Public Support in the U.S. for Human-Animal Chimera Research: Results of a Representative Cross-Sectional Survey of 1,058 Adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kantor J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5442706 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Public Support in the U.S. for Human-Animal Chimera Research: Results of a Representative Cross-Sectional Survey of 1,058 Adults.
Stem cells translational medicine 20170421 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:We report findings from a new survey of US public attitudes toward human-animal chimeric embryo (HACE) research, designed to compare with recently reported Japanese survey data. We find that 59% of the US public can personally accept the process of injecting human induced pluripotent stem cells into genetically modified swine embryos and having human tissues produced in a pig's body transplanted into a human. This is greater acceptance than in Japan, and there is even strong acceptance among those with strong religious affiliations and who self-identify as conservatives. We argue that strong public support for HACE research, as well as the emerging literature suggesting that humanization of research animals is very unlikely, should compel the NIH to lift its current moratorium on HACE research.
| S-EPMC7562947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Conflicting information surrounding COVID-19 abounds, from disagreement over the effectiveness of face masks in preventing viral transmission to competing claims about the promise of certain treatments. Despite the potential for conflicting information about COVID-19 to produce adverse public health effects, little is known about whether the U.S. public notices this information, and whether certain population subgroups are particularly likely to do so. To address these questions, we fielded a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults in late April 2020 (N = 1,007). Results showed substantial self-reported exposure to conflicting information about COVID-19, with nearly 75% of participants reporting having recently heard such information from health experts, politicians, and/or others. Participants perceived disagreement across a range of COVID-19-related issues, though from politicians more than health experts. Factors including political affiliation, information source use, and personal experience with COVID-19 were associated with perceptions of disagreement. Future research should consider potential cognitive and behavioral consequences of such perceptions.
| S-EPMC7577476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: In 2015, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established a policy on sex as a biological variable (SABV) in an effort to address the overrepresentation of men and male animals in biomedical research and the lack of attention to sex-based responses to medical treatments. However, questions remain regarding how U.S. biomedical researchers perceive the impact of the SABV policy on their own research and on translational science more broadly. Materials and Methods: A national survey of U.S. scientists who use vertebrate animals in their research was conducted. Respondents were asked how they select and use animal species as model organisms as well as how they perceive the impact of the SABV policy on their research practices. Results: Almost all respondents reported that they had previously heard of the NIH SABV policy, and over one-third had altered their study designs to comply with the policy. There were robust differences in perceptions of the SABV policy based on researchers' primary species of model organism. However, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of researchers analyzing their results by sex based on whether they had received recent NIH funding. Conclusions: While many researchers report adhering to the SABV policy requirements, more work needs to be done to ensure that the policy is being evenly applied to researchers using all types of animal models and that researchers adhere to the policy after receiving NIH funding, particularly in terms of reporting on and analyzing SABV in their study findings for publication.
| S-EPMC8590154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWithin SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), a collaborative study funded by the European Commission, we have assessed the support for public health research at ministry level in European countries.MethodsWe surveyed the health and science ministries in 25 EU countries and 3 EEA countries, using a broad definition of public-health research at population level. We made over 600 phone calls and emails to identify respondents and to gain answers. We gained formal replies from 42 out of 56 ministries (73% response) in 25 countries. There were 22 completed questionnaires (from 25 ministries), 6 short answers and 11 contacts declaring that their ministries were not responsible for public health research, while in 14 ministries (both ministries in three countries) no suitable ministry contact could be found.ResultsIn most European countries, ministries of health, or their devolved agencies, were regarded as the leading organizations. Most ministries were able to specify thematic areas for public-health research (from three to thirty), and others ministries referred to policy documents, health plans or public-health plans to define research priorities. Ministries and their agencies led on decisions for financial support of public-health research, with less involvement of other external organisations compared with the process of identifying priorities. However, the actual funds available for public health were not easily identifiable. Most ministries relied on general academic means for dissemination of results of public-health research, while ministries get information on the use of public-health research usually through informal means. Ministries made suggestions for strengthening public-health research through initiatives of their own countries and of the European Union: as well as more resources, improving coordination was most frequently suggested.ConclusionThere is no common approach to support for public-health research across Europe, and significant gaps in organisation and funding. Health ministries and national agencies value exchange between researchers and policy-makers, civil society organizations, and academic and public authorities, and the application of public-health research results. There would be benefits from better processes of priority setting and improved coordination for research, at regional, national and European levels.
