Darryl R. J. Macer, Ph.D. Eubios Ethics Institute 1992
page 39-81 in Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Japanese and International Comparisons D.R.J. Macer (Eubios Ethics Institute, 1992).
4.1. Knowledge of Genetic Manipulation
More specific questions than those asked in Q5, were used in Q7.
Rather than testing concerns about the techniques included by
the broad term "genetic engineering", the views of genetic
manipulation on four types of organisms were examined: humans,
animals, plants and microbes. The questions used by Couchman &
Fink-Jensen (1990) were used, with room for free response to list
reasons for acceptance, benefits and risks perceived. The questions
were:
Improving Awareness of Genetic Manipulation
Q7a asked about the awareness of techniques of genetic manipulation, in human cells, microbes, plants and animals. The results are summarised in Table 4-1. The most familiar was genetic manipulation of plants, with 45% of the public saying that they could understand this, and only 8% saying that they had not heard of it. Surprisingly, the least familiar was genetic manipulation of microbes, despite the decade of use of microbes for production of recombinant DNA products, though still 33% said that they understood this, while 21% said that they had not heard of it. The awareness of genetic manipulation (Q7a) was correlated with the interest in science (Q1) and the awareness of genetic engineering (Q5a).
These levels of awareness are higher than past surveys in Japan, suggesting that public understanding of genetic manipulation is improving. This was discussed in chapter 3, for the general words "biotechnology" and "genetic engineering". Less than 8% of the public respondents had not heard of any type of genetic manipulation, which represents a very high level of awareness, especially if we compare it to a figure of 25-30% in New Zealand (Couchman & Fink-Jensen 1990). The New Zealand value was obtained in interviews with a much higher response rate, possibly some of the Japanese non-respondents did not respond because they did not understand anything, so the real level of awareness may be somewhat lower.
The high school biology teachers were most familiar with genetic manipulation of microbes, which 83% said they could understand, with plant genetic manipulation being the next most familiar. Only 3.5% of teachers said that they had not heard of these techniques, but they had less familiarity with genetic manipulation of animals and humans. Scientists had a very similar level of familiarity with these techniques to the teachers, with the total academics having somewhat less familiarity. Students were intermediate in their familiarity. The responses by New Zealand teachers and scientists to Q7a indicate a higher level of unawareness of genetic engineering in humans and animals. Part of this difference could be related to the publicity associated with the increasing use of human gene therapy, in mid 1991 compared to mid 1990, however this may not explain all the differences.
Values written in small figures are those obtained
in New Zealand (Couchman & Fink-Jensen 1990). Note that New
Zealand teachers and scientists were only asked whether they had
heard, or not heard of, the subjects (Q7a).
| Sample: |
| |||||
| Number | 533 | 202 | 225 | 722 | 246 | 550 |
|
Human cells | ||||||
| Not heard | 35 14.5 | 9.9 | 32 9.3 | 10.9 | 14.6 | 34 9.5 |
| Heard | 40 49.2 | 41.6 | 68 29.8 | 31.1 | 45.5 | 66 25.8 |
| Understand | 25 36.3 | 48.5 | 60.9 | 58.0 | 39.9 | 64.7 |
|
Plant cells | ||||||
| Not heard | 30 8.3 | 3.0 | 4 3.6 | 3.3 | 6.1 | 12 2.4 |
| Heard | 44 46.5 | 32.2 | 96 18.7 | 25.5 | 44.3 | 88 20.0 |
| Understand | 26 45.2 | 64.8 | 77.7 | 71.2 | 49.6 | 77.6 |
|
Microbes | ||||||
| Not heard | 59 21.2 | 14.8 | 4 3.5 | 6.8 | 13.5 | 19 3.3 |
| Heard | 29 45.8 | 32.2 | 96 13.8 | 25.2 | 44.1 | 81 18.2 |
| Understand | 12 33.0 | 54.0 | 82.7 | 68.0 | 42.4 | 78.5 |
|
Animals | ||||||
| Not heard | 31 8.1 | 5.0 | 12 5.4 | 5.1 | 7.4 | 16 4.0 |
| Heard | 43 52.5 | 40.1 | 88 26.0 | 30.8 | 50.6 | 84 24.2 |
| Understand | 26 39.4 | 54.9 | 68.6 | 64.1 | 42.0 | 71.8 |
4.2. Acceptability of Genetic Manipulation
To be aware of genetic manipulation is a different thing from accepting genetic manipulation, the same as is true of any scientific development. In the responses to Q7b we see clear differentiation by all groups of the acceptability of genetic manipulation depending on the organism, see Table 4-2. There is clear support for genetic manipulation of plants and microbes from all groups. There is less support for genetic manipulation of animals, but still a majority of all groups thinks that it is acceptable. However, the public thought that genetic manipulation of human cells (which will often be interpreted to mean human beings), is unacceptable. Other groups were more equally split on this question, though only scientists had a majority in favour of it.
In both Japan and New Zealand genetic manipulation of plants is the most acceptable type, see Figure 4-1. Followed by genetic manipulation of microbes, animals and humans, in order of decreasing acceptability. About half of the teacher and scientist samples think that human genetic manipulation (human cells) is acceptable, in both countries. This preference order is the same as that obtained in the USA in 1986 (OTA 1987), but their question asked interviewees to rank their acceptability on a ten point scale, 1-10, so we cannot compare the acceptability ranks. It is also very likely that the acceptability values have shifted since 1986 in the USA.
The reasons for unacceptability were asked, and these are presented in Table 4-3. They are perhaps the most interesting result. For different organisms they were different, as in New Zealand. The method used to analyse the reasoning was to assign the comments to categories. A total of 38 different categories were used in the computer data analysis. Although a variety of comments were written, generally they could easily be assigned to categories. To make this assessment more standard, all computer categorisation of comments was personally done within a short time period. For each distinct reason given in the comment, a count of 1 was scored in one of the categories of the data sheet in the computer. The most reasons given for a single comment was 3, but generally there were only 1 or 2 reasons. Also, a high proportion did not write any comment, as is shown in Table 4-3. More university students and high school biology teachers wrote comments than did scientists, academics and the public. Interestingly, more public wrote comments than scientists. There were some common reasons given, and these could be shown in the table separately, whereas some less common comments were grouped with similar comments, so that in Table 4-3 a total of 14 categories are presented. To give a further idea of the comments, some typical comments for each category are listed below (from public respondents unless indicated "t"=teachers or "a"=academic). The organisms that they were cited for are indicated (H-human cells, P-plants, M-microbes, A-animals, All).
| Sample: |
| |||||
| Number | 509 | 196 | 222 | 691 | 249 | 535 |
|
Q7b: Human cells | ||||||
| Acceptable | 26.0 | 39.8 | 46.6 | 50.1 | 33.9 | 54.6 |
| Unacceptable | 74.0 | 60.2 | 53.4 | 49.9 | 66.1 | 45.4 |
|
Q7b: Plants | ||||||
| Acceptable | 80.9 | 84.5 | 87.8 | 91.2 | 86.0 | 92.5 |
| Unacceptable | 19.1 | 15.5 | 12.2 | 8.8 | 14.0 | 7.5 |
|
Q7b: Microbes | ||||||
| Acceptable | 72.8 | 78.9 | 82.4 | 87.1 | 79.2 | 89.9 |
| Unacceptable | 27.2 | 21.1 | 17.6 | 12.9 | 20.8 | 10.1 |
|
Q7b: Animals | ||||||
| Acceptable | 54.2 | 64.4 | 75.6 | 72.3 | 59.7 | 76.9 |
| Unacceptable | 45.8 | 35.6 | 24.4 | 27.7 | 40.3 | 23.1 |
Figure 4-1 Comparative acceptability of genetic manipulation
in Japan and New Zealand
New Zealand data from the survey of Couchman & Fink-Jensen
(1990).
The values are expressed as %'s of the respondents
who answered that it was unacceptable in Q7b (number given in
the table). Values written in small figures are those obtained
in New Zealand (Couchman & Fink-Jensen 1990).
| Reason: | |||||
| Unethical, Bioethics | Public | 16 6.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 35 6.6 |
| Student | 24.6 | 6.7 | 7.3 | 10.1 | |
| Teacher | 43 17.9 | 0 3.7 | 0 2.6 | 33 3.7 | |
| Acad. | 13.4 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 9.5 | |
| Scient. | 8 13.3 | 2.5 | 0 | 12 9.9 | |
| Fear of unknown | Public | 8 8.4 | 11 9.3 | 16 7.5 | 8 10.5 |
| Student | 9.3 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 14.5 | |
| Teacher | 11 13.7 | 22 7.4 | 12 10.3 | 18 11.1 | |
| Acad. | 14.5 | 14.8 | 14.6 | 11.1 | |
| Scient. | 10 14.6 | 13 15.0 | 17 16.7 | 18 10.7 | |
| Playing God | Public | 14.9 | 12.3 | 9.7 | 11.0 |
| Student | 16.1 | 23.3 | 19.5 | 13.0 | |
| Teacher | 8.5 | 7.4 | 5.1 | 5.5 | |
| Acad. | 9.6 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 5.8 | |
| Scient. | 10.0 | 0 | 3.7 | 6.5 | |
| Unnatural, | Public | 28 17.3 | 35 24.7 | 22 20.1 | 22 21.1 |
| Interfering with nature | Student | 9.3 | 10.0 | 7.3 | 11.6 |
| Teacher | 10 6.8 | 26 18.5 | 8 12.8 | 16 14.8 | |
| Acad. | 7.3 | 19.7 | 12.3 | 3.7 | |
| Scient. | 8 6.3 | 15 15.0 | 8 13.0 | 14 10.7 | |
| Feeling | Public | 6.8 | 9.3 | 9.0 | 7.0 |
| Student | 9.3 | 10.0 | 9.8 | 11.6 | |
| Teacher | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 1.9 | |
| Acad. | 4.1 | 1.6 | 4.5 | 6.3 | |
| Scient. | 4.2 | 2.5 | 3.7 | 6.6 | |
| Humanity changed | Public | 4.3 | 0 | 0.7 | 0 |
| Student | 4.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Teacher | 6 3.4 | 0 0 | 4 0 | 2 0 | |
| Acad. | 4.7 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 2.1 | |
| Scient. | 7 4.2 | 0 | 4 0 | 2 0.8 | |
| Insufficient controls | Public | 7 3.8 | 8 1.0 | 10 0.7 | 7 2.6 |
| Regulation | Students | 7.6 | 3.3 | 0 | 1.4 |
| Teacher | 19 9.4 | 27 18.5 | 20 17.9 | 24 13.0 | |
| Acad. | 18.0 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 7.4 | |
| Scient. | 21 20.0 | 28 5.0 | 31 1.9 | 27 9.9 | |
| Human health effect, | Public | 5 1.1 | 0 | 3 3.7 | 0.4 |
| New human diseases | Student | 2.5 | 0 | 4.9 | 1.4 |
| Teacher | 3 1.7 | 0 3.7 | 20 7.7 | 2 1.9 | |
| Acad. | 3.2 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 3.2 | |
| Scient. | 2.1 | 3 0 | 2 5.6 | 4 1.7 | |
| Disaster, out of control | Public | 16 7.0 | 12 3.1 | 12 6.0 | 9 5.7 |
| Long term effect | Students | 8.5 | 13.3 | 14.6 | 11.6 |
| Teacher | 12 4.2 | 21 14.8 | 42 25.6 | 18 9.3 | |
| Acad. | 3.8 | 8.2 | 12.3 | 6.3 | |
| Scient. | 14 4.2 | 21 7.5 | 35 16.7 | 20 6.6 | |
| Ecological Effects | Public | 7.8 | 12 26.8 | 18.7 | 12 14.5 |
| Environmental Effects | Student | 4.2 | 13.3 | 12.2 | 7.2 |
| Teacher | 0 2.6 | 18 18.5 | 4 10.3 | 0 13.0 | |
| Acad. | 2.9 | 19.7 | 14.6 | 9.5 | |
| Scient. | 0 1.7 | 21 12.5 | 6 13.0 | 2 8.3 | |
| Biowarfare | Public | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Student | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Teacher | 0 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 1.9 | |
| Acad. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Scient. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Danger of human misuse | Public | 9 4.1 | 8 3.1 | 13 2.2 | 6 3.9 |
| Student | 4.2 | 0 | 2.4 | 4.3 | |
| Teacher | 12 12.8 | 3 11.1 | 14 10.3 | 7 7.4 | |
| Acad. | 9.3 | 8.2 | 7.9 | 6.3 | |
| Scient. | 11 9.2 | 10 10.0 | 19 5.6 | 12 6.6 | |
| Eugenics, Cloning | Public | 5 5.1 | 0 | 0 | 0.4 |
| Student | 2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1.4 | |
| Teacher | 10 8.5 | 0 0 | 0 0 | 0 0 | |
| Acad. | 4.9 | 0 | 0 | 2.1 | |
| Scient. | 5 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 2.5 | |
| Deformities, mutations | Public | 3 2.4 | 1.0 | 0 | 2 1.3 |
| New plant or animal | Student | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| diseases | Teachers | 2 2.6 | 3.7 | 0 | 2 3.7 |
| Acad. | 2.9 | 0 | 6.7 | 2.1 | |
| Scient. | 2 2.0 | 3 0 | 0 0 | 6 0.8 | |
| Not stated | Public | 9 26.8 | 25 25.8 | 33 35.8 | 10 30.3 |
| Student | 15.3 | 23.3 | 19.5 | 23.2 | |
| Teacher | 17.9 | 22.2 | 20.5 | 27.8 | |
| Acad. | 27.6 | 39.3 | 33.7 | 30.7 | |
| Scient. | 3 28.3 | 3 50.0 | 4 38.9 | 4 33.9 | |
| Number who said it was | Public | 758 370 | 208 97 | 241 134 | 610 228 |
| unacceptable | Students | 118 | 30 | 41 | 69 |
| Teacher | 97 117 | 14 27 | 34 39 | 45 54 | |
| Acad. | 344 | 61 | 89 | 189 | |
| Scient. | 79 240 | 39 40 | 52 54 | 49 121 |
Figure 4-2 Schematic summary of the reasons given for the unacceptability of genetic manipulation, in response to Q7b, in Japan and New Zealand
There was a reasonable diversity of replies. For genetic manipulation of human cells the most common responses were that it is unethical, there is the danger of human misuse, eugenics and insufficient controls; and the reasons such as it is unnatural, it is playing God, or the fear of the unknown. In the reason "fear of unknown", most respondents were concerned that there may be unknown results, rather than it being an unknown "area" of research.
