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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beauchamp, Tom L. 1982. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill.
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.
Brody, Charles J. 1984. Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces 63:209–28.
Catton, C. J., Jr., and R. E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental sociology: A paradigm. The American Sociologist 13:41–49.
Comstock, Gary. 1988. The case against bGH. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3):36–52.
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.
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.
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.
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
Geertz, Clifford. [1973] 1995. “Religion as a Cultural System.” Pp. 47–67 in Andrew Greeley (ed) Sociology and Religion. New York: HarperCollins.
Greeley, Andrew. 1995. Religion as Poetry. New Brunswick: Transaction.
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.
Hoban, Thomas. 1989. Sociology and biotechnology: Challenges and opportunities. Southern Rural Sociology. 6:45–63.
_____. 1991. Perception and Communication of Risk. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.
Hoban, Thomas, Eric Woodrum, and Ron Czaja. 1992. Public opposition to biotechnology. Rural Sociology. 57(4):476–493.
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.
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.
Nelkin, Dorothy. 1981. Nuclear power as a feminist issue. Environment 23:14–20, 38–39.
_____. 1992. The creation-evolution controversy. Pp. 179–96 in D. Nelkin (ed.), Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Novo Industri. 1987. The Novo Report: American Attitudes and Beliefs About Genetic Engineering. New York, NY: Research and Forecasts, Inc.
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.
Perrow, Charles. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.
Plein, L. Christopher. 1991. Popularizing biotechnology: The influence of issue definition. Science, Technology & Human Values 16:474–490.
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.
Sagoff, Mark. 1988. Biotechnology and the environment: What is at risk. Agriculture and Human Values 5(3):26-27
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.
Straughan, Roger. 1992. Ethics, Morality, and Crop Biotechnology. UK: Reading University.
Suzuki, David, and Peter Knudtsen. 1990. Genethics: The Clash Between Genetics and Human Values. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taverne, D. 1990. The Case for Biotechnology. London: Prima Europe.
Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber. trans and ed. by Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford Press.
_____. 1968. Economy and Society. trans. & ed. by Guenther Roth & Claus Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press.
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.
Wolkomir, Michelle, Michael Futreal, Eric Woodrum, and Thomas Hoban. 1997. Substantive religious belief and environmentalism. Review of Religious Research 78:96–108.
Woodrum, Eric and Beth L. Davison. 1996. Images of god and environmentalism. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 7:75–94.
Woodrum, Eric and Michelle J. Wolkomir. 1997. Religious effects on environmentalism. Sociological Spectrum 17:223–234.
World Council of Churches. 1989. Biotechnology: Its Challenges to the Churches and the World. Geneva: World Council of Churches.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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
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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-000-1003-0