Download Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO BIOTECHNOLOGY
REPORT ON HEALTH AND MEDICAL
APPLICATIONS
PREPARED FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA
EUREKA PROJECT 4001
Contents
1. Research Context ........................................................................................... 1
Background .................................................................................................. 1
2. Research Design ............................................................................................. 3
A multi-stage research program ...................................................................... 3
Sample......................................................................................................... 4
3. Research Findings .......................................................................................... 6
Overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in the area of health and
medicine ...................................................................................................... 6
Awareness and perceptions of using stem cells .................................................19
Awareness and perceptions of using gene technology to produce medicines .........23
Awareness and perceptions of using gene technology in human transplants .........27
Response to media stories relating to the role of genes in human behaviour ........31
4. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 34
Appendix A - Exploratory Group Notepad Exercise ........................................... 35
1. Your kids are ratbags? Them's fightin' genes ................................................35
2. Don't feel guilty 'it's in the genes' ...............................................................35
3. 'Gene for panic attacks' .............................................................................36
4. Reading skills are in the genes, study shows ................................................37
5. Gene mutation may raise the risk of alcoholism ............................................38
6. Violence Gene ..........................................................................................38
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
1. Research Context
This section outlines the background to the project, and specifies our
understanding of the research objectives
Background
Biotechnology Australia
Biotechnology Australia is a multi-departmental Australian Government agency
responsible for managing, with its partners, the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS)
and coordinating non-regulatory biotechnology issues for the Australian Government.
Biotechnology Australia's goal is to ensure Australia captures the benefits arising from
the medical, agricultural and environmental application of biotechnology, while protecting
the safety of people and the environment.
Importance of community attitudes
Community attitudes are a crucial issue in the development of the Australian
biotechnology sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain applications of
biotechnology, efforts made by scientists on research and development will be
constricted, and a host of potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to food to
textiles are likely to be lost. There is a need to understand the underlying drivers of
community acceptance of biotechnology and ways in which public rejection of
biotechnology may be minimised - both to inform the public about biotechnology and to
inform scientists of the public's needs and concerns
The nature of community attitudes
Research has shown that it is no longer sufficient to ask broad questions relating to
attitudes towards, or acceptance of, biotechnology per se, as these measures vary
markedly for different applications of biotechnology and gene technology. Issues that
may be taken into account when evaluating an application are:

Potential harm to humans, animals or the environment

Regulation and control of the process of development

Scope of benefits: humanity, scientific career advancement, or corporate profit

Potential for unforeseen outcomes to occur
Trade-offs may occur among these factors. For instance, harm to animals may be
acceptable to some if the application can save human lives, but not if it only is for
corporate profit.
The need for research
This research represents the fifth wave of Biotechnology Australia's ongoing attitudinal
research. As such, it is an opportunity to identify and understand any new issues that
have arisen, as well as any changes in community attitudes and their drivers, since 2005.
The increased understanding of social drivers of attitudes regarding biotechnology will be
1
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
used to identify differences in the various audiences and stakeholders. Finally, the
research will enable the success of some aspects of the Public Awareness Program to be
measured.
The enhanced understanding of community attitudes and concerns that will result from
this research will be used to guide the further development of the Public Awareness
Program. It will uncover any significant changes, new problem areas and priority targets
in terms of public attitudes to be addressed. It will also provide information on the most
effective means by which information can be imparted, and guidance in terms of the
conduct of further community consultations.
Research objectives
Overall, the aim of this project was to update and further develop understanding of the
community's awareness of, attitudes towards and concerns about different applications of
biotechnology, and the ways in which these drive community acceptance. In addition,
research aimed to understand community aspirations for biotechnology, information
sources, and the success of current public information and awareness strategies.
2
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
2. Research Design
In this section, details of our proposed research design are provided, as well as
our rationale for using this methodology
To meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was
undertaken, as illustrated in the following diagram.
A multi-stage research program
Initially a brief literature review was conducted to ensure that Eureka was fully aware of
any new developments in the area of biotechnology. Following this, a phase of
exploratory qualitative research was conducted in order to identify issues, attitudes,
motivations and behaviours which may have arisen since the last wave of the research.
Quantitative research was then carried out to measure the incidence of awareness,
perceptions and attitudes relating to biotechnology. This phase utilised a split sample
CATI/ online methodology. Finally, an explanatory phase of qualitative research was
conducted in order to investigate and explain in detail the findings from the survey.
3
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Sample
Exploratory qualitative phase
The sample structure for the exploratory qualitative research is shown in the table below.
Table 1. Sample structure for exploratory qualitative research
Age
Education level
Non-tertiary
Tertiary
18-30 years
31-65 years
Sydney
Wagga Wagga
Wagga Wagga
Sydney
This phase comprised of four discussion groups, with the variables of education, age and
location (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) factored into the structure. The discussion
groups were 2 hours in duration, and all participants received an incentive of $70.
Quantitative phase
This phase of the research has traditionally been conducted over the telephone via CATI
(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). This wave, however, Biotechnology
Australia sought to migrate the study to an online methodology. For a survey of this
length, an online methodology is beneficial to participants, as they are able to complete
the survey at a time of their choosing and over multiple sittings if desired. There are also
notable cost savings.
A split CATI/online sample methodology was deemed the most prudent approach to
facilitate the migration as this would enable clean comparison of data over time. The
total sample consisted of 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age.
Approximately half the interviews (n=534) were conducted via CATI and the other half
(n=533) were conducted online.
The telephone sample was recruited using List Assisted Random Digit Dialling (LARDD)
methodology, to yield a more representative sample than the Electronic White Pages
(EWP). The sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within
these, by rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in
proportion to the population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and
gender quotas were applied, again proportional to the population. Sampling methods
employing a disproportionate chance of selection were used to deal with groups who
were known to be less inclined to do surveys or more difficult to contact (e.g. males and
younger persons) in order to be representative. Importantly, this approach mirrors the
approach of the previous wave of research, thus ensuring comparability. The
questionnaire averaged 29 minutes duration. For the online methodology, samples were
sourced from an online panel, that is, individuals who have opted to receive email
invitations to participate in surveys from our fieldwork supplier. Stratification and quota
sampling occurred as per the telephone methodology.
Explanatory qualitative phase
The sample structure for the explanatory qualitative phase was based on two main
variables, location and level of support, and is presented below. In the recruitment
4
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
process, participants were required to rate their attitude towards the use of gene
technology in today's society on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 is completely opposed and
10 is fully supportive). Once again, the duration of the groups was 2 hours, and a $70
incentive was provided.
Table 2. Sample structure for explanatory qualitative research
Location
Level of support
Bathurst
Sydney (City)
Hurstville
Low
31-65 years
18-30 years
31-65 years
Medium
18-30 years
31-65 years
18-30 years
High
18-30 years
18-30 years
31-65 years
In the following chapter, results from the qualitative and quantitative phases are
combined and presented together for each issue.
5
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
3. Research Findings
This section presents the findings for community attitudes and perceptions of
health and medical applications of biotechnology
This section details the findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of research
pertaining to health and medical applications of biotechnology. Where it would assist the
reader to understand the research findings, verbatim quotations from research
participants have been included to illustrate the range of views typically expressed.
The findings cover overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in the area of
health and medicine, as well those specifically relating to the use of stem cells, the use of
gene technology to produce medicines and the use of gene technology in human
transplants. There is also an examination of the response to media stories relating to the
roles of genes in human behaviour.
The following points are relevant to the interpretation of the quantitative findings:

Data from telephone interviews (not online) has been used for this wave's analysis,
in order to ensure methodologically consistent data are compared over time.
Previous waves of research were conducted over the telephone.

Significant trends over time are denoted with a circle (increase) or box (decrease)

A number of questionnaire changes were made to meet the needs of stakeholders
involved in the research. Comparisons over time are therefore only possible for
some questions.

One important change was that definitions of biotechnology, gene technology and
genetic modification were provided at the commencement of the survey
questionnaire and before each of the later focus groups. This was done at the
request of stakeholders, to avoid any ambiguity in meaning when using these
terms.
Overall awareness and perceptions of biotechnology in
the area of health and medicine
Knowledge and awareness of technology terminology
Participants in the survey were asked to indicate their self-assessed level of awareness
and knowledge of six technologies, including three specifically related to biotechnology in
the area of health and medicine - gene technology, stem cell research and cloning. The
remaining three technologies were IVF, biotechnology and genetic modification. Results
for the current wave are shown in Figure 1 and results comparing the current wave with
Wave 4 are shown in Figure 2.
6
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Figure 1. Understanding of technology terminology
Base: all CATI (n=534)
Comparing all technologies, participants' self-assessed level of knowledge was highest for
IVF, with 59% indicating that they could explain the technology to a friend, and lowest
for biotechnology, with 18% indicating as such. Awareness of all technologies was fairly
high, with the proportion indicating they had at least heard of each technology ranging
from 78% (biotechnology) to 97% (cloning).
Comparing technologies relating specifically to biotechnology in the health and medical
field, participants indicated the highest self-assessed level of knowledge for cloning. One
in two (50%) reported that they could explain cloning to a friend, while one in three
(35%) did so for stem cell research and one in five did so (22%) for gene technology.
Awareness of both cloning and stem cell research was very high, with more than nine in
ten (cloning 96%, stem cell research 93%) indicating that they had at least heard of
each technology. Awareness of gene technology was somewhat lower at 79%, leaving
one in five (21%) participants who had not heard of this term.
Analysis1 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic
variables, and knowledge of technology terminology. Table 3 below summarises the
subgroups found to be significantly more likely to indicate being able to explain a
technology to a friend. In sum, those who felt comfortable with new technologies
expressed greater technology knowledge than those who did not feel comfortable, those
participants who were university educated had greater self-assessed knowledge than
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted to test the significance of the relationship
between variables. This test compares the actual frequencies of the cross tabulation to
the frequencies we would expect if there was no relationship between the variables.
Those relationships that have a probability of being due to chance that are less than 5%
are described as being statistically significant.
1
7
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
those who were not, and finally, males were more likely to indicate being able to explain
technologies to a friend than females.
Table 3. Predictors of knowledge of terminology
More likely to be able to explain Item
to a friend
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
Genetic modification
44
35
Stem cell research
42
35
Gene technology
32
22
Biotechnology
28
18
Technophiles (technological change Cloning
happens too fast for me to keep up
with it)
64
50
University educated
Cloning
60
50
Genetic modification
48
35
Stem cell research
45
35
Gene technology
31
22
Biotechnology
27
18
Cloning
55
50
Stem cell research
41
35
Gene technology
26
22
Biotechnology
26
18
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Males
As demonstrated in Figure 2 below, there have been no significant changes from last
wave in self-assessed knowledge of cloning, stem cell research or biotechnology2.
2
Other technologies were not included in the 2005 survey
8
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Figure 2. Understanding of technology terminology - trends over time
Base: all CATI 2005 (n= 1,068) 2007 (n=534)
* 2005 Use of stem cells
Perceptions of technologies
Participants in the survey were subsequently asked whether they believed each of the
same technologies was likely to improve our way of life in the future, have no effect or
make things worse. The results are illustrated in Figure 3.
9
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Figure 3. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life
Base: all CATI (n=534)
Of all technologies, participants were most likely to predict that stem cell research would
have a positive future impact on our way of life. Indeed, almost nine in ten (87%)
indicated that it would improve our way of life, while only 5% felt that it would make
things worse. Predictions for gene technology and biotechnology were positive from the
majority of participants, with 73% and 68% respectively signifying that these
technologies would improve our way of life, and only a small number (10% and 8%
respectively) predicting things being made worse. Positive future perceptions were
markedly lower for genetic modification (45%) and again for cloning (28%), while
negative future perceptions were correspondingly higher (29% and 48%).
Participants were least able to respond to this question in relation to biotechnology and
genetic modification.
Analysis3 was conducted on the relationship between demographic and psychographic
variables, and positive perceptions of technologies. Table 4 below summarises the
subgroups found to be significantly more likely to view technologies improving our way of
life in the future. In sum, those who feel more comfortable with new technologies had
more positive outlooks for technologies in the future than others, males had more
positive perceptions of cloning and genetic modification than females, females had more
positive perceptions of IVF than males, and lastly, those who are university educated and
those aged 18-30 were more likely than others to predict that cloning will have a positive
impact on our future way of life.
3
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
10
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Table 4. Predictors of positive perceptions of technologies
Will improve our way of life in
the future
Item
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
'Technophiles' (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Biotechnology
77
68
Gene technology
82
73
Genetic modification
61
45
Cloning
34
28
Stem cell research
94
87
IVF
88
83
Cloning
33
28
Genetic modification
52
45
Females
IVF
86
83
University educated
Cloning
34
28
18-30
Cloning
39
28
Males
Figure 4 below presents the results over time for the applicable items in this question.
Figure 4. Perceived future impact of technologies on our way of life - trends
over time
Base: those aware CATI
* 2005 Use of stem cells
11
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
There have been significant increases in positive perceptions of the future impact of stem
cell research (up from 82% to 87%), biotechnology (up from 60% to 68%) and cloning
(up from 19% to 28%).
Aspirations for biotechnology in the health and medical field
This wave of the research saw the addition of a new discussion topic on aspirations for
biotechnology. Participants were initially asked what kind of breakthroughs and benefits
that biotechnology might provide in the future. The majority of participants made
references to medical breakthroughs, such as cures for diseases, providing a better
quality of life, increasing the availability of organs for transplant, understanding the
causes of diseases, curing plant diseases and improving prosthetics or mechanical limbs.
[WHAT KIND OF BREAK THROUGHS DO YOU THINK BIOTECHNOLOGY MIGHT
PROVIDE IN THE FUTURE?] Helping paraplegics, quadriplegics possibly...Finding
cures for certain illness or diseases and the cause of it, including in plant life.
Support for gene technology in health and medicines
Survey participants indicated their overall support for the use of gene technology in the
area of health and medicine by providing a rating out of 10, where 0 indicated that they
were 'completely against it' and 10 indicated that they were 'fully supportive'. The
frequency distribution chart (Figure 5) below presents the results from this wave,
alongside those from Wave 4.
Figure 5. Overall support for the use of gene technology in human health and
medical applications today
Base: All CATI, 2005 n=1,068, 2007 n=534
12
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
As indicated in the legend of the chart, there was a significant increase since last wave in
the mean rating of support for the use of gene technology in human health and medical
applications. The average rating given by participants in the current wave was 6.9 out of
10, while the average rating given in 2005 was 6.1.
There was a notable increase in the proportion of participants rating themselves 'fully
supportive' of gene technology in human health and medical applications, up from 14%
in 2005 to 23% in 2007. There was a corresponding decline in the proportion of
participants giving a support rating of 5 or lower. Only 3% of participants noted that they
were 'completely against it'.
Analysis4 was conducted to determine any demographic or psychographic differences in
overall support. Results are summarised in Table 5 below. In sum, overall support for the
use of gene technology in health and medical applications was significantly greater
among males and among those who are more excited than concerned by new
technologies.
Table 5. Subgroup differences in level of overall support
Mean overall support
Item
Subgroup
mean
rating
Overall mean
rating for
item
Males
Health and medical
7.3
6.9
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
Health and medical
8.1
6.9
Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology
Participants in the survey were asked a series of questions relating to different
applications of biotechnology. For each set of applications, questions were asked
regarding participants' awareness, perceived usefulness, perceived risks and acceptability
of the technology. Each question was first asked in relation to a general area (e.g. use of
stem cells for medical research and for treating diseases) and then more specifically in
relation to the techniques used in that area. Here, results are presented for the general
areas (Figures 6 to 9). This allows for comparison of the perceptions of the use of stem
cells with those of other applications of gene technology. More detailed findings relating
to stem cell research, the use of gene technology to produce medicines and the use of
gene technology in human transplants are provided in the following sections.
Anova tests and Spearman's correlation were conducted where appropriate using a
significance criterion of p<.05
4
13
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Figure 6. Awareness of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
The majority of participants were aware of all applications of biotechnology. Awareness of
stem cells was particularly high, at 95%. Seven in ten were aware of the use of gene
technology to produce medicines (70%), and just fewer (68%) of the use of gene
technology in human transplants. This represented a lower level of awareness than for
GM food applications (modifying the genes of plants to produce foods, 85%; using
biotechnology in the production of food from plants, 74%), but a higher level of
awareness than for the non-food genetic modification application (55%).
A summary of demographic and psychographic differences 5 in awareness of applications
is presented in Table 6. In sum, there was significantly higher awareness of GM food
crops and GM non-food crops among males, but significantly higher awareness of use of
gene technology in human transplants among females.
Table 6. Subgroup differences in awareness of applications
Awareness
Item
Males
GM food crops
91
85
GM non-food
crops
66
55
Human
transplants
73
68
Females
5
Subgroup % Total for item
%
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
14
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Figure 7. Perceived usefulness of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
There were very high perceived levels of utility for the three medical applications of
biotechnology, with 96% claiming that the use of gene technology for medicines and the
use of stem cells for conducting medical research and treating disease were useful. Only
slightly fewer, 91%, indicated that using gene technology in human transplants was
useful. Levels of perceived utility were higher for these applications than for the
applications of biotechnology in the area of food and agriculture.
As demonstrated in Table 7 below, an analysis6 of subgroup differences established that
'technophiles' were significantly more likely to perceive a number of applications as
useful. In addition, males were significantly more likely to see use of gene technology to
produce medicines as useful.
Table 7. Subgroup differences in perceived usefulness of applications
Perceived usefulness
Item
Technophiles (new technologies excite
me more than they concern me)
GM food crops
92
83
GM non-food
crops
83
70
Human
transplants
99
91
Medicines
100
96
Medicines
99
96
Males
6
Subgroup % Total for item
%
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
15
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Figure 8. Perceived risk of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
There are fairly high levels of perceived risk for all applications of biotechnology together
with high levels of perceived utility. The proportion of participants rating applications as
'risky' ranged from 37%, for the use of stem cells to conduct medical research and treat
disease, to 54%, for modifying the genes of plants to produce food. Perceived risk for
using gene technology to produce medicines and for using gene technology in human
transplants were in the middle of the range (44% and 47% respectively).
A summary of the demographic and psychographic differences7 7 in perceived risk is
presented in Table 8. In sum, the only significant differences to emerge were that those
who disagreed that 'new technologies excite me more than concern me' were more likely
to perceive the use of stem cells and the use of gene technology in the production of
medicines to be risky.
Table 8. Subgroup differences in perceived risk of applications
Risks
Item
Technophobes (disagree that new
technologies excite me more than they
concern me)
Medicines
59
44
Stem cells
49
37
7
Subgroup % Total for item
%
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
16
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Figure 9. Perceived acceptability of general applications
Base: rotated questions CATI
Results for perceived acceptability of applications follow a similar pattern to those for
perceived utility, with health and medical applications receiving more positive ratings
than food and agriculture applications. The application seen to be acceptable by the
largest proportion of participants was using stem cells to conduct medical research and
treat disease.
As indicated in Table 9 below, the only significant predictor 8 of perceived acceptance of
technologies was attitude towards new technologies. 'Technophiles' were significantly
more accepting of all applications.
Table 9. Subgroup differences in perceived acceptability of applications
Acceptance
Item
Technophiles (new technologies
excite me more than they concern
me)
8
Subgroup %
Total for
item %
GM food crops
84
73
GM non-food crops
91
73
Biotechnology in the
production of food
from plants
89
76
Medicines
94
89
Stem cells
98
92
Human transplants
93
84
Pearson Chi square tests were conducted using a significance criterion of p<.05
17
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Qualitative findings
Group discussions shed some light on why, in general, health and medical applications of
biotechnology attracted more support than biotechnology in food and agriculture. Some
of the major factors contributing to these positive perceptions include the following:

Perceived purpose: Health and medical applications were generally seen to have
humanitarian and noble objectives. In general there was greater understanding of
the potential benefits of gene technology in medicine.

Risks versus benefit: Many participants had come to realise the significant
potential benefits for human health in the development of medical treatments
making use of gene technology. This was particularly the case following heavy
media coverage of the parliamentary debate on the use of embryonic stem cells.
Risks on the other hand were seen to be fairly low, due to the perceived level of
control that can be exercised (discussed below).

Perceived level of control: Medical technology is usually confined to the
laboratory until the time that it is certified as safe for use in treating patients. In
addition, medicines and medical treatments are applied to individual patients (who
have a medical condition requiring treatment) rather than across the population.
For these reasons, it was felt that a satisfactory level of control can be exercised
over any potentially adverse consequences of the technology.

Strict regulation: Regulation of medical research and medicines was perceived to
be very strict, especially when compared with other sectors. Most people would
therefore trust a medical treatment that has been certified safe by a government
body, regardless of the actual technology in question.
Of the three areas of application with a medical focus about which group participants
were asked, stem cells were seen as the most acceptable (as well as being the most
familiar to many participants), followed by gene technology in medicines, and then gene
technology in human transplants. As with the survey sample, all three areas of
applications were considered to be more valuable than agricultural applications - with
benefits to human health regarded as far more important than the commercial or
economic benefits that participants believed agricultural applications would deliver.
The following quotes are typical of focus group feedback on medical applications of
biotechnology:
I think personally having seen people going through illnesses, that's had an effect
on me to be more to be more open to it.so you'd do anything to [help them],
because it's such a great thing.
In medical research they generally have much higher ethical standards and more
rigorous review of the work that goes on by your peers before that work is
accepted. Whereas with the other ones where they're modifying plants, that's a lot
more about making money than it is about helping people. They're going to push
the boundaries of what's acceptable and what's not. And people are less emotive
about what's happening to a wheat plant that they are about their own liver.
18
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Awareness and perceptions of using stem cells
This section presents the detailed findings for perceptions of the use of stem cells to
conduct research and to treat disease. Participants were asked their opinions on the
general application, as well as specific examples of the application; use of stem cells
cloned from the patient's own cells, use of embryonic stem cells and use of nonembryonic stem cells. Figures 10 to 13 show the results over time for awareness,
perceived usefulness, perceived risk and perceived acceptability of all stem cell
applications. This is followed by a discussion of the qualitative feedback regarding the
use of stem cells.
Awareness
Figure 10. Awareness of the use of stem cells.
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
** 2005 ... with non-embryonic stem cells
Awareness of stem cells is high, with 95% of participants indicating awareness of the
general applications. Awareness levels dropped, however, after participants were
presented with details regarding the specific techniques involved in the use of stem cells.
Results were 87%, 76% and 69% for awareness of the use of embryonic, cloned and
non-embryonic stem cells respectively.
Compared to 2005, awareness of the use of both embryonic and non-embryonic stem
cells has increased significantly, with a particularly large rise for non-embryonic stem
cells. There has been no significant increase in awareness of the general application, the
likely result of a ceiling effect.
19
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Perceived usefulness
Figure 11. Perceived usefulness of the use of stem cells
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
** 2005 ... with non-embryonic stem cells
Levels of perceived utility are very high for all applications of the use of stem cells, in
particular for the general application (96%) and for the application involving the use of
stem cells cloned from the patient's own cells (95%). The use of non-embryonic stem
cells is perceived to be more useful than the use of embryonic stem cells, at 86% and
81% respectively.
Perceived utility has increased significantly over the past two years for the general
application of the use of stem cells, as well as for application involving the use of nonembryonic stem cells.
20
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Perceived risk
Figure 12. Perceived risk of the use of stem cells
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
** 2005 with non-embryonic stem cells
Levels of perceived risk remained consistent with results from last wave and fairly
consistent across applications. This wave's results ranged from 34% who perceived the
use of cloned stem cells to be risky, to 40% who perceived the use of embryonic stem
cells to be risky.
One area of change from last wave was a shift in the proportion of participants who were
unsure of their perceptions towards those who felt that the applications were not risky.
This applies to attitudes towards the use of embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells.
21
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Perceived acceptability
Figure 13. Perceived acceptability of the use of stem cells
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 Using stem cells to conduct medical research
** 2005... with non-embryonic stem cells
Perceived acceptability of applications of stem cells followed a similar trend to perceived
utility, with acceptability highest for the general application (92%) and the application
involving the use of stem cells cloned from the patient's own cells (91%), and lowest for
the application involving the use of embryonic stem cells (76%).
Compared to 2005, perceived acceptability of all applications has significantly increased
since 2005.
Qualitative findings
Reflecting very high rates of acceptability among the survey sample, group discussions
were very positive about the use of stem cells to conduct medical research and treat
disease. Many people mentioned the recent debate in parliament and in the media as
helping them understand the potential benefits of stem cell technology, with a
considerable number saying that the prospect of significant medical breakthroughs was
enough to change their minds on the issue.
A lot of that came out in the discussion in parliament, in the debate in parliament,
which was probably a really good process because finally we got some good media
coverage. Good in the sense that it explained everything.
While most participants accepted the use of stem cells to conduct research and treat
disease, it is was also commonly felt that strict regulations need to be in place to
determine the kinds of uses to which stem cells can be put (and what kinds of stem cells
22
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
can be used). Many people appeared to be satisfied with the way recent legislation on the
issue had defined these limits.
If there were certain rules about which foetuses and how they were to be used and
harvested, that would have influenced my decision. If there were quite clear
boundaries.
I think that we have the structures and checking mechanisms in place that all of
this would be done in an ethical and thought out way.
Many group participants expressed concerns about the role that religious beliefs had
played in parliamentary deliberations on the stem cell issue. These people argued
strongly that regulations about medical research and treatments should be developed on
the basis of expert scientific advice and with the potential risks and benefits in mind, and
should not be influenced by the religious beliefs of key individuals involved in the
decision-making process.
Awareness and perceptions of using gene technology to
produce medicines
Participants were asked their opinions about the use of gene technology to produce
medicine. Once again they were asked about their awareness, perceived usefulness,
perceived risk and acceptability of using gene technology in this context. They were then
asked their views on producing medicine by introducing human genes into animals,
bacteria and plants
The findings are shown in the charts below
Awareness
Figure 14. Awareness of using gene technology to produce medicines
Base: rotated questions CATI
23
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Awareness of the general application was fairly high, at seven in ten (70%). Awareness
