Public Opinion
14. During the course of our inquiry, many claims
have been made about public opinion supporting one approach or
another. We offer the following examples. Sir Liam Donaldson,
Chief Medical Officer, in explaining the justification for the
policy on inter-species embryos, noted "a feeling that this
would be a step too far as far as the public are concerned".
(Q 244) The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship told us that their
concerns were "shared by our members … and the public
at large" and that they "believe that a fully informed
public would agree that this sort of research [into inter-species
embryos] should be banned". (Ev52) Professor David Albert
Jones, Professor of Bioethics at St Mary's University College,
referred to "the public resistance to making human non-human
hybrids". (Ev42)
15. Few of these witnesses offered serious evidence
for their claims. Mark Henderson, Science Editor of The Times
said "I think you are absolutely right that there is no evidence
for what the public thinks of this at all beyond the absence of
a massive response and a massive postbag … which to me rather
indicates indifference and perhaps a lack of really strongly held
views. I accept that there are plenty of people who do have strongly
held views but I do not think there is evidence either way."
(Q 286)
16. Sense About Science highlighted that the
Government had justified its policy position on the basis of "public
unease" or "disquiet" but argued that the Department
of Health's consultation was not sufficient evidence to support
such statements:
"In fact, the response to the Department of
Health's consultation in 2005 does not support the distinction
that the proposed legislation makes on human-animal chimera or
hybrid embryos. As the Commons Science and Technology Committee
commented in their recent Fifth Report, out of the 277 objections
raised in that consultation, 227 were against human embryo research
in general." (Ev71)[25]
17. Some attempts, however, have been made to
measure public opinion. The HFEA undertook a public consultation
exercise in 2002 on whether sex selection of embryos for non-medical
reasons should be permitted. This involved both qualitative research
(conducted through discussion groups) and quantitative research
(which focussed on issues arising from the qualitative research).
This qualitative research surveyed a representative sample of
the UK population (2,615 adults). By contrast, the public consultation
that was also carried out drew 600 responses. (Ev12(a), Appendix
B) Angela McNab, Chief Executive of the HFEA, told us it had "found
that largely, very overwhelmingly, the public in this country
were opposed to sex selection for non-medical reasons" and
claimed that its policy on sex selection has public support on
the basis of this public consultation. (Q 222 and Ev12, para
19)
18. In 2002 the Medical Research Council commissioned
a consultation on public attitudes to stem cell research, involving
12 focus groups run in eight English towns.[26]
In July 2004 the Human Genetics Commission launched a public consultation
paper Choosing the Future: genetics and reproductive decision-making
and received 196 written responses.[27]
Other studies include: a MORI poll conducted in 2005 on who should
be involved in decisions about the embryo; a 2005 You Gov/Daily
Telegraph Survey on Abortion, Euthanasia and Cloning; and
the HFEA Report on Public Attitudes to Fertility Treatment, Embryo
Research and the Regulation of this Work—Preliminary Findings
from the UK 2005, based on the results of the 2005 MORI poll[28].
19. Some witnesses did refer to this polling
and consultation as an evidence base.[29]
For example, Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive Officer
of the Medical Research Council (MRC), relied on 2003 MORI poll
to "draw attention to the fact that from the latest opinion
poll 70 per cent of the public are fully supportive of the use
of human embryos; there has not been an outcry in the press—and
this is perfect fodder for sensational coverage in the press and
it has not happened very much." (Q 39)
20. The Royal Society noted in evidence that
"Parliament and the regulatory bodies will need to consider
the balance between representative public engagement, and engagement
with stakeholder and interest groups". It continued:
"The techniques used [for public engagement]
must be methodologically rigorous, based on principles of effective
public engagement, and any support material must be scientifically
sound. Meeting these conditions will require a corresponding level
of funding and allocation of time. Centrally commissioned and
organised public engagement is advantageous, particularly where
it is linked to a particular issue where policy is being developed.
