Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data

Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data JOHN H. EVANS Human cloning has recently entered the public sphere as a contentious issue and religious groups have spoken out in opposition to these technologies. To date, there has been no research to specifically determine whether the laity agrees with the positions of the leadership or to more generally sort out the views of the religious public on the issue of cloning. In this article I examine two relatively unknown public opinion polls that included questions on both cloning and the religious identity, practices, and beliefs of the respondent. I find that evangelicals are more opposed to cloning than the rest of the public and are more likely to see cloning as a religious issue. I explore these relationships further with a survey from one denomination and find that it is not ignorance of science that results in opposition to cloning, but at least for the evangelicals a desire to keep religion and science distinct. I conclude with suggestions for how future researchers can build upon this first limited opinion data. There has been a great deal of public debate about human cloning since the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep in 1997. Much of the public uses religious language to describe their concerns and many religious leaders feel that their religious tradition can give critical input to our decisionmaking process about whether to engage in human cloning. While the opinions of religious people in the abortion debate have been well studied (Cook, Gelen, and Wilcox 1992; Evans 1997b), there has been no similar analysis of the human cloning issue, despite its potential to be equally contentious. In this article I briefly summarize the stated positions of Christian leaders on this issue, 1 and then conduct analysis of two little-known public opinion polls that included questions on both cloning and religious belief. The surveys allow for some initial analyses of which religious identities, beliefs, and practices are associated with opposition to cloning, as well as which are associated with viewing cloning as a religious issue. The form of this article deviates from the usual structure for a quantitative paper by being more of a developing narrative than a formal hypothesis-testing exercise because this structure better fits its exploratory nature. The purpose of these analyses of the admittedly limited data sets is to help scholars plan future research on religion and human cloning. BACKGROUND ON HUMAN CLONING The debate among theologians and others in the early 1970s on the morality of human cloning was in reaction to the successful cloning of frogs, apparently a fairly simple procedure compared to cloning a mammal. This debate cooled after a few years, but was reinvigorated in 1997 when researchers in Scotland were able to clone a sheep. The successful cloning of other animals followed in quick succession. Even though the scientist who created Dolly condemned the idea of trying to clone a human, advocates of human cloning soon appeared. Recently, two groups have appeared with plans to engage in human reproductive cloning. The first, called Clonaid, is associated with a religion called the Raelians, and seems to have trained scientists in its employ. The second is led by an Italian fertility doctor and an American reproduction specialist, both of whom have demonstrated ability in their respective areas. The reproduction specialist claims that they might try to begin John H. Evans, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego; 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0533. Email: jhevans@ucsd.edu Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:4 (2002) 747 758

748 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION producing cloned human embryos by September 2001 (Zitner 2001). These claims have prompted new calls for federal regulation. It is important to make a distinction at the outset between two types of cloning: reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the baseline technology for both. SCNT involves removing the DNA from a cell of an adult, placing it into an egg that has had its nucleus extracted, and inducing the egg into growing into an embryo. Reproductive cloning is then the implantation of an embryo created through SCNT into a woman s uterus with the intention of producing a baby. This is what most people think the cloning debate is about, creating copies of adults. Therapeutic cloning is the use of SCNT to create embryos; however, those embryos are not implanted in women to grow into babies. (This term is somewhat of a misnomer since its therapeutic efficacy has not been demonstrated.) Instead, these cloned embryos would have their stem cells extracted for use in medical therapies. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells are capable of turning into almost any type of cell in the body and hope that these cells can eventually be used to treat diseases such as Alzheimer s, Parkinson s, and kidney failure, to name but a few of the possibilities. Using stem cells derived from an embryo that is itself a clone of the ultimate recipient is thought to possibly reduce the risk of the type of rejection response people have to organ transplants. If this is true, then stem cells from cloned embryos would be superior to stem cells obtained from other sources, such as leftover embryos stored at IVF clinics. Although I will make use of this distinction in summarizing the views of denominational officials and theologians, this degree of detail will be lost in analyses of these early surveys because the questions were about reproductive cloning. Nonetheless, it is an important distinction for understanding the reaction of religious communities to cloning technology. DENOMINATIONAL AND THEOLOGICAL STATEMENTS ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE AND THERAPEUTIC CLONING As a generalization, we can safely say that almost every organized religious group that has officially spoken on reproductive cloning has condemned it, for no other reason than that it is currently unsafe. However, it may be determined to be safe in the future, so the more important question is the various religious views on the ethics of cloning. Roman Catholicism It is easiest to start with the most clear-cut positions, which are those that oppose both therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, and the most well known and clear cut is that of the Roman Catholic Church. It is clear cut because it is not based on any additional information about the intentions of the cloners, the unknown effects of being cloned on the clone itself, possible effects on social institutions, and the like. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to therapeutic cloning because of its beliefs about the moral status of embryos. Embryos are to be treated the same as born persons and therefore cannot be used as means toward an end. Most obviously, they cannot be destroyed to benefit others. Even if a cloned embryo could be created without killing other embryos, which is unlikely, the Catholic Church would still be opposed to reproductive cloning, as it is to many reproductive techniques, because it severs human reproduction from sexuality (Campbell and Woolfrey 1998:18). There are a range of positions held by Roman Catholic theologians on these issues, who generally take a more liberal stance than the hierarchy. Some theologians offer different or additional reasons to be opposed to reproductive cloning, such as the argument that it could lead to greater injustice in the world (Cahill 2001). Others have challenged the hierarchy s position on embryo research, arguing for a return to an earlier Catholic position where the personhood of an embryo is not established until later in development (Farley 2000). While there are a

RELIGION AND HUMAN CLONING 749 range of views among theologians, Catholic leaders speak with unanimity in their opposition to reproductive cloning. Protestantism Similarly, the official statements by evangelical Protestant denominations are unified in their condemnation of reproductive and therapeutic cloning. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in 2001, passed a resolution claiming concerns with safety, the destruction of human embryos in research, and that through cloning procreation will become manufacture. 2 Although their concerns about therapeutic cloning seem to be taken directly from their arguments in the abortion debate, the concerns about reproductive cloning repeat the arguments of one of the most articulate and visible evangelical opponents of cloning, Gilbert Meilaender. 3 In testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) in 1997, he argued that cloning would result in children who were made, not begotten (Meilaender 1997). By this he means that if children are considered to be instruments of our will, as our projects, instead of equal partners with ourselves in humanity, then they are made. Begotten what he considers the preferred relationship with children to be is the relationship of the Son to the Father in the Nicene Creed, the term being chosen to indicate that the Son was not made, that is, not subsidiary to God, but equal to or equal with God. To the extent Meilaender is reflecting theological ideas that are held by the laity, we should be attuned to the respondents view of the relationship of humans with God in their opinions about cloning. Theological debates about what should be left to humans and what should be left to God when it comes to scientific technologies are often debated under the rubric of whether we are co-creators with God (Cole-Turner 1993). On one end of the spectrum are those who see us as co-creators with God in the ongoing act of creating the universe as God would like it to be, but see less of an active role for human intervention and more of a role for God as creator of the universe. On the other end are those who see a more active role for humans in fulfilling God s plans in creation and less of an active role for God. Evangelical theology tends toward the former end of the spectrum, and liberal theology toward the latter. As we edge away from the core of evangelicalism toward denominations that are typically more liberal on these types of issues, some interesting positions can be found. Public opinion data on other issues show that members of the United Methodist Church are, with the members of the American Baptist Churches, the most conservative of the mainline Protestants (Smith 1990; Steensland et al. 2000; Roof and McKinney 1987). Therefore, the United Methodist Church often finds itself adhering to the middle or often both sides of any particular controversy. In this case, the United Methodist Church comes down against cloning, but for reasons that reflect not only its conservative impulses but its liberal ones as well. It is concerned with embryo wastage and the tearing of the fabric of the family usually conservative concerns but also with the use or abuse of people, exploitation of women,...the compromising of human distinctiveness, the lessening of genetic diversity, the direction of research and development being controlled by corporate profit and/or personal gain, and the invasion of privacy. 4 Therefore, the Methodists, who have been studying issues of human genetics since the late 1980s, are opposed to both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. This denomination is also officially in favor of legal abortion (Evans 1997a), which demonstrates that while the cloning debate is related to the abortion debate, it cannot be reduced to it. As we continue to move toward the more liberal end of the Protestant spectrum in the United States, we find that the most liberal of these denominations make a distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. For example, the Committee on Genetics of the United Church of Christ stated that while it has empathy with couples who might seek cloning in order to have children of their own, it opposes cloning and say enough to technologies that are privileges of the rich in the Western world (Cole-Turner 1997:148). However, it does

750 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION not object categorically to...research that produces and studies cloned human pre-embryos through the 14th day of fetal development, provided the research is well justified in terms of its objectives, that the research protocols show proper respect for the pre-embryos, and that they not be implanted (Cole-Turner 1997:150). In sum, the views of Protestant denominations run the gamut from the evangelical denominations opposition to both types of cloning, to liberal Protestant denominations support of therapeutic cloning. Although the views of the leaders and the followers obviously are different on many issues, absent detailed information on the followers, scholars can use these views as a starting point. In the analysis of the first public opinion polls with both cloning and religion questions, I follow this general approach. DATA AND ANALYSIS OF THE OPINION OF THE RELIGIOUS PUBLIC A survey conducted in March 2001 for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked whether the respondent favored or opposed allowing unrestricted scientific research related to human cloning. Examining the marginals on this variable reveals that Americans are clearly opposed to human cloning. Fifty-one percent of respondents selected strongly opposed, 35 percent selected opposed, and only 12 percent favored and 2 percent strongly favored allowing cloning. It is important to note that the question asked in the survey is quite strongly worded and a less powerful word than unrestricted would have created a less extreme result. Although the survey does not clearly indicate that it is referring to reproductive cloning, because the notion of therapeutic cloning had not entered the popular public debate at the time of the survey, it is assumed that the respondent would be thinking about reproductive cloning when answering this question. The cloning question was coded from 1 to 4, with the strongly opposed given a 4, opposed a3, favored a 2, and strongly favored a 1. Analysis of the relationship of the attitude toward cloning and the demographic variables available in the data is interesting in and of itself. 5 Table 1 contains descriptive information of these variables, coded in a self-evident manner, as well as descriptive information for variables described later in the article. Using ordered logistic regression to account for the noncontinuous nature of the dependent variable (Long 1997), I estimated the opinion about cloning on the respondent s age, education, gender, race, attendance at religious services, and whether they had a child under 18 in the home. What we find is that, as is common in opinion research, having more education is associated with more liberal attitudes (Davis 1982), even after controlling for the extent to which the person attends religious services, etc. (see Table 2). Age, on the other hand, has no independent effect on opinion. Hispanic people and people of other racial groups are more supportive of cloning than whites. African Americans are no different from whites, and people with children in the home are more opposed to cloning. While a gender gap is not often found in attitudes toward abortion (Evans 1997b), in this case women are much more opposed to cloning than are men. Finally, more to the central point of the article, if a respondent claims to attend religious services once or twice a month or more, that person is also much more likely to oppose cloning. The more interesting question is attendance at which religious group s service is associated with opposition to cloning. There are two possible approaches for modeling this question. In the first I could pick one group (e.g., liberal Protestants) with which to compare others. However, given that there does not seem to be any conflict between any of these groups on this issue, there is no natural group to use as a comparison. I will therefore use a second strategy of estimating four different models, each of which compares the respondents from a particular religious tradition with all other respondents in the sample. Unfortunately, as is common in surveys, there are not enough members of the minority religions in the United States to make any claims about them, so I will focus on groups within Christianity. 6

RELIGION AND HUMAN CLONING 751 TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Pew Center Data, 2001 N Mean SD Min Max Dependent Variable Attitude toward cloning 1,931 3.34 0.782 1 4 Demographics Education 2,030 4.48 1.59 1 7 Age 2,009 44.2 17.0 18 94 Woman 2,041 0.534 0.499 0 1 Attends church monthly or more 2,041 0.619 0.486 0 1 African American 2,021 0.182 0.385 0 1 Hispanic 2,021 0.061 0.239 0 1 Other race 2,021 0.051 0.221 0 1 Parent 2,034 0.352 0.478 0 1 Religious Identity Variables Evangelical church attender 2,041 0.277 0.448 0 1 Liberal Protestant church attender 2,041 0.123 0.329 0 1 Traditionalist Catholic church attender 2,041 0.069 0.254 0 1 Liberal Catholic church attender 2,041 0.045 0.208 0 1 Religious Reasons for Views? Religious reasons for view of cloning 2,041 0.343 0.475 0 1 Religious reasons for view of death penalty 2,041 0.236 0.424 0 1 Religious reasons for view of gov t assist. to religion 2,041 0.180 0.384 0 1 Religious reasons for view of gay marriage 2,041 0.395 0.489 0 1 Religious reasons for view of military force 2,041 0.125 0.331 0 1 Religious reasons for view of aid to poor 2,041 0.129 0.335 0 1 Religious reasons for view of euthanasia 2,041 0.273 0.446 0 1 Presbyterian Panel Data, 1998 Dependent Variable Cloning usurps God s role 491 4.24 1.49 1 6 Independent Variables Orthodoxy scale 522 83.6 15.9 25 112 Woman 559 0.617 0.486 0 1 Age 550 56.1 17.2 13 98 Familiarity with science of cloning 542 2.37 0.769 1 4 Theology and science influence each other constructively 454 3.17 1.01 1 6 Theology and science do not inevitably conflict 495 4.09 1.21 1 6 Self-identified Protestants who identified as being born again/evangelical and who also claimed to attend church once or twice a month or more, were coded as evangelical attenders. Self-identified Protestants who identified as being a liberal Christian and who also claimed to attend church once or twice a month or more were coded as liberal Protestant attenders. Self-identified Catholics who claimed to be a traditional Catholic or a liberal Catholic and claimed to attend church once or twice a month or more were coded as traditional Catholics and liberal Catholics, respectively. Models that estimate whether members of these religious groups are more or less opposed to cloning, compared to the other respondents in the sample, are presented in Table 3. The results here are quite simple. It is only the high attending born again/evangelical respondents who are different from the rest of the population. It is important to be clear, however, that the general public

752 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION TABLE 2 ORDERED LOGISTIC COEFFICIENTS; DEMOGRAPHIC INFLUENCE ON OPINION ABOUT CLONING; PEW CENTER DATA, 2001 Independent Variables Model 1 Education 0.089 (0.031) Age 0.003 (0.003) Woman 0.500 (0.096) Attend monthly 0.480 (0.099) African American 0.011 (0.131) Hispanic 0.492 (0.200) Other race 0.384 (0.207) Parent 0.291 (0.106) Cutpoint 1 3.47 Cutpoint 2 1.52 Cutpoint 3 0.340 Psuedo R 2 0.027 N 1,892 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. = p < 0.05; = p < 0.01; = p < 0.001. is opposed to cloning, and so the members of these other traditions are as equally opposed as is the public. It is simply that church-going evangelicals are even more opposed than everyone else. As with abortion and birth control, Catholics do not seem to follow their leadership as closely as do evangelicals. Who Looks to Their Religion to Answer the Cloning Issue If cloning becomes a politically charged issue like abortion, future researchers will want to know which religious groups see cloning as a religious issue. This can be addressed by the Pew survey, which asked, after asking about cloning, Which one of the following has had the biggest influence on your thinking on this issue? One of the six responses was your religious beliefs. 7 If the respondent claimed that his or her religion had the largest effect on the person s thinking, the respondent was coded with a 1 on a dichotomous variable. In the analysis of the relationship of this variable to attitudes on cloning, it is important to control for whether the respondent is opposed to cloning, which we have seen to have a religious base, and whether the respondent tends to see all issues as religious. The first concern was solved by controlling for the degree of opposition to cloning. The second by controlling for the response to the same question about the source of the influence on his or her opinion about the death penalty, allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, providing government assistance to the poor, euthanasia, helping people in need, and using military force.

RELIGION AND HUMAN CLONING 753 TABLE 3 ORDERED LOGISTIC COEFFICIENTS; RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE ON OPINION ABOUT CLONING, WITH DEMOGRAPHIC CONTROLS; PEW CENTER DATA, 2001 Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Born-again attender 0.530 (0.114) Liberal Protestant attender 0.135 (0.148) Liberal Catholic attender 0.048 (0.236) Traditionalist Catholic attender 0.063 (0.175) Education 0.074 0.085 0.085 0.086 (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) Age 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) Woman 0.523 0.546 0.545 0.543 (0.096) (0.096) (0.096) (0.096) African American 0.002 0.103 0.092 0.096 (0.133) (0.130) (0.130) (0.130) Hispanic 0.428 0.455 0.443 0.452 (0.203) (0.201) (0.201) (0.202) Other race 0.414 0429 0.420 0.417 (0.205) (0.206) (0.206) (0.206) Parent 0.321 0.335 0.337 0.335 (0.106) (0.105) (0.106) (0.106) Cutpoint 1 3.48 3.57 3.57 3.57 Cutpoint 2 1.54 1.64 1.63 1.64 Cutpoint 3 0.319 0.241 0.241 0.241 N 1,892 1,892 1,892 1,892 Pseudo R 2 0.026 0.020 0.020 0.020 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. = p < 0.05; = p < 0.01; = p < 0.001. A comparison of the four models in Table 4 shows that it is only church-going evangelicals who are most likely to see cloning as a religious issue, even after controlling for the fact that evangelicals tend to see all issues as religious and that evangelicals are disproportionately opposed to cloning. The effect for church-going liberal Protestants is in the same direction as for evangelicals, but does not quite achieve statistical significance. While the coefficient for liberal Catholics is larger than that for liberal Protestants, and the coefficients for traditional Catholics is of similar magnitude, the higher standard errors for these groups result in much less confidence about these effects. I therefore conclude that high-attending traditionalist and liberal Catholics are no more likely to attribute their opinions on cloning to their religion than is the rest of the population. It is not surprising to find that evangelicals view this issue as a religious one. Many scholars have found that evangelicals are the group that is most likely to view its religion as being important for its position on public affairs (Regnerus and Smith 1998). It is important also to note the consistent positive effect of the attitude toward cloning variable in all models. This means that those who are more opposed to cloning are more likely to look to their religious beliefs for this

754 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION TABLE 4 LOGISTIC REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS; RESPONDENT INFLUENCED BY RELIGION ON CLONING ISSUE; PEW CENTER DATA, 2001 Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Born-again attender 0.513 (0.149) Liberal Protestant attender 0.262 (0.204) Liberal Catholic attender 0.346 (0.302) Traditionalist Catholic attender 0.249 0.248) Religious reasons for view on death penalty 0.753 0.752 0.741 0.752 (0.169) (0.169) (0.167) (0.168) Religious reasons for view on assisting religion 0.632 0.681 0.700 0.692 (0.187) (0.184) (0.184) (0.185) Religious reasons for view on gay marriage 1.04 1.13 1.14 1.13 (0.140) (0.137) (0.137) (0.137) Religious reasons for view on using military force 0.464 0.480 0.484 0.482 (0.197) (0.196) (0.199) (0.198) Religious reasons for view on aid to poor 0.430 0.460 0.468 0.470 (0.213) (0.209) (0.209) (0.210) Religious reasons for view on euthanasia 1.02 1.09 1.09 1.07 (0.157) (0.156) (0.156) (0.156) Attitude toward cloning 0.941 0.951 0.948 0.948 (0.103) (0.103) (0.104) (0.104) Education 0.112 0.119 0.121 0.119 (0.043) (0.043) (0.043) (0.042) Age 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.014 (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) Woman 0.150 0.167 0.162 0.162 (0.133) (0.133) (0.134) (0.134) African American 0.029 0.030 0.059 0.061 (0.163) (0.161) (0.161) (0.160) Hispanic 0.210 0.204 0.166 0.167 (0.281) (0.281) (0.284) (0.282) Other Race 0.002 0.031 0.011 0.020 (0.334) (0.327) (0.327) (0.324) Parent 0.131 0.144 0.142 0.128 (0.143) (0.142) (0.142) (0.143) Constant 5.48 5.47 5.45 5.43 N 1,892 1,892 1,892 1,892 Pseudo R 2 0.315 0.310 0.310 0.310 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. = p < 0.05; = p < 0.01; = p < 0.001.

RELIGION AND HUMAN CLONING 755 conclusion. This holds true even controlling for the religious identity of the respondent and their viewing other opinions as influenced by their religious beliefs. Findings from a Sample of Presbyterian Church (USA) Members Unfortunately, there are no additional nationally representative surveys of which I am aware that have questions on cloning and in-depth religion questions. However, given that most of the findings in the national survey above concerned evangelical Protestants, it may be helpful to look at a very in-depth survey of Presbyterian Church (USA) members. 8 Although this denomination is rightfully not considered comprised primarily of evangelicals and is more accurately portrayed as mainline Protestant, all denominations have a range of individuals within them. Therefore, I will separately analyze Presbyterians who are liberal and those who are conservative. The latter analyses may help us gain insights about evangelicals, and the former may help us see how evangelicals are different from liberals. The Presbyterian survey asked whether humans usurp God s role as Creator when we try to clone a human being, allowing us to tap the theological debates about humans as co-creators that lie behind the elite theological discourse on this and similar topics. In response, people could select one of six statements between strongly agree and strongly disagree. Twenty-six percent of the respondents strongly agreed with this statement, 23 percent agreed, 21 percent tended to agree, 14 percent tended to disagree, 11 percent disagreed, and 5 percent strongly disagreed. This was coded into a six-point dependent variable with higher numbers indicating greater agreement. Note that this distribution of responses is not as strongly opposed to cloning as in the previous survey. This could due to any number of reasons that cannot be further sorted out: (1) respondents may be opposed to cloning but might not think we are usurping God s role in doing it; (2) Presbyterians are more liberal than the general population; or (3) the wording is less strong than the wording of the question in the survey discussed above. The survey also asked a series of questions to determine the respondent s scientific knowledge and to determine his or her view of the relationship between religion and science. Advocates of biotechnology who are unfamiliar with religion often assume that the god that religious people worship is a God of the gaps (Verhey 1995), where a religious person attributes phenomena not understood to God. This survey allows us to examine whether this is true. Given the earlier discussion of God as co-creator, and that evangelicals are more likely to leave more under God s jurisdiction, it also seems likely that those who view science and theology as separate domains are more likely to see a more limited role for science. The first, and most obvious, analysis to conduct, given the results reported above, is whether the more evangelical respondents within this denomination are the ones who think cloning usurps God s role. 9 The survey had a battery of Protestant-oriented theological orthodoxy questions that were summed to make an orthodox theology scale. 10 I split the sample at the median of the orthodoxy scale for the respondents who had an answer to the cloning question in order to conduct separate analyses of the evangelical and liberal members of the denomination. Model 1 in Table 5 analyzes just the theologically orthodox members. It reveals, consistent with the previous survey, that the more theologically orthodox respondents among the already orthodox are those who think that cloning usurps God s role. 11 Model 2 shows that the same is true for the liberals the more orthodox liberals are more opposed to cloning. Opponents of the political positions of evangelicals often infer that the source of the opposition to some new scientific or medical technology is ignorance of science and that if people just understood science they would not be opposed. This survey allows us to investigate whether a lack of understanding leads respondents to think this activity usurps God s role. The survey asked respondents to indicate their familiarity with 11 scientific theories or principles. Among these was cloning. 12 Analysis of the four models in Table 5 shows that while the effect of this variable heads in this direction, it is not statistically significant for either evangelicals or liberals, after

756 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION TABLE 5 ORDERED LOGISTIC REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS; VIEWING CLONING AS USURPRING GOD S ROLE; PRESBYTERIAN PANEL DATA 1998 Theologically Theologically Theologically Theologically Independent Variables Orthodox Liberal Orthodox Liberal Orthodoxy 0.072 0.040 0.086 0.039 (0.027) (0.010) (0.026) (0.010) Woman 0.740 0.259 0.673 0.362 (0.297) (0.250) (0.286) (0.237) Age 0.003 0.010 0.001 0.011 (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.007) Familiarity with science of cloning 0.185 0.296 0.165 0.302 (0.198) (0.164) (0.191) (0.155) Theology and science influence each 0.708 0.202 other constructively (0.159) (0.133) Theology and science do not inevitably 0.420 0.101 conflict (0.120) (0.106) Cutpoint 1 6.01 1.98 6.52 1.62 Cutpoint 2 7.91 3.32 8.26 2.99 Cutpoint 3 8.74 4.43 9.01 4.07 Cutpoint 4 9.77 5.49 10.0 5.15 Cutpoint 5 10.9 6.80 11.1 6.44 N 170 206 183 228 Pseudo R 2 0.077 0.039 0.052 0.038 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. = p < 0.05; = p < 0.01; = p < 0.001. controlling