America: Reproductive and Research Cloning
By Virginia Commonwealth University,
Virginia Commonwealth University
| 05. 18. 2010
How much do you favor or oppose...
| |
Strongly Favor |
Somewhat Favor |
Somewhat Oppose |
Strongly Oppose |
Don’t Know / No Answer |
| oppose the use of cloning technology in humans |
3 |
12 |
22 |
58 |
4 |
| using human cloning technology IF it is used ONLY to help medical research develop new treatments for disease |
25 |
30 |
14 |
26 |
5 |
Extensive crosstabs are available at pages 51 and 52 of the full survey report.
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...
