Attitudes of the public and scientists to biotechnology in Japan at the start of 2000.

This survey on biotechnology and bioethics was carried out on national random samples of the public and scientists in November 2000-January 2000 [sic]throughout Japan, and attendees at the Novartis Life Science Forum held on 29 September 1999 in Tokyo. The sample size was 297, 370, and 74 respectively. While there is a better awareness of GMOs in 2000 compared to 1991; the trend shows an increase in the perceived risks of GMOs followed by growing resistance in Japan. While a majority of persons believed genetic engineering would make life better over the next twenty years (57%), the proportion of respondents who thought genetic engineering would make life worse over the next twenty years doubled from 1997 to 2000 (from 12% to 25%). Respondents were asked whether they had heard about applications in several areas and the order of familiarity (high-low) was: pest-resistant crops, human genes in bacteria, mouse to develop cancer, food and drinks, pigs with human hearts and pre-implantation diagnosis. A divide of opinion can be seen when the results on benefit, risk and moral acceptability of applications of biotechnology by the public are compared to the forum and scientist samples. A significant change in the acceptance of the public occurred in 2000 where only 22% agreed on the moral acceptability of GM food compared to 41% in 1997. In 2000 fewer people said they are willing (20%) to buy genetically modified fruits that taste better compared to 1997 (36%). The results show less public support for use of gene therapy than 1993 and twice as many scientists rejected gene therapy than they did in 1991. When asked who is best placed to regulate modern biotechnology, the respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of international regulatory bodies, such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization (72%), rather than national bodies. The comparison between scientists and public is interesting, however the more enthusiastic sample were participants from the Novaritis Life Science Forum with its mixed occupations.

International perceptions and approval of gene therapy.

Gene therapy is in clinical trials in a number of countries, raising the question of whether different ethical standards can be justified in different countries. One key issue is how divergent are the perceptions and bioethical reasoning of peoples around the world. An International Bioethics Survey with 150 questions, including 35 open ones, was developed to look at how people think about diseases, life, nature, and selected issues of science and technology, biotechnology, genetic engineering, genetic screening, and gene therapy. The mail response survey was conducted in 1993 among the public in Australia, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, and Thailand, and the same written survey was conducted among university students in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Japan, New Zealand, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, and Thailand. Similar questions were included in an international high school education bioethics survey among high school teachers in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. Further international comparisons to the United States and Europe are made. About three-quarters of all samples supported personal use of gene therapy, with higher support for children's use of gene therapy. The diversity of views was generally similar within each country. The major reasons given were to save life and increase the quality of life. About 5-7% rejected gene therapy, considering it to be playing God, or unnatural. There was very little concern about eugenics (0.5-2%), and more respondents gave supportive reasons like "improving genes," especially in Thailand and India. Support for specific applications was significantly less for "improving physical characters," "improving intelligence," or "making people more ethical" than for curing diseases like cancer or diabetes, but there was little difference between inheritable or noninheritable gene therapy.

Perception of risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and biotechnology.

The use of new biotechnology in medicine has become an everyday experience, but many people still express concern about biotechnology. Concerns are evoked particularly by the phrases genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization (IVF), and these concerns persist despite more than a decade of their use in medicine. Mailed nationwide opinion surveys on attitudes to biotechnology were conducted in Japan, among samples of the public (N = 551), high school biology teachers (N = 228), scientists (N = 555) and nurses (N = 301). People do see more benefits coming from science than harm when balanced against the risks. There were especially mixed perceptions of benefit and risk about IVF and genetic engineering, and a relatively high degree of worry compared to other developments of science and technology. A discussion of assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy in Japan is also made. The opinions of people in Japan were compared to the results of previous surveys conducted in Japan, and international surveys conducted in Australia, China, Europe, New Zealand, U.K. and U.S.A. Japanese have a very high awareness of biotechnology, 97% saying that they had heard of the word. They also have a high level of awareness of IVF and genetic engineering. Genetic engineering was said to be a worthwhile research area for Japan by 76%, while 58% perceived research on IVF as being worthwhile, however 61% were worried about research on IVF or genetic engineering. Japanese expressed more concern about IVF and genetic engineering than New Zealanders. The major reason cited for rejection of genetic manipulation research in Japan and New Zealand was that it was seen as interfering with nature, playing God or as unethical. The emotions concerning these technologies are complex, and we should avoid using simplistic public opinion data as measures of public perceptions. The level of concern expressed by scientists and teachers in Japan suggest that public education "technology promotion campaigns" will not reduce concern about science and technology. Such concern should be valued as discretion that is basic to increasing the bioethical maturity of a society, rather than being feared.

The 'far east' of biological ethics.

The ethics of biological research, and its general impact, are hotly debated in the West. Japanese silence on the issues is counterproductive. Will the Human Genome Project provide the catalyst for change?

Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation.

Clinical trials of gene therapy are underway in different countries, and further countries can be expected to use gene therapy soon. Little remains known, however, about public perceptions of gene therapy. Nationwide mail response opinion surveys were conducted in Japan in August-October, 1991. A total of 54% of the public, 65% of the high school biology teachers, and 54% of the scientists who responded said that they would be willing to use gene therapy, and 66%, 73%, and 62%, respectively, said that they would be willing to use gene therapy on their children. There appears to be growing acceptance of gene therapy in Japan, although about one-quarter of the population are against it. The underlying reasoning behind the acceptability of human genetic manipulation and perceived benefits and risks are presented, and these were found to be generally similar to reasoning expressed in a similar survey conducted in New Zealand in May, 1990. Public perceptions are also compared to those in Europe and the United States. People perceive both benefits and risks from genetic manipulation. There appears to be more teaching of ethical, social, and environmental issues associated with genetic engineering in senior high school biology classes in New Zealand than in Japan. In Japan and New Zealand, about 90% of the public would support including discussion of social issues associated with science and technology in the curriculum.