The results are comparable to those obtained in New Zealand, as can be seen from the values in Table 4-3, and these are summarised in Figure 4-2. The New Zealand values given in Table 4-3 are only approximate guides, but it is useful to make a comparison. When a New Zealand value is missing, it is because it was not given in the results of Couchman & Fink-Jensen (1990). The following groupings were used (if not obvious from the categories listed): In the results from New Zealand, the reasons "playing God", and "unnatural", were combined, under the comment "unnatural" the reasons "danger of human misuse", and "biowarfare" were combined into "Danger of human misuse" and there were varying frequencies (5-15%) of "other" comments, that are not put in any category in Table 4-3. In Japan these comments were scored separately. All the reported comment categories in the New Zealand results were used for defining the categories for scoring the comments of the Japanese respondents, and they were grouped in the table, as described above. Additionally several other new categories were used for the Japanese comments.
The most frequent reason why teachers did not accept genetic manipulation of human cells was because they thought it was unethical, or there were ethical problems. There was a comparatively low level of concern expressed about ethical problems when using animals in Japan. There were also significant proportions of respondents who thought that genetic manipulation was interfering with nature, or that it was profanity to God. These respondents may see these techniques as unacceptable, regardless of the state of technology and regulation. Although many scientists react to people with these views as irrational, it is noteworthy that about 16% of the scientists and teachers in New Zealand and Japan who found these techniques unacceptable also shared these views. In a public opinion survey in Japan in December 1985 (N=7439, PMO 1986a), people were asked about the relationship between nature and human beings, and chose between four options. 51% said we should use natural systems for human beings, 29% said it is bad to do artificial things so we should leave things to nature, 18% said humans can control creatures or nature, and 12% didn't know. The results of the present survey are consistent with these.
As has been noted in some major biotechnology science journals (Dixon 1991b), supporters of genetic manipulation should accept that people may reject these techniques for what the supporters see as irrational reasons, no matter how knowledgeable they are about the techniques. There is the commonly held view in Japan that when people understand the technology they will accept these things, however, as found in all countries, many people continue to hold these type of views and reject new technology even when they understand it. Although to fight disease is against nature, yet we all do it, there are limits in people's mind to interventions in nature. It is better for the supporters of the use of these techniques to try to understand these views, which many of their scientific peers also hold, than to continue to focus on attempts to change such views.
As will be seen in the responses to Q13 and Q14, in chapter 7, which asked people whether they would use gene therapy, the majority do accept the use of human genetic manipulation for curing serious genetic diseases. Q7 was a general question and was expected to show lower approval of genetic manipulation on humans than the specific questions.
In general the other frequently cited comments in all samples for all topics were connected with the unknown nature or danger (disaster) of the results. There was also much concern about insufficient controls, especially by teachers and scientists. If what are seen to be safe and adequate controls are established, the people who had these reasons for objecting to genetic manipulation, may accept it. As noted below, there was also qualified acceptability by some respondents, depending on the introduction of appropriate control measures. It is up to the researchers to prove that the results represent an acceptable level of risk, and to adjust regulatory procedures to those that are seen to be adequate. A discussion of the regulation of biotechnology is in section 8.4.
There was also concern about human misuse of these techniques, which again, could be eased by further guarantees over who uses these techniques. For human beings, another major response was concerns about eugenics, and cloning. These fears may be eased by the introduction of laws, but we should note that in Europe where there are some laws to prevent such abuses, there is still much concern with eugenics (see section 4.4).
In addition to the respondents who said that genetic manipulation was unacceptable because there were insufficient controls, there were also some respondents who said that it was acceptable providing there were controls. These were a sizable number and are shown in Table 4-4. The actual number of respondents who were concerned about controls should include these respondents in addition to those who said that the area was unacceptable because of insufficient controls. It may have been useful to ask respondents for their reasons for both response options to Q7b-d, as a few respondents remarked. It may be significant that such a high proportion of respondents who said that the techniques were acceptable, did spontaneously write down some qualification to their response choice. Less students wrote such comments, in contrast to the general trend in the answers where more students gave reasons when asked for them, which suggests either that they were not very concerned that extra controls were necessary, or that they were still young and used to answering exam questions in a rigid way therefore were not so forthcoming with additional remarks.
Some of the comments were:
The proportions of respondents who said that genetic
manipulation was acceptable, but wrote that limits were required.
The values are expressed as %'s of the respondents who answered
that it was acceptable in Q7b.
| Public | 20.6 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 8.5 |
| Student | 11.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Teacher | 24.5 | 6.7 | 7.7 | 7.8 |
| Acad. | 19.1 | 6.6 | 7.0 | 9.1 |
| Scient. | 19.0 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 8.7 |
The results of Q7c, which asked people whether they thought there were benefits of genetic manipulation, are summarised in Table 4-5. Both plants and microbes were perceived to give the most benefit, with genetic manipulation of animals significantly lower. However, still more than 70% of teachers and scientists saw a benefit from genetic manipulation of animals. There were less benefits perceived from human genetic manipulation. Teachers and scientists saw more benefit from these techniques than the public or students. More New Zealanders believed that there would be benefits from genetic manipulation, especially for animals and plants, and the comparative results are represented in Figure 4-3.
The question was phrased to include benefits to the country. Some respondents wrote that the question should not be limited to national interests (see the examples of comments). Of course this is true, and it is in fact encouraging that some people noted this point, reflecting some concern that benefits of technology should be for all people of the world. This topic will be discussed in chapter 5, it is a more complex question to answer this general question in terms of the whole world, than many people imagine.
The perceived benefits were also asked, and these are summarised in Table 4-6. The method used to analyse the reasoning was to assign the comments to categories, as was done for Q7b, described above. A total of 37 different categories were used in the computer data analysis. Although a variety of comments was written, generally they could easily be assigned to categories. For each distinct reason given in the comment, a count of 1 was scored in the appropriate category of the data sheet in the computer. The most reasons given for a single answer was 4, but generally there were only 1 or 2 comments. Also, a high proportion did not write any comment, as is shown in Table 4-6. Teachers and students showed the highest response, but unlike the reasons for unacceptability, scientists listed more benefits than the public. There were some common reasons given, and these could be shown in the Table separately, whereas some less common comments were grouped with similar comments, so that in Table 4-6 a total of 14 categories are presented. To give further a further idea of the comments, some typical comments for each category are listed below (from public respondents unless indicated "t"=teachers or "a"=academic). The organisms that they were cited for are indicated (H-human cells, P-plants, M-microbes, A-animals, All).
| Sample: |
| |||||
| Number | 485 | 192 | 221 | 660 | 227 | 518 |
|
Q7: Human cells | ||||||
| No Benefit | 62.3 | 47.9 | 46.5 | 43.6 | 54.8 | 39.2 |
| Benefit | 37.7 | 52.1 | 53.5 | 56.4 | 45.2 | 60.8 |
| No risk | 16.7 | 10.1 | 14.4 | 26.6 | 14.7 | 29.2 |
| Risk | 83.3 | 89.9 | 85.6 | 73.4 | 85.3 | 70.8 |
|
Q7: Plant cells | ||||||
| No Benefit | 21.1 | 15.1 | 13.2 | 13.7 | 18.1 | 12.0 |
| Benefit | 78.9 | 84.9 | 86.8 | 86.4 | 81.9 | 88.0 |
| No risk | 60.5 | 40.0 | 45.3 | 56.0 | 48.0 | 57.1 |
| Risk | 39.5 | 60.0 | 54.7 | 44.0 | 52.0 | 42.9 |
|
Q7: Microbes | ||||||
| No Benefit | 31.5 | 24.9 | 19.5 | 16.7 | 24.5 | 13.5 |
| Benefit | 68.5 | 75.1 | 80.5 | 83.3 | 75.5 | 86.5 |
| No risk | 46.4 | 25.8 | 30.4 | 46.3 | 36.8 | 48.3 |
| Risk | 53.6 | 74.2 | 69.6 | 53.7 | 63.2 | 51.7 |
|
Q7: Animals | ||||||
| No Benefit | 46.9 | 38.7 | 29.0 | 29.6 | 40.0 | 25.7 |
| Benefit | 53.1 | 61.3 | 71.0 | 70.4 | 60.0 | 74.3 |
| No risk | 38.7 | 27.4 | 31.3 | 42.1 | 29.3 | 45.7 |
| Risk | 61.3 | 72.6 | 68.7 | 57.9 | 70.7 | 54.3 |
Figure 4-3 Comparative perceptions of the benefits and risks
of genetic manipulation in Japan and New Zealand
Data from New Zealand from the survey of Couchman & Fink-Jensen
(1990).
Values are expressed as %'s of the respondents who
thought that there were benefits (number written in table). Values
written in small figures are those obtained in New Zealand (Couchman
& Fink-Jensen 1990).
| Reason: | |||||
| Human genetic disease, | Public | 22 22.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| cure or prevent | Students | 30.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 2.6 |
| Genetic disease | Teachers | 50 47.8 | 0 0 | 2 0 | 0 0.7 |
| Acad. | 39.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | |
| Scient. | 38 40.8 | 0 0 | 0 0 | 0 0 | |
| Disease control | Public | 31 14.8 | 2 3.4 | 27 3.5 | 16 2.4 |
| Student | 23.7 | 6.1 | 4.9 | 6.1 | |
| Teacher | 12 19.5 | 44 7.3 | 17 2.2 | 33 5.3 | |
| Acad. | 19.5 | 6.0 | 2.3 | 3.4 | |
| Scient. | 20 19.9 | 38 7.2 | 9 2.2 | 27 3.7 | |
| Medical Advance, | Public | 18 8.5 | 2 2.4 | 13 15.6 | 3 5.2 |
| Cancer cure | Students | 18.5 | 4.3 | 10.6 | 14.0 |
| Teacher | 28 17.7 | 20 3.1 | 4 13.5 | 8 8.6 | |
| Acad. | 12.6 | 2.6 | 10.1 | 6.0 | |
| Scient. | 58 11.8 | 3 1.9 | 23 8.2 | 6 6.0 | |
| Scientific knowledge | Public | 7 1.7 | 0.3 | 10 2.2 | 6 3.6 |
| Student | 4.1 | 2.5 | 4.2 | 7.0 | |
| Teacher | 1 6.2 | 4 4.2 | 1 5.6 | 2 9.9 | |
| Acad. | 5.0 | 3.2 | 4.7 | 9.7 | |
| Scient. | 2 5.2 | 2 3.7 | 8 5.3 | 3 11.0 | |
| Agricultural Advance | Public | 0 | 22 2.6 | 13 1.6 | 10 0.8 |
| Student | 0 | 6.1 | 2.8 | 2.6 | |
| Teacher | 0 | 24 9.4 | 25 3.9 | 14 6.6 | |
| Acad. | 0 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 2.4 | |
| Scient. | 0 | 22 4.3 | 30 1.8 | 10 3.7 | |
| Different varieties | Public | 0 | 20 14.6 | 2.9 | 13.3 |
| Student | 0 | 20.2 | 2.1 | 8.8 | |
| Teacher | 0 | 30 31.9 | 0 4.5 | 15 28.9 | |
| Acad. | 0 | 24.1 | 10.4 | 20.9 | |
| Scient. | 0 | 24 25.2 | 6.7 | 13 22.2 | |
| Increased yield to make | Public | 1.1 | 23 21.5 | 7.3 | 16 15.7 |
| more food | Students | 0 | 25.2 | 7.7 | 15.8 |
| Agriculture, Food | Teachers | 0 | 42 26.2 | 0 9.0 | 39 17.1 |
| Acad. | 0 | 25.7 | 10.1 | 18.3 | |
| Scient. | 0 | 47 25.8 | 10.5 | 38 18.3 | |
| Humanity benefits, | Public | 22 13.1 | 3 10.2 | 9 11.4 | 6 12.9 |
| Whole world benefits, | Student | 10.3 | 11.0 | 14.8 | 13.2 |
| Living standard increases | Teacher | 4 3.5 | 0 5.8 | 0 8.4 | 0 10.5 |
| Acad. | 9.3 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.7 | |
| Scient. | 11 9.1 | 1 6.9 | 6 8.0 | 2 8.1 | |
| Exports increase, | Public | 4 6.3 | 9 4.5 | 2 5.7 | 11 6.9 |
| Economics | Students | 3.1 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 3.5 |
| Teacher | 0 0.9 | 3 0.5 | 9 0.6 | 9 0.7 | |
| Acad. | 1.6 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 4.5 | |
| Scient. | 2 1.6 | 11 4.3 | 5 5.3 | 14 3.9 | |
| Increased quality, | Public | 5.1 | (38) 12.3 | 3.8 | (49) 9.7 |
| Beautiful product | Students | 0 | 6.7 | 0 | 4.4 |
| Teacher | 0 0 | (22) 4.7 | 0 0 | (40) 2.6 | |
| Acad. | 1.4 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 4.1 | |
| Scient. | 1.3 | (26) 3.9 | 2.0 | (45) 4.7 | |
| Environmental | Public | 0 | 4.6 | 11 7.6 | 2.8 |
| advantage | Students | 1.0 | 5.5 | 8.5 | 1.8 |
| Teacher | 0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.7 | |
| Acad. | 0 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 1.9 | |
| Scient. | 0 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 1.3 | |
| Make medicines | Public | 0 | 0.3 | 6.7 | 0 |
| Student | 0 | 0.6 | 10.6 | 3.5 | |
| Teacher | 0.9 | 0 | 28.7 | 0.7 | |
| Acad. | 0.3 | 0.5 | 10.4 | 2.4 | |
| Scient. | 0.3 | 0.7 | 10.7 | 2.6 | |
| Make useful substances, | Public | 0.6 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 3 1.6 |
| IndustryIndustry | Students | 2.1 | 4.9 | 12.0 | 4.4 |
| Teacher | 0 | 3.1 | 58 18.4 | 2.6 | |
| Acad. | 0.8 | 3.9 | 21.6 | 6.2 | |
| Scient. | 1.0 | 4.8 | 46 23.6 | 7.0 | |
| Doubtful benefit | Public | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0 |
| Student | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Teacher | 1.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.7 | |
| Acad. | 1.6 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | |
| Scient. | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.8 | |
| Not stated | Public | 20 35.2 | 8 38.2 | 30 39.7 | 14 37.9 |
| Student | 19.6 | 25.5 | 30.3 | 30.7 | |
| Teacher | 16.8 | 20.9 | 21.3 | 21.1 | |
| Acad. | 24.4 | 31.0 | 31.5 | 31.4 | |
| Scient. | 3 23.9 | 4 29.5 | 6 30.1 | 5 29.8 | |
| Number who answered | Public | 638 176 | 1250 382 | 523 315 | 930 248 |
| that there was a benefit | Student | 97 | 163 | 142 | 114 |
| Teacher | 113 113 | 257 191 | 216 178 | 199 152 | |
| Acad. | 365 | 588 | 556 | 465 | |
| Scient. | 94 306 | 213 461 | 172 449 | 177 383 |
Nearly half of the teachers who said there was a benefit from genetic manipulation of human cells said it would lead to cures for genetic disease, and there were also many who put another medical benefit as their reason. From plants and animals, the major perceived benefit was making new and different varieties, and increased yield to make more food. The category "agricultural advance" was only used for those that said there was an agricultural advance in general, and if they specified new varieties of plant or increased food production as a benefit, only these reasons were scored. The largest benefit seen for genetic manipulation of microorganisms was to make medical products such as hormones, and other useful substances. The comments were scored, depending on whether the respondent listed only a medical product, in which case they were not scored for the general "production of useful substance" category. Only if they listed an industrial product or other useful substance was it scored in that general category (see the examples).
