. Some
feared that the logical extension of cloning Dolly the sheep, would be human cloning. Most
expressed a desire for more information, many saying they had heard of Dolly 'after the event'.
Discussions in the workshops about genetic modification often included comment that this was to
produce more food or larger tomatoes, plus comment about the need for clear labelling of food.
<strong>The</strong>re was lower awareness of other types of genetic modification and many people didn't realise
that genes are naturally present in all living materials.
Page 1

In the survey, respondents were shown a list of ten biological developments and asked which, if
any, they had heard of that they may not have mentioned earlier. Almost everyone (93%) had
heard of the transplantation of human organs. It is perhaps surprising that the figure was not
higher still. Almost as many had heard of 'test tube babies'/in-vitro fertilisation (90%) and, topical
at the time of the survey, GM Food (89%). Combining genetic modification and GM food and
excluding the overlap increases the figure to 91%, placing it second highest after transplantation
of organs. Cloning came just behind GM food with 87% - narrowing the gap seen at the earlier
spontaneous question.
Development of new medicines, at 77%, seems low, perhaps because some people misinterpreted
this as being 'at the present time'. In contrast, transplants of animal tissues at 72% seems high,
though like GM foods it received media coverage during the survey. Two in three had heard of
genetic testing/screening, which was closely followed by tissue cultures/artificial tissue. Gene
therapy received the lowest mention of the ten, although at 42% this seems higher than indicated
in the qualitative phase. It is quite possible that the word 'gene' in the phrase has artificially
elevated awareness of the development. <strong>The</strong>rapy is also a familiar word, so putting the two
together is quite easy.
Issues which People See Arising From Developments in the
Biosciences and How Important <strong>The</strong>se are Compared to Other Major
Scientific Developments
According to the public, advances in human health clearly represent the biggest benefit to arise
from scientific developments. Specifically, the development of new medicines (antibiotics and
vaccines) was most frequently mentioned, by 57% in the quantitative stage, followed by
transplants of various organs (51%), cures for or eradication of diseases (43%) and new
operations/surgery (31%). All came ahead of computers/the internet/email with 28%. Genetic
testing or screening follows close behind with 24%, although in-vitro fertilisation was mentioned
by just 11%, cloning/Dolly the sheep by only 2%, genetic modification by just 1% and GM food
by only 1%.
Page 2

Looking at 'net beneficial' scores, (ie the proportion saying something is beneficial to society,
minus the proportion saying it is not), we can see that development of new medicines receives a
net score of +56, transplants +50 and cures for/eradication of illnesses +42, yet cloning gets a -55.
Genetically modified food is also not regarded overall to be beneficial to society; it receives a net
score of -44. Genetic modification of animals and plants also gets a negative score (of -27).
<strong>The</strong>re was very little connection in the qualitative phase between animal cloning and advances in
human health (the latter being of prime importance to the public).
In the quantitative phase, 77% gave a reason why genetic modification takes place, or why there is
GM food; 68% gave a reason why animal cloning takes place and 66% gave a reason why
'transplants of animal tissues to humans' (xenotransplantation) takes place. For GM/GM food, the
main reasons cited were: 'Production of more food' (27%), 'Companies want to make money'
(27%), 'To produce larger/nicer/tastier plants/fruits eg tomatoes' (19%) and 'To resist
diseases/fight pests' (17%).
<strong>The</strong> main reason given for animal cloning was 'To develop human clones' (14%), followed by 'To
get the perfect animal at 13% and 'To see if they could' (12%). A far higher proportion gave the
most commonly mentioned reason for xenotransplantation: 44% saying 'Because of a shortage of
human organs'. This was followed, but a long way behind, by 'To see if it's compatible with
humans (10%) and 'To save lives' (10%).
Extent of People's Knowledge of the Oversight and Regulatory Process
in the United Kingdom
<strong>The</strong> vast majority of the public (97%) believes that it is important that there are rules and
regulations in place to control biological developments and scientific research, and as many as
88% believe this is very important. In MORI's experience, to have over 30% saying something is
‘very important’ does indeed represent a high figure. <strong>The</strong>se findings very much reflect people's
views in the qualitative phase. <strong>The</strong> main reasons given (spontaneously) for having rules and
regulations is because of the possibility that 'Things could go too far/get out of hand' (21%),
followed by 10% saying 'We do not know the long-term effects' and 'Because it is potentially
dangerous' (10%).
Page 3

On balance, people feel there is too little regulation to control biological developments and
scientific research, but this view is by no means expressed by a large majority of the public.
Approaching four in ten (38%) say there is too little regulation, but 28% say there is the right
amount and 3% that there is too much. Reflecting feelings in the workshops, as many as three in
ten said they really didn't know - quite a high proportion for a 'don't know' category. MORI
interviewers read out the 'don't know' category, which is unusual in surveys, because many
participants in the qualitative phase said they did not know much about regulation.
Despite the fact that on balance, most people feel there is too little control over the regulation of
biological developments and scientific research, most (71%) have at least a little confidence that
regulation is keeping pace with developments.
When asked who they think is currently involved in making decisions about the regulation of the
biological sciences, most people say 'Government' or 'Governments' (63%). This is followed, but
some way behind, by mention of scientists (23%). No other type of institution or group of people
was mentioned by more than 12% - and this mention was for an Advisory Board to Government
composed of experts, followed by 'industry/manufacturers' (8%). <strong>The</strong> above findings mirror what
came out of the qualitative research. Eighteen percent said they did not know who is involved, but
even when this is taken into account, it means that the Government figure at 63% reveals that
19% must have mentioned someone other than 'Government/Governments' and not 'Government/
Governments' as being involved in regulation.
After being shown a list of organisations possibly involved in regulation, the 'Governments' figure
increases to 83% currently involved (though this still seems low given that now, only two per cent
said 'don't know'). Scientists came second with 70% - much closer behind Governments after
people were presented with a list. <strong>The</strong>n follows 'an Advisory Body to Government composed of
experts' (62%). This was 30 points ahead of the other type of Advisory Body on the list - one
which is composed of people representing different viewpoints.
Environmental groups, mentioned by just two per cent spontaneously, were cited by 33% after
prompting. Perhaps their low spontaneous score is explained by comments from the qualitative
phase where participants said these groups are not actually involved but rather they play an
important policing role.
Page 4

Respondents were then asked to look at the same list and say which, if any, they felt should be
involved in making decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences. <strong>The</strong>
pattern which emerges is flatter than for 'currently involved', with many more groups receiving
higher mentions and the figures for Governments and scientists - the top two mentions previously
- falling considerably. <strong>The</strong> biggest falls can be seen for: Governments (-42), scientists (-23),
industry/manufacturers (-22) and an Advisory Body to Government composed of experts (-17).
<strong>The</strong> largest increases are evident for: the general public (+36), GPs/Family doctors (+18), an
Advisory Body to Government, composed of people representing different viewpoints (+16),
patients (+15) and hospital doctors (+13). Now, six different institutions/groups of people feature
prominently: an Advisory Body to Government comprising people with different viewpoints
(48%), scientists (47%), the general public (46%), an Advisory Body to Government composed of
experts (45%), Governments (41%) and environmental groups (40%). Different sub-groups of
the population tend to opt for different groups, which is discussed in the main body of the report.
Reflecting MORI's work for well over a decade in the area of trust, the public's trust in
GPs/Family doctors is high. Seventy-one per cent of the public said they would trust GPs/Family
doctors to make decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences. Just 13%
said they would not trust GPs - with the remainder undecided. <strong>The</strong> 'net trust' figure is therefore
+58. Other groups with positive net trust scores are an Advisory Body to Government -
composed of different viewpoints (+53), or of experts (+43), pharmacists/chemists (+36),
environmental groups (+35), nurses (+34), vets (+32), scientists (+29) and consumer groups
(+22). Groups with particularly large negative 'net trust' figures are: retailers (-61),
industry/manufacturers (-59), the media (-57), religious organisations (-29) and farmers (-24). In
the workshops, more negative comment emerged about industry (usually pharmaceutical and
chemical companies) than about retailers specifically. Most people did not spontaneously think
that retailers had an involvement.
Trust in 'Governments' to make decisions on 'your' behalf in the regulation of the biological
sciences is fairly evenly split, although on balance more people say they do not trust Government
(43%) than say they do (35%). <strong>The</strong> remaining 23% said 'don't know'.
What Issues do People Believe Should be Taken into Account in any
Oversight of Developments in the Biosciences?
Words like 'ethics' and 'morals' came up spontaneously in the workshops when discussing
biological developments. People tended to define these words as being 'the difference between
right and wrong', often adding that 'everyone has their own ethics'.
Page 5

<strong>The</strong> main issues which the public would take into account in determining whether a biological
development is right or wrong are whether people would benefit from it and whether it would be
safe to use.
Other considerations would be: whether the benefits outweighed the risks, whether or not it
interfered with nature, whether animals would be harmed and - something the question was in fact
testing - whether it was considered to be right or wrong.
<strong>The</strong> vast majority (82%) gave a response to this spontaneous question - an indication of the
degree of thought that they gave to this complex subject. Participants in the workshops
acknowledged its complexity, did not know a lot about the detail but expressed a desire to know
much more about it.
Despite their limited knowledge, workshop participants were in the main well able to discuss their
ideal mechanism for regulating the biosciences. Indeed, they did so with energy and interest,
working in mini-groups and then presenting back their ideas to the full number of participants.
<strong>The</strong>ir key considerations are largely consistent with the points mentioned above which emerged
from the quantitative phase, though perhaps cost and cost/benefits came up a little more often in
the qualitative phase, compared to the 5% who mentioned it in the quantitative survey. We feel
that this is because, in qualitative research, people are able to return to issues and exchange ideas
with one another. In quantitative research, respondents are interviewed in a one-to-one situation,
are moving from one aspect of a topic to another and are not therefore entering into a dialogue
with other people. Equally, they are not being influenced by other people (which some people
may be, in qualitative research). Both techniques are therefore valuable, and are complementary.
Having information and perceived honesty and openness are the two key considerations for the
public in order for them to have trust in a system of controls and regulations about biological
developments (27% and 23% respectively mentioned these factors spontaneously). No other
factor was mentioned by more than 11% (having people making decisions who are either
independent, or declare their interests). However, the relatively low mentions are unsurprising
given that this was a spontaneous question and that the public knew little about regulation of the
biosciences.
After being shown a list of factors that might contribute to a regulatory process, far higher
proportions selected many of the items on it. Indeed, the difference between the spontaneous and
prompted 2 figures is greater than MORI often finds. This suggests that many things matter to the
2 This also includes the spontaneous mentions
Page 6

public to enable them to have trust in a regulatory system but they tend to express this 'top-of-
mind', in terms of having information and honesty/openness.
<strong>The</strong> 'honesty/openness' category increased to 71% and 'having information' to 61%. However,
three further categories were mentioned by almost as many. <strong>The</strong>se were: 'having a system which
is open for anyone to have access to information, including the results of decisions and the reasons
behind decisions' (69%); 'having a system that monitors developments after they have become
available to the public and is prepared to withdraw them if there are concerns' (62%); and 'having
random spot checks of all regulated activities' (61%).
<strong>The</strong>re was not an overwhelming feeling in the workshops that there is a lack of honesty about
developments in the biological sciences. Rather, there is a feeling that the public receives little
information about this complex area of science that matters to them. This was coupled with the
feeling that things are conducted without the opportunity for the public and other key groups to
express their opinion. <strong>The</strong> fact that this series of workshops was being undertaken received a very
warm response from participants - albeit with a few comments such as ‘Is this a public relations
exercise?’ and ‘But will they listen?’ Many participants felt proud of the opportunity to have been
given their say and welcomed receiving information about the biosciences during the course of the
workshops.
What Information Should be Made Available to the General <strong>Public</strong>
About Advances in the Biosciences and From <strong>The</strong> Regulatory System?
<strong>The</strong> thing which the public most wants in relation to the biosciences is more information on the
rules and regulations. Seventy-two per cent said they have received too little information, 20%
said about the right amount and just 2% said too much. <strong>The</strong> remaining 6% did not know.
Page 7

<strong>The</strong> desire for information is completely consistent with findings from the workshops. Indeed,
even the fairly technical information at the end of Day 1, which respondents were told they could
take away with them if they wanted, often resulted in a queue of people waiting to take away the
various sheets of paper from the tables (with no prompting to do so from the MORI moderators).
At the beginning of Day 2, respondents often mentioned that they had found the information
interesting, and some referred to it during the course of the day. Indeed, in the quantitative phase,
44% spontaneously said 'everything' when asked what information should be available to the
public about advances in biological developments and the regulatory system.
<strong>The</strong> public receives most of its information on all subjects from television and newspapers, so it is
not surprising that most of them say they currently get information about biological developments
in these ways. Television news was cited by 81% - and recall of both the human ear on the mouse
and Dolly, the cloned sheep, from television news, was high. Television programmes and national
newspapers followed close behind with 79% and 74%. National radio came fourth, but a long
way behind with 44%, followed by magazines, local newspapers, leaflets, local radio, products
such as food and the internet/website, to name just some.
However, when it comes to ways in which the public would like to receive information, there is a
fall in the more common ways of receiving information and a corresponding increase in many
other possible sources of information.
Television programmes now take first not second place, but are down eight points. This is
followed by television news (67%, -14), national newspapers (60%, -14), and leaflets (38%, +8).
<strong>The</strong> other sharp increase can be seen for a telephone information line (up 7 points to 8%).
Government statements are most often mentioned as a 'place' that the public gets information from
about the biosciences. This seems a little surprising given that so many people (72%) said they
have received too little information about the biosciences. Perhaps the public was thinking about
quotes from the Government in the media. <strong>The</strong> public could also be saying that this is how they
tend to receive information but that they are not receiving enough. Forty-one per cent mentioned
Government statements, which came well ahead of the second mention, GPs' surgeries at 27%
and then libraries at 24%. However, a quarter say they currently receive information on biological
developments and their regulation from 'nowhere'.
Page 8

Government statements still feature prominently as a preferred way of receiving information about
the biosciences. Four categories, come a few percentage points off one another at the top of the
list, including Government statements. 'Through the door' comes top with 47% (which
Government statements could be). Government statements come a close second with 43%, and
then GPs' surgeries at 44% and libraries at 40%. <strong>The</strong> biggest increases can be seen for 'Through
the door' (+28 - an extremely large shift) and then GPs' surgeries (+17), libraries (+16) and
schools/colleges (+12).
We saw earlier that the public trusts some groups in society more than others to make decisions
on their behalf on the regulations of the biosciences - notably doctors and Government Advisory
Bodies, but a number of other groups too. It is entirely consistent then that doctors and
Government Advisory Bodies score highly for being trusted to provide the public with honest and
balanced information about biological developments and their regulation.
GPs/Family doctors come highest with 60%, then the two types of Government Advisory Body
with around 47%, followed by hospital doctors with 44%. Governments receive a relatively low
score of 19%, behind those already mentioned, plus scientists, consumer groups,
pharmacists/chemists, environmental groups, nurses and vets. <strong>The</strong> question that followed asked
about types of people and institutions that people did not trust to provide honest and balanced
information. Net trust 1 scores can therefore be calculated.
<strong>The</strong> most positive net trust scores are for GPs (+54), the Advisory Body composed of people with
different viewpoints (+39), and the Advisory Body composed of experts (+32). <strong>The</strong> most
negative scores can be seen for industry/manufacturers (-50), retailers (-42), the media (-33),
farmers (-26), religious organisations (-23), Governments (-20) and animal welfare groups (-19).
1 <strong>The</strong> proportion saying that they trust a particular group minus the proportion who do not trust that group.
Page 9

While ‘Governments’ by no means receive the lowest net score, this category ranks 15th out of 20
on being trusted to provide honest and balanced information about biological developments and
their regulations. Ten of those above it have positive net trust scores (varying in size), three have
small negative scores and only the fourteenth (animal welfare groups at -19) has a similar negative
score. Also, Governments fared a little better in terms of their rank order for being trusted to
make decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences, where they came 13th
out of 20 2
London Michele Corrado
May 1999
© MORI/11626
Robert Cumming
2 <strong>The</strong> sizes of the net scores cannot be compared because of the different question techniques
Page 10

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of both qualitative and quantitative research conducted by MORI
(Market & Opinion Research International) on behalf of the Office of Science and Technology of
the Department of Trade and Industry.
Objectives
<strong>The</strong> objectives of the research were to examine the general public’s attitudes towards the wider,
including ethical, implications of recent developments in the biosciences.
<strong>The</strong> focal point of the survey was to address the following questions set by Lord Sainsbury, <strong>The</strong>
Minister for Science:
• What is the level and nature of people’s awareness of technological advances in the
biosciences?
• What issues do people see arising from the developments in the biosciences and how
important are these compared to other major scientific issues?
• What is the extent of people’s knowledge of the oversight and regulatory process in the
United Kingdom and Europe?
• What issues do people believe should be taken into account in any oversight of developments
in the biosciences?
• What information should be made available to the general public about advances in the
biosciences and from the regulatory system?
<strong>Public</strong>ation of the Data
Our standard terms and conditions apply to this research, as to all studies we carry out. We would
like to point out that no press release or publication of the findings of this research should be
made without the advance approval of Market & Opinion Research International (MORI). Such
approval, however, would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.
Page 11

Qualitative Research
Methodology
MORI conducted six two-day workshops around the United Kingdom between 5 December 1998
and 6 February 1999. In total, 123 respondents attended the workshops. All but one person
attended both days, this person being unable to attend due to ill health. Three workshops were
held in England (North, Midlands and South), one in Scotland, one in Northern Ireland and one in
Wales. <strong>The</strong>y were held at the following venues:
Date Venue
5 and 12 December Tillington Hall, Stafford
16 and 23 January <strong>The</strong> Ship Hotel, Reading
16 and 23 January <strong>The</strong> County Thistle Hotel, Newcastle
23 and 30 January Belfast Castle, Belfast
30 and 6 February <strong>The</strong> Angel Hotel, Cardiff
30 and 6 February <strong>The</strong> Stirling Highland Hotel, Stirling
All participants were recruited by MORI trained interviewers either on the street or at their home.
All were recruited from up to one hour’s travelling time from the venue with about four or five
locations represented at each workshop.
Each workshop comprised a mix of people according to demographic variables. Rough quotas
were set in each location in terms of age, gender, socio-economic grade, ethnicity and urbanity to
ensure an overall cross-representation of the public. In addition, checks were made to avoid over-
representation of environmental activism and ‘active’ religious worship. People from minority
ethnic groups were in fact under-represented in both phases.
Each workshop was run by three MORI executives. A total of 13 executives worked on the
project across the various locations.
All twelve workshops were tape-recorded with respondents’ permission and fully transcribed. One
workshop (Cardiff Day 1) was filmed with the expressed approval of the participants prior to
attending. This was, however, not continued for Day 2 as it was felt that some respondents were
inhibited by the cameras.
Page 12

An independent evaluator, Professor Alan Irwin, Head of Department at <strong>The</strong> Department of
Human Sciences at Brunel University, attended both days at Stafford and the second day at
Reading. He was there to assess both MORI and the workshop process in order to report back to
the Office of Science and Technology.
Workshop Structure - Day One
Before each workshop, participants were split into three syndicates each with about the same
numbers of people by age group, gender, socio-economic grade, urbanity and location. Each of
these groups was led by a MORI moderator. Following a brief introduction, the main group was
split into their selected syndicates where they spent the majority of Day One.
Day One’s agenda was as follows:
9.30 - 10.00 Arrival, tea/coffee
10.00 - 11.15 Session 1
A. General Issues - (Spontaneous Awareness of
Scientific Developments)
11.15 - 11.30 Break tea/coffee
11.30 - 12.45 Session 2
B. General Issues - (Spontaneous Awareness of
Regulatory Issues)
12.45 - 1.45 Break for Lunch
1.45 - 3.00 Session 3
C. Specific Issues
3.00 - 3.15 Break tea/coffee
3.15 - 4.00 D. Specific Issues Continued
4.00 - 4.30 Session 4
E. Summing Up
4.30 Day End
3 Syndicates
3 Syndicates
3 Syndicates
3 Syndicates
All
Page 13

During Day One, participants dicussed the following:
Page 14
-Awareness of the Biosciences
-Influence and Trust
-Regulation -who is currently involved?
-who should be involved?
-Information -what is currently made available to the public?
-what should be made available?
-how do you ensure it is trustworthy and reliable?
-Specific Topics (with Handouts and Showcards)
-Summing Up
<strong>The</strong> specific topics discussed are outlined in the table below:
Topic Work-
Human Health
shop 1
(pilot)
Work-
shop 2
Work-
shop 3
Work-
shop 4
Work-
shop 5
Work-
shop 6
Stafford Reading Newcastle Belfast Cardiff Stirling
Fertility & Reproduction � �
Genetic Testing/ Screening � �
Gene <strong>The</strong>rapy � �
Xenotransplantation � �
Drugs � �
Cloning � �
Animals & Microbes � � �
Plants & Microbes � � �
During the sessions entitled ‘Specific Topics’ respondents initially discussed their spontaneous
knowledge of the topic including recent developments, who they feel is and should be involved,
and regulation. Showcards and handouts were then used to illustrate, in simple language and with
pictures, the science behind the specific topic. <strong>The</strong>se materials were written by independent
science writers specifically for this survey and were used to stimulate discussion and raise
important issues.

Workshop Structure - Day Two
Day Two’s agenda was as follows:
9.30 - 10.00 Arrival, tea/coffee
10.00 - 10.30 Session 1
A. Introduction
10.30 - 11.00 Session 2
B. Issues arising during the week
C. Regulatory Issues - Preparation
11.00 - 11.15 Break for tea/coffee
11.15 - 12.30 Session 3
12.30 - 1.30 Break for Lunch
1.30 - 2.30 Session 4
D. Regulatory Issues - Discussion Groups
Preparation of Material to Feed Back
E. Feedback: Syndicates 1-3
2.30 - 2.45 Break for tea/coffee
2.45 - 3.15 Session 5
3.15 - 3.45 Session 6
3.45 - 4.15 Session 7
F. Cross-cutting <strong>The</strong>mes
G. Information Session
H. Summing Up
All
All
3 Syndicates
(6 in Stafford)
4.15 - 4.30 I. Evaluation Questionnaires All
4.30 Day End
<strong>The</strong> pilot workshop, in Stafford, explored on Day Two the regulatory issues of the following
topics: Safety; Ethics; Costs; National and International Boundaries; and Need. In Session 3,
participants were split into six roughly equal groups, each including individuals from each of the
three specific topics on Day One. <strong>The</strong>se six groups were asked to prepare a short presentation to
be given to the main group in Session 4.
All
All
All
All
Page 15

<strong>The</strong> remaining five workshops kept Day One syndicates together for Session 3 of Day Two. Each
syndicate was similarly asked to prepare a presentation for Session 4. All were asked to focus
primarily on the ideal mechanism for regulating their specific topic and address the following three
questions:
Page 16
- How can it ensure trust in the process of regulation?
- How can it deal with scientific uncertainty?
- How should the new mechanism take account of public views?
Session 5, conducted as a large group, discussed the cross-cutting themes of the presentations.
For all the workshops, with the exception of Stafford, this included themes across the specific
topics. Session 6 addressed overall how information could be made accessible and understood by
the public.
During the last session, all participants were asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire. 121
questionnaires were completed; one person declined from completing a questionnaire and the
other ‘non-response’ was due to one person not attending due to ill health.
A complete set of topic guides can be found in the appendices. Full anonymised transcripts and the
results of participants’ feedback (again anonymised) are available on request.

Quantitative Research
Methodology
Following the initial qualitative stage of six two-day workshops, a pilot study was conducted prior
to the quantitative survey.
Pilot
Fieldwork was conducted from 6 - 16 February 1999 in the following areas:
Chelmsford
Falmouth
Kilmarnock
Llanelli
Telford
A total of 50 interviews was conducted. Due to the detailed nature of the topic, the pilot tested
the public’s understanding of the questions, and the flow and length of the interview. It also gave
a rough indication of the extent of opinion and an average length of time to complete the
interview.
Main stage
<strong>The</strong> quantitative main stage drew on the ‘People’s Panel’ for its sample. This is a Panel which
MORI was commissioned to recruit by the Cabinet Office and which comprises 5,000 people
across the UK. <strong>The</strong> People’s Panel is a random pre-selected addresses survey with each person
recruited agreeing to take part in future surveys. <strong>The</strong> Panel provides a major research resource for
the Government to investigate attitudes towards public services. A representative sample of 2,200
respondents was selected from this Panel for 1,000 completed interviews to be conducted, again
among a representative sample.
Page 17

In total, 1,109 interviews were conducted between 13 March - 4 April 1999.
<strong>The</strong> effective response rate has been calculated as 63%, as follows:
Page 18
No. of leads issues 2,220
Not contacted 117
Wants to leave Panel 228
Too busy 111
Not interested 40
Too ill to take part 38
Away during fieldwork 76
No contact at h/hold after 4 calls
(but dwelling occupied) 153
No contact at h/hold after 4 calls
(unsure if dwelling occupied) 11
Respondent no longer at current address 106
Other 208
Inadequate English 3
Successfully completed inerviews 1,109
<strong>The</strong> calculation is therefore:
1,109 1,109 = 63%
2,200 - [90 + 76 +153 + 11 + 106 +
3]
A copy of the marked-up questionnaire can be found in the appendices.
All interviews were conducted by a member of MORI’s fully trained and experienced fieldforce
and all interviewers assigned to this survey were provided with comprehensive written
instructions. In total, 100 interviewers conducted the interviews across the UK.
Showcards
Showcards were used for some questions which involved long or complicated lists. In order to
avoid bias towards any category on a list, all the showcards were versioned with different start
points for interviewers
761

Length of Interview
Shortest interview 15 minutes
Longest interview 75 minutes
Average length of interview: 37 minutes
Mode: 35 minutes
Weighting
<strong>The</strong> final data were rim-weighted, in the same way as the actual People’s Panel, to: age within
gender, socio-economic group, tenure, work status, Government Official Region, MOSAIC code,
car ownership, and family composition. <strong>The</strong> table below gives the unweighted figures and the
weights used:
Government Official Region
Unweighted Weighted
% %
Northern Ireland 2.9 2.6
Great Britain, of which: 97.1 97.4
Scotland 9.0 8.8
North East 5.1 4.4
NW/Merseyside 9.6 11.7
Yorks & Humberside 12.0 8.6
East Midlands 6.0 7.1
West Midlands 8.2 9.0
Wales 3.9 5.0
Eastern 9.4 9.1
South West 10.9 8.4
Greater London 5.6 11.9
South East 17.3 13.4
Page 19

<strong>The</strong> following weights were used for UK data. <strong>The</strong> tables below outline the profile for GB.
Northern Ireland is shown separately overleaf.
Gender x Age GB weights
Men, of which
16-24 5.4 7.1
25-34 5.0 10.0 46.8% of the UK
35-54 14.7 15.9
55+ 16.7 13.8
Women, of which
16-24 5.3 7.2
25-34 8.9 10.0 50.7% of the UK
35-54 20.7 15.9
55+ 20.5 17.6
Socio-economic Grade
AB 26.4 21.2
C1 27.9 26.3
C2 17.5 22.0
DE 25.3 27.9
Work Status
Full-time 36.4 42.5
Part-time 13.5 9.6
Unemployed 4.6 4.0
Other 42.6 41.3
Tenure
Owner-occupier 73.4 68.5
Council Tenant 15.9 20.7
Other 7.8 8.2
Page 20

MOSAIC
1 High Income Families 9.0 11.0
2 Suburban Semis 16.1 11.4
3 Blue Collar Owners 12.5 13.6
4 Low Rise Council 16.2 14.5
5 Council Flats 3.3 5.6
6 Victorian Low Status 3.9 8.1
7 Town Houses & Flats 7.2 9.6
8 Stylish Singles 2.3 4.5
9 Independent Elders 5.0 4.9
10 Mortgaged Families 5.5 5.0
11 Country Dwellers 9.1 7.8
12 Institutional Areas - -
99 Others 6.9 1.5
Mosaic code analyses people according to the neighbourhood types in which they live. Group 11,
‘Country Dwellers’, represent 7.8% of the population and this is the group that was classified as
rural in the computer tables and analysis of the report.
<strong>The</strong> following weights were used for Northern Ireland data only:
Gender x Age Northern Ireland weights
Men, of which 0.2 0.3
16-24 0.2 0.3 1.3% of the UK
25-34 0.4 0.4
35-54 0.2 0.3
55+
Women, of which
16-24 0.6 0.3
25-34 0.4 0.3 1.4% of the UK
35-54 0.4 0.4
55+ 0.6 0.4
Page 21

Statistical Reliability
<strong>The</strong> sample tolerances that apply to the percentage results in this report are given in the table
below. This table shows the possible variation that might be anticipated because a sample, rather
than the entire population, was interviewed.
For example, on a question where 50% of the people in a weighted sample of 1,109 respond with
a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary by more than 2.9
percentage points, plus or minus, from a complete coverage of the entire population using the
same procedures. However, it is not true to conclude that the "actual" result (95 times out of
100) lies anywhere between 47.1% and 52.9%. It is proportionately more likely to be closer to the
centre of this band (ie be 50%) than lie at the extreme of this band (ie be 47.1% or 52.9%).
As indicated in the table below, the sampling tolerances vary with the size of the sample and the
size of the percentage results.
Approximate sampling tolerances
Size of sample on which applicable to percentages at
survey result is based or near these levels
Page 22
10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%
+ + +
1,109 Interviews 1.8 2.7 2.9
1,008 Interviews 1.9 2.8 3.1
437 Interviews 2.7 4.1 4.5
251 Interviews 2.3 3.6 3.9
101 Interviews 5.9 9.0 9.8

Tolerances are also involved in the comparison of results from different parts of the sample. A
difference, in other words, must be of at least a certain size to be considered statistically
significant. <strong>The</strong> table overleaf is a guide to the sampling tolerances applicable to comparisons.
Size of the sample compared
Differences required for significance at or near
these percentaged levels*
10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%
1,109 and 473 3.2 4.9 5.4
636 and 473 3.6 5.5 6.0
473 and 251 4.6 7.0 7.7
371 and 501 4.0 6.2 6.7
128 and 160 7.0 10.7 11.7
* Based on 95 changes in 100
For example, the difference between two percentage results of, say, 29% and 34% be a
statistically significant when based on samples of 1,109 and 473. However, when these results
occur based on samples of 473 and 251 interviews respectively, the difference would not be
statistically significant.
Page 23

Page 24
MAIN FINDINGS

ONE
THE LEVEL AND NATURE OF PEOPLE’S AWARENESS OF
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN THE BIOSCIENCES
Page 25

Spontaneous Awareness Of <strong>The</strong> Biosciences
This research shows that top of mind awareness of developments in the biosciences focuses mostly
on:
Page 26
• advances in human health and medical research (such as treatment of diseases/new
medicines),
• genetic modification (especially GM foods) 3
• and cloning (particularly Dolly, the cloned sheep).
<strong>The</strong> question was asked about in the broad context of ‘major scientific discoveries or
developments that spring to mind’. 4 Computers - especially the internet, and ‘sending people to
the moon’ are seen to represent the main non-biological scientific developments:
<strong>The</strong>y can screen things that genetically are in you that are not
going to do any good, for instance heart disease or things like that,
or cancer, and try and screen those out
Woman, Reading
I’ve got an article at home about an ear on a mouse, a human ear
being grown on the back of a mouse ready for transplant
Woman, Newcastle
IVF...a breakthrough for those who can’t have children
Woman, Cardiff
You can use animals, parts of animals to transplant into humans
now
Woman, Cardiff
Dolly. She was that sheep that was cloned. <strong>The</strong> Frankenstein of the
sheep world
Man, Stafford
<strong>The</strong>re was a programme the other day about perfect babies, you
can choose the colour of the babies eyes, the colour of their hair
Woman, Cardiff
3 Fieldwork for the pilot and main quantitative phases was conducted at the time of intense media coverage about
GM foods. (<strong>The</strong> earlier qualitative phase was mostly carried out during [less intense] media coverage of
biotechnology issues in general. <strong>The</strong>n from around 20 January onwards, with some workshops still to go, intense
coverage of GM foods began).
4 <strong>The</strong> qualitative phase referred to recent developments.

A number of differences were perceived in the qualitative research between biological and non-
biological scientific developments. Biological ones involve ‘living, breathing things’ and were
therefore seen to be less predictable and harder to make progress with because the material can
change, adapt or become resistant:
We can send a man to the moon but we can’t cure the common cold
Man, Stafford
<strong>The</strong>re is also seen to be far less financial support for and money to be made in biological research
than ‘the computer industry’ - leading to rapid obsolescence and updating of computers, while
biological developments are seen to lack this kind of financial backing and therefore to lag behind
the IT industry. That said, the pace of developments in individual areas of biotechnology (notably
cloning) is seen to be too fast, which is discussed in more detail overleaf. Vested interests were
also thought to be at play by some, with some suggestion that industry does not wish to find cures
for diseases as it is not in its financial interest to do so, that scientists may be operating behind
closed doors to be the first to make a breakthrough or to conceal information and (mentioned by a
few people) that scientists’ findings are being suppressed by Government. This last point seemed
to stem from a strong feeling that people felt they sorely lacked information about the biosciences
(which is discussed in more detail later). <strong>The</strong> combination for people of trying to get to grips with
a complex area of science, coupled with their feeling that they hear little of biological
developments until they have occurred, appears to have led to some feeling of suspicion:
If we cure the common cold, the drugs industry would go out of
business
Man, Stafford
Kleenex would go bankrupt
Man, Stafford
Page 27

<strong>The</strong> following verbatims highlight the feeling that there is knowledge in existence, if not
necessarily available and accessible to everyone:
Page 28
I think scientists have probably got all the answers but they’re
actually squashed by the higher people because they just don’t
want this information to come out. <strong>The</strong>y probably have it earlier
and then they say ‘Oh, no, no, we’d better keep that to ourselves’
Man, Reading
Moderator Q. So who are these higher people?
<strong>The</strong> people in Government
Man, Reading
or, in the context of GM foods:
I think also they could be designing some sort of plant, even behind
closed doors and sneak it through the back door
Man, Reading
Which is what they probably do
Woman, Reading
Do you think so?
Man, Reading
Yes
Woman, Reading
Look what they did with Dolly the sheep
Man, Reading
Findings from the qualitative and quantitative phases were largely consistent with one another
though with perhaps fewer mentions of cloning relative to genetic modification in the quantitative
stage, while in the qualitative phase they were mentioned about equally. In the quantitative
phase, 26% spontaneously mentioned genetic modification or GM foods, compared with 12%
who cited cloning. This is likely to be because of the intense media coverage of GM foods during
the quantitative fieldwork but also perhaps because cloning tended to be mentioned initially by just
one or two participants in each workshop and was then discussed by others present, as part of a
wider discussion. Generally speaking, some workshop participants at every location were able to
mention some biological and some non-biological developments fairly quickly.

In the quantitative stage the highest spontaneous mention, with 30%, was for treatments or cures
for diseases. This is followed by the 26% mentioning genetic modification or GM food and then
21% saying sending people to the moon and 20% citing computers. <strong>The</strong>se percentage responses
(between 20% and 30%) are entirely consistent with what one would expect on a spontaneous
question asking for technical information. It seems that treatments/cures for diseases genuinely
comes ahead of computers and space science, given that the survey was introduced not as being
about biological developments but rather about ‘Issues affecting everyone in this country … ..and
public attitudes towards science… ’
Men and women were equally likely to mention a bioscience development (41% each), 1 but men
were significantly more likely to mention a non-bioscience development (67% v 59%).
Treatments/Cures for diseases was more often mentioned by men (32%) and C1s (40%) 2 as was
computers (23% men and 27% C1s). Those in rural areas (41%) and ABs (36%) cited genetic
modification/GM food more often than average, with mentions of it falling with descending social
class to 17% among DEs. Men and women were equally likely to mention GM or GM food (26%
v 27%).
Apart from treatment for diseases, cloning and genetic modification - all mentioned in both phases,
other mentions of biological developments at both stages include: organ transplantation,
xenotransplantation specifically (but by fewer and not named as such), replacement body parts,
tissue cultures (with someone in every location recalling the pictures showing a “human ear”
grown on the mouse) and IVF. In relation to IVF, the case of Mrs Diane Blood was mentioned in
many locations - her baby being born a few days after the first (5 December 1998) workshop.
Most respondents (74%) did mention at least one scientific development at this spontaneous
question. As mentioned, 41% mentioned one or more biological developments (increasing to
53% among ABs) and 63% cited at least one non-biological development 5 (as mentioned,
increasing to 67% among men). As mentioned eariler, when Treatments/Cures for diseases is
included with other bioscience mentions this rises to 57%. A considerable minority (35%) gave
two or more mentions of the biosciences, with a 1% citing five or more.
1
This definition of bioscience does not include treatment/cures for diseases. If this is added to the combination, the
41% increases to 57%.
2
Please see Appendices for social class definitions
5
<strong>The</strong> 41% and the 63%, when added together exceed the 74% who mentioned at least one scientific development
because 30% mentioned both.
Page 29

<strong>The</strong> following comments from the workshops illustrate the thought processes which many
participants seemed to have when discussing biological developments. Feelings that the pace of
development is too quick were common (though this was not mentioned by a majority in the
quantitative phase), as was uncertainty about why some developments are taking place, along with
feelings that the public hears about developments after the event and before it has ‘had a say’
(particularly in the case of Dolly, the cloned sheep):
Page 30
Cloning and the internet. Sometimes the developments move so
fast. <strong>The</strong>re doesn’t seem to be enough time to think of the
implications and what’s happening and it seems as if it’s already
gone ahead without anybody having a say - like the majority, I
suppose. <strong>The</strong> first anyone gets to hear about it is when it’s on the
news. <strong>The</strong>re doesn’t seem like there’s any kind of control. It seems
the scientists can go ahead and do anything
Woman, Cardiff
(<strong>The</strong>y are cloning) to prove they can do it. It is like going to the
moon (was). <strong>The</strong> only thing that came out of going to the moon
was Teflon saucepans……and to prove the Americans could get
there before the Russians. <strong>The</strong> internet is entirely different (from
cloning or going to the moon). That has a use
Man, Cardiff
Where will it end? Why is it (biological development) being done?
Belfast
Clearly, in any future communications programme, the reasons why certain biological
developments are taking or may take place need to be explained to the public. We will see later
that as many as 72% of the public believes that they have had too little information on the rules
and regulations about biological developments. This research exercise (and the forthcoming
dissemination of its findings) will demonstrate that the public was consulted about their views but
the public also view it as critical that their views are listened to. <strong>The</strong>re is a theme emerging that
the public wants to know what developments are taking place and be asked for their views about
them before the results of the experiments are reached.

