See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311962524

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Regarding Biotechnology among College

Students

Article  in  Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education · January 2002

DOI: 10.2134/jnrlse.2002.0005

CITATIONS READS
24 500

3 authors, including:

T. M. Waliczek Gary Briers

Texas State University Texas A&M University
105 PUBLICATIONS   2,063 CITATIONS    75 PUBLICATIONS   1,233 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tracer Study of Graduates of Department of Agricultural Education, Texas A&M University View project

Toyota Charitable Truse View project

All content following this page was uploaded by T. M. Waliczek on 02 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions Regarding
Biotechnology among College Students
D. E. Sohan, T. M. Waliczek,* and G. E. Briers
ABSTRACT
Students of today need to be aware of the risks and benefits
of biotechnology to make intelligent decisions regarding this sci-
ence for themselves and future generations. The objectives of this
research were to determine students’ knowledge of biotechnol-
ogy and their general attitudes and perceptions regarding dif-
ferent aspects of biotechnology, and to examine relationships be-
tween knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology. More
than 3000 undergraduate students were surveyed from a vari-
ety of undergraduate courses at Texas A&M University in Col-
lege Station, TX, during the 1997–1998 academic year on their
knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions toward biotechnology. In-
formation sought included students’ knowledge regarding recent
applications of biotechnology, agreement or disagreement with
statements concerning different aspects and applications of
biotechnology, and demographic information. Findings indi-
cated that despite a low awareness or knowledge of biotechnol-
ogy, students were accepting of specific applications or products
of biotechnology. Those products viewed as beneficial without in-
volving animals had the highest acceptance levels. Findings also
indicated that a greater knowledge of biotechnology correlated
with a more favorable attitude toward biotechnology. Demo-
graphic variables were studied to determine their impact on
variables of interest. Females were found to be less accepting of
biotechnology, while individuals identifying themselves as sci-
entists were found to be more accepting than those self-per-
ceived as nonscientists. Females majoring in education were
found to be the least accepting of biotechnology than all other
groups involved in the study. Overall, students had a low knowl-
edge of biotechnology and more respondents tended to reject
biotechnology than embrace it.
B IOTECHNOLOGY, broadly defined, includes any technique
that uses living organisms or their processes to make or
modify products, to improve plants or animals, or to develop
microorganisms for specific purposes (Office of Technology
Assessment, 1987). The tools of biotechnology are responsi-
ble for many of today’s rapid advancements in areas such as
agriculture and medicine. In agriculture, its success can be
found in the hundreds of transgenic crops that have been
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved or are wait-
ing for such approval (Biotechnology Industry Organization,
1996). Genes unlikely to be combined in nature are now being
fused within laboratories to produce such beneficial products
as frost-tolerant tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), in-
sulin-producing potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.), and nu-
merous herbicide-resistant crops (Biotechnology Industry Or-
D.E. Sohan, Dep. of Agric. Education, Texas A&M Univ., College Station,
TX 77843-2474; T.M. Waliczek, Dep. of Agric., Southwest Texas State
Univ., San Marcos, TX 78666; and G.E. Briers, Dep. of Agric. Education,
Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843-2166. Received 15 Oct. 1999.
*Corresponding author (tc10@swt.edu).
Published in J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 31:5–11 (2002).
http://www.JNRLSE.org
ganization, 1996). The medical field is another area currently
making rapid advancements with biotechnology. More than
450 genetically engineered drugs and proteins are on the mar-
ket or in advanced experimental stages (Lee and Hu, 1996).
One such example is the genetically engineered protein VEGF
(Genentech, Boston, MA), or vascular endothelial growth
factor, that studies indicate is beneficial for promoting blood-
vessel growth in the heart (Winslow, 1998).
As these examples demonstrate, the impact of genetic en-
gineering is being felt in our world today and promises to con-
tinue to do so in the future. However, along with the benefits
of biotechnology, there are concerns ranging from the poten-
tial risks and dangers of this technology to disapproval of ge-
netic manipulation for moral reasons (Kloppenburg and Bur-
rows, 1996). Today’s students need to be aware of the risks
and benefits of biotechnology to make intelligent decisions re-
garding this science for themselves and future generations
(Hagedorn, 1994).
The objectives of this research were to determine students’
knowledge of biotechnology and their general attitudes and
perceptions regarding different aspects of biotechnology, and
to examine relationships between knowledge and attitudes re-
garding biotechnology. In addition, demographic variables,
such as gender, were investigated as possible influential vari-
ables of an individual’s view regarding biotechnology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Population. The sample population was drawn from stu-
dents attending Texas A&M University at the College Station
campus during the 1997–1998 academic year. Course in-
structors volunteered the 24 participating classes in the study.
Courses included such diverse subjects as biology, English,
philosophy, economics, and military studies. Half of the total
surveys were distributed in the Introductory Biology class.
Class size ranged from 11 to 220 students.
Within each course, the survey was distributed and col-
lected within the same class period. Surveys were distributed
at the start of class and were usually completed within 15 min.
Instructions were limited to information necessary to complete
the survey and an explanation of the reason for collecting the
information, including that the study was examining knowl-
edge and attitudes toward biotechnology. It was emphasized
that the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Surveys were
coded by course and section number for analysis purposes
only.
Instrumentation. The survey designed for this study as-
sessed the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of college
students towards biotechnology. The survey was modeled
after Hallman and Metcalfe’s 1994 survey and Hoban and
Kendall’s 1992 survey (Hallman and Metcalfe, 1995; Hoban
Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; b-ST, bovine somatotropin;
DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; SPSS,
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; VEGF, vascular endothelial
growth factor.
J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 31, 2002 • 5
Table 1. Comparison of the percentage of correct responses to multiple-
choice knowledge questions of freshmen to upper classification levels,
and total survey participants.
Upper
Correct statement† Freshmen levels
% selves as scientists or nonscientists.
Texas A&M’s Dr. Leonard Pike produced the
1015 onion by traditional plant breeding. 9 4
The Bt gene that has been inserted into cotton
functions to produce an insecticide. 7 16
Dolly was produced by cloning a mammary† cell. 22 24
Bovine somatotropin (b-ST) is commercially
used to improve milk. 21 33
The Flavr Savr tomato has been genetically
modified to have a delayed ripening process. 41 53
Genetic profiling is used to identify inherited disorders. 73 76
† Underlined words indicate the correct multiple-choice option.
and Kendall, 1993) (Tables 1 and 2). Reliability for each set
of questions was determined with Cronbach’s alpha and
ranged from 0.70 to 0.88.
Six multiple-choice questions were asked to establish a
baseline of students’ knowledge of different aspects of
biotechnology (Table 1). Each question’s subject matter con-
cerned a biotechnology product or technique that has received
media attention within the last 4 yr. The questions were not
intended to conclusively assess respondents’ knowledge.
Rather, they served to measure an awareness, or the lack
thereof, regarding the science behind this technology. Five of
the questions were based on recently genetically engineered
products now commercially available. The remaining ques-
tion asked about the 1015 onion (Allium cepa L.), which was
produced by researchers at Texas A&M University and is a
very popular onion in Texas. The 1015 SuperSweet onion was
named after its recommended planting date of 15 October. It
was introduced in 1985 and is known for its sweet and mild
taste. In addition, some of the Likert-scaled (Likert, 1967) at-
titude statements also provided information regarding stu-
dents’ knowledge or awareness of biotechnology by the ter-
minology used in the statements.
The attitude inventory was comprised of 38 statements re-
lating to areas of biotechnology that were answered using a
five-point Likert response scale (Likert, 1967). The response
options were strongly agree (SA), agree (A), neutral or un-
certain (N), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD). For the
purpose of discussion in this article, responses to attitude
statements were merged into percentages of those who agreed,
were neutral/uncertain, or disagreed. As the term biotechnol-
ogy actually contains many diverse technologies, statements
were developed to address attitudes toward a range of biotech-
nology topics. The topics addressed include biotechnology-
related terminology, recombinant DNA technology, cloning,
genetically engineered food, legal issues, perceived benefits,
and informational sources (Table 2).
To identify the survey population, some characteristics of
survey participants were gathered including gender, ethnicity,
college classification, major classification, childhood sur-
roundings (rural, suburban, or urban), and major source of
biotechnology information. These variables were also used as
possible predictors of attitudes and perceptions regarding
biotechnology.
In addition, a two-part question was included in the survey
to understand how the respondents viewed themselves with
6 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 31, 2002
regard to biotechnology and to science in general. To provide
respondents with a more moderate response, an interval scale
was provided. The scaled response question provided four
marked intervals for respondents to indicate their degree of ac-
Total
ceptance or rejection of biotechnology after identifying them-
6 Data Analysis. Data were entered and analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 7.5 (SPSS,
12
23 1997). Response frequencies were determined for all attitude
and knowledge questions. To observe the relationship of
28
knowledge to attitudes and perceptions, correlations (Pear-
47 son’s product correlation coefficients) were performed. In
75 addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated to
compare the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions among
different classification levels. Multiple regression analysis
was calculated to investigate the significance of demographic
variables such as gender and ethnicity. An ANOVA was used
with significant variables to distinguish predictors of biotech-
nology attitudes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
There were 3046 usable surveys (from a total of 3265 re-
turned surveys) used in the data analysis; 219 surveys were
removed from this study due to students not following in-
structions on the instrument.
Characteristics of Survey Participants. Overall, the sur-
vey population included 58% female respondents and 45%
freshmen respondents. These results were not surprising—ap-
proximately half of the total number of surveys were distrib-
uted within the Introductory Biology course. Prior studies
have indicated that females appear to be more favorably dis-
posed to biological science than males (Schibeci, 1983). How-
ever, the three remaining classes (sophomores, juniors, and se-
niors) were all within 10% of university demographic statis-
tics in terms of the overall percentage of students within each
grade classification (National Center for Education Statis-
tics, 2002). Within the survey population, there was not an
equal representation of the different races—80% of the re-
spondents were Caucasian. However, survey ethnicity ratios
reflected the overall university demographic statistics within
1% of both the freshmen class and the total undergraduate pop-
ulation.
Students’ major source of information on biotechnology
was also investigated. Response selections included the fol-
lowing choices: high school courses, college courses, mass
media (television and magazines), friends and relatives, or
jobs. Approximately 40% of the respondents selected mass
media as their greatest source of information. However, a
greater percentage (47%) of upperclassmen selected college
as their main source of information. As expected, due to the
relatively recent coverage of biotechnology (Lee and Hu,
1996; Wilmut et al., 1997; Winslow, 1998.), more freshmen
(29%) indicated high school as the primary source of infor-
mation than students in higher grades (5%). However, a ma-
jority of freshmen (71%) had not received much biotechnol-
ogy information while in high school.
Knowledge of Biotechnology. Knowledge or awareness
of biotechnology was assessed primarily with six multiple
choice questions (Table 1). Based on students’ performance
on these questions, it did not appear that many of the students
were very familiar with biotechnology. On four of six ques- Table 2. Percentage of total student responses that agree, are neutral,
or disagree to biotechnology attitude and perception statements.
tions, <30% of the approximately 3000 students answered with
the correct response. However, approximately half of the stu- Statements n Agree Neutral Disagree
dents were familiar with the Flavr Savr tomato’s delayed 1. “Genetic Manipulation” statements
ripening process. Seventy-five percent of students answered It is acceptable to direct the genetic material of
an organism by:
the question concerning the use of genetic profiling to iden- inserting a foreign gene. 3034 35 35 30
tify inherited disorders. blocking expression of an existing gene. 3030 44 34 22
Upper-level classes (sophomores, juniors, and seniors) using selective breeding programs. 3034 55 27 18
artificial insemination. 3034 59 26 15
and freshmen were compared by frequency of correct re- 2. “Recombinant DNA” statements
sponses. No large percentage differences were observed on It is acceptable to combine genes between:
any questions with the exception of approximately 10% more the same plant species. 3033 85 11 4
different plant species. 3032 68 20 11
upperclassmen answering questions on the Flavr Savr tomato the same animal species. 3029 62 18 20
and b-ST in milk correctly. different animal species. 3027 26 25 49
3. “Cloning” statements
Effect of Terminology on Responses. To further investi- Cloning plants is acceptable for:
gate the students’ knowledge of biotechnology related to their food for human consumption. 3030 66 19 15
attitudes, four questions were asked regarding genetic ma- nonfood products. 3028 75 16 9
medical purposes. 3028 80 13 7
nipulation of organisms (Table 2, no. 1). When asked about
Cloning animals is an acceptable form
the acceptability of genetic techniques such as gene insertion, of reproduction for:
35% of respondents agreed to their use (Table 2, no. 1). How- food for human consumption. 3038 45 17 38
food for animal feed. 3041 44 18 38
ever, no more than 60% agreed with artificial insemination, maintaining purity in show breeds. 3042 21 20 59
while only 55% agreed with traditional selective breeding medical research uses. 3037 26 18 56
techniques (Table 2, no. 1). These results indicate some un- 4. “Genetically altered food” statements
Genetically altered food should be labeled. 3038 88 9 3
certainty or a lack of awareness of food production. Similar Genetically altered food is superior to traditionally
findings have resulted from prior surveys on biotechnology bred food. 3031 13 63 24
(Hallman and Metcalfe, 1995; Hoban and Kendall, 1993; Biotechnology may alleviate world food shortages. 3039 62 30 8
It is acceptable to genetically engineer plants for
Sterling et al., 1993). In the Hallman and Metcalfe study food. 3039 80 13 7
(1995), only 28% of the 2000 respondents believed they had Cloning plants is acceptable for food for human
ever eaten a hybrid fruit or vegetable that was the product of consumption. 3030 67 19 14
Genetically altered organisms such as animals are
traditional crossbreeding. Widespread unfamiliarity with tra- safe to eat. 3026 25 55 20
ditional crossbreeding may indicate problems with science ed- Cloning animals is an acceptable form of
reproduction for food for human consumption. 3038 45 17 38
ucation in this country (Hallman, 1995).
5. “Legal Issues of Biotechnology” statements
General Attitudes toward Biotechnology. A question An individual’s genetic profile should be available to:
was included in the survey to understand how the respondents the individual. 3040 95 3 2
prospective employers. 3030 5 19 76
viewed themselves with regard to biotechnology and to sci- insurance companies. 3028 13 30 57
ence in general. The question asked if respondents perceived It is acceptable to patent a genetically altered:
bacteria. 2245 43 32 25
themselves overall as embracing or rejecting biotechnology. plant. 2244 48 30 22
A question was also asked that required respondents to answer animal such as a mouse. 2245 42 25 32
whether they perceived themselves as scientists or nonscien- animal such as a monkey. 2245 40 26 34
6. “Risks of Biotechnology” statements
tists. Regarding their overall response to biotechnology, more Genetically altered organisms:
respondents tended to reject biotechnology than embrace it (49 disrupt the balance of nature. 3029 53 33 13
vs. 36%). present a health hazard. 3029 18 55 27
The risk of genetic engineering is:
When respondents were asked whether they viewed them- outweighed by the benefits. 3027 29 49 22
selves as scientists or nonscientists in the second part of the minimal due to strict safety regulations. 3019 22 47 31
question, approximately 40% of the respondents answered that Biotechnology may contribute to the disappearance
of small farms. 3034 55 36 9
they viewed themselves as scientists. Investigation of the lit- The risk of genetic engineering is that society’s
erature available on biotechnology displays a trend of scien- tolerance of people with disabilities will decrease. 3019 22 47 31
tists being more positive than negative toward biotechnology 7. “Benefits of Biotechnology” statements
Biotechnology may:
(Leonard and Dobert, 1996). In turn, nonscientists have writ- enhance the quality of life for all Americans. 3040 68 26 7
ten many of the anti-biotechnology articles (Bleifuss, 1996; alleviate world food shortages. 3039 62 30 8
create new job opportunities. 3031 42 25 33
Fagin and Lavelle, 1999).
Recombinant DNA Technology. Although not all genetic
engineering involves the insertion of a foreign gene, it is an the students, respectively (Table 2, no. 2). Within animals, ap-
area that holds much ethical concern. Therefore, students’ at- proval ratings varied on whether genes were combined within
titudes toward recombinant DNA technology were investi- the same (62%) or different animals (26%) (Table 2, no. 2).
gated. To avoid confusion due to terminology, the phrase In general, as in prior studies (Hallman and Metcalfe, 1995;
combining genes was used rather than recombinant DNA tech- Hoban and Kendall, 1993; Zimmerman et al., 1994), respon-
nology. Responses to the four statements varied depending on dents indicated fewer objections to combining plant genes
the organism in which genes were being combined (Table 2, compared with the combination of animal genes.
no. 2). Combining genes within plants of the same or of dif- Cloning. The subject of cloning has been in the news since
ferent species was found to be acceptable by 85 and 68% of Ian Wilmut’s announcement of the birth of the sheep (Ovis

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 31, 2002 • 7

sp.). Dolly was cloned from a somatic cell (Wilmut et al.,
1997). Since that time, many committees have been organized
and articles written regarding the ethics of cloning (Nash,
1997). Students were asked to respond to seven statements re-
garding cloning (Table 2, no. 3).
Responses regarding the acceptability of cloning animals
varied depending on the purpose to which the technique was
applied. Responses toward the use of cloning animals for
food production were similar whether the food was for human
consumption or animal feed. Approximately 45% agreed that
it is acceptable to clone for these purposes (Table 2, no. 3).
Studies specifically on attitudes toward food biotechnology
have found mostly favorable responses to genetically altered
food if quality was improved (Hoban, 1992). Cloning animals
for the purpose of medical research received a lower per-
centage of approval; 26% agreed that it was acceptable (Table
2, no. 3). The use of cloning for maintaining the purity of show
breeds received the lowest approval rating; 21% agreed and
59% disagreed with its acceptability (Table 2, no. 3). Al-
though cloning pure breeds may sound like an unlikely ap-
plication of the technology, one should consider that dog
(Canis familiaris) breeding alone is a $1 billion dollar indus-
try that has been investigated by government agencies for pro-
ducing genetically inferior specimens (Willman, 1998).
Responses were similar concerning the acceptability of
cloning plants for medical research, food for humans, or non-
food uses. Acceptance for cloning plants ranged from 66 to
80% for any of these purposes, while 13 to 19% remained neu-
tral (Table 2, no. 3). However, as plants have been cloned for
decades through many forms of asexual propagation, it may
be viewed as more acceptable to the public. The subject of
cloning has been divided among animals and plants as views
of genetic engineering have been found to be dependent on the
organism being engineered (Hallman, 1995; Hoban and
Kendall, 1993).
Genetically Altered Food. Seven statements focusing on
different aspects of food biotechnology were grouped to-
gether for analysis (Table 2, no. 4). There was strong agree-
ment (88%) that genetically altered food should be labeled.
Only 13% agreed that genetically altered food is superior to
traditionally bred food (Table 2, no. 4), yet 62% believed that
biotechnology may alleviate world food shortages (Table 2,
no. 4). This cautious optimism has also been found in prior
studies of both adult consumers and students (Dreyfus and
Roth, 1991; Hallman and Metcalfe, 1995; Hoban and Kendall,
1993; Lock et al., 1995).
Regarding the safety of genetically altered food products,
agreement percentages varied depending on whether plants or
animals were involved (Table 2, no. 4). Eighty percent agreed
that genetically engineered plants were a safe form of food,
while 67% agreed that plants derived from clones were safe
to consume. With regard to genetically engineered animals,
only 25% of the respondents agreed they were safe to con-
sume, whereas >50% remained neutral to this statement.
Respondents regarded cloned animals safer to eat than ge-
netically altered ones (45 vs. 25%) (Table 2, no. 4). It may be
that the phrases genetically altered and animals for food are
not a combination the respondents viewed as safe. Hallman
and Metcalfe (1995) found in a similar study that respondents
believed only organic food as safe.
8 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 31, 2002
Legal Issues. Seven statements were designed to under-
stand participants’ views toward some of the legal aspects of
biotechnology (Table 2, no. 5). The set of statements may be
divided into two areas: genetic profile privacy and patents on
organisms (Table 2, no. 5). While many of the respondents
(95%) believed that individuals have the right to their genetic
profile, few believed that information should be available to
insurance companies (13%) or prospective employers (5%).
The potential for employers and insurers to make use of ge-
netic information has prompted some concerned individuals
with family histories of cancer and other genetic diseases to
choose not to undergo testing for fear of discrimination by their
employers or insurance providers (Seiguer, 1997).
Although the public may not be aware, patents have been
approved for hundreds of plants, bacteria, and the genetic se-
quences of animals (including humans) (Kloppenburg and
Burrows, 1996), and more patents are expected as recombi-
nant DNA technology develops. Organisms mentioned for
patenting in the survey included bacteria, plants, small animals
such as mice (Mus musculus), and larger animals such as
monkeys (Cercopithecus sp.) (Table 2, no. 5). The accept-
ability of patenting any of the organisms ranged from 40 to
48% (Table 2, no. 5). The remaining responses were evenly
distributed into the neutral or disagree groups with no more
than an 8% difference between them.
Benefits of Biotechnology. Approximately half of the re-
spondents were not sure or neutral if the risks of biotechnol-
ogy are exceeded by the benefits (Table 2, no. 6). This find-
ing has not been found in previous studies (Hallman and Met-
calfe, 1995; Sterling et al., 1993). However, respondents in this
study did perceive that some benefits would be derived from
biotechnology. Three statements were included in the survey
regarding specific benefits of biotechnology (Table 2, no. 7).
Job opportunities are believed to exist in the creation, de-
velopment, and commercial application of techniques and
products of biotechnology (Webber, 1994), with a wide vari-
ety of jobs and skill levels expected to be in demand by the
industry within the next decade (Jensen, 1996). Slightly less
than half of the respondents (42%) agreed that biotechnology
may provide new employment opportunities. In Hallman and
Metcalfe’s study (1995), 75% believed more jobs would be
created.
Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes. A pos-
itive relationship exists between increased knowledge scores
and positive attitudes and perceptions regarding biotechnol-
ogy. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were determined to be
significant at the 0.01 level for the overall view of biotech-
nology and individual biotechnology subjects (Table 3). This
indicates that, although there are very distinct aspects of
biotechnology, respondents’ attitudes and perceptions of
biotechnology tended to remain constant in relation to knowl-
edge levels, and that increased knowledge led to more posi-
tive attitudes.
To determine if the same relationship patterns of knowledge
to attitudes and perceptions remained constant regardless of
the respondents’ college classification level, statistical com-
parisons of the levels were made using analysis of variance
(ANOVA) (Table 4). Classification levels were reflective of
both years of formal education and age. Although respondents
may not have necessarily performed well on the biotechnol-
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficient values of knowledge scores to Table 4. Analysis of variance for comparison of knowledge, attitudes and
different aspects of biotechnology. perceptions among college classification levels using knowledge test
scores and classification level as predictor variables.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients
Aspect of biotechnology Knowledge question scores Analysis of variance results
General attitude 0.093** df t F p
Recombinant DNA technology 0.082**
Genetically altered food 0.082** General attitude 2934 31.24 0.000**
Cloning 0.066** Knowledge test scores 3.04 0.002**
Plant biotechnology 0.076** Classification level 6.54 0.000**
Animal biotechnology 0.070** Recombinant DNA technology 2763 16.9 0.000**
Knowledge test scores 2.91 0.004**
* Statistically significant at p £ 0.05 level. Classification level 3.14 0.002**
** Statistically significant at p £ 0.01 level. Genetically altered food 2969 37.2 0.000**
Knowledge test scores 3.01 0.003**
Classification level 7.33 0.000**
Cloning 2995 25.1 0.000**
Knowledge test scores 2.41 0.016*
ogy-related knowledge scores, their educational base or age Classification level 6.04 0.000**
was investigated as a possible factor influencing their views Plant biotechnology 2749 16.2 0.000**
Knowledge test scores 3.94 0.000**
toward biotechnology. In this study, there were significant dif- Classification level 3.01 0.002**
ferences between class levels, with seniors tending to have Animal biotechnology 2981 28.7 0.000**
more positive attitudes toward biotechnology than the lower Knowledge test scores 2.51 0.012*
Classification level 6.49 0.000**
class levels (Table 4).
* Statistically significant at p £ 0.05 level.
Demographic Comparisons. Multiple regression analy- ** Statistically significant at p £ 0.01 level.
sis was performed to determine if there were significant rela-
tionships between any demographic factors and attitudes to-
Table 5. Multiple regression analysis for comparison of significant re-
ward biotechnology. Past studies have shown that some de- spondent characteristic variables to positive attitudes and percep-
mographic variables may have an influence on attitudes to- tions of biotechnology.
ward biotechnology. For example, one study found nonwhites Regression results
less agreeable to recombinant DNA technology (Florkowski
Variable b coeff. t p
et al., 1994). Results of the analysis indicated that ethnicity and
type of childhood environment had no significant effect on at- Gender
Females -7.27 -7.49 0.000**
titudes and perceptions of biotechnology. Males 14.40 15.17 0.000**
Demographic variables found to be significantly related to High school graduation year
attitudes toward biotechnology were year of high school grad- 1997 6.93 7.13 0.000**
1996 0.31 0.21 0.830
uation, college major, major source of biotechnology infor- 1995 3.60 2.71 0.071
mation, perception of oneself as a scientist, and gender (Table 1994 -5.68 -4.03 0.000**
<1994 -5.19 -3.59 0.000**
5). As with college classification level, older students were College major
more likely to view biotechnology favorably (Table 5). Col- Agriculture and life sciences 5.29 5.39 0.000**
lege major was found to significantly influence respondents’ Business -1.71 -0.97 0.332
Education -11.87 -6.54 0.000**
attitude and perception toward biotechnology (Table 5). Re- Engineering 6.74 3.19 0.000**
spondents in the Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences (in- Other -3.90 -3.33 0.000**
cluding medical and veterinary students) and Engineering Major source of biotechnology information
High school 0.12 3.69 0.000**
had more positive views toward biotechnology, while educa- College 0.21 8.21 0.000**
tion majors and others not specifically mentioned as a response Mass media -0.17 -7.82 0.000**
Friends and relatives 0.10 1.81 0.071
option tended to be more negative toward biotechnology. The Jobs 0.22 2.84 0.005**
impact of the education majors’ attitudes toward biotechnol- Scientist/nonscientist
ogy on future students is an important consideration, since it Scientist 7.19 6.90 0.000**
Nonscientist -7.17 -6.89 0.000**
has been shown that a teacher’s attitude can have more influ-
ence on a student than the context of the material covered in * Statistically significant at p £ 0.05 level.
** Statistically significant at p £ 0.01 level.
the text or other instructional materials (Lock et al., 1995).
Biotechnology information sources were found to be sig-
nificantly related to attitudes toward biotechnology. Respon- It was determined that females are less likely than males
dents who identified educational sources (high school or col- to have a positive view of biotechnology (Table 5). This sup-
lege) or their jobs as their major source of information were ported results found in prior studies (Hoban, 1992). To de-
more likely to view biotechnology favorably than those who termine if the negative relationship found with female gender
received information from the mass media (Table 5). Friends influenced other variables, a closer analysis was performed
and relatives were not found to have a significant effect on re- (Table 6). It was found that within every significantly nega-
spondents’ attitudes. tive variable, females were more likely than males to view
Respondents who viewed themselves as scientists were sig- biotechnology less favorably. As indicated by R2 values, fe-
nificantly more likely to have a favorable view of biotech- males majoring in education and other related curricula were
nology (Table 5). As students in the Colleges of Agriculture identified as statistically significant categories of respondents
and Life Sciences and Engineering were more likely to iden- less favorable toward biotechnology (Table 5). Given that
tify with being scientists and were positive toward biotech- teaching has traditionally been a female-dominated profession
nology, it followed that scientists would also be positive. and continues to be (U.S. Dep. of Education, 1997), this find-

J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 31, 2002 • 9

Table 6. Multiple regression analysis of gender differences within char- majors fall into this group. In particular, female education ma-
acter variables found to be significantly related to attitudes and per-
ceptions of biotechnology.
jors tend to have a less favorable view of biotechnology than
all other categories. Their attitudes may influence the educa-
Regression results
tion of future students. The commitment to cover biotech-
Variable df R2 F p nology in a science-based educational program is a challeng-
Education majors 2906 0.015 42.81 0.000** ing task. However, teachers have accepted a role as stewards
Education majors and females 2903 0.084 133.68 0.000** for our most valuable resource—people. Our students de-
Female education majors 225 0.106 26.80 0.000**
Other majors 2906 0.004 11.06 0.001** serve the chance to make decisions about biotechnology based
Other majors and females 2903 0.075 117.61 0.000** on sound information. Teachers’ efforts in discussing biotech-
Female other majors 651 0.088 62.91 0.000**
Nonscientists 2631 0.018 47.62 0.000** nology will help ensure such decisions are made.
Nonscientists and females 2638 0.084 120.45 0.000**
Female nonscientists 1504 0.073 118.73 0.000**

* Statistically significant at p £ 0.05 level. REFERENCES

** Statistically significant at p £ 0.01 level.
Table 7. Analysis of variance for determining attitudes and perceptions
regarding biotechnology using selected predictor variables.
Analysis of variance results
Predictor variable df t F
Knowledge scores 672 0.92 0.85
Source of biotechnology information 657 4.25
High school 0.84
College 0.57
Mass media -1.06
Jobs 0.45
Scientific perception 672 3.02 9.13
Female gender 672 -3.21 -10.28
* Statistically significant at p £ 0.05 level.
** Statistically significant at p £ 0.01 level.
ing may have great relevance in how biotechnology is dis-
cussed in the classroom.
Predictability of Variables. To predict respondents’ atti-
tudes and perceptions regarding biotechnology, variables
found to be significant were chosen to be used as independent
variables in an analysis of variance on 1000 randomly selected
surveys. Selected significant variables were not academically
related, such as major and classification level, and included
knowledge scores, source of biotechnology information, sci-
entific perception, and gender (Table 7).
Of the 1000 selected surveys, two variables were found to
accurately predict respondents’ attitudes and perceptions
about biotechnology. The selected variables were females
and perception as scientists (Table 7). Females were found to
be less accepting of biotechnology, whereas individuals who
identified themselves as scientists were found to be more ac-
cepting than those self-perceived as nonscientists. No other se-
lected variable was found to have predictive value. Two other
sets of 1000 randomly selected surveys were also analyzed
(data not shown) that repeated these findings with regard to
determining significant variables (Sohan, 1998).
Biotechnology has the potential to improve the quality of
our lives in such areas as food quality, medical treatments, and
bioremediation. However, the ability to alter genetic codes also
has the potential to cause damage to living organisms and the
environment. Therefore, it is important for our future leaders
to have the scientific understanding of this technology in
order for society to reap the benefits of biotechnology while
reducing its risks. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure deci-
sions regarding biotechnology are made on the basis of sound
information rather than emotion.
The association of nonscience majors with a negative view
of biotechnology is cause for concern, especially as education
Biotechnology Industry Organization. 1996. BIO editors’ and reporters’
guide to biotechnology. 2nd ed. [Online]. [11 p.] Available at
http://www.bio.org/whatis/mg3.html (accessed 3 July 1999; modified 18
May 2001; verified 6 Dec. 2001). BIO, Washington, DC.
Bleifuss, J. 1996. Recipe for disaster [Online]. [3 p.] Available at http://on-
p line.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/RECIPE%20FOR%20DISASTER.htm
(accessed 3 July 1999; verified 6 Dec. 2001). San Francisco State Univ.,
0.356 San Francisco, CA.
0.400
Dreyfus, A., and Z. Roth. 1991. Twelfth-grade biology pupils’ opinions on
0.568 interventions of man in nature: Agreement, indifference, and ambivalence.
0.289 J. Res. Sci. Teaching 28:1:81–95.
0.652 Fagin, D., and M. Lavelle. 1999. Toxic deception: How the chemical indus-
0.002** try manipulates science, bends the law, and endangers your health. Com-
0.001** mon Courage Press, Monroe, ME.
