Key findings of the 'Fertility, Embryo Research and Genome Editing' report

Our report Fertility, Embryo Research and Genome Editing: Public Attitudes in Europe explores public attitudes to fertility treatment, embryo research, genome editing, donor conception, surrogacy and related topics in four European countries – the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy.

This research was conducted by Ipsos on behalf of PET (the Progress Educational Trust) and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). An overview of some of the key findings follows. Please see our full report for further detail on these and other findings.

---

Methods

Ipsos surveyed samples of the public in the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy in February 2026. Samples were representative of each population with quotas on age, gender, region and working status. Data was weighted to the known offline population proportions for age within gender, gender within working status, region, and education. There were 8688 responses, submitted by more than 2000 people aged 16-75 within each country.

Previously, PET commissioned Ipsos to carry out similar research within the UK only. That research was published in June 2022, in a PET report entitled Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research: Public Attitudes and Understanding. Where very similar questions were asked in the 2022 and 2026 surveys, we have taken the opportunity – in the commentary included in the full report – to compare corresponding sets of UK data, and explore whether or not views have changed.

---

Overview

There was a high level of public engagement in relation to every question posed in the 2026 survey, with less than 10% of respondents in each country responding 'Prefer not to answer' to every question.

The survey findings suggest that the public may feel open about letting it be known when they are unsure, or do not have a fully formed view. A significant proportion of respondents said 'Don't know' in response to several of the questions in the survey, which may indicate a willingness to engage further.

Marked generational divides are apparent in responses to several of the survey questions (for example in relation to sex selection and surrogacy, as discussed below). This may mean that with time, there will be a shift in views and related changes in policy.

---

Fertility treatment

In all four of the countries surveyed, a majority of respondents – 64% in Italy, 62% in Spain, 57% in the UK and 54% in the Netherlands – answered either 'Yes, definitely' or 'Yes, probably' when asked whether the state should fund fertility treatment for people who are infertile and wish to conceive.

A substantial proportion of respondents in all four of the countries surveyed – indeed, a majority of respondents in every country except Spain – did not support people undergoing private fertility treatment being able to choose the biological sex of their child based on personal preference. Opposition to sex selection being permitted was strongest in the Netherlands (72%) followed by the UK (59%), Italy (55%) and Spain (47%).

However, younger respondents in all four of the countries surveyed were more likely than older respondents to say that sex selection should be permitted. This trend is clearest in the Netherlands, where support for sex selection begins at 37% among respondents aged 16-24, and then decreases steadily to 8% among respondents aged 65-75. In the UK, support for sex selection rises from 36% among respondents aged 16-24 to 39% among respondents aged 25-34, and diminishes thereafter.

When considering self-funded fertility treatment, in all four countries more people thought that there should be upper age limits – such that a person cannot have private fertility treatment, if they are older than the relevant age limit – than thought that there should not be such age limits. This opinion was most evident in the Netherlands, where a majority of respondents held this view. Meanwhile, around a fifth of respondents in every country surveyed – except Italy, where the figure was slightly lower – said that there should not be upper age limits.

Respondents who said that there should be upper age limits were asked what they thought these age limits should be. With regard to both a biological female and a biological male, an age limit of 45 was most popular overall.

---

Gamete donation

At least half of the men surveyed in all four countries – 61% in Spain, 58% in Italy, 53% in the Netherlands and 51% in the UK – said that they would consider donating gametes to help others have children, in one or more circumstances.

A large proportion of the women surveyed in all four countries– 49% in Spain, 46% in the Netherlands, 43% in the UK and 42% in Italy – also said that they would consider donating gametes to help others have children, in one or more circumstances.

All respondents who said that they would consider donating gametes were asked whether they would still consider doing so if donor-conceived people were legally entitled to find out the identity of the relevant donor(s) upon reaching the age of 18 (arrangements similar to this are currently mandated by law in the UK and the Netherlands, but not in Spain or Italy). This led to some reduction in the willingness of these particular respondents to consider donating.

Even so, more than half of the respondents in each country who would consider donating gametes – and in the Netherlands, more than two-thirds of these respondents (68%) – were not deterred by the prospect of identifiability.

---

Surrogacy

The proportion of respondents who said that surrogacy should 'definitely' or 'probably' be legally permitted in their country varied according to whether surrogacy is already permitted in their country. Surrogacy is permitted in two of the four countries surveyed, namely the UK and the Netherlands.

• Almost two-thirds of respondents in the UK (64%) said that surrogacy should be legally permitted in the UK, while less than a fifth of respondents in the UK (16%) said that surrogacy should not be legally permitted in the UK.
• More than two-thirds of respondents in the Netherlands (72%) said that surrogacy should be legally permitted in the Netherlands, while less than a fifth of respondents in the Netherlands (15%) said that surrogacy should not be legally permitted in the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, in Spain and Italy – where surrogacy is not currently permitted – support for permitting surrogacy still outweighed opposition, but by a narrower margin.

• 43% of respondents in Spain said that surrogacy should be legally permitted in Spain, while 35% of respondents in Spain said that surrogacy should not be legally permitted in Spain.
• 43% of respondents in Italy said that surrogacy should be legally permitted in Italy, while 34% of respondents in Italy said that surrogacy should not be legally permitted in Italy.

In several instances, younger respondents were more likely than older respondents to say that surrogacy should be legally permitted. For example, the majority of respondents in Italy aged 16-24 (56%) – and also the majority of respondents in Italy aged 25-34 (53%) – said that surrogacy should be legally permitted in Italy.