Q1 Thinking about major scientific discoveries or developments, do any spring to mind?
Highest Mentioned 6 Categories (spontaneous)
Treatments/Cures for/Eradication of
illnesses/diseases/Medicines/New drugs/Penicillin/
%
Antibiotics/Vaccines etc./Operations/Surgery
32
Genetic modification/GM food (combination) 26
Space/Sending people to the moon/Life on Mars
Computers/<strong>The</strong> Internet/Email/Millennium bug/Millennium
21
Compliance
Genetically modified, Genetically altered or Genetically engineered
20
food
18
Medical research 15
Cloning/Dolly the sheep 12
TV/New TV sets/Cable TV/ Satellite TV/Digital TVs 12
New telecommunications (fax machine/mobile phone) 10
Genetic modification/Genetic engineering (unspecified) 8
Transplants (unspecified)/ Transplants of heart, liver, kidneys etc 8
Base: All (1,109)
<strong>The</strong> table below indicates the proportion of the public spontaneously mentioning at least one of
the bioscience and non-bioscience categories at Q1. Each respondent was only counted once, even
if they mentioned more than one category.
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Bioscience Not including ‘Treatments/Cures for/Eradication of
illnesses/diseases/Medicines/New
drugs/Penicillin/Antibiotics/Vaccines
etc./Operations/Surgery’
Bioscience Including ‘Treatments/Cures for/Eradication of
Non-
Bioscience
illnesses/diseases/Medicines/New
drugs/Penicillin/Antibiotics/Vaccines
etc./Operations/Surgery’
For a full definition of the combinations, please refer to the appendices.
6 <strong>The</strong> marked-up questionnaire gives percentage responses for all categories
%
41
57
63
Page 31

‘Biology’ And ‘Genes’
<strong>The</strong> level of understanding of the phrases ‘biology’ and ‘genes’ was examined in the quantitative
survey to gauge the degree of awareness of words likely to be used in communication about
biological developments, and also to act as questions which would move in gently to subsequent
questions about the more complex subject of biotechnology.
<strong>The</strong> vast majority of the public (89%) was able to name at least one thing which springs to mind
when they hear the word ‘biology’ - and all responses were correct. Most common are mentions
of: the human body (39%), plants or the study of plants (30%) and animals or the study of
animals (24%). This was followed by school lessons/biology teachers (14%), human
biology/microbiology (13%), reproduction/fertilisation/birth (10%) and then genetic modification
(9%). One per cent specifically mentioned GM food, and these people also mentioned genetic
modification more generally (so, genetic modification/GM food is still 9%). Treatment of diseases
was mentioned by 6%.
To give an indication of the breadth of responses which emerges at such a spontaneous question,
one per cent mentioned soap powder (the same proportion that MORI found when testing the
phrase ‘biodiversity’ in a four country study for WWF International 7 in 1988), and similar small
proportions mentioned research/laboratory experiments/animal testing (3%) , hospital
doctors/medical care (2%), IVF/test tube babies (1%) and food/food hygiene/nutrition (1%).
Men more often mentioned genetic modification and cloning than did women, while women more
often cited the human body and reproduction. Genetic modification was also more often
mentioned by younger people aged 16-34, and cloning by those from white collar households.
7 <strong>The</strong> World Wide Fund for Nature
Page 32

An even higher proportion of the public was able to give a meaning of the word ‘genes’ (95%)
than ‘biology’ (89%) - perhaps indicating the level of awareness provoked by intense media
coverage of Genetic Modification, particularly with regard to food. Virtually all responses were
again correct. Evidently then, if communication on biotechnology is to use the phrases ‘biology’
and ‘genes’, most people would at least have some understanding of these phrases. Approaching
two-thirds (63%) said that the phrase ‘genes’ means inheriting characteristics from your father and
mother (37%), or/and the basic building blocks of life (23%), or/and passing on your genetic
make-up to your offspring (21%), or/and children’s appearances/how they take after you (13%)
or/and family/blood relations (2%). 8 <strong>The</strong> 63% increases to 68% among women, 70% among the
25-34s and 71% among C1s.
Genetic modification is mentioned by 20% (unspecified by 11%, GM foods/plants 11%, of animals
3%, of humans 4%). DNA is mentioned by 18%, ‘the body’ by 15% and Down’s
Syndrome/genetic disorders by 14%. Genetic testing/screening and gene therapy are each
mentioned by 4%.
However, while most people’s associations with the word ‘genes’ were correct, some people in
the qualitative phase demonstrated their confusion over the function of genes, and some did not
realise that they currently eat them. <strong>The</strong> following quotes illustrate the confusion, but also the
concern people have, in the aftermath of BSE, about eating anything they regard as unusual or
unnatural:
Does a gene actually go through the digestive tract and come out?
Woman, Reading
This was often immediately linked to the concern which followed from the BSE situation:
It is like mad cow disease. That came through eating infected meat
Man, Reading
8 <strong>The</strong> sum of these four percentages exceeds the total of 63% because some people will have mentioned more than
one category.
Page 33

Q2 When I say 'biology', what, if anything, springs to mind?
<strong>The</strong> human body
%
39
Plants/study of plants 30
Animals/Study of animals 24
School lessons/Biology teachers 14
Human biology/Microbiology etc 13
Reproduction/Fertilisation/Birth 10
Genetic Engineering/Genetic Modification 9
Science 7
Health 6
Man/Study of man/Human race 6
Nature 6
Treatment of diseases 6
Cloning/Dolly the sheep 5
<strong>The</strong> study of life/Living things 5
Don’t know 6
Nothing 5
Base: All (1,109)
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
%
2 Genetic Engineering/Genetic Modification 9%
Page 34
GM Foods
3 Genetic Engineering/Genetic Modification 9%
GM Foods
Genetics
4 Reproduction/Fertilisation/Birth 10%
IVF/Test tube babies

Q3 When I say 'genes', spelt 'g', 'e', 'n', 'e', 's', what, if anything, springs to mind?
%
Having genes from your mother and father/Inheriting
characteristics/traits from your parents
37
Basic building blocks of life/Blueprint of life/What you
are/<strong>The</strong> way you look/Genetic Make-up of
personality/Human body/Human genes
23
Passing on your genetic make-up to your offspring 21
DNA 18
<strong>The</strong> body 15
Down’s Syndrome/Genetic disorders/Diseases passed on 14
Children’s appearances/How they take after you/Family
traits
13
Cloning/Making sheep/Dolly the sheep 13
Genetic modification/engineering (unspecified) 11
Genetic modification of foods/plants 11
Don't know 3
Nothing 2
Base: All (1,109)
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
%
Any Genetic Genetic modification/engineering (unspecified)
Modification Genetic modification of foods/plants
Genetic modification of animals
Genetic modification of humans
20
Any Genetic
Modification/
Gene <strong>The</strong>rapy
Inherited
Characteristics
/Passing on
Inherited
Characteristics
/Passing on/
Basic building
blocks
Genetic modification/engineering (unspecified)
Genetic modification of foods/plants
Genetic modification of animals
Genetic modification of humans 23
Gene therapy/Treating diseases by putting new
genes into patients' cells/bodies
Having genes from your mother and
father/Inheriting characteristics/traits from your
parents
Passing on your genetic make-up to your offspring
Having genes from your mother and
father/Inheriting characteristics/traits from your
parents
Passing on your genetic make-up to your offspring
Basic building blocks of life/Blueprint of life/What
you are/<strong>The</strong> way you look/Genetic Make-up of
personality/Human body/Human genes
46
58
Page 35

Page 36
5 DNA 21
Chromosomes/Cells
6 DNA
Chromosomes/Cells 21
Genetics/Genetic science
7 Children’s appearances/How they take after
you/Family traits
Family/blood relations
8 Having genes from your mother and
father/Inheriting characteristics/traits from your
parents
Passing on your genetic make-up to your offspring
Basic building blocks of life/Blueprint of life/What
you are/<strong>The</strong> way you look/Genetic Make-up of
personality/Human body/Human genes
Children’s appearances/How they take after
you/Family traits
Family/blood relations
15
63

Total 9 Awareness Of <strong>The</strong> Biosciences
After showing respondents a list of biological developments, almost everyone had heard of the
transplantation of human organs (93%). Indeed, it is surprising that not everyone had, thirty years
or so after the first such transplant. Almost as many (90%) had heard of test tube babies or in-
vitro fertilisation and (topical at the time of the survey), GM food (89%). ‘Genetic modification
of animals and plants’, a separate category on the showcard, came twenty points behind GM food.
Combining GM and GM food (and excluding the overlap) increases the figure to 91%, placing it
second highest after transplantation of human organs. Cloning came just behind GM food with
87% - narrowing the 14% gap seen at the earlier spontaneous question about scientific
developments.
Awareness of most biological developments is higher among men than women, the exceptions
being transplants of human organs and IVF - both mentioned equally by each gender (though
women in the qualitative phase seemed better informed about IVF and more confident to talk in
detail. One man referred to IVF as ‘the women’s domain’). By age, the 25-64s generally show
greatest awareness of each development, with the youngest and oldest groups tending to be a bit
less aware. <strong>The</strong> exception is for transplants of human organs, where the 65+ group has almost as
high awareness as average (90% against 93%), presumably because it is a less recent development
and one which can prolong life or/and enhance quality of life. Awareness of each development
tends to fall with descending social class, often more markedly from C2s to DEs 10 . <strong>The</strong> figures for
the four highest mentions are: transplants of human organs - ABs 99%, DEs 87%; genetic
modification/GM food - ABs 97%, DEs 79%; IVF/test tube babies - ABs 96%, DEs 83%; and
cloning/Dolly the sheep - ABs 97%, DEs 70%.
IVF. Not that I need it, but it is a breakthrough for those who can’t
have children
Woman, Cardiff
Taking eggs from dead children after miscarriages. Apparently,
the priests were up in arms
Man, Cardiff
Cloning. <strong>The</strong>y’re going on about it all the time. Skin, tissue, bits
and pieces. It’s on the news. <strong>The</strong> mouse and the ear
Man, Cardiff
9 ie spontaneous and prompted awareness combined
10 which reflects the correlation between age and the DE social class. A higher proportion of the 65+ group is
classed as DE. Ds are unskilled manual workers and Es are those on the lowest level of subsistence, including
State pensioners.
Page 37

Development of new medicines at 77% seems low, perhaps because it was misinterpreted as
development of new medicines which is taking place at this precise moment, rather than
development of vaccines, antibiotics etc. In contrast, transplants of animal tissues at 72% seems
high though it too received media coverage during the time of the survey: 11
Page 38
<strong>The</strong>y can use parts of animals to transplant into humans now. I
heard it on the radio this morning. But they’re not allowed to do it
now while they’re investigating. <strong>The</strong>y’re not entirely sure about its
safety
Woman, Cardiff
If it can save someone’s life, definitely
Woman, Cardiff
Two in three had heard of genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg diseases, which
was followed closely by tissue cultures/artificial tissue:
<strong>The</strong>re was a man who had his fingers sewn on his arm
Man, Cardiff
Lowest mention was for gene therapy at 42% but even that seems higher than indicated in the
qualitative phase. It is likely that the word ‘gene’ in the phrase has artificially enhanced awareness
of this development.
11 eg File on 4, Radio 4, 6 December 1998

Q6 As you may know, there have been a number of developments in biology in recent
years. Which, if any, of the following have you heard of? If you mentioned any of
them at any previous question or questions, could you read those out again, along with
any others you may recall hearing about, so that I make sure I get everything down
that you have heard of. You could just read out the letter or letters. If you haven't
heard of any, please say 'none'.
Transplants of human organs (eg heart, liver, kidneys) to
another human
Total Awareness
(Spontaneous Q1 and
Prompted Q6)
%
93
Test tube babies (also known as in-vitro fertilisation) 90
Genetically modified food 89
Cloning/Dolly the sheep 87
Development of new medicines 77
Transplants of animal tissues (eg pig tissues) to a
human/Xenotransplantation
Genetic modification/engineering of animals and plants 69
Genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg
diseases
Tissue cultures/Artificial tissue eg skin 62
Gene therapy 42
None 1
Don’t know *
Base:All (1,109)
72
67
Page 39

This table shows the proportions who mentioned each biological development spontaneously at
Q1, followed by the proportions giving total awareness at Q6.
Page 40
Q1
Spontaneous
Awareness
Q1/Q6
Total
Awareness
% %
A Cloning/Dolly the sheep 12 87
B Medical research 15
Treatment/Cures for diseases 32
38 N/A*
C Genetic modification/Genetic engineering (unspecified) 8
Genetic modification/engineering of animals and/or plants 4
11
26 69
D Genetically modified food 18 89
E Genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg diseases 3 67
F Gene therapy 2 42
G Test tube babies (also known as in-vitro fertilisation) 6 90
H Tissue cultures/Artificial tissue eg skin 1 62
I Transplants of human organs (eg heart, liver, kidneys) to
another human
J Transplants of animal tissues (eg pig tissues) to a
human/Xenotransplantation
Base: All (1,109)
* N/A = Not asked
8 93
1 72

TWO
ISSUES WHICH PEOPLE SEE ARISING FROM
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BIOSCIENCES AND HOW
IMPORTANT THESE ARE COMPARED TO OTHER MAJOR
SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS
Page 41

Issues Arising From Developments In <strong>The</strong> Biosciences
Advances in human health clearly represent the biggest benefit to arise from scientific
developments, according to the general public. <strong>The</strong> development of new medicines (eg antibiotics
and vaccines) was most commonly mentioned (by 57% in the quantitative phase), followed by
transplants of various organs (51%), then cures for or eradication of diseases (43%) and new
operations/surgery (31%). All came ahead of computers/the internet/email with 28%. <strong>The</strong> key
phrase is no doubt ‘beneficial to society’ because it was clear in the qualitative research that
participants in every workshop location regarded the development of computers and the internet
to be an important scientific development. Genetic testing or screening follows close behind
computers with 24%, although in-vitro fertilisation was mentioned by just 11% and cloning/Dolly
the sheep by as few as 2%, genetic modification by only 1% and GM food also by only 1%.
Page 42
I think they need to put money into the cancer research. <strong>The</strong>
cloning and the test tube babies are nice extras but the cancer is
something that is going to affect a lot of people. If there was as
much money put into that
Woman, Stirling
Looking at the ‘net beneficial’ scores (ie the proportion saying something is beneficial, minus the
proportion saying it is not), we can see that development of new medicines receives a net score of
+56 and transplants +50, yet cloning gets a -55. Many participants in the qualitative phase could
not see the purpose of cloning, were concerned about the possibilities that could arise from it
(notably, human cloning - even though it was explained that this is illegal) and felt they had been
kept in the dark about it. <strong>The</strong> most notable example was the birth of Dolly, the cloned sheep
which said participants, was announced in the media without the public even knowing such a
development was taking place. <strong>The</strong>re was very little awareness in the workshops (or indeed in the
quantitative phase) that animal cloning could be used to advance human health (something of
clear importance to the public). Examples would be to create more animals for transplantation of
their organs, or to develop techniques for reproducing animals, or to make animals immune to
disease, or indeed to genetically modify an animal so that it could assist in combating disease 12 ,
and then clone it to produce identical animals that could also combat disease in the same way. It
is quite possible, given the public's strong endorsement of scientific developments which advance
human health, that if the link between animal cloning and human health was made for the public,
12 As with the US case of the cloned goats whose mother had been genetically modified to produce a protein in her
milk that could prevent clotting in heart surgery. <strong>The</strong> offspring, each cloned from a foetal not an adult cell of their
mother, also produced this protein in their milk. This was announced in the media after MORI’s research was
completed, on 27 April 1999. However Dolly, cloned from an adult cell of her mother, was cloned well before the
research took place, yet few people knew why.

some who currently feel unsure or unhappy about cloning may become more positive. However,
many people in the workshops said that the idea of cloning was odd (and therefore rejected it).
Animals should not be harmed (and some said should not be used at all) and doubts existed about
whether cloning may stop at animals and not move to humans. Typical comments were:
I can’t see why they want to clone anyway. I can’t see the point. A
waste of funds
Woman, Cardiff
To prove they can do it, I suppose
Man, Cardiff
I mean, cloning a sheep hasn’t done us any good. I don’t know if
they intend to keep doing that sort of thing, but what good is it
doing?
Man, Reading
<strong>The</strong>y could save endangered species with cloning, as long as it’s
not affecting humans. <strong>The</strong>y could clone vegetables. If you were
cloning vegetables that were resistant to certain types of insects etc
it must be good for the Third World
Man, Stirling
Genetically modified food is also not regarded overall to be beneficial to society; it receives a net
score of - 44 with just one per cent of the public describing it as beneficial. Genetic modification
of animals and plants also gets a negative score (of -27) and again only one per cent rate it as
being beneficial to society. Unlike cloning, there was some idea both in the workshops and in the
quantitative stage about why genetic modification takes place. This focused mostly on food issues
and specifically the production of more food or larger/more colourful tomatoes:
I’d like to know more, especially with what foods, which foods
contain genetically modified products so that I am aware, and if I
choose to eat it then that’s my choice. It would make me much
more aware because there is a lot out there
Woman, Reading
<strong>The</strong>y should have a label on every food that is genetically modified
Man, Reading
Page 43

