Embryo research for obtaining stem cells is an attitudinal object embedded in a complex space of high expectations for reaching desirable goals, and also of strong moral reservations about the utilization and production of human embryos for research ends. An explanatory model of public attitudes to embryo research is offered here, composed of general variables and worldviews (expectations about scientific-technological advances, reservations to science, trust in scientists, religiosity, gender) and highly specific ones (one evaluative, views on “the moral status of the embryo,” and the other of a cognitive nature, “biological literacy”). A key factor in accepting or rejecting this line of research is the current, de facto, competition between biological science and moral and religious creeds in shaping a frame or image of the moral status of the embryo, either as a pure biological entity or, alternatively, as an actual or potential human being entitled to special protection.
Ajzen, I., & Krebs, D. (1994). Attitude theory and measurement: Implications for survey research. In I. Borg & P. Ph. Mohler (Eds.), Trends and perspectives in empirical social research (pp. 250-261). Berlin, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
2.
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2002). Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Bollnow, O.F. (1958). Wesen und Wandel der Tugenden [The essence and change of virtues]. Frankfurt/M-Berlin-Wien : Ullstein Taschenbücher-Verlag.
4.
Buchanan, A., Brock, D.W., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
5.
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E., & Stokes, D.E. (1960). The American voter (chap. 9). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. (1999 ). On human embryos and stem cell research: An appeal for ethically responsible science and public policy. Retrieved May 7, 2008 , from http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/position_statement_print.htm#text33
7.
Daamen, D.D.L., Van der Lans, I.A., & Midden, C.J.H. (1990). Cognitive structures in the perception of modern technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 202-225.
8.
Earle, T.C., & Cvetkovich, G.T. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. New York: Praeger.
9.
Earle, T.C., & Cvetkovich, G.T. (1999). Social trust and culture in risk management. In G. Cvetkovich & R. E. Löfstedt (Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 9-21). London: Earthscan.
10.
Gaskell, G. (1997). Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature, 387, 845-847.
11.
Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischler, C., et al. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. A report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research (Eurobarometer 64.3).
12.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002, Eurobarometer 58.0 (2nd ed.). A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project "Life Sciences in European Society" QLG7-CT-1999-00286, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf
13.
Gaskell, G., & Bauer, M.W. (2006). Genomics and society: Legal, ethical and social dimensions. London: Earthscan.
14.
Gaze, B., & Dawson, K. (1990). Who is the subject of research? In P. Singer, H. Kuhse, S. Buckle, K. Dawson, & P. Kasimba (Eds.), Embryo experimentation: Ethical, legal and social issues (pp. 109-124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Haynes, R.D. (1994). From Faust to Strangelove: Representations of the scientist in Western literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Holland, S. (2001). Beyond the embryo: A feminist appraisal of the embryonic stem cell debate. In S. Holland , K. Lebacqz, & L. Zoloth (Eds.), The human embryonic stem cell debate (pp. 73-86). Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
17.
Hugues, T.P. (2004). American genesis: A century of invention and technological enthusiasm 1870-1970 (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (2000). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 232-245). London: Earthscan.
19.
Krones, T., Schlüter, E., Neuwohner, E., El Ansari, S., Wissner, T., & Richter, G. (2006). What is the preimplantation embryo?Social Science and Medicine, 63, 1-20.
20.
Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2007, August). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Paper presented at 2007 Annual Meeting, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, San Antonio, CA.
21.
Merton, R. K. (Ed.). (1968). On sociological theories of the middle range. In Social theory and social structure (pp. 39-72). New York: Free Press.
22.
Miller, J.D., & Pardo, R. (2000). Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technology: A comparative analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In M. Dierkes, & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 81-129). Amsterdam , The Netherlands: Hardwood Academic.
23.
Miller, J.D., Pardo, R., & Niwa, F. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada . Madrid, Spain-Chicago: Fundación BBV-Chicago Academy of Sciences.
24.
Mulkay, M. (1997). The embryo research debate: Science and the politics of reproduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Nisbet, M.C. (2004). Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 131-154.
26.
Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90-112.
27.
Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an Age of Press/Politics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 36-70.
28.
Pardo, R. (2003). Attitudes toward embryo experimentation in Europe . In D. Solter, D. Beyleveld, M. B. Friele, J. Hołówka, H. Lilie, R. Lovell-Badge, et al. (Eds.), Embryo research in pluralistic Europe (pp. 157-203). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
29.
Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2006a). Mapping perceptions of science in end-of-century Europe. Science Communication, 28(1), 3-46.
30.
Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2006b). Are Europeans really antagonistic to biotech ? Nature Biotechnology, 24, 393-395.
31.
Pardo, R., Midden, C., & Miller, J.D. (2002). Attitudes toward biotechnology in theEuropean Union. Journal of Biotechnology, 98, 9-24.
32.
Priest, S.H. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology . New York: Rowman & Littlefield .
33.
Priest, S.H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The "Trust Gap" hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors . Risk Analysis, 23, 751-766.
34.
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis , 20, 195-204.
35.
Simon, H.A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 1-2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
Sjöberg, L. (2004). Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO Reports, 5, 47-51.
37.
Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2006). A literature review of research conducted on public interest, knowledge and attitudes to biomedical science: A report to the Wellcome Trust. London: The Wellcome Trust .
38.
Sturgis, P., Cooper, H., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2005). Attitudes to biotechnology: Estimating the opinions of a better-informed public. New Genetics & Society, 24(1), 33-58.
39.
Sturgis, P., Cooper, H., Fife-Schaw, C., & Shepherd, R. (2004). Genomic science: Emerging public opinion. In A. Park, J. Curtie, K. Thomson, C. Bromley, & M. Phillips (Eds.), British social attitudes: The 21st report (pp. 119-145). London-Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage-National Centre for Social Research.
40.
Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein's footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
U.S. Department of Energy. (1993). Earning public trust and confidence: Requisites for managing radioactive waste . Washington, DC: DOE.
42.
Warnock, M. (1987). Do human cells have rights? Bioethics , 1(1), 1-14.
43.
Warnock, M. (2002). Making babies: Is there a right to have children? (p. 34). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
Warren, M.A. (2000). Moral status: Obligations to persons and other living things. New York: Oxford University Press.
