Attitudes to Bioethics and Biotechnology in Thailand (1993-2000), and Impacts on Employment

- Chalobon Kachonpadungkitti and Darryl Macer,

Master's Program in Environmental Sciences,

University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba Science City 305-8572, Japan

(C.K. is an officer of the Thailand Department of Employment).

Email: kchalobon@hotmail.com, asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 14 (2004), 118-134.

Abstract

This paper compares the opinions that people in Thailand have on the impact of bioethics and biotechnology in the year 2000 with 1993. During the year 2000 sampling was conducted upon a relatively well educated public group, and on university students, and the open comments that explore the reasoning people have were translated into English and analyzed. A total of 214 public and 84 university respondent questionnaires were gathered to compare with the 689 public and 232 student respondents in 1993.

In the year 2000 there was less optimism in science and technology than 1993. In questions on the specific application of technology more persons expressed greater worry for pesticides, genetic engineering and computers. The results of questions on specific applications on genetics reveal that there has been a halving of the support for gene transfer from plant to plant, and even greater drop in support for animal to plants. There has been a drop in approval of environmental release of GMOs, as also found in other countries of the world. There was a doubling of the persons who said that television was the source of their feelings about science and technology in 2000 compared to 1993. There was also increased mention of learning about these issues in their education.

Introduction

Thailand has a population of over 60 million people with an average per capita income of around US$1500 per annum. Most Thai people are aware and experience the 'globalisation' of communication and trading, and new sciences and technologies are known to many of them. Thailand is a strongly Buddhist country, with rising living standards and a rapidly developing economy. The vitality of the Buddhist faith also does much to bridge social gaps, such as prevail between city and countryside. It is therefore of particular interest to see how attitudes bioethical dilemmas have changed over the 1990s.

Recognizing the potential of biotechnology to affect a broad spectrum of industries, the government of Thailand has placed increased emphasis on the technology over the last few decades. Today, the opportunities for utilization of biotechnology in public and business sectors are expected to grow at the fast pace during the next decade.

Nowadays Thailand faces many environmental problems, for example, deforestation has become a serious problem in many parts of country. Over half of Thai forests have been destroyed by indiscriminate cutting of timber, both by slash and burn farmers and by poachers. About 20% of forests are remaining. The deforestation in Thailand has four direct causes; slash and burn cultivation by a growing of landless migrant poor; conversion of forests to cattle pastureland; wasteful and unsustainable commercial logging; and over harvesting of subsistence fuelwood and fodder.

One of the most hotly debated issues in the environmental ethics of biotechnology is the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the environment. This is because it may have an adverse effect on human health or some part of the ecosystem like biological diversity. GMOs include food, animal feed, seeds, and flowers, for example. Thailand is an agricultural country, most Thai people in rural areas depend on agricultural productivity. They have used chemical pesticides and intensive agriculture, but recently a consumer-led movement has promoted the use of non-chemical pesticides in plants.

Thailand has followed the international trends in developing biosafety guidelines that apply to all biotechnology research and development in the country, and to the introduction of biotechnology products into the country. The lack of law enforcement and proper infrastructures are issues raised by the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (NCGEB, 1999). While they claim that these issues were addressed and prepared for since the early period of the formulation of the guidelines in the 1990s, in contrast, new challenges recently came up, associated with a growing public debate around GMOs and their socioeconomic implications.

One of the important aspects of this broad socioeconomic debate is trade. Thailand is the world leader in the export of rice, cassava products, canned pineapple, canned baby corn, and ornamental cut flowers such as orchids (NCGEB, 1999). It also ranks among the top in the production of tropical fruits, rubber and palm oil. Since the EU, one of Thailand’s biggest trade partners, has adopted labeling regulation on GMO food products and raw materials, export industries have been greatly affected. For example, Thailand’s canned tuna was once banned in Egypt upon suspicion of using oil produced from GM soya beans.

A second important aspects of this broad socioeconomic debate is labeling and segregation of GM seeds. The Plant Quarantine Act states that all transgenic plants (40 are listed, processed foods not included) are prohibited from entry into the country, unless permission is granted by the Director General of Department of Agriculture (DOA), and only for experimental purposes. However, the majority of soybean and maize imported into the country are from the USA and Argentina, the main producers of GM crops. Under the current situation, the import of these crops as grain for food and feed processing have been conducted as routine with neither awareness nor capability of segregation. The Food and Drug Administration of Thailand enforces GMO product labeling since 2001.

Public interest and concern over GMO issues have been growing rapidly and are now on the national agenda. Several NGOs started arguing to the public and farmers about the threat of domination by multinationals, the risk of losing indigenous species through unintended gene flow and adverse effects to non-target organisms after field release. These concerns are typical of international NGOs, like Greenpeace. As a result, the commercial release of Bt cotton (already passed the regulations) has been suspended for political reasons.

Most countries, especially developing countries now face the challenging prospect of developing institutional arrangements to identify and manage the risks associated with biotechnology. Thailand lacks funding for research in general so one must ask whether sufficient resources will be spent on safety assessment. The lack of resources has been said to be a reason for poor management of natural resources. This leads to concerns over the ability of Thailand to use biotechnology to meet its needs, and we should focus on devising strategies to optimize the benefits of the biotechnology revolution.

Internationally there has been widespread debate over GMOs (Gaskell et al., 200; Macer and Ng, 2000). Genetic modification techniques are the subject of intense debate in the year 2001 in Thailand, with a ban on release of Starlink Bt corn made on 3 April, 2001. Concerned about the potential effects of GMO on Thai products, the government issued a ban on the import of Starlink Bt corn from the US which is believed to contain GMO. Importation is allowed only in case when There is a certification from the country of origin is to be imported, that the product is GMO-free.

More recently, Egypt banned import of canned tuna from Thailand in May, 2000 due to unsubstantial claimed that the canned tuna imported from Thai contained GM soy bean oil. The GM soybean oil is reportedly derived from US soybeans. The dispute was resolved without recourse to the international court of WTO to take effect when Thai and Egypt will sign, the Memorandum of understanding (MOU) under WTO while a law is developed in Thailand. Thai regulations enacted in 2000 allows GM plants only for research, not for commercial release .

Experience suggests that GMOs are not well known among the people who live in the country site. Even people who live in the city seem to have little knowledge about GMOs, and they cannot understand these well. However, in the 1993 survey in Thailand, 86% of respondents said they were aware that GMOs were being used to produce foodstuffs and they did not express much concern about food or medicine made from GMOs (Srinives et al. 1994). This survey had a high number of educated respondents however, so it may not represent the views of the general public. There is a need to examine what more ordinary citizens feel, and whether knowledge has changed between 1993 and 2000.

The perception of the problem varies among environmental issues, trade issues, ethical issues, health issues and long term self-sufficiency issues. Moreover, even if people are familiar with the term GMOs, most people don’t know its real meaning and are ignorant of the basic science of genes. Such variety shows the confusion caused by this new technology and the gap that has to be filled by the scientific community. Also, the reliability of the governments’ risk management capability is another important aspect. More often than not, insensitive comments are made by senior public figures showing their lack of genuine concern over the issue, which inevitably provokes furious reaction from the mass media.

The mass media is the important factor as a means to educate the general public. Especially newspapers and television are found to be important sources of information in countries that have been surveyed (Macer, 1994).

Biotechnology companies should take more responsibility for protecting the environment, rather than just ensuring that the new biotechnology strains of agriculture foodstuffs are safe. The government and media should recognize the importance of biodiversity and the need for carrying all species through the problems of overpopulation and environmental degradation. Referring to the impact of GMOs on human health, we first need to identify what the risks are. We need proper organization of a consultative process to test transgenic food products for safety. There are important roles to be played by NGOs and other segments of civil society regarding biotechnology. The public understanding of GMOs is important to disseminate information about GMOs, goods and products by the companies or institutions that research and produce them.

However, the positive way of biotechnology is expected to bring important advances in medical diagnosis and therapy, in solving food problems, in energy saving, in environmentally compatible industrial and agricultural production, and in specially targeted environmental protection projects. Genetically bio-filters and wastewater treatment facilities, and the clean-up of polluted sites are also important environmental applications. Genetically modified organisms can also alleviate environmental burdens by reducing the need for pesticides, fertilizers, and medications. It will be interesting to see what sorts of benefits people can think of through the use of the survey.

2. Methods

The International Bioethics Survey conducted by Macer and Srinives in 1993 in Thailand, was used as a basis to develop a new questionnaire to allow a picture of the reasoning of Thai people towards biotechnology. We can also compare this to changes over the same period in Japan (Macer, 1994; Ng et al. 2000). Because of particular interest in the perceptions of people towards the economic impact of environmental concerns, several questions on this were included in the survey.

The questionnaires were translated into Thai language consisting of 6 A4 size pages including a half page introductory letter. The questionnaire included 125 questions in total, with 35 open-ended questions. Many questions were extracted, or based upon, questions used in the International Bioethics Survey, or earlier surveys (Macer, 1994). There were two new specific open questions (Q17,Q21) looking at the reasoning regarding the environment and employment concerns. The open question were designed to look at how people make decisions; and the ideas in each comment were assigned to different categories depending on the questions.

In order to investigate the opinions two groups in society have towards these issues, opinion surveys were conducted on the public and students. The questionnaires where all the questions answered were used for this study. Open comments were placed into categories using the method of Macer (1992, 1994), and these categories were compared between student and public samples in 2000, and with the 1993 survey results (Srinives et al., 1994).

Table 1: Sample Characteristics of the 1993 and 2000 Thai survey respondents

%	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
N	214	689	84	232
Female	72.3	52	77.8	58
Mean age (yr)	37.2	37.2	21.5	21.3
Urban	79.6	54	53.7	58
Religion
None	0.9	0.2	0	0.4
Christian	1.9	0.4	2.4	1.7
Moslem	1.4	0.6	0	0.4
Buddhist	95.8	99.0	96.4	97.0
In your daily life, do you consider religion to be...?
Very important	45.5	46	54.2	54
Somewhat	44.5	44	37.3	38
No too	8.1	8	6	7
Not at all	1.9	2	2.4	0.4
Marital status
Single	51.2	38	98.8	99
Married	46.9	59	1.2	0.4
Divorced	1.9	3	0	0.6
Children:
None	34.5	22	58.3	96
pregnant	2.7	2	0	0
one	32.7	24	16.7	2
two	23.6	39	16.7	2
more	6.4	13	8.3	0
Education
High school	1	2	2.5	4
Two yr college	4.8	3	1.2	18
Univ. graduate	61.2	35	83.8	60
Postgraduate	29.7	59	8.8	13
Other	3.3	1	3.8	5

3. Sample characteristics

A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed, 300 for a relatively well educated public population (mainly university graduates), and 200 for university students, of whom more than half were biology students, were distributed in August 2000 in Thailand. Overall 60% were returned, with 214 from the general public and 84 students. The sample characteristics are presented in Table 1, with comparisons to the 1993 sample. The 2000 public sample was predominantly urban (80%), and 69% were government workers, 22% were company officers, with some other occupations (Table 2). There is a significantly lower percentage of researchers in the 2000 sample, because of the distribution of the surveys. In 1993 some questionnaires were distributed in an academic association to supplement the public sample. In 2000 the questionnaires were distributed predominantly to government departments and a company.

There is no significant difference between the public and student samples in 2000 with 72-78% female and 96% Buddhist, however there are significantly less males than in the 1993 survey. In the 2000 public sample 51% were single and 35% had no children, but in the 1993 sample 38% were single with 22% having no children. The average age is the same, 37 years, in both samples. There are several possible reasons for the decreased proportion of married persons with children in the 2000 sample compared to 1993. One is that the survey respondents are predominantly working, so it may be more difficult for a women to have a child and be married while still working. Another may be social trends to delay the age of marriage and child bearing. Another reason may be 80% of the 2000 respondents were urban, compared to 54% in 1993. The pace of life in the rural areas is slower with more time to spare than urban dwellers in Bangkok, who have to spend long times commuting due to traffic jams. The educational levels were similar, and as in the 1993 sample, most were university graduates, with 25% being postgraduates.

Table 2: Occupation of the public respondents

%	P2000	P1993
Government	69.4	60.2
Company	21.8	8.1
University/Research	1.5	17.4
Housewife	0	1.3
Retired	1	0
Farmer	0	0.3
Teacher	1.5	10.6
Administration	0	0.2
Self employed	0.5	0.4
Arts	0	0
Counselor	0	0.2
Engineer	0	0.2
Medical	0	0
Unemployed	0	0.2
Not stated	3.9	14.9

4. Attitudes to the environmental concerns

In Q2 we can see there is an increase in agreement with a variety of environmental concerns, and self-reported behaviour related to health or environmental concerns (Table 3). We can also see this in some other questions in the survey. In Q2a. when asked “ in during the past 12 months have you bought foods labeled as “pesticide free” 74% of the public in the year 2000 said yes, compared to 47% in 1993, and there is a similar increase with 59% of students saying they had bought such food in 2000 compared to 40% in 1993. A drop of support in both groups for Q2b represents concern about the environment but increase in Q2a, which is on the perceived health risk to oneself or family, suggests the pesticide issue rather than environment in general is what people are concerned about. Consistent with this, there is also less support for giving money to environmental causes (Q2c).

There is increasing recycling activity. In Q2f people were asked whether they had sorted out certain types of household waste (glass, papers,..) for recycling. This was a 19% increase, with 77% public in 2000 compared to 58% in 1993 and 70% student in 2000 compared to 52% in 1993. As in the 1993 survey almost all people tried to save energy. This result shows that most Thai people,

Table 3: Environmental behaviour (%)

Q2	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
a. Bought foods labeled as "pesticide free"
Yes	74.5	47	48.8	40
No	13.2	28	27.4	23
DK	12.3	25	23.8	37
b. Stopped buying a product because it caused environmental problems
Yes	71.6	77	67.9	69
No	14.7	15	17.9	17
DK	13.7	8	14.3	14
c. Contributed money or time to an environmental cause
Yes	69	75	58.5	56
No	27.2	21	36.6	35
DK	3.8	4	4.9	9
d. Changed your life style in significant ways to protect the environment
Yes	84.9	79	75.9	79
No	11.9	16	19.3	16
DK	3.3	5	4.8	5
e. Stopped eating a certain food because of concerns over its safety
Yes	90.1	85	81	83
No	6.6	11	15.5	14
DK	3.3	4	3.6	3
f. Sorted out certain types of household waste (glass, papers, ...) for recycling
Yes	77.9	58	70.2	52
No	20.7	39	28.6	41
DK	1.4	3	1.2	7
g. Saved energy, for example, by using less hot water, by closing doors and windows in winter to save heat
Yes	98.6	97	95.2	95
No	.9	3	3.6	5
DK	.5	0.3	1.2	0

5. Attitudes to science and technology

In question 3, when asked “overall do you think science and technology do more harm than good, more good than harm, or about the same of each?”, 47% said more good in 2000, compared to 54% in 1993; with 4% saying more harm compared to 3% in 1993. However, 43% of the student’s sample said more good than harm in 2000 compared to 32% in 1993, with 8% said more harm compared to 4% in 1993 (Table 5).

In the question (Q4) asking how much persons had heard of several areas of science and technology, we see that the 2000 sample did have a higher self-indicated knowledge of science and technology with the exception of computers (Table 6).

Table 7 shows the perception of benefits and the worries about 6 areas of science and technology. The reasons were examined by analysis of the open comments into categories, and these are presented in Table 8.

The attitudes towards IVF and computers were the same, with some drop in support for biotechnology. Especially, they had a positive view about computers, with around 98% of both groups perceiving benefits, similar to respondents in 1993. They also had a positive view towards in vitro fertilization (IVF), with benefits being perceived by 75% of the public and 79% of the students, but there is some drop from 1993, with 6% drop in public and 5% student. The reason for the support to cure a disease to someone who can not be pregnant or can not give birth by nature. But there is a 19% public decline in the proportion who see benefits from pesticides in 2000, however there is a 13% decrease in the proportion of students who said that they were worried about pesticides in Q6. From the open comments, it can be observed that most Thai people now prefer a so-called "natural" method of production, particularly for plants that we are able to find in supermarkets or non-chemical shops. It is very popular for people who live in Bangkok to buy products with an organic label, which are more expensive than general products.