Combining the bioscience categories we can see that 71% of the public regarded one or more
bioscience to be beneficial to society, and 79% regarded them as not beneficial. This gives a
negative net beneficial score of -8. This gap may not be a high as indicated in the earlier text -
suggesting that in some cases it is the same people that are negative about different biological
developments, (each person is counted only once for the combinations). <strong>The</strong> highest (positive)
net scores are for: development of new medicines (+56), transplants (+50) and cures/eradication
of illnesses (+42). <strong>The</strong> worst net scores are for: cloning (-55), GM food (-44), Genetic
modification of animals/plants (-27) and, from the physical sciences, space research (-20).
Participants in the workshops were asked what, if anything, are the good things about
biotechnology and what, if anything, are the bad things. <strong>The</strong> following merits were mentioned,
though by relatively small numbers of people:
• production of more food
• cheaper food production
• benefits for the Third World in feeding the population
• a longer food product shelf life
• a longer human life span (though this was not always perceived as a benefit)
• better health/improving the quality of life/cures for diseases
• cloning to prevent extinction and the correction of deformities.
Participants did, of course, have a relatively low level of awareness about the reasons why
biological developments are taking place so it is probably fair to assume that one reason for the
merits (and indeed the drawbacks of biological developments) being mentioned by relatively few
people is that most people lack knowledge about them. However, it is also true to say that many
people were critical of developments in the biosciences, as discussed in the next paragraph.
Many different perceived drawbacks to the biosciences were cited in the workshops, though as
with merits, by relatively small numbers of people. Again, most people felt they lacked
information about the biosciences (which they sorely wanted) and were not therefore able to give
an informed view. <strong>The</strong>y were, however, able to express their concerns very readily as outlined
below:
• about biological developments being unnatural
• interfering with nature
• being of unknown consequence and (said many about cloning in particular), immoral.
Page 44

<strong>The</strong>ir concerns about cloning centred on the danger of creating a ‘super race’ at which point
Hitler was often quoted. Other concerns, mentioned by a handful, were:
• that too much food could be produced
• there could be food shortages if we all live longer
• crops could become resistant to pesticides, leading to more pesticides being used and therefore
more pollution
• soil erosion could develop from having monoculture agriculture/lack of biodiversity
• one or two people in every workshop referred to biological warfare and Saddam Hussein
• it was felt that cloning could result in population growth
• some concern was expressed about what to do with cloning ‘mistakes’. Concern was also
expressed both about who is paying/would pay for these developments, and who is making the
profit on them, at the end of the day.
Other points mentioned in the qualitative phase as arising from biological developments (but not
cited as being either positive or negative) are: that family/personal DNA testing results could be
used by insurance companies and that the development of the biosciences will lead to more
farming and medical regulation.
Turning to sub-groups from the quantitative phase, women are more likely than men to name one
or more of the biological developments as being beneficial to society (65% men, 76% women) but
they are also more likely to select a biological development as not being beneficial to society
(77% men, 82% women). This is largely because women were significantly more likely to cite
genetic testing/screening, transplants and cures for illnesses as being beneficial to society, but they
were also significantly more likely than men to say that GM food is not beneficial to society.
Other slight, though not significant, differences can be seen for cloning and genetic modification of
animals and plants - where women were a little more critical.
Page 45

Q4 On this card is a list of various scientific developments. Which two or three would you
Page 46
say have been beneficial for society as far as you are aware?
Q5 And which two or three would you say have not been beneficial for society, as far as
you are aware?
Q4 Q5 Net
Beneficial Not Beneficial
Beneficial Score
% % ±%
Medicines/New drugs/Penicillin/Antibiotics/
Vaccines etc
57 1 +56
Transplants eg of heart, liver, kidneys etc 51 1 +50
Cures for or eradication of illnesses/diseases 43 1 +42
New operations/Surgery 31 * +31
Computers/<strong>The</strong> Internet/Email 28 4 +24
Genetic testing or screening for particular
things, eg diseases
24 2 +22
Discovering global warming/Climate Change/
Disruption to weather patterns/Greenhouse
Effect
19 6 +13
New and alternative sources of energy 17 4 +13
New telecommunications (fax machine/ mobile
phone/TV)
14 5 +9
Test-tube babies/In-vitro fertilisation 11 9 +2
Faster/cheaper travel 6 16 -10
Splitting the atom 4 20 -16
Robots in industry and medicine 3 18 -15
Cloning/Dolly the sheep 2 57 -55
Space Research/Sending people to the moon 2 25 -20
Genetic modification/engineering of animals
and plants
1 28 -27
Genetically modified food 1 45 -44
Other * *
No, none spring to mind * 5
Don’t know * 1
Base: All (1,109)

Q4 On this card is a list of various scientific developments. Which two or three would you say
have been beneficial for society as far as you are aware?
Q5 And which two or three would you say have not been beneficial for society, as far as
you are aware?
Q4 Q5 Net
Not Beneficial
Beneficial Beneficial Score
Biosciences excluding 'Cures for
or eradication of illness/diseases'
and 'New operations/Surgery'
Biosciences including 'cures for
or eradication of illness/diseases'
and 'New operations/Surgery'
% % %
Non-Biosciences 98 67 +31
71
92
79
80
-8
+12
Page 47

Perceived Reasons Why Particular Biological Developments Are
Taking Place
In the quantitative phase, respondents were asked, without being prompted, why they think three
particular biological developments are taking place: animal cloning (asked of those who said they
had heard of Cloning/Dolly the sheep), Genetic modification/engineering/Genetically modified
food (asked of those who said they had heard of one or more of these) and Transplants of animal
tissues [eg pig tissues] to a human/xenotransplantation (asked of those who had heard of this).
As mentioned earlier, relatively few people in the qualitative phase were able to give reasons as to
why animal cloning is taking place (beyond responses like ‘to see if “they” could’ or ‘to develop
human clones’), though more were able to give a reason why food, if not animals or plants, may
be genetically modified (generally saying to produce more food, for companies to make profit or
to produce larger tomatoes etc. Some said to fight diseases or pests). For xenotransplantation, 13
those few participants with awareness of this development in the qualitative research generally
said this was because there is a shortage of human organs for transplantation.
<strong>The</strong> table overleaf illustrates that in fact, very high proportions of the public in the quantitative
gave reasons why these developments are taking place. Seventy-seven per cent gave one or more
spontaneous reasons why they believe genetic modification, or GM food, is taking place; 68%
gave a reason why they believe animal cloning is taking place and 66% gave a reason why
xenotransplantation is taking place. <strong>The</strong> spontaneous answers were coded into a pre-coded list
and then ‘other’ answers broken out and some new categories formed.
At first sight, these results seem much higher than those found in the qualitative phase. However,
they can perhaps be explained by a number of points (in the case of genetic modification and
xenotransplantations at least. Genetic modification/GM food was covered extensively in the
media throughout the quantitative fieldwork (and, in many cases, reasons were offered for why it
is taking place). This could explain not only why so many people gave a reason for it but also why
over thirty different reasons were given (the pre-coded list contained 24 categories), though many
by very low proportions.
13 <strong>The</strong> transplantation of animal tissues or organs into humans
Page 48

We are not too sure why the public more readily offered reasons why animal cloning is taking
place in the quantitative stage than appeared in the qualitative phase. <strong>The</strong>re was some media
coverage of cloning during the quantitative stage which could have stimulated discussion.
<strong>The</strong> highest reason given for cloning, at 14% of all respondents, was to develop human clones -
also cited in the qualitative stage and among the other highest reasons were: to see if they could
(12%) and to see how far they can go (7%). However, as we will see in a moment, other reasons
were cited and in fact over thirty different reasons were also given for animal cloning taking place
(this pre-coded list also contained 24 categories), though again, many by few people.
Xenotransplantation received the lowest awareness of the three developments, at 72% (though
even this seems high and no doubt the description within the category made people feel they had
heard of this development). By far the most commonly mentioned category was ‘because of a
shortage of human organs/tissues’, cited by 44% of the public as a whole. It is likely that many of
these people were able to give this reason purely by listening to the question wording ‘transplants
of animal tissues… to a human… .’ In other words, it seemed in the qualitative phase as if
relatively few people had heard of this development, but once they have been told about it in many
cases it seems that they are able to surmise the reason why it takes place.
Question Q7b Q7a Q7c
GM/GM
Food
Cloning Xenotransplantation
% % %
Spontaneous awareness (Q1) 14 26 12 1
Total awareness (Q1/Q6) 91 87 72
Gave reason why development
taking place (Q7a/Q7b/Q7c)
‘No particular reason’ why
taking place
77 68 66
1 1 *
Don’t know why taking place 13 18 6
Not heard of development 9 13 28
Base: All respondents (1,109)
<strong>The</strong> tables overleaf (for Q7a, Q7b and Q7c) each show two columns’ worth of data. <strong>The</strong> first
column bases the responses on those who said they had heard of that development at Q1 or Q6,
while the second column re-percentages these figures to base them on all respondents (which is
why the percentages for each answer category are lower).
14 Asked about in the broad context of ‘major scientific discoveries or developments’
Page 49

Perceived Reasons For Genetic Modification/GM Food
<strong>The</strong> most common reason given for genetic modification or genetic modification of food is ‘to
produce more food/have high yields/boost agriculture’ (27% of the public), which is followed by
22% saying ‘companies want to make money /have profit’. Producing larger/nicer/tastier
plants/fruits eg tomatoes (the focus of quite a lot of the media coverage) came third with 19%,
with ‘resistance of diseases/fighting pests’ coming fourth with 17%. ‘To have cheaper food’
comes fifth with 15%, followed by ‘to lengthen the shelf life of foods’ with 14%. ‘To eradicate,
treat or understand diseases/cancer etc follows with 10% and then ‘To feed the Third
World/Africa/Asia etc’ comes next with 9%.
By combining certain categories and excluding the overlap we can see that 65% of the public gave
a reason for GM/GM food that related to agriculture (having cheaper food, lengthening shelf life,
making new foods, producing larger/nicer/tastier foods, producing more food/high yields, resisting
diseases/fighting pests, making food safer, feeding the Third World, making plants withstand
extreme temperatures/drought/poor soils, reducing the use of pesticides and producing more
nutritious food/healthier food/added vitamins; adding in ‘appearance/making food look better’ still
keeps the percentage at 65%). Ten per cent gave a reason that related to human health - though
arguably a number of the agriculture reasons also relate to human health, but they were not
included (removing allergic substances and eradicating, treating or understanding diseases/cancer
etc).
<strong>The</strong> male/female sub-group difference at this question is interesting. Men are more likely than
women to give a reason for genetic modification/GM food (83% of all men v 72% of all women -
this is partly explained by the fact that men are more likely to have heard of this development,
because these percentages are based on all respondents) yet women were more likely to say that
GM food is not beneficial to society). <strong>The</strong> following are also more likely to give a reason: 45-54s
(87%), ABs (91%, which then falls with descending social class to 71% of DEs), and (a difference
which is almost significant) those in rural areas (77% in urban areas v 84% in rural areas).
Page 50

In particular, men are more likely to mention producing more food/high yields (31% versus 24%
for women), as are the 45-54s (42%) and ABC1s (33%). However, the group that said they do
not trust Governments to provide them with honest and balanced information about biological
developments and their regulation at a subsequent question 15 was also significantly more likely to
say that a reason for genetic modification/GM food is to produce more foods/have high
yields/boost agriculture (21% for the ‘trust’ group, 28% for the ‘not trust’ group). This group is
also more likely to say that a reason for GM/GM food is to have cheaper food (11% versus 17%).
Men are also more likely than women to say ‘Companies want to make profit’ (26% v 18%), as
are the 45-54 year olds (27%) and ABC1s (27%). ‘To feed the Third World’ was also more often
cited by men than women (12% v 6%).
<strong>The</strong> following comments from the qualitative research illustrate that while some participants were
able to give a range of reasons why they thought genetic modification or GM food was happening,
they felt unsure about the motives behind it:
15 Q25; 39% of the public.
I really would like to do the food production stuff because I am not
sure whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing. I am not sure
whether it’s motivated by profit or whether it’s motivated by, you
know, good reasons to get more food or a wider range in food. I
am not sure what the ethics behind the modified crops stuff is
Woman, Belfast
You see, the cloning of food. I mean, that’s done for a variety of
reasons. <strong>The</strong>y’re genetically modifying food so that, for example,
things which will not grow in Third World countries where they’re
starving, they’re genetically modifying them so that they will grow,
so that the people that are starving will actually be able to grow a
crop of food. But the problem is they’re also genetically modifying
so that normal plants which you could grow here like say, wheat
will produce a heavier crop and that’s done for commercial
purposes so they will make more money out of it. So it’s never
actually black and white. <strong>The</strong>re’s always a grey area
Belfast
I think we haven’t got enough information on it. I think anything
that’s genetically engineered or irradiated - it should say so on the
package, which we don’t have
Man, Stirling
Page 51

Page 52
<strong>The</strong> problem with genetic modification is you don’t get your
variation; there’s no variation involved. Lack of variation in any
species leads to that species being wiped out; scientifically proven
fact
Belfast
Other key points to emerge from the workshops are that during the sessions on ‘Plants and
Microbes’ (see appendices for topic guide and separate volume for stimulus materials) there were
discussions (led by the moderators) about plant breeding and how plant breeding with genetic
modification is faster than plant breeding without it. Various handouts/showcards showed how
plants can be genetically modified and discussed the fact that genes are present in all living
organisms and all types of food - genetically modified, unmodified, organic. It was at this point
that it became apparent that some respondents were completely unaware that we currently eat
genes. Clearly, with the public calling for more information about the biosciences and their
regulation a critical point is not only that information should be clear, impartial and balanced, but
that it must be developed with an understanding of where people’s initial knowledge levels are.
Further points from the qualitative phase are: that initial attitudes towards genetic modification of
plants/(microbes) were negative, but softened during the sessions where they were debated; the
use of microbial or plant genes in plants was positively received by some (but against a backdrop
of very low awareness). However, the idea of using animal or human genes in any plants people
might eat was not generally considered acceptable. Participants felt that all developments were at
too early a stage for them to feel secure about the long-term effects (good or bad) of genetic
modification. With respect to information and regulation, a number of respondents felt that a
kitemark label on food/food products would instil trust and confidence that the regulatory system
was being properly controlled. <strong>The</strong>re was comment by some that genetic modification needs ‘to
be better policed’ (discussed in more detail later); and a few respondents wondered whether
GMOs could come under the jurisdiction of <strong>The</strong> Food Standards Agency.

Q7b You mentioned ...... (Genetic modification/engineering/Genetically modified food),
could you tell me the reasons why you think ...... is taking place? If you don’t know,
please just say ‘don’t know’
Base: All those who have heard of Genetic modification/engineering/
genetically modified food (1,024)
% %
Base:All
(1,109)
To produce more food/high yields/boost agriculture 30 27
Companies want to make money/have profit 24 22
To produce larger/nicer/tastier plants/fruits eg tomatoes 21 19
To resist diseases/fight pests 19 17
To have cheaper food 16 15
To lengthen the shelf life of foods 15 14
To eradicate, treat or understand diseases/cancer etc 11 10
To feed the Third World/Africa/Asia etc 10 9
No particular reason 1 1
Don't know 14 13
Not heard of GM/engineering/Genetically modified food N/A 9
Combination Percentage Mentions
%
Any mention of a reason 77
Human Health 10
Agriculture 65
Agriculture/appearance of food 65
Base: All (1,109)
Page 53

Perceived Reasons For Animal Cloning
<strong>The</strong> proportions giving various reasons why cloning is taking place tended to be lower than for
genetic modification/GM food - reflecting the fact that participants in the qualitative phase were
unsure why animal cloning is taking place and feel they know ‘nothing’ about what is happening in
this area because they have been given so little information. <strong>The</strong>re was also some feeling in the
workshops that the Government is not in control of cloning developments or that they may not
even know what is going on themselves. Some said that cloning decisions were being made by
companies, not Government.
<strong>The</strong> following groups were most inclined to give a reason for cloning: men (76%), 45-54s (80%)
and ABC1s (81%, falling markedly to 44% among DEs. <strong>The</strong> most common reason given for the
cloning of animals was to develop human clones, clearly something that made people feel
apprehensive in the qualitative phase and as mentioned, something they felt was immoral.
Participants also felt it is easier to see the benefits of say, open heart surgery than it is for cloning.
This clearly suggests that any forthcoming communications materials should clearly lay out the
reasons why cloning is taking place:
Page 54
It is easier to see the benefit of open heart surgery than it is to see
the benefit of cloning. I can see the point in cloning endangered
species or something like that, but it is just the bad seems to
outweigh the good in a way, because it is so worrying what it could
be used for as to the benefit that it could bring
Woman, Cardiff
I’ve seen it on <strong>The</strong> Question Time a few weeks ago, and it was on
cloning and because cloning is new, it’s almost the same sort of
ways that the internet - because it’s so new, it’s not being properly
regulated. It’s just being allowed to - and that’s what they’re
trying to do now, there’s things like how you can start regulating
Man, Stirling
How many mutations has <strong>The</strong> Rosslyn Institute generated by trying
to get this clone?
Man, Stirling

Has anybody ever seen anything that cloning is going to be
beneficial to people? What are going to be the benefits to people?
Nobody’s ever come up to say that cloning is a good idea because
we can do this, do that. <strong>The</strong>re is no information on that at all. So,
if that is the case and they can’t come up with benefits for the
human species, why are they following that road if it’s not
beneficial at all and they’re putting millions of pounds into it?
<strong>The</strong>re must be an ulterior motive behind it, which can only be
subversive for whatever way you want to look at it
Man, Stirling
<strong>The</strong> second highest reason for animal cloning mentioned was ‘To get the perfect animal’ (13%),
followed by ‘To see if they could/To prove a point’ (12%) and then ‘To create more animals for
transplantation of their organs or tissues into humans’ (11%, reflecting the fact that a few people
mentioned this in the qualitative phase). This last reason was far more often mentioned by those
with children aged 0-5 in the household (19%). It was also more often mentioned by those aged
16-54 (14%) than those aged 55+ (5%).
Looking at the combinations of answer categories and excluding the overlap, we can see that 23%
of the public cited a human health reason (ie one or more from ‘To create more animals for
transplantation of their organs or tissue into humans, To develop new medicines/drugs, To
develop tissue/cultures, To make animals/humans immune to disease/eradicate disease/stop
inherited diseases, Spare part surgery) and 17% cited agriculture as a reason for cloning (ie one or
more from ‘To develop techniques for reproducing animals/farming’, ‘To produce genetically
modified food/perfect food’, ‘To produce more food’, and ‘To provide cheaper food/cheaper
products for the consumer’). Men were more likely than women to cite human health as a reason
(25% v 20%). Men were not, however, significantly more likely than women to mention any of
the responses related to agriculture (18% v 17%).
Other points made about cloning in the qualitative phase were:
• that treatment of animals was a concern (to some, with some seeing this development as
exploitation of animals)
• this area of research should not be a priority (though it is fair to say that in some cases this is
because the link with human health was not obvious)
• a number of people felt that where cloning was concerned, regulation and control would have
to cover a wider area than the UK
• the religious perspective would need to be considered given the different status accorded to
animals by different religious groups.
Page 55

