Europeans Want Regulation for Biotech

Posted by Pete Shanks November 18, 2010
Biopolitical Times

The European Commission has released the latest Eurobarometer report on biotechnology, along with an analysis, Europeans and biotechnology in 2010 — Winds of change? [Large pdfs are linked here; scroll down to #341, EB73.1.] This is part of a very long-standing series of surveys of public opinion throughout the member countries of the European Union. The areas covered include:

  • Emerging Technologies: nanotechnology, biofuels, synthetic biology
  • Biotechnologies for food production: GM food, animal cloning, transgenic and cisgenic apples
  • Regenerative medicine (notably stem cell and embryo-related research)
  • Biobanks
  • and several topics related to governance, religion, ethics, knowledge of science, etc.

In some cases, comparisons are provided to a 2005 survey. That's true of the issues closest to CGS concerns, including stem cell research (both embryonic and other) and gene therapy. In all three cases, unconditional support declined — but if strict laws to regulate research are assumed, support increased. See p. 55 of Winds of change? for a useful chart, but here are the numbers for ESC research:

 Attitude to ESC research
2005
2010
Fully approve  23  12
Approve if strict laws to regulate  36  51
Do not approve unless special circumstances  17  17
Do not approve under any circumstances  9  13
Don't know  15  7

Overall, this can be read as consistent support — 59% in 2005, 63% in 2010 — with fewer people undecided. But the emphasis on regulation is certainly noteworthy. It should also be noted that support in general varied considerably across Europe, from a high of 80% (excluding don't knows) in the UK, up from 74% in 2005, to a low of 39% in Austria, down from 53%.

Another series of questions considered "ethical positions and regenerative medicine." These are interesting in that they use a standard scale — totally agree, tend to agree, tend to disagree, totally disagree, and don't know — but apply them to questions framed in different ways. Combining the two "agree" and "disagree" options, and using the abbreviations in the report (p. 58), the results include:

  • Regenerative medicine should be supported: 43–45 [agree–disagree]
  • Embryo as a human being: 56–33
  • Science over ethics: 45–39
  • Embryo research wrong even if promising for medicine: 38–52

The "don't knows" ranged from 8 to 16%. And the one overwhelming response was:

  • Do not support regenerative medicine for the rich only: 74–18

In a more general area, "Brain and cognitive enhancement" (considered separately from "Biotechnology and genetic engineering") drew a largely favorable response: 53% thought it would have a positive effect on "our way of life" in the next 20 years, to 20% negative. That was more than biotech, space exploration, nanotech or nuclear energy, but less than computers and wind or solar energy. Arguably, it was a poorly phrased question.

The "key findings" noted in the Eurobarometer Executive Summary (pp. 7–8) include that Europeans:

  • have strong reservations about animal cloning in food production and do not see the benefits, and feel that it should not be encouraged; ...
  • consider that the science of regenerative medicine should be allowed to develop but have strong reservations about ethical issues, such as the use of human embryos, that should not be brushed aside for the sake of scientific progress;
  • approve of stem cell research, transgenic animal research and human gene therapy although strict laws are needed to alleviate concern about ethical issues;
  • have heard of biobanks but have reservations about biobanks storing personal information and materials even if they tend to be favourable to the exchange of such information between member countries; ...
  • feel that moral and ethical issues should influence decisions about animal cloning and that regulation by government is necessary; ...

There is, of course, much more, and a more careful reading is needed. But overall: Nanotechnology and synthetic biology have not thoroughly penetrated public opinion; GM food is definitely unpopular, and should be labeled; reducing economic inequalities is important; protecting human rights is more important than fighting crime and terrorism; and Europeans do "express a need to rethink the way we live our lives to halt climate change and prevent global warming."

The key finding is certainly, as Nanowerk News expressed it, in a useful short overview that covers all the topics addressed in the survey:

Europeans are in favour of appropriate regulation to balance the market, and wish to be involved in decisions about new technologies when social values are at stake.

Previously on Biopolitical Times: