11/2/2016: This report has been revised to include updated data in categorizing white Protestants into the “white evangelical Protestant” and “white mainline Protestant” categories. Originally, the report relied partly on data from a previous wave of the American Trends Panel to make these categorizations.

Cutting-edge biomedical technologies that could push the boundaries of human abilities may soon be available, making people’s minds sharper and their bodies stronger and healthier than ever before. But a new Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults shows that majorities greet the possibility of these breakthroughs with more wariness and worry than enthusiasm and hope.

Many in the general public expect continued scientific and technological innovation, broadly speaking, to bring helpful change to society. Yet when people are queried about the potential use of emerging technologies for “human enhancement,” their attitudes are not nearly as affirming.

The survey examines public attitudes about the potential use of three emerging technologies that could fundamentally improve people’s health, cognitive abilities or physical capacities. The specific examples were: gene editing to give babies a lifetime with much reduced risk of serious disease, implanting brain chips to give people a much improved ability to concentrate and process information and transfusing of synthetic blood to give people much greater speed, strength and stamina. These are just three of many enhancements that scientists and bioethicists say could arise from biomedical technologies now under development. None of the three are currently available for the purpose of enhancing otherwise healthy babies or adults, though all are in a research and development phase or are being tested in very limited circumstances for therapeutic uses, such as helping patients to recover from a stroke or spinal cord injury. (For background see “Human Enhancement: The Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Striving for Perfection.”)

When Americans are questioned about the prospect of these specific kinds of enhancements for healthy people, their views are cautious and often resistant:

• Majorities of U.S. adults say they would be “very” or “somewhat” worried about gene editing (68%), brain chips (69%) and synthetic blood (63%), while no more than half say they would be enthusiastic about each of these developments. Some people say they would be both enthusiastic and worried, but, overall, concern outpaces excitement.
• More say they would not want enhancements of their brains and their blood (66% and 63%, respectively) than say they would want them (32% and 35%). U.S. adults are closely split on the question of whether they would want gene editing to help prevent diseases for their babies (48% would, 50% would not).
• At least seven-in-ten adults predict each of these new technologies will become available before they have been fully tested or understood. Some 73% say this about gene editing, while an identical share says the same about synthetic blood; 74% says this about brain chip implants.
• Majorities say these enhancements could exacerbate the divide between haves and have-nots. For instance, 73% believe inequality will increase if brain chips become available because initially they will be obtainable only by the wealthy.
• In addition, many Americans think recipients of enhancements will feel superior to those who have not received them; 63% say this about synthetic blood transfusions in particular. By the same token, but more optimistically, half of Americans or more think recipients of enhancements will feel more confident about themselves.
• Substantial shares say they are not sure whether these interventions are morally acceptable. But among those who express an opinion, more people say brain and blood enhancements would be morally unacceptable than say they are acceptable.
• More adults say the downsides of brain and blood enhancements would outweigh the benefits for society than vice versa. Americans are a bit more positive about the possibility of gene editing to reduce disease; 36% think it will have more benefits than downsides, while 28% think it will have more downsides than benefits.
• Opinion is closely divided when it comes to the fundamental question of whether these potential developments are “meddling with nature” and cross a line that should not be crossed, or whether they are “no different” from other ways that humans have tried to better themselves over time.

The survey data show several patterns surrounding Americans’ wariness about these developments. First, there are strong differences in views about using these technologies for enhancement depending on how religious people are. In general, the most religious are the most wary about potential enhancements. For example, those who score high on a three-item index of religious commitment¹ are more likely than those who are lower in religious commitment to say all three types of enhancement – gene editing to give babies a lifetime with much reduced risk of disease, brain chip implants to give people much improved cognitive abilities and transfusions with synthetic blood to give people much improved physical capacities – would be meddling with nature and crossing a line that should not be crossed. Americans who have lower levels of religious commitment are more inclined to see the potential use of these techniques as just the continuation of a centuries-old quest by humans to try to better themselves.

Second, people believe that technologies that would bring more dramatic or extreme changes to human abilities are less acceptable than technologies that cause less dramatic or temporary changes. For example, 47% of Americans consider the use of synthetic blood substitutes to improve physical abilities an “appropriate use of technology” if the resulting change to people’s speed, strength and stamina would be “equal to their own peak abilities.” But if the same enhancement results in physical abilities “far above that of any human known to date,” far fewer (28%) say it would be an appropriate use of technology. The same pattern occurs as Americans consider the potential use of gene editing and devices implanted in the brain to augment human abilities.

Third, women tend to be more hesitant than men about wanting the enhancements potentially available from these cutting-edge technologies. They are also more negative than men in their judgments and expectations about what such enhancements would mean for society. Interestingly, although majorities of the public expect these enhancements would lead to increased social inequality, there are, at best, only modest differences in attitudes about these topics by race, ethnicity, educational level, income or age.

Finally, there are some similarities between what Americans think about these three potential, future enhancements and their attitudes toward the kinds of enhancements already widely available today. Many are skeptical about the need for cosmetic procedures and other current enhancements. For example, 61% of Americans say people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures to change their appearance in ways that are not really important. Roughly a third (34%) say elective cosmetic surgery is “taking technology too far.” And, overall, 54% of U.S. adults say elective cosmetic surgery leads to both benefits and downsides for society, while 26% express the belief that there are more downsides than benefits, and just 16% say society receives more benefits than downsides from cosmetic surgery.

These are some of the key findings from a new nationally representative Pew Research Center survey of 4,726 U.S. adults conducted online and by mail from March 2 to 28, 2016. The margin of sampling error at the 95% confidence interval for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.²

What do we mean by human enhancement?

Human enhancement encompasses a wide range of biomedical interventions intended to increase human abilities. In simple terms, this means making biochemical, surgical or other changes designed to improve cognitive, psychological or physical capacities, and can include changes aimed at bettering physical and mental health. The modern discussion of human enhancement often is traced to an essay by Julian Huxley in 1957. The essay suggested the human species could “transcend itself” through biological intervention.³ Over the millennia, people have tried to improve their abilities by learning, as well as using tools and gadgets. Enhancement is different from those attempts at human betterment because it involves biomedical intervention in the body to notch up a person’s capabilities.

Many also think about human enhancement as distinct from therapeutic interventions. Thus, medical treatments aimed at restoring a person’s ability to see or hear – for example, to regain motor control after a stroke or spinal cord injury – would stand in contrast to enhancing abilities in otherwise healthy and well-functioning people beyond their current capacities (or some typical level).⁴ The line between therapy and enhancement often is blurry, but this distinction provides a framework for thinking about human enhancement in everyday terms.

Although the phrase “human enhancement” is used primarily by ethicists, there are numerous enhancements available today. Examples include: anabolic steroids used to promote muscle development; reproductive technologies, including tubal ligation and vasectomies to increase human control over the reproductive system; and an array of cosmetic interventions to change people’s physical characteristics. Two widely available cognitive enhancements include the (off-label) use of modafinil and Ritalin (methylphenidate) to stimulate a person’s focus, concentration or memory. Some also consider vaccines a form of enhancement aimed at making people healthier by reducing the probability of disease, although others consider vaccines to be firmly rooted in medical or therapeutic treatment, not enhancement.⁵

Until now, biomedical scientists have had the capacity to make only relatively modest enhancements in people. However, the convergence of innovations in biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology and other fields is raising the possibility that future enhancements could enable much more dramatic changes to human abilities. The pace of innovation is difficult to predict and sometimes takes much of the scientific community, let alone the broader public, by surprise. The development of CRISPR, a gene-editing technique, is one example in which potentially far-reaching techniques evolved very rapidly, within the space of just a few years.

Pew Research Center rooted much of this study in exploring public attitudes about breakthroughs that could expand the boundaries of human limits, potentially creating even healthier, stronger and smarter humans. In particular, the study focuses on U.S. public reactions to three potential kinds of enhancement: gene editing to give a healthy baby a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions over their lifetime, implanting a computer chip in the brain to give a healthy person a much improved ability to concentrate and process information, and using synthetic blood substitutes to give a healthy person much greater speed, strength and stamina. (For comparison, survey respondents also were asked about a number of procedures, such as elective cosmetic surgery, that are widely available today.)

The three future-oriented scenarios are meant to reflect the range of enhancements being discussed by scientists and others as potentially on the horizon, but it is by no means an exhaustive list.⁶ None of the techniques behind these ideas is being used for “enhancing purposes” today, although all exist in some form of development for therapeutic or medical applications. They were chosen in part because they each raise potentially enticing prospects. What if we, as a society, could virtually do away with illness? What if humans could all raise their thinking capacity manyfold? And what if synthetic “super blood” could boost physical prowess to “superman” and “superwoman” levels?

Whatever appeal these ideas may have, they also raise fundamental questions about what it means to be human. From the earliest days of civilization, people have sought to better their condition through the use of tools, medications, surgeries and other therapies. But as new scientific and technological breakthroughs arise, so do questions about whether such developments move beyond limits set by God, nature or reason. Thus, this research is aimed in part at understanding where, if at all, the public might “draw the line” on human enhancements and the possibilities they could bring to society.

Americans are of two minds when they consider scientific advancement. In broad terms, they think scientific and technological innovations are of benefit to society. But when it comes to using particular cutting-edge technologies to potentially augment human abilities – such as allowing parents to edit their baby’s genes for a lifetime of much reduced disease, or offering brain chip implants or synthetic blood substitutes to healthy people who want to perform at higher levels – a new Pew Research Center survey suggests people’s concern rises.

This chapter explores Americans’ familiarity with, and thoughts about, several techniques on the vanguard of science that could be used to expand the limits of people’s bodies and brains. It examines the patterns that run across public opinion on the three case studies, including the large differences in acceptance between highly religious and less religious Americans; the tendency of people to be more open to these technologies if their effects would be controllable and less dramatic in magnitude; the gender gap in opinions on this topic, with women more wary than men about these developments; and the links between views toward enhancements widely available today, such as cosmetic surgery or laser eye surgery; and views toward potential future enhancements.

Most Americans not interested in improving their cognitive or physical abilities with brain chips or synthetic blood

Converging technologies in biomedical, nanotechnology, information technology and other fields could lead to any number of ways humanity might be able to “upgrade” itself. The Pew Research Center study focuses on the U.S. public’s reactions to three particular kinds of technologies that could be used in the relatively near-term for human enhancement: gene editing to give a healthy baby a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions over their lifetime; implanting a computer chip in the brain to give a healthy person a much improved ability to concentrate and process information; and a transfusion with synthetic blood to give healthy people much improved speed, strength and stamina.

Overall, none of the three enhancements are particularly appealing to the general public. Altogether, 50% of Americans say they would not want gene editing to significantly reduce their own baby’s risk of serious diseases and conditions. A roughly equal share of adults (48%) say they would probably or definitely want this for their baby.

U.S. adults are even less eager to get a brain chip implant or synthetic blood. Roughly two-thirds of Americans (66%) say they would not be interested in an implanted device designed to give them a much improved ability to concentrate and process information; a third (32%) say they would definitely or probably want such a device. The same pattern occurs when it comes to a synthetic blood substitute for much greater speed, strength and stamina. Most Americans (63%) say they would not want this, while 35% say they would definitely or probably want it.

Gene editing to improve a baby’s health appears more appealing to the public as a whole than the other two scenarios. This difference could stem from the fact that the gene-editing scenario is focused on disease-prevention, while the other two scenarios are more about augmenting abilities. Another possibility is that public thinking about genetic interventions that would enhance their children’s characteristics involves different calculations than changes to better themselves. Still, there are striking similarities detailed below in how Americans evaluate the likely outcomes and moral acceptability of all three of these potential enhancements.

Some have heard about these ideas, especially gene editing, but few have heard a lot

As might be expected when it comes to future possibilities, few Americans report deep familiarity with gene editing, chip implants or synthetic blood substitutes. But 48% of adults say they have heard a little about the idea of gene editing for babies and another 9% say they have heard a lot. Nearly four-in-ten adults have heard either a lot (6%) or a little (32%) about brain chip implants. The idea of synthetic blood substitutes to boost physical speed, strength and stamina is less familiar, by comparison; 77% of Americans have heard nothing at all about this possibility.

Those who have heard at least a little about these ideas are more inclined to want these enhancements for themselves (or, in the case of gene editing, for their baby). While greater familiarity with these ideas could be driving more desire for these enhancements, at this early stage, it could be simply that people who are predisposed to favor new technologies seek out information about new technological developments and also tend to favor these possibilities.

A similar pattern was found in a 2013 Pew Research Center study on radical life extension. Those who had heard more about this idea were more likely to say they would want medical treatments to slow the aging process and extend average lifespans by decades.

Most Americans see human enhancements causing major changes ahead, but more expect negative rather than positive effects

There is widespread agreement among the public that if the enhancements considered in the survey become widely available for healthy people, change will follow. But significantly more Americans expect negative outcomes, including premature adoption of techniques that are not well tested and increased social inequality.

Some 81% of adults say gene editing that would give babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases over their lifetime would cause either a great deal of change for society (46%) or some change (35%). A similar share – 79% – say an implanted brain chip giving healthy people a much improved ability to concentrate and process information would lead to at least some change. And 76% of adults say transfusions of synthetic blood to give healthy people much improved physical abilities would cause a great deal of change (38%) or some change (38%) for society.

In terms of the potential outcomes of adopting these techniques, more Americans anticipate negative rather than positive consequences. At the top, at least seven-in-ten adults are concerned that these new technologies will become available before they have been fully tested or understood. This concern was echoed in the focus group discussions, particularly in connection with brain chip implants.

Another mark on the minus side of the chart: Many Americans think these developments could exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots in society. Some seven-in-ten survey respondents say inequality would increase because only the wealthy could afford these enhancements.

Jury is still out on moral acceptability: Are humans bettering themselves or meddling with nature?

Americans are closely divided on the key ethical question of whether gene editing, brain chip implants, or synthetic blood substitutes are just another step in a long line of efforts humans have made over time to better themselves, or if, instead, these ideas are “meddling with nature” and, as such, cross the bounds of what humans should do. In each case, the public is nearly evenly divided between the two perspectives.

When it comes to moral evaluations of these potential human enhancements, there also are wide differences among the public as a whole. A sizeable portion of the public says they are “not sure” whether these three possible enhancements are morally acceptable. Among the remainder, the balance of opinion is closely divided over whether gene editing that would give babies a much reduced risk of disease is morally acceptable (28%) or unacceptable (30%). The balance of opinion leans negative for brain chip implants (23% say this is morally acceptable and 37% say it is unacceptable) and synthetic blood (22% vs. 35%).

Asked to explain their reasons, many of those who said gene editing to give babies reduced risk of disease is morally unacceptable raised concerns that this “interferes with God’s plan” or is “messing with nature.”

On the other hand, some of those who say gene editing is morally acceptable reasoned that gene editing was similar to other kinds of medical advances and improvements society has made over time or that these emerging technologies will have positive effects for society.

Similar themes emerge when it comes to the moral acceptability of brain chip implants or synthetic blood substitutes. In thinking about moral objections to the possibility of brain chip implants, some respondents made explicit mentions of religion, especially concerning the similarity of this idea to the “mark of the beast” as foretold in the Bible’s book of Revelation.

Key patterns in Americans’ attitudes about human enhancements

Beyond these readings of overall opinion, several consistent patterns in people’s views about these human enhancements stand out. First, people’s opinions across all three scenarios are strongly connected with their religiosity. More religious Americans are, on average, less likely to embrace these potential types of human enhancement. This stands in contrast to more modest differences by religious affiliation and frequency of religious service attendance in the 2013 Pew Research Center report which explored public views about another form of human enhancement: radical life extension. And, a 2014 Pew Research Center survey found only a handful of issues where people’s religious beliefs and practices have a strong connection to their views about a range of science-related issues.

A second consistent pattern is that people are less accepting of enhancements that produce extreme changes in human abilities. And, if an enhancement is permanent and cannot be undone, people are less inclined to support it.

And, third, one demographic pattern stands out: Women are consistently more wary than men about these potential enhancements. At the same time, there are few differences in opinion across racial and ethnic groups, education and income levels, or age groups.

As a point of comparison, this study also examined public thinking about a handful of enhancements widely available today, including elective cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, skin or lip injections, cosmetic dental procedures to improve one’s smile, hair replacement surgery and vasectomy or tubal ligation procedures to prevent pregnancy. There is a similar strain to public views about current enhancement practices in that most Americans say “people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures in order to change their appearance in ways that are not really important.” And, when it comes to evaluations of elective cosmetic surgery, in particular, more say the downsides outnumber benefits for society than vice versa; about half of Americans say the benefits and downsides equal out. The next part of this report goes through those patterns in more detail.

Pattern 1: Public views are strongly connected with religious differences; the more religious are most negative while the least religious are most positive

People’s views about human enhancements are strongly linked with their religiosity. The Center created an index of three common measures of religious commitment – how people describe the importance of religion in their lives, how often they attend worship services and how often they pray⁷ Across all three human enhancement scenarios, the highly religious are much less positive about these human enhancements. Those who are less religious, by comparison, are much more likely to want each of these enhancements, to see them as akin to other ways humans have tried to better themselves and, on balance, to see them as morally acceptable and likely to bring more positives than negatives to society if implemented.

Some 63% of those with low religious commitment say they would want gene editing for their baby to reduce the risk of serious diseases and conditions. Just 34% of the most religious say the same, a difference of 29 percentage points. A similar pattern occurs when it comes to desire for an implanted device to dramatically improve one’s concentration and ability to process information; 44% of those low in religious commitment would want this, compared with 24% of those high in religious commitment. The figures are roughly the same in reaction to getting a transfusion with synthetic blood substitutes to dramatically improve one’s speed, strength and stamina.

More religious adults are more likely to assess each of these human enhancements as “meddling with nature,” crossing a line that should not be crossed. Six-in-ten or more of those high in religious commitment say this about gene editing to give babies a reduced risk of serious disease, brain chip implants to improve cognitive function and synthetic blood substitutes to improve physical abilities. By contrast, majorities of those low in religious commitment say each of these enhancements would be no different from other ways humans try to better themselves.

Differences by religiosity remain strong and significant even when taking into account other factors that tend to be related to religious commitment in modern America, such as gender, race and ethnicity, age and education. To give one example, when statistically controlling for other factors, those high in religious commitment are, on average, 32% more likely than those low in religious commitment to say gene editing that would give babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases is meddling with nature⁸

There are similarly strong differences by religious commitment levels in moral judgments about these enhancements. While a sizable minority says they are not sure about the moral acceptability of these enhancements, those high in religious commitment are more likely to say each of these ideas is morally unacceptable rather than acceptable by a ratio of about 2.5-to-1. But, the balance of opinion goes in the opposite direction among those low on the religious commitment index.

There also are substantial differences by religious affiliation in views about human enhancements. For example, 61% of white evangelical Protestants say gene editing that would give babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases would be meddling with nature, compared with half as many people with no religious affiliation who say this (31%).

Self-described atheists and agnostics, in particular, stand out from other religious groups on this question. Strong majorities of atheists (81%) and agnostics (80%) say gene editing to give healthy babies a much reduced chance of disease is similar to other ways humans have tried to better themselves over the years.

Negative reactions to human enhancement are particularly strong among the most committed white evangelical Protestants

In comparison with most other religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are less likely to want these enhancements and more likely to express reservations about these possible developments.

Reservations are particularly common among white evangelicals who are higher in religious commitment – that is, those who say religion is very important in their life, attend religious services at least weekly and engage in prayer every day.

For example, 28% of highly religious white evangelical Protestants say they would want gene editing for their baby, compared with 41% of white evangelicals with medium levels of commitment and 48% of the general public.

And, white evangelical Protestants who are highly religious are more inclined than those with a medium level of commitment to consider each of these enhancements as “meddling with nature” and crossing a line that should not be crossed. Some 69% of highly committed white evangelicals say this about gene editing, compared with 52% among those with a medium level of commitment.

Pattern 2: Enhancements that produce more extreme or permanent effects are seen as less acceptable

Public views about human enhancements are linked with the magnitude of change such enhancements are expected to bring as well as with their permanence. When considering an enhancement with more extreme effects – a change that would help a person operate “far above” their current abilities – fewer people say the enhancement would be an appropriate use of technology.

For example, only 28% of adults say a synthetic blood substitute would be an appropriate use of technology if it produced improvements to speed, strength and stamina that were “far above that of any human known to date.” By contrast, some 47% of adults say synthetic blood products would be appropriate if the magnitude of change was much smaller. In this case, that might mean a synthetic blood transfusion that helped a person reach their own peak abilities for speed, strength and stamina, rather than helping a person surpass their best efforts in the past.

In addition, people’s reactions to human enhancements are more positive if the effects are controllable or temporary. For example, 32% of adults say if the implanted devices giving people better concentration and cognitive processing abilities could be “turned on and off” they would be more acceptable. Far fewer adults (16%) say the ability to control the effects of an implanted device would make this idea less acceptable.

In thinking about a scenario in which the effects of a brain chip would be permanent and irreversible, about half of Americans (51%) say this would make the technology less acceptable to them. Only 8% say this would make it more acceptable.

Pattern 3: Women are consistently more wary than men about these potential enhancements

Men are more inclined than women to respond positively to each of the three kinds of human enhancement considered in the survey. Specifically, men are more likely than women to say they would probably or definitely want gene editing to give their baby a much reduced risk of serious disease, an implanted device to improve their concentration and information processing abilities or synthetic blood substitutes to improve their speed, strength and stamina.

Women are less inclined than men to consider each of these enhancements similar to other ways humans try to improve themselves. To give one example, some 54% of men (compared with 38% of women) say implanting devices in the brain to give healthy people a much improved ability to concentrate and process information is akin to other ways humans try to better themselves. Additionally, more women than men say such devices would be meddling with nature and crossing a line that should not be crossed.

While men and women are about equally likely to expect at least some change for society from each of these enhancements, men, more than women, say each of these enhancements would bring net benefits for society.⁹

The way people think about today’s enhancements, for example cosmetic surgery, has some similarity to the way they think about tomorrow’s potential enhancements

One factor in public reactions to these kinds of human enhancements could well stem from the fact that each is, as yet, only available in very limited circumstances and each is largely unfamiliar to the general public.

For comparison, the survey included a series of questions about “enhancing” procedures widely available today.¹⁰ The results suggest that most people accept modern cosmetic enhancements, even as they believe Americans are too quick to adopt these changes.

Overall, a majority of Americans (61%) say “people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures in order to change their appearance in ways that are not really important,” while 36% said “it’s understandable that more people undergo cosmetic procedures these days because it’s a competitive world and people who look more attractive tend to have an advantage.”

As is the case in views about the three more cutting-edge enhancements considered in this project, public views about cosmetic procedures generally tend to differ by religious commitment, although these differences are not as stark.

The survey asked for judgments about six specific kinds of procedures widely available today including elective cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, skin or lip injections, cosmetic dental procedures to improve one’s smile, hair replacement surgery and vasectomy or tubal ligation procedures to prevent pregnancy. Each of the six was judged to be an “appropriate use of technology” among half or more of the general population. Overwhelming majorities say laser eye surgery (89%) and cosmetic dental procedures to improve one’s smile (86%) are appropriate uses of technology. Smaller majorities say this about elective cosmetic surgery (62%) and skin or lip fillers (53%).

Public opinion about elective cosmetic surgery has a negative tinge: More judge the overall benefits of such surgery for society to be negative than positive (26% compared with 16%), even as a 54% majority says the net effects of cosmetic surgery on society are a wash.

Public judgments about potential effects for those who undergo cosmetic surgery are mixed. Some 26% of adults say those who have elective cosmetic surgery almost always “feel more confident and better about themselves.” While several focus group participants worried that future enhancements would result in unexpected side effects, just 8% of the general public says cosmetic surgery “almost always” leads to unexpected health problems; 63% say it sometimes does.

Understandably, the 4% of U.S. adults who say they themselves have had some kind of elective cosmetic surgery hold more positive views about it. And, people who tend to see the kinds of procedures widely available today in a negative light, saying, for example, that people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures that are not really important, are more wary about human enhancement from gene editing, brain chip implants or synthetic blood substitute.

Minimal differences by income, education on future enhancements, but there are more divides when it comes to enhancements widely available today

When it comes to the cutting-edge human enhancements considered in this report, there are surprisingly few differences in assessments across class lines: Neither education nor family income is a strong predictor of views. This is despite the fact that the most adults see future social inequality tied to unequal access to these human enhancements.

Those with higher family incomes are, however, more likely to have had one of six kinds of enhancements widely available today (e.g., laser eye surgery to enhance one’s vision or elective cosmetic surgery). And adults with middle- and higher-family incomes are more likely than those with lower incomes to say each of these six kinds of procedures available today is an appropriate use of technology. The same pattern occurs by education level, with college graduates more likely than those with a high school diploma or less schooling to say each of these procedures is an appropriate use of technology.

Similar reactions to future human enhancements among white, blacks and Hispanics

There are few differences in views about these cutting-edge human enhancements among whites, blacks and Hispanics. People in these three groups are about equally likely to say they would definitely or probably want gene editing for their baby, an implanted device for themselves or synthetic blood substitutes for themselves. And whites, blacks and Hispanics assess the potential benefits and downsides for society in similar ways.

Hispanics are a bit more likely than whites to consider gene editing for babies to be meddling with nature (54% of Hispanics say this, compared with 45% of whites). The share of blacks who say this (45%) is not statistically different than the shares of whites or Hispanics.

The similarity in views across racial and ethnic groups stands in contrast to views about a different kind of enhancement: radical life extension. A 2013 Pew Research Center survey on the idea of medical treatments that could potentially slow the aging process and extend the average person’s life expectancy by decades found blacks and Hispanics more likely than whites to say radical life extension would be a good thing for society. Blacks and Hispanics were also somewhat more likely than whites to say they would want life-extending treatments.

While this new study finds a number of similarities in judgments about these three types of enhancement, it is useful to remember that different patterns may emerge about other kinds of human enhancement.

Parents of minor children are more reluctant about gene editing for babies

Parents of minor-aged children are more hesitant than others about gene editing for babies. Parents are less inclined than others to say they would want gene editing for their babies to reduce the risk of serious diseases; they are more likely to consider this idea meddling with nature, to see it as morally unacceptable and to judge that it would bring more downsides than benefits for society as a whole.

While most parents fall within the middle age groups (ages 30 to 64), there are no more than modest generational divides over gene editing. And, views among adults by age differ only modestly, if at all, about using gene editing to improve the health and abilities of the healthy, when controlling for those who have minor age children.

Is change inevitable?

Whether or not the public generally wants human enhancements, most expect changes along these lines to occur within the next 50 years. Medical science is now only occasionally using artificially made human organs for transplants. As Americans consider the future, fully 81% expect such organs to be routinely available for transplant by the year 2066. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Americans say scientists will probably or definitely cure most forms of cancer by the year 2066.

When it comes to ideas closely linked with the three enhancements that anchor this survey, roughly half of adults (54%) think the idea of implanted computer chips is likely to be a routine occurrence in the future. Some 48% say humans will definitely or probably use implanted sensors to monitor or adjust all food and medications that enter the bloodstream by the year 2066. And a similar share of adults, 47%, foresees a future with almost no birth defects because of genetic modification of embryos prior to birth.

The potential genetic modification of humans and its ramifications have long been debated, but a recent scientific breakthrough in gene editing – a technique known as CRISPR – has raised the urgency of this conversation. In March and April of 2015, two separate groups of scientists published essays urging the scientific community to impose limits on genomic engineering, and the National Academies of Sciences, working in cooperation with the United Kingdom’s Royal Society and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, convened an international summit to discuss the science and policy of human gene editing. (For more details on these developments, see “Human Enhancement: The Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Striving for Perfection.”)

The Pew Research Center survey gauged, in broad terms, what the public thinks about the potential use of gene editing to enhance people’s health, in this case by reducing the probability of disease over a person’s lifetime.¹¹ Survey respondents were asked to consider a potential future scenario, republished in the accompanying sidebar, in which gene editing would be used to give healthy babies a much reduced risk of developing serious diseases. Gene-editing techniques are not currently being used in this way.

While many Americans say they would want to use such a technology for their own children, there is also considerable wariness when it comes to gene editing, especially among parents of minor children. Highly religious Americans are much more likely than those who are less religious to say they would not want to use gene-editing technology in their families. And, when asked about the possibility of using human embryos in the development of gene-editing techniques, a majority of adults – and two-thirds of those with high religious commitment– say this would make gene editing less acceptable to them.

This chapter focuses on these patterns and several others involving public attitudes about gene editing.

Despite some enthusiasm, the American public is largely wary about gene editing for babies

Americans have mixed emotional reactions to the possibility of using gene editing to reduce a baby’s risk of serious diseases, although more people express concern rather than enthusiasm. Fully two-thirds of U.S. adults (68%) say the prospect makes them either “very” or “somewhat” worried, while roughly half (49%) say they are “very” or “somewhat” enthusiastic about this technology. Three-in-ten adults are both enthusiastic and worried.

Asked to consider whether they would want this kind of gene editing for their own baby, Americans are split, with 48% saying they would want to use this technology for their child and a nearly identical share saying they would not. Parents who currently have a child under age 18 are less inclined than others to say they would want this kind of gene editing for their own baby; a clear majority of these parents (59%) would not want to use gene editing for their child.

Respondents also were asked whether they think “most people” would want to use gene-editing technology. Overall, a slim majority of Americans (55%) expect most people would want this kind of gene editing for their baby, while 42% say most people would not want this.

Those familiar with gene editing more inclined to want it for their own baby

Ideas about genetic modification and the potential for “designer babies” have been discussed among scientists, bioethicists and the broader public for some time.

When asked about their familiarity with gene editing, most Americans say they have heard either a little (48%) or a lot (9%) about this idea before, although a substantial minority (42%) had not heard anything about the possibility of gene editing before taking the survey.

Those who are at least somewhat familiar with the idea of gene editing are more inclined to say it is something they would want for their baby to reduce the child’s lifelong risk of certain serious diseases and conditions. Among those who have heard or read “a lot” or “a little” about gene-editing technology, 57% say they would want it for their child. But among those who had heard nothing at all prior to the survey, only 37% feel the same way.¹²

Strong religious divides in preferences about gene editing

Personal preferences about gene editing are strongly tied to differences in religious commitment and affiliation.

Respondents were classified into high, medium and low levels of religious commitment based on the self-described importance of religion in their lives, frequency of worship service attendance and frequency of prayer. A person who says religion is very important in their life and who says they attend religious services at least weekly and pray at least daily is considered to have a “high” level of religious commitment, while a person who says religion is “not too” or “not at all” important in their life and who seldom or never attends religious services or prays is placed in the “low” commitment category. All others are classified as having “medium” commitment.

A majority of people with high religious commitment (64%) say they would not want gene editing for their own baby. By contrast, a nearly identical share of Americans with low religious commitment say they would want to use the technology for their child. Americans with a medium level of religious commitment are closely divided, with 48% saying they would want gene editing for their baby and 50% saying they would not.

There also are wide differences in feelings about gene editing by religious affiliation. White evangelical Protestants, who tend to be highly religious compared with other groups, are among the least likely to want their baby to have gene editing to reduce the risk of certain serious diseases (61% would not want it).

By contrast, majorities of atheists (75%) and agnostics (67%) would want to use gene editing for this purpose. Those who say their religion is “nothing in particular” are closely divided on this question, as are Catholics (both white and Hispanic) and white mainline Protestants.

Americans closely split on whether gene editing crosses a line that should not be crossed

The survey asked respondents whether the idea of editing genes to give healthy babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions is in keeping with other ways that humans have always tried to better themselves or whether “this idea is meddling with nature and crosses a line we should not cross.” Americans’ judgments on this question are closely divided, with 51% saying this idea is no different than other ways humans try to better themselves and 46% saying this idea crosses a line.

As with personal preferences for gene editing, there are wide differences on this issue by religious commitment. Fully 64% of those with a high level religious commitment say the idea of gene editing for healthy babies goes too far and is meddling with nature. By contrast, seven-in-ten of those with low religious commitment say this technology is no different from other things humans do to better themselves.

A majority of white evangelical Protestants (61%) consider the idea of gene editing for healthy babies to be crossing a line that should not be crossed. Black Protestants and Catholics are more divided over this question. Meanwhile, about eight-in-ten self-identified atheists (81%) and agnostics (80%) and roughly six-in-ten of those with no particular religious affiliation (58%) consider the idea of gene editing to be in keeping with other ways that humans try to better themselves.

Uncertainty, divisions over moral acceptability of gene editing

There is a large degree of uncertainty among Americans about whether gene editing is morally acceptable. A plurality of Americans (40%) say they are not sure whether it would be morally acceptable or not to edit a baby’s genes to give that child a reduced risk of developing serious diseases in their lifetime. Those who do express an opinion are evenly divided between those who consider gene editing for this purpose morally acceptable (28%) and those who consider it morally unacceptable (30%).

Among those with a view about this issue, there are wide differences by religious commitment. People with high religious commitment are more likely to say gene editing is morally unacceptable, while the balance of opinion leans in the opposite direction among those low in religious commitment.

Moral judgments about gene editing also vary by religious affiliation. Relatively few white evangelical Protestants and black Protestants say it is morally acceptable; just 16% and 15%, respectively. But a majority of atheists (60%) and half of agnostics (50%) say gene editing is morally acceptable.

Atheists and agnostics, meanwhile, are unlikely to call gene editing morally unacceptable; only about one-in-ten in each group say this is the case. By contrast, 43% of white evangelical Protestants say gene editing is morally unacceptable.

Still, substantial shares across all major religious groups – including roughly half of black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics – say they are not sure whether gene editing is morally acceptable.

To better understand people’s thinking about these issues, the Pew Research survey asked respondents to explain, in their own words, the reasons for their moral judgments about gene editing. The most common reasons mentioned by those with moral objections to gene editing referenced a belief that it would be altering “God’s plan” (34%) or that it would be going against nature or crossing a line we should not cross (26%), with some linking this idea to treating humans as a science experiment.

Other reasons Americans find gene editing to be morally unacceptable include the possibility of someone abusing the technology (9%); unintended consequences that may not be readily apparent until after implementation (8%); and the feeling that editing the genes of already-healthy people is unnatural or unnecessary (5%). Some 28% of those who say gene editing is morally unacceptable gave a different reason for feeling this way; an additional 27% did not give a reason.

Overall, 28% of U.S. adults say gene editing to give healthy babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions would be morally acceptable. The most common reasons for this point of view linked gene editing to other ways humans strive to improve themselves (32%), including some who framed this concept in terms of a moral responsibility for humans to use these tools if available and for parents to protect and improve a child’s health to the greatest extent possible. Another 21% mentioned improvements to society that would stem from gene editing, such as greater safety, health and productivity.

A plurality of adults –40% – is uncertain about the moral acceptability of gene editing for this purpose. While many of these respondents are simply unsure of their thinking or need more information on this issue, those who offered an explanation for their views were more likely to cite negative (53%) than positive (11%) effects of gene editing for society.

Public expects more negative than positive outcomes for society from gene editing

If gene editing is used to give healthy babies a reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions, Americans expect society to change. Nearly half of adults (46%) say such a development would change society “a great deal,” while 35% say it would change society “some” and just 17% say it would bring “not too much” or no change to society as whole.

A majority of U.S. adults expect the advent of gene editing could lead to widespread negative consequences for society. About three-quarters of adults (73%) say this technology would likely be used before the health effects are fully understood, and seven-in-ten say inequality would be prone to increase because gene editing would only be available for the wealthy.

A sizeable share of the public also sees the potential for positive outcomes, too, including about half who see increases in confidence for recipients of gene editing.

Acceptance of gene editing slightly higher for health effects that are less extreme

The survey asked a number of questions to tease out the way different possible extents of gene-editing technology would affect public thinking about the issue. In a hypothetical scenario in which the health effects of gene editing would make a person far healthier than any human known to date, Americans are more likely to say it would be taking the technology too far (54%) than to say it would be an appropriate use of technology (42%).

By comparison, people are more positive about gene editing when it has less-extreme health effects. In alternate scenarios in which gene editing would make a person always equally healthy to the average person today or much healthier than the average person today, Americans are somewhat more likely to see this as an appropriate use of technology than to say it is taking technology too far.

Greater acceptance of gene editing if there is control of its effects

Americans are more inclined to see gene editing that would give healthy babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions as acceptable under conditions that give those undergoing such procedures more control. For example, 41% of U.S. adults say gene editing would be more acceptable to them if people could choose which diseases and conditions are affected by the genetic modifications. By the same token, if the effects of gene editing would be permanent and irreversible, 37% of adults say gene editing would be less acceptable.

A key concern among bioethicists stems from the potential long-term implications of a type of gene editing that could change the human gene pool, known as germline editing. A person who undergoes germline editing would pass along their modified genes to any descendants; alternatively, gene editing done only in somatic cells would not be passed on to future offspring. Asked specifically about this possibility, people are more reluctant to embrace gene editing when it could affect future generations. Roughly half of adults (49%) say gene editing would be less acceptable to them if the effects “changed the genetic makeup of the whole population.” By contrast, about a third of Americans (34%) say they see an alternate scenario in which the effects of gene editing are limited to a single person as more acceptable.

The details of how gene editing is accomplished and assessed for this purpose are complex. According to experts, gene editing – whether for therapeutic purposes or enhancement – is likely to involve testing on human embryos. Indeed, the first research using CRISPR on human embryos was approved in the UK as of February 2016. When survey respondents are asked to specifically consider the possibility that gene editing would involve testing on human embryos, most adults (54%) say this would make gene editing less acceptable to them.

The more religious Americans are, the more likely they are to oppose testing of gene-editing technology on human embryos. Fully two-thirds of highly religious adults say having to test the technology on human embryos would make gene editing less acceptable to them, compared with 42% of Americans with a low level of religious commitment.

When it comes to members of different religious groups, majorities of Protestants – including two-thirds of white evangelicals – and Catholics say gene editing that involved testing on human embryos would be less acceptable to them. Half of those with no particular religious affiliation (50%) also say testing on human embryos would make gene editing less acceptable.

Would benefits of gene editing outweigh downsides?

After answering a number of questions about personal reactions to this idea and the likely effects for society of gene editing for this purpose, respondents were asked for an overall take on the expected effects on society as a whole of gene editing to give healthy babies a reduced risk of serious diseases. Slightly more Americans expect the benefits for society would outnumber the downsides of gene editing (36%). But some 28% say the downsides would outpace benefits, and a third (33%) say the downsides and benefits would even out.

Those with a high level of religious commitment are more likely to say the downsides would outnumber the benefits to society than they are to say the benefits would be more numerous (38% vs. 23%). But the opposite is true of those in the low religious commitment category; 46% say the benefits would outnumber the downsides, while 18% say there would be more downsides.

About six-in-ten atheists (59%) and roughly half of agnostics (53%) say the benefits of gene editing for this purpose would outnumber the downsides for society overall, while relatively few in these groups say the downsides would be greater. People with other religious identities are more divided on this question.

The widespread availability of brain implants might seem like an idea from science fiction, but this may not be the case for much longer. For now, brain implants, also called neuroprosthetics, are available for medical patients with specific conditions. Cochlear implants are used by hundreds of thousands of people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Thousands of patients with Parkinson’s disease have a device implanted in their brain to send electrical pulses to help motor control. And, in April 2016, medical researchers from The Ohio State University and Battelle Medical Institute reported that they had helped a paralyzed patient regain control over movements of his right hand and fingers through the use of an implanted computer chip in the brain. (For more details on the science behind brain implants, see “Human Enhancement: The Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Striving for Perfection.”)

The Pew Research Center survey takes an early look at public opinion about the possibility of using similar brain implants in people without a specific medical need for the device. Respondents were given a brief hypothetical scenario, republished in the sidebar, involving the surgical implantation of a computer chip in the brain for the purpose of giving people a much improved ability to concentrate and process information. They were then asked a series of questions about this scenario.

Americans are much more likely to express concerns about implanting computer chips in human brains than they are to say they would be enthusiastic about such an idea. And about twice as many say they would not want to use this technology themselves than say they would sign up for such an implant. U.S. adults are also more likely to see this type of technology as morally unacceptable, although a considerable share say they are not sure about the moral implications. There are large differences in views about this technology among religious groups. Similar to their thoughts about gene editing, Americans who have high religious commitment are more likely to see such a device as “meddling with nature.”

Americans concerned about brain implants to improve information processing

Seven-in-ten Americans say they are “very” (28%) or “somewhat” (41%) worried about the possibility of technology that would allow an implanted computer chip in the brain to give healthy people an improved ability to concentrate, but only about a third are “very” (9%) or “somewhat” (25%) enthusiastic about this prospect. A majority (64%) say they are “not too” or “not at all” enthusiastic about this potential technology.

While 20% of adults are both worried and enthusiastic about this idea, many more (48%) say they are at least somewhat worried and either not too or not at all enthusiastic about this possibility.

In keeping with the widespread concern about computer chips in the brain, about two-thirds of Americans (66%) say they would not want to use this technology themselves. A third (32%) would want an implanted device that would give them a much improved ability to concentrate and process information.

Similarly, 36% of adults expect most other people would want such a device, while roughly six-in-ten (61%) say most others would not want this.

Those familiar with brain chip implants somewhat more inclined to want such a device

Despite some public discussion about implanted devices to treat serious medical conditions, a majority of U.S. adults (61%) say they have heard nothing at all about the idea of an implanted computer chip in the brain. About a third of Americans (32%) say they have heard a little about this, while relatively few (6%) say they have heard a lot.

Those who are more familiar with the use of implanted devices to improve brain function are more inclined to want it for themselves. Among those who had heard at least a little about this topic, four-in-ten say they would want to use such a device, compared with roughly three-in-ten (28%) of those who had heard nothing at all prior to the survey.

More religious Americans less likely to want a computer chip to improve brain function

As is the case with views of gene editing, personal preferences for implanted devices are correlated with religious commitment, although majorities of Americans across all religious observance levels say they would not want a chip implanted in their brain to improve cognitive function.

A large majority (73%) of those who score high on a three-item religious commitment index say they would not want this type of enhancement, compared with 24% who would want it. By comparison, 55% of those with low religious commitment say they would not want a brain chip, while 44% say they would want this. Among Americans with a medium level of religious commitment, 68% say they would not want such a device and 30% say they would want it.

There also are large differences by religious affiliation on whether people would want an implanted computer chip in their brain. White evangelical Protestants are the least likely of all the major religious groups to say they would want an implanted device to improve their ability to concentrate and process information; 77% of white evangelical Protestants say they would not want this, while 19% say they would. Majorities of white Catholics (70%), black Protestants (69%), Hispanic Catholics (69%) and white mainline Protestants (67%) concur, saying they would not want such a device.

By comparison, atheists and agnostics are more likely to want a computer chip in their brain to improve brain function. Some 58% of atheists and roughly half (48%) of agnostics say they would sign up to receive such technology.

Americans closely divided over whether brain chip is meddling with nature

The survey asked respondents whether they think an implanted device to give healthy people a much improved ability to concentrate and process information would be “no different” than other ways humans try to better themselves or, rather, would be “meddling with nature and crosses a line we should not cross.” Americans are closely divided on this question, with 46% saying a computer chip implanted in the brain would be no different than other ways humans try to improve themselves and 51% saying an implanted device to improve brain function is crossing a line and meddling with nature.

Responses to this question vary by religious commitment. Americans with low religious commitment (62%) are about twice as likely as those with high religious commitment (30%) to say an implanted device is similar to other things humans do to better themselves. And those with medium religious commitment are divided on this question, much like the general public as a whole.

There is also wide variation by religious affiliation on this question. White evangelical Protestants (69%) are most likely to say an implanted device crosses a line and would be meddling with nature, while atheists (72%) and agnostics (69%) are most likely to take the opposite position, saying this prospect is no different than other ways humans try to better themselves.

By comparison, Hispanic Catholics, black Protestants and those who describe their religious affiliation as “nothing in particular” are closely divided on this question.

Plurality of highly religious Americans say brain chip morally unacceptable

Given that most Americans are unfamiliar with this cutting-edge medical technology, it may not be surprising that a considerable share of respondents (38%) say they are not sure whether implanting a brain chip into a healthy person to improve cognitive function would be morally acceptable. Among those who express an opinion, more say this is morally unacceptable (37%) than say it is morally acceptable (23%).

Uncertainty about the moral implications of this technology exists among people of all levels of religious commitment; a third or more of those in low, medium and high commitment categories say they are unsure whether implanting a brain chip would be morally acceptable. But among people with high levels of religious commitment, a plurality (46%) say these implanted devices would be morally unacceptable, while just 14% say they are morally acceptable. The balance of opinion among those with low religious commitment is reversed, with 38% of this group saying these implanted devices would be morally acceptable and 25% saying they would be unacceptable.

There are wide differences across religious identity groups on whether an implanted device for improved concentration and information processing would be morally acceptable or unacceptable. Just 10% of white evangelical Protestants say such a device would be morally acceptable, while about half (52%) say it is morally unacceptable. The balance of opinion is the opposite among atheists, with 54% saying this technology would be morally acceptable and 16% saying it is morally unacceptable.

Sizable shares of all major religious groups, however, say they are not sure about the morality of these devices.

Those who said these implanted devices would be morally unacceptable also were asked to explain why they feel this way. About one-in-five (21%) mentioned the idea that an implanted computer chip would be changing God’s plan, including some respondents who cited the “mark of the beast” described in the book of Revelation in the Bible. About as many (19%) expressed the view that an implanted device would disrupt nature, crossing a line that should not be crossed. And a similar share cited a concern that these devices could be used for nefarious motives, such as being hacked and controlled by those in power (17%).

Others said this technology is morally unacceptable because it is unnecessary or because it would provide an unfair advantage to some (and perhaps exacerbate inequality).

Of the 23% who think these implanted devices would be morally acceptable, one common reason given is that humans are always improving and should be bettering themselves (25%). Some 17% said such devices would be morally acceptable because the choice to have one implanted would and should be up to the individual. And another 16% say this implanted computer chip is no different from currently available enhancements that help us to achieve similar results.

Chip implants expected to bring change, but most foresee negative outcomes

Most Americans say the use of implanted computer chips to improve cognitive function would change society either “a great deal” (48%) or “some” (31%). Just 18% of Americans say these devices would change society either “not too much” or “not at all.”

Americans are more inclined to expect negative effects from the availability of implanted computer chips to improve concentration rather than positive outcomes. Some 74% of Americans expect implanted devices will be available before their effects are fully understood. Additionally, similar shares say inequality will increase because implanted devices would be available only for the wealthy (73%) and that people who implanted devices will feel superior to those who do not (71%).

Fewer Americans, though still about half or more, foresee positive effects from implanted devices. About two-thirds (64%) say it is likely people who have computer chips in their brains will feel more confident about themselves and 55% say people will be more productive at their jobs with these devices. About half (51%) say widespread use of these devices will lead to new innovation.

Americans especially reluctant to enhance cognitive function beyond natural abilities

The survey sought to measure the extent to which people would be comfortable with this new human enhancement technology. Respondents were asked whether they would see the new development as “appropriate” or “taking technology too far” in a few different situations.

Americans are closely divided over whether an implanted device in the brain that gave people cognitive abilities equal to their own peak abilities is appropriate (47%) or taking technology too far (50%). But fewer (39%) say it would be an appropriate use of technology if it gave people abilities that were “much better than their own peak abilities before they had the implanted device.” And fewer still (30%) say it would be an appropriate use of technology if these implants gave people the ability to concentrate and process information at a level far above that of any human to date.

Americans more accepting of an implanted device if its effects temporary, controllable

People are more accepting of implanted devices to improve concentration if they are able to control the effects of the device.

In a hypothetical scenario in which people could turn on and off the brain-enhancing effects of an implanted chip, about a third of U.S. adults (32%) say they would find the technology more acceptable, while half as many (16%) say this condition would make it less acceptable. Meanwhile, if the effects of the implant were permanent and irreversible, fully half of Americans (51%) say it would be less acceptable to them.

More adults see downsides than benefits for society from brain chip implants

On balance, more Americans expect negative, rather than positive, effects for society from the prospect of an implanted device that would give healthy people much improved cognitive function. Some 41% of adults say the downsides would outnumber benefits for society, while only a quarter say the benefits would be greater. Another 31% expect the pluses and minuses to be about equal.

Those with high and medium levels of religious commitment say that, on balance, there would be more downsides than benefits for society from these implanted devices. But people with lower levels of religious commitment are more closely split, with 35% expecting more benefits and 31% more downsides for society. A sizeable share of each religious commitment category expects benefits and downsides to be about equal.

Protestants and Catholics are more inclined to say the downsides of these implanted devices would outnumber the benefits. About half of white evangelical Protestants (54%) say there would be more downsides, compared with 17% saying there would be more benefits than downsides.

Among the unaffiliated, atheists are more likely to say the benefits would outpace the downsides than to say the downsides would be greater (46% vs. 22%). Agnostics are closely divided (35% say there would be more benefits and 28% say there would be more downsides). And those who say their religious affiliation is “nothing in particular” are more likely to see the downsides from this type of human enhancement as outnumbering the benefits (40% vs. 25%).

New developments in biochemistry are creating the possibility of using a synthetic blood substitute (sometimes referred to as “super blood”) to significantly boost people’s oxygen levels in the bloodstream. With the synthetic blood substitute, a higher concentration of oxygen would be carried from the lungs to the muscles through the bloodstream and could significantly improve an individual’s physical speed, strength and stamina. This, in turn, could allow people to function in extreme conditions, or to simply perform everyday tasks with greater ease.

Synthetic blood is currently being developed mainly to help stem blood shortages for patients in need of a transfusion (see “Human Enhancement: The Scientific and Ethical Dimensions of Striving for Perfection” for more on the science behind this type of human enhancement). But the Pew Research Center survey addresses a different possibility – that synthetic blood could be used to give healthy people enhanced physical abilities. The full description of the scenario presented to survey respondents is republished in its entirety in the accompanying sidebar.

Most Americans appear skeptical about the idea of using synthetic blood substitutes in this way. For instance, most U.S. adults say they would be at least somewhat worried about this idea, and most people say they would not want to use such a product themselves. And similar to the other types of human enhancement discussed in this report, there are wide differences in views by religious commitment level, as well as by religious affiliation. Again, those who are highly religious are more likely to express the concern that this technology would be an unacceptable way of interfering with nature.

This chapter dives deeper into public views about the prospect of synthetic blood substitutes that would give healthy people much improved physical capabilities.

Public more negative than positive about synthetic blood substitutes

About a third of U.S. adults say they would be enthusiastic about the possibility of a synthetic blood substitute, including 10% who would be “very” enthusiastic and 27% who are “somewhat” enthusiastic. But many more people say they would be very (20%) or somewhat (42%) worried about the prospect of “super blood.” Roughly one-in-five (21%) Americans say they are both enthusiastic and worried about this technology.

When asked whether synthetic blood is something they would want for themselves, roughly a third of U.S. adults (35%) say yes, but a majority (63%) would not want synthetic blood in their own body. Respondents were also asked whether they expect “most people” would want this. A slim majority (53%) expect most people would not want to use this technology to increase their speed, strength and stamina, while 44% think most people would like to have synthetic blood for this purpose.

Those familiar with synthetic blood more likely to want it for themselves

The idea of “blood doping” – which uses a variety of techniques to boost oxygen levels, including the injection of substances such as erythropoietin and the removal and re-injection of one’s own blood – has been a topic of concern in professional sports. But when it comes to synthetic blood substitutes, a large majority of respondents (77%) say they had heard nothing at all about the idea of using this to boost physical abilities before taking the survey.

Among those who have heard at least a little about synthetic blood, nearly half (48%) say it is something they would want for themselves. This is larger than the share of those who had previously heard nothing about this technology who say the same (32%). A similar pattern is seen on all three types of human enhancement discussed in the survey.

Majorities across religious commitment categories would not want blood substitute

Highly religious people tend to be more opposed to the idea of using the possible enhancements mentioned in the survey, and synthetic blood is no exception. Those with lower levels of religious commitment are more likely than those who are highly religious to say they would want synthetic blood for themselves (43% vs. 26%).

But majorities of all three religious commitment categories say they would not want to use synthetic blood themselves. Among those on the low end of the three-measure religiosity scale (determined by frequency of worship service attendance, frequency of prayer and self-described importance of religion), 56% say they would not want the blood substitute. And among the highly religious, fully 71% say they would not want synthetic blood. Those whose level of religiosity falls in the middle closely mirror the general public on this issue.

Majorities of all major Christian groups say they would not want to use a synthetic blood substitute that would give them greater speed, strength and stamina. This includes roughly two-thirds of black Protestants (66%), white Catholics (68%), white mainline Protestants (69%) and white evangelicals (69%).

The religiously unaffiliated, overall, also lean toward not wanting a synthetic blood substitute (57% would not want it, vs. 42% who would). But atheists and agnostics are more narrowly divided over whether they would want this technology. By contrast, those who say their religion is “nothing in particular” fall clearly in the “would not want” camp.

Americans closely divided over whether synthetic blood is different from other forms of human betterment

The U.S. public overall is closely split between those who say using synthetic blood to increase speed, strength and stamina would be no different than other ways humans try to better themselves (48%) and those who say it is meddling with nature and crosses a line that should not be crossed (49%).

Most of those who display a low level of religious commitment (64%) say synthetic blood is similar to other ways humans try to better themselves. But the balance of opinion is flipped among those who are highly religious. Six-in-ten highly religious people (60%) say the use of “super blood” meddles with nature and crosses a line that should not be crossed, while 37% say the technology is no different than other methods of human enhancement.

There is wide variation of opinion on this question across religious groups. At one end of the spectrum, most white evangelical Protestants (64%) and white Catholics (60%) believe that a synthetic blood substitute would cross a line that should not be crossed. By contrast, 77% of self-described atheists and 72% of agnostics say synthetic blood is no different than other ways of humans have sought to better themselves over the years.

Much like the general public, white mainline Protestants, black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics are all closely divided on this question.

Many Americans unsure about morality of synthetic blood; more say it is morally unacceptable than acceptable

Americans overall are more likely to find synthetic blood morally unacceptable (35%) than to find it acceptable (22%). But much like reactions to the morality of the other types of human enhancement explored in this survey, a substantial share of U.S. adults – in this case, a 41% plurality – say they are not sure about the moral implications of using synthetic blood to give healthy people improved physical abilities.

Among highly religious Americans, more say synthetic blood is morally unacceptable than acceptable (43% vs. 16%). By contrast, those with a low level of religious commitment are twice as likely to find this technology morally acceptable than unacceptable (37% vs. 18%).

Members of all major Christian groups are more likely to say using a synthetic blood substitute would be morally unacceptable than to say it would be acceptable. White evangelical Protestants and black Protestants are roughly four times as likely to see this technology as morally unacceptable as they are to say it is acceptable. White mainline Protestants and white Catholics lean in the same direction, but by about a two-to-one margin.

But at the same time, large shares of many groups say they are not sure about the morality of this potential technology. For instance, 58% of black Protestants are unsure about whether synthetic blood would be morally acceptable.

By contrast, fully half of atheists (53%) say using synthetic blood would be morally acceptable, while just 11% say it would not be OK. And agnostics are twice as likely to say this type of human enhancement would be acceptable (35%) vs. unacceptable (17%); however, about half of agnostics (48%) are not sure about this.

The 35% of Americans who say synthetic blood would be morally unacceptable were also asked to explain why they feel this way. The most common concerns were that blood substitutes would disrupt nature and cross a line (25%), that this technology would be a form of trying to “play God” or that blood is religiously sacred (20%), and that blood substitutes seem unnecessary, especially for healthy people (17%).

Among the one-in-five U.S. adults (22%) who say synthetic blood substitutes for healthy people are morally acceptable, a quarter explained their reasoning by linking the technology to a broader, positive idea of human progress. Others (19%) said this type of enhancement is OK because it is similar to other kinds of enhancements that are already available, while 16% cited its potential positive effect on society. Some 12% of adults who see synthetic blood as morally acceptable said free choice and each person’s control over their own body explains their perspective.

Most expect enhancement using synthetic blood to bring negative effects for society

Fully three-quarters (76%) of U.S. adults anticipate at least some change to society should a synthetic blood substitute become available to enhance the physical abilities of healthy people. This includes equal shares of people who say society will change “a great deal” and those who say there will be just “some” change (38% each).

In general, U.S. adults are more likely to expect negative, rather than positive, outcomes as a result of using “super blood.” Some 73% say it is likely that synthetic blood will be used before the effects are fully understood. And 70% say it will increase inequality because this technology will be available only for the wealthy.

At the same time, most adults think those who have this synthetic blood substitute will feel more confident and better about themselves (61%). But fewer think synthetic blood will lead to greater work productivity (46%) or new innovation (39%).

Acceptance of synthetic blood is somewhat higher when effects are on a par with current physical abilities

On all three types of human enhancement mentioned in the survey, there is a pattern that the more extreme the effects of the hypothetical new technology, the less acceptance there is of that technology. When it comes to using synthetic blood to increase speed, strength and stamina in healthy people, Americans are closely divided on whether this is appropriate or “taking technology too far” if the blood substitute were to make a person’s abilities equal to their own natural, peak abilities.

But there is more opposition in more extreme scenarios. The survey asked whether the technology would be acceptable if it were to make a person’s abilities “much better than the average person today” or “far above that of any human to date.” In this first, “much better,” scenario, a clear majority (59%) of Americans say this would be taking technology too far. And if synthetic blood were to make a person’s abilities “far above that of any human to date,” nearly seven-in-ten (69%) say this is too much, while only 28% say it is an appropriate use of technology.

Lower public acceptance of synthetic blood if effects were to be permanent

The amount of human control over the effects of synthetic blood also plays a role in how acceptable people find the idea. In a scenario in which the technology would be controllable – that is, the recipient could turn the effects of the synthetic blood on and off – 28% of adults say the technology would be more acceptable to them. Just 17% say this would be less acceptable in their eyes, and most respondents say it makes no difference (53%).

By contrast, if the effects of a synthetic blood transfusion were permanent, a plurality of U.S. adults (48%) say this option would be less acceptable.

After considering the possible effects and outcomes of using a synthetic blood substitute for healthy people, a plurality of U.S. adults (41%) conclude that this technology would ultimately have more downsides for society than benefits. About a fifth (22%) say there would be more benefits than downsides, and a third (34%) judge that the pros and cons would be about equal.

Among those who are highly religious, nearly half (49%) say the downsides would outweigh any benefits; just 17% take the opposite view. Those with low levels of religious commitment are evenly split: 30% say the benefits would outweigh the downsides, and an equal share says the downsides would be greater.

Within every major Christian group, more people express the opinion that using a synthetic blood substitute to boost a healthy individual’s speed, strength and stamina would have more downsides for society than say the benefits would be greater. Among white evangelical Protestants, for example, fully half (52%) say downsides would be more prevalent, while just 14% say benefits would win out.

Even among the religiously unaffiliated, the balance of opinion falls toward the downsides outweighing the benefits (34% vs. 26%).

However, there are stark differences between atheists and those who say their religion is “nothing in particular.” Among atheists, 42% expect synthetic blood to bring more benefits for society than downsides (compared with the 19% who say downsides will win out). By contrast, among those who say they have no particular religion, those figures are roughly flipped: 44% expect the downsides to outweigh the benefits and 20% say society will experience more benefits than downsides with this technology in play.

While some types of potential human enhancements may seem like science fiction to observers not immersed in the world of biotechnology, there are any number of enhancements already available to the general public today. From laser eye surgery to teeth whitening, modern human enhancements are widely known today.

The theme of “everyday enhancements” arose first in the series of focus group discussions Pew Research Center held as part of the development of this survey. As people thought through the possibility of using cutting-edge enhancements such as gene editing, brain chip implants or synthetic blood in the future, many also drew connections to cosmetic surgery and other kinds of enhancements widely available today.

As a point of comparison, the survey also included a series of questions about the kinds of procedures people can undergo today.¹³

The survey finds most Americans express a “go slower” reaction to the kinds of enhancements widely available today, mirroring some of the concerns expressed about future possibilities. But at least half of Americans – and in some cases, large majorities – say each of six kinds of enhancement procedures (ranging from surgery to prevent conception to eye surgery to elective cosmetic surgery) is an appropriate use of technology.

As with future possibilities for human enhancement, public views about cosmetic and other enhancements widely available today are tied to religious commitment. However, the magnitude of differences by religious commitment and religious affiliation on these types of procedures is relatively modest, by comparison with views about potential enhancements available in the future.

Most Americans say people are too quick to use cosmetic procedures today

Respondents were asked which statement is closer to their view: that “people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures in order to change their appearance in ways that are not really important,” or that “it’s understandable that more people undergo cosmetic procedures these days because it’s a competitive world and people who look more attractive tend to have an advantage.” Most U.S. adults (61%) choose the first, more negative statement, while 36% say cosmetic procedures are understandable.

There are modest differences in views about the use of cosmetic procedures by religious commitment. This pattern aligns with the much stronger differences by religious commitment about potential use of cutting-edge technologies considered in earlier chapters of this report. Some 65% of those in the “high” religious commitment category say “people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures,” compared with 56% of those with a low level of religious commitment.

There are only small differences across religious tradition on this question. Large shares of all major religious groups, including those with no religious affiliation, say people are too quick to undergo cosmetic procedures in ways that are not really important.

Many people have at least indirect experience with enhancement procedures

To gauge familiarity with enhancements available today, the survey asked respondents whether they ever had any of several kinds of procedures, including elective cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, skin or lip injections, cosmetic dental procedures, hair replacement surgery or vasectomy/tubal ligation procedures. Altogether, about three-in-ten Americans (31%) have had at least one of these six procedures, and most adults (58%) know a close friend or family member who has had one or more.

Most of these procedures are cosmetic in nature, while two are not: contraceptive surgery and laser eye surgery.

Tubal ligation and vasectomy are akin to some of the potential future enhancements in that they involve a surgical procedure with a specific aim – in this case, contraception. A third of adults have a close friend or family member who has had this surgery, while 15% of adults say they have had either a vasectomy or tubal ligation procedure themselves.

Laser eye surgery, another procedure typically classified as an elective, cosmetic procedure, is included in this context because it is a bodily change aimed at enhancing one’s natural vision. Some 9% of adults report having had laser eye surgery themselves, while 32% have a close friend or family member who has done so.

About one-in-ten Americans (11%) also report having had cosmetic dental procedures to improve their smile, while smaller shares say they have had elective cosmetic surgery (4%), skin or lip injections (2%) or hair replacement surgery (1%).

As one might expect, direct experience with these procedures tends to vary by gender, income and age. Some 38% of women and 24% of men say they have had one or more of the six procedures. Four-in-ten (39%) of those with family incomes of $150,000 or higher have had at least one of these procedures, compared with 26% among those with family incomes under $30,000 annually. Personal experience with the six procedures also is more common among older adults; 40% of those ages 65 and older have had at least one of the procedures, compared with 19% among adults ages 18 to 29.

For the most part, Americans say each of these six procedures is an appropriate use of technology. Some 89% say laser eye surgery is an appropriate use of technology, while just 8% say this is taking technology too far. A similarly large majority (86%) say cosmetic dental procedures to improve one’s smile are an appropriate use of technology, while 76% say the same about both hair replacement surgery and vasectomy or tubal ligation surgery.

A smaller majority (62%) says elective cosmetic surgery is an appropriate use of technology, and a slim majority (53%) says this about the use of skin and lip fillers (such as Botox or hyaluronic acid).

Differences by education and income are apparent in people’s views about the enhancements available today, particularly between those at the lowest levels of income and education compared with those in the middle and higher levels.

People with incomes of $75,000 or higher are particularly likely to say each of these six types of enhancements is an appropriate use of technology.¹⁴ For instance, 78% of Americans in this income bracket say elective cosmetic surgery is an appropriate use of technology, compared with just half (49%) of those with family incomes under $30,000 – a gap of 29 percentage points.

Differences by educational attainment follow a similar pattern. For example, those with a college or postgraduate degree are more likely than adults with a high school degree or less schooling to say surgery to prevent pregnancy is an appropriate use of technology (86% vs. 65%).

Most Americans say cosmetic surgery is appropriate, but few see it as having more benefits than downsides for society

In focus group discussions with people around the country, some respondents talked about the similarity between the kinds of enhancements that may be available in the future and cosmetic surgery that is common now. Some focus group participants argued that both future human enhancements and cosmetic surgery were unnecessary and reflective of human vanity.

When asked specifically about cosmetic surgery, a majority of Americans (62%) say it is an appropriate use of technology, while about a third (34%) say it takes technology too far. There are sizeable differences on this question depending on personal experiences. An overwhelming majority of those who have had cosmetic surgery themselves (85%) say it is an appropriate use of technology. By contrast, 58% of those who have not had such a procedure and who do not have close friends or family who have had one say it is an appropriate use of technology, while 39% of this group says this is taking technology too far.

Those with lower levels of religious commitment are most inclined to say cosmetic surgery is an appropriate use of technology (73%). Among those who are highly religious, 55% say cosmetic surgery is appropriate and 39% say it takes technology too far.

Majorities of most major religious groups say cosmetic surgery is an appropriate use of technology. Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics are more closely divided on this issue, as are blacks and Hispanics overall.

The general public appears somewhat skeptical about the psychological benefits of cosmetic surgery. About a quarter of Americans (26%) say cosmetic surgery “almost always” makes people feel more confident and better about themselves, but a majority (56%) say this only occurs “some of the time.”

About half of those who have had elective cosmetic surgery (53%) say it almost always makes people feel more confident and better about themselves. Fewer among those without such personal experience say the same, including 35% of those who have close friends or family who have had elective cosmetic surgery and 23% of those with neither type of personal connection to a cosmetic procedure.

On the other hand, just 8% of U.S. adults say cosmetic surgery “almost always” leads to unexpected health problems. Most (63%) say this sometimes occurs. Those who have had elective cosmetic surgery are less likely than others to say unexpected health problems occur at least some of the time.

Overall, about half of Americans (54%) say elective cosmetic surgery leads to both benefits and downsides for society, with a smaller share (26%) expressing the belief that there are more downsides than benefits. Relatively few (16%) say there are more benefits than downsides.

Again, those who have had elective cosmetic surgery are more likely to express positive views about it. 39% of people in this group say cosmetic surgery has more benefits than downsides for society, while just 12% say it has more downsides. But like the general population, about half (49%) say the benefits and downsides for society are roughly equal.

Religious commitment and affiliation do not have a significant effect on views of overall benefits and downsides of cosmetic surgery for society.

The possibilities for human enhancement stem from new scientific and technological innovations. And even though many Americans have reservations about the potential use of cutting-edge biomedical developments considered in earlier chapters, large shares say they think of science and technology, writ large, as mostly beneficial forces in American society.

Two-thirds of U.S. adults (67%) say science has had mostly positive effects on society, while 27% say there have been roughly equal positive and negative effects and just 4% say the effects have been largely negative. This finding is in line with a 2014 Pew Research Center study and others showing generally positive views about the effect of science on society.

Overall, views about the effects of technology are also largely positive, if a bit less so in comparison with science. About half of adults (52%) say technology has had mostly positive effects, compared with 38% who say there have been an equal mix of positive and negative effects of technology. Just 8% say technology has had mostly negative effects.

Many Americans see science as having positive effects from health and medicine

The survey asked an open-ended question to give respondents a chance to explain, in their own words, why they feel the way they do about science’s effect on society. Some 67% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society; the most common reasons cited are related to medicine and health (59% of this group), including improvements in medical research, quality and longevity of life, and treatment of disease.

Other ways science is seen to benefit society include overall knowledge and reasoning skills (19%), technology improvements (15%) and environmental benefits and awareness about environmental issues (14%).

Just 4% of adults say the effect of science has been primarily negative. This group of 60 survey respondents is not large enough to analyze separately.

Technology seen as positive, especially for quickly and easily sharing information

Overall, 52% of U.S. adults say the effect of technology has been largely positive. Within this group, 57% cite the vast network of information and communication that is available, easily accessed and shared across the world as a benefit for society. Another 21% see improvements to health, medicine and medical research as benefits of technology.

Other ways technology is seen to have a positive effect on society include increased knowledge and understanding, improvements in industry and jobs and an interconnectedness of the world as a result of globalization.

Just 8% of Americans say technology has mostly had negative effects on society. The leading reason for this perspective is the feeling that technology has led to a breakdown of communication and human interaction (41% of this group). Another 28% say technology has degraded society’s morals and values, leading to a reliance on instant gratification and promoting negativity. Others complain that technology has led to an inability to handle normal tasks (20%) or to the misuse of widely available information (16%).

This report is made possible by the Pew Charitable Trusts. This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals. Find related reports online at pewresearch.org/pewresearch-org/science

Primary research team

Lee Rainie, Director, Internet, Science, Technology Research Alan Cooperman, Director, Religion Research Cary Funk, Associate Director, Research     Greg Smith, Associate Director, Research Brian Kennedy, Research Associate Elizabeth Sciupac, Research Associate        Meg Hefferon, Research Assistant   Monica Anderson, Research Associate

Collaborating research team

Claudia Deane, Vice President, Research Courtney Kennedy, Director, Survey Research Kyley McGeeney, Research Methodologist Andrew Mercer, Research Methodologist Nick Hatley, Research Assistant

Editorial and graphic design

Sandra Stencel, Associate Director of Editorial Michael Lipka, Senior Editor Aleksandra Sandstrom, Copy Editor Margaret Porteus, Information Graphics Designer

Communications and web publishing

Dana Page, Senior Communications Manager Shannon Greenwood, Associate Digital Producer 

Outside advisers

A number of outside experts helped guide the research in this report. We received valuable advice from Nick Allum, professor of sociology, University of Essex; E. Christian Brugger, professor of moral theology, St. John Vianney Theological Seminary; Anne M. Dijkstra, assistant professor of science communication, University of Twente; Kevin T. FitzGerald, chair in Catholic Health Care Ethics, Georgetown University Medical Center; Patrick Sturgis, professor of research methodology, University of Southampton. We also benefited from conversations with James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies during the development of the project. While the design and analysis of the project was guided by our consultations with these advisers, the Pew Research Center is solely responsible for the design, interpretation and reporting of the data.

This report is drawn from two surveys conducted as part of the American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults living in households. Respondents who self-identify as internet users and who provided an email address participate in the panel via monthly self-administered web surveys, and those who do not use the internet or decline to provide an email address participate via the mail. The panel is being managed by Abt SRBI.

Data in this report are drawn primarily from the March wave of the panel, conducted March 2-28, 2016, among 4,726 respondents (4,243 by web and 483 by mail). The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 4,726 respondents from the March wave is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.

¹⁵

Participating panelists provided either a mailing address or an email address to which a welcome packet, a monetary incentive and future survey invitations could be sent. Panelists also receive a small monetary incentive after participating in each wave of the survey.

The ATP data were weighted in a multistep process that begins with a base weight incorporating the respondents’ original survey selection probability and the fact that in 2014 some panelists were subsampled for invitation to the panel. Next, an adjustment was made for the fact that the propensity to join the panel and remain an active panelist varied across different groups in the sample. The final step in the weighting uses an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and region to parameters from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014 American Community Survey. Population density is weighted to match the 2010 U.S. Decennial Census.

Telephone service is weighted to estimates of telephone coverage for 2016 that were projected from the January-June 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Volunteerism is weighted to match the 2013 Current Population Survey Volunteer Supplement. Internet access is adjusted using a measure from the 2015 Survey on Government. Frequency of internet use is weighted to an estimate of daily internet use projected to 2016 from the 2013 Current Population Survey Computer and Internet Use Supplement. It also adjusts for party affiliation using an average of the three most recent Pew Research Center general public telephone surveys. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish, but the Hispanic sample in the American Trends Panel is predominantly native born and English speaking.

The margins of error tables show the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey. Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

The web component of the March wave had a response rate of 68% (4,243 responses among 6,267 web-based individuals in the panel); the mail component had a response rate of 68% (483 responses among 710 non-web individuals in the panel). Taking account of the combined, weighted response rate for the recruitment surveys (10.0%) and attrition from panel members who were removed at their request or for inactivity, the cumulative response rate for the March ATP wave is 3%.¹⁶

Additional survey data

Some data in this report are also drawn from the April wave of the same panel, conducted April 5-May 2, 2016 among 4,685 respondents (4,207 by web and 478 by mail). The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 4,685 respondents from the April wave is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points. Sample sizes and sampling errors for subgroups in this wave are available upon request.

The web component of the April wave had a response rate of 83% (4,207 responses among 5,091 web-based individuals in the panel); the mail component had a response rate of 77% (478 responses among 625 non-web individuals in the panel). Taking account of the combined, weighted response rate for the recruitment surveys (10.0%) and attrition from panel members who were removed at their request or for inactivity, the cumulative response rate for the April ATP wave is 3%.¹⁷

Questionnaire development and testing

Pew Research Center developed the questionnaire for this study. The design of the questionnaire was informed by the results of six focus groups and additional pretests with a non-probability sample, as well as input from Pew Research Center staff and six external advisers on the project.

Focus groups. Pew Research Center conducted a series of six focus groups around the country from Jan. 19-Feb. 4, 2016, designed to gain insight into Americans’ reasoning about the possibility of human enhancements. The groups focused on longer versions of the three scenarios that were presented in the national adult survey: gene editing to reduce disease risk, brain chip implants to improve cognitive abilities and synthetic blood substitutes to improve physical abilities. This is not an exhaustive list of potential human enhancements. The focus group discussions focused on the kinds of moral and practical considerations people bring to bear in thinking about these issues. The focus group moderators asked participants to consider the potential use of these enhancements for healthy people, not those who are sick or in need. See “American Voices on Ways Human Enhancement Could Shape Our Future” for further details on the focus groups.

Pilot testing questions. Pew Research Center conducted 17 online, nonprobability surveys to test question wording options for the questionnaire. These pilot tests were also used to test the information presented about each of the three types of human enhancement. The pilot tests were completed from January through February, 2016. Each survey had an average of 100 respondents, ages 18 and older, and was conducted entirely online. Each individual pilot test covered a single type human enhancement (e.g., gene editing) and covered only a short set of about 10 questions.

Outside advisers. Pew Research Center also consulted with a number of expert advisers, listed in the acknowledgements section above, to inform the development of the questionnaire, including the scenarios or vignettes describing each type of human enhancement. We are grateful to this group for their input, but Pew Research Center bears full responsibility for the questionnaire design and analysis.

Religious commitment index

Survey respondents were classified into high, medium and low levels of religious commitment based on three indicators: frequency of religious service attendance, self-reported importance of religion in their lives and frequency of prayer. Those who attend worship services at least weekly, pray at least once a day and say religion is very important in their lives are classified as high in religious commitment. Those low in commitment say religion is not too or not at all important in their lives, that they seldom or never attend worship services and seldom or never pray. All others are classified as exhibiting a medium level of religious commitment.