CGS Summary of Public Opinion Polls
This page displays the results of more than 60 major public opinion surveys about four categories of emerging human biotechnologies: human genetic modification, human reproductive cloning, and embryonic stem cell research and research cloning. (Polls on animal technologies are summarized here.) The Center for Genetics and Society has compiled and analyzed these results, which are based on surveys conducted between 1987 and 2024.
Following brief narrative notes about each category, a tabular listing of the surveys in each category is shown. The surveys are organized by date, with the most recent in each category first. The date shown is when the survey was taken, when available; otherwise, the date of publication.
When feasible, there are six columns: Date, Population, Conducted by, Question, Approve, Disapprove. The last two sometimes combine such answers as Definitely and Probably into Approve, etc. Totals may not add up to 100, since Don’t Know and similar responses are frequently omitted. To avoid unnecessary repetition, the last three columns are sometimes combined.
Results vary due to the wording of the questions, populations surveyed, and dates. However, these summaries reveal some consistent sentiments, as well as showing how people react to particular words and phrases.
Some of the questions have been paraphrased for display purposes. Verbatim text of the questions, and complete survey reports, can generally be found by clicking on the links in the ‘Conducted by’ column. Not all results were available, typically because only approval or only disapproval was reported; missing data is indicated by a hyphen.
Quantitative Display
Data on heritable human genome editing (HGE)
Data on research cloning and embryonic stem cell research
Opinions about Heritable Human Genome Editing
The main focus in this section is on heritable genetic modification (also called human germline modification or reproductive gene editing), though it also includes some results concerning somatic gene editing (gene therapy) and some other issues such as sex selection.
Public opinion on heritable genome editing (HGE) has always been difficult to assess because of the ambiguity of some of the questions and the terminology used in survey instruments. In general, opposition to HGE decreases with increased emphasis on therapy and cures for disease, and increases with emphasis on non-medical uses.
Opinion on HGE has been studied since at least 1986, but interest in the issue grew markedly for a while after the 2000 publication of the first full draft of a human genome. The next major spike in attention came in the mid 2010s with the development and research application of modern gene-editing tools such as CRISPR-Cas9, and the announcement in late 2018 that a Chinese scientist claimed to have successfully edited embryos.
Scientific, media, and policy discussion of HGE has continued. Polling generally still indicates much greater support for therapy than for enhancement applications. Some responses seem to indicate considerable confusion among respondents. A poll conducted in 2017 for the Royal Society, for example, unusually showed greater support for germline than for somatic interventions.
Polls that register the opinions of sub-groups, divided by religion, gender, education etc., usually show variations between groups (as in the 2014 Pew survey). Women and the devout tend to view HGE with less approval than do men and those most familiar with the science.
Opinions about Human Reproductive Cloning
Respondents from North America and Europe—the populations most often surveyed—consistently oppose human reproductive cloning by large majorities, with opposition generally above 80%.
Sentiments among opponents of human reproductive cloning are more strongly felt and seem less likely to change than are those among supporters. Only a small portion of the opposition to cloning is based on perceptions of its physical danger. More often people cite beliefs that it is “morally wrong,” “interferes with human distinctiveness and individuality,” “could be used for questionable purposes like breeding a superior race,” or conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Opposition to human reproductive cloning is generally consistent across political persuasions, but—like concern over most other human genetic technologies—increases among women, parents, and minorities, and with age and religious conviction. It decreases with education and income.
Opinions about Research Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Opinions on research cloning were frequently surveyed between 1998 and 2010, since for much of that period cloning was seen as essential to embryonic stem-cell research. As the issue became politicized, some polls showed contradictory results, but generally a slight majority of Americans opposed research cloning.
In recent years, research cloning has become less relevant, largely because of scientific advances, notably the development of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which can be made to be disease-specific or patient-specific but do not require the creation of embryos. Gallup, for instance, no longer asks specifically about human cloning, but continues to ask about “stem cell research using human embryos,” which in 2024 was considered morally acceptable by 63–29, a proportion that has been stable for several years.
Heritable Human Genome Editing
(and some related issues)
|
Date |
Population |
Conducted by |
Question |
Approve |
Disapprove |
| Aug 2024 | UK | YouGov |
This is an online Tracker Poll conducted 11 times since August 2019, with generally similar results; the most recent is listed. Would Brits consider or approve of using gene editing ... to prevent passing on hereditary genetic disorders? Yes (82) if they risk passing on a genetic disorder to future children? Yes (45) to change people’s appearance? No (72) to change their future children's appearance? No (43) to make people more intelligent? No (65) to make their future children more intelligent? No (30), probably not (17), no plans to have children (22) |
||
| May 2024 | Americans | JAMA | Polygenic Embryo Screening: High approval for physical (77.7%) and psychiatric (72.0%) health conditions, less for other traits; concerns about false expectations and eugenic practices | ||
| Mar 2023 | Americans | RMBO | Respondents likely to use HGE to reduce disease risk (78%), to increase life expectancy (55%), intelligence (34%) and creativity (33%) | ||
| Feb 2023 | Americans | Science | Preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic risk acceptable to 58%; Genome editing of embryos acceptable to 41% | ||
| Mar 2022 | UK | Ipsos for PET | Genome editing of embryos for research | 45 | 17 |
| Mar 2022 | UK | Ipsos for PET | 14-day limit for genome editing of embryos | 56 | too short 13; too long 9 |
| Mar 2022 | UK | Ipsos for PET | Genome editing of embryos to help eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition | 53 | 13 |
| Mar 2022 | UK | Ipsos for PET | Genome editing of embryos to help eliminate a common manageable condition | 36 | 24 |
| Mar 2022 | UK | Ipsos for PET | Genome editing of embryos to help ensure child has a particular characteristic (eye or hair colour, height etc) | 20 | 49 |
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | How much have you heard or read about using gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime? A lot (8), a little (47), nothing at all (44) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | Do you think the widespread use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime would be a… Good idea for society (30), bad idea for society (30), not sure (39) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | If gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime were available, is this something you would want? Yes, definitely (16), yes, probably (32), no, probably not (25), no, definitely not (24) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | If the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime becomes widespread, do you think each of the following would happen?
Some would use it in morally unacceptable ways: Definitely (45), probably (39), probably not (9), definitely not (5) These techniques would help people live longer and better lives: Definitely (13), probably (52), probably not (23), definitely not (9) They would pave the way for medical advances that benefit society as a whole: Definitely (16), probably (51), probably not (22), definitely not (8) These techniques would go too far eliminating natural differences between people in society: Definitely (24), probably (44), probably not (22), definitely not (7) |
||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | If the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime becomes widespread, how would you feel? Humans always try to better ourselves (46); this is meddling with nature and crosses a line we shouldn’t (52) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | If the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime becomes widespread, do you think most parents would… feel pressure to get this for their baby (73); not feel pressure (25) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | If the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime becomes widespread, do you think people’s quality of life would be … better than now (39); worse than now (18); about the same (40) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | If the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime becomes widespread, do you think it would ... increase the gap between higher and lower-income Americans (55); decrease the gap (8); not make much difference (35) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew |
How much of a role do you think each of the following groups should have in setting standards for how gene editing techniques are used? Federal govt: Major (41), minor (31), no role (26) Companies that develop tech: Mayor (44), minor (35), no role (19) People who get them: Major (55), minor (29), no role (15) Scientists who provide them: Major (67), minor (21), no role (10) |
||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew | If the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime becomes widespread, which is your greater concern? Govt will go too far in regulating (47); govt will not go far enough (51) | ||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew |
Which statement comes closer to your views when it comes to ensuring safety and effectiveness of gene editing techniques? Gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of serious diseases or health conditions should be tested using ... existing medical standards (17); a higher standard (80) |
||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew |
Would the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime be more or less acceptable, or would it make no difference if ... People could choose which diseases or conditions: More (49), less (15), no difference (34) The effects were NOT passed on to future generations: More (48), less (16), no difference (34) Gene editing were only used in adults, not babies: More (53), less (11), no difference (34) |
||
| Nov 2021 | Americans | Pew |
Would you favor or oppose the use of gene editing for each of the following purposes? To change a baby’s physical characteristics to make them more attractive: Favor (5), oppose (74), not sure (20) To treat serious diseases or health conditions that a person currently has: Favor (71), oppose (10), not sure (18) |
||
| April 2020 | Dutch | DNA-dialogue | Editing embryo to prevent severe muscle disease (if safe & effective) | 69 | 14 |
| April 2020 | Dutch | DNA-dialogue | Editing embryo to prevent severe infectious disease, e.g. HIV (if safe & effective) | 40 | 33 |
| April 2020 | Dutch | DNA-dialogue | Editing embryo to increase intelligence (if safe & effective) | 9 | 72 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | 20 Nations | Pew | Is scientific research on gene editing to change people's genetic characteristics appropriate or misusing technology? [average] | 31 | 60 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | Americans | Pew | Is scientific research on gene editing to change people's genetic characteristics appropriate or misusing technology? | 29 | 66 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | 20 Nations | Pew | Is it appropriate or misusing technology to change a baby’s genetic characteristics to make the baby more intelligent? [average] | 19 | 60 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | Americans | Pew | Is it appropriate or misusing technology to change a baby’s genetic characteristics to make the baby more intelligent? | 17 | 80 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | 20 Nations | Pew | Is it appropriate or misusing technology to change a baby’s genetic characteristics to reduce the risk of a serious disease over the course of the baby's lifetime? [average] | 61 | 31 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | Americans | Pew | Is it appropriate or misusing technology to change a baby’s genetic characteristics to reduce the risk of a serious disease over the course of the baby's lifetime? | 57 | 38 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | 20 Nations | Pew | Is it appropriate or misusing technology to change a baby’s genetic characteristics to treat a serious disease the baby would have at birth? [average] | 70 | 23 |
| Oct 2019 to Mar 2020 | Americans | Pew | Is it appropriate or misusing technology to change a baby’s genetic characteristics to treat a serious disease the baby would have at birth? | 66 | 30 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Changing an unborn baby’s genes to prevent incurable disease such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s | 71 | 16 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Changing an unborn baby’s genes to prevent a non-fatal condition, such as blindness | 65 | 19 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Changing an unborn baby’s genes to reduce the risk of disease such as cancer, later in life | 67 | 18 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Changing an unborn baby’s genes to alter capabilities, such as intelligence or athletic talent | 12 | 69 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Changing an unborn baby’s genes to alter physical features, such as eye color or height | 10 | 72 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Favor federal funding for testing on human embryos to develop gene-editing [Republicans 17–61; Independents 17–49; Democrats 38–37] | 26 | 48 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Editing the genes of a developing embryo to prevent incurable disease such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s | 60 | 17 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Editing the genes of a developing embryo to prevent a non-fatal condition, such as blindness | 54 | 19 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Editing the genes of a developing embryo to reduce the risk of disease such as cancer, later in life | 58 | 17 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Editing the genes of a developing embryo to alter capabilities, such as intelligence or athletic talent | 11 | 66 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Editing the genes of a developing embryo to alter physical features, such as eye color or height | 8 | 65 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Editing genes of embryos would ... be affordable (likely/unlikely) | 22 | 76 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | ... wipe out many inherited diseases (likely/unlikely) | 75 | 23 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | ... be used for unethical reasons (likely/unlikely) | 88 | 11 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | ... lead to other medical advances (likely/unlikely) | 87 | 12 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | ... have unintended side effects (likely/unlikely) | 88 | 12 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | ... be adequately tested for safety before use (likely/unlikely) | 63 | 35 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | ... have unintended effects on human evolution (likely/unlikely) | 86 | 12 |
| Dec 2018 | Americans | AP/NORC | Gene editing could prevent or cure a genetic disease in an adult without changes being inherited | 56 | 17 |
| Sept 2018 | UK | New Scientist | The survey describes "hopes" for genetic engineering: cure or eliminate disease, 80%; better food, 47%; improve human capacities such as intelligence, 45%. | ||
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | Changing an unborn baby’s genetic characteristics to make a baby more intelligent | 19 | 80 |
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | Changing an unborn baby’s genetic characteristics to reduce the risk of a serious disease that could occur over the baby's lifetime | 60 | 38 |
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | Changing an unborn baby’s genetic characteristics to treat a serious disease or condition that the baby would have at birth | 72 | 27 |
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | How well do you think medical researchers understand the health risks and benefits of changing a baby’s genetic characteristics?: Very well (7), fairly well (29) Not too well (45), not at all well (17) | ||
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | Even if gene editing is used appropriately in some cases, others will use these techniques in ways that are morally unacceptable: Very likely (54), fairly likely (32) Not too likely (9), not at all likely (3) | ||
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | These techniques will help people live longer and better quality lives: Very likely (16), fairly likely (48) Not too likely (27), not at all likely (8) | ||
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | We will use these techniques before we fully understand how they affect people’s health: Very likely (46), fairly likely (38) Not too likely (12), not at all likely (3) | ||
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | Inequality will increase because this option will be available only for the wealthy: Very likely (58), fairly likely (29) Not too likely (9), not at all likely (4) | ||
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew | Development of these techniques will pave the way for new medical advances that benefit society as a whole: Very likely (18), fairly likely (42) Not too likely (30), not at all likely (8) | ||
| Nov 2017 | UK | Royal Society | Using genome editing to correct a genetic disorder so that the correction would also be inherited by any children of that person: Very positive (43), somewhat positive (33), somewhat negative (10), very negative (4), don't know (10) | ||
| Nov 2017 | UK | Royal Society | Using genome editing to correct a genetic disorder in a way that would not be inherited by any children of that person: Very positive (32), somewhat positive (39), somewhat negative (13), very negative (4), don't know (11) | ||
| Nov 2017 | UK | Royal Society | Using genome editing for prolonging life beyond current life expectancies: Very positive (15), somewhat positive (39), somewhat negative (22), very negative (12), don't know (12) | ||
| Nov 2017 | UK | Royal Society | Using genome editing for cosmetic reasons (e.g. changing a person's eye or hair colour): Very positive (7), somewhat positive (17), somewhat negative (18), very negative (50), don't know (8) | ||
| Nov 2017 | UK | Royal Society | Using genome editing to enhance abilities (e.g. changing a person’s intelligence): Very positive (10), somewhat positive (22), somewhat negative (25), very negative (35), don't know (8) | ||
| Nov 2017 | 11 countries | G. Gaskell et al. | Data from 11,716 people responding to four vignettes about gene editing, described in text as: favoring intervention for therapy on adults, 76%; for "prenatal therapy," 60%; adult enhancement, 26%; prenatal enhancement, 11% (with a median of 0). There are some national variations; the US, UK and Spain are less negative than others on enhancement. | ||
| 2016–7 | Americans | U. Wisconsin & YouGov | Germline enhancement | 26 | 51 |
| 2016–7 | Americans | U. Wisconsin & YouGov | Germline therapy | 65 | 18 |
| 2016–7 | Americans | U. Wisconsin & YouGov | Somatic enhancement | 39 | 35 |
| 2016–7 | Americans | U. Wisconsin & YouGov | Somatic therapy | 64 | 19 |
| 2016–7 | Americans | U. Wisconsin & YouGov | Agree that scientists should consult the public before applying gene editing to humans: over 50% support from all groups, 70% from the most religious, 74% from the most knowledgeable | ||
| 2016–7 | Americans | U. Wisconsin & YouGov | Agree that the scientific community is capable of guiding development of new technologies in a responsible way: varies from 30% to 70%, with the most religious and least knowledgeable being most skeptical | ||
| Mar 2016 | Americans | Pew | If you had a baby, do you think gene-editing, giving a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions over his or her lifetime, is something that you, personally, would want for your baby or not something you would want for your baby? Definitely want (16), probably (32), probably not (28), definitely not (21), no answer (2) | ||
| Mar 2016 | Americans | Pew | Gene-editing giving healthy babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions, morally acceptable/unacceptable | 28 | 30 |
| Mar 2016 | Americans | Pew | If you had a baby, do you think gene-editing, giving a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions over his or her lifetime, is something that you, personally, would want for your baby or not something you would want for your baby? Definitely want (16), probably (32), probably not (28), definitely not (21), no answer (2) | ||
| Mar 2016 | Americans | Pew | Would gene-editing, giving healthy babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions, be more or less acceptable if the effects were not passed on to future generations? More (34), less (23), no difference (40), no answer (3) | ||
| Mar 2016 | Americans | Pew | Would gene-editing, giving healthy babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions, be more or less acceptable if it changed the genetic make-up of the whole population for the foreseeable future? More (17), less (49), no difference (31), no answer (3) | ||
| Jan 2016 | Americans | Harvard & Stat | Changing genes of unborn babies to improve intelligence or physical characteristics | 11 | 83 |
| Jan 2016 | Americans | Harvard & Stat | Changing genes of unborn babies to reduce risk of serious disease | 26 | 65 |
| Jan 2016 | Americans | Harvard & Stat | Federal funding of research on changing genes of unborn babies to improve intelligence or physical characteristics | 14 | 82 |
| Jan 2016 | Americans | Harvard & Stat | Federal funding of research on changing genes of unborn babies to reduce risk of serious disease | 44 | 51 |
| 2015 | Global via social media [11 languages] | Australian academics | [12562 responses from 185 countries (half from US, UK, Japan or China), skewing young & male.] How much do you agree with the use of genetic editing of cells in children or adults to cure a life threatening [also, debilitating, essentially same results] disease? This means the disease could still be passed on to their children. Agree (59), disagree (10), don't know (31). | ||
| 2015 | Global via social media [11 languages] | Australian academics | How much do you agree with the use of genetic editing of cells in embryos to cure a life threatening [also, debilitating, essentially same results] disease? This means that all future generations would not have the disease. Agree (63), disagree (12), don't know (26). | ||
| 2015 | Global via social media [11 languages] | Australian academics | How much do you agree with the use of genetic editing of cells in embryos to alter any non-disease characteristic – such as memory, eye colour or height? This would mean that all subsequent generations would have the same genetic characteristics. Agree (27), disagree (43), don't know (30). | ||
| May 2015 | Americans | Hart/Synthetic Biology Project | New techniques can make precise and permanent changes and are passed down from a parent organism to future generations. Positive development (18), negative (12), both (43), don't know enough (27). When pressed, positive (20), negative (18), mixed feelings (62) | ||
| May 2015 | Americans | Hart/Synthetic Biology Project | Support for a moratorium on human applications? Favor (72; 27 strongly, 18 somewhat, 27 undecided but leaning); oppose (28; 6 strongly, 6 somewhat, 16 undecided but leaning) | ||
| Aug 2014 | Americans | Pew | Changing a baby's genetic characteristics to make the baby more intelligent | 15 | 83 |
| Aug 2014 | American men | Pew | Changing a baby's genetic characteristics to make the baby more intelligent | - | 78 |
| Aug 2014 | American women | Pew | Changing a baby's genetic characteristics to make the baby more intelligent | - | 87 |
| Aug 2014 | Americans | Pew | Changing a baby's genetic characteristics to reduce the risk of serious diseases | 46 | 50 |
| Jan 2014 | Americans | YouGov | Research to produce children with unusually high intelligence or other special attributes | 16 | 72 |
| Jan 2014 | Americans | YouGov | How worried are you that scientific research into human or animal DNA might lead to scientists "playing god" with things that should remain outside the realm of science? Very (35), somewhat (37), not very (15), not at all (4), not sure (10) | ||
| Oct 2013 | Australians | Roy Morgan | Selecting gender of any child | 17 | 80 |
| Oct 2013 | Australians | Roy Morgan | Selecting gender of 2nd or later child | 20 | 80 |
| May 2010 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 15 | 80 |
| Dec 2008 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 17 | 78 |
| Dec 2007 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 16 | 81 |
| Nov 2006 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 17 | 79 |
| Sept 2005 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 15 | 81 |
| Aug 2005 | UK | YouGov | Allow scientists to modify babies' genes? On demand (2), reduce disease risk (26), prevent serious disease (43, never (20), don't know (8) | ||
| Aug 2005 | UK | YouGov | Modify your own future children? To reduce disease risk (43), prevent serious disease(57), improve academics or sports (4), other reasons (3), never (18), don't know (9) | ||
| Aug 2005 | UK | YouGov | PGD to choose donors for sibling | 58 | 22 |
| Aug 2005 | UK | YouGov | PGD on embryos | 51 | 30 |
| Aug 2005 | UK | YouGov | Sex selection | 14 | 77 |
| May 2005 | Americans 18–45 | Dahl et al. | Would use a hypothetical sex selection pill | 18 | 59 |
| May 2005 | Americans 18–45 | Dahl et al. | Would use preconception sex selection technology | 8 | 74 |
| Sept 2003 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 13 | 84 |
| Sept 2003 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Changing a baby's genes to reduce risk of serious disease acceptable? | 41 | 54 |
| Sept 2003 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Changing a baby's genes for eye or hair color acceptable? | 4 | 94 |
|
April 2003 |
Australians |
Correction of genetic disorders for embryos: morally acceptable? |
79 |
- |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Brazilians |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
- |
82 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Danes |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
- |
97 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Mexicans |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
- |
76 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Poles |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
~18 |
~67 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Taiwanese |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
- |
~67 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Turks |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
43 |
53 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
UK |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
- |
92 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Americans |
Parents should be allowed to use gene technology to 'design' a baby to satisfy their personal, cultural or aesthetic desires |
- |
87 |
|
|
October 2002 |
Americans |
Approve if parents offered way to change their own genes in order to have children who would be smarter, stronger, or better looking? |
20 |
76 |
|
|
October 2002 |
Americans |
Approve if parents offered way to change their own genes in order to prevent their children from having a genetic disease? |
59 |
34 |
|
| Sept 2002 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 16 | 81 |
| Sept 2002 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Changing a baby's genes for eye or hair color acceptable? | 18 | 79 |
|
2002 |
Australians |
Correction of genetic disorders for embryos: morally acceptable? |
74 |
- |
|
| Aug / Sept 2001 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 14 | 82 |
|
Feb 2001 |
Americans |
Does creating genetically superior human beings justify creating a human clone or don't you think so? |
6 |
92 |
|
|
Fall 2000 |
Scots |
Are opposed to the creation of "designer babies" for any reason other than to stop hereditary illnesses. |
- |
~90 |
|
|
Fall 2000 |
Scots |
are prepared to accept "born-to-order" babies for medical reasons |
42 |
- |
|
|
March 2000 |
Canadians |
Find genetic engineering to change the eye colour or other physical features of an unborn child unacceptable. |
- |
74 |
|
|
March 2000 |
Canadians |
Find it acceptable for scientists to use biotechnology to cure an inherited medical condition or to decrease the risk of illness. |
> 50 |
- |
|
|
1996 |
Americans |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to prevent/stop children from inheriting a usually nonfatal disease? |
72 |
- |
|
|
1996 |
Americans |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to improve the physical characteristics children would inherit? |
35 |
- |
|
|
1994 |
Japanese |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to prevent/stop children from inheriting a usually nonfatal disease? |
62 |
- |
|
|
1994 |
Japanese |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to improve the physical characteristics children would inherit? |
28 |
- |
|
|
1994 |
Australians |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to prevent/stop children from inheriting a usually nonfatal disease? |
79 |
- |
|
|
1994 |
Australians |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to improve the physical characteristics children would inherit? |
28 |
- |
|
|
Dec 1993 |
Americans |
Do you approve or disapprove of the use of genetic engineering to make it possible for nations to produce large numbers of individuals with genetically desirable traits? |
8 |
88 |
|
|
1992 |
Americans |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to prevent/stop children from inheriting a usually nonfatal disease? |
66 |
32 |
|
|
1992 |
Americans |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to improve the physical characteristics children would inherit? |
43 |
54 |
|
|
1986 |
Americans |
How do you feel about scientists changing the makeup of human cells to improve the physical characteristics children would inherit? |
44 |
54 |
|
Reproductive cloning
|
Date |
Population |
Conducted by |
Question |
Approve |
Disapprove |
| May 2023 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 12 | 84 |
| May 2022 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 11 | 85 |
| May 2021 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 13 | 86 |
| May 2020 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 12 | 85 |
| May 2019 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 12 | 85 |
| May 2018 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 16 | 81 |
| May 2017 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 14 | 83 |
| May 2016 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 13 | 81 |
| May 2015 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 15 | 81 |
| May 2014 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 13 | 83 |
| May 2013 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 13 | 83 |
| Jan 2013 | Canada | Angus Reid | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 10 | n/a |
| Jan 2013 | Americans | Angus Reid | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 12 | n/a |
| Jan 2013 | UK | Angus Reid | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 9 | n/a |
| Jan 2013 | Americans | YouGov | Allow scientists to clone Neanderthal? | 17 | 63 |
| Jan 2013 | Americans | YouGov | Clone Neanderthal with human surrogate mother? | 15 | 66 |
| Jan 2013 | Americans | YouGov | Allow scientists to try cloning humans? | 16 | 66 |
| May 2012 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 10 | 86 |
| May 2011 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 12 | 84 |
| May 2010 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 15 | 80 |
| May 2010 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 9 | 88 |
| May 2009 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 9 | 88 |
| Dec 2008 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 17 | 78 |
| May 2008 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 11 | 85 |
| Dec 2007 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 16 | 81 |
| May 2007 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 11 | 86 |
| Nov 2006 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 17 | 79 |
| May 2006 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 8 | 88 |
| Sept 2005 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 15 | 81 |
| Aug 2005 | UK | YouGov | Cloning legal (10) or allowed for infertile couples (20) vs. not in foreseeable future (30) or never (30)? | 30 | 60 |
| May 2005 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 9 | 87 |
| Jan 2005 | Australians | Biotechnology Australia | Cloning humans acceptable | 11 | 86 |
| Sept 2004 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 13 | 83 |
| June 2004 | Americans | Charlton Research | Allow research into reproductive cloning? | 16 | 79 |
| 2004 | UK | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 11 | n/a |
| 2004 | Canadians | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 8 | n/a |
| May 2004 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 9 | 88 |
| Sept 2003 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 13 | 84 |
| Aug 2003 | American Teens | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 20 | 79 |
| May 2003 | Americans | Gallup | Human cloning: morally acceptable? | 8 | 90 |
|
May 2003 |
Australians |
Human cloning: morally acceptable? |
- |
87 |
|
|
Jan 2003 |
Americans |
Cloning designed specifically to produce a child should be (il)legal |
11 |
86 |
|
|
Jan 2003 |
European Union 15 |
Do you (dis)agree with reproductive cloning, meaning the identical reproduction of human beings? |
5 |
93 |
|
|
Jan 2003 |
EU 13 candidate countries |
Do you (dis)agree with reproductive cloning, meaning the identical reproduction of human beings? |
