Eurobarometer 73.1 (Jan-Feb 2010)

The ´European Parliament´ module (QA1 to QA8) was implemented on behalf of and financed by the European Parliament.

The European Parliament. Biotechnology. Science, Research and Technology. European cooperation in research.

Topics: 1. European Parliament (in EU27): receipt of information about the European Parliament in the media; self-rated knowledge about the European Parliament; description of the European Parliament as dynamic, democratic, taking into account the wishes of the citizens, little known, inefficient; knowledge test about the EU: direct election of members of the European Parliament by the European citizens, same number of MEPs per country, seating of the Member States according to their nationality or to their political affiliation; desire for a more important role of the European Parliament; preferred policies of the European Parliament which should be given priority; values that should be defended by the European Parliament as a matter of priority (e.g. equality, freedom of speech).

2. Biotechnology: expected long-term improvement of living conditions by solar energy, computer and information technology, biotechnology and genetic engineering, space exploration, nuclear energy, nanotechnology, wind energy, brain and cognitive enhancement; genetically modified food: Split A: Familiarity with the term genetically modified food; discussions and search for information about genetically modified food; attitude towards selected statements related to genetically modified food (is good for the national economy, unhealthy, helps developing countries, is safe for future generations, benefits some people but puts others at risk, unnatural, makes someone feel uneasy, does no harm to the environment, development should be encouraged); (Split B: same as attitude questions as Split A, but related on nanotechnology and animal cloning in food production).

Regenerative medicine: Split A: attitude towards and acceptance of stem cell research from human embryos and stem cells from other cells; attitude towards producing organs, tissue and cell structures as well as for gene therapy attitude towards regenerative medicine to improve the performance of healthy people; agreement with statements regarding regenerative medicine (embryo research should be forbidden and is unethical despite possible treatment options, research funding, even if it requires the creation or use of human embryos, scientific viewpoint should prevail , if ethical and scientific viewpoints differ, mixing of human and animal genes is unacceptable, no support of regenerative medicine, if only rich people or only a few people will benefit, classification of the embryo as a human being, consent to regenerative medicine in the case of risks).
Split B: Attitude towards genetically modified foods by inserting genes from other species, and from the same genus (scale); declaration requirements for genetically modified fruit.
Split A: Familiarity with the term synthetic biology; discussions and search for information about synthetic biology; most important criteria for the own decision, assuming a referendum about synthetic biology: obtaining information about the scientific process and the technology, knowledge of research funders and their motives, knowledge about the possible benefits and the possible risks, knowledge of possible risk carriers, knowledge of efforts to control synthetic biology, ways of dealing with the social and ethical issues; assessment of the need for legal regulations; attitude towards biofuels.
Split B: Familiarity with the term biobanks; discussions and search for information about biobanks; requirement for informed consent of the patient in the case of research on data in a biobank; responsible institutions for protecting the public interest in the cooperation of biobanks with industrial companies; willingness to provide personal information to a biobank and type of information (blood samples, genetic profile, tissue collected during medial operations, medical records, etc.); attitude towards the sharing and exchange of information of biobanks within the European Union.

3. Assessment of positive work for society by: newspaper reports, industry, academic researchers, consumer organizations, environmental groups, national and EU legislation, retailers, ethics committees, religious leaders or medical docters.
Split A: Synthetic biology: primacy of scientific facts if they contradict ethical and scientific points of view; preference for expert advice or majority decision of the people in making decisions about synthetic biology; preference for strict regulation by the government or by market decisions.
Split B: Animal cloning: primacy of scientific facts if they contradict ethical and scientific points of view; preference for expert advice or majority decision of the people in making decisions about animal cloning; preference for strict regulation by the government or by market decisions.
Again all: Responsibility of the government to ensure that new technologies benefit everyone; post-materialism index; assessment if the own view on climate change and global warming is shared in the country; assessment if the national policy converts the personal views; personal importance of biotechnology for the respondent; scientist in the own family; own studies in natural science, technology or engineering; belief in God; denomination; frequency of church attendance.

4. Science, research and technology: interest in and self-rated knowledge about sports, politics, medical history, environmental problems, scientific discoveries and technological developments, culture and arts; active engagement with science and technology (participation in public debates on science and technology, sign petitions and participation in demonstrations in matters of nuclear power, biotechnology or the environment, donating to campaigns for medical research, participation in activities of NGOs); desired influence of the public on decisions about science and technology; appropriate public authorities to increase the awareness of the social significance of scientific and technological developments; attitude towards science, technology and environment(scale: positive impact of science on health (Split: different question wording), inexhaustible resource extraction due to the technology progress, science and technology can sort out every problem, too much focus on science rather than on faith, no positive impact of science on the environment , attitude towards animal experiments, scientists on the basis of their knowledge a dangerous power, new technologies make people’s work more interesting, science is not important for the own daily life, too fast transformation of life through science, more chances for future generations, animal testing should be allowed, negative influence of science and technology on people’ moral sense, threats to human rights, science and technology could be used by terrorists, calling for support for scientific research by the government, positive impacts of scientific and technological developments outweigh negative impacts, some numbers are especially lucky for some people, explain the world through science, academic freedom, restrictions on science because of possible risks, overemphasizing risks preventing progress, science itself is neither good nor bad, most people think that science makes their life healthier, inadequate public information through science, scientists have a in a limited perspective in their research field, problems are too complex even for scientists no trustworthiness of scientists due to their financial dependence on the industry, private funding of research limits the ability to understand things fully); attitude towards collaborative research on a European level funded by the EU: saves money, is creative and efficient, will become more and more important, is in the national and society’s interest or in the interest of the industry, is not at all necessary; assessment of the EU’s spending on research as adequate; institutions in which the EU should invest more; area of research that should be tackled in priority by researchers in the EU; assessment of measures that could make the EU a major player in the global research (joint research programmes of the EU countries, exchange of researchers in the EU, joint planning of major scientific facilities, strengthening the collaboration of EU researchers with researchers from other industrialized nations such as the United States, emerging countries such as China and India, as well as with researchers from poor countries, more research cooperation between private companies from different EU countries, more collaboration between academic researchers and the industry, creation of new European research centers); assessment of the commitment of the national government in order to stimulate the interest of young people in science; adjustment to the interest of young people in science (academically interested young people have better job prospects, interest in science improves their culture, science prepares the younger generation to act as well-informed citizens); attitude towards measures to improve the representation of women in science; assessment of the impact on research of women in top positions in science.

Demography: nationality; age; marital status and family situation; left-right self-placement; party attachment (data not released); age at end of education; sex; occupation; professional position; type of community; household composition and household size; own a mobile phone and fixed (landline) phone; possession of durable goods (entertainment electronics, internet connection, possession of a car, a flat/a house have finished paying for or still paying for); financial difficulties during the last year; self-rated social position (scale); internet use (at home, at work, at school).

Also encoded was: date of interview; ; beginning of interview; interview; persons present during the interview; willingness to cooperate; interview language; city size; region; weighting factor; interviewer ID.