levels dropped markedly, however, when participants were presented with the details of
the technique involved. Awareness was particularly low for the application involving the
introduction of genes from humans into plants (17%).
There has been a substantial rise in awareness of the general application since last wave,
up from 38% to 70%. Awareness of the production of medicines by introducing genes
from humans into bacteria has also increased significantly since last wave, up from 25%
to 38%.
Perceived usefulness
Figure 15. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology to produce medicines
Base: rotated questions CATI
Almost all participants (96%) perceived using gene technology to produce medicines to
be useful. This represents a substantial increase in positive perceptions since 2005, up
from 73%. Significant increases were also found for the application involving the
introduction of genes from humans into bacteria (up from 49% to 65%), as well as the
introduction of genes from humans into animals (up from 38% to 51%). As found last
wave, perceived utility levels declined somewhat when participants were presented with
specific details of the technique involved.
24
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Perceived risk
Figure 16. Perceived risk of using gene technology to produce medicines
Base: rotated questions CATI
Almost one in two (44%) participants felt that using gene technology to produce
medicines was risky. This proportion increased notably after participants had been
prompted with specific applications, ranging from 51% for introducing genes from
humans into plants through to 71% for introducing genes from humans into animals.
Compared to last wave, there was a significant decline in perceived risk for the main
application of producing medicines through the use of gene technology (down from 53%
to 44%), but no significant movements for the applications involving more details of the
technique.
25
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Perceived acceptability
Figure 17. Perceived acceptability of the use of gene technology to produce
medicines
Base: rotated questions CATI
There has been a significant shift in acceptability of all applications of medicine
production since 2005. This is particularly evident for the general application which was
this wave perceived to be acceptable by almost nine in ten participants (89%), a rise of
24%.
Perceived acceptability followed a similar trend to perceived utility, with less positive
perceptions indicated after participants were presented with specific details about the
technique. Perceptions were least positive for the application involving the introduction of
genes from humans into animals.
Qualitative findings
Understanding of the use of gene technology in producing medicines was variable in the
group discussions. There was confusion about how exactly genes might be 'used' to make
medicine, with only some people understanding that medicines could complement or
counteract the expression of genes.
As with stem cells, and despite some misunderstanding about the techniques in question,
attitudes towards this area of biotechnology were extremely positive, including among
people who were said to be sceptical in the past. The amount of positive media coverage
of gene-based medicines and the evident benefits for human health were seen as major
reasons to support the development of medicines through gene technology.
26
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
I think people were just scared because nobody knew anything about it and now
people can see what they're doing, and they are doing such wonderful things with
people with diseases, so why wouldn't you just say, "Okay, congratulations!"
Producing medicines through gene technology was regarded especially favourably by
some participants because it was seen as less interventionist than other techniques. In
other words, because people regard this application (correctly or otherwise) as not
involving the direct manipulation of genes, it is regarded as more acceptable than (for
instance) therapeutic cloning or the use of stem cells.
Awareness and perceptions of using gene technology in
human transplants
Survey participants were asked for their views on the use of gene technology in human
transplants. Once again they were asked about their awareness, perceived usefulness,
perceived risk and acceptability of using gene technology in this context.
Awareness
Figure 18. Awareness of the use of gene technology in human transplants
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 ... by transplanting the body parts of animals into humans
** 2005 ... by transplanting human body grown in animals into humans
In contrast with results for the use of gene technology to produce medicines, awareness
levels were higher when participants were prompted with details about the technique
involved in using gene technology in human transplants. Just under seven in ten (68%)
participants indicated that they were aware of the general application, while 75%
indicated awareness for transplanting human tissue or organs grown in animals into
27
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
humans, and 82% indicated awareness for transplanting animal tissue or organs into
humans.
There was a significant increase in awareness since last wave for the general application
(up from 45% to 68%), but no change in awareness levels for the two specific
applications.
Perceived usefulness
Figure 19. Perceived usefulness of using gene technology in human transplants
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 ... by transplanting the body parts of animals into humans
** 2005 ... by transplanting human body grown in animals into humans
More than nine in ten (91%) participants indicated that using gene technology in human
transplants is useful, representing a significant increase in positive perceptions since
2005 (up from 77%). A significant increase in positive perceptions was also found for the
application involving transplanting animal tissue or organs into humans.
As found with perceptions of the use of gene technology to produce medicines, perceived
utility declined after participants were presented with details about the technique
involved. In this instance, perceived utility dropped back to 72% for transplanting animal
tissue or organs into humans and to 70% for transplanting human tissue or organs
grown in animals into humans.
28
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Perceived risk
Figure 20. Perceived risk of using gene technology in human transplants
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 ... by transplanting the body parts of animals into humans
** 2005 ... by transplanting human body parts grown in animals into humans
Just less than one in two (47%) participants indicated that using gene technology in
human transplants was 'risky', a significant decline in perceptions of risk compared to
last wave (down from 56%). In line with findings for other applications in the health and
medical field, participants were more likely to view applications as risky when presented
with detail about the technique. There was no change since 2005 to perceptions of risk
for these applications.
29
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Perceived acceptability
Figure 21. Perceived acceptability of using gene technology in human
transplants
Base: rotated questions CATI
* 2005 .
** 2005 .
by transplanting the body parts of animals into humans
by transplanting human body parts grown in animals into humans
Results for perceived acceptability follow a very similar trend to results for perceived
usefulness, with significant increases in positive perceptions for the main application (up
from 65% to 84%) and for the application involving transplanting animal tissue or organs
into humans (up from 49% to 58%), and more positive perceptions for the main
application than for specific applications.
Qualitative findings
The use of gene technology in human transplants was regarded favourably in most group
discussions, with some referring to the shortage of human organs for transplant as a
compelling reason to pursue this area of biotechnology. Little or no differentiation was
made between the various techniques involved (e.g. animal tissue versus human tissue
grown in animals), although these issues were not explored in detail.
A minority of participants regarded the use of gene technology in human transplants as
'unnatural' or overly interventionist. However, these people tended to have a poor
understanding of the techniques in question or the broader scientific issues.
We don't know necessarily what we're going to be getting. There could be
generations of trials that need to go into something like this. It could interrupt
human development and either bring out the super race or stunt human
development along the way. It's quite dangerous.
30
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Response to media stories relating to the role of genes in
human behaviour
Group participants were asked about their impressions of the media's representation of
the role of genes in human behaviour, with a focus on six specific areas:

Behavioural problems

Obesity

Panic attacks

Reading skills

Alcohol craving

Violence.
After discussing their general views on these issues and how they are portrayed by the
media, participants were asked to read one of six newspaper articles (one on each of the
above topics) and to provide verbal and written feedback. The articles were deliberately
chosen so as to be representative of tabloid-style reporting in this area.9
General attitudes towards the role of genes in determining
behaviour
When asked for their general opinions on the role of genes in determining behaviour,
group participants often made reference to the 'nature versus nurture' debate. There was
some awareness of the way that genetic and environmental factors interact, and are not
simply competing forces:
Some people have the ability and are in the wrong environment and can't reach
their full potential. So I think the ability may be genetic ... and the right
environment can enhance that ability.
I think that your genes are a foundation but there are so many other factors in your
life that may trigger these things or may suppress them. So you may have an
addictive gene in your body, but if your surroundings don't really trigger that, like
your parents don't smoke and they don't drink, then I think that that's just set off.
A fair number of participants expressed concerns that talk of genetic predisposition might
give people an excuse for their socially undesirable behaviour:
You can't say it's okay because your genes say you're going to be fat.
The gene, I don't think it can cause people to do anything, it's learned behaviour,
how they're brought up and their parents' personalities ... it makes me angry in
court cases where they're [blaming genes].
You think you've got a genetic mutation that allows you to be more prone to being
obese ... I think a lot of people perhaps say it's just genetics. But it's because of
9
The six newspaper articles are reproduced in Appendix A.
31
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
the environment they've been brought up in . I believe there might be a genetic
mutation that may allow people to [become obese] but the environment plays a
new part in it, and people need to take more responsibility for diet and exercise.
A minority of people took positions at either extreme of the debate, arguing that human
behaviour is totally determined either by genes or by environmental factors (with the
latter category often seen to include a notion of free choice). For some, there was a
perception that "you can have control over your genes," and that environmental factors
like diet, or your mother's behaviour during pregnancy, can somehow influence one's
genetic makeup.
Media portrayal of the role of genes in determining behaviour
ADD/ADHD was the most quickly and most consistently mentioned issue when the
participants were asked about stories in the media relating to genes and behaviour.
Sexual orientation, addiction, depression and obesity were also mentioned.
Some participants cited media articles with unusual conclusions:
One thing I definitely recall about genetic propensity for violence; they were saying
that left-handed people were more likely to commit murder.
I heard on the Radio on 2UE, they were discussing rage, like with Martin Bryant and
his inherent condition, and if with assessment and stuff they could cut out a lot of
these people with these tendencies before they perpetrated a crime.
There was a perception that tabloid newspapers, and commercial television and radio
current affairs programs, are not credible sources of information, and are prone to
sensationalism. However, participants also readily acknowledged they generally read
newspaper articles casually and largely uncritically (as opposed to their careful
consideration of the issues in a focus group environment). Nevertheless, there appeared
to be a degree of scepticism about the validity of the results of scientific studies reported
by the media and the extent to which science can legitimately separate genetic from
environmental factors in such studies.
Reactions to the stimulus material
After reading the stimulus materials (that is, the six newspaper articles reproduced at
Appendix A), most people were critical of the way these issues were reported. The Herald
Sun article (article 1) was considered sensationalist by most when during discussions
(although the written feedback of some participants suggests that these people initially
had a less critical interpretation).
Just a story to excite the public and sell papers. No scientific evidence. You can
make up a story to prove anything is down to genes. Nature vs. nurture. Both play
a part but in this case [there is] so little evidence.
Articles 1, 5 and 6 all prompted scepticism about the methodology of the scientific
studies being reported; this may be because some participants found the conclusions
(i.e. that genes are an important determinant of behaviour) difficult to accept.
For some, upon discovering that the research was from a source they regarded as
credible, participants found the conclusions of the article to be credible. Many
participants acknowledged that the articles that went into the most scientific detail
32
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
(articles 5 and 6) were difficult to understand. This led them to conclude that the
relationship between genetics and behaviour is complex - with some concerns that this
complexity was not reflected in the headlines:
My point is you've got some relatively sensational headlines there, and the rest of
the story is ambiguous, and you can draw any conclusions you want.
The general view was that newspaper articles tend to begin with sensationalist headlines,
but then provide more detailed discussion later in the piece.
Article 2, from The Adelaide Advertiser, briefly outlines some research suggesting a
genetic mutation that might predispose people to eat more, and discusses the possible
shortcomings of the research. Although there was some appreciation of the way in which
the article presents both sides of the debate, participants generally stressed the
importance of diet and exercise (rather than genetics) in contributing to obesity. Many
cited the figure given in the article -that the genetic mutation was "responsible for 6 per
cent of all cases of severe early-onset obesity" - as evidence against the headline: "Don't
feel guilty, it's in the genes".
Article 4, from The Age, discusses how the best method for teaching children to read
might be genetically predetermined. This article was considered credible and easy to
understand.
33
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
4. Conclusions
This section presents the conclusions of the research
Overall support for the use of biotechnology in health and medicine has increased
significantly since 2005. Support remains more positive, on balance, than for food and
agriculture Applications. Support has also increased for a range of health and medical
applications including the use of stem cells, using gene technology to produce medicines
and using gene technology in human transplants. Importantly, the ultimate objective of
each application is much more relevant to public perceptions than the exact techniques in
question. For the majority, these objectives are perceived as humanitarian and 'noble' in
nature. Other factors contributing to public support for health and medical applications
include the perception of low risk of potential negative consequences due to laboratory
containment of technologies at the experimental stage, and the perception of strict