The results from the New Zealand survey conducted by Couchman & Fink-Jensen (1990) are also shown in Table 4-6, and these are schematically represented in Figure 4-4. The New Zealand values have been rounded off to the nearest integer, but are useful guides. The results are very similar in general. Half the teachers in both countries saw the benefit of curing or preventing genetic disease from genetic manipulation of human cells. In Japan almost all the respondents used the word "cure", but in New Zealand almost all the respondents used the word "prevent". This could be related to the use of genetic screening to prevent genetic disease, but it is not possible to be sure if this linguistic difference represents any different thinking, because the English word "prevent" can also mean cure, not only screening.
Other medical benefits, such as disease control, cancer cure, and medical advance, were common for all respondents. The high perception of medical benefits is consistent with the results of Japanese public opinion surveys in which respondents must respond to a list of multiple options. For example in December 1985 people were asked what were their expectations from life sciences (N=7439, PMO 1986a). The responses were chosen from a list; 45% agreed that they would allow treatment of cancer and genetic disease, 13% said pollution could be stopped, 11% said they would increase living standard, 5% said they would lead to new industry, 4% said they would allow us to produce more food, 4% said they would lead to the development of new products and 4% had no special hope, with 13% who "didn't know". In another question looking at expectations, over a 15 year period, 64% said that they expected human disease prevention, 69% said that they thought life would be lengthened, while 49% thought that ideas about the family would be changed and 50% thought that ordinary diet would be changed. In a 1986 general science survey (N=2376, PMO 1986b), 53% of people said that they felt science and technology in medical techniques, 36% said they felt it from advanced scientific technology such as electronics and biotechnology, and 31% said that they felt it from the general quality of life and plentifulness of food.
The most common response in both countries for a benefit from genetic manipulation of microbes was to make useful substances. Economic benefits were at a low level, with more respondents in New Zealand listing these benefits, perhaps because the economy is so dependent upon biotechnology, in terms of agriculture. In the reasons cited for genetic manipulation of animals, many more New Zealanders cited disease control of animals, as a reason. In both countries similar proportions cited "new varieties" or "increased production and food", with a trend for more New Zealanders to cite the later.
The category "different varieties" in the table includes those respondents who cited the benefit of making new varieties, and the benefit of climate resistant varieties. Among New Zealand teachers who saw benefits from plant genetic manipulation, 15% cited "making climate resistant varieties", whereas in Japan only 2% cited this. The difference in the number of people who cited the benefit of "increased quality" of plants and animals between the two countries may be due to drawing a different category boundary, in New Zealand this category included improved strains, or varieties, whereas "improved varieties" were included in the "new varieties" category in Japan, to distinguish that comment from comments "improved quality". In the category shown in Table 4-5, "increased quality" included making a beautiful product, such as ornamental plants, which represented half of the respondents in that category in Japan. In New Zealand, teachers cited about 3-7% "other" comments, and scientists 5-7% others, which were not reported so are not included in Table 4-6.
In the 1983 Nikkei survey of business people in Japan, people were asked what were their hopes from the future of biotechnology (Nikkei 1983). To attempt to determine what benefits they hoped for from biotechnology, they were also asked to respond to a list of benefits, 73% said medical benefits such as a cancer cure, 65% said for developing plant and animal varieties, 25% agreed it would clean the environment, 17% saw benefits in energy and 12% saw benefits in saving energy in the chemical industry. People were also asked whether they thought biotechnology was suitable for Japan, and 69% said yes. This value is much lower than the value of Q5b in the current survey. These people were asked to respond to a list of possible reasons, and 61% agreed because it was intensive knowledge technology, 43% said it was suitable because Japan has no raw materials or energy, 40% said because Japan is good at fermentation technology, 18% said because of future technology development, and 16% said because Japanese are good at miniature technology. In the Dentsu (1985) survey of the public, people were asked to respond to statements asking what was the context of their interest in biotechnology (41% of the total who said that they were interested); 59% said to develop medicine and cure disease, 34% said to increase varieties of plants and animals to increase food production, 21% said to make new varieties to make new foods, 25% said to develop energy sources, 11% said as new materials for the chemical industry, and 21% said nothing special.