Table 4: General questions on science and technology issues

Q1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

%	Agree strongly	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Disagree strongly
a. Science makes an important contribution to the quality of life.
P2000	51.9	43	3.7	.5	.9
P1993	59	40	1	0.4	0
S2000	63.1	34.5	1.2	1.2	0
S1993	59	40	1	0.3	0
b. Most problems can be solved by applying more and better technology.
P 2000	7.1	37.9	18.4	34.1	2.4
P1993	8	39	14	37	2
S2000	9.5	41.7	15.5	33.3	0
S1993	9	41	16	31	3
c. The natural environment has a valuable property that humans should not tamper with.
P 2000	15.6	36.8	5.2	39.6	2.8
P1993	23	33	11	32	1
S2000	15.9	45.1	9.8	25.6	3.7
S1993	16	35	7	39	3
d. Genetically modified plants and animals will help agriculture become less dependent on chemical pesticides.
P 2000	5.9	36.6	25.9	24.9	6.8
P1993	18	51	15	13	3
S2000	7.4	44.4	14.8	28.4	4.9
S1993	13	52	17	15	3
e. A woman can abort a 4 month old fetus.
P 2000	3.3	12.6	19.2	44.4	20.6
P1993	3	14	17	39	27
S2000	2.4	8.3	10.7	42.9	35.7
S1993	3	10	19	50	38
f. A woman can abort a 4 month old fetus that has congenital abnormalities.
P 2000	26.6	46.3	13.6	8.4	5.1
P1993	35	44	9	8	4
S2000	17.9	50	7.1	19	6
S1993	25	46	12	11	6
g. A married couple can use a surrogate mother and in vitro fertilisation if they cannot get pregnant themselves.
P 2000	8.6	45.2	26.2	17.1	2.9
P1993	18	55	18	7	2
S2000	10.7	53.6	26.2	6	3.6
S1993	21	55	17	5	2
h.Animals have rights that people should not violate.
P2000	29.4	54.7	11.2	3.7	.9
P1993	32	50	11	6	1
S2000	20.5	59	14.5	4.8	1.2
S1993	48	42	6	3	1

Table 5: Outlook on science

Q3. Overall do you think science and technology do more harm than good, more good than harm, or about the same of each?

%	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
More harm	4.4	3	8.3	4
More good	47.3	54	42.9	32
Same	45.3	42	48.8	64
Don't know	2.9	1	0	0

Table 6: Awareness of science and technology areas

Q4. Can you tell me how much you have heard or read about each of these subjects?

%	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
a. Agricultural Pesticides
Not heard of	0	0	0	0
Heard of	63.8	34	61.4	59
Could explain	36.2	66	38.6	41
b. In vitro fertilisation
Not heard of	.9	0	1.2	2
Heard of	74.2	67	80.7	81
Could explain	24.9	33	18.1	17
c. Computers
Not heard of	0	0.2	0	0
Heard of	51.2	57	65.5	71
Could explain	48.8	43	34.5	29
d. Biotechnology
Not heard of	5.7	2	1.2	6
Heard of	66.8	57	50.6	71
Could explain	27.5	41	48.2	23
e. AIDS
Not heard of	0	0	0	0
Heard of	44.6	34	35.4	37
Could explain	55.4	66	64.6	63
f. Human Gene Therapy
Not heard of	10.8	10	3.6	15
Heard of	72.3	70	77.1	71
Could explain	16.9	20	19.3	14
g. Genetic engineering
Not heard of	23.6	13	2.5	17
Heard of	59	58	69.1	63
Could explain	17.5	29	28.4	20

Table 7: Perceived benefits

Q5. Do you personally believe each of these scientific discoveries and developments is a worthwhile area for scientific research? Why? (%)

Benefit	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
a In vitro fertilisation
Yes	75.2	79	81	84
No	18	15	13.1	11
DK	6.8	6	6	5
b. Agricultural Pesticides
Yes	45.1	63	33.3	46
No	48.5	33	59.5	51
DK	6.3	4	7.1	3
c. Computers
Yes	99.5	98	97.6	98
No	0	1	1.2	1
DK	.5	1	1.2	1
d. Biotechnology
Yes	75.4	90	94	85
No	2.5	1	4.8	2
DK	22.2	9	1.2	13
e. Genetic engineering
Yes	46.1	77	61.4	71
No	14.6	5	24.1	5
DK	39.3	18	14.5	24

Most dramatically, genetic engineering, however, sees a drop of 30% in the perceived benefits by the public respondents from 77% in 1993 to 46% in the year 2000, and a 10% drop in the student samples from 71% to 61%. In the 2000 sample, with only 20% saying they have no worries in response to Q6, with a 20% decline. The reason for the worry was investigated in the open question. For the public, 13% had ethical concerns, or fear of unknown, rather than personal health concerns, but for the student more gave reasons as lack of control or ethical concerns. However, in the 1993 there are few worries about whether the application of technology can be controlled. In both samples the fear of unknown is another response to Q5 or Q6.

To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments for each of the categories shown in Table 8 are given below:

Economy

It will be beneficial for business. (P43)

It is necessary for economic development. (P95)

It can get increased production, economically but following ethics not against ethics. (P208)

Science

It can make various scientific progress. (P1,4)

For knowledge and development. (P35)

The discovery of science is important for studying and protecting high technology because we do not know how the future will be. (P209)

Medicine

It can help someone who cannot give birth by nature. (P1,19)

It can cure some diseases. (P7)

It can solve the birth problem. (P21)

It can solve and cure some genetic disease. (P99)

Food

It is important for human life because it can develop food and the environment. (P24)

To get food without insect if it was used in right way. (P97)

It can solve food, energy and environment problem. (P158)

Avoid shortages. (P178)

Agriculture

It can help increase production. (P28,34)

To get increase in agriculture. (P38,76)

It will be useful for agriculture. (P87)

Energy

It is modernized and saves energy. (P171)

Humanity helped

It can get convenient and rapid work. (P16,22)

It can get convenient, develop higher knowledge and quality of life. (P24)

Save labor and time. (P17,195)

To help human heritage (P75)

Communication will go throughout the world. (P160)

To solve the problem of shortages. (P188)

Increase human food. (P201)

Increased efficiency

We can get efficient as human being. (P9)

It can increase efficiency of works. (P39)

Increase rapidly and convenience. (P46)

It can get rid of pesticide. (P55)

It can help to conserve plant and animal genes. (P74)

Good for the Environment

To educate the environment. (P21)

To help conserve natural resources and get rid of some wastes. (P90)

To conserve nature. (P172)

Help if careful

It should be used carefully. (P8)

These are valuable but should be careful. (P17)

It can help but need to be carefully. (P58)

To help consumption but it should have been limited. (P96)

Bad for the Environment

It will damage and change the ecology. (P13)

There will be affects on the ecology systems. (P24)

It will cause effects on the environment. (P60)

It will lead to pollution to the environment. (P109)

Lack of controls

Someone will use it for privacy without ethics. (P135)

It might be an epidemic disease that cannot controlled. (P187)

Dangerous

It will be dangerous if it was used a lot. (P39)

It will make a poison. (P69)

It can make a dangerous living thing. (P96)

It might have chemical contaminate to consumers. (P148)

Playing God / Interferes with nature

It should be natural. (P11)

It will damage the balance of nature. (P27)

I don't want human interfere nature. (P34)

Health risk

It will be dangerous to human health. (P43)

It will be an affect to humans. (P68)

User should study side effects. (P85)

Waste

It is not necessary. (P29)

It should use a natural method. (P45)

Nature can get rid of pesticide (P59)

It should stop or decrease using. (P66)

Fear of unknown

It will lead to being difficult to destroy. (P74)

I fear some genes that come with living thing. (S21)

Humanity changed

It can help develop the quality of life. (P81)

It makes a choice in the future. (P178)

It makes human get lazy. (S7)

It will be a good change. (S19)

Table 9: Concerns about applications of science and technology

Q6. Do you have any worries about the impact of research or its applications of these scientific discoveries and developments? How much? Why?

%	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
a In vitro fertilization
No	33.2	43	28.9	30
A few	38	32	48.2	50
Some	22	19	18.1	15
A lot	6.8	6	4.8	5
b. Agricultural Pesticides
No	12.3	14	9.6	5
A few	20.9	19	22.9	19
Some	32.7	37	32.5	42
A lot	34.1	30	34.9	34
c. Computers
No	49	64	41	63
A few	35.7	27	34.9	25
Some	12.4	7	15.7	9
A lot	2.9	2	8.4	3
d. Biotechnology
No	34.6	61	47.6	52
A few	31.8	30	35.4	37
Some	27	8	12.2	8
A lot	6.6	1	4.9	3
e. Genetic engineering
No	20.2	42	13.4	37
A few	34.3	32	35.4	38
Some	28.3	19	31.7	19
A lot	17.2	7	19.5	6

To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments of the risks of the applications for each of the categories shown in Table 10 are given below:

Don't know

I don't know the facts so much. (P9)

It's a new subject that I couldn't understand. (P104)

I don't know the food that we eat is GMO. (P132)

Interferes with Nature

It's not necessary to change things against nature. (P39

We should not change nature. (P81)

It's God duty. (P126)

Children should be born with nature. (P142)

Fear of unknown

In the long term we don't know about harm to babies. (P43)

It might create new diseases. (P203)

It might create new strength genes. (S27,S38)

Ethical

It's about ethics and morals. (P1,87)

Worry about using without ethics and do with dangerous experiment. (P97)

Ethics problem and confusion about humans. (P188)

It will cause an impact in the case of moral and ethics. (P113)

Table 8: Reasons for benefit perception

Q5. Do you personally believe each of these scientific discoveries and developments is a worthwhile area for scientific research? Why?...

Public %	IVF		Pesticides		Computers		Biotechnology		Gen. Eng.
	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993
Not stated	24.8	22.2	30.8	26.1	24.4	22.2	44.1	36.5	50.2	39.5
Economy	0	.4	.5	.9	.5	.6	1.9	3.1	.5	.9
Science	2.8	4.6	2.8	2	12.7	13.1	8.9	16.5	7	20.4
Medicine	53.3	51.6	0	.1	0	.2	.5	.6	.5	2.2
Agriculture/Food	0	0.5	10.3	16.9	0	.2	6.1	7.7	2.3	16.7
Energy	0	.1	0	0	0	.1	0	.4	0	.2
Humanity helped	.5	5.1	.5	2.4	.5	6.7	.5	10.9	0	4.9
Inc. efficiency	1.9	.6	5.6	.9	59.6	51.8	18.3	3.1	16.4	1
Good for Environment	0	.1	.9	.9	0	.1	6.1	13	.9	.6
Help if careful	0	2.2	6.5	16.6	.5	2.9	1.9	4.3	2.3	4.2
Bad for Environment	0	.6	14.5	14.4	1.4	0	1.9	.3	.9	.3
Lack of controls	.5	.5	1.4	3.8	0	.3	.5	.1	1.4	1.6
Dangerous/Health risk	0	0.6	12.1	10.5	0	0.4	0	.5	2.3	1.0
Play God/Unnatural	7.5	4.1	3.3	2.5	0	.2	.5	.3	3.3	1.1
Waste of Resources	4.7	3.1	8.4	1.3	0	.2	.9	.2	1.4	.6
Fear of unknown	2.3	1.5	2.3	.8	0	.1	7	2.2	10.3	4.6
Humanity changed	1.9	1.8	0	.1	.5	.8	.9	.1	0	.2
Student %	IVF		Pesticides		Computers		Biotechnology		Gen. Eng.
	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993
Not stated	21.4	13.8	17.9	14.7	14.3	11.2	21.7	31.0	23.8	33.3
Economy	1.2	0.5	0	1.3	1.2	0.7	1.2	2.6	0	1.1
Science	1.2	4.3	1.2	0.9	8.3	16.0	12	22.4	8.3	23.8
Medicine	65.5	67.2	0	.1	0	.2	0	0.4	3.6	2.2
Agriculture/Food	0	0.8	11.9	16.9	0	.2	4.8	8.1	3.6	20.3
Humanity helped	0	2.6	0	0.4	0	5.6	1.2	9.5	0	4.9
Inc. efficiency	2.4	0	8.3	1.7	72.6	60.8	37.3	2.6	36.9	0.9
Good for Environment	0	0.1	1.2	.9	0	.1	13.3	15.5	0	0.9
Help if careful	0	1.7	0	11.6	0	3.5	0	2.6	1.2	2.2
Bad for Environment	0	0.6	22.6	22.0	1.2	0	0	.3	1.2	.3
Lack of controls	0	0.5	2.4	5.2	1.2	.3	0	.1	2.4	1.6
Dangerous/Health risk	1.2	0.5	16.7	14.2	0	0.4	1.2	0.9	0	1.0
Play God/unnatural	2.4	3.0	0	4.3	0	.2	3.6	.4	6	0.9
Waste of resources	4.8	1.7	14.3	2.6	0	.2	1.2	0	3.6	0.9
Fear of unknown	0	1.5	3.6	.8	0	.1	0	2.2	8.3	4.6
Humanity changed	0	1.3	0	.1	1.2	1.3	2.4	.1	1.2	.2

