Business Research Proposal: Public Opinion on Genetic Editing

Recommended Frameworks: JTBD and Psychographic Segmentation

• Framework Teaching:
  • Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD): This framework helps us understand the underlying progress a person is trying to make in a particular situation. Instead of seeing people as consumers of a technology, we view them as "hiring" it to get a "job" done. For genetic editing, a parent isn't just "buying" a procedure; they might be "hiring" it to "eliminate the fear of passing on a hereditary disease" or to "give their child the best possible chance at a successful life." This reveals the deep-seated motivations behind their attitudes.
  • Psychographic Segmentation: While demographic segmentation groups people by observable traits like age or income, psychographic segmentation groups them by psychological attributes like values, beliefs, attitudes, and lifestyles. For a topic driven by ethics and personal values, this is crucial for creating meaningful segments of public opinion.
• Applicability Explanation:
  • The issue of genetic editing is not just technical; it's deeply personal and emotional. JTBD is perfectly suited for this because it moves the focus from the technology itself to the human hopes and fears that drive decision-making. It will allow you to uncover why people feel the way they do.
  • Combining JTBD with psychographic segmentation will allow you to create rich, nuanced personas of public opinion (e.g., "The Cautious Protector," "The Ethical Objector"). This is far more insightful than simply stating that a certain percentage of an age group holds a particular view. It provides a map of the different "thought worlds" that exist around this topic.

Part 1: Information Collection

A. Internet Search

• Content to Search For:
  • Existing Survey Data: Look for reports from organizations like Pew Research Center, national academies of science, and academic institutions on public attitudes toward genetic editing. Pay attention to the distinction between therapeutic (curing disease) and enhancement uses.
  • Ethical Frameworks and Debates: Search for articles and reports from bioethicists and scientific bodies that outline the primary ethical concerns, such as equity, safety, and the definition of "normal." This will help you frame interview questions around established ethical dilemmas.
  • Demographic Breakdowns: Find any existing data that breaks down attitudes by age, gender, religion, parental status, or political affiliation. This provides a quantitative starting point for your qualitative exploration.
  • Societal Impact Concerns: Research articles discussing the potential for genetic editing to worsen social inequality. This will be critical for the "equity" portion of your study.

B. User Interview Planning

• Interview Subjects: Recruit a diverse group of 15-20 individuals, ensuring a mix across key demographic and psychographic lines:
  • Life Stage: Young adults (not yet considering children), expectant parents, parents of young children, and older adults/grandparents.
  • Socioeconomic Background: A mix of income levels and educational attainment.
  • Belief Systems: Include individuals with strong religious or spiritual beliefs as well as those who identify as secular.
  • Health Experience: If possible, include individuals who have personal or family experience with a serious genetic condition.
• Interview Purpose:
  1. To uncover the core "Jobs-to-be-Done" that people might "hire" genetic editing for.
  2. To understand the emotional and ethical reasoning behind their benefit-risk calculations.
  3. To capture nuanced concerns about societal impact in their own words.
• Core Interview Questions:
  1. "Thinking about the future for your family or for the next generation, what are your greatest hopes and your biggest worries when it comes to health and well-being?"
     • Analysis Purpose: This establishes their core motivations and emotional landscape (the JTBD) before ever mentioning the technology.
  2. "Imagine a technology that could edit the genes of an embryo to prevent a child from being born with a serious, life-threatening disease like Tay-Sachs. Walk me through your thoughts on using it."
     • Analysis Purpose: This presents a clear, high-stakes therapeutic scenario to anchor their benefit-risk calculation.
  3. "Now, how do your feelings change if the same technology were used not to prevent a disease, but to enhance a child's natural abilities, for example, to significantly boost their intelligence or athletic talent?"
     • Analysis Purpose: This question is designed to find the boundary between treatment and enhancement, which is a critical dividing line in public opinion.
  4. "If this technology became common, what kind of impact do you think it would have on society? Who do you imagine would benefit the most, and are there people who might be harmed or left behind?"
     • Analysis Purpose: This directly probes for concerns about equity, social stratification, and fairness.
  5. "Who should be in charge of making the rules for this kind of technology? Who do you trust to make sure it's used responsibly—scientists, the government, individual parents, or someone else?"
     • Analysis Purpose: This helps assess their trust in institutions, a key psychographic variable that influences their overall stance.

Part 2: Information Analysis

1. Synthesize Data and Create Personas

• How-To:
  1. Thematic Coding: Read through your interview transcripts and tag key concepts. Create tags for the "Jobs" people mentioned (e.g.,

     Job: Alleviate Suffering

     ,

     Job: Maximize Potential

     ), their ethical stances (e.g.,

     Stance: Against Playing God

     ,

     Stance: Moral Obligation to Heal

     ), and their societal concerns (e.g.,

     Concern: Rich/Poor Divide

     ,

     Concern: Slippery Slope

     ).
  2. Persona Creation: Group interviewees who have similar patterns of tags. For example, you might find a group that is highly supportive of the "Alleviate Suffering" job but strongly against enhancement and deeply worried about the "Slippery Slope." This group could become a persona.
  3. Flesh out the Personas: Give each persona a memorable name (e.g., "The Cautious Protector," "The Principled Objector," "The Tech Optimist"). For each persona, describe their core motivation (JTBD), their key demographics (if a pattern emerges), their attitude towards different scenarios, and their primary concerns.

2. Map the Benefit-Risk Landscape

• How-To:
  1. Create a Matrix: Draw a 2x2 matrix. Label the vertical axis "Perceived Benefit" (from Low to High) and the horizontal axis "Perceived Risk" (from Low to High).
  2. Plot the Scenarios: For each persona, place the different scenarios (e.g., "Cure Disease," "Reduce Risk," "Enhance IQ") on the matrix. For example, "The Cautious Protector" would likely place "Cure Disease" in the High Benefit/Manageable Risk quadrant, but place "Enhance IQ" in the Low Benefit/High Risk quadrant. This visually demonstrates their different calculations.

3. Structure the Final Report and Recommendations

• How-To: Structure your report as follows:
  1. Executive Summary: Briefly state your key findings and recommendations.
  2. Current Landscape: Use your internet search findings to provide background context on the debate.
  3. Public Opinion Personas: Introduce the 3-5 personas you developed, describing each one in detail with illustrative (anonymous) quotes from your interviews.
  4. Analysis of Key Issues:
     • The Therapy vs. Enhancement Divide: Use your matrix and persona analysis to explain where and why different groups draw the line.
     • Societal & Equity Concerns: Dedicate a chapter to the fears of a "genetic divide," summarizing the top 3-5 concerns you identified.
  5. Strategic Recommendations: This is the "so what." Based on your findings, provide specific, actionable advice. For example:
     • For Policymakers: "Public engagement strategies must differentiate between therapeutic and enhancement applications. Communication aimed at 'Cautious Protectors' should emphasize safety and regulatory oversight, while dialogue with 'Principled Objectors' must respectfully acknowledge moral and spiritual concerns."
     • For Biotech Companies: "Building public trust requires proactive transparency. Focus initial communications on clear therapeutic use cases where the 'Job-to-be-Done' of alleviating suffering is unambiguous. Avoid language that suggests 'perfection' or 'optimization' to prevent alienating key public segments."