Australia: Reproductive cloning
By Biotechnology Australia,
Eureka Strategic Research
| 01. 01. 2005
Are these technologies likely to improve our way of life in the future, have no effect or make things worse?
| |
Improve our way of life in the future |
Have no effect |
Make things worse |
Don't know |
| Cloning |
19 |
10 |
58 |
13 |
Perceived usefulness
| |
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
| Cloning humans |
18 |
78 |
4 |
Perceived risk
| |
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
| Cloning humans |
90 |
8 |
2 |
Acceptability
| |
Yes |
No |
Don't know |
| Cloning humans |
11 |
86 |
3 |
- Survey population: 1,067 Australians between 18 and 75 years of age.
Related Articles
By Jenn White, NPR | 02.26.2026
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...