In the February 1991 survey by the Agency for the Environment (N=1363, EA 1992) people were asked to chose from a list of responses, the closest response to their ideas on the usefulness of genetic engineering, among the biotechnologies. It should be noted that the people answering this questionnaire had been given several pages of introductory notes to read before answering the questions, which may have affected their responses. 31% chose "it will make new medicines and useful organisms", 35% chose "our country should always actively develop new technology like this one", 23% chose "the history is not yet long enough so its usefulness is not clearly seen", 8% chose "because I'm worried about adverse environmental or health effects, it is not useful", and 2% said something else. Their results are consistent with the results obtained here, but the results of this survey give a better impression of what the people actually think, because there was no prompting in the question. Therefore, the results of this survey should be encouraging for those who want to promote biotechnology, in that many people could think of some benefits from the technology. Actually genetic manipulation may not be the most widely known of the biotechnological techniques, judging from the results of earlier surveys, and the results of Q5, where more people understood biotechnology than those who understood genetic engineering.
In a recent European public opinion poll in the U.K., France, Italy and Germany (performed in 1990 by Gallup for Eli Lily, N=3156, Dixon 1991), the respondents were asked to choose the largest benefit that they saw coming from biotechnology, between one of four possible benefits from biotechnology. Over half rated cures for serious diseases as the most important benefit. Another option was reducing our dependence upon pesticides and chemical fertilisers, which 26% of Italians, 24% of French, 22% of British and 16% of Germans, chose as the largest benefit. The respondents were asked a similar question about their largest concern. 40% of French, 35% of Germans, and 25% of British and Italian respondents chose eugenics, and slightly lower proportions overall chose environmental harm, 34% in Britain, 33% in France, 22% in Italy and 21% in Germany. Potential health hazards from laboratory genetic research were named by 29% in Italy, 17% in France, 11% in Britain and 10% in Germany. Overall one third of respondents feel that biotechnology is ethical and one third feel that it is unethical, and one third think it is in between, "neither".
Therefore, it appears that in all countries medical advances, and the ability to cure genetic diseases are the major benefits people see from genetic engineering and biotechnology. Other benefits are divided, depending on the organisms that are considered. Microorganisms are seen for both medical use and use to produce useful substances in general through fermentation. Plants and animals are seen for their obvious agricultural importance, and genetic manipulation is perceived for its ability to aid the breeding of new varieties, and to increase production of food.
Although in the European survey, discussed above, the choice of the benefit of reduced pesticide use and environmental benefits is popular, it may not actually be a common feeling. The response to Q16f, which asked if people thought GMOs would have this advantage, was supportive (see section 4.5), but from the responses to Q7c in both Japan and New Zealand, it may be very unfamiliar, despite the high level of concern expressed in Q5 about pesticides. In both New Zealand and Japan, there should be more publicity associated with this environmental benefit, though the chemical companies who make pesticides may have different priorities (see chapter 5).
4.4. Perceived Hazards of Genetic Manipulation
The results of Q7d, which asked people whether there were any hazards of genetic manipulation, are summarised in Table 4-4. The level of awareness of techniques of genetic manipulation among people in Japan has increased in the last decade, but as seen in the following results, they still have concerns. This is not surprising at all, when looking at the spread of responses among the different groups. More high school teachers perceived risk from genetic manipulation than did the public, even though more saw benefits coming from genetic manipulation. Scientists gave similar responses to the public, except that they expressed less concern with genetic manipulation of human cells (71%) compared to the public (82%).
More Japanese perceived a possibility of hazards from genetic manipulation than New Zealanders (Figure 4-3). This was especially true for genetic manipulation of humans and animals. Japanese students and teachers perceived more risks than other groups in Japan. There have been no accidents in Japan involving GMOs. In fact there has only been one field release of GMOs, compared to about 20 in New Zealand, and this may be related to the high level of perceived risk in Japan.
People were asked to express the risks that they perceived, and these are summarised in Table 4-7. The method used to assign the cited reasons, was the same as that described for the reasons given for benefits, and unacceptability. A total of 40 categories were used in this analysis, but in Table 4-7, they are grouped in 14 categories. The comments given for some were very similar to those cited for the unacceptability of the techniques, but there were many more total respondents who wrote comments to Q7d than for Q7b, because many people saw some risks. However, the proportion among the respondents who said that there were risks who wrote comments to Q7d, was generally lower than the proportion among the respondents who said that genetic manipulation was unacceptable who wrote comments to Q7b, as in New Zealand. Some people may have thought that they had already written a comment to Q7b, but many of those who said that there were risks but did not cite a risk had answered Q7b with the "acceptable" option. More scientists who saw risks wrote comments to Q7d than the scientists who cited a reason after saying that the techniques were unacceptable in Q7b. As for all the questions, Q7b,c&d, less respondents in Japan wrote comments than those in New Zealand, especially scientists and teachers (who were questioned by mail reply questionnaires in both countries).
To give further a further idea of the comments, some typical comments for each category are listed below, and a detailed representation of the public sample comments is in Figure 4-5. The comments are from public respondents unless indicated "t"=teachers or "a"=academic. The organisms that they were cited for are indicated (H-human cells, P-plants, M-microbes, A-animals, All).