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 Risa Cromer, The Conversation | 07.17.2026
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross , The Hastings Center for Bioethics | 07.16.2026
Major news outlets recently reported – based on a bioRxiv preprint – that scientists had edited genes in human embryos with “startling precision.” The scientists’ decision to release this work ahead of peer review, coupled with the extensive media coverage...
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...
By Sarah Norcross, Sandy Starr, Amanda Cooney, and Anneliese Burton, BioNews | 07.06.2026
