Medicine & Science Research

Ipsos MORI Medicine & Science Research provides research to healthcare clients around the world, and to UK Government departments and other not-for-profit organisations. Much of its work is conducted prior to the launch of medical campaigns, or on science subjects. The results from many of the studies have been presented at high profile medical international conferences, or at UK science conferences.

Some examples of our work include:

Views on Animal Experimentation 2007 Report  — Wednesday 04 June 2008

This report presents the findings of a survey on public attitudes towards animal experimentation.  Overall, British adults are fairly positive about the way animal experimentation is regulated.  Two-thirds trust the inspectors of animal facilities to uncover any misconduct that may be occurring.  The research was conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.  Ipsos MORI has been conducting research among the general public on the subject of animal experimentation since 1999.  In previous years the work has been carried out on behalf of the Medical Research Council (in 1999), New Scientist magazine (in 1999), the Coalition for Medical Progress (in 2002 and 2005), and the Department of Trade and Industry (in 2006).

Trust In Professions 2007 — Pub: Thursday 08 May 2008

The changing role of doctors has not diminished their standing among the general public, as the results of an Ipsos MORI poll conducted on behalf of the RCP show. Trust in doctors, among adults in Great Britain, has been high since measurements began almost 25 years ago. Furthermore, 90% of GB adults trust their doctor to give accurate information; and almost as many trust them to have their interests at heart, reflecting the continued importance which patients place on their relationship with their doctor when making decisions about their healthcare.

UK Public Is Largely Positive About Science for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry

A MORI report for the government's Office of Science and Technology, Department for Trade and Industry on "Science in Society" was released today by Patricia Hewitt, Trade and Industry Secretary, who called for greater engagement and dialogue to help the UK retain its position as the best place in the world for science.

GM Food: Public Opinion for the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Centre for Environmental Risk

We conducted one of the largest and most comprehensive surveys in recent years, on attitudes to risk. The survey and analysis were funded in part by the Leverhulme Trust and in part by the Economic and Social Research Council's Science in Society programme. The research examined public perceptions in Britain of each of five risk issues: climate change, radiation from mobile 'phones, radioactive waste, GM food and genetic testing. The results were presented at a parliamentary seminar in January 2003.

The Use Of Animals In Medical Research for The Coalition for Medical Progress

A further piece of MORI research on views on animal experimentation was published recently in March 2003. This re-examined views three years on.

Attitudes to Human Genetics Information for The Human Genetics Commission

Conducted among over 1,000 members of The People's Panel, with a booster of black and Asian respondents, the research examined public understanding of genetics and human genetic information. The results revealed broad support for possible future benefits offered by human genetic research, but several misgivings about the regulation of such developments in the future (e.g. the use of such information for setting insurance premiums). The research complemented HGC's own consultation 'Whose Hands on Your Genes?'.

The Role of Scientists in Public Debate for The Wellcome Trust

Conducted among over 1,600 scientists across 41 universities and in Research Council-funded institutes the research examined how scientists themselves perceive increasing calls for them to become more involved in communicating their research to the public, and to increase dialogue on the social and ethical implications of this research. The findings revealed that scientists do feel they have a duty to communicate, but not all feel equipped to do so. Even fewer felt capable of explaining the social and ethical implications of their research, perhaps because many have never received any relevant training to communicate.

Public Support For Controversial Technologies for Novartis

This examined people's levels of support for various forms of biotechnology per se, and then the degree to which they might alter their view if it could be proven that certain developments could arise from biotechnology (e.g. a cure for Alzheimer's disease). The results were presented at The Annual Conference of the BA (The British Association for The Advancement of Science) at The University of Sheffield.

Attitudes Towards Animal Experimentation for The Medical Research Council

Using both focus groups and a quantitative survey of over 1,000 adults, MORI examined attitudes towards animal experimentation for the MRC, the circumstances in which it is perceived to be justified, and preferred sources of information on this subject. This research complemented other MORI work on the subject, for New Scientist.

The work for the MRC is covered in Science & Public Affairs. 'Begin by Listening — Debate about the use of animals in research is often polarised, but the public's attitudes are in fact much more complex'; Michele Corrado August 2000. This article examined the complexity of the public's views about something on which much science has always depended — animal experimentation. It was written at a time when the new emphasis on dialogue about science and its impact on society, rather than on simply public understanding, had emerged from the Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (March 2000). Michele also gave evidence to this HOL committee — prior to the publication of their Third Report, on stakeholders' views on science.

'The Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences', for the OST (Office of Science and Technology), (1998/9)

Against a backdrop of numerous developments in science and biotechnology, an initiative to consult the public was announced by John Battle (then Science Minister) in Autumn 1997. The aim was to investigate public attitudes to developments in biotechnology and their oversight.

This work was groundbreaking in terms of its achievements on public dialogue on complex issues, and specifically on science issues. The results also inputted into the Cabinet Office Review of the Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology in the UK. Other Government departments and many other bodies were sent the findings.

The research findings confirmed the need to have independent commissions set up in response to the public's call for greater transparency. While Government may have proceeded in the same direction even without the research, the findings confirmed the need to engage with the public. One year on, the House of Lords Select Committee report on Science and Technology emphasised the need for dialogue about current science and its impact on society. The results (and other forms of consultation) indicated that the (then) current regulatory and advisory arrangements were complex, difficult for the public to understand, and did not properly reflect the broader ethical and environmental questions of potential stakeholders. They were also not deemed to be sufficiently forward-looking for so rapidly developing a technology. Consequently, two new biotechnology-specific bodies were created: The HGC and The AEBC. The former reports jointly to Health and Science Ministers and advises Government on how new developments in human genetics will impact on people and on health care; and the latter reports directly to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and advises on 'non-human' and 'non-food' aspects of biotechnology.

The Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences pdf, 470KB