Bioethische Einstellungen

 

Zu meinen Forschungsinteressen gehören auch die Einstellungen zu bioethischen Fragen. Diese gehören in die (sehr viel größeren) Gruppe der Moral-Politiken: Politische Fragen, die mit fundamentalen Konflikten und Werten verbunden sind.

Die parlamentarische Entscheidung zur PID

Bioethics: there is a Christian Democratic / left-libertarian issue coalition

Mein Interesse an diesem Feld geht auf ein Puzzle zurück: nur unter großem juristischen Druck hat der Bundetag das absolute Verbot der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID) gelockert. PID ist eine Sammelbezeichnung für Verfahren, mit denen im Rahmen der künstlichen Befruchtung (IVF) gesunde Embryonen für die Einpflanzung ausgewählt werden können. Die neuen Regelungen sind immer noch recht restriktiv und konnten trotzdem nur von einer knappen (parteiübergreifenden) Mehrheit durchgesetzt werden. Im Gegensatz dazu scheinen die neuen Gesetze in der Öffentlichkeit viel Zustimmung zu finden. Eine Analyse der Abgeordneten und ihres Wahlverhaltens zeigt, dass eine erstaunlich große Zahl von ihnen Beziehungen zu religiösen Gruppierungen und Institutionen unterhält. Solche Mitgliedschaften sind ein hervorragender Prädiktor für eine “Nein”-Stimme. Darüber hinaus ist die Parteimitgliedschaft aussagekräftig: Ceteris paribus stimmten Abgeordnete von CDU und Grünen signifikant häufiger gegen die neuen Gesetze. Die vollständigen Ergebnisse sind als open access Artikel in Research & Politics erschienen. . Replikationsdaten sind frei verfügbar.

  • Arzheimer, Kai. “Strange Bedfellows: The Bundestag’s Free Vote on Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Reveals How Germany’s Restrictive Bioethics Legislation is Shaped by a Christian Democratic/New Left Issue-Coalition.” Research and Politics 2.3 (2015): 1–7.
    [BibTeX] [Download PDF] [HTML] [DATA]
    @Article{arzheimer-2015d,
    author = {Arzheimer, Kai},
    title = {Strange Bedfellows: The Bundestag's Free Vote on Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Reveals How Germany's Restrictive Bioethics Legislation is Shaped by a Christian Democratic/New Left Issue-Coalition},
    journal = {Research and Politics},
    year = 2015,
    doi = 10.1177/2053168015601130,
    html = {http://rap.sagepub.com/content/2/3/2053168015601130},
    url = {http://rap.sagepub.com/content/2/3/2053168015601130.full.pdf},
    data = {http://hdl.handle.net/10.7910/DVN/KG38OG},
    pages = {1--7},
    number = {3},
    volume = {2}
    }

Citizens’s Views on Genetic Testing (PGD)

Genetic testing: citizens are more permissive than representatives

Nach dieser Studie wollte ich mehr darüber wissen, was normale Bürgerinnen und Bürger über bioethische Fragen denken. Deshalb habe ich (mit großzügiger Unterstützung durch die DFG) eine bevölkerungsrepräsentative Umfrage zu diesem Thema durchgeführt. Herzstück der Studie ist ein Umfrageexperiment: rund 1000 Befragte konnten zwischen den drei im Parlament diskutierten Gesetzesentwürfen wählen, etwa 1000 weitere Befragten wurden zusätzliche Optionen angeboten, die in etwa der Situation in Belgien und Großbritannien entsprechen. Im Anschluss wurden die Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer mit 16 Pro- und Contra-Argumenten aus der Bundestagsdebatte konfrontiert und anschließend noch einmal um ihr Votum gebeten. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger sehr viel liberaler eingestellt sind als die Abgeordneten. Die Konfrontation mit den Argumenten ändert daran nichts. Pro-Argumente wurden weithin akzeptiert, Contra-Argumente mehrheitlich abgelehnt. Ursache dafür ist, dass religiöse Bindungen in der Bevölkerung weit seltener sind als im Parlament. Dafür sind säkulare Orientierungen weitverbreitet. Dies hat Konsequenzen, die weit über das Thema PID hinausgehen. Der Artikel, in dem all dies ausführlich dargestellt wird, erscheint als open access Publikation in Political Research Exchange. Replikationsdaten sind frei verfügbar.

  • Arzheimer, Kai. “Secular Citizens, Pious MPs: Why German Attitudes About Genetic Testing Are Much More Permissive Than German Laws.” Political Research Exchange 2.1 (2020). doi:10.1080/2474736X.2020.1765693
    [BibTeX] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [HTML] [DATA]

    Germany has lifted its total ban on Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD, a form of genetic testing), but the new rules are still much stricter than those in other European countries. Results from a large-scale survey experiment show that the general population holds more permissive views on this bio-ethical question than lawmakers. In a country seen as a paradigm for the “religious world” of morality politics, many citizens even support further liberalisation along the lines of legislation in Belgium and the UK. Induced reflection on the arguments raised in parliament does not change this: arguments in favour of PGD are widely accepted by respondents, whereas many citizens reject the arguments against PGD. Citzens’ and MPs’ respective evaluations are affected strongly by religiosity, whose levels in the population are much lower than in parliament. Widespread secular views are not adequately represented in politics. This does not only concern the regulation of PGD but also other current and future bioethical issues. It is unlikely that this tension can be resolved through electoral politics. These findings have important ramifications not just for practical morality politics in Germany and other “religious world” countries but also for the two worlds framework itself.

    @Article{arzheimer-2020b,
    author = {Arzheimer, Kai},
    title = {Secular Citizens, Pious MPs: Why German Attitudes About Genetic
    Testing Are Much More Permissive Than German Laws},
    html = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1765693},
    journal = {Political Research Exchange},
    url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1765693?needAccess=true},
    year = 2020,
    volume = {2},
    number = {1},
    abstract = {Germany has lifted its total ban on Preimplantation Genetic
    Diagnosis (PGD, a form of genetic testing), but the new rules are
    still much stricter than those in other European countries. Results
    from a large-scale survey experiment show that the general
    population holds more permissive views on this bio-ethical question
    than lawmakers. In a country seen as a paradigm for the "religious
    world" of morality politics, many citizens even support further
    liberalisation along the lines of legislation in Belgium and the
    UK. Induced reflection on the arguments raised in parliament does
    not change this: arguments in favour of PGD are widely accepted by
    respondents, whereas many citizens reject the arguments against
    PGD. Citzens' and MPs' respective evaluations are affected strongly
    by religiosity, whose levels in the population are much lower than
    in parliament. Widespread secular views are not adequately
    represented in politics. This does not only concern the regulation
    of PGD but also other current and future bioethical issues. It is
    unlikely that this tension can be resolved through electoral
    politics. These findings have important ramifications not just for
    practical morality politics in Germany and other "religious world"
    countries but also for the two worlds framework itself.},
    html = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1765693},
    url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1765693?needAccess=true},
    data = {https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PY9TBQ},
    doi = {10.1080/2474736X.2020.1765693},
    dateadded = {28-03-2020}
    }

A micro-level test of the two-worlds theory

Germany is a religious world country, but its population is more and more secular

Die “two-worlds”-Theorie von Engeli, Green-Pedersen & Larsen ist der wichtigste komparative Ansatz zur Erklärung von Moralpolitik. Da es sich im Kern um eine Cleavage-Theorie handelt, betrachtet der Ansatz vor allem die Makro- und Meso-Ebene, macht aber (implizite) Annahmen über die Mikro-Ebene. In einem kurzen Artikel formuliere ich diese Annahmen aus und teste sie mit Hilfe von Strukturgleichungsmodellen. Die Befunde sind mit der “two-worlds”-Theorie kompatibel, werfen aber einige neue Fragen auf. Die vollständigen Ergebnisse erscheinen in Research & Politics. Replikationsdaten sind frei verfügbar.

  • Arzheimer, Kai. “A partial micro-foundation for the ‘two-worlds’ theory of morality policymaking: Evidence from Germany.” Research & Politics 7.2 (2020). doi:10.1177/2053168020917823
    [BibTeX] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [HTML] [DATA]

    The two-worlds framework is currently the most important account of morality policymaking in Europe. For this theory of elite behaviour to be valid, a number of implicit assumptions about political belief systems at the mass level must hold. This contribution spells out these assumptions and tests them within a structural equation modelling framework, using original survey data from Germany, a country that constitutes a crucial case for the two-worlds theory. The results showed that the implicit individual-level preconditions of the two-worlds framework were fulfilled. Political secularism and partisanship were strongly associated. Political secularism also had strong effects on morality policy preferences regarding the preferred regulation of abortion, embryo and stem cell research, and gene therapies, even when controlling for a host of background variables. However, the size of the effects did not vary across politicised and non-politicised issues. This casts some doubt over the ability of partisan actors to unilaterally control the morality policy agenda.

    @Article{arzheimer-2020c,
    author = {Kai Arzheimer},
    title = {A partial micro-foundation for the 'two-worlds' theory of morality
    policymaking: Evidence from Germany},
    journal = {Research \& Politics},
    year = 2020,
    volume = 7,
    number = 2,
    abstract = {The two-worlds framework is currently the most important account of
    morality policymaking in Europe. For this theory of elite behaviour
    to be valid, a number of implicit assumptions about political
    belief systems at the mass level must hold. This contribution
    spells out these assumptions and tests them within a structural
    equation modelling framework, using original survey data from
    Germany, a country that constitutes a crucial case for the
    two-worlds theory. The results showed that the implicit
    individual-level preconditions of the two-worlds framework were
    fulfilled. Political secularism and partisanship were strongly
    associated. Political secularism also had strong effects on
    morality policy preferences regarding the preferred regulation of
    abortion, embryo and stem cell research, and gene therapies, even
    when controlling for a host of background variables. However, the
    size of the effects did not vary across politicised and
    non-politicised issues. This casts some doubt over the ability of
    partisan actors to unilaterally control the morality policy
    agenda.},
    dateadded = {28-03-2020},
    url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053168020917823},
    data = {https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2MIWPN},
    html = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053168020917823},
    keywords = {bioethik},
    doi = {10.1177/2053168020917823}
    }