regulation of medical research and medicines and of high compliance with these
regulations.
There were strong opinions expressed by some that regulations about medical research
and treatments should be developed on the basis of expert scientific advice alone, rather
than being influenced by the moral beliefs of those involved in the decision-making
process.
Stem cell research is even more widely supported today than in 2005. Qualitative
research suggests that this increased support is due to the heavy media coverage of the
recent parliamentary debate, and a corresponding increase in community understanding
of the potential benefits of this technology. There do, however, remain some concerns
regarding the source of the stem cells.
There is strong support for the use of gene technology in producing medicines, including
among people who were said to be sceptical in the past. The amount of positive media
coverage of gene-based medicines and the evident benefits for human health were seen
as major reasons to support the development of medicines through gene technology.
Understanding of how this is done, however, is fairly poor.
The use of gene technology in human transplants was regarded favourably by most focus
group participants, with some referring to the shortage of human organs for transplant
as a compelling reason to pursue this area of biotechnology. Little or no differentiation
was made between the various techniques involved (e.g. animal tissue versus human
tissue grown in animals), although these issues were not explored in detail.
Broadly speaking, it appears that people have become more familiar with biotechnology
and gene technology over the last two years.
Qualitative results suggest that the recent public debate on stem cells has had a positive
influence on awareness and understanding of such issues. For the most part, it seems to
have demonstrated to the community that policy and regulation is soundly based and the
result of informed debate, in which all relevant considerations have been addressed by
experts.
34
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
Appendix A - Exploratory Group Notepad Exercise
Participants were presented with one of the following media exercises and were asked to
write a response to the question 'How would you describe this article?' This notepad
exercise was followed by a discussion of participants' responses.
1. Your kids are ratbags? Them's fightin' genes
8 February 2007
Herald Sun
Fighting between parents is not to blame for "ratbag" behaviour in children, according to
new Australian research that says it's all in the genes.
Scientists have discredited the well-worn theory that rows in the home can be
responsible for bullying, shoplifting, vandalism and other conduct problems among kids.
Instead it seems the link is more direct - parents who argue a lot pass their genes for
disruptive behaviour on to their children, who develop a juvenile version of the same
traits.
The findings, from a study of more than 1000 Australian twins, could prompt a shift in
the way delinquency is treated in therapy.
"Our data shows that marital conflict is not a major culprit," said epidemiologist Nick
Martin, from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research.
"Rows have often been blamed for ratbag behaviour but we've got no evidence to
suggest that they are the problem."
Researchers, including some from the US, studied 1045 pairs of twins and their children
to see if the link between parental fighting and kids' conduct problems was genetic or
environmental. They found children of an identical twin had the same levels of
behavioural problems regardless of whether it was their parent or their parent's identical
sibling that had marital rows.
Children whose own parents don't fight, but the genetically-identical aunt or uncle does,
had the same level of delinquency as children living in the opposite situation, the
researchers found.
Prof Martin said this was because this child could pick up the "disruptive" traits from the
identical aunt or uncle, proving the link was genetic.
2. Don't feel guilty 'it's in the genes'
5 September 2006
The Advertiser
Big boned people shouldn't feel guilty about their weight because their genes are to
blame, an international congress has been told.
35
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
But the comments sparked debate, with a leading Australian scientist saying people
should take more personal responsibility for their diets to end the obesity epidemic.
Dr Sadaf Farooqi, of the University of Cambridge, said people with the genetic mutation responsible for 6 per cent of all cases of severe early-onset obesity - felt hungrier and
could appear tall, strong or "big boned". She said they were predisposed to eat more.
But Emma Whitelaw, from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, said genetic
predisposition let obese people off the hook for not looking after their diet.
3. 'Gene for panic attacks'
Anxiety may be genetic10
A gene may be partly responsible for causing psychological disorders such as panic
attacks, say researchers.
A team from Ohio State University has found that people with a particular variation in the
serotonin transporter gene (5-HTT) showed a greater fear response during a laboratory
experiment.
Lead researcher Professor Norman Schmidt said: "While a single gene cannot be held
accountable for complex emotional states - such as anxiety disorders - we're beginning
to pinpoint which genetic traits may make a person susceptible to developing
psychological disorders."
The 5-HTT gene is responsible for regulating the chemical serotonin, which helps
transmit messages in the brain.
The people who showed a greater fear response during an experiment had a variation in
the gene that caused the brain to take up serotonin faster, leaving less available.
A lack of serotonin is thought to be linked to the development of psychological disorders.
In the study, 72 participants took two breaths of pressurised air through a mouthpiece.
The breaths were spaced 10 minutes apart. One breath consisted of pressurised room
air, and the other was a carbon dioxide-oxygen mix designed to make subjects feel they
are momentarily short of breath.
This can produce symptoms of anxiety in some people.
Subjects with the "long" form of the 5-HTT gene - the one implicated in the increased
regulation of serotonin - reported feeling more anxiety when they took the carbon
dioxide breath.
Dr Schmidt said. "It's clear that a single gene is rarely the culprit - there are multiple
genes that are involved in most types of psychological disorders.
"But I think that the combination of genetic traits and psychological traits may ultimately
be the best way to predict psychological disorders."
10
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/790561.stm Accessed 21st June, 2007
36
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
John Fraise, a chartered clinical psychologist at the Adult Psychological Therapy Service
in Wakefield, said the research was interesting, but would not, in the short-term, make
any difference to the practicalities of managing anxiety disorders.
He said: "My hands on experience of dealing with individuals for many years has led me
to believe that some people may be more pre-disposed to stress than others.
"But I would suggest that many factors play a part.
"The presence or absence of a piece of genetic code will not necessarily determine how
somebody reacts to stress.
"Some people may have developed skills to enable them to manage anxiety sufficiently
