Showing 1 – 8 of 8 results.
Curated
CBS News Monthly Poll #2, January 1998 (ICPSR 2452)
Released/updated on: 2011-02-08
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll, conducted, January 13, 1998, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. This particular poll focused on the recent Scottish scientists' cloning of a sheep named "Dolly". Respondents were asked for their opinions on the cloning of animals, the cloning of human beings, whether the federal government should outlaw cloning, and American physicist Richard Seed's expressed desire to experiment with the cloning of humans. Those queried were asked if they would like to clone themselves. In addition, respondents were asked which of the following celebrities they felt were worthy of cloning: basketball star Michael Jordan, Pope John Paul II, singer Frank Sinatra, First Lady Hillary Clinton, comedian Jerry Seinfeld, talk show host Oprah Winfrey, comedian Johnny Carson, actor Jack Nicholson, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and talk show host Kathie Lee Gifford. Background variables on respondents include age, race, ethnicity, education, family income, political party, political orientation, religion, sex, and age of children in household.
Curated
CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #1, May 2002 (ICPSR 3695)
Released/updated on: 2009-04-29
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, the campaign against terrorism, foreign policy, and the economy, as well as their impressions of John Ashcroft and Cardinal Bernard Law. They also expressed their opinions on the Cuba trade embargo set by the United States and on the meaning of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with regard to the right to bear arms. A series of questions focused on the crisis in the Middle East involving Israel and the Palestinians, Yasir Arafat, the way George W. Bush was handling the situation involving Israel and the Palestinians, and the role played by the United States in the Middle East. Respondents also gave their opinions on the status of the war in Afghanistan and the outcomes of this war, the likelihood and seriousness of another terrorist attack in the United States, and the possibility that scientists might be able to clone human beings, as well as the Catholic Church's handling of recent charges of sex abuse of children and teenagers by priests. Respondents also expressed their concerns about personal safety since September 11, 2001, and the actions taken to improve personal security since the terrorist attacks. Background information includes the respondent's political party, voter status, marital status, religion, education, income, race, age, and gender.
Curated
Eurobarometer 47.2OVR: Young Europeans, April-June 1997 (ICPSR 2091)
Released/updated on: 2004-11-24
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 1997-04-20--1997-06-07
This round of Eurobarometer surveys queried respondents on standard Eurobarometer measures, such as whether they attempted to persuade others close to them to share their views on subjects they held strong opinions about and whether they discussed political matters. Additional questions focused on the respondents' knowledge of and opinions on the European Union (EU), including what sources of information about the EU they used and whether their country had benefited from being an EU member. This collection, which focuses on the attitudes of young Europeans, merges replies from respondents aged 15-24 years in EUROBAROMETER 47.2: WOMEN AND CANCER, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, APRIL-JUNE 1997 (ICPSR 2090) with an oversample of persons in the same age group. Respondents were asked questions on a variety of topics, including the impact of the European Union (EU) on their lives, areas in which the EU could be more active, responsibility to the elderly, reasons for living longer at home, when to have children, leisure activities, organizational memberships, religious beliefs, immigrants, foreign travel and work experiences abroad, languages spoken, and source of income. Opinions were also elicited on euthanasia, capital punishment, rights of homosexuals, compulsory AIDS testing, premarital and extramarital sex, and cloning. Demographic and other background information provided includes respondent's age, sex, religious preference, and income as well as the occupation of both respondent and head of household, the number of people residing in the home, the size of locality, and the region of residence.