| S-EPMC2713230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: "What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?" Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected.ResultsFour hundred thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types. 15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research (Category P), while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera (Category A), its treatment (Category B), reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence (Category C) and to potential downstream effects of chimera research (Category D). A significant proportion of identified passages (46%) fell under Category C.ConclusionsWe hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation.
| S-EPMC7092670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlcohol use is a leading risk factor for death and disability and there is a need for evidence-based policy measures to tackle excess alcohol consumption and related harms. The aim of this study was to examine attitudes towards alcohol control measures among the general public in the context of significant reforms undertaken in the Irish alcohol policymaking landscape.MethodsA representative household survey was conducted among individuals aged 18+ years in Ireland. Descriptive and univariate analyses were used.ResultsA total of 1069 participants took part (48% male) and there was broad support (>50%) for evidence-based alcohol policies. Support was strongest for a ban on alcohol advertising near schools and creches (85.1%) and for warning labels (81.9%). Women were more likely than men to support alcohol control policy measures while participants with harmful alcohol use patterns were significantly less likely to support these measures. Respondents with a greater awareness of the health risks of alcohol showed higher levels of support, while those who had experienced harms due to other people's drinking showed lower support compared with those who had not experienced such harms.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence of support for alcohol control policies in Ireland. However, notable differences were found in levels of support according to sociodemographic characteristics, alcohol consumption patterns, knowledge of health risks and harms experienced. Further research on reasons behind public support towards alcohol control measures would be worthwhile, given the importance of public opinion in the development of alcohol policy.
| S-EPMC10066492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital health research repositories propose sharing longitudinal streams of health records and personal sensing data between multiple projects and researchers. Motivated by the prospect of personalizing patient care (precision medicine), these initiatives demand broad public acceptance and large numbers of data contributors, both of which are challenging.ObjectiveThis study investigates public attitudes toward possibly contributing to digital health research repositories to identify factors for their acceptance and to inform future developments.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 2020 to December 2020. Because of the funded project scope and a multicenter collaboration, study recruitment targeted young adults in Denmark and Brazil, allowing an analysis of the differences between 2 very contrasting national contexts. Through closed-ended questions, the survey examined participants' willingness to share different data types, data access preferences, reasons for concern, and motivations to contribute. The survey also collected information about participants' demographics, level of interest in health topics, previous participation in health research, awareness of examples of existing research data repositories, and current attitudes about digital health research repositories. Data analysis consisted of descriptive frequency measures and statistical inferences (bivariate associations and logistic regressions).ResultsThe sample comprises 1017 respondents living in Brazil (1017/1600, 63.56%) and 583 in Denmark (583/1600, 36.44%). The demographics do not differ substantially between participants of these countries. The majority is aged between 18 and 27 years (933/1600, 58.31%), is highly educated (992/1600, 62.00%), uses smartphones (1562/1600, 97.63%), and is in good health (1407/1600, 87.94%). The analysis shows a vast majority were very motivated by helping future patients (1366/1600, 85.38%) and researchers (1253/1600, 78.31%), yet very concerned about unethical projects (1219/1600, 76.19%), profit making without consent (1096/1600, 68.50%), and cyberattacks (1055/1600, 65.94%). Participants' willingness to share data is lower when sharing personal sensing data, such as the content of calls and texts (1206/1600, 75.38%), in contrast to more traditional health research information. Only 13.44% (215/1600) find it desirable to grant data access to private companies, and most would like to stay informed about which projects use their data (1334/1600, 83.38%) and control future data access (1181/1600, 73.81%). Findings indicate that favorable attitudes toward digital health research repositories are related to a personal interest in health topics (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02; P=.01), previous participation in health research studies (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.24-2.35; P=.001), and awareness of examples of research repositories (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.83-4.38; P<.001).ConclusionsThis study reveals essential factors for acceptance and willingness to share personal data with digital health research repositories. Implications include the importance of being more transparent about the goals and beneficiaries of research projects using and re-using data from repositories, providing participants with greater autonomy for choosing who gets access to which parts of their data, and raising public awareness of the benefits of data sharing for research. In addition, future developments should engage with and reduce risks for those unwilling to participate.
| S-EPMC8590194 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite controversy among experts regarding aducanumab's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, little is known about public opinion on this matter.MethodsWe conducted a representative survey of U.S. adults ages 35 and older to (1) determine opinions regarding aducanumab's approval, (2) identify any evidence of reputational injury to the Food and Drug Administration, and (3) explore opinions regarding policy responses available to policymakers, such as those relating to a national coverage determination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The survey was administered online and in English and Spanish using a probability-based sample derived from the National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak® panel. Selection probabilities in the panel and survey design account for differences in population distribution and expected response rates by demographic. The survey was analyzed using survey weights to adjust for selection probabilities and non-response.ResultsA total of 1025 respondents completed the survey. While approximately three-quarters of respondents were initially unfamiliar with aducanumab, respondents were less supportive of the drug's approval once given information about the drug's potential clinical and economic impact. Sixty-three percent of respondents support restricting aducanumab access to patients most likely to benefit. Seventy-one percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member with mild Alzheimer's disease in a "waitlist"-style trial to further study aducanumab; sixty percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member in a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eighty-one percent agree aducanumab should be withdrawn from the market if confirmatory trials fail. The median respondent was willing to pay $1-5 in higher Part B premiums to cover aducanumab.ConclusionThese findings demonstrate support for a range of proposed policies in response to aducanumab's approval. The opinions of an informed public ought to be considered when developing policies in response to aducanumab's approval.
| S-EPMC9177789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNutrition plays a crucial role in current German public health strategies. While sociodemographic differences in nutrition have been extensively studied, recent data specific to Germany remains limited.MethodsAn online-representative cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2022 among German-speaking adults aged 18-75 using a Computer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) format. The survey addressed personal eating habits, the importance of nutrition, motivations behind food choices, and openness to dietary changes. Data analysis included both descriptive and inferential statistics, incorporating CHAID decision tree analysis and nonparametric methods for inductive statistical evaluation.ResultsAmong the 4,065 participants, 62.3% regarded healthy nutrition as important, with women, individuals with higher education, and those aged under 26 or over 70 demonstrating greater emphasis on nutrition. CHAID analysis identified education as the most significant predictor of attitudes toward healthy nutrition, followed by sex and income. Participants with a positive attitude toward healthy nutrition reported higher HRQoL scores (EQ-Index = 0.862) compared to neutral or negative attitudes (EQ-Index = 0.835)0.10.5% of participants reported not to eat meat, 28.6% were self-reported flexitarians and 54.1% of participants considered themselves omnivorous. Gender-specific dietary preferences were observed, with plant-based diets being much more popular among females. Participants identified taste preference as the primary factor influencing food choices (77.2%) when asked about the main reasons for their eating habits. Approximately 18% of participants predominantly or exclusively bought organic foods. Interestingly, one third of participants indicated a willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet if recommended by physicians or scientists.ConclusionThis online representative survey revealed significant associations between nutrition and sociodemographic aspects. Understanding this complex interplay might be useful for public health nutrition strategies that promote healthier national eating patterns.
| S-EPMC11783846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to identify the priorities for joint pain research from a large general population survey and identify characteristics associated with these priorities.MethodsA question about research priorities was developed in collaboration with the Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre's Research Users' Group. The question was embedded in a postal survey to an existing cohort of adults with self-reported joint pain, aged ≥56 years, in North Staffordshire. Respondents were asked to rank their top three priorities for research. Factor mixture modelling was used to determine subgroups of priorities.ResultsIn all, 1756 (88%) people responded to the survey. Of these, 1356 (77%) gave three priorities for research. Keeping active was rated the top priority by 38%, followed by research around joint replacement (9%) and diet/weight loss (9%). Two clusters of people were identified: 62% preferred lifestyle/self-management topics (e.g. keeping active, weight loss) and 38% preferred medical intervention topics (e.g. joint replacement, tablets). Those who preferred the medical options tended to be older and have hip or foot pain.ConclusionThis study has provided population data on priorities for joint pain research expressed by a large cohort of older people who report joint pain. The most popular topics for research were linked to lifestyle and self-management opportunities. Pharmaceutical and invasive interventions, despite being common topics of research, are of less importance to these respondents than non-medical topics. Specific research questions will be generated from this study with collaboration of the patient's group.
| S-EPMC3475978 | biostudies-literature