However, providing that it meets the conditions outlined above,
engagement activities undertaken independently in other sectors
(e.g. learned societies, civil society and academia) may also
be taken into account." (Ev 59)[30]
21. Whether or not these are adequate mechanisms
for measuring public opinion is open to debate. Polling questions
on complicated scientific issues can be over-simplified, particularly
if they require a 'yes-no', or 'multiple choice' answer. The House
of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally
Ill Bill considered this problem and noted that Parliament must
"assess to what extent opinion research based on answers
to questions placed with little surrounding context represents
a sound basis for changing the law."[31]
Responses to public consultations often come from those with strong
views which may not be representative of those held by the general
public. Those who reply to public consultations are by their nature
self-selecting. Even if a majority view can be identified, we
note the words of HLA Hart that "It seems fatally easy to
believe that democratic principles entail acceptance of what may
be termed moral populism: the view that the majority have a moral
right to dictate how all should live".[32]
22. We have heard some strongly held views during
the course of our inquiry and recognise and respect that everyone
is entitled to their opinion. However, we are concerned by the
unsubstantiated claims made about public opinion and public support
and by the lack of evidence provided. Where organisations claim
to speak on behalf of the public, they should have a proper research
basis to do so that is capable of scrutiny. The Government should
take steps to increase its involvement with both qualitative and
quantitative social science research to provide an underpinning
to our understanding of public opinion in this field.
23. Legislation in an area such as this needs
a sufficient level of support from the public and this requires
a corresponding understanding of public attitudes. We recommend
that the Government should commission independent public policy
research into general public opinion on issues arising from scientific
and ethical developments in this field and the wider field of
bioethics, either through the Research Councils, for example,
the ESRC and AHRC, or other appropriate organisations.
Public education and public understanding
24. Key to public opinion is public education
and public understanding. In order to explore some of the issues
around public education and public understanding, we heard evidence
from a panel of journalists. Tom Feilden, Science and Environment
Correspondent for the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, told us that
"talking to people, going out and interviewing people …
is how you would get a feel for public acceptance of a particular
idea or a particular avenue of research". (Q 283) In
relation to public response to media coverage he said:
"the sort of response you get directly in terms
of emails or letters … tend to be from the two extremes and
that is possibly because it is a self-selecting process—you
only get people who are particularly outraged or who are particularly
happy who feel the need to respond … What the wider public
are thinking is harder to get at." (Q 282)
25. Fergus Walsh, the BBC Medical Correspondent
told us of the challenges of public education: "We have to
take very complex issues and explain it to a lay audience …
if it is over complex then the audience will switch off—in
my case literally—and you have to make that reporting engaging
without being superficial". (Q 284) Additionally, Mark
Henderson told us that "Our main job is to report the science
and historically … stories like this always got subsumed
by the ethical debate" but that "there has been much
more maturity about that recently". (Q 292)
26. We were impressed with some of their evidence
and recognise the valuable role journalists play in promoting
public understanding of the key issues in science, but it is not
their duty to do so. We believe, however, that it is the duty
of scientists, the academic community, the regulatory bodies and
ultimately the Government. We note the House of Commons Science
and Technology Committee Report on Scientific Advice, Risk
and Evidence Based Policy Making which made detailed recommendations
in this area.[33] We
recommend that the Government and the regulator should take a
more active approach to fulfilling their duty to improve and inform
public understanding of the issues in this area.
Parliament's role
27. Parliament's role in a representative democracy
is to make a collective judgement about what the legislation should
say, even though it may not have a clear understanding of public
views. We hope in this Chapter to have highlighted the difficulties
of effectively gauging public opinion and the need for a balanced
approach to what information we do have on public opinion. Although
we acknowledge that public opinion or, more accurately, perceptions
of public opinion underpin many of the arguments in this field,
our task is to produce a Report based on the evidence we have
received.
25 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,
Fifth Report of Session 2006-07, HC 272-I Back
26
http://www.peoplescienceandpolicy.com/projects/national_stemcell.php Back
27
http://www.peoplescienceandpolicy.com/projects/genetics_reproductive.php Back
28
Q296, Ev71, para 3.2, http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL050101042_1.pdf
(Correct at time of publication), http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-3F57D79B-D99BE804/hfea/2005-01-07_FINAL_European_Consortium_EACC_public_attitudes_to.pdf
(Correct at time of publication) Back
29
Ev09. See also Ev71, para 3.2 Back
30
See also Q282 Back
31
Report of the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally
Ill Bill, April 2005, HL 86-1 Back
32
H L A Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1963, page 79 Back
33
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report
of Session 2005-06, Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based
Policy Making, HC 90I Back