12 |
81 |
|
|
Jan 2003 |
Canadians |
Are you for or against |
5 |
84 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Danes |
Governments should ban cloning? |
- |
85 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Mexicans |
Governments should ban cloning? |
- |
~50 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Taiwanese |
Governments should ban cloning? |
- |
79 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Turks |
Governments should ban cloning? |
- |
~50 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
UK |
Governments should ban cloning? |
- |
79 |
|
|
Late 2002 |
Americans |
Governments should ban cloning? |
22 |
77 |
|
|
October 2002 |
Americans |
Government should have regulations to limit the cloning of humans? |
11 |
84 |
|
| Sept 2002 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 16 | 81 |
|
May 2002 |
Americans |
Should scientists be allowed to clone humans? |
11 |
85 |
|
|
May 2002 |
Americans |
Do you favor or oppose cloning that is designed specifically to result in the birth of a human being? |
8 |
90 |
|
|
May 2002 |
Americans |
Is it morally acceptable or morally wrong to clone humans? |
7 |
90 |
|
| April 2002 | Americans | Gallup | Favor or oppose a law prohibiting cloning humans? | 40 | 53 |
| April 2002 | Americans | Gallup | Favor, oppose, or unsure (25%) about a law prohibiting cloning humans? | 36 | 39 |
|
Feb / Mar 2002 |
Americans |
Do you favor or oppose scientific experimentation on the cloning of human beings? |
17 |
77 |
|
|
Feb 2002 |
Americans |
Do you think it is acceptable to use cloning to reproduce humans? |
7 |
89 |
|
| Jan 2002 | Americans | NBC / Wall Street Journal | Favor an outright ban on the cloning of human beings? | 54 | 39 |
|
2002 |
Australians |
Human cloning: morally acceptable? |
- |
82 |
|
|
Nov / Dec 2001 |
Americans |
Choose a preferred policy. |
21 |
72 |
|
|
Nov 2001 |
Americans |
Do you approve or disapprove of cloning that is designed specifically to result in the birth of a human being? |
9 |
88 |
|
| Aug / Sept 2001 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Allow cloning or genetically altering of humans? | 14 | 82 |
|
Aug 2001 |
Americans |
Do you think it should be legal or illegal to clone humans in the United States? |
11 |
87 |
|
|
Aug 2001 |
Canadians |
Are you for or against |
8 |
89 |
|
|
July 2001 |
Americans |
Regarding cloning human beings, are you opposed or supportive? |
8 |
90 |
|
| May 2001 | Americans | Gallup | Is it morally acceptable or morally wrong to clone humans? | 7 | 88 |
| April 2001 | Americans | Fox News |
Do you think it is acceptable to use cloning to reproduce humans? |
6 | 90 |
|
Feb 2001 |
Americans |
Good idea or bad idea to clone human beings? |
7 |
90 |
|
|
Feb 2001 |
Americans |
Do you think scientists should be allowed to clone human beings or don't you think so? |
10 |
88 |
|
|
March 2000 |
Canadians |
Are you opposed to scientists making a genetically identical copy of a human being? |
- |
90 |
|
| 1998 | Americans | Gallup | Government's role in cloning: permanent ban (>50%); wait and see (27%); allow research to continue (16%) | ||
|
Feb 1998 |
Canadians |
I think people should have the freedom, in the future, to clone themselves and have a baby exactly like themselves to raise as their own child. |
12 |
87 |
|
| Jan 1998 | Americans | Fox News | Do you think it is acceptable to use cloning to reproduce humans? | 6 | 89 |
| Jan 1998 | Americans | NBC / Wall Street Journal | Favor an outright ban on the cloning of human beings? | 36 | 58 |
| 1998 | Americans | Yankelovich Partners | Approve of use of cloning to have a twin at a later date? | 13 | 86 |
| Mar 1997 | Americans | Fox News | Do you think it is acceptable to use cloning to reproduce humans? | 5 | 89 |
| Feb 1997 | Americans | CNN / USA Today / Gallup | Human cloning would be morally wrong | - | 88 |
| Feb 1997 | Americans | CNN / USA Today / Gallup | If humans could ever be cloned, it would be a bad thing for humanity | - | 87 |
| Feb 1997 | Americans | ABC | If it becomes possible, should cloning of humans be allowed | 10 | 87 |
|
1997 |
UK |
Human cloning should never be allowed and all research should be stopped, or Cloning should be allowed when it becomes possible. |
4 |
72 |
|
|
Dec 1993 |
Americans |
In general, do you think cloning is a good thing or a bad thing to do? |
14 |
75 |
|
Research cloning and embryonic stem cell research
|
Date |
Population |
Conducted by |
Question |
Approve |
Disapprove |
| May 2024 | Americans | Gallup | Medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos: morally acceptable? | 63 | 29 |
| May 2023 | Americans | Gallup | Medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos: morally acceptable? | 63 | 33 |
| May 2022 | Americans | Gallup | Medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos: morally acceptable? | 63 | 32 |
| May 2021 | Americans | Gallup | Medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos: morally acceptable? | 64 | 34 |
| May 2020 | Americans | Gallup | Medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos: morally acceptable? | 66 | 31 |
| May 2019 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 64 | 31 |
| May 2018 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 66 | 29 |
| April/May 2018 | Americans | Pew Research | development of gene editing if it relies on embryonic testing | 33 | 65 |
| May 2017 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 61 | 33 |
| May 2016 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 60 | 32 |
| May 2015 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 64 | 29 |
| May 2014 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 65 | 27 |
| May 2013 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 60 | 32 |
| May 2012 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 58 | 33 |
| May 2011 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 62 | 30 |
| May 2010 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology in developing new treatments for disease? | 55 | 40 |
| May 2010 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 59 | 32 |
| May 2009 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 57 | 36 |
| Dec 2008 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology in developing new treatments for disease? | 52 | 47 |
| May 2008 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 62 | 30 |
| Dec 2007 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology in developing new treatments for disease? | 47 | 47 |
| May 2007 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 64 | 30 |
| 2007 | Australians | Biotechnology Australia | Using stem cells cloned from the patient's own cells, acceptable? | 91 | 7 |
| Nov 2006 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology in developing new treatments for disease? | 45 | 51 |
| Nov 2006 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology to create human embryos that will provide stem cells for human therapeutic purposes? | 35 | 57 |
| May 2006 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 61 | 33 |
| Sept 2005 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology in developing new treatments for disease? | 43 | 51 |
| Sept 2005 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology to create human embryos that will provide stem cells for human therapeutic purposes? | 34 | 59 |
| Aug 2005 | UK | YouGov | ESCs from cloned embryos acceptable? Always (7), for medical but not cosmetic uses (27), to treat serious (25) diseases or only life-threatening (20); vs. never (9); don't know (11) | ||
| May 2005 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 60 | 33 |
| Mar 2005 | Massa-chusetts | N.H. Survey Center | Support stem-cell research using human embryos cloned in a laboratory | 42 | 46 |
| Sept 2004 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology in developing new treatments for disease? | 42 | 56 |
| June 2004 | Americans | Charlton Research | Allow research into therapeutic cloning? | 59 | 35 |
| May 2004 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 54 | 37 |
| Sept 2003 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Morally acceptable to use human cloning technology in developing new treatments for disease? | 36 | 53 |
| Sept 2003 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Use human cloning technology only to help medical research | 50 | 48 |
| May 2003 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 54 | 38 |
|
Jan 2003 |
European Union 15 |
Do you (dis)agree with therapeutic cloning, meaning the identical reproduction of human cells? |
55 |
43 |
|
|
Jan 2003 |
EU 13 candidate countries |
Do you (dis)agree with therapeutic cloning, meaning the identical reproduction of human cells? |
44 |
47 |
|
|
Jan 2003 |
Canadians |
Are you for or against the cloning of human embryos for the creation of stem cells that could be used in transplants, organ replacements or in the prevention or treatment of diseases that are presently incurable? |
53 |
32 |
|
| Jan 2003 | Americans | L.A. Times | Support complete ban on cloning research (11); support ban except for research on cloned embryos to learn about diseases (41); oppose any law that restricts research into human cloning (43); don't know (5) | ||
| Jan 2003 | Americans | Gallup | Should be allowed for research | 38 | 59 |
| Oct 2002 | Canadians | Ipsos-Reid | Approve creation of cloned human embryos for the sole purpose of collecting stem cells to be used in research | 61 | 37 |
| Sept 2002 | Americans | VCU Life Sciences | Use human cloning technology only to help medical research | 45 | 51 |
| May 2002 | Americans | Gallup | Stem cell research using human embryos: morally acceptable? | 52 | 39 |
|
May 2002 |
Americans |
Do you favor or oppose cloning of human embryos for use in medical research? |
34 |
61 |
|
|
April 2002 |
Americans |
Do you think it is wrong to create human embryos for medical research? |
- |
59 |
|
|
April 2002 |
Americans |
Favor the government allowing scientists to do therapeutic cloning research to produce stem cells for treating life-threatening diseases |
68 |
26 |
|
|
April 2002 |
Americans |
Do you agree with Bush's position? |
29 |
63 |
|
|
April 2002 |
Americans |
Agree with person 1 vs. 2. |
26 |
59 |
|
|
Nov / Dec 2001 |
Americans |
Choose a preferred policy. |
60 |
33 |
|
|
Nov 2001 |
Americans |
Do you approve or disapprove of cloning that is not designed specifically to result in the birth of a human being, but is designed to aid medical research that might find treatments for certain diseases? |
54 |
41 |
|
|
Aug 2001 |
Americans |
Do you think human cloning for medical treatments should be legal or illegal in the United States? |
33 |
63 |
|
| Aug 2001 | Americans | Gallup | Should federal government fund stem cell research on embryos created by cloning? | 28 | 66 |
|
Aug 2001 |
Canadians |
Are you for or against the cloning of human embryos that would allow for the creation of stem cells that could be used in transplants, organ replacements, and for treatment of diseases that are currently incurable? |
55 |
41 |
|
|
July 2001 |
Americans |
Should all cloning research be banned? |
- |
40 |
|
| June 2001 | Americans | Gallup | Preferred cloning policy: complete ban (42%); cloning only on human embryos (39%); no restrictions (17%) | ||
| Mar 2001 | Americans | Pew | Allow unrestricted scientific research related to cloning? | 13 | 81 |
| Sept 1999 | Americans | Pew | Restricting scientific research on human cloning | 57 | 39 |
|
Aug 1999 |
UK |
Do you support or oppose cloning and growing human cells? |
28 |
60 |
|
| June 1999 | Americans | NBC / Wall Street Journal | Banning medical research on cloning | 48 | 47 |
| Sept 1998 | Americans | Pew | Restricting scientific research on human cloning | 54 | 45 |
|
Feb 1998 |
Canadians |
I think that cloning human beings for such things as replacement body parts, transplants and experimenting with new drugs, if carefully regulated, is not a bad thing. |
46 |
53 |
|