• companies should not be allowed to influence the debate
• profits should be controlled
• developments should be monitored
• there should be adequate penalties for those caught infringing the regulations on cloning
• that reporting of cloning experiments should be honest, credible and unbiased (with early
information that these experiments are taking place and the reasons why they are)
• that the length of time taken for clones to be produced should be considered
• that public opinion on cloning should be considered.
Page 56

Q7a You mentioned .......... (cloning/Dolly the sheep), could you tell me the reasons why you
think animal cloning is taking place? If you don’t know, please just say ‘don’t know’.
% %
Base: All those who have heard of cloning/dolly the sheep (987) Base: All
(1,109)
To develop human clones/ reproduce humans/Any
mention of human cloning
16 14
To get the perfect animal 15 13
To see if they could/To prove a point/Science trying to
achieve what nobody else has
14 12
To create more animals for transplantation of their organs
or tissues, into humans
12 11
To make animals/humans immune to disease/eradicate
disease/stop inherited diseases
11 10
To produce the best characteristics 9 8
Produce more food 9 8
To advance our understanding of science/
9 8
research/biology
To develop techniques for reproducing animals/farming 8 7
To see how far they can go 8 7
To produce genetically modified food/perfect food 6 5
Companies want to make money/have profit 6 5
Messing about with nature 6 5
No particular reason 1 1
Don't know 20 18
Never heard of cloning N/A 13
Combination Percentage Mentions
%
Any mention of a reason 68
Human Health 23
Agriculture 17
Base: All (1,109)
Page 57

Perceived Reasons For Transplants Of Animal Tissues To A
Human/Xenotransplantation
As mentioned earlier, the main reason cited by the public for xenotransplantation was ‘Because
there is a shortage of human organs/tissues’ (44%). No other reason was mentioned by more than
10% (two categories) and these responses were anyway related to the highest mention: ‘To see if
it’s compatible with humans’ (10%) and ‘To save lives’ (10%). In a sense though,
xenotransplantation is one of the biological developments that is easier to understand (whether or
not the public agrees with it, which is a different issue) - given that human transplants have been
taking place for around thirty years and animals are used for food and in various products,
including medicines like insulin. Cloning, on the other hand, does not have a forerunner with
which it can be compared and while plant and animal breeding has been taking place for years,
many people did not make the link between this and genetic modification. <strong>The</strong>y also often
expressed concerns about genetic modification because it seemed unnatural and some, in the
aftermath of BSE and other food scares, voiced concern about altering the food chain.
A number of issues were raised in the workshops about xenotransplantation, particularly in the
sessions which were dedicated to this topic (on the afternoon of Day 1). While stimulus materials
in the form of handouts and showcards were used to create debate, in fact many of the issues were
raised spontaneously by participants as the discussion unfolded, and before that particular
handout/showcard was passed around for comment.
Generally speaking, the idea of xenotransplantation received a warm response in the qualitative
phase. <strong>The</strong> following issues were raised in relation to it:
• that people may have no choice about having an animal organ or tissue/ it would depend on the
circumstances/their need might dictate that they have an animal organ
• queries were raised about whether for example, a pig’s heart would be rejected by a human
(but some then said rejection happens with human transplants anyway)
• whether disease could occur in humans that the pig had been resistant to but had passed to the
human
• some participants wondered how long a pig’s life was and whether the organ would wear out;
several commented on the long waiting lists for human organs and said that human donation
should be promoted
• some people said they could not accept an animal organ - either for animal welfare reasons
(saying that it may be morally/ethically easier to accept a culture than to kill an animal) or
because they felt they might not be ‘totally human’ if they had an animal organ inside them
Page 58

• concern was also expressed by some participants that people of certain religious denominations
would not be happy with pig tissues or organs (notably Jews and Muslims)
• some expressed concerns that vegetarians and particularly vegans might also not want a
xenotransplantation
• another point raised was that if we could grow artificial cultures of skin and other tissues, the
NHS bill would be lower
Page 59

Q7c You mentioned ...... (transplants of animal tissues [eg pig tissues] to a
human/xenotransplantation) could you tell me the reasons why you think ...... is
taking place? If you don’t know, please just say ‘don’t know’.
Page 60
Base: All those who have heard of ‘transplants of animal tissues (eg pig
tissues) to human/ xenotransplantation’ (831)
% %
Base:All
(1,109)
Because of a shortage of human organs/tissues 61 44
To see if it’s compatible with humans 14 10
To save lives 14 10
Because animal organs are the right size/similar size to
9 6
humans
Better to use animal organs than humans 9 6
A method of extending life 8 6
To benefit mankind 7 5
To see if they could/To prove a point/Science trying to
6 4
achieve what nobody else has
A cheaper method of extending life 5 4
To advance our understanding of science/research/biology 5 4
To see how far they can go 4 3
No particular reason * *
Don't know 8 6
Never heard of transplants of animal tissues to humans/
xenotransplantation
N/A 28
Combination Percentage Mentions
%
Any mention of a reason 66
Human Health 61
Base: All (1,109)

THREE
EXTENT OF PEOPLE’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE OVERSIGHT
AND REGULATORY PROCESS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Page 61

Importance Of Rules And Regulations To Control Biological
Developments And Scientific Research
<strong>The</strong> vast majority of the public (97%) believes that it is important that there are rules and
regulations in place to control biological developments and scientific research and as many as 88%
believe this is very important. In MORI’s experience, to have over 30% saying something is very
important does indeed represent a high figure. <strong>The</strong>se findings very much reflect people’s views in
the qualitative phase.
Q8 Here is the card I showed you earlier with various recent developments in biology on it.
Page 62
How important would you say it is that there are rules and regulations in place to
control biological developments and scientific research? Would you say controls are ...
Base: All (1,109)
%
Very important 88
Fairly important 9
Not very important 1
Not at all important *
Don't know/not sure 1
97%
2%

Reasons for Rating of Importance
Respondents were asked to say, in their own words, why they felt the way they did. <strong>The</strong> main
reason why people believe rules and regulations are important is because of the possibility that
things could ‘go too far’ or ‘get out of hand’. One in five mentioned this, followed by one in ten
expressing caution about the possible long-term effects or/and saying that these developments are
potentially dangerous. Almost as many said ‘you can’t trust scientists’, ‘they get carried away’
or/and 'are naturally inquisitive', or and that 'without regulations, people would play God'.
Page 63

Q9. Why do you say that?
Page 64
Top mentions %
If we are not careful it can go too far/get out of hand 21
We do not know the long-term effects/what will
happen in the long run
It is potentially dangerous/Damaging/Disastrous 10
You cannot trust scientists/Scientists get carried away/
are naturally inquisitive
Otherwise people will play God/run riot/test anything/
everything/have a free hand
It is open to abuse 8
<strong>The</strong>re has to be standards/procedures followed 8
<strong>The</strong>re are always people waiting to take advantage 7
We must protect human life/Nothing should be done
to harm human beings
Things can go wrong/haywire 7
I object to cloning/To stop cloning/Concerned about
cloning
We should not interfere with nature 7
Ethical reasons 6
Should not be done for financial gain/Companies know
there is big money to be made
To keep control of the situation 6
<strong>The</strong>y could produce freaks/aliens 5
We need safety measures/safeguards 5
So we can see what is going on 5
<strong>The</strong>y affect people’s health/cause diseases/ BSE 5
We are not told enough/Not open/Too much behind
closed doors
Our food/Food chains should be protected/Stop
people messing about with our food
Don’t know 1
Base: All (1,109)
10
9
9
7
7
6
4
4

Perceived Degree Of Control About Rules And Regulations On
Biological Developments And Scientific Research
On balance, people feel there is too little regulation to control biological developments and
scientific research, but this view is by no means expressed by a large majority of the public.
Approaching four in ten (38%) say there is too little regulation, but 28% say there is about the
right amount and 3% that there is too much. Reflecting findings from the workshops, as many as
three in ten said they really didn’t know - quite a high proportion for a ‘don’t know' category.
Indeed, because so many people in the qualitative phase said they didn’t know much about
regulation, MORI’s interviewers specifically read out the ‘don’t know' category to respondents
(which is unusual) as well as the other three categories.
Those aged 45+ (48%) and ABC1s (43%) are the most likely to say that there is too little
regulation, and these groups tended to be more aware of the various developments in the
biosciences. Those in rural areas tended to say there is too little (41%) rather than about the right
amount (17%) of regulation. <strong>The</strong> respective figures for those in urban areas were (38%) and
(29%). So, those in urban areas were still more likely to say there is too little regulation than
about the right amount but the difference in the two response categories of theirs is not as
apparent.
In contrast, the following groups were significantly more inclined to say that there is about the
right amount of regulation: those aged 16-34 (34%) and those with children under 15 in the
household (35%). <strong>The</strong> group that said at a subsequent question that they trusted Governments to
provide them with honest and balanced information about biological developments and their
regulation (19%), were significantly more likely than average to say that they had been given
about the right amount of information (42%, against average of 28%), as were the group who
trusted Governments to make decisions on their behalf on the regulation of the biosciences (this
group represents 35% of the public and the proportion that said there is about the right amount of
information was 34%, against an average of 28%.
However, the groups that said they did not trust Governments on biosciences information (39%)
or regulation (43%) were significantly more likely to say there is too little regulation of biological
developments and scientific research (46% and 47% of these groups, against an average of 38%).
Page 65

Q10 And thinking again about rules and regulations to control biological developments and
Page 66
scientific research in general, would you say .... (there is too much regulatory control,
too little, about the right amount) or don’t you know?
Base: All (1,109)
Too much 3
About right amount 28
Too little 38
%
Don’t know 31

Degree of Confidence That Rules And Regulations Are Keeping Pace
With Biological Developments And Scientific Research
Despite the fact that on balance, most people felt there is too little control over the regulation of
biological developments and scientific research, most people (71%) have at least a little
confidence that rules and regulations in this area are keeping pace with biological developments
and scientific research. However, just 2% have a great deal of confidence. Thirty-one per cent
have a fair amount and 39% a little.
Looking at the 32% 16 who said they have a ‘great deal’ or a ‘fair amount’ of confidence, we can
see that the 55-64s (41%) and ABs (40%) are the most likely to say they have confidence that
rules are keeping pace with developments - and ABs in particular were more inclined to be aware
of various developments.
Turning to the 56% who said they have ‘a little’ or ‘no confidence at all’ that rules and regulations
are keeping pace, we can see that this increases among men (59%), 16-24s (63%), C1s (64%) and
those living in rural areas (64%).
<strong>The</strong>se figure have to be considered against the background of a self-reported low level of
knowledge regarding the regulatory process.
16 <strong>The</strong> sum of 2% (‘Great deal’) and 31% (‘Fair amount’) comes to 32%, not 33%, because the 2% and the 31%
had been computer rounded.
Page 67

Q11a How much confidence do you have that rules and regulations are keeping pace with
Base: All (1,109)
Page 68
biological developments and scientific research? Would you say you have.... (a great
deal of confidence, a fair amount, a little, none at all) or don’t you know?
%
A great deal 2
A fair amount 31
A little 39
None at all 17 56%
Don’t know 11
32% 71%

Involvement In Making Decisions In <strong>The</strong> Regulation Of
<strong>The</strong> Biosciences
Most people (63%) spontaneously mention ‘Government’ or Governments’ when asked who they
think is currently involved in making decisions in the regulation of the biological sciences. This is
followed, but some way behind, by mention of scientists (23%). No other type of institution or
group of people was mentioned by more than 12% - and this mention was for an Advisory Body
to Government, composed of experts, followed by 'industry' or ‘manufacturers’ with 8% (both
were words used to describe industry in the workshops).
<strong>The</strong> above findings mirror what came out of the qualitative research. If people were able to give a
response, ‘Government’ was generally mentioned pretty soon after the question was asked in the
workshops. This was then often followed with a pause before some people said ‘scientists’, and
occasionally people mentioned 'the experts' or industry. <strong>The</strong> fact that 18% in the quantitative
stage said they did not know who is currently involved in making decisions about regulating the
biosciences also reflects the qualitative findings - some people remained quiet in the workshops
when the groups were asked, or said they didn’t know.
However, even when the 18% who did not know who is involved in regulation are taken into
account, the 63% saying ‘Government/Governments’ seems low. It means that 19% mentioned
someone other than Government/Governments as being involved in regulation, and did not also
mention 'Government/Governments'.
When respondents were then presented with a list of eighteen different institutions and types of
people and asked who is currently involved in making decisions about regulation of the biological
sciences, the figure for Governments increased to 83% (though this still seems low given that only
2% said ‘don’t know’ after prompting with a list). Scientists came second with 70% - much
closer behind Governments after people were shown a list, and then ‘An Advisory Body to
Government, composed of experts’ (62%, more often mentioned by 35-54s [70%] and ABC1s [
77%]). This was thirty points ahead of the other mention of ‘Advisory Body’ on the list - ‘An
Advisory Body to Government, composed of people representing different viewpoints’ (32%,
increasing to 41% among the 35-44s and 40% among ABs). Industry/manufacturers, which had
been barely mentioned at the spontaneous question or in the workshops, was mentioned by 38%
after prompting - and more often by men (44%) and ABC1s (49%).
Page 69

Environmental groups, mentioned by just 2% spontaneously, were cited by 33% after prompting.
Some people in the qualitative phase said that it is not that environmental groups are actually
involved, but rather that they play an important role in ‘being there’ or ‘playing a policing role’.
One person in Reading said environmental groups ‘sit in a void and have a futuristic goal’. One or
two made negative references to tree dwellers and specific green organisations but in the main
they were very positive about the role of environmental groups. <strong>The</strong> 35-44 (40%) are more likely
to mention environmental groups at this question.
Other groups of people mentioned by between 15% and 20% were: hospital doctors (23%),
pharmacists/chemists (20%), consumer groups (20%), animal welfare groups (19%), GPs/Family
doctors (19%), farmers (16%) and the media (15%). In the qualitative phase, some people said
the word ‘involvement’ did not actually describe what the media did. <strong>The</strong>y elaborated by saying
‘they influence the debate’ and ‘each paper puts its own particular spin on it, after reporting the
facts’. However, they mentioned that the media plays an important role in communication.
<strong>The</strong> general public, mentioned by just one per cent spontaneously, was cited by ten per cent after
prompting. DEs, at 15%, were more likely to say the general public. Religious organisations
were also mentioned by 10% after respondents were shown the list (compared with 1%
spontaneously). Men were more likely to mention religious organisations as currently being
involved (12%, v 8% for women).
Respondents were then asked to look at the same list and say which, if any, they felt should be
involved in making decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences. <strong>The</strong>
pattern which emerges is far flatter than for ‘currently involved’, with many more groups receiving
higher mentions and the figures for Governments and scientists - the top two mentions previously
- falling considerably.
As one respondent put it:
Page 70
I think we should definitely have a balance between who we are actually listening to.
That’s what I’m trying to say. I think maybe we’re listening too much to the scientists,
too much to the genetic engineers and too much to the doctors
Man, Stirling

<strong>The</strong> biggest falls can be seen for: Governments (-42; ie there has been a fall of 42 points in the
proportion saying Governments should be involved, compared with those saying they are currently
involved), scientists (-23), industry/manufacturers (-22) and An Advisory Body to Government,
composed of experts (-17).
<strong>The</strong> largest increases can be seen for: the general public (+36; ie there has been an increase of 36
points in the proportion who feel the general public should be involved, compared with those
saying they are currently involved), GPs/Family doctors (+18), an Advisory Body to Government,
composed of people representing different viewpoints (+16), patients (+15) and hospital doctors
(+13).
As two respondents said in their workshop, about general public involvement, on being told by the
moderator that MORI's report would be provided to Government:
Moderator: At the end of April, we will provide our MORI report to the
Government
Man, Reading: What we said could be important really, couldn’t it?
Another Man, Reading: I hope so. Are they going to look at the report, (say) ‘the public don’t
like it, ah well we will carry on, let’s go anyway’. Or, ‘the public like
it, thank God for that, we made the right decision’
Another Moderator <strong>The</strong> decisions haven’t been made
<strong>The</strong> actual figures can be seen in the table opposite, for the highest mentioned categories at these
questions. Now, six different organisations/groups of people are mentioned by between 40% and
48%, with the highest mention being for An Advisory Body to Government, composed of people
representing different viewpoints (48%), followed closely by scientists (47%, previously the
second most mentioned, after Governments), the general public (46%), An Advisory Body to
Government composed of experts (45%), then Governments (41%, previously the most
mentioned) and environmental groups (40%).
Page 71

Q13. Who, if anyone, would you say is currently involved in making decisions in the
Page 72
regulation of the biological sciences?
Q14. And which, if any, of the following types of people or organisations that you
may not have mentioned earlier would you say is currently involved in making
decisions on your behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences?
Q15. And which, if any, of the following types of people should be involved in
making decisions on your behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences?
Q13 Q13/14 Q15
Currently
involved
(Spontaneous)
Currently
involved
(Spontaneous
Should be
involved
Should -
Currently
%
+ Prompted)
% % +
Governments 63 83 41 -42
Scientists 23 70 47 -23
An Advisory Body to
Government, composed of
experts
12 62 45 -17
Industry/manufacturers 8 38 16 -22
Environmental Groups 2 33 40 +7
An Advisory Body to
Government, composed of
people representing
different viewpoints
5 32 48 +16
Hospital Doctors 5 23 36 +13
Consumer Groups 1 20 31 +11
Pharmacists/Chemists 2 20 22 +2
Animal Welfare Groups 1 19 26 +7
GPs/Family Doctors 4 19 37 +18
Farmers 1 16 17 +1
<strong>The</strong> Media 1 15 11 -4
Vets 1 12 17 +5
Retailers 1 11 7 -4
<strong>The</strong> General <strong>Public</strong> 1 10 46 +36
Religious organisations 1 10 12 +2
Sociologists * 10 12 +2
Nurses 1 4 10 +6
Patients * 4 19 +15
Base: All (1,109)

