Americans: Cloning, IGM Research
By Peter Moore,
YouGov
| 01. 21. 2014
In this YouGov/Huffington Post poll, the questions are:
Which comes closest to your opinion about scientific research on human, plant and animal DNA?
I worry that this research poses unforeseen dangers – 11%
I’m excited that this research could lead to major scientific breakthroughs – 38%
Both of these – 33%
Neither – 6%
Not sure – 12%
Would you approve or disapprove of scientists using DNA and cloning technology to bring woolly mammoths and other extinct species back to life?
Strongly approve – 8%
Somewhat approve – 19%
Somewhat disapprove – 21%
Strongly disapprove – 34%
Not sure –18%
Would you approve or disapprove of scientists using research on human DNA to produce children with unusually high intelligence or other special attributes?
Strongly approve – 4%
Somewhat approve – 12%
Somewhat disapprove – 20%
Strongly disapprove – 52%
Not sure –12%
How worried are you, if at all, that scientific research into human or animal DNA might lead to scientists "playing god" with things that should remain outside the realm of science?
Very worried – 35%
Somewhat worried –...
Related Articles
By Evelina Johansson Wilén, Jacobin | 01.18.2026
In her book The Argonauts, Maggie Nelson describes pregnancy as an experience marked by a peculiar duality. On the one hand, it is deeply transformative, bodily alien, sometimes almost incomprehensible to the person undergoing it. On the other hand...
By Josie Ensor, The Times | 12.09.2025
A fertility start-up that promises to screen embryos to give would-be parents their “best baby” has come under fire for a “misuse of science”.
Nucleus Genomics describes its mission as “IVF for genetic optimisation”, offering advanced embryo testing that allows...
By Grace Won, KQED Forum [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...