Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on June 12, 2007
Human Reproduction 2007 22(8):2302-2308; doi:10.1093/humrep/dem113
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/8/2302    most recent
dem113v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prainsack, B.
Right arrow Articles by Spector, T.D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Prainsack, B.
Right arrow Articles by Spector, T.D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Attitudes towards human reproductive cloning, assisted reproduction and gene selection: a survey of 4600 British twins

B. Prainsack1,2,3,*, L.F. Cherkas2 and T.D. Spector2

1 Life Science Governance Research Platform, Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Universitätsstraße 7, A-1010 Wien, Vienna, Austria 2 Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology Unit, St Thomas' Hospital Campus, King's College, London, UK

3 Correspondence address. Tel: +43-650-9259723; E-mail: barbara.prainsack{at}univie.ac.at

BACKGROUND: Surveys have shown opposition to human reproductive cloning (HRC) in many countries. Views of identical (monozygotic, MZ) twins are of particular interest, as they naturally share 100% of their genes. We investigated attitudes of British twins towards HRC in the context of assisted reproduction technologies (ART) and gene selection.

METHODS: About 4651 identical and non-identical (dizygotic, DZ) twins expressed their degree of agreement or disagreement to nine statements relating to ART, gene selection and HRC in a self-completion questionnaire.

RESULTS: Most subjects (70% and 78% respectively) did not regard the use of medical technologies to treat infertility as interfering with either nature or God's will, despite believing that infertility is not a disease (54%). Attitudes to gene selection and HRC were context dependent, with more favourable views towards preventing serious diseases than towards enhancing traits. About 44% supported a permanent ban of HRC. MZ twins were significantly more likely to agree that HRC should be allowed for medical purposes, such as saving a sibling's life, than were DZ twins. Increasing religiosity generally correlated with more negative attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS: Many attitudes are context dependent. More positive views of MZ twins towards HRC could be linked to their experience with being genetically identical.

Key words: survey/attitudes/twins/assisted reproduction/human reproductive cloning

* Visiting Fellow at the ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cardiff University, UK.

Submitted on January 29, 2007; resubmitted on March 29, 2007; accepted on April 2, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. Harcourt
Attitudes towards human reproductive cloning, ART and gene selection
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2009; 24(10): 2674 - 2674.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
B. Prainsack
Reply: Attitudes towards human reproductive cloning, ART and gene selection
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2009; 24(10): 2674 - 2674.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.