As one might expect, different sub-groups of the population tend to select different groups to be
involved. So, for example, those aged 25-34 (58%), and to a lesser extent the 35-54s are the
most inclined to want involvement from An Advisory Body to Government, composed of people
representing different viewpoints. ABs (64%) and to a lesser extent C1s (53%) are also more
likely to give this response.
Those most likely to select scientists are the 25-44s (53%), ABC1s (54%) and those in rural areas
(54%, though this is not quite significant). <strong>The</strong> general public is more often selected by women
than men (51% v 41%), the 16-24s (62%), C1s (53%) and those with children in the household
aged under 15 (52%). An Advisory Body to Government, composed of experts is more often
chosen by men (49%) and the 25-54s (52%). Governments were more often selected by the 25-
34s (50%). Environmental groups were more often selected by those aged 35-54 (46%) and the
16-24s (45%), C1s (50%) and those in rural areas (50%).
Page 73

Trust In People / Institutions
Reflecting MORI’s work for well over a decade in the area of trust, the public’s trust in
GPs/Family doctors is high. Seventy-one per cent of the public said they would trust GPs/Family
doctors to make decisions on their behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences. Just 13 %
said they would not trust GPs in this regard, with the remainder undecided. <strong>The</strong> ‘net trust’ figure
is therefore +58. <strong>The</strong> other groups with positive ‘net trust’ figures are: hospital doctors (+56), an
Advisory Body to Government, composed of different viewpoints (+53), an Advisory Body to
Government, composed of experts (+43), pharmacists/chemists (+36), environmental groups
(+35), nurses (+34), vets (+32), scientists (+29) and consumer groups (+22).
Groups with particularly large negative ‘net trust’ figures to make decisions on regulating the
biosciences are: retailers (-61), industry/manufacturers (-59), the media (-57), religious
organisations (-29) and farmers (-24). In the qualitative phase, more negative comment emerged
about industry (usually pharmaceutical and chemical companies) than about retailers specifically.
Most people’s did not spontaneously think that retailers had an involvement. Many people said
they did not trust the media because of the ‘spin’ they put on things, but as mentioned earlier, they
acknowledged that they play a very important role in communicating. A few, though not many
people, in the qualitative phase spontaneously mentioned farmers as being involved in biological
developments. This was often though not always followed by negative comment -about how
farmers were receiving large EU subsidies, did not follow environmentally-friendly practices,
or/and were in some cases large wealthy landowners, not small ‘hands-on’ farmers.
Trust in ‘Governments’ to make decisions on ‘your’ behalf in the regulation of the biological
sciences is fairly evenly split, although on balance more people say they do not trust Governments
(43%) than say they do (35%). <strong>The</strong> remaining 23% said ‘don’t know’. <strong>The</strong> -8 ‘net trust' figure
varies quite a bit by sub-group, with the more negative net trust scores being seen for women (-
11), 55-64s in particular (-23), C2s (-19) and those in rural areas (-14). <strong>The</strong> net trust score for
Governments among those aged 16-24 is particularly positive at +14, but represents the only
demographic group analysed where ‘trust’ outweighs ‘not trust’ (43% v 29%).
Page 74

Q13. Who, if anyone, would you say is currently involved in making decisions in the regulation of the
biological sciences? (Spontaneous)
Q14. And which, if any, of the following types of people or organisations that you may not have
mentioned earlier would you say is currently involved in making decisions on your behalf in the
regulation of the biological sciences?
Q15. And which, if any, of the following types of people should be involved in making decisions on
your behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences?
Q16. And for each of these types of people or institutions, would you tell me whether you trust them
or not, to make decisions on your behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences?
Q13 Q13/Q14 Q15 Q16
Currently
involved
Spontaneous
Currently
involved
Spontaneous
prompted
Should
be
involved
prompted
Trust Not
trust
Don’t
know
Net
Trust
% % % % % % +%
GPs/Family doctors 4 19 37 71 13 16 +58
Hospital doctors 5 23 36 69 13 18 +56
Environmental Groups 2 33 40 56 21 23 +35
Pharmacists/Chemists 2 20 22 56 20 24 +36
Scientists 23 70 47 55 26 19 +29
Vets 1 12 17 54 22 24 +32
Nurses 1 4 10 54 20 26 +34
Consumer groups 1 20 31 48 26 27 +22
<strong>The</strong> General <strong>Public</strong> 1 10 46 43 30 27 +13
Governments 63 83 41 35 43 23 -8
Animal welfare groups 1 19 26 35 38 27 -31
Patients * 4 19 35 32 33 +3
Sociologists * 10 12 27 36 37 -9
Farmers 1 16 17 26 50 24 -24
Religious organisations 1 10 12 22 51 27 -29
<strong>The</strong> Media 1 15 11 12 69 20 -57
Industry/Manufacturers 8 38 16 11 70 19 -59
Retailers
An Advisory Body to
Government, composed of
1 11 7 9 70 21 -61
experts
An Advisory Body to
Government, composed of
people representing
different viewpoints
No-one/None of these 1 0 *
Don’t know 18 2 1
Base: All (1,109)
12
5
62
32
45
48
62
66
19
13
19
21
+43
+53
Page 75

Page 76
FOUR
WHAT ISSUES DO PEOPLE BELIEVE SHOULD BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT IN ANY OVERSIGHT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN
THE BIOSCIENCES?

Issues People Believe Should Be Taken Into Account In Any Oversight
Of Bioscience Developments
<strong>The</strong> words ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ came up spontaneously in every workshop location when
discussing various developments in the biosciences. People often had difficulty defining exactly
what they meant by ethics, but they tended to either say ‘it’s the difference between right and
wrong’ or ‘everyone has their own ethics’.
<strong>The</strong> primary issues for the public when taking into consideration whether a biological development
is right or wrong, is whether in fact it will benefit people and was safe to use. Other
considerations are whether it interfered with nature and whether animals would be harmed. <strong>The</strong>
highest spontaneous mention at this question was 33% for ‘whether it would help people/be
beneficial’, something that emerged very strongly in the workshops. This was followed with
‘whether it harmed people’ (29%) and then, something that was in fact implicit in the question,
‘ethics/morals/whether it was right or wrong’ (22%). 17 Another aspect of ‘people protection’ is
whether the particular development ‘had been tested properly/was safe’. This was mentioned by
20% spontaneously, echoing sentiments from the qualitative phase. A similar proportion
mentioned benefits and risks in their response and said ‘whether the benefits outweighed the risks’
(19%). Sixteen per cent mentioned ‘whether animals would be harmed’ and/or ‘whether it
interfered with nature’. Just over one in ten said they would consider future generations in taking
into account whether a particular development was right or wrong, and a similar proportion (9%)
said whether it was controllable/well regulated. Relatively few people mentioned cost or whether
it was worth the money being spent on it (5%) perhaps fewer than in the qualitative phase - but
this could be that the benefit to people and safety are so important that cost becomes a secondary
consideration.
It is interesting to note that the vast majority of the public (82%) gave a response to this
spontaneous question - an indication of the degree of thought that they gave to the issue, one
which is indeed complex. Participants in the workshops acknowledged its complexity, said they
did not know a lot about the detail, but also expressed a desire to know much more about it.
17 Even though ethics/morals was what this question was essentially testing, this category was added to the
questionnaire following the pilot, because it came up fairly often under ‘other’.
Page 77

Q12 Now thinking about biological developments again, what things, if any, do you think
Page 78
you would personally take into account if you were deciding whether a particular
development was right or wrong?
Total Mentions
%
Whether it would help people/ be
beneficial
33
Whether it harmed people
Ethics/Morals/Whether it was right or
wrong/whether it was for the general
29
good
Whether it had been tested properly/was
22
safe
20
Whether the benefits outweighed the risks 19
Whether it had side-effects 17
Whether it interfered with nature 16
Whether animals would be harmed 16
Consideration for future generations 10
Whether it was controllable/well regulated 9
Whether it was useful to me/people 9
Being told about it
Whether I could see problems that could
6
arise from a development
<strong>The</strong> cost/whether it was worth the money
5
being spent on it
Whether it would lead to only some people
5
being helped/benefitted
5
Base: All (1,109)

Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
1 Whether it harmed people
Whether I could see problems that could arise from a
development
Whether it had side-effects
Whether it had been tested properly/was safe
2 Whether animals would be harmed
Whether it interfered with nature
Consideration for future generations 36
Impact on the environment/
if environmentally-friendly
Environmental side-effects/problems
3 Consideration for future generations
Whether it harmed people 55
Whether it would help people/ be beneficial
4 Impact on the environment/if environmentally-friendly
Environmental side-effects/problems 19
Whether it interfered with nature
%
51
Page 79

Issues Which People Feel Would Give Trust In A System Of Controls
And Regulations
When respondents were asked in the quantitative phase what things, if any, would personally give
them trust in a system of controls and regulations about biological developments, two key
considerations emerged: having information about it (27%) and having (23%). However, as one
would expect, it is difficult for the public to think about what factors matter to them in this
complex area of science, without being shown a list and asked to comment, so it is unsurprising
that no other point was mentioned spontaneously by more than 11 honesty and openness %
(having people making decisions who are either independent or declare their interests).
After being shown a list, far higher proportions selected many of the categories on it with the
difference between the spontaneous and prompted figures being greater than MORI often finds
(showing that many things matter to the public to enable them to have trust in a regulatory system
but they tend to express this “top of mind” in terms of having information and honesty/openness).
<strong>The</strong> ‘Honesty/Openness’ category increased to 71% and ‘Having information’ to 61%. However,
three further categories were mentioned by almost as many: ‘Having a system which is open for
anyone to have access to information, including the results of decisions and the reasons behind
decisions’ (69%); ‘Having a system that monitors developments after they have become available
to the public and is prepared to withdraw them if there are concerns’ (62%); and ‘Having random
spot checks of all regulated activities’ (61%).
'Independence' was a word frequently used in the qualitative phase about the mechanism for
regulation. Phrases like 'have no vested interests' were common and what people meant (when
asked to expand) was that people involved in regulating the biological sciences should not have a
bias towards a particular point of view. Many people said they did not want company
involvement because "they'd be in it for the money". Many said they didn't trust any government
or politicians, but that Government had to be involved - it was a fact of life. In the quantitative
phase 46% said 'having people making decisions who are either independent or declare their
interests'.
Page 80

Interestingly, though there was some feeling in the workshops that the pace of development is too
fast, this was only mentioned by 15% on this prompted question. While a minority, it is worth
examining who, within the population, holds this view as they have clearly expressed this concern.
In fact it is ABs in particular (24%) - ie the group more likely to have heard of the various
biological developments (and many other issues which MORI measures), plus women (17%, a
figure that is just significantly higher than that for men, at 13%).
<strong>The</strong>re was not an overwhelming feeling in the workshops that there is a lack of honesty about
developments in the biological sciences. Rather, there was a feeling that the public receives little
information about this complex area of science and that things are conducted without the
opportunity for the public and other key groups to express their opinion. <strong>The</strong> fact that this series
of workshops was being undertaken received an extremely warm response from participants -
albeit sometimes peppered with comments such as "Is this a public relations exercise?" and "But
will they listen?". Many participants felt proud of the opportunity to have been given their say and
welcomed receiving information about the biosciences during the course of the workshops
(though clearly there was a lot of material to pass around during the course of the two days - and
probably too much).
Participants, on day 2 of the workshops, were asked to convene in their groups to consider the
things they thought were most important in regulating the specific (bioscience) topic which they
discussed on the afternoon of day 1, a week previously. <strong>The</strong>y were in fact asked to think about
three areas:
How can trust be ensured in the process of regulation?, How can the system deal with scientific
uncertainty? and How should the new mechanism or structure take account of public views? In
fact, most people tended to discuss the regulation of the biosciences in general, rather than their
specific topic, and the themes which emerged from each group had a high degree of consistency
across them.
<strong>The</strong>y were able to discuss the idea of ensuring trust in some detail, with many people citing many
of the things which have emerged in the quantitative phase, namely: ‘Have openness/honesty’,
‘Give full and frank information’, ‘Ensure safety to the public’, ‘Have a system where the benefits
outweigh the risks’ (some people said ‘Have no risk at all’), ‘Allow access to results of
experiments/publish results’, ‘Slow down the pace of developments’, ‘Provide evidence that laws
are not pushed to their limits’, ‘Give out information on how the money is being spent’.
Page 81

<strong>The</strong> point was made at two or three workshops that it would be helpful if decisions were placed
above party political considerations. ‘Having more than one political group, that is, Labour,
Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Nationalist Parties involved in making the rules’. It was
selected by 34% at the quantitative stage - ahead of ‘If the pace was to slow down’, but behind
mentions of all the other categories.
Issues of scientific uncertainty were far harder for people to debate, particularly as their level of
awareness of developments in the biosciences was relatively low. <strong>The</strong> third issue, How should the
new (regulatory) mechanism take account of public views? often yielded comment such as ‘Have
these kinds of discussion’ or ‘Listen to the public’.
Another issue which was touched on in the qualitative phase was whether regulations should
pertain to the UK only, the EU or be global. Participants, particularly men, were often readily
able to cite what they saw as the benefits of having consistency of regulations across countries,
but also the drawbacks too. Many said that the benefits would be that scientists would not be able
to travel abroad to conduct research which was illegal elsewhere, and that consistency could help
scientists working on joint projects from different countries. However, quite a few said that
consistency in regulations can lower the overall standard of research and stifle competition.
Page 82
I think with cloning and IVF, there should be like global
regulations. If you can’t clone here, you can’t think ‘I’ll go over to
America and do it’. But you can’t because the Americans would
say ‘no you can’t’
Man Cardiff

Q17 What things, if any, do you personally feel would give you trust in a system of controls and
regulations about biological developments?
Q18 Which, if any, of the things on this card do you personally feel would give you trust in a
system of controls and regulations about biological developments? Just read out the letter or
letters.
Q17
Spontaneous
Q18
Spontaneous &
Prompted
% %
Honesty/openness 23 71
Having a system which is open for anyone to
have access to information, including the
results of decisions and the reasons behind
the decisions
A system that monitors developments after
they have become available to the public and
is prepared to withdraw them if there are
11
69
concerns
6
62
Having information about it
Having random spot checks of all regulated
27 61
activities
Better labelling/Labelling of foods/of
3
61
medicines
4
57
Publishing research 10 57
Ensuring safety of developments 5 56
Set rules/Written code of practice
Having a wide range of people with different
4 55
expertise and interests involved
Having people making decisions who are
9
54
either independent or declare their interests 11
64
Asking the public for their views
Having more than one political group, that is
Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats
and Nationalist parties involved in making
6 42
the rules
2
34
If pace was to slow down 1 15
Don't know 28 1
Base: All (1,109)
Page 83

Page 84
FIVE
WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC ABOUT ADVANCES IN THE BIOSCIENCES
AND FROM THE REGULATORY SYSTEM?

Amount of Information Received About <strong>The</strong> Rules And Regulations On
Biological Developments
<strong>The</strong>re is a clear call from the public for more information on the rules and regulations about
biological developments. Seventy-two per cent said they have received too little information,
20% said about the right amount and (just) 2% too much. <strong>The</strong> remaining 6% did not know.
<strong>The</strong> desire for information is entirely consistent with findings from the workshops. Indeed, even
the fairly technical information at the end of Day 1, which respondents were told they could take
away with them if they wanted, often resulted in a queue of people waiting to collect the various
sheets of paper from the tables (with no prompting to do so from the MORI moderators). At the
beginning of Day 2, respondents often mentioned that they found the information interesting and
some cited from it during the course of the day eg while in their mini-groups to discuss specific
topics.
Q11b Would you say you have had too much information on the rules and regulations about
Base: All (1,109)
biological developments, too little or about the right amount?
Too much
%
2
About right amount 20
Too little 72
Don’t know 6
Page 85

Information Which Should be Available <strong>The</strong> <strong>Public</strong> About Advances In
Biological Developments And <strong>The</strong> Regulatory System
When respondents were asked, without being prompted, what information, if any, should be
available to the public about advances in biological developments and the regulatory system, the
highest response - by some way - was ‘everything/give us all the information’ (44%).
<strong>The</strong> next highest mentions came a long way behind (unsurprisingly, given that ‘everything’ covers
all information) and were: ‘Tell us what they’re planning to do (which included any mentions of
Government, scientists and industry)/Tell us more before they go ahead’ (18%), and ‘<strong>The</strong> tests
and the results’ (18%). In all at this spontaneous question, 88% of the public gave a response.
Q19 What information, if any, should be available to the public about advances in
biological developments and the regulatory system?
%
Everything/Give us all the information 44
What they’re planning to do/Tell us more before
they go ahead/Tell us what Government is
planning to do/what scientists are planning to
Page 86
do/what industry is planning to do
<strong>The</strong> tests and the results 18
Anything that anyone asks for 16
No secrets/Honesty 16
Any possible side-effects (unspecified) 14
Advantages/Benefits/Benefits to individuals 13
Health side-effects 13
Information in plain language/Plain English
Disadvantages/Drawbacks/Drawbacks to individuals
13
11
Easy to understand 10
<strong>Public</strong>ise it/through the media/other places 10
Why they’re planning to do things
Impact on health/public health/human beings
10
(unspecified)
Health benefits 8
Don’t know 12
Base: All (1,109)
18
8

Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Any Mention 88
Any
Environment
Impact on the environment (unspecified)
Environmental benefits
Environmental side-effects 8
Effects on our food/food chain
Any Health Impact on health/public health/human beings
Everything/
Anything
Benefits/
Breakthroughs
Drawbacks/
Side-effects
Drawbacks/
Side-effects/
Health/Enviro
nmental side-
effects
(unspecified)
Health benefits 19
Health side-effects
Effects on our food/food chain
Everything/Give us all the information
Anything that anyone asks for
Advantages/Benefits/
Benefits to individuals
What the breakthroughs are
Disadvantages/Drawbacks/Drawbacks to
individuals
Any possible side-effects (unspecified)
Failures/Mistakes/Problems
Disadvantages/Drawbacks/Draw-backs to
individuals
Any possible side-effects (unspecified)
Environmental side-effects
Health side-effects
%
49
18
21
30
Page 87

Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Benefits/Break
throughs/
Health/
Environmental
benefits
Page 88
Benefits/Breakthroughs/Health/Environmental
benefits
Advantages/Benefits/Benefits to individuals
What the breakthroughs are
Environmental benefits
Health benefits
8 What they are planning to do/...
No secrets/honest
9 What they are planning to do/...
No secrets/honest 31
Why they’re planning to do things
%
23
29

