Skip to main content
Log in

Technology and morality: Influences on public attitudes toward biotechnology

  • Articles
  • Published:
Knowledge, Technology & Policy

Abstract

This study uses national survey data to test effects on individuals’ objections to biotechnology applied to plants and animals. We find that females and individuals who believe in the biblical story of creation have greater intrinsic moral objections to biotechnology than males and those who do not believe the creation story. We also find that the perception of personal benefit from biotechnology significantly decreases the likelihood of moral objection to both plant and animal biotechnology, and that perception of environmental risk from biotechnology significantly increases the likelihood of moral objection to both types of biotechnology. Policy issues are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beauchamp, Tom L. 1982. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blocker, T. Jean, and Douglas Lee Eckberg. 1989. Environmental issues as women’s issues: General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly 70(3):586–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, Charles J. 1984. Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces 63:209–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catton, C. J., Jr., and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental sociology: A paradigm. The American Sociologist 13:41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, Gary. 1988. The case against bGH. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3):36–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, Gary. 1989. Genetically engineered herbicide resistance. Journal of Agricultural Ethics.

  • Davison, Aidan, Ian Barns, and Renato Schibeci. 1997. Problematic publics: Review of surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22:317–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckberg, Douglas Lee and T. Jean Blocker. 1996. Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical problem of fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(4):343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, Lynn J. and Richard Shepherd. 1995. Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology. Agriculture and Human Values 12(1):48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, Lynn J., Charya Howard and Richard Sheperd. 1997. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific application of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit and ethics. Science, Technology & Human Values 22:98–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, Clifford. [1973] 1995. “Religion as a Cultural System.” Pp. 47–67 in Andrew Greeley (ed) Sociology and Religion. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeley, Andrew. 1995. Religion as Poetry. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilkey, Langdon. 1968. Evolution and the doctrine of creation. Pp 159–18 in Ian G. Barbour (ed) Science and Religion: New Perspectives on the Dialogue. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, Thomas. 1989. Sociology and biotechnology: Challenges and opportunities. Southern Rural Sociology. 6:45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 1991. Perception and Communication of Risk. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, Thomas, Eric Woodrum, and Ron Czaja. 1992. Public opposition to biotechnology. Rural Sociology. 57(4):476–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jukes, T. H. 1988. Hazards of biotechnology: Facts and fancy. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 43.

  • Klassen, W. 1987. “Executive summary.” Pp 7–10 in L.R. Barra and W. Claystone (eDS.), Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. Bethesda, MD: Agricultural Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, William B., Lawrence Busch, & Laura R. Lacy. 1991. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology. Pp 139–61 in B. Baumgardt and M. Martin (eDS.), Agricultural Biotechnology: Issues and Choices. West Lafayette, IN. Purdue Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, Dorothy. 1981. Nuclear power as a feminist issue. Environment 23:14–20, 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 1992. The creation-evolution controversy. Pp. 179–96 in D. Nelkin (ed.), Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novo Industri. 1987. The Novo Report: American Attitudes and Beliefs About Genetic Engineering. New York, NY: Research and Forecasts, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress. 1987. New Developments in Biotechnology: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology. OTA-BP-BA-45. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, Charles. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plein, L. Christopher. 1991. Popularizing biotechnology: The influence of issue definition. Science, Technology & Human Values 16:474–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J. H., and J. M. Wilkes. 1980. Sex and attitudes toward nuclear power. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

  • Reuther, R. R. 1975. New Women, New Earth. New York: Seabury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, Mark. 1988. Biotechnology and the environment: What is at risk. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3):26-27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, Paul, Richard Shepherd, and Lynn J. Frewer. 1994. Gene technology, food production and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values 11(1):19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straughan, Roger. 1992. Ethics, Morality, and Crop Biotechnology. UK: Reading University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, David, and Peter Knudtsen. 1990. Genethics: The Clash Between Genetics and Human Values. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taverne, D. 1990. The Case for Biotechnology. London: Prima Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber. trans and ed. by Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • _____. 1968. Economy and Society. trans. & ed. by Guenther Roth & Claus Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White House. 1997. Remarks by the President at Announcement of Cloning Legislation. June 9. http://library.whitehouse.gov.Bioethics.Cloning

  • Wiegele, Thomas C. 1990. Organized religion and biotechnology: Social responsibility and role of government Pp 17–36 in David J. Webber (ed.), Biotechnology: Assessing Social Impacts and Policy Implications. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolkomir, Michelle, Michael Futreal, Eric Woodrum, and Thomas Hoban. 1997. Substantive religious belief and environmentalism. Review of Religious Research 78:96–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodrum, Eric and Beth L. Davison. 1996. Images of god and environmentalism. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 7:75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodrum, Eric and Michelle J. Wolkomir. 1997. Religious effects on environmentalism. Sociological Spectrum 17:223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Council of Churches. 1989. Biotechnology: Its Challenges to the Churches and the World. Geneva: World Council of Churches.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

He has studied biotechnology, development, social change, work and industry. He currently works in the Survey Research Division at Research Triangle Institute in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

He engages is applied studies of new technologies and public policies affecting consumers, industry, natural resources and society.

He has researched moral attitude and religious affects in biotechnology acceptance, environmentalism, and in relation to numerous controversial social concerns and issues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evensen, C., Hoban, T. & Woodrum, E. Technology and morality: Influences on public attitudes toward biotechnology. Know Techn Pol 13, 43–57 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-000-1003-0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-000-1003-0

Keywords

Navigation