for the respondent s view of the relationship between theology and science. Ignorance does not seem to drive the understanding of what is permissible for humans in cloning. One remaining possibility that can be evaluated with this survey is that viewing cloning as usurping God s role is due to the respondent s view of the relationship between theology and science. The survey contained 12 questions designed to evaluate views on this matter: People were asked their degree of agreement with questions such as whether theology and science address fundamentally different realms, fundamentally different types of knowledge, fundamentally different methods and languages, fundamentally different objects of concern, and many other hypothesized relationships. The 12 theology/science relationship questions can be broken into two types: those that ask the respondent to evaluate a nuanced relationship (e.g., Theology and science adopt similar approaches to the same aspects of reality ) and those that ask a more general question about the compatibility of the two ways of knowing ( theology and science influence one another constructively ). Models 1 and 3 in Table 5 examine the effect of two of the general questions, viewing theology and science as fundamentally separate. For evangelicals, viewing theology and science as separate does lead to the view that cloning usurps God s role. However, Models 2 and 4 show that the view of the relationship has no effect for liberals. Analysis of the data (not shown) reveals that none of the nuanced questions are associated with attitudes toward cloning. There are two common reasons in survey research for not finding a relationship: (1) no relationship actually exists and (2) the question did not accurately measure the attitude. My suspicion in this case is that the latter explanation is correct that the respondents did not really understand the question. (I suspect that these questions are a bit too much for your

RELIGION AND HUMAN CLONING 757 average church member, who probably does not often think of such matters.) However, while these nuanced questions do not provide any insights, the less subtle questions are associated with opinions about cloning. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This analysis of the first public opinion data sets that include questions on both human cloning and religion is obviously limited in that many questions we would like to have asked were not asked. Moreover, given that there has been no previous research on this topic, I lacked the ability to generate hypotheses, and instead engaged in an exploratory analysis of these data. However, some useful generalizations can be made, to be explored by future researchers. First, and most obviously, there is general condemnation of human cloning across all respondents. Second, evangelicals are the only group that are significantly different from the rest of the population in their views of cloning. I also examined which religious group was more likely to see cloning as a religious issue, and would therefore be more likely to be mobilized for political action through religious appeals. Here again, it was only evangelicals who were more likely than the rest of the sample to see cloning as a religious issue, even controlling for the fact that a respondent who sees one issue as religious tends to see them all as religious. This suggests that political mobilization by denominations and other religious special purpose groups will be the most effective among evangelicals. Examination of the opinions of the laity in the Presbyterian Church (USA) allowed for a few final insights. The more orthodox members are more likely to view cloning as going beyond what is permissible for humans (and taking up what should be left to God). Similarly, those who draw stronger boundaries between theology and science who keep a greater distance between God and humankind are also more likely to see cloning as usurping God s role. As an aside, familiarity with the science of cloning does not predict one s attitude once the other measures are controlled. Future research should include better questions about what the respondent views as the relationship between God and humans in medical and scientific technology. Future studies should also include questions about how religious views should influence public laws. If researchers want to conduct case studies, they should ask why evangelicals are more opposed to this technology and why liberal Protestants and Catholics are no more opposed than the rest of the public. Scientists are pressing ahead with the technology of human cloning. People opposed to cloning have been using religion to justify their opposition. It is only through more in-depth research that sociologists can determine whether this debate will be similar to the abortion debate, or whether it will have its own unique character. NOTES 1. Since I use nationally representative public opinion data for the core of this article, and since there are not enough members of minority religions to make claims about, I do not further discuss these religions. 2. Resolution No. 2 on Human Cloning. Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. Available at http://sbcannualmeeting.org/sbc01/sbcresolution.asp?id = 2. 3. I have no definitive proof of causal influence here. From the similarity in language I suspect that those who drafted these resolutions relied on Meilaender s writings. 4. Text of : 30530-CS-NonDis-0 General Conference 2000. Available at http://www.gc2000.org/pets/pet/text/p30530. asp. 5. All analyses are weighted to adjust for demographic biases in the sample construction. 6. However, members of these minority religions all non-christians are part of the general population comparison group. 7. The others are a personal experience, the views of your friends and family, what you have seen or read in the media, your education and something else. 8. The survey is the November 1998 Presbyterian Panel. The Panel is a longitudinal study that lasts for three years. The same random sample from the denomination are given a survey every few months on different topics. As with most

758 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION longitudinal studies, there is attrition between the establishment of the sample and the later surveys. This survey, one of the later in the panel, had a response rate of 44 percent for the members. There were no substantive demographic differences between those in the initial sample and those who responded to this survey, so the sample did not have to be weighted. Clergy were sampled, but I analyzed only the responses of the laity. For details on the implementation of this survey, see Research Services, Presbyterian Church (USA) (1997). 9. Not all the demographic questions asked in the Pew survey were asked by the Presbyterians. Most notably, the education of the respondent cannot be obtained. Ethnicity was not included because virtually all the respondents are white. 10. The questions included in this scale are: Do you think there is a heaven, where people who have led good lives are eternally rewarded? (No/Yes) Do you think there is a hell, to which people who have led bad lives and die without being sorry are eternally damned? (No/Yes) Which statement best describes your view of the Bible? (It is an important piece of literature, but is largely irrelevant to our lives today. It is the record of many people s experience with God and is a useful guide for individual Christians in their search for basic moral and religious teachings. It is the Word of God and its stories and teaching provide a powerful motivation as we work toward God s reign in the world. It is the inspired, authoritative Word of God that is without error in all that it says about faith and morals. It is the inspired Word of God, without error not only in matters of faith, but also in historical, scientific, geographic and other secular matters). Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: a) there is life beyond death, b) Jesus was born of a virgin, c) the Devil (Satan) really exists, d) Jesus will return to the earth some day. The Chronbach s alpha for this scale is 0.86. 11. The Pearson s correlation coefficient between the cloning attitude variable and the orthodoxy scale is 0.32, which is significant beyond the 0.001 level. 12. Respondents could claim to understand it thoroughly, understand it generally, understand it vaguely, don t understand it but have heard of it, and have never heard of it. This was coded into a five-point variable with higher values indicating less understanding. REFERENCES Cahill, L. S. 2001. Cloning and sin: A Niebuhrian analysis and a Catholic, liberationist response. In Beyond cloning: Religion and the remaking of humanity, edited by R. Cole-Turner, pp. 97 110. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. Campbell, C. S. and J. Woolfrey. 1998. Norms and narratives: Religious reflections on the human cloning controversy. Journal of Biolaw and Business 1(3):8 20. Cole-Turner, R. 1993. The new genesis: Theology and the genetic revolution. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.. 1997. Human cloning: Religious responses. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Cook, E. A., T. G. Gelen, and C. Wilcox. 1992. Between two absolutes: Public opinion and the politics of abortion. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Davis, J. A. 1982. Achievement variables and class cultures: Family, schooling, job, and forty-nine dependent variables in the cumulative GSS. American Sociological Review 47:569 86. Evans, J. H. 1997a. Multi-organizational fields and social movement organization frame content: The religious pro-choice movement. Sociological Inquiry 67(4):451 69.. 1997b. Worldviews or social groups as the source of moral value attitudes: Implications for the culture wars thesis. Sociological Forum 12(3):371 404. Farley, M. 2000. Testimony of Margaret A. Farley, Ph.D. In Ethical issues in human stem cell research: Volume III, religious perspectives. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Long, J. S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Meilaender, G. 1997. Begetting and cloning. First Things, June/July:41 43. Regnerus, M. D. and C. Smith. 1998. Selective deprivatization among American religious traditions: The reversal of the great reversal. Social Forces 76(4):1347 72. Research Services, Presbyterian Church (USA). 1997. Background report for the 1997 1999 Presbyterian panel. Louisville, KY: Presbyterian Church (USA). Roof, W. C. and W. McKinney. 1987. American mainline religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Smith, T. W. 1990. Classifying Protestant denominations. Review of Religious Research 31:225 45. Steensland, B., J. Z. Park, M. D. Regnerus, L. D. Robinson, W. B. Wilcox, and R. D. Woodberry. 2000. The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces 79(1):291 318. Verhey, A. 1995. Playing God and invoking a perspective. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20:347 64. Zitner, A. 2001. Researchers defend human cloning plans. Los Angeles Times, A1, A14.