Showing posts with label Club. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Club. Show all posts

Monday, 1 August 2016

5. From plastic surgery to vasectomies: Public opinion on current human enhancement options

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. Most members 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.


 



  1. These questions were asked in a survey conducted about a month later than the main survey covering gene editing, implanted devices and synthetic blood substitutes. See Methodology for details.

  2. For an update on upper, middle and higher income levels in the U.S. see Pew Research Center’s May 2016 report, “America’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas.”





Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/feed/



5. From plastic surgery to vasectomies: Public opinion on current human enhancement options

6. Public sees science and technology as net positives 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%).





Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/feed/



6. Public sees science and technology as net positives for society

Acknowledgments

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/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.


 





Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/feed/



Acknowledgments

Domain Portfolio Investors Turn to Astoria Company to Better Monetize Their Assets

DUBLIN, Calif., July 31, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Long ago people discovered how valuable a great domain is for business. Some buy a domain name to …


Source: domainers mag



Domain Portfolio Investors Turn to Astoria Company to Better Monetize Their Assets

Does the domain name has to do with Ad-sense rejection?

Hi, I was wondering if the name of my domain: elkepon.com has to do with the fact that ad-sense rejected me. I know about the content and the about …


Source: domainers mag



Does the domain name has to do with Ad-sense rejection?

Doron Vermaat Looks to be liquidating his BrandBucket Portfolio

Well after publishing an article on Saturday about Namepros becoming the wholesale arm of BrandBucket, here comes one of the biggest portfolio sales by a noted brandable domainer.


Doron Vermaat owner of DNGeek.com and co – founder of Efty.com, has put a 68 name published portfolio on Namepros.


The names will be sold as one lot. Doron is one of the best brandable domainers out there IMO. I am sure he has his reasons for selling and wish him the best of luck.


I believe this auction will result in more people putting portfolios for sale as they lose confidence in getting a sale at retail pricing.


It may make sense to wait til Doron’s auction closes. I had just put a Winner’s Choice auction up on three of my published names.





Source: domainers mag



Doron Vermaat Looks to be liquidating his BrandBucket Portfolio

Verisign Buys .web Domain Rights For US$135 million

Question marks over the worth or otherwise of strategic top-level domain names have been answered in emphatic style, with the rights for the .web …


Source: domainers mag



Verisign Buys .web Domain Rights For US$135 million

Which extensions protect your brand better worldwide?

Today: What will a .WEB launch do to the value of .XYZ, .Club, .TOP, etc? / When does untargeted traffic work? / Brandable domain name sales week 31: Veda.com, Bink.com, CodeFactory.com/ And more.


Here are the new discussions and domain news that caught my eye today.


Kredit.Guru – Estibot says $3,200 USD – Do you think this domain is actually worth what estibot says?


cheap .org domain transfer? – Anyone know of a cheap ,org transfer code or a registrar with some specials running?


IEI.tech – How much is this one worth?


When does untargeted traffic work? – Anyone have a game plan for untargeted traffic and how to properly monetize it?


What will a .WEB launch do to the value of .XYZ, .Club, .TOP, etc? – Some interesting debate going on regarding the continued battle between new gTLD’s. What’s your take on it?


Brandable domain name sales week 31: Veda.com, Bink.com, CodeFactory.com – Some interesting brandable domain sales reports to sink your teeth into.


Which extensions protect your brand better worldwide? – Anyone out there good with international IP/TM law that could offer some advice?





Source: domainers mag



Which extensions protect your brand better worldwide?

Chinese domain market report : Dutch man awaits girlfriend for 10 days

A Dutch man has been waiting for his Chinese “girlfriend” for 10 full days, at the Changsha Huanghua International Airport in China. Wow. The love-struck, creepy looking 41 year old expected to meet his 20-something online crush at the airport, but she never showed up. Maybe she’s not really a woman, let alone one who […]


Copyright DomainGang





Source: domainers mag



Chinese domain market report : Dutch man awaits girlfriend for 10 days

Sunday, 31 July 2016

Horizon Dairy Upgrades to Horizon.com

When I saw this, I added the Horizon.com domain name to my DomainTools Whois monitor and kept an eye on it to see if any Whois changes …


Source: domainers mag



Horizon Dairy Upgrades to Horizon.com

Apple Sells Its Billionth iPhone and Buys Its Billionth iPhone Name License From Cisco (World’s Most EXPENSIVE Name Ever!)

The Frager Factor The Frager Factor: Facebook Rides Video to More Than $6 Billion in Ad Sales; How Do You Start Innovation with an Idea, like Airbnb?; Sponsored content is turning publishers into full-service agencies; 3 Things You Need To Stand Out In Content Marketing; Should You Tell The Boss You’re Looking For Another Job? Are top CEOs worth their eye-popping pay? New report says no… and.. Uber co-founder launches new real


The post Apple Sells Its Billionth iPhone and Buys Its Billionth iPhone Name License From Cisco (World’s Most EXPENSIVE Name Ever!) appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.





Source: domainers mag



Apple Sells Its Billionth iPhone and Buys Its Billionth iPhone Name License From Cisco (World’s Most EXPENSIVE Name Ever!)

Father Domainicus : The Evil Church of dot .Web

Greetings and salutations, my beloved brothers and sisters in domaining; this is Father Domainicus, on a rather hot and humid Sunday afternoon. Many a domain investor asked me recently, Father Domainicus, what is the future of the Domain Church? A rather profound question. At first, this appears to be a question of anxiety over the […]


Copyright DomainGang





Source: domainers mag



Father Domainicus : The Evil Church of dot .Web

Apple Sells Its Billionth iPhone and Buys Its Billionth iPhone Name License From Cisco (World’s Most EXPENSIVE Name Ever!)

The Frager Factor The Frager Factor: Facebook Rides Video to More Than $6 Billion in Ad Sales; How Do You Start Innovation with an Idea, like Airbnb?; Sponsored content is turning publishers into full-service agencies; 3 Things You Need To Stand Out In Content Marketing; Should You Tell The Boss You’re Looking For Another Job? Are top CEOs worth their eye-popping pay? New report says no… and.. Uber co-founder launches new real


The post Apple Sells Its Billionth iPhone and Buys Its Billionth iPhone Name License From Cisco (World’s Most EXPENSIVE Name Ever!) appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.





Source: domainers mag



Apple Sells Its Billionth iPhone and Buys Its Billionth iPhone Name License From Cisco (World’s Most EXPENSIVE Name Ever!)

Obama’s Surrenders Control of the Internet

The key to the control America has over the Internet is through the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the giant servers that service …


Source: domainers mag



Obama’s Surrenders Control of the Internet

Casi 100 nuevos gTLD en los Ășltimos 2 meses

Blog Dominios Blog Dominios: Casi cualquier palabra, frase o cadena tiene potencial como nuevo gTLD, aunque hay que pagar unos 185.000 dólares iniciales (165 mil euros) a la ICANN para hacerse con uno, sin contar con el proceso de aprobación e incluso las posibles subastas en caso de que varios solicitantes quieran hacerse con el mismo. Hay muchas posibilidades con respecto a los nuevos gTLD en la actualidad y cada vez son más los que lo saben. Cuando se delega un nuevo gTLD ya puede verse en internet. En los meses de junio y julio del 2016 se han puesto en marcha cerca de 100 nuevos gTLD, concretamente 95 nuevas extensiones de dominio en estos últimos 60 días. Algunos de ellos ya pueden llevar a una web si se añade nic antes del gTLD, aunque no en todos los casos. Indicamos cuáles son los nuevos 95  gTLD puestos en marcha en los últimos 60 días: able airbus allstate alstom anz art audible bbt beauty bestbuy blanco cam cbre chintai comcast cookingchannel deal dhl doctor duck dunlop dupont epost ericsson farmers fedex fire foodnetwork frontdoor fujitsu fujixerox games godaddy goodhands goodyear hgtv hisamitsu homegoods homesense ieee ikano imdb intuit itv kindle kosher lancome lefrak lego […]


The post Casi 100 nuevos gTLD en los últimos 2 meses appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.





Source: domainers mag



Casi 100 nuevos gTLD en los últimos 2 meses

Link this slide not changing the domain name

hi again. i migrated the site from one domain to another one and use a script to change every instance of the old domain to the new one. except the …


Source: domainers mag



Link this slide not changing the domain name

Thoughts About Verisign’s $135 Million Dollar .Web Acquisition & What It Means For Domainers

TheDomains TheDomains: I didn’t write much leading up to the Verisign (VRSN) acquisition of .Web for $135 Million this week, but I have plenty of thoughts about it. First and foremost it’s a no brainier for Verisign. Forget the $1.9 Billion they have sitting in the bank and focus in on the over $9 Billion dollar valuation […]

The post Thoughts About Verisign’s $135 Million Dollar .Web Acquisition & What It Means For Domainers appeared first on TheDomains.com.


The post Thoughts About Verisign’s $135 Million Dollar .Web Acquisition & What It Means For Domainers appeared first on iGoldRush Domain News and Resources.





Source: domainers mag



Thoughts About Verisign’s $135 Million Dollar .Web Acquisition & What It Means For Domainers

Thoughts About Verisign’s $135 Million Dollar .Web Acquisition & What It Means For Domainers

Donuts offered just $70 Million for all of Rightside’s (NAME) strings which at … For domain investors who participate in auction for domain names its …


Source: domainers mag



Thoughts About Verisign’s $135 Million Dollar .Web Acquisition & What It Means For Domainers

Acknowledgments

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/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.


 





Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/feed/



Acknowledgments

Methodology

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.


Members of the American Trends Panel were recruited from two large, national landline and cellphone random-digit dial (RDD) surveys conducted in English and Spanish. At the end of each survey, respondents were invited to join the panel. The first group of panelists were recruited from the 2014 Political Polarization and Typology Survey, conducted Jan. 23 to March 16, 2014. Of the 10,013 adults interviewed, 9,809 were invited to take part in the panel and a total of 5,338 agreed to participate.15 The second group of panelists were recruited from the 2015 Survey on Government, conducted Aug. 27 to Oct. 4, 2015. Of the 6,004 adults interviewed, all were invited to join the panel, and 2,976 agreed to participate.16


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%.17


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%.18


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. [LINK TK]


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.



  1. When data collection for the 2014 Political Polarization and Typology Survey began, non-internet users were subsampled at a rate of 25%, but a decision was made shortly thereafter to invite all non-internet users to join. In total, 83% of non-internet users were invited to join the panel.

  2. Respondents to the 2014 Political Polarization and Typology Survey who indicated that they are internet users but refused to provide an email address were initially permitted to participate in the American Trends Panel by mail, but were no longer permitted to join the panel after Feb. 6, 2014. Internet users from the 2015 Survey on Government who refused to provide an email address were not permitted to join the panel.

  3. Approximately once per year, panelists who have not participated in multiple consecutive waves are removed from the panel. These cases are counted in the denominator of cumulative response rates.

  4. Approximately once per year, panelists who have not participated in multiple consecutive waves are removed from the panel. These cases are counted in the denominator of cumulative response rates.





Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/feed/



Methodology