Table 10: Reasons for worries about science and technology

Q6. Do you have any worries about the impact of research or its applications of these scientific discoveries and developments? How much? Why?..

Public %	IVF		Pesticides		Computers		Biotechnology		Gen. Eng.
	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993
Not stated	48.1	36.4	44.9	32.3	49.1	41.4	50	46.6	50.5	43
Don't know	1.9	2.3	1.4	.8	.5	1.3	8.9	4	12.9	6.9
Interfere Nature	5.1	3.9	.9	.5	0	.5	2.3	.7	3.8	1.8
Fear of unknown	2.3	4.2	2.3	2	.9	2.5	5.6	3.8	4.3	7.7
Ethical	12.6	5.2	7	.2	10.3	.8	7	.2	13.3	1
Humanity changed	4.2	8.7	.5	.1	6.1	9.9	1.9	.8	1.9	.3
Lack of controls	1.9	1.6	2.3	4.9	6.1	1.4	.9	2.6	2.4	3.8
Health risk	2.8	4.9	4.7	6.4	1.4	3.3	.9	1	1	1.8
Disaster	0	1	15.4	16.9	0	1.3	1.9	1.5	1.9	2.3
Ecology	.5	.3	10.3	17.8	.9	.3	3.7	2.8	2.9	3
Waste	5.1	1.2	4.2	.4	1.4	0	2.3	.4	2.4	.8
Misuse	1.4	3.2	2.3	10.4	3.7	5.2	3.3	5	0	5.9
Eugenics	.9	5.4	0	.1	0	0	0	.4	0	2.9
OK if controlled	13.1	21.6	3.7	7.2	19.6	32.1	11.2	30.1	2.9	18.9
Student %	IVF		Pesticides		Computers		Biotechnology		Gen. Eng.
	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993	2000	1993
Not stated	36.1	230	25.9	230	33.7	229	31.3	230	31.7	34.4
Don't know	2.4	25.2	0	20.9	0	28.0	2.4	36.5	1.2	10.4
Interfere Nature	2.4	2.2	1.2	1.3	0	1.3	3.6	5.7	3.7	1.7
Fear of unknown	2.4	2.6	1.2	0.4	1.2	0	1.2	0	4.9	5.2
Ethical	8.4	4.4	2.5	1.3	9.6	1.3	6	3.0	12.2	0.9
Humanity changed	6	3.5	1.2	0	12	0.4	1.2	0	1.2	0.4
Lack of controls	6	15.7	2.5	4.4	13.3	16.6	7.2	0.9	18.3	6.5
Health risk	2.4	3.0	2.5	8.3	0	1.3	0	4.3	1.2	1.7
Disaster	1.2	10.4	32.1	25.7	0	3.5	4.8	0.9	1.2	3.0
Ecology	0	0.4	22.2	24.8	0	2.2	3.6	1.3	6.1	3.5
Waste	6	1.7	4.9	0.9	1.2	0.4	3.6	5.2	2.4	0.9
Misuse	6	1.7	0	6.5	2.4	0	4.8	3.0	6.1	5.7
Eugenics	3.6	5.7	0	5.7	0	3.1	1.2	0.4	4.9	4.8
OK if controlled	16.9	23.5	3.7	230	26.5	41.9	28.9	38.7	4.9	20.9

Table 13: Open comments about cross species gene transfer (See Table 12 for question wording)

Public (%)	Q8 2000		1993		Q9 2000		1993		Q10 2000		1993	Q11 2000	1993
Not stated	27.6		21.4		30.4		23.4		31		28.9	32.3	30.3
Interfere nature, Cross species is bad	8.9		1.3		11.8		5.4		5.7		1.7	7.1	4.7
Feeling, Fear of unknown, Disaster	11.9		2.4		18.9		1.8		18.0		2.9	21.8	10.5
Need more research	6.6		3.5		7.5		9.9		8.5		7.7	5.6	6.9
Unethical, animal concerns	0		0		4.3		1.3		3.4		0.6	6.7	4.7
Product bad/taste; Humans special	0.5		0.8		1.8		1.5		1.0		0.9	12.8	12.0
Insufficient control, misuse	0.5		0		1		0.3		0.5		0.3	2.8	0
Health concerns	8.8		0.9		12.0		2.8		13.1		3.4	12.5	2.9
Environment	4.2		0.4		2.7		0.3		2.7		0.3	2.3	0
Social effects, eugenics	2.3		0		0.9		0		0.9		0	0.9	0
Conditional benefit, DK	12.7		5.0		16.0		11.4		10.8		6.0	6.6	7.1
Same genes OK, No problem	18		31.3		3.8		21.1		4.2		24.3	2.8	13.6
Medicine/Health/Science/knowledge	1.4		3.6		0		3.9		1.9		7.3	0.5	1.6
Agriculture, New varieties, Food	7.2		9.2		1.4		2.6		1.0		2.1	0	0.7
Humanity benefits, Better	11.0		18.2		3.3		9.2		9.9		11.4	1.9	2.9
Economy	1.4		0.6		.5		0		0		0	0	0.3
Don't need	3.4		1.2		2.8		1.8		5.7		1.0	3.8	2.6
Students (%)		Q8 2000		1993		Q9 2000		1993		Q10 2000	1993	Q11 2000	1993
Not stated		17.1		15.2		19.3		13.5		20.5	18.3	19.3	22.3
Interfere nature, Cross species is bad		3.5		3.5		17.6		5.6		2.9	1.7	9.8	2.6
Feeling, Fear of unknown, Disaster		8.5		1.7		9.6		6.5		9.6	3.9	20.4	10.0
Need more research		6.1		2.6		10.8		5.7		9.6	4.3	4.8	2.6
Unethical, animal concerns		0		0		4.8		1.7		9.6	1.7	10.8	4.8
Product bad/taste; Humans special		0		0.4		0		0.9		0	1.3	2.4	13.9
Insufficient control, misuse		0		0		0		0		1.2	0.4	1.2	0
Health concerns		9.7		2.6		20.2		6.1		18.0	4.8	13.2	4.3
Environment		2.4		0.4		1.2		0		1.2	0	1.2	0
Social effects, eugenics		0		0		0		0.4		0	0.4	2.4	0
Conditional benefit, DK		15.4		4.3		15.6		13.0		13.2	6.5	7.2	10.0
Same genes OK, No problem		24.4		20.0		6		17.8		6	24.8	3.1	15.7
Medicine/Health/Science/knowledge		1.2		3.5		2.4		4.4		2.4	8.7	0	1.3
Agriculture, New varieties, Food		13.4		9.6		4.8		5.7		2.4	3.0	0	1.3
Humanity benefits, Better		18.3		28.2		6		14.8		18.1	19.6	2.4	5.7
Economy		1.2		1.3		0		0		0	1.7	0	0
Don't need		2.4		1.7		2.4		3.1		4.8	0.9	3.6	3.9

Table 15: Attitudes towards Genetic screening

Q12. Some genetic diseases can be predicted in the fetus during the early stages of pregnancy. Do you think such tests should be available under government-funded Medicare?

Q13. Would you want such a test during (your/your spouse's) pregnancy?

%	Government-funded (Q12)				Personal Use (Q13)
	2000P	1993P	2000S	1993S	2000P	1993P	2000S	1993S
Yes	67.3	88	72.6	83	72.9	77	83.3	82
No	10.4	3	14.3	5	14	13	8.3	7
DK	22.3	9	13.1	12	13	10	8.3	11
Reasons
Not stated	35	27.0	16.7	21.3	35.5	32.0	22.6	23.0
Don't know	0.9	0.6	1.2	0.4	1	1.9	0	1.3
Save life	12.3	6.9	13.1	4.3	23.3	10.7	27.4	10.4
Parent's life	6.7	2.9	14.3	2.2	29.3	7.8	31.1	7.8
Right to choose / know	2.3	9.7	3.6	7.8	12.9	21.3	23.8	21.7
Improve quality of life	8.2	13.4	11.9	9.1	1	6.5	1.2	6.5
Depends on situation	1.4	0.7	0	1.7	7.2	2.1	4.8	2.2
Improve genes	3.8	3.2	8.4	2.6	4.4	2.1	7.1	3.5
Other benefit	13.3	1.9	4.8	1.3	4.4	0.6	1.2	0.4
Health care is a right	9.8	10.7	13.1	21.3	1	3.4	0	12.6
Economic concern	5.2	11.6	7.1	10.0	0.5	1.3	0	0
Fetus right to life	1.4	0	7.1	0	0	1.0	0	1.7
Eugenics/ Misuse	0.5	1.0	0	0	0	0.7	1.2	0
Playing God/ unnatural	1	0.7	1.2	0	7.7	0.4	7.2	1.7
Ethics	5.1	0	3.6	0.4	0.5	0.3	0	0.4
Health risk	0	0.9	0	1.3	0.5	0.7	1.2	1.3
Other harm	12.3	0.3	16.7	0.9	3.4	1.0	0	0.4

Humanity changed

Human will not be human anymore. (P41)

Human life was changed. (P58)

It might change human behavior. (P97)

Cannot catch it, it changed very quickly. (P203)

Lack of controls

It should have control systems about the environmental impact. (P26)

In some countries it cannot be controlled. (P68)

Not sure about the law if someone misuses it. (P74)

There are more harms than uses if human misuse because it cannot be controlled and it doesn't have regulation. (P174)Health risk

There are contaminating chemicals that will affect humans. (P9)

It's toxic and it causes cancer. (P188)

It might lead to abnormal children. (S34)

Disaster

Dangerous. (P51)

It will be dangerous if it was misused. (P87)

Chemicals are dangerous to human health. (P114)

Damages living things. (S69)

Ecology

It will impact ecological systems. (P26)

The environment and ecology will be lost. (P41)

It will damage the rare animals in ecology. (P101)

Waste

Older people don't know how to use it. (P2)

It losses a lot of money. (P22)

Increase of jobless. (S5)

It was not accepted. (S26)

Misuse

If it was used in the wrong way. (P39)

Users will misuse. (P58)

Users use it without knowledge and responsibility. (P136)

Dangerous living things will exist by accident. (P158)

All research has ethical problems if humans misuse, for example; criminal trading for persons who think about individual interest and power. (P165)

Eugenics

Creating human by using technology. (P128)

Someone will choose the characters of their babies as they want. (144)

OK if controlled

There are specialist to do it. (P89)

Human can control. (P124)

There are some protections. (S30)

6. Attitudes to biotechnology

When asked to agree with a set of statements, we find that the 2000 sample is somewhat less ready to agree with all the questions, as shown by Table 11. The results of survey showed that 23% of the public said "don't know" when asked about the benefits and risks of modern biotechnology, for example the statement "I would buy genetically modified fruits if they tasted better" (Table 11). The degree is similar to the respondents who said that they "tend to agree" , with 26%, while 52% said that they "tend to disagree". When asked questions about genetic engineering with examples of cross species gene transfer, over 30% public said they "don't know", compared to the student with over 20% saying "don't know" (Table 12-13).

