What the public thinks is shaped by what they’re told

And public opinion can’t be taken for granted, no matter which side of an issue you’re on, and certainly no matter what some polls say. They’re usually not all that informative anyway, since poll questions are either worded to elicit a certain response, or worded in a neutral enough way but don’t elicit enough of a response besides, say, ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ 

The New Atlantis has this interesting piece about public opinion and the debate over life issues. Here’s a particularly wise snip:

Those pollsters who do seek a more thorough understanding of public attitudes find a marked lack of knowledge of the basic facts and even an acknowledgment of that ignorance—resulting in uncertain and highly malleable opinions. To better understand public opinion on bioethics, one must begin by abandoning the premise of just about all those who have sought to wield such opinion in the political arena: that the public has views that are clearly defined or strongly held. In the absence of that premise, the goal of activists and interested parties to the bioethics debates should be to learn how best to educate the public, rather than to wield essentially meaningless statistics about existing attitudes.

Public opinion is a fascinating topic and this piece analyzes it, in relationship to thorny bioethical issues, better than anything I’ve seen lately.

So, where are we with all this?

Broadly speaking, Americans are aware that some ethical minefields await us in the age of biotechnology; are alert to their own lack of information and expertise in judging such difficulties; and…are anxious also about leaving that judgment in the hands of politicians, of government agencies, or of researchers themselves. This suggests above all that no side in these debates should imagine it basks in warm public support.

Activists shouldn’t take for granted that huge swaths of society are convinced of their arguments.

Advocates of embryo-destructive research and related practices, in particular, are treading on a very thin layer of ice that could easily crack beneath them if some new development underscores the ethical questions surrounding such research, rather than the potential for medical progress alone. Opponents of the research, meanwhile, appear justified in grounding their case firmly in the need to defend human life from harm and from degrading violations, but should not lull themselves into believing that the public is firmly behind them.

This need not be a battle, though, Levin concludes.

The solution, it would seem, is to sidestep the argument altogether by seeking means of advancing medical research without threatening human life or undermining human dignity.