Purpose: The understanding of the public’s knowledge on human cloning (HC) and its acceptability are considered important for the development of evidence-based policy making. The aim of this research study was to investigate the demographic and socioeconomic variables that affect the public’s knowledge and intention to use HC in urban areas of Greece. Additionally, the possible association of religiousness with the knowledge and the intention to use HC were also investigated.
Methods Individual interviews were conducted with 1020 men and women of urban areas in Greece. Stratified random sampling was performed to select the respondents. Several scientists, experts in HC, evaluated the content of the instrument initially developed. The final questionnaire was consequently the result of a pilot study.
Results Almost half of the respondents (51.5%) believed that “HC is a sort of in vitro fertilization” and 42.9% that “it has already been applied to human being.” They were not aware that “the cloned fetus grows in the woman’s uterus” (41.5%) and that “HC could regenerate human organs” (41.7%). The acceptability of human cloning for the cure of terminal diseases and transplantation need is very high (70.7% and 58.6%, respectively). The public’s intention to have recourse to cloning on the grounds of “bringing” back to life a loved person or because of reproductive disorders was reported as desire by 35% and 32.5%, respectively. The occupational category (scientists, self-employed, and artists), the Intention to use HC, and the number of children are highly significant predictors of valid knowledge about HC. Low rates of church attendance appeared to relate with high reported Intention to use HC, and increasing scores of valid knowledge about HC increased the public’s Intention to use HC.
Conclusions A number of specific demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and high scores of knowledge provide a persuasive justification in demonstrating intention toward HC. The current study suggests that these findings should receive further attention by policymakers and scientists within the Greek context.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Jasanoff S: The life sciences and the rule of law. J Mol Biol 2002;319:891– 899
Etkin LD: The debate about human cloning. Differentiation 2002;69:145– 146
Pattinson SD: Reproductive cloning: Can cloning harm the clone? Med Law Rev 2002;10:295– 307
Neresini F: And man descended from the sheep: The public debate on cloning in the Italian press. Public Understanding Sci 2000;9:359– 382
Einsiedel EF: Cloning and its discontents— a Canadian perspective. Nat Biotechnol 2000;18:943– 944
Evans JH: Religion and human cloning: An exploratory analysis of the first available opinion data. J Sci Stud Religion 2002;41(4):747– 758
Chliaoutakis JE: A relationship between traditionally motivated patterns and gamete donation and surrogacy in urban areas of Greece. Hum Reprod 2002;17(8):2187– 2191
Chliaoutakis JE, Koukouli S, Papadakaki M: Using attitudinal indicators to explain the public’s intention to have recourse to gamete donation and surrogacy. Hum Reprod 2002;17(11):2995– 3002
Burley J: The ethics of therapeutic and reproductive human cloning. Cell Dev Biol 1999;10:287– 294
Tambor ES, Berbhardt BA, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA, Geller G: Mapping the human genome: An assessment of media coverage and public reaction. Genet Med 2002;4(31):31– 36
O’ Mathuna DP: What to call human cloning. EMBO Rep 2002;3(6):502– 505
Everett M: The social life of genes: Privacy, property and the new genetics. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:53– 65
Maienschein J: On cloning: Advocating history of biology in the public interest. J Hist Biol 2001;34:423– 432
Finkler K, Skrzynia C, Evans JP: The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:403– 412
Illmensee K: Cloning in reproductive medicine. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18(8):451– 467
Zavos PM: Human reproductive cloning: The time is near. BioMed Online 2003;6(4):397– 398
Reiss MJ: Ethical dimensions of therapeutic human cloning. J Biotechnol 2002;98:61– 70
Dawson V, Schibeci R: Western Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. Int J Sci Educ 2003;26(1):57– 69
Kirkman C: Proposed regulation of human cloning: Paving the way for degenerative disease therapeutics. DDT 2001;6(18):919– 920
Sanchez-Sweatman LR: Reproductive cloning and human health: An ethical, international, and nursing perspective. Int Nurs Rev 2000;47(1):28– 39
Priest SH: Cloning: A study in news production. Public Understanding Sci 2001;10:59– 69
Mavroforou A, Giannoukas A, Michalodimitrakis E: A review of Greek law on human cloning. Med Law 2003;22(1):55-62
Romeo-Casabona CM: Embryonic stem cell research and therapy: The need for a common European legal framework. Bioethics 2002;6(6):557– 567
Katayama A: Human reproductive cloning and related techniques: An overview of the legal environment and practitioner attitudes. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18(8):442-450
Lujan JL, Moreno L: Public perception of biotechnology and genetic engineering in Spain: Tendencies and ambivalence. Technol Soc 1994;16(3):335– 355
Human Genetics Commission: Public attitudes to human genetic information: People’s Panel Quantitative Study conducted for the Human Genetics Commission, London (2001), Human Genetic Commission, 68 leaves, HD Hum, http://www.servicefirst.gov.uk/2001/panel/hgc/index.htm
Macer DRJ: Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation. Hum Gene Ther 1992;3:511– 518
Best S, Kellner D: Biotechnology, ethics and the politics of cloning. Democracy Nat 2002;8(3):439– 465
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tzamalouka, G., Soultatou, P., Papadakaki, M. et al. Identifying the Public’s Knowledge and Intention to Use Human Cloning in Greek Urban Areas. J Assist Reprod Genet 22, 47–56 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-005-1493-5
- human cloning