7. Attitudes to cross species gene transfer

One set of questions (Q8-Q11) was on cross species gene transfer. In Table 12, the results of questions on specific applications reveal that there has been a halving of the support for gene transfer from plant to plant. For the public there was a 40% decline in acceptance (Q8), from 82% in 1993 to 42% in 2000, and the most commonly cited reason was fear of unknown or feeling or disaster (Table 13). There is a smaller difference among students with a 18% decline in Q8 in the year 2000. The most commonly cited reason among the students was health concerns.

There was an even greater drop for both groups in support for animal to plant (Q9) and for animal to animal (Q10) gene transfer (Q10 for the public from 68% in 1993 to 28% in 2000, and for students from 68% in 1993 to 37% in 2000). The reasons for the public sample are similar to those given for the question on plant to plant gene transfer, being fear of unknown, feeling or disaster. But there is a different for students, most of them saying health concerns.

Table 11: General questions on biotechnology

Q20. People have different views about the benefits and risks of modern biotechnology, and about how they should be regulated or controlled. I am going to read you a number of statements. For each one, please say whether you tend to agree or disagree.

%	P2000	S2000
a. Current regulations are sufficient to protect people from any risks linked to modern biotechnology.
Tend to agree	6.6	15.5
Tend to disagree	79.6	71.4
DK	13.7	13.1
b. It is not worth putting special labels on genetically modified foods.
Tend to agree	7.7	10.7
Tend to disagree	89.2	85.7
DK	3.3	3.6
c. I would buy genetically modified fruits if they tasted better.
Tend to agree	25.5	32.1
Tend to disagree	51.9	41.7
DK	22.6	26.2
d. We have to accept some degree of risk from modern biotechnology if it enhances Thai's economic competitiveness.
Tend to agree	23.2	35.7
Tend to disagree	62.6	44
DK	14.2	20.2

Table 12: Genetic engineering examples of cross species gene transfer

%	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
Q8 Q8 Genes from most types of organisms are interchangeable. Would potatoes made more nutritious through biotechnology be acceptable or unacceptable to you if genes were added from another type of plant, such as corn?
Yes	42	82	60.2	78
No	24.5	4	18.1	7
DK	33.5	14	21.7	15
Q9 Would such potatoes be acceptable or unacceptable to you if the new genes came from an animal?
Yes	13.1	48	20.2	48
No	55.9	19	48.8	19
DK	31.9	33	31	33
Q10 Would chicken made less fatty through biotechnology be acceptable or unacceptable if genes were added to the chicken from another type of animal?
Yes	28.9	68	36.9	68
No	37.9	10	34.5	13
DK	33.2	22	28.6	19
Q11 Would such chicken be acceptable or unacceptable if the genes came from a human?
Yes	10	29	6	30
No	71.1	44	73.8	44
DK	19	27	20.2	26

There was strong disagreement for human to animal gene transfer (Q11). This is similar to both groups, with 71% of the public and 74% of student disagreeing and 10% and 6%, respectively, accepting. This is less than a third of the support seen from the samples in 1993, where there was 29% agreement by the public and 30% by students.

To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments over cross species gene transfer (Q8-11) for each of the categories shown in Table 13 are given below:

Interferes with nature, Cross species is bad

I am disagree to change nature. (Q8 ,Q11, P31)

The natural exchange is safe and will lead to a better balance than using technology. (Q8 ,Q11, P100)

No need to use other genes to improve chicken. (Q10, P36)

Fear of unknown, Feeling, Disaster

I am not sure about side effects. (Q8 ,Q10, P6)

It will be a risk in the future. (Q8 ,Q10, P60)

I feel fearful. (Q11, P85)

The effects on the food chain should be studied more. (Q8,P6)

The benefits and risks need to be study more. (Q8 ,Q11, P48)

The results of the research are not clear, especially about long term impact. (Q8 ,Q9, P91)

Unethical, animal concerns

Human beings should not be for an experiment. (Q9 ,Q11, P112)

Depends on the kind of animal genes used. (Q10, P24)

Against morals. (Q11, P6,P38)

Unethical. (Q11, S72)

Product bad/taste , Humans special

I am not sure about the quality of product. (Q8 ,Q9, P112)

We will lost the original taste of rice. (Q8, P171)

I am not sure about the taste of rice. (Q8, P130)

It looks like to eat humans. (Q11, P24,36)

Human doesn't eat humans. Buddhism does not allow feeding on humans. (Q11, P9)

Insufficient controls, Human Misuse

It will be an impact in the future if it was done carelessly. (Q8 ,Q11, P86)

Human beings will collapse. (Q11, S27)

Species will be changed because chicken and human genes are very different. (Q11, S49)

Health concerns

It might be dangerous to our body (Q9 ,Q11, P12)

It will cause side effects on the body. (Q8 ,Q11, P13)

I am not sure whether it is safe or not. (Q10 ,Q11, P30, 39)

I am afraid that the body will get diseases. (Q10, P34)

It might release different hormones