Stem Cell Reviews and Reports

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 541–554 | Cite as

The Impact of Commercialisation on Public Perceptions of Stem Cell Research: Exploring Differences Across the Use of Induced Pluripotent Cells, Human and Animal Embryos

  • Christine R. Critchley
  • Gordana Bruce
  • Matthew Farrugia


The development of pluripotent cells that enable stem cell research (SCR) without destroying human embryos is now a leading priority for science. Public and political controversies associated with human embryonic SCR experienced in the recent past should be alleviated if scientists no longer need to harvest cells from human embryos. This research suggests however additional issues needing attention in order to gain the public’s trust and support: the use of mouse embryos and the commercialisation of research. Using a representative sample of 2,800 Australians, and an experimental telephone survey design, this research compared levels and predictors of public support for stem cell research across three cell source conditions: human embryo (HE), mouse embryo (ME) and induced pluripotent cells (iPSCs). The results revealed that the public were significantly more likely to support research using iPSCs than HE and ME cells and public compared to private research (regardless of the cell source). There was no significant difference in support for HE compared to ME research, but the former was viewed as more likely to lead to accessible health care benefits and to be associated with more trustworthy scientists. The results of a multimediation structural equation model showed that the primary reason support for SCR significantly dropped in a private compared to public context (i.e., the commercialisation effect) was because public scientists were trusted more than private scientists. This effect was consistent across all three SCR materials, suggesting that the use of mouse embryos or even iPSCs will not reduce the publics’ concern with commercialised science. The implications these results have for public acceptance of stem cell and animal research are discussed in relation to possible solutions such as increasing public awareness of the regulation of animal research and benefit sharing.


Embryonic stem cell research Public attitudes Commercialisation of science Animal experimentation Trust in science 



Firstly we would like to thank the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Professor Russell Crawford for funding the data collection of this research via the Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor. We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of our CATI team, including the interviewers, supervisors and technical staff. Thanks are also needed to Jarrod Walshe for assistance with script writing, response rate calculations, data cleaning and general technical assistance. The authors would also like to thank the thoughtful comments made by two anonymous reviewers which significantly improved the initial manuscript. Christine Critchley who is the guarantor, wrote the manuscript, conducted the statistical analysis and contributed to the design of the research. Gordana Bruce played a significant role in managing the CATI facility and all aspects of data collection, as well as contributing to questionnaire design and editing of the manuscript. Mathew Farrugia contributed to the editing of the manuscript, literature reviews and the design of the research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Evans, M. D. R., & Kelley, J. (2011). US attitudes toward human embryonic stem cell research. Nature Biotechnology, 29, 484–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The competition for world views, values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion, 17, 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Critchley, C., & Turney, L. (2004). Understanding Australians’ perceptions of controversial research: the influence of social trust, religiosity and anti-intellectualism on opposition to stem cell research. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 2, 82–107.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green, R. M. (2007). Can we develop ethically universal embryonic stem-cell lines? Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 480–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leeb, C., Jurga, M., McGuckin, C., Moriggl, R., & Kenner, L. (2010). Promising new sources for pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, 6, 15–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institutes for Health. (2013). Stem Cell Information. Accessed 21/03/2013.
  7. 7.
    Critchley, C. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 309–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Einsiedel, E., Premji, S., Geransar, R., Orton, N. C., Thavaratnam, T., & Bennett, L. K. (2009). Diversity in public views toward stem cell sources and policies. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, 5, 102–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2008). Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Science Communication, 30, 8–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eurobarometer. (2005). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. European Commission. Accessed 13/04/ 2013.
  11. 11.
    Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 704–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Critchley, C., & Nicol, D. (2011). Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for science: is it about the funding source or the organization conducting research. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 347–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizens perception of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waterston, R. H., Lindblad-Toh, K., Birney, E., Rogers, J., Abril, J. F., Agarwal, P., et al. (2002). Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature, 420, 520–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Human Genome Research Institute. (2002). Accessed 22/03/2013.
  16. 16.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration. (2004). Access to unapproved therapeutic goods—clinical trials in Australia. Accessed 22/03/2013.
  17. 17.
    Festing, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Reports, 8, 526–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pifer, L., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Society and Animals, 2, 95–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Swami, V., Furnham, A., & Christopher, A. N. (2008). Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 269–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K., & Brandon, D. (2009). Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arundel, A., & Sawaya, D. (2008). The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda. Paris: OECD. Accessed 22/03/2013.
  22. 22.
    Crettaz von Roten, F. (2012). Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662511428045.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hagelin, J., Carlsson, H., & Hau, J. (2003). An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935–938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruce, G., & Critchley, C. (2003–2011). Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor (2003–2012). Accessed 22/03/2013.
  26. 26.
    Jones, D. (2011). Genetic engineering of a mouse: Dr Frank Ruddle and somatic cell genetics. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 84, 117–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J., & Spears, T. (2002). Towards a Better Mark: Science, the public and the media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council, UK.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Centre for Science in the Public Interest. (2004). Readers consider the source, but media don’t always give it. July, Accessed 13/03/2013.
  29. 29.
    Welcome Trust. (1999). Public perspectives on human cloning. Accessed 22/03/2013.
  30. 30.
    The Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat. (2005). International public opinion research on emerging technologies. Canada-US survey results. Ottawa: Industry Canada.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem cell research and economic promises. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chalmers, D., & Nicol, D. (2004). Commercialisation of biotechnology: public trust and research. International Journal of Biotechnology, 6, 116–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Der Weyden, M. (2001). Confronting conflict of interest in research organisations: time for national action. Medical Journal of Australia, 175, 396–397.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Caulfield, T., Einsiedel, E., Merz, J. F., & Nicol, D. (2006). Trust, patents and public perceptions: the governance of controversial biotechnology research. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 1353–1354.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nicol, D., & Critchley, C. (2011). Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 534–555.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nicol, D., & Critchley, C. (2009). What benefit sharing arrangements do people want from biobanks? A survey of public opinion in Australia. In J. Kaye & M. Stranger (Eds.), Principles and practice in biobank governance (1st ed.). Cheltenham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2009). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 4th edn. Lenexa, KS.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Takahashi, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim, D., et al. (2009). Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells by direct delivery of reprogramming proteins. Cell Stem Cell, 4, 472–476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010) Mplus user’s guide 6th ed., Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Little, M., Hall, W., & Orlandi, A. (2006). Stem cell research and economic promises. EMBO Reports, 7, 1188–1192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine R. Critchley
    • 1
  • Gordana Bruce
    • 1
  • Matthew Farrugia
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Life and Social SciencesSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations