The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Huge Collection of Polls on Human Genetic Engein
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ask and ye shall receive!

Via Nightfox:


Here is a partial list of worldwide opinion polls on genetic editing: https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/internal-content/cgs-summary-public-opinion-polls.

Highlights below. (Sample sizes not listed are unavailable.)
TL;DR US support for cognitive enhancements collapsed in the 1990s. Support for genetic editing appears to be higher outside the Hajnal line (see Turkey, Italy, Spain).

U.K., XI.2017: 32% support, 60% oppose editing for intelligence and abilities (n = 2,061)
U.S., I.2016: 11% support, 83% oppose editing for intelligence/physical traits (n = 520)
U.S., I.2016: 14% support, 82% oppose federal funding for intelligence/physical traits (n = 520)
U.S., V.2015: 28% oppose, 72% support moratorium on genetic editing (n = 1,018)
U.S., VIII.2014: 15% support, 83% oppose editing for intelligence (78% men, 87% women) (n = 2,002)
U.S., I.2014: 16% support, 72% oppose research for intelligence editing (n = 1,000)
U.K., VIII.2005: 4% would modify own children to improve academics or sports (n = 2,432)
Brazil, late 2002: 82% oppose designer babies
Denmark, late 2002: 97% oppose designer babies
Mexico, late 2002: 76% oppose designer babies
Poland, late 2002: 18% support, 67% oppose designer babies
Taiwan, late 2002: 67% oppose designer babies
Turkey, late 2002: 43% support, 53% oppose designer babies
U.K., late 2002: 92% oppose designer babies
U.S., late 2002: 87% oppose designer babies
U.S., VI.2002: 20% support, 76% oppose editing for intelligence/physical traits
Scotland, fall 2000: ~90% oppose designer babies (n = 1,001)
U.S., 1996: 35% support editing for physical traits
U.K., 1994: 8% support, 88% oppose editing for intelligence*
New Zealand, 1993: 24% support, 67% oppose editing for intelligence (n = 329)
Australia, 1993: 27% support, 62% oppose editing for intelligence (n = 201)
Japan, 1993: 26% support, 54% oppose editing for intelligence (n = 352)
India, 1993: 70% support, 23% oppose editing for intelligence ** (n = 568)
Thailand, 1993: 74% support, 22% oppose editing for intelligence ** (n = 680)
Russia, 1993: 35% support, 49% oppose editing for intelligence ** (n = 446)
Israel, 1993: 22% support, 70% oppose editing for intelligence ** (n = 50)
Philippines, 1993: 49% support, 47% oppose editing for intelligence* (n = 164)
Singapore, 1993: 41% support, 54% oppose editing for intelligence* (n = 250)
Hong Kong, 1993: 36% support, 53% oppose editing for intelligence* (n = 105)
U.S., XII.1993: 34% support, 62% oppose editing for intelligence (8% support, 88% oppose mass editing for genetically desirable traits) (n = 500)
U.S., 1992: 42% support, 55% oppose editing for physical traits (n = ~1,000)
U.S., X-XI.1986: 44% support, 53% oppose editing for intelligence. (n = 1,273)

*Survey polls medical or biology students.
**Survey mostly polls teachers, academics and engineers/medical workers/government workers.

Other polls:

CZ, DE, ES, IT, SE, UK, XII.2017-II.2018: 29%, 33%, 49%, 47%, 32%, 41% respectively support non-medical editing (n = 6,000; 1,000 per country): https://www.orion-openscience.eu/news/201807/what-do-europeans-think-about-life-sciences-research.

U.S., II.2014: 26% support, 66% oppose editing for intelligence/physical traits (n = 1,001): http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/17/us-views-of-technology-and-the-future/.

Already mentioned:

U.S., XII.2018: 12% support, 69% oppose editing embryos for intelligence (11%, 66% for developing embryos) (n = 1,067)
China, VI-IX.2018: 30% support editing for intelligence (n = 4,196)
U.S., IV-V.2018: 19% support, 80% oppose editing for intelligence (n = 2,537)
U.S., XII.2016-I.2017: 26% support, 51% oppose germline enhancement (n = 1,600)
U.S., III.2016: 34% enthusiastic, 69% worried about brainchips to improve intelligence (n = 4,726).

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Crispr, Genetic Engineering, Guest, Opinion Poll 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Huxley may even be more relevant these days than Orwell, but it’s a close call.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Mark P Miller
    These days, I'm leaning more toward Philip K Dick than either of those.
    , @songbird
    I'd definitely echo that and recommend "A Brave New World.". It is not a big time investment and it touches on a lot of themes. Huxley was kind of a weird guy though, if you read some of his other stuff - not that I've read it all.
  2. 1993: the year of “Jurassic Park.”

  3. @JLK
    Huxley may even be more relevant these days than Orwell, but it's a close call.

    These days, I’m leaning more toward Philip K Dick than either of those.

  4. @JLK
    Huxley may even be more relevant these days than Orwell, but it's a close call.

    I’d definitely echo that and recommend “A Brave New World.”. It is not a big time investment and it touches on a lot of themes. Huxley was kind of a weird guy though, if you read some of his other stuff – not that I’ve read it all.

    • Agree: JLK

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS