My body is my fortress
Why Russians are afraid of the medicine of the future
Yuri Voynilov, Valentina Polyakova, HSE
A wait–and–see attitude and defensive reaction is the attitude of the majority of our fellow citizens to attempts to "improve" human nature through the use of stem cells, genetic diagnostics, genetic engineering and other biomedical technologies, noted Yuri Voynilov and Valentina Polyakova in the article "My body is my fortress: public opinion on biomedical technologies" in the thematic issue of the journal "Sociology of Power" – "Social Research of Biomedicine" (No. 1 for 2016).
Compared to the "zero" years, this perception has softened, but not radically. These are the data of the IIEZ surveys conducted among the population over the age of 16 in 2003 (2107 respondents), 2006 (the same number of respondents), 2009 (sample – 1600 people), 2010 (2843 respondents) and 2011 (1703 respondents). But the main "supplier" of data was a survey conducted in November 2015 as part of the monitoring of the innovative behavior of the IIEZ population (a representative sample of the Russian population – 1,671 people aged 16 and over, covering 137 settlements of different types). He showed that Russian society still does not trust biomedical technologies too much.
At the same time, skepticism about these technologies and tolerance for other innovations have little to do with people's awareness of these innovations. Surveys have revealed that biomedical technologies are more understandable to ordinary people than, for example, innovations in the IT sphere. The concern of society is, rather, interference with human nature.
"The body remains a sacred object, in relation to which invasive transformation procedures are perceived as unacceptable," the authors of the study noted.
Morality does not keep pace with science
The development of biology and medicine in the XX century changed the idea of the human body. New options of the human body are updated, its characteristics are "edited". Previously inaccessible technologies (in vitro fertilization, cell cultivation in bioreactors, etc.) have become a reality. Biomedicine considers not only the symptoms of the disease, but also the risks of getting sick themselves: gene technologies have come to the rescue. All these realities have penetrated into the public discourse. But moral norms do not keep up with progress, and although biomedical technologies are widely known, attitudes towards them do not change immediately. So, cloning, the use of stem cells raise many ethical questions.
Nevertheless, polls have shown a liberalization of social attitudes about cloning. From 2003 to 2011, the share of Russians who allow cloning of people /human tissues in some cases increased: from 38 to 52%, respectively. From 2003 to 2006, the proportion of respondents who consider cloning acceptable to solve the problem of childlessness increased (from 8 to 14%). From 2006 to 2009, the proportion of the population allowing the "copying" of healthy human tissues for replacement in diseased organs increased (from 30 to 37%). At the same time, the results of the 2010 survey indicate that Russians are wary of genetic technologies. Despite the general approval of their use, in about half of the cases, respondents expressed distrust, supporting the supervision of the use of innovations, the authors of the article emphasized.
Obvious rejection is met with experiments on the birth of a tissue donor child, cloning of a child from one of the parents (if the second is a carrier of inherited diseases), implantation of microchips into the brain. On average, half of the respondents either disapprove of these technologies, or allow their use only in exceptional circumstances. In other words, interference with human nature causes rejection.
The benefits of innovation are underestimated
The researchers also measured attitudes towards other technologies of the future, which allowed us to see a number of contrasts in the perception of innovations in different fields. The scientists used the methodology of foresight research, which identifies promising and socially significant areas of science and technology.
It turned out that in the created list of innovations, none (from clothes that adapt to the weather, a pocket detector of toxins in products and to a smart home system) gained a potential audience of more than 50% (range – from 42% to 48%; Fig. 1). Technologies that involve interference in the organism turned out to be even less popular, gaining from 22% to 31% of the audience. People consider these innovations unnecessary. The share of respondents who named this reason for most technologies (19 out of 24) exceeded 50%, the researchers noted.
Figure 1. The need for innovative technologies (in% of respondents).
Answers to the question: "Which of these goods and services would you like to use?"
Source: Monitoring of Innovative Behavior of the Population of the HSE IIEZ, 2015
At the same time, the majority of respondents are concerned about the problems that could be solved thanks to innovations. 78% are concerned about the birth of children with genetic diseases, and only 30% are ready to use a genetic test. Air and water pollution alarm 88% and 87%, respectively, but only 48% of respondents would like to use sensors that signal pollution. There is a gap between the awareness of problems and the adoption of ways to solve them.
People do not fully understand the essence of certain technologies and therefore do not see them as tools for overcoming difficulties, Voynilov and Polyakova noted.
Technology is either dangerous or useless
Gene technologies integrated into the body of micro devices and other interventions are most often met with distrust (Fig.2). And this is not due to fear of the unknown, but to the invasive nature of technology. At the same time, other technologies that are also unsafe – the same "smart home" systems that can get out of control - are noticeably less likely to cause respondents' concerns.
Figure 2. New technologies: alertness VS. futility
(in % of respondents who are not ready to use the listed goods/services).
Answers to the question: "Why Would you not use these goods/services?"
Source: the same.
Technologies from other groups (ICT, energy efficiency, etc.), on the contrary, generate less concern. But doubts about their effectiveness are higher. Thus, biomedical technologies seem dangerous to Russians, and other technologies are of little use, experts summarized.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru
30.05.2016