In all four of the countries surveyed, substantially more respondents said that surrogates should receive some form of monetary compensation or payment, than said that surrogateres should not receive any monetary compensation or payment.

The most popular view on payment of surrogates – expressed by 45% in the Netherlands, 37% in the UK, 27% in Italy and 23% in Spain – was that surrogates should be paid for only their overall reasonable expenses. However, at least a fifth of respondents in three of the four countries surveyed – the UK, the Netherlands and Spain – said that surrogates should be paid a salary.

---

Embryo research

The use of human embryos in scientific and medical research – to help understand, and develop treatments for, congenital diseases – was supported by more than 40% of respondents in each of the four countries surveyed. This was supported by 45% in the UK, 48% in the Netherlands, 48% in Spain and 41% in Italy.

In all four countries, the number of respondents who supported the use of human embryos in research substantially exceeded the number of respondents who opposed the use of human embryos in research. This was even the case in Italy, where research uses of human embryos are currently prohibited. The use of human embryos in research was opposed by 21% in the UK, 24% in the Netherlands, 15% in Spain and 21% in Italy.

Respondents who said that they supported – or that they neither supported nor opposed – the use of human embryos in research, were asked whether the current 14-day limit on using human embryos in research is too long, too short or about right. The most popular answer in each of the four countries – given by 56% in the UK, 52% in Spain, 50% in Italy and 46% in the Netherlands – was 'About right'.

At the same time, in each country, more than a fifth of respondents who were asked whether the 14-day limit is too long, too short or about right – 30% in Italy, 29% in the Netherlands, 27% in Spain and 23% in the UK – answered 'Don't know'. If more of these respondents were to form a view on the issue in future, then the overall picture could change significantly.

Respondents asked about the 14-day limit were also asked for which reasons – if any – they thought it would be justifiable to extend this limit to 28 days. The most-popular answer in each of the four countries – given by 47% in the UK, 47% in the Netherlands, 42% in Spain and 37% in Italy – was 'Finding new treatments for congenital diseases'.

In each instance, more than three times as many respondents thought that a doubling of the 14-day limit would be justified by 'Finding new treatments for congenital diseases', as thought that it was 'Not justifiable to extend this time limit to 28 days for any reason'. In Spain, six times as many respondents held the former view (42%) as held the latter view (7%).

---

Genome editing

The survey asked respondents whether they supported or opposed the use of genome editing in human embryos, in the following three scenarios.

• In human embryos for scientific and medical research, to help understand or develop treatments for congenital disease. It was explained to respondents that in this scenario, the research embryos would never be used to establish a pregnancy in a human being.
• In human embryos that will be transferred to a human womb to establish pregnancy, to help eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition – such as cystic fibrosis – in the resulting child, where there may otherwise be a predisposition for that child to have the condition.
• In human embryos that will be transferred to a human womb to establish pregnancy, to help eliminate a common, medically manageable condition – such as asthma – in the resulting child.

In all four of the countries surveyed, more respondents supported than opposed the use of genome editing in human embryos in all three of these scenarios.

In all four countries, the most supported use of genome editing in human embryos was in embryos that will be used to establish pregnancy, to help eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition (such as cystic fibrosis) in the resulting child. This use of genome editing in human embryos was supported by 55% in the Netherlands, 53% in Spain, 52% in the UK and 46% in Italy.

It is important to note that this use of genome editing is not currently permitted by law in any of the four countries surveyed. In other words, a majority of respondents in every country except Italy – and a substantial proportion of respondents even there – supported a use of genome editing that is not currently allowed.

The next most supported use of genome editing in human embryos was for scientific and medical research, to help understand or develop treatments for congenital disease – a use that is permitted in all of the countries surveyed, with the exception of Italy. This use of genome editing in human embryos was supported by 49% in the Netherlands, 49% in Spain, 48% in the UK and 44% in Italy.

The least supported use of genome editing in human embryos – although it was still supported by more than a third of respondents in each country – was in embryos that will be used to establish pregnancy, to help eliminate a common, medically manageable condition (such as asthma) in the resulting child. This use of genome editing – which is not legally permitted in any of the four countries surveyed – was supported by 45% in Spain, 44% in the Netherlands, 39% in the UK and 37% in Italy.

---

Moving forward

Our findings concerning public views of the use of genome editing in human embryos present an interesting conundrum. Members of the public seem to be more ready to accept the use of genome-edited embryos in treatment – at least, if it helps to eliminate a severe or life-threatening condition – than they are to accept the use of genome-edited embryos in research.

This suggests poor public awareness of the fact that research uses of human embryos are a necessary prerequisite for treatment uses of human embryos. We conclude from this that there is a need for wide-ranging public conversations, where the vital role played by research – in enabling treatment, and ensuring that treatment is safe, effective and ethical – can be conveyed.

More generally, we think that many of the findings in our report – and in particular, the fact that a significant proportion of respondents in all four countries answered 'Don't know' in response to several of the questions – indicate both a need and an opportunity for thoroughgoing public engagement and discussion.

We look forward to working with our colleagues at ESHRE and elsewhere to provide new opportunities for people to develop and express their views on fertility, embryo research and genome editing. If you would like to help us build on this work, by proposing and collaborating with us on related events and initiatives, please contact us.

---

Registration is now open for this year's PET Annual Conference – AI and Automation in Fertility and Genomics: Pipeline? Or Pipe Dream? – which is supported by supported by ESHRE, and is taking place in central London on Wednesday 9 December 2026.

Find out more and register here.