well that they never manifest the problem even though the pre-disposition is there."
The study appears in the new issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
4. Reading skills are in the genes, study shows
21 September 2006
The Age
Genes are credited for many personal traits, ranging from height and weight to poor
eyesight. Now, it seems, reading skills can be added to the list.
A study of twins has found different genes influence whether a child can learn to read by
phonics - the sounding out of words - or by recognising words visually.
"This study gives valuable insights into these two reading processes that policymakers
might like to use in developing policy about how reading is taught to children," said
researcher Anne Castles, from the University of Melbourne.
The study tested the reading and spelling ability of about 600 pairs of identical and nonidentical twins, aged from 12 to 18. If reading skills had a genetic basis, identical twins,
who share all their genes, would be more similar in their abilities than non-identical
twins, who share about half their genes.
The researchers used made-up words to test the youths' sounding-out technique. Words
that could not be read or spelt by phonics, such as "yacht", were used to measure their
ability with the whole-word recognition approach.
"What we found was that both of these reading skills have a genetic basis . . . and
different sets of genes seemed to be involved in acquiring the two different skills,"
Associate Professor Castles said.
The three-year study also showed reading and spelling involved the same sets of genes.
"People often say 'I'm fine at reading, but I'm hopeless at spelling'," she said. "(But) in
terms of what your inherited characteristics bring you, it seems to be essentially the
same skill."
Associate Professor Castles said the results showed it was important to teach and test
children using both the phonics and whole-word approach, to ensure that any problems
were detected and treated early. "Just because something is genetically based . . . it's
37
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
not some kind of sentence for life. It just means that a child might need help in a
particular area."
5. Gene mutation may raise the risk of alcoholism
10 January 200711
Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=&storyid=2007-0110T142530Z_01_TON014235_RTRUKOC_0_US-GENEALCOHOLISM.xml&src=nl_ushealth1100
Researchers have identified a gene variation that seems to influence a person's craving
for alcohol; a finding they believe could have important implications for identifying at-risk
drinkers as well as for selecting the best treatment for a patient's dependence.
The gene mutation involves a cell structure called the mu-opioid receptor. In previous
studies, this receptor has been shown to bind beta-endorphin, a pain-relieving chemical
the body releases in response to alcohol intake and other stimuli.
Further research has shown that when the gene variant, or the "G allele," is present, the
receptor binds to beta-endorphin more strongly than when the more common "A allele" is
present.
Dr Esther van den Wildenberg, from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, and
colleagues investigated the impact of the A and G alleles on alcohol craving.
The study included 84 men who carried only the A allele and 24 who carried at least one
copy of the G allele. Family histories of alcoholism were comparable in each group. G
allele carriers showed significantly more craving than did subjects with only the A allele.
In addition, the authors found that G allele carriers were more likely to also report illicit
drug use at some point in their lives.
6. Violence Gene
We all get angry sometimes. But some people turn that anger into violence... and
scientists are discovering that may be partly due to genetics. This ScienCentral News
video explains.
Genetically Wired Brains
With swelling prison populations, researchers are trying to understand the biology behind
aggressive behavior. National Institute of Mental Health scientist Andreas MeyerLindenberg is looking for clues to how genes wire our brains early in life.
He's focusing on a specific gene that was previously linked to impulsive violence in
certain populations of people. A study in 2002 found that subjects with a particular form
of a gene had a significantly higher risk of violence only if they were abused as children.
Reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=&storyid=2007-0110T142530Z_01_TON014235_RTRUKOC_0_US-GENEALCOHOLISM.xml&src=nl_ushealth1100 . Accessed 21st June, 2007
11
38
Community Attitudes to Biotechnology Report on Health and Medical Applications
While this gene-environment interaction is important in understanding this behavior,
Meyer-Lindenberg wanted to focus on the genetic facets of violence.
The study also found that a variation in this gene, called the L version of MAO-A,
disproportionately affects men, because this gene is located on the X chromosome, which
determines sex. Since men only have one X chromosome, they are more prone to the
effects of the gene. Women have two X chromosomes, but the chances of having the
gene variation on both chromosomes is very rare.
"One of the most fascinating things," Meyer-Lindenberg says, about this field of science
called psychiatric genetics, "is how it is possible that genes [can] encode for molecules
that affect something as complex as behavior, even psychiatric illness such as depression
and social behavior."
Genes direct the production of proteins, which are the building blocks of living systems.
Meyer-Lindenberg is investigating a gene that directs the creation of a special type of
protein, an enzyme, that breaks down a chemical in the brain called serotonin.
Serotonin is a chemical messenger in the brain that affects how brain cells communicate
with each another. Meyer-Lindenberg says that different forms of the gene can affect the
brain's wiring and, "will then presumably contribute to behaviors and emotions such as
fear or aggression."
To isolate how this gene variation might affect the brain, Meyer-Lindenberg took MRI
brain scans of more than 100 healthy volunteers. Since this genetic variation is common
in our population, some of the volunteers had this genetic variation, and some didn't.
He showed them pictures of angry and fearful faces, and other disturbing images, like
those of an angry dog or of a gun pointed towards the screen.
As he wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences those with the
aggression-related form of the gene responded to the pictures with increased activity in
the amygdala — the brain area that detects danger, but less activity in the cingulate
cortex — the brain region which controls aggression.
These brain patterns have been linked to impulsive violence, but Meyer-Lindenberg
cautions in his paper, "...because our sample was psychiatrically normal, the variation
observed is clearly compatible with normal mental health and does not imply or suggest
increased risk for violence in our sample."
There are many possible factors at work, he says, and violence is an extremely complex
behavior. "Whether or not any given person in any given situation will become violent is
known to be almost impossible to predict," he explains.
So while this gene may contribute to aggressive behavior, that doesn't mean we're
chained to our genetic makeup.
Meyer-Lindenberg's research was published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences on March 28, 2006 and was funded by the National
Institutes of Health.
39