Florkowski, W.J., C. Halbrendt, C.L. Huang, and L. Sterling. 1994. Socioe-
conomic determinants of attitudes toward bioengineered products. Rev.
Agric. Econ. 16:1:125–132.
Hagedorn, S. 1994. The national biological impact assessment program and
the public perception of biotechnology. Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 14:1:24–27.
Hallman, W.K. 1995. Public perceptions of agri-biotechnology. Genetic En-
gineering News 15(13):4–5.
Hallman, W.K., and J. Metcalfe. 1995. Public perceptions of agricultural
biotechnology: A survey of New Jersey residents [Online]. [33 p.] Avail-
able at http://www.nal.usda.gov/bic/Pubpercep/index.html (accessed 3
July 1999; modified 11 Jan. 1996; verified 6 Dec. 2001). National Agric.
Library, USDA, Washington, DC.
Hoban, T.J. 1992. Consumer knowledge and attitudes about biotechnology.
Agriculture Outlook Conference, USDA. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Wash-
ington, DC.
Hoban, T.J., and P.A. Kendall. 1993. Consumer attitudes about food biotech-
nology. Bull. of Science, Technol., and Soc. North Carolina State Univ.,
Raleigh, NC.
Jensen, D. 1996. Employment trends in biotechnology [Online]. [4 p.] Avail-
able at http://www.public.iastate.edu/~biotech_ed_info/CAREERS/HIR-
ING2.html (accessed 3 July 1999; modified 22 May 1995; verified 6 Dec.
2001). Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
Kloppenburg, J., Jr., and B. Burrows. 1996. Biotechnology to the rescue?
Twelve reasons why biotechnology is incompatible with sustainable agri-
culture. The Ecologist 26(2):61–67.
Lee, K.B., and L.S. Hu. 1996. Biotechnology: Past, present, future. Chem-
istry & Industry 6 May, p. 334–338.
Leonard, S.A., and R. Dobert. 1996. Biotechnology: Public perception [On-
line]. [52 p.] Available at http://www.nal.usda.gov/bic/Biblios/pub-
perc.htm (accessed 3 July 1999; modified 12 Sept. 1996; verified 6 Dec.
2001). National Agric. Library, USDA, Washington, DC.
Likert, R. 1967. The method of constructing an attitude scale. p. 90–95. In
M. Fishbein (ed.) Readings in attitude theory and measurement. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Lock, R., C. Miles, and S. Hughes. 1995. The influence of teaching on
knowledge and attitudes in biotechnology and genetic engineering con-
texts: Implications for teaching controversial issues and the public un-
derstanding of science. School Sci. Rev. 76:276:47–59.
Nash, J.M. 1997. The age of cloning. Time Magazine, 10 March, p. 62–65.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. IPEDS college opportunities
on-line [Online]. [1 p.] Available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/En-
rollment.asp?UNITID=228723 (accessed 27 Jan. 2002; verified 12 Feb.
2002). National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.

10 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 31, 2002

 Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 1987. New developments
in biotechnology: Background paper: Public perceptions of biotechnol-
ogy. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Schibeci, R.A. 1983. Selecting appropriate attitudinal objectives for school
science. Science Educ. 67(5):595–603.
Seiguer, E. 1997. Unlucky genes: Bioethics and employment. Business
Today, Winter, p. 13–14.
Sohan, D.E. 1998. The relationship of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions
regarding biotechnology in college students. Ph.D. diss. Texas A&M
Univ., College Station, TX.
SPSS. 1997. SPSS 7.5 for Windows. SPSS, Chicago, IL.
Sterling, L.G., C.K. Halbrendt, and S.L. Kitto. 1993. Impact of education on
the attitudes of college students toward biotechnology. J. Agric. Environ.
Ethics 6:75–88.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Im-
provement. 1997. America’s teachers: Profile of a profession, 1993–1994.
View publication stats
NCES 97-460, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington,
DC.
Webber, G.D. 1994. Careers in biotechnology. NCR483. North Central Ext.
Publ. Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, MI.
Willman, M.L. 1998. Bill seeks tougher rules for puppy breeding industry.
Los Angeles Times, 28 April, Metro, 1.
Wilmut, I., A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind, and K.H.S. Campbell,
K.H.S. 1997. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian
cells. Nature (London) 385:810–813.
Winslow, R. 1998. Genetically engineered protein aids blood-vessel growth
in heart patients. The Wall Street Journal, 31 March, p. B5.
Zimmerman, L., P. Kendall, M. Stone, and T. Hoban. 1994. Consumer knowl-
edge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technol.
11:71–77.
J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 31, 2002 • 11