Curated
Eurobarometer 52.1: Modern Biotechnology, Quality of Life, and Consumers' Access to Justice, November-December 1999 (ICPSR 2893)
Released/updated on: 2010-05-05
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Global, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 1999-11-01--1999-12-15
This round of Eurobarometer surveys queried respondents on standard Eurobarometer measures such as public awareness of and attitudes toward the European Union (EU), and also focused on applications of modern biotechnology, quality of life and lifestyle, the EC symbol, and consumers' access to justice. Respondents were asked whether they believed that new, developing technologies such as biotechnology and genetic engineering, computers and information technology, telecommunications, the Internet, new materials and substances, solar energy, space exploration, and nuclear energy would improve their lives over the next 20 years. They were also prompted for what came to mind when they thought of modern biotechnology, and if they had a positive or negative opinion about specific areas of biotechnology such as the cloning of animals or humans, health research, and genetically engineered food. Those queried were asked to indicate whether a number of statements having to do with modern biotechnology were true or false, including "There are bacteria that live in waste water" and "Yeast for brewing beer consists of living organisms." They were also asked to agree or disagree that various applications of modern biotechnology are useful, a risk for society, morally acceptable, or should be encouraged. Agreement/disagreement was also sought on a number of statements, such as "Cloning animals will bring benefits to a lot of people," "Genetically modified food will bring benefits to a lot of people," "I would buy genetically modified fruits if they tasted better," and "I feel sufficiently informed about biotechnology." Respondents were asked if they felt that the various entities involved in modern technology (i.e., newspapers and magazines, the biotechnology industry, ethics committees, consumer organizations, environmental groups, the government, shops, farmers, churches, and doctors) were doing a good job for society and which sources, if any, they could trust to tell the truth about modern biotechnology. Regarding quality of life, respondents were asked about their satisfaction with life in general, their health, the health care system, family life, social life, personal safety, their financial situation, employment situation, home, and neighborhood. They were asked how their current satisfaction in these areas compared to two years ago and if they thought they would be more or less satisfied in these areas two years from now. From a list of 15 choices, respondents were asked to select three factors that contributed most to their current quality of life and three that would most improve it. Given a list of places people might visit (e.g., work, a health center, the hospital, the supermarket, etc.), respondents were asked how long it would take to get there and to which places they would walk. Other questions queried respondents about their current standard of living and monthly income, whether they had a healthy lifestyle, had a good diet, exercised, drank alcohol, smoked, or were stressed, whether in the last 12 months they had consulted a family doctor, a dentist, or a medical specialist, whether they had been a patient in a hospital or clinic for overnight or longer, and if they had any long-standing illness, disability, or infirmity that limited their activities. They were also asked what types of leisure activities they participated in and which they would do, or do more of, if they had more time. In addition, respondents were asked if the Internet, personal computers, or mobile phones were positive or negative in terms of their quality of life, if the government should spend more to ensure everyone access to these new technologies, and if respondents had participated in training activities related to these new technologies. Several questions about the poor and the socially excluded asked if respondents had given money, goods, or their time to help these groups and if, in their opinion, housing authorities, employment services, social services, religious institutions, charities, businesses, trade unions, their family, the European Union, or the poor themselves currently provided the most help. Another series of questions asked respondents about the EC symbol -- its meaning, who put it on products, on which items they had seen the symbol, and how often they took the symbol into account when they bought products. They were asked how well informed they felt as consumers, in what form they would like to get information on their rights as a consumer (i.e., an outline, a detailed booklet, a complete description, a videotape, etc.), if they had ever had to complain about a purchase, whom they complained to or would complain to, and whether they complained or would complain in person, by phone, in writing, by e-mail, or in some other fashion. They were asked if they had heard of bodies such as arbitrators, counselors, ombudsmen, etc., that deal with consumer disputes and if they would be willing to bring their problem before one of these agents or if they had fears about them. Further questions queried respondents about whether in the last five years they had had a problem that they could not get resolved, what type of product or service was involved, and what they did when they could not resolve the problem. They were questioned as to the minimum amount it would take to bring the problem to court, why they would not bring it to court for less, whether they had insurance that would cover the legal costs, if they would be more likely to go to court if they joined other consumers with the same problem, what would most encourage them to defend their rights in court, in whom they had the most confidence to defend consumers in court, how much confidence they had in the courts to settle disputes, and who could best protect consumer interests. Similar questions were asked concerning products bought abroad -- the amount it would take to bring the dispute to court, if they had ever had a problem with a product or service bought abroad, if they did anything about the problem, how satisfied they were with the results, and if it would be useful to have one form that could be used throughout the European Union to complain about a product or service problem. Information was also collected on whether anyone in the household owned a color TV, a video recorder, a video camera, a clock radio, a home computer, a still camera, an electric drill, an electric deep-fat fryer, two or more cars, or a second or holiday home. Standard demographic information collected included age, sex, nationality, left-right political self-placement, marital status, age at completion of education, number of people in household, number of children in household, current occupation, previous occupation, religiosity, household income, type of residence, size of locality,region of residence, and nationality.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Eurobarometer 73.1: The European Parliament, Biotechnology, and Science and Technology, January-February 2010 (ICPSR 31483)
Released/updated on: 2013-02-14
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Iceland, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Spain, Czech Republic, Turkey, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2010-01-29--2010-02-25
The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.
This round of Eurobarometer surveys covers: (1) knowledge, opinions of, policies, and values of the European Parliament (EP); (2) biotechnology; (3) science and technology. Technology questions pertain to knowledge, opinions, and effects of genetically modified food, nanotechnology, animal clothing, synthetic biology, and biobanks emerging in the next 20 years, as well as opinions on regenerative medicine, including stem cell research, resistance genes, bio-fuels, and global warming. Other questions address interest in, knowledge of, and engagement with science and technology, collaborative research across Europe funded by the EU, level of EU investment in research, young people's interest in science, and women's representation in scientific professions.
Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status, age when stopped full-time education, occupation, left-right political self-placement, political party attachment, household composition, religious affiliation and participation, ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone and other durable goods, difficulties paying bills, level in society, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo, 2002 (ICPSR 34810)
Released/updated on: 2013-09-11
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2002-05-07--2002-05-08
Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo was conducted in order to better understand "taboo" responses, and to distinguish choices that are truly taboo from those that are actually difficult or confusing. Respondents reviewed information for a number of different potentially taboo plans, decisions, or proposals, such as human cell cloning, genetic modification of wheat, different insurance rates for smokers and non-smokers, and were then asked to give their opinions regarding those proposals. Respondents were given different reason sets to agree or disagree with, relative to each proposal, that ranged from whether the proposal was morally wrong to whether the proposal violates the norms of society. If respondents did not agree with the proposal, they were asked additional questions. These additional questions were used to assess whether respondents would agree with the proposal passing if there was a dollar amount that they would save as a result. In this collection, the experiment had 22 scenarios and respondents were each given 11 of these scenarios. Demographic variables included gender, age, native language, ethnic identity, and year in school.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Sociopolitical Determinants of Perceived Risk, 1998 (ICPSR 34637)
Released/updated on: 2013-11-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-09-01--1998-02-01
The Sociopolitical Determinants of Perceived Risk project is an extensive national survey designed to assess the influence of sociopolitical constructs on perceived risk. This research project designed an extensive survey instrument to assess the influence of sociopolitical constructs on perceived risk. The survey was administered to 1,204 randomly selected adults by telephone between September, 1997 and February, 1998. Minority groups (African-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American persons) were oversampled. This national survey revealed that men rate a wide range of hazards as lower in risk than women and that whites rate risks lower than non-whites. Non-white females often gave the highest risk ratings. The group with the consistently lowest risk perceptions across a range of hazards was white males. A few exceptions were found: compared with white males, Asian males gave lower risk ratings to six items. Compared with the rest of the sample, white males were more sympathetic with hierarchical, individualistic, and anti-egalitarian views, more trusting of technology managers, less trusting of government, and less sensitive to potential stigmatization of communities from hazards. Although the data showed that white males stood apart from others, the data also revealed substantial heterogeneity in risk perceptions among the race and gender groups that comprised the 'other' category. That is, risk perceptions varied considerably across African-Americans, Asian, and Hispanic males and females. The heterogeneity implies that risk perceptions depend importantly on characteristics of the individuals facing the risk. The sociopolitical constructions included power, control influence, alienation, social class, trust and worldviews. Demographic information pertaining to race, gender, age, education and income was also obtained.
