Perspective
The Public, Political Parties, and Stem-Cell Research
N Engl J Med 2011; 365:1853-1856November 17, 2011
Comments
open through November 23, 2011
- Article
Until recently, it seemed as if the question of future federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research had been settled. The Obama administration had lifted President George W. Bush's previous restrictions on funding, and the legality of that decision was upheld by federal courts.1 But the 2012 presidential election campaign has once again raised uncertainty about such funding. Most of the Republican candidates have taken positions suggesting that, if elected, they would substantially reduce future federal funding for stem-cell research.2
In a polling review project supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, we prepared for the reemergence of this debate by examining overall public opinion on federal funding of stem-cell research, as well as the views of Republicans and Democrats, who are the principal voters in presidential primaries.
In this analysis we present data from the most recent polling (see Opinion Polls on Stem-Cell Research) in regard to four particular aspects of the debate over embryonic stem-cell research: whether Americans see such research as morally acceptable or unacceptable; whether they favor or oppose such research in general; whether or not they believe such research should be forbidden, even if it means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people; and whether they favor or oppose federal funding for research that uses newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos.
In addition, since stem-cell research is of global interest, we place American attitudes into a broader context by comparing U.S. attitudes with the views of the public in 33 European countries on the question of whether embryonic stem-cell research should be forbidden in their country.3 Also, because prior research has shown that religious attitudes — particularly religiosity — affect people's views on this issue,4 we examine the role of religiosity both in U.S. and European attitudes concerning the issue and in U.S. partisan politics.
A majority of Americans express pro–stem-cell-research views in response to all four of the questions we considered. About 6 in 10 Americans (62%) believe that medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos is morally acceptable, whereas 30% believe it is morally wrong (Gallup 2011). Similarly, 62% favor the conducting of medical research that uses stem cells from human embryos, whereas 31% are opposed (VCU 2010). When asked in the context of stem-cell research whether they agreed or disagreed that “research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if it means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people,” 60% of Americans said that such research should not be forbidden; 31% thought it should be forbidden (HSPH 2011). A majority (55%) believe the federal government should fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos; 41% believe the federal government should not fund such research (CNN-ORC 2010). (Additional data can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.)
However, on every poll measure for which data are available, Republicans are less supportive than Democrats. About half of Republicans favor medical research involving embryonic stem cells (52%) and believe that such research should not be forbidden (51%), as compared with two thirds (67%) of Democrats on each of these measures (VCU 2010; HSPH 2011). On the question of federal funding, a majority (58%) of Republicans expressed opposition, whereas a majority (70%) of Democrats said they were in favor (CNN-ORC 2010).
As compared with the public response in most European countries, a larger proportion of Americans oppose forbidding stem-cell research (or “regenerative medicine,” as it is called in Europe) involving human embryos (see Table 1Table 1
European and American Attitudes about Forbidding Research Involving Human Embryos, Even if It Means That Possible Treatments Are Not Made Available to Ill People.). Among the 34 countries we examined, those where the largest proportion of residents say that such research should not be forbidden are Iceland (71%), Norway (69%), Sweden (67%), and Britain (65%). In four countries, the majority of the public believe that such research should be forbidden: Austria (60%), Luxembourg (54%), Greece (54%), and Slovenia (54%). In four other countries (Germany, Slovakia, Latvia, and Turkey) a plurality were of this same opinion (HSPH 2011; Eurobarometer 2010).In Table 2Table 2
Attitudes of Europeans and Americans, According to Their Religiosity, about Forbidding Research Involving Human Embryos, Even if It Means That Possible Treatments Are Not Made Available to Ill People., we examine the role of religiosity with regard to this issue. In both the United States and Europe as a whole, people with the least religious involvement are less likely than their compatriots to believe that embryonic stem-cell research should be forbidden. Those who are more involved religiously are more likely to support restrictions. In the United States, the proportion of people who believe such research should be forbidden rises from 18% among those who say they have “no religion” or attend religious services less than once a year or never to 40% among those who say they attend religious services weekly or more frequently (HSPH 2011; Eurobarometer 2010). This finding is important for the United States because Republicans (range, 44 to 47%) are more likely than Democrats (range, 32 to 36%) to say they attend religious services at least weekly (Pew Research Center 2010; HSPH 2011). In addition, those who attend religious services regularly are more likely to vote for Republican candidates than for Democratic candidates. For instance, in the 2010 congressional elections, 58% of Americans who said they attended religious services at least weekly voted for Republican candidates, whereas 40% voted for Democratic candidates (Edison 2010).The difference between party adherents on the issue of federal funding is reinforced by different attitudes toward federal spending more generally. Asked to choose between two options, 71% of Republicans prefer the federal government to cost less in taxes but provide fewer services, whereas 70% of Democrats prefer the federal government to provide more services even if it costs more in taxes (Washington Post–Kaiser–Harvard 2010). Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor decreased federal spending on health care (47% vs. 8%) and scientific research (30% vs. 13%) and less likely than Democrats to favor increased federal spending on health care (22% vs. 56%) and scientific research (28% vs. 46%) (Pew Research Center 2011).
This analysis suggests that if the leaders of the two political parties focus mostly on responding to their own adherents' views, their differences could affect future federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, depending on the outcome of the 2012 election. Alternatively, if they focus their policy positions more on the views of the broader U.S. public, future federal research funding is likely to be secure regardless of which party wins the election.
Opinion Polls on Stem-Cell Research
CNN–Opinion Research Corporation poll (CNN–ORC)
Edison Media Research national election day exit poll (Edison)
Eurobarometer poll
Gallup poll
Harvard School of Public Health poll (HSPH)
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press polls
June 8–28, 2010 (iPOLL Databank, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut)
Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Center for Public Policy poll (VCU)
Washington Post–Kaiser Family Foundation–Harvard University poll
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Source Information
From the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (R.J.B., M.K.K., J.M.B.); the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (R.J.B.); and Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea (M.K.K.).
- References
References
1
Cohen IG ,Adashi EY . Human embryonic stem-cell research under siege -- battle won but not the war. N Engl J Med 2011;364:e48-e48
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Jan T. Most in GOP field would scale back stem cell funding. Boston Globe. August 7, 2011 (http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-07/news/29862080_1_cell-lines-cell-funding-cell-research).
3
Eurobarometer 73.1: biotechnology. Brussels: The European Commission, 2010 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf).
4
Nisbet MC . The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 2005;17:90-112
CrossRef | Web of Science
- Citing Articles (1)
Citing Articles
1
David A. Brindley, Natasha L. Davie, William A. Sahlman, Gregory A. Bonfiglio, Emily J. Culme-Seymour, Brock C. Reeve, Chris Mason. (2012) Promising Growth and Investment in the Cell Therapy Industry during the First Quarter of 2012. Cell Stem Cell 10:5, 492-496
CrossRef
- Comments (5)
-
5 Reader's Comments
SANDEEP JAIN, MD | Resident - Internal Medicine | Disclosure: NoneTHIEF RIVER FALLS MNNovember 19, 2011Misconceptions about stem cells
This is an excellent article which underlies the broad support for stem cell research across the globe. The importance and huge potential of possible therapies from stem cell research recently led the Vatican to lend its support for adult stem cell research. While embryonic stem cell research is many years away from the patients' bedside, adult stem cells are being used as meaningful therapies right now.
It is important to emphasize the potential of adult stem cells as well.Paul Knoepfler | Other | Disclosure: NoneNovember 17, 2011Excellent article and some perspective
This article is really outstanding and helpful in placing embryonic stem cell research in the context of both U.S. and worldwide systems of belief. For me as both an adult and embryonic stem cell researcher, it is reassuring to see the relatively high level of support around the world for this research. Even amongst the most religious, more people in most countries support embryonic stem cell research.
DR JONATHAN EHRMAN, PHD | Other | Disclosure: NoneDETROIT MINovember 17, 2011Interesting
Thank you for this article. It is impossible to know how much each individual in the survey actually understands about stem cell research. The power of hearing 'the possibility of curing Parkinson's, MS, cancer, etc.' is strong. However, I wonder what their response would be if the knew there are no known treatments developed using embryonic stem cells and that there are over 70 treatments using adult stem cells despite ongoing research on embryonic stem cells? I also wonder their response if they knew that private research is not restricted, it has only been restricted in the past with respect to using federal dollars to support this research? Or if they knew about the work going on that has been transforming adult stem cells into the equivalent of embryonic cells and would remove the ethical debate? The authors provide interesting information about public attitudes. It would be also interesting to take a group with mixed opinions and provide the above-type information and measure their attitudes following. It may provide insight into the real public attitude when we know individuals have a depth of understanding.
Ray Marshall | Other | Disclosure: NoneNovember 17, 2011Polling and Stem Cell research
Whjy no mention of adult stem cell research? Too many psychological or financial ties to ESC research?
Using political polling as a justification for doing scientific/medical research makes researchers as reliable as politicians.
We all have stem cells and can feed them cheaply
Any stem cell therapy is a tempest in a teapot. Research discoveries garnered, may benefit society, but we can never aid a population of 7 billion people with a procedure that involves cells grown in a petri dish. We are unhealthy because we can't afford to eat well and grow the cells ourselves or we don't choose to or we may be trying to follow the current nutrition recommendations which are largely based on old science, bad math and guesses. White blood cells would be able to direct individual's own stem cells as needed, if the glycocalyx is nourished with essential sugars and if the endogenous cannabinoid rich membranes aren't being continually signaled by elevated intracellular levels of calcium and glutamate to release the anandamide and other eCB for potential messenger use, or to transform into an eicosanoid or to be redirected for use as a membrane building block elsewhere, or to be cannibalized by prostate or breast cancer cells which can convert the arachidonic acid from the anandamide into fuel. A nourished white blood cell could identify the cancer cell or CWD infected cell and kill it and clean it away by apoptosis. Stem cells are in all of us - embryo, infant, elder.