Technology in Society 63 (2020) 101376 Available online 10 September 2020 0160-791X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects Conal Monaghan * , Boris Bizumic , Dirk Van Rooy Research School of Psychology, Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory (ACT), 2601, Australia ABSTRACT Applications of biotechnology to humans have grown dramatically in the last few decades. As public perception of these biotechnologies plays an important role in their development, we investigated the nature, strength, and psychological predictors of these attitudes. Study 1 (N = 303; 56.11% male, mean age = 50.73) developed measures of general and specifc attitudes towards human biotechnologies using exploratory factor analyses and correlational analyses with a range of external scales. Study 2 (N = 648; 45.83% male, mean age = 47.13) then replicated these fndings in a larger nationally representative sample of the Australian public. Participants held a single general attitude that was, on average, neutral to marginally positive. In contrast, participants generally supported and reported positive emotions towards Bionic Enhancement and Therapeutic and Preventive, whereas they opposed and reported unpleasant emotions towards Non-Corrective Genetic applications. Unique patterns of demographic and psychological variables predicted support, and support related strongly to behavioural intentions. 1. Introduction The advances in biotechnology throughout the 20th and 21st cen- turies introduced changes to scientifc methods and processes that have profoundly infuenced humans and their environment. According to Forbes [1], the biotechnology industry generated 2.3 billion USD worth of venture capital during the second quarter of 2015 alone, which rep- resents the biggest quarterly investment in biotechnology ever recorded. Scientists are increasingly applying biotechnological advances to humans. The Human Genome Project has facilitated human genetic testing, an array of personalised and designer pharmacology, and even the alteration of human genes for medical and enhancement purposes [2]. We are also witnessing the creation of mechanical exoskeletons that drastically increase human strength and endurance [3] and supplements that would allow individuals to consume foodstuffs typically seen as inedible [4]. The frontier of space exploration may also necessitate human bioenhancement to meet the unique hazards and challenges posed by deep space and new planets [5]. Public support in the shape of voting, lobbying, and consumption of supported products often shapes government regulation and funding, which encourages the adaptation and spread of new technologies (e.g., Ref. [6]). Research by the European Commission suggests that nearly a quarter of Europeans are of the opinion that the public’s stance on moral issues, rather than scientifc knowledge or scientifc arguments, should determine governance of emerging biotechnologies [7]. Considering that applying biotechnology to humans has important consequences for society and humanity, policymakers must understand the public’s gen- eral perception, along with perception of specifc applications of biotechnology, to design effective and safe governance frameworks. 1.1. Public attitudes towards biotechnology Proponents of biotechnology often present it as a panacea, but to many others biotechnology is the quintessential Pandora’s Box due to its unprecedented ability to modify nature and organisms by altering their genes [8]. According to Greek mythology, Pandora received a box as a gift from the Gods, but under strict orders that she never open it – lest mankind be cursed. Pandora was, however, curious and opened the box, thereby releasing catastrophic events hitherto unknown to man. Within this metaphor, biotechnology is cast as “secret” knowledge with enor- mous potential that might become uncontrollable and fundamentally change humanity, and not necessarily for the better [9,10]. Yet, pro- ponents of biotechnology argue that these claims are unsubstantiated, irrational, and unscientifc at their best, and dishonest and dangerous at their worst (e.g., Ref. [11]). This fatalistic fguration may or may not be germane, but what is certain is that biotechnology has started to change perceptions of humanity and has aroused public attention. The capacity to apply biotechnology to human biology raises new ethical considerations. For example, many regenerative medicines and human enhancement biotechnologies aim to go further than preventing or restoring the effect of damage or disease, to improving human func- tioning beyond what is considered normal [12]. Wealthy individuals * Corresponding author. Australian National University, ACT, 2601, Australia. E-mail address: Conal.Monaghan@anu.edu.au (C. Monaghan). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Technology in Society journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101376 Received 12 July 2019; Received in revised form 19 August 2020; Accepted 4 September 2020