Gene technology noble if used to save lives

Research has shown the Australian public value gene technology more highly if it can save lives or significantly improve the quality of life.

The study, conducted for the Australian Government agency Biotechnology Australia, looked at public attitudes towards gene technology in health and medical applications, and found that gene technology was more accepted if its uses would benefit one's self or loved ones.

Manager of public awareness for Biotechnology Australia, Craig Cormick, said, "The use of gene technology in medical applications was considered to pose fewer risks than the use of gene technology in food and agriculture."

"Focus group discussions showed that a different risk/benefit assessment was made for health and medical uses of gene technology. Despite any perceived risks, medical uses of gene technology were seen as something that would be used infrequently, as opposed to on an everyday basis, and usually as a last resort."

The study also found that of several biotechnology applications stem cell research and treatments were perceived as useful by the highest proportion of respondents (89.7 % and 87.6 % respectively). About three-quarters felt that the use of gene technology used in human transplants (76.8 %) or to produce medicines (72.5 %) would be useful.

"However people did see higher risks when the processes of gene technology, rather than the outcomes, were discussed."

"Over half of the respondents felt that the use of gene technology in human transplants would be risky. Also the majority believed that transplanting the body parts of animals into humans (70.6 %) and transplanting human body parts grown in animals back into humans (68.7 %) would be risky."

The research study, undertaken by Eureka Strategic Research, involved a phone poll of 1067 people on broad biotechnology issues, and was supported with 13 focus groups.

It found that concerns relating to specific uses of gene technology in health and medical applications included the potential for an "industry' of body parts developing, the potential to cause suffering to the animals involved and concerns based on religious beliefs.

Despite these expressed concerns, most participants felt that their views about acceptability of specific uses would be balanced by the potential to save a person's life.

Item provided courtesy of Biotechnology Australia