Ways Currently Receive/Would Like Information About Biological
Developments biological developments
<strong>The</strong> public receives most of its information on all subjects from television and newspapers, so it is
not surprising that most of them say they currently get information about in these ways.
Televisions news was cited by 81% (and recall was high in the workshops of the human ear on the
mouse, which people had seen on TV (and this was some time after it had been broadcast), as was
recall of the pictures of Dolly, the sheep). Television programmes were mentioned by 79% and
national newspapers by 74%. However, many other sources were cited: national radio (44%),
magazines (42%), local newspapers (31%), leaflets (30%), local radio (24%), products such as
food (19%) and the internet/website (16%), to name just some.
However, when it comes to ways in which the public would like to receive information, we can
see an eight point increase for leaflets (to 38%) a seven point increase for a telephone information
line (to 8%), a three point increase in information in Braille for blind people (to 4%) and a three
point increase for the internet/website (to 19%). Correspondingly, there is a fall in the more
common ways of receiving information, as follows: TV news (-14), national newspapers (-14),
magazines (-11), TV programmes (-8), national radio (-7), local newspapers (-5) and local radio (-
4). Television programmes such as documentaries now becomes the most preferred source, just
ahead of TV news which was in first place for being a current source. <strong>The</strong> computer tabulations
provide a full breakdown of the sub-group analysis for each category at this pair of questions.
Page 89

Q20 In which, if any, of these ways do you currently get any information about biological
Page 90
developments and their regulations?
Q21 And in which, if any, of these ways would you like to receive information about
biological developments and their regulation? If you are already receiving
information that way, and would like to continue to do so, please mention it again
here. You may choose as many or as few ways as you like.
Base: All (1,109)
Q20
Current
Q21
Preferred
Preferred -
Current
% % +
Television News 81 67 -14
Television Programmes eg
documentaries
79 71 -8
Newspapers - National 74 60 -14
Radio - National 44 37 -7
Magazines 42 31 -11
Newspapers - Local 31 26 -5
Leaflets 30 38 +8
Radio - Local 24 20 -4
Products eg food 19 19 0
<strong>The</strong> Internet/Website 16 19 +3
Teletext 12 14 +2
Billboards/Hoardings 6 7 +1
Don’t know * 1 +1
Nowhere 2 * -2
Combination Categories Included Current Preferred Current -
Newspapers
local/national
Radio
local/national
TV news/
programmes
Newspapers - Local
Newspapers - National
Radio - Local
Radio - National
Television News
Television Programmes eg documentaries
Preferred
% % +
80 65 +15
52 43 +9
91 84 +7

Places People Currently Receive/or Would Like to Receive Information
From About Biological Developments And <strong>The</strong>ir Regulations
Earlier we saw that the public feels they are lacking information about biological developments
and their regulation and that they are most likely to say that ‘the Government’ currently regulates
the biosciences when asked a spontaneous question. It is interesting therefore that ‘Government
statements’ was the highest mentioned ‘place’ that they currently get information from about the
biosciences. Forty-one per cent mentioned this, which came well ahead of the second mention,
GPs’ surgeries at 27% and then libraries at 24%. Consistent with the qualitative phase, a quarter
of the public says they currently receive information about biological developments and their
regulation from ‘nowhere’.
Government statements still feature prominently as a preferred way of receiving information about
the biosciences - four categories come within a few percentage points of one another at the top of
the list and Government statements is one of them, at 43%. Marginally ahead of this is ‘through
the door’ (47%, which Government statements could anyway be) and GPs’ surgeries at 44%. Just
behind Government statements comes libraries at 40%. Other mentions include: hospitals (24%),
schools/colleges (24%) and ‘in shops’ (21%). <strong>The</strong> biggest increase is for ‘Through the door’ -
some people in the qualitative phase said they would read it, it wouldn’t be just ‘junk mail’. Other
sharp increases can be seen for GPs’ surgeries, libraries and schools/colleges while now only 2%
says from ‘nowhere’. Once again, the computer tabulations give full sub-group detail.
Page 91

Q22 And at which, if any, of these places do you currently get any information about
Page 92
biological developments and their regulations?
Q23 And at which, if any, of these places would you like to receive information about
biological developments and their regulation? If you are already receiving
information that way, and would like to continue to do so, please mention it again
here.
Base:All (1,109)
Q22
Current
Q23
Preferred
Preferred -
Current
% % +
Government statements 41 43 +2
GPs’ surgeries 27 44 +17
In libraries 24 40 +16
Through the door 19 47 +28
Hospitals 16 24 +8
At work 15 16 +1
Schools/Colleges 12 24 +12
In shops 11 21 +10
Council offices 9 19 +10
In the street 6 7 +1
Community Centres 5 13 +8
Television 2 2 0
In restaurants 1 6 +5
Don’t know 1 3 +2
Nowhere 24 2 -22

People/Institutions Trusted To Provide Honest And Balanced
Information About Biological Developments And <strong>The</strong>ir Regulation
We saw earlier that the public trusts some groups in society more than others to make decisions
on their behalf on the regulation of the biosciences - notably doctors and Advisory Bodies, but a
number of other groups too. It is entirely consistent then that doctors and Advisory Bodies score
highly for being trusted to provide the public with honest and balanced information about
biological developments and their regulation.
GPs/Family doctors come highest with 60%, then the two types of Advisory Body with around
47%, followed by hospital doctors with 44%. Governments receive a relatively low score of 19%,
behind those already mentioned, plus scientists (34%), consumer groups (33%),
pharmacists/chemists (32%), environmental groups (31%), nurses (23%) and vets (20%). <strong>The</strong>
question that followed asked about types of people and institutions that people did not trust to
provide honest and balanced information. <strong>The</strong> ‘not trust’ score for industry/manufacturers is
highest of all at 53% and is followed by the media at 47%, retailers at 46% and then Governments
at 39%.
Looking at the ‘net trust’ scores (the proportion saying they trust each group, minus the
proportion who say they do not trust each), we can see that the most positive scores are for GPs
(+54), the Advisory Body composed of people with different viewpoints (+39) and the Advisory
Body composed of experts (+32). <strong>The</strong> most negative scores can be seen for: industry
/manufacturers (-50), retailers (-42), the media (-33), farmers (-26), religious organisations (-23),
Governments (-20) and animal welfare groups (-19). Although ‘Governments’ by no means
receive the lowest net score, it ranks 15th out of 20, on being trusted to provide honest and
balanced information about biological developments and their regulation and ten of those above it
have positive net scores (varying in size), three have small negative scores and only the fourteenth
(animal welfare groups (-19) has a similar score).
Also, ‘Governments’ fared a little better in terms of their rank order for being trusted to make
decisions on your behalf in the regulation of the biological sciences (Q16, pages 76 to 78). At that
question they came 13th out of 20. <strong>The</strong> sizes of the net scores cannot be compared between these
questions because of the different question techniques used, but 11 out of the 12 ahead of it had
very positive net trust scores (Governments had -8); the 12th , patients, had a small positive score
of +3.
Page 93

Q24 Which, if any, of the following types of people or institutions would you trust to
Page 94
provide you with honest and balanced information about biological developments and
their regulation? Just read out the letter or letters.
Q25 And which, if any, would you not trust to provide you with honest and balanced
information about biological developments and their regulation?
Base: All (1,109)
Q24.
Trust
Q25.
Not Trust
Net Trust
% % +
GPs/Family Doctors 60 6 +54
An Advisory Body to Government,
composed of people representing
different viewpoints
An Advisory Body to Government,
composed of experts
Hospital Doctors 44 6 +38
Scientists 34 20 +14
Consumer Groups 33 15 +18
Pharmacists/Chemists 32 10 +22
Environmental Groups 31 20 +11
Nurses 23 6 +17
Vets 20 8 +12
Governments 19 39 -20
Animal Welfare Groups 16 35 -19
<strong>The</strong> General <strong>Public</strong> 14 17 -3
<strong>The</strong> Media 14 47 -33
Religious organisations 9 32 -23
Sociologists 9 16 -7
Farmers 8 34 -26
Patients 6 11 -5
Retailers 4 46 -42
Industry/manufacturers 3 53 -50
None of these 2 1
Don’t know 1 2
48
47
9
15
+39
+32

Q24 Which, if any, of the following types of people or institutions would you trust to provide you
with honest and balanced information about biological developments and their regulation?
Q25 And which, if any, would you not trust to provide you with honest and balanced information
about biological developments and their regulation?
Combination Categories Included Q24
Any Advisory
Body
An Advisory Body to Government, composed of
experts
An Advisory Body to Government, composed of
Any Doctors GPs/Family Doctors
people representing different viewpoints
Hospital Doctors
Doctors/Nurses GPs/Family Doctors
Doctors/Nurses
/Pharmacists
/Chemists
Animal Welfare
Groups/
Environmental
Groups
Trust
Q25
Not
Trust
Page 95
Net
Trust
% % +
66 18 +48
Hospital Doctors 67 9 +58
Nurses
GPs/Family Doctors
Hospital Doctors
Nurses
Pharmacists/Chemists
Animal Welfare Groups
Environmental Groups
65
70
35
7
14
38
+58
+56
-3

Any Other Issues Which Respondents Wish To Raise
<strong>The</strong> last question in the survey asked respondents if there was anything else they wished to say
about biological developments. Responses were recorded verbatim and coded into categories
accordingly, with room for ‘other’ too. As many as 60% gave a response to this question with a
fairly broad range of answers. <strong>The</strong>se included comment(s) about: a need for having plenty of
information, accessibility to information, clarity of information, some comments about interfering
with nature, a feeling that regulation is needed or/and that people feel comfortable about
developments as long as they benefit mankind. <strong>The</strong> top mentions were that people reiterated that
they should be kept informed (14%), 6% said they ‘worried about them interfering with our food’,
5% that there must be controls/regulations, 5% that we must not interfere with nature and 5% said
they do not mind as long as there is control/regulation.
A selection of verbatim comments appears below, including from this question in the pilot survey
which shows that some respondents, when consulted, like to take the opportunity in a survey to
say what is bothering them (even if this is a different topic):
Page 96
This all came to the headlines in the news without much prior
notice - no gradual build-up. It scares people that way. It hasn't
been handled very well
Male, 35-44, B, Chelmsford
I think foods should be well labelled and I don't think we need
genetically modified food. I think this cloning is all wrong. I think
it's against nature - it's unnatural and this crossing over from one
species to another will end up worse than Thalidomide - something
terrible will go wrong with it
Female, 45-54, C1, Kilmarnock
Basically, there are too many changes coming along and too
quickly for the public to absorb and understand
Male, 55-64, B, Llanelli
I think that many could improve the way they put it over and not be
too scientific about what they're talking about and put it in plain
English so that everybody understands
Male, 55-64, C1, Oldham
<strong>The</strong>re are far too rapid developments. <strong>The</strong>re are not enough
checks and little or no thought is given to the long-term outcome
Female, 65+, B, Telford

<strong>The</strong>re are too many different bodies who are regulating. It should
be just one because it gets confusing. We need to be clear about
things
<strong>The</strong> access to information for the general public when so many are
illiterate or not very well educated. How are they going to get the
correct facts and be informed. It’s OK for people who can make up
their minds and analyse the information, but what about others?
Policies need to be made to protect the vulnerable people
Page 97

Q26 Now thinking about these biological developments, is there anything else you
would like to say about them?
Page 98
Top mentions %
We should be kept informed/information should be readily
available
I worry about them interfering with our food/<strong>The</strong>y should
stop messing with our food
<strong>The</strong>re must be controls/regulations 5
We must not interfere with nature 5
I do not mind as long as there is control/regulation 5
Slow down/We are going too fast 4
<strong>The</strong> subject should be treated in an honest/open/unbiased
manner
I think they should stop cloning 4
Go ahead as long as benefit to mankind/humanity 4
Most projects done for commercial/financial
reasons/Should not be done for profit
We do not know implications/long-term effects 3
It is something I am concerned about 3
I feel I don’t know enough about the subject 3
<strong>The</strong>re has to be progress/We have to move forward/
Development should not be stifled
<strong>The</strong>re has to be more testing/Every discovery should tested 3
We are not given enough information until it is too late 3
Base: All (1,109)
14
6
4
4
3

SIX
CONCLUSIONS
Page 99

Conclusions
We have clearly reached a moment in time when most of the public has heard of the different
biosciences. However, this is not coupled with a feeling among the public that they have been kept
well informed and abreast of developments. Many ways in which they could be informed have
been identified and we suggest that these be acted upon, with different forms of communication
targeted at different groups.
On balance, people do not feel that animal cloning and genetic modification - of animals and
plants, or of food - are beneficial to society. Most people do not make the link between animal
cloning and advances in human health - something which they greatly value. While this (and
other) reasons for animal cloning should be communicated to the public, it cannot be assumed that
when it is, the public will be supportive of it as a means of advancing human health. Also, public
misconception that animal cloning is a forerunner to human cloning needs to be corrected.
With genetic modification of food (which is what most people focused on when genetic
modification was mentioned), workshop participants were asking for clear labelling. Around a
quarter know that genetic modification of food, which was a concern of theirs, can be used to
produce higher yields but a similar proportion comment on the profit motive behind genetic
modification of food. This could explain why almost nobody said this was beneficial to society
(particularly given respondents’ poor rating of industry).
<strong>The</strong> vast majority of the public clearly believes it is important to have rules and regulations in
place to control biological developments and scientific research and on balance people think there
is too little control (38%) rather than about the right amount (28%). <strong>The</strong>se figures have to be
considered alongside the very low awareness of existing regulations.
<strong>The</strong> public’s priorities for a regulatory system are that people should genuinely benefit from any
biological developments and not be harmed. <strong>The</strong> ethics of individual developments are also
considered by a proportion (22% spontaneously mentioned ethics/morals). Other considerations
would be whether animals would be harmed and whether the developments interfered with nature.
<strong>The</strong>se are therefore the points which need to be responded to in any communication to the public.
Page 100

<strong>The</strong> public recognises that Government, scientists and an Advisory Body are currently involved in
regulation. However, they clearly want many more groups to play a role and the proportion
selecting ‘Governments’ or ‘scientists’ falls considerably when looking at the public’s ideal
regulatory structure.
<strong>The</strong>ir ideal structure reveals that equal proportions (around 45%) want six different groups
involved, drawn from: the general public themselves, two Government Advisory Bodies (one of
experts and one of people with different viewpoints) and environmental groups - as well as
Government and scientists.
Trust in Governments is almost equally split, with 35% saying they trust the Government to make
regulatory decisions and 43% saying they do not. However, of the six key groups that the public
wants to play a role, Government has the lowest ‘net trust’ figure, and the only negative one.
Clearly, the public needs information about biological developments and their regulation, which
may boost the Government trust figure further. <strong>The</strong>y also call for honesty and openness in a
regulatory system It is fair to say that Governments (of any political affiliation) are often
inherently unpopular when rated among other groups - and that in the workshops a number of
people said they did not trust any Government (on anything). It is also evident that the
Government’s rating is well ahead of that for industry, retailers, religious organisations and
farmers. GPs easily represent the group that the public would most trust to provide honest and
balanced information in this area. Given the popularity of leaflets, GPs’ surgeries could be
considered for having a stock of them.
Page 101

Page 102
SEVEN
LESSONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Lessons For <strong>Public</strong> <strong>Consultation</strong>
It is worth thinking through the various aspects of this public consultation exercise, particularly as
it is becoming a more commonplace way of gauging public opinion.
<strong>The</strong> Objectives
<strong>The</strong> objectives of the exercise were to consult the public (through workshops and a quantitative
survey) about their views on regulation of the biosciences. <strong>The</strong> public wanted to be consulted on
an issue of such importance. However, given that their knowledge was generally very limited
about regulation of the biosciences (and often of the biosciences themselves), a delicate balance
had to be struck between seeking spontaneous information and telling participants a little bit about
the biosciences in order to get a response. This seemed to work well by introducing the
workshops as being about ‘Nature and health and our relationship with it’, steadily moving from
spontaneous comment to the use of showcards and handouts in the workshops, and through the
use of similar techniques for the quantitative survey. <strong>The</strong> introduction was slightly different for the
quantitative survey. It said ‘Issues affecting everyone in this country... and public attitudes to
science’, but the principle of not prompting people was the same.
<strong>The</strong> idea of talking to people for two full days, a week apart, worked well on the whole. <strong>The</strong> week
long gap gave people the opportunity to go away and reflect if they wanted to, debate the issues
with other people or seek out information (again, if they wanted to ), or simply do nothing in
between. Of course, the very fact that people had attended on Day 1 meant that they had
heightened awareness of the biosciences on Day 2, even if they had done nothing in between. <strong>The</strong>
interesting thing is that a number of people had listened out for or picked up bits of information
about the biosciences which they brought to the Day 2 sessions to feed into the debates.
People were happy to attend the workshops and their ratings on the evaluation questionnaire were
high (although each day probably lasted about 45 minutes too long). However, one should
consider that people were paid £50 per day for attending and that that was a great ‘pull’ to bring
people in. We suspect that few, if any, would have attended without the financial incentive. On the
other hand, people were giving up a lot of their time to be there and in many cases travelled quite
some distance, so it seemed appropriate to have paid people £50 per day. <strong>The</strong>ir views were well
thought through and at no time was there any suggestion that participants were simply pleasing
the researchers because they were being paid.
Page 103

<strong>The</strong>re will always be great expectation from participants once they have been told that they are
part of a consultation exercise. Those who took part are now eagerly awaiting the results of the
exercise - including the action which will be taken as a result. Many requested a copy of the
findings - which will be sent to everyone by MORI.
A quick checklist of aspects of both phases is worth examining, as this can be helpful to
continually improve on public consultation exercises in the future.
1) <strong>The</strong> fact that this report will be published will please participants. MORI’s
Page 104
recommendation would also be that the action which is taken as a result of this (and
other) consultation(s) should be published.
2) Number of workshops? Six; about right to check for consistency and get range of points
and views from different locations, different quotas etc.
3) Length of workshops? 9.30am-4.30pm; about 45 minutes too long.
4) Paired days? Worked well.
5) Topic guide and stimulus materials? Topic guide worked well to gently steer the
discussion. Stimulus materials were useful to focus attention and gauge views and the
content had been carefully checked in advance for its balance. However, too many were
used (see separate volume). Also, it was not always clear what views were being
sought, when materials were being shown.
6) Use of workshops and quantitative survey? Helpful to use both techniques - qualitative
to gain insight, quantitative to get statistical validity from a representative sample.
7) Consulting people about the regulation of the biosciences tends to presuppose that
biological developments will continue. One respondent, at the end of the Reading
workshop, after the recording equipment had been switched off, said something like
‘Interesting discussion, but I am totally opposed to these developments. This view was
catered for to some extent by the ‘catch all’ question at the end of the questionnaire
which asked people whether there was anything else they would like to say about the
biosciences. Sixty per cent gave a response. We believe it is essential to have this
opportunity.

8) Small groups and teamworking were used in the workshops (plus the full group of 20 or
so). Small groups of seven or so with a moderator were useful in encouraging people to
express their views. Equally, having those same groups working in a team (once they had
‘bonded’) to examine an issue (their ideal mechanism for regulation) worked well.
However, it should be noted that many people are unused to the idea of presenting or
reporting back and sometimes the appointed rapporteur was not balanced in the points
they fed back. This can be ‘caught’ by a moderator being present and taking his/her own
notes. <strong>The</strong>se relatively minor issues though should not detract from the experience of
focusing on a task in a team, thinking it through seriously and reporting back the team’s
views. Many felt proud to have been given the opportunity and the quantitative
questionnaire would not have been as well developed without the rich views obtained in
the workshops (and the subsequent fine-tuning from the pilot exercise).
9) Future work should ensure that there are minority ethnic groups represented in their
correct proportions through the use of ethnic boosters in quantitative research and other
techniques in qualitative research.
Page 105

APPENDICES
Appendices - Page A1

APPENDICES
Social Class Definitions
A Professionals such as doctors, surgeons, solicitors or dentists; chartered people like
architects; fully qualified people with a large degree of responsibility such as senior editors,
senior civil servants, town clerks, senior business executives and managers, and high
ranking grades of the Services.
B People with very responsible jobs such as university lecturers, hospital matrons, heads of
local government departments, middle management in business, qualified scientists, bank
managers, police inspectors, and upper grades of the Services.
C1 All others doing non-manual jobs; nurses, technicians, salesmen, publicans, people in
clerical positions, police sergeants/constables, and middle ranks of the Services.
C2 Skilled manual workers/craftsmen who have served apprenticeships; foremen, manual
workers with special qualifications such as long distance lorry drivers, security officers, and
lower grades of Services.
D Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, including labourers and mates of occupations in
the C2 grade and people serving apprenticeships; machine minders, farm labourers, bus and
railway conductors, laboratory assistants, postmen, door-to-door and van salesmen.
E Those on lowest levels of subsistence including pensioners, casual workers, and others with
minimum levels of income.
Appendices - Page A2

Marked-up Workshop Evaluation Questionnaire
Workshops were conducted between 5 December 1998 and 6 February 1999. Two workshops were
run at each of the six locations around the U.K. Of the 123 participants, 122 attended consecutive
Saturdays. One participant in Newcastle was unable to attend day 2 and one did not complete a
feedback questionnaire.
All feedback questionnaires were completed anonymously. Actual numbers are given in brackets. This
document shows only the topline results and not full respondent comments.
Q1. Overall, how would you rate the workshop?
Reading Newcastle Belfast Cardiff Stirling Total
% % % % % %
Base: All participants (21) (19) (20) (19) (18) (121)
Very good 76 (16) 63 (12) 75 (15) 84 (16) 83 (15) 76 (92)
Fairly good 24 (5) 37 (7) 25 (5) 16 (3) 17 (3) 25 (30)
Neither good nor poor 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fairly poor 0 0 0 0 0 0
Very poor 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q3 To what extent would you say that the discussion was...
a) ...enjoyable?
Stafford Reading Newcastle Belfast Cardiff Stirling Total
% % % % % % %
Base: All participants (24) (21) (19) (20) (19) (18) (121)
Very enjoyable 42 (10) 62 (13) 74 (14) 60 (12) 47 (9) 72 (13) 59 (71)
Fairly enjoyable 13 8 5 8 10 5 49
Not very enjoyable 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Not at all enjoyable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendices - Page A3

) ...interesting?
Appendices - Page A4
Stafford Reading Newcastle Belfast Cardiff Stirling Total
% % % % % % %
Base: All participants (24) (21) (19) (20) (19) (18) (121)
Very interesting 88 (21) 76 (16) 89 (17) 90 (18) 100 (19) 89 (16) 88 (107)
Fairly interesting 13 (3) 24 (5) 11 (2) 10 (2) 0 2 12 (14)
Not very interesting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not at all interesting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q4 How worthwhile did you think it was?
Stafford Reading Newcastle Belfast Cardiff Stirling Total
% % % % % % %
Base: All participants (24) (21) (19) (20) (19) (18) (121)
Very worthwhile 63 (15) 71 (15) 37 (7) 55 (11) 74 (14) 67 (12) 61 (74)
Fairly worthwhile 38 (9) 24 (5) 58 (11) 45 (9) 26 (5) 28 (5) 36 (44)
Not very worthwhile 0 1 5 (1) 0 0 6 1 2 (3)
Not at all worthwhile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q6 If a friend or relative said that they had been approached to take part in something similar,
how likely would you be to recommend that they attend?
Stafford Reading Newcastle Belfast Cardiff Stirling Total
% % % % % % %
Certain to 71 (17) 71 (15) 37 (7) 65 (13) 79 (15) 78 (14) 67 (81)
Very likely to 25 (6) 29 (6) 53 (10) 30 (6) 21 (4) 17 (3) 29 (35)
Fairly likely to 4 (1) 0 11 (2) 5 (1) 0 6 (1) 4 (5)
Not very likely to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Certain not to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Definitions of Category Combinations
Q1
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Bioscience Cloning/Dolly the sheep
41% Genetic modification/Genetic
engineering (unspecified)
Genetic modification/engineering of
animals and/or plants
Genetically modified, Genetically
altered or Genetically engineered
food
Genetic testing/screening
(determining genetic make-up and
screening for particular things, eg
diseases)
Gene therapy/Treating diseases with
Bioscience
including
Treatments/
cures for
diseases
57%
genes
Test tube babies/In-vitro fertilisation
Tissue cultures/Artificial tissue
Transplants (unspecified)/ Transplants
of heart, liver, kidneys etc
Transplants of animal parts/
tissues/organs to humans
DNA
As above, plus ‘Treatments/Cures for
diseases’
First Mention
Second Mention
Third Mention
Fourth Mention
Fifth/Other Mentions
%
Base: All (1,109)
Non- Any mention other than a 'Bioscience' First Mention
49
mention
Second Mention
39
Bioscience Third Mention 28
63% Fourth Mention 21
Fifth/Other Mentions 14
25
17
10
6
7
Appendices - Page A5
-

Q4
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Q5
Biosciences Cloning/Dolly the sheep
Non-
Biosciences
Appendices - Page A6
Genetic modification/engineering of animals and
plants
Genetically modified food
Genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg
diseases
Test-tube babies/In-vitro fertilisation
Transplants eg of heart, liver, kidneys etc
Any categories indicated other than a 'Bioscience'
category
Biosciences Cloning/Dolly the sheep
Non-
Biosciences
Genetic modification/engineering of animals and
plants
%
Base: All (1,109)
71
98
Base: All (1,109)
Genetically modified food 79
Genetic testing or screening for particular things, eg
diseases
Test-tube babies/In-vitro fertilisation
Transplants eg of heart, liver, kidneys etc
Any categories indicated other than a 'Bioscience'
category
67

Q7a
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Human Health To create more animals for transplantation of their
organs or tissues, into humans
To develop new medicines/drugs
%
Base: All (1,109)
To develop tissue/cultures 23
To make animals/humans immune to
disease/eradicate disease/stop inherited diseases
Spare part surgery
Agriculture To develop techniques for reproducing
animals/farming
To produce genetically modified food/perfect food 17
Produce more food
Provide cheaper food/cheaper products for
consumer
Appendices - Page A7

Q7b
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Human Health Remove allergic substances
Appendices - Page A8
%
Base: All (1,109)
To eradicate, treat or understand diseases/cancer etc 11
Agriculture To have cheaper food
Agriculture/
appearance of
food
To lengthen the shelf life of foods
To make new foods
To produce larger/nicer/tastier plants/fruits eg
tomatoes
To produce more food/high yields/boost agriculture
To resist diseases/fight pests
To make food safer 72
To feed the Third World/Africa/Asia etc
To make plants withstand extreme
temperatures/drought/ poor soils etc
To reduce use of pesticides
To increase the efficiency of agriculture
Producing more nutritious food/healthier
food/added vitamins
As above, plus
Appearance/make food look better
72

Q7c
Combination Categories Included Percentage Mentions
Human Health A cheaper method of extending life
To see if its compatible with humans
Because we already use animals in medicine eg
insulin for diabetics
To save lives
Because of a shortage of human organs/tissues
Because animal organs are the right size/similar size
to humans
%
Base: All (1,109)
Better to use animal organs than humans 85
A method of extending life
To solve rejection problems/Less likely to reject
To improve the quality of life
To eliminate human donor/Taking tissue from
humans
Aids recovery of burns/ skin grafts
For transplant of organs
For people’s health/cure illness
Appendices - Page A9

Some of the Media Coverage During Fieldwork
“Science versus ethics: the issue of cloning heats up the debate”, Scrip Magazine, November,
1998
First Workshop (Pilot), Day One, 5 December 1998
“Human spare - part cloning approved”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 8 December, 1998
“One worm plus £30m equals a DNA triumph”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 11 December, 1998
“Analysis - <strong>The</strong> genetic code”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 11 December, 1998
First Workshop (Pilot), Day Two, 12 December 1998
“Genetically modified food - dream or nightmare?”, Good Food, January, 1999
Second and Third Workshops, Day One, 16 January 1999
“Why governments can't be trusted to protect us against gene foods”, <strong>The</strong> Observer, 21 January,
1999
“Supercrop gains outweigh the risks, say peers”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 21 January, 1999
Second and Third Workshops, Day Two,
Fourth Workshop, Day One, 23 January 1999
“Scientists ready to create new form of life”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 25 January, 1999
“Scientists are ready to create life from chemicals”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Time, 25 January, 1999
“Calling the shots on health”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 26 January, 1999
“Big Brother is waiting at the checkout”, <strong>The</strong> Evening Standard, 26 January, 1999
“Writers put names to Campaign”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 26 January, 1999
“Prescott spits out greens”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 27 January, 1999
“Chefs call for ban on 'freakish' GM foods”, <strong>The</strong> Independent, 27 January, 1999
“Life in old age gets longer but no healthier”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 28 January, 1999
Fourth Workshop, Day Two,
Fifth and Sixth Workshops, Day One, 30 January 1999
“Tighter control on way”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 2 February, 1999
“Lawyers take up eco cause”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 2 February, 1999
“Tighter cloning control on way”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 2 February, 1999
“Quangos are now usurping the role once played by the beadle in the workhouse, and are
deciding what goes on your plates”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 2 February, 1999
“MP links genetic food to 37 deaths”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 4 February, 1999
“Scheme to assess risks of modified foods collapses”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 5 February, 1999
Fifth and Sixth Workshops, Day Two, 6 February, 1999
Appendices - Page A10

Quantitative Pilot Start, 6 February 1999
“Modified crop trials in jeopardy”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 8 February, 1999
“GM food row splits Labour”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 8 February, 1999
“SmithKline Beecham plans sell-off”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 9 February, 1999
“Debate on GM food”, Newsnight, BBC 2, 11 February, 1999
“Britain tries to ban gene crop from fodder”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 11 February, 1999
“Flaws in the food chain - We need a moratorium”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 12 February, 1999
“Ousted scientist and the damning research into food safety”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 12 February, 1999
“Top researchers back suspended lab whistleblower”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 12 February, 1999
“Food scandal exposed”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 12 February, 1999
“An uncontrolled experiment”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 13/14 February, 1999
“A fridge full of modified genes”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 13/14 February, 1999
“Today's babies can expect to live to 130”, <strong>The</strong> Sunday Times, 14 February, 1999
“Social revolution is born as lifespace gets longer”, <strong>The</strong> Sunday Times, 14 February, 1999
“Government rejects fresh demands for moratorium”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 13/14 February, 1999
“Tesco shoppers tempted by modified food despite scares”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 13/14 February,
1999
“EU States block sale of two Monsanto cottons”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 13/14 February, 1999
“GM Foods: A week of the news”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 14 February, 1999
“Minister's Ex-aide is GM Food Advisor”, <strong>The</strong> Mirror, 15 February, 1999
“Cautions Shoppers Fear for Future”, <strong>The</strong> Mirror, 15 February, 1999
“Why your baby may live to 130”, <strong>The</strong> Mirror, 15 February, 1999
“Safety Fears at 70 Sites Testing GM Crops”, Daily Mail, 15 February, 1999
“We're losing GM propaganda war, complain stores”, Daily Mail, 15 February, 1999
“Minister calls for ethics watchdog”, Daily Mail, 15 February, 1999
“Human Genes in GM Food”, <strong>The</strong> Express, 15 February, 1999
“<strong>The</strong> Terminator Gene”, <strong>The</strong> Express, 15 February, 1999
“Don't we have a right to safe food?”, <strong>The</strong> Express, 15 February, 1999
“Welcome to the land where vegetables rule”, <strong>The</strong> Express, 15 February, 1999
“GM food row splits Labour”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 15 February, 1999
“Pig cell treatment for humans”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 15 February, 1999
“Genetic minister should be axed”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 15 February, 1999
“Labour pushes GM food view”, <strong>The</strong> Daily Telegraph, 15 February, 1999
“GM food debate”, <strong>The</strong> Daily Telegraph, 15 February, 1999
“High stakes in genetic accord talks”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 15 February, 1999
“<strong>Public</strong> 'misled' over GM foods”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 15 February, 1999
Quantitative Pilot End, 16 February 1999
Appendices - Page A11

“Revealed: Lord Sainsbury's interest in key gene patent”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 16 February, 1999
“<strong>The</strong> man who spurred rock and roll for science”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 16 February, 1999
“Expert with genetic chip on shoulder”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 16 February, 1999
“Genetic food is safe to eat, say scientists”, <strong>The</strong> Daily Telegraph, 16 February, 1999
“Twenty eminent scientists give their verdicts on the controversy”, <strong>The</strong> Daily Telegraph, 16
February, 1999
“British Biotech drug fails trial”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 16 February, 1999
“Moves to calm fears on modified food”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 16 February, 1999
“Ministers slow to sink their teeth into issue of genetically modified foods”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times,
16 February, 1999
“Frankenstein's image problem”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 16 February, 1999
“Blair eats 'healthy' genetic food”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 16 February, 1999
“MPs criticise 'green' policies record”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 17 February, 1999
“Dr Evil and his Moneymen: we're all flocking to get into this one”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 17 February,
1999
“Wildlife 'at risk' from crop strains”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 18 February, 1999
“Biotech food giant wields power in Washington”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 18 February, 1999
“Sir, there's a GMO in your soup”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 18 February, 1999
“Action needed to allay consumers’ GM food doubts”, Marketing, 18 February, 1999
“Genetically modified trade wars”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 18 February, 1999
“Key GM foods report is not fit to publish”, <strong>The</strong> Independent, 19 February, 1999
“American shoppers taste 'benefits' of genetically altered food products”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times,
19 February, 1999
“<strong>The</strong> next big thing”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 19 February, 1999
“UK moratorium on modified crops 'would break EU law”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 19 February,
1999
“Frankenstein foods”, <strong>The</strong> Economist, 20-26 February, 1999
“Seeds of discontent” , <strong>The</strong> Economist, 20-26 February, 1999
“Genetically modified free trade” , <strong>The</strong> Economist, 20-26 February, 1999
“Blair is wrong on GM food”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 21 February, 1999
“Revealed: it's not all labelled”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 21 February, 1999
“Revealed: false data misled scientists”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 21 February, 1999
“Government shifts ground”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 21 February, 1999
“Revealed: the secret report”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 21 February, 1999
“Current tests are inadequate protection”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 21 February, 1999
“Roots of embarrassment”, <strong>The</strong> Sunday Telegraph, 21 February, 1999
“What the readers think: Your letters”, <strong>The</strong> Independent on Sunday, 21 February, 1999
Appendices - Page A12

“I'm not in this job for the money”, <strong>The</strong> Sunday Telegraph, 21 February, 1999
“Minister backs Sainsbury over loan to biotech firm”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 22 February, 1999
“Moratorium on modified foods may not break law”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 23 February, 1999
“IVF rationed to 1 in 5 couples”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 23 February, 1999
“Monsanto scores an own goal”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 23 February, 1999
“New rules planned for labelling of modified food”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 25 February, 1999
“GM foods to be taken off menu in schools”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 25 February, 1999
“This is a potty situation, surely?”, <strong>The</strong> Independent, 25 February, 1999
“Who do you trust in the GM food debate?”, PR Week, 26 February, 1999
“Monsanto communications chief bemused by GM media mayhem”, PR Week, 26 February,
1999
“Concern at GM foods exposed”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 26 February, 1999
“Be rational about biotechnology”, <strong>The</strong> Independent, 26 February, 1999
“Monsanto ads condemned”, Guardian, 1 March, 1999
“Monsanto criticised over modified food claims”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 1 March, 1999
“Consumers' body warns over GM food labelling”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 3 March, 1999
“A taste of things to come”, <strong>The</strong> Financial, 3 March, 1999
“Worm at blossom's heart”, <strong>The</strong> Financial, 3 March, 1999
“New study shows gene crops may poison ladybird”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 4 March, 1999
“Retailer warned over use of non-modified products”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 4 March, 1999
“Water firms fear pollution by GM Crops”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 5 March, 1999
“Consumers rushing for organic food”, <strong>The</strong> Independent, 8 March, 1999
“Diabetics not told of insulin risk”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 9 March, 1999
Quantitative Main Stage Start, 13 March 1999
“Marks & Spencer pulls GM products off shelf, <strong>The</strong> Times, 16 March, 1999
“Supermarkets in move on modified food”, <strong>The</strong> Financial Times, 18 March, 1999
“We're gagging on GM. Monsanto must face up to meltdown”, <strong>The</strong> Guardian, 19 March, 1999
Quantitative Main Stage End, 4 April
“Meacher to purge GM crops advisers after public unease”, <strong>The</strong> Daily Telegraph, 12 April, 1999
“Bees spread genes from GM crops”, <strong>The</strong> Times, 15 April, 1999
“Rogue genes cross to weeds”, Independent on Sunday, 18 April, 1999
Other Articles
“Monsanto scores an own goal”
“Moratorium on modified foods may not break law”
“Byers in call to stay ahead”
Appendices - Page A13

“Drug companies find food fears hard to swallow”
“Green lobby has a friend in the Tories”
“Ban on planting modified crops may be extended”
“Honourable boy scout with faith in the powers of science”
“Industry welcomes reassurances by government”
“Biologists defend modified foods”
“Green lobby has a friend in the Tories”
“Ruling allows advertising of prescription drugs on web site”
Appendices - Page A14

References
“Dolly research shows high public awareness and understanding”, HCC DeFacto, 16 September
1998
“<strong>Public</strong> Perspectives on Human Cloning”, <strong>The</strong> Wellcome Trust, 1998
“Biotechnology in the <strong>Public</strong> Sphere - a European Sourcebook”, edited by John Durant, Martin
W Bauer and George Gaskell; a Science Museum publication, 1998
Appendices - Page A15

Appendices - Page A16
MARKED-UP QUESTIONNAIRE

Appendices - Page A17