Skip to main content

Predicting human cloning acceptability: a national Greek survey on the beliefs of the public

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics volume 22, pages 315–322 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Background : In the era of human genome research, there is a large theoretical debate among scientists and authorities on the ethical dimension based on the moral liberty of the individuals and the scientific and economic dimension based on the freedom and the independence of the scientific and technological activities. Meanwhile, the understanding of beliefs on human cloning (HC) and its acceptability are important for the development of evidence-based policy making. However, previous research in the field of public beliefs towards human genetics is limited. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated the role of public beliefs as predictors of the acceptability of the respondents to use HC.

Methods : Personal interviews were conducted with 1020 men and women of urban areas in Greece. Stratified random sampling was performed to select participants. Several scientists, experts in HC, evaluated the content of the instrument initially developed. The final questionnaire was the result of a pilot study.

Results : The acceptability of HC for the cure of incurable diseases and transplantation need is very high (70.7 and 58.6%, respectively). Public's intention to have recourse to HC because of “bringing” back to life a loved person or because of reproductive disorders was reported by 35 and 32.5%, respectively. With respect to the role of beliefs: increasing scores of reasons of social benefits, moral/religious reasons and legislative reasons increased the public's intention to have recourse to HC; inversely, decreasing scores of reasons of human commodification/exploitation increased public's intention to have recourse to HC. Additionally, low rates of church attendance appeared to be correlated with high reported acceptability of HC.

Conclusion : There is great public concern regarding the application of HC, which probably reflects the existing ambivalence over the relationship between technology and society. Scientists and policymakers should take into account these indicators of public disquiet and should manage the public involvement in policy decisions, from which they have so far been excluded.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Burley J: The ethics of therapeutic and reproductive human cloning. Cell Dev Biol 1999;10:287–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jasanoff S: The life sciences and the rule of law. J Mol Biol 2002;319:891–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Post MM: Human cloning: New hope, new implications, new challenges. Temple Int Compar Law J 2001;15(Spring):171–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sanchez-Sweatman LR: Reproductive cloning and human health: An ethical, international, and nursing perspective. Int Nurs Rev 2000;47:28–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruce MD: Stem cells, embryos and cloning—unravelling the ethics of a knotty debate. J Mol Biol 2002;319:917–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans JH: Religion and human cloning: An exploratory analysis of the first available opinion data. J Scientific Study Religion 2002;41:747–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Illmensee K: Cloning in reproductive medicine. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:451–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. O'Mathuna DP: What to call human cloning. EMBO Rep 2002;3:502–505

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reiss MJ: Ethical dimensions of therapeutic human cloning. J Biotechnol 2002;98:61–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pasquale F: Two concepts of immortality: Reframing public debate on stem-cell research. Yale J Law Humanities 2002;14:73–121

    Google Scholar 

  11. Best S, Kellner D: Biotechnology, ethics and the politics of cloning. Democracy Nat 2002;8:439–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Einsiedel EF: Cloning and its discontents—A Canadian perspective. Nat Biotechnol 2000;18:943–944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Finkler K, Skrzynia C, Evans PJ: The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Social Sci Med 2003;57:403–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pardo R, Midden C, Miller DJ: Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. J Biotechnol 2002;98:9–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dawson VM: A constructivist approach to teaching transplantation technology in science. Aust Sci Teachers J 1996;42:15–20

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lock R, Miles C, Hughes S: The influence of teaching on knowledge and attitudes in biotechnology and genetic engineering contexts: Implications for teaching controversial issues and the public understanding of science. School Sci Rev 1995;76:47–59

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chliaoutakis JE: A relationship between traditionally motivated patterns and gamete donation and surrogacy in urban areas of Greece. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2187–2191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;17:2995–3002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tzamalouka G, Soultatou P, Papadakaki M, Chatzifotiou S, Tarlatzis B, Chliaoutakis JE: Identifying the public's knowledge and intention to use human cloning in Greek urban areas. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005;22(2):47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dixon B: Biotech a plus according to European poll. Biotechnology 1991;9:16

    Google Scholar 

  21. Macer DRJ: Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation. Hum Gene Ther 1992;3:511–518

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bailey R: Deciding about your health care: The ethicist as policy-maker. Health Care Anal 2001;9:265–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Callahan D: False hopes: Why America's quest for perfect health is a recipe for failure. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1998

    Google Scholar 

  24. Perry D: Patients' voices: The powerful sound in the stem cell debate. Science 2000;287:1423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bailey R: Extended life, eternal life. Reason 2000;32:9

    Google Scholar 

  26. Katayama A: Human reproductive cloning and related techniques: An overview of the legal environment and practitioner attitudes. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:442–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mc Laren A: Ethical and social considerations of stem cell research. Nature 2001;414:129–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Orive G, Hernandez MR, Gascon RA, Igartua M, Pedraz JL: Controversies over stem cell research. Trends Biotechnol 2003;121:109–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Andrews LB, Nelkins D: Body bazaar. New York: Crown Publishers; 2001

    Google Scholar 

  30. Everett M: The social life of genes: Privacy, property and the new genetics. Social Sci Med 2003;56:53–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gold ER: Body parts: Property rights and the ownership of human biological materials. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1996

    Google Scholar 

  32. Morgan KP: Women and the knife: Cosmetic surgery and the colonization of women's bodies. Hypatia 1999;6:25–53

    Google Scholar 

  33. Markett M: Genetic diaries: An analysis of privacy protection in DNA data banks. Suffolk University Law Rev 1996;30:185–226

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vogelstein B, Alberts B, Shine K: Please don't call it cloning! Science 2002;295:1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Benatar D: Cloning and ethics. Q J Med 1998;91:165–166

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kass LR: Preventing a brave new world: Why we should ban human cloning now. New Republic 2001;224:30–39

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nelkin D, Lindee S: Cloning in the popular imagination. Cambridge Qu Healthcare Ethics 1998;7:145–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller JD, Pardo R, Niwa F: Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Madrid: BBV Foundation; 1997

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mavroforou A, Giannoukas A, Michalodimitrakis E: A review of Greek law on human cloning. Med Law 2003;22:55–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Est R van, Dijk G van: The public debate on cloning: International experiences. TA–Datenbank–Nachrichten, Nr. 1, 9. Jahrgang—Marz; 2000, pp. 109–115

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Work, Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Crete, Stavromenos, 71500, Heraklion, Greece

    Georgia S. Tzamalouka, Maria Papadakaki, Sevasti Chatzifotiou & Joannes El. Chliaoutakis

  2. Department of Education and Professional Studies, King's College, University of London, London, UK

    Pelagia Soultatou

  3. 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Basil Tarlatzis

Authors
  1. Georgia S. Tzamalouka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Papadakaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pelagia Soultatou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sevasti Chatzifotiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Basil Tarlatzis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joannes El. Chliaoutakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joannes El. Chliaoutakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tzamalouka, G.S., Papadakaki, M., Soultatou, P. et al. Predicting human cloning acceptability: a national Greek survey on the beliefs of the public. J Assist Reprod Genet 22, 315–322 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-005-5916-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-005-5916-0

Key Words

  • Acceptability
  • beliefs
  • benefits
  • commodification
  • ethic
  • Greece
  • human cloning
  • intention