Curated
United States Biotechnology Study, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3030)
Released/updated on: 2000-12-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-11-01--1998-02-01
Fielded November 11, 1997, through February 14, 1998, this study collected data from United States citizens aged 18 and older regarding their interest in and attentiveness to selected current news issues, knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology, various forms of political participation, and knowledge of scientific concepts. Conducted not long after the 1996 Eurobarometer Survey (EUROBAROMETER 46.1: MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY, PRIVACY ON COMPUTER NETWORKS, AND THE COMMON EUROPEAN CURRENCY, OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1996 [ICPSR 6940]), this study posed some questions similar to those asked of European respondents. To begin the interview, respondents were asked how interested they were in selected news issues, including agriculture and farm events, economic and business conditions, new scientific and medical discoveries, new inventions and technologies, environmental pollution, and quality and cost of health care services, and how well informed they felt about these issues. They were asked how often they read a newspaper, what magazines and newsletters they read regularly, and whether new technologies such as solar energy, computers and information technology, biotechnology, genetic engineering, telecommunications, and space exploration would improve our way of life over the next 20 years. Respondents were also queried on the meaning of the term "modern biotechnology" and asked if they had heard or read anything about modern biotechnology in the last three months, where they heard or read about it, what they had heard or read, and how they would get more information on the subject if they wanted it. They were asked if they knew about the cloning of Dolly the sheep, whether they understood the terms "DNA" and "molecule", and whether they knew about specific applications of biotechnology used for food and drink production, plant and crop genetics for pest resistance, human genetics for medicine and for organ transplant, and detection of serious diseases in unborn children. Respondents were also asked whether these applications were useful, risky, or morally acceptable to society, whether the practices should be encouraged, and how much trust they would have in groups such as the American Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration, university scientists, food manufacturers, the National Institutes of Health, news reporters, the United States Department of Agriculture, TIME or NEWSWEEK, and CONSUMER REPORTS if these groups were to make public statements about the safety of biotechnology. Agreement or disagreement was sought regarding statements about topics such as informed citizens' influence on government science and technology policies, federal funding of knowledge-advancing scientific research, pain and injury to laboratory animals for human benefit, current biotechnology regulations, personal or family benefits from biotechnology, religion and biotechnology, public involvement in biotechnology policies, and whether respondents supported or opposed biotechnology and why. Respondents were read a list of human attributes, including eye color, intelligence, happiness, athletic ability, work attitude, and musical ability, and asked if they thought each was inherited or learned. They were further queried as to whether, in the next 20 years, modern biotechnology would cause a reduction in environmental pollution, world hunger, or the range of fruits and vegetables available, create new diseases, cure most genetic diseases, improve Third World natural resource yield, produce designer babies, or replace most existing food products. Respondents were asked for their understanding of the term "scientific study" and to determine the truth of a set of statements having to do with bacteria, viruses, senility, cloning, the human immune system, and animal, human, and plant genetics. In addition, they were asked how important biotechnology issues were to them personally, how informed they felt about biotechnology, and if they had ever talked about this subject with someone prior to the interview. Demographic attributes collected include political participation (including whether the respondent had written or spoken to any public official during the past year, their party affiliation, and who they voted for in 1996), religious affiliation and participation, marital status, number of adults and children in the household, educational attainment and field of study (including specific science and math courses taken in high school and any current studies), current employment status and occupation, computer usage at work, pets, language spoken at home, computer ownership, World Wide Web access and usage, smoking, geographic location, race, age, and gender.