Over the years, the Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey has provided exceptionally useful data on a host of biomedical ethics questions. Its latest survey, the headline for which is "Widespread Support for Non-Embryonic Stem Cell Research," maintains the tradition of excellence, comprehensiveness, and timeliness.

VCU's News Service describes the poll [conducted by the VCU Center for Public Policy] as the first "to reflect the discovery reported internationally in November that human skin cells can be used to create stem cells or their near equivalents." So what did its telephone survey of 1,000 adults nationwide from November 26 to December 9 discover?

"Three-quarters of the U.S. public supports stem cell research that does not involve human embryos. Majorities of nearly all groups in society, including those with differing beliefs about abortion and religious commitment, favor non-embryonic stem cell research," we learn.

Beyond favorable response to a wonderful breakthrough, there is also improved news on the question of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) per se. "Well, probably the biggest message from this year's survey is that we've seen an interruption in the upward trend of people supporting embryonic stem cell research," says David Urban, director of the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory in the Center for Public Policy [from a video on the VCU website]. He tells us the upward bump for ESCR has been a "pretty consistent increase," but this year there's been a "slight decline"--from 58% support to 54%. What he doesn't mention is the corollary--that opposition jumped up 5%--from 32% to 37%.

But most people still have a foot in both camps. In a separate question, respondents were asked, "Do you think research showing stem cells can be made from adult skin calls means that human embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary OR do you think both kinds of research are still needed?" Only 22 percent said embryonic stem cell research no longer is needed while 63% said both kinds of research are needed.

So, while it's important that people are being made aware of the new breakthrough and overwhelmingly support it, according to the VCU Life Sciences Survey results, we still have an uphill fight to persuade the public that we no longer need to scavenge human embryos for their stem cells.

That's on the negative side of the ledger. There's much in the positive column.  Positions on abortion have always been important in determining where people come down on ESCR. But that position has firmed up, particularly among those who feel abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

64% of these people opposed ESCR in a previous survey. However, that resistance has jumped to 77% in the latest survey. 

More good news. When asked which is more important--"making sure no human embryos are destroyed in this research" or "conducting stem cell research that might result in new medical advances"-- protecting life prevailed 46% to 42%. And women were more likely than men to take the correct position: 52% for women to 39% for men.

On top of that there was positive movement on the overall question of abortion. The VCU survey asks the question in two either/or categories with one middle ground.

In 2006, 37% said a woman should be able to get an abortion no matter what the reason. That dropped to 34% in 2007.

In 2006 15% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, a figure which increased to 17% this year. The vague category--abortion should be legal "in certain circumstances"--stayed the same (45%).

Questions about cloning are always intriguing. The public remains firmly confused for the simple reason--thanks to the media--that they do not understand that cloning is cloning. All "therapeutic cloning" means is that the human clone would not be implanted. The procedure by which the clone is created is identical, whether the clone is killed or implanted in a woman's womb.

The way the VCU survey explains their result is as follows: "Opinion about therapeutic cloning is evenly divided with 47 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed to using cloning technology for the development of new medical treatments. When cloning is not restricted to therapeutic purposes, about eight in 10, or 81 percent, oppose the use of cloning."

Notice the phrasing: "Do you favor or oppose using human cloning technology if it is ONLY to help medical research develop new treatments for disease." If you don't understand what's at stake--or what's involved-- it's hard to oppose.

Yet in another video on the web page, we hear this from Thomas Huff, Vice Provost of Life Sciences at VCU: "Essentially, the American public is still quite negative in their sentiments toward human cloning technology. There might be a slight softening but overall the numbers are strongly negative, toward what we might call human cloning, whether for reproductive or therapeutic purposes." (My emphasis.)

Finally, Americans remain nervous about science run amuck. Huff explains it this way: "Americans are still very support of science, and [but?]still have reasonably significant ambivalence about the degree to which science pays attention to the moral values of society."

That's how he characterizes the 56% who agree that scientific research doesn't pay enough attention to the moral values of society.

A very interesting survey, chock-full of fascinating data. You can read it all by going to www.news.vcu.edu/news.aspx?v=detail&nid=2322.

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Part Two