Abstract
A questionnaire-survey of public perception of the desirability, risks, and benefits associated with current and potential applications of genetic engineering techniques to manipulate the outcome of human reproduction was conducted on 111 male and 135 female respondents. The proportion (63%) of male respondents who hold a positive impression that genetic engineering is a socially beneficial field of scientific research was significantly higher than the corresponding proportion (46%) of female respondents (p = 0.008). Similarly, in comparing somatic (non-reproductive cells) and germ-line (reproductive cells) gene therapy, most males (58%) foresaw no detrimental impacts of somatic cell gene therapy, but most females (60%, including 49% who opted for case-by-case evaluation) disapprove of even this form of therapy (p = 0.04). Most people remain fearful of germ-line therapy, but significantly more men (23%) than women (16%) support the development of genetic engineering for manipulating human germ-line cells (p = 0.04). There are no significant differences between male and female respondents with respect to genetic manipulation to correct inborn errors of metabolism or fetal deformity. The results of this study support the view that women tend to be more cautious than men with respect to acceptance of novel genetically-based procedures aimed at altering pregnancy outcome and offspring phenotype. Gender-based educational programs regarding the human genome project and human genetic engineering may be warranted to promote concordant decision-making in family planning and counseling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Alcamo, E. I.: 1996, DNA Technology: The Awesome Skill (Wm.C. Brown, Iowa).
Annas, G. J.: 1994, ‘Protecting genetic privacy’, (Interview) Trial 30, pp. 43–45.
Baird, P. A.: 1994, ‘Altering human genes: Social, ethical, and legal implications’, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 37, pp. 566–576.
Bonnickson, A. L.: 1994, ‘National and international approaches to human germline therapy’, Politics and the Life Sciences 13, pp. 39–50.
Brownlee, S.: 1993, November 8, ‘Send in the clones’, U.S. News and World Report, pp. 115, 24.
Butler, D.: 1994, ‘Call for risk/benefit study of gene therapy’, Nature 372, p. 716.
Cohen, J. and G. Tomkin: 1994, ‘The science, fiction, and reality of embryo cloning’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics 200, pp. 100–112.
Cook-D. R.: 1994, ‘Private parts: Use of personal information obtained through genetic testing’, Sciences 34, pp. 18–23.
Cranor, C.F. (ed.): 1994, Are Genes Us?: The Social Consequences of the New Genetics (Rutgers University Press, New Jersey).
Dulbecco, R.: 1994, September, ‘The prospects for gene therapy’, UNESCO Courier, pp. 12–16.
Duster, Y.: 1990, Backdoor to Eugenics (Routledge, New York).
Fackelman, K. A.: 1993, ‘Researchers 'clone' human embryos’, Science News 144, pp. 276.
Fox, M. F. and G. Firebaugh: 1992, ‘Confidence in science: The gender gap’, Social Science Quarterly 73, pp. 101–112.
Frankel, M. S. and A. Teich: 1994, The Genetic Frontier: Ethics, Law and Policy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC).
Gordon, D.: 1994, ‘Genes r us: Ethical, social and moral implications of genetic research’, State Legislatures 20, pp. 27–29.
Gordon, M.: 1997, ‘Suffering of the lambs’, Sciences 37, pp. 17–19.
Hamer, D. and P. Copeland: 1993, The Science of Desire (Simon and Schuster, New York).
Hamilton, J. O.: 1993, ‘Cloning embryos: An ethical emergency’, BusinessWeek 3344, p. 42.
Hansen, J.: 1994, ‘The significance of the human genome’, America 171, pp. 15–17.
Herbert, W., J. L. Sheler and T. Watson: 1997, ‘The world after cloning’, U.S. News andWorld Report, 122, pp. 59–63.
Hoffman, M.: 1994, ‘Gene therapy:Where to draw the line?’, American Scientist 82, pp. 322–333.
Hornig, S.: 1992, ‘Gender differences in response to news about science and technology’, Science, Technology, and Human Values 17, pp. 532–542.
Hubbard, R. and E. Wald: 1993, ‘The eugenics of normalcy: the politics of gene research’, Ecologist 23, pp. 185–191.
Keveles. D. J. and L. Hood: 1992, The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project (Harvard University Press, Massachusetts).
Kieffer, G. H.: 1987, Biotechnology, Genetic Engineering and Society (National Association of Biology Teachers, Virginia).
Koshland, D.E., Jr.: 1988–1989, ‘The future of biological research: What is possible and what is ethical?’, MBL Science 3, pp. 10–15.
Krauthammer, C.: 1997, ‘One doesn't expect’, Time 149, pp. 60–61.
Krimsky, S.: 1991, Biotechnics and Society (Praeger, New York).
Lee, T. F.: 1993, Gene Future (Plenum Press, New York).
Lewontin, R.C., S. Rose and L. J. Kamin: 1984, Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature (Pantheon Books, New York).
Marshall, E.: 1995, ‘NIH's "gay gene" study questioned’, Science 268, pp. 1841.
Marwick, C.: 1997, ‘Put human cloning on hold, say bioethicists’, JAMA 278, pp. 13–14.
Miles, M.: 1985, ‘Why do we need all this?’, Women's Studies International Forum 8, pp. 561–565.
Nash,M. J.: 1997, ‘The age of cloning: A line has been crossed, and reproductive biology will never be the same for people or for sheep’, Time 149, pp. 62–63.
National Research Council: 1988, Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
National Research Council: 1992, DNA Technology in Forensic Science (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
Nairne, Sir P.: 1993, ‘Demystifying bioethics-a lay perspective’, Journal of Medical Ethics 19, pp. 197–199.
Nelkin, D. and L. Tancredi: 1994, Dangerous Diagnostics: The Social Power of Biological Information (The University of Chicago Press, Illinois).
Park, A.: 1995, November 13, ‘New evidence of "gay gene" ’, Time 146, pp. 95.
Presidential Documents: 1994, ‘Statement on federal funding of research on human embryos’,Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 30, pp. 49–53.
Radford, T. and I. Ferrer: 1994, March, ‘Designing the next generation?' World Press Review 41, pp. 22–23.
Robertson, J. A.: 1994, ‘Liberty and assisted reproduction’, Trial 30, pp. 49–53.
Singer, E.: 1993, ‘Public attitudes toward fetal diagnosis and the termination of life’, Social Indicators Research 28, pp. 117–136.
Shiva, V.: 1992, ‘The seed and the earth’, Ecologist 22, pp. 4–5.
Statement on federal funding of research on human embryos. (Transcript): 1994, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 30, pp. 2459–2460.
Travis, J. (ed.): 1995, Science News 148, pp. 295.
Trankina,M. L.: 1993, ‘Gender differences in attitudes towards science’, Psychological Reports 73, pp. 123–130.
Verrall, M.: 1994, ‘UK bans use of fetal eggs’, Nature 370, pp. 241.
Voelker, R.: 1994, ‘A clone by any other name is still a clone’, The Journal of the American Medical Association 271, pp. 331–332.
Wivel, N. A. and L. R. Walters: 1993, ‘Germ-line gene modification and disease prevention: Some medical and ethical perspective’, Science 262, pp. 533–537.
Wright, R.: 1994, ‘Mr. clean genes’, New Republic 211, pp.6–7.
Yan, J. F.: 1991, DNA and the I Ching (North Atlantic Books, California).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Napolitano, C.L., Ogunseitan, O.A. Gender Differences in the Perception of Genetic Engineering Applied to Human Reproduction. Social Indicators Research 46, 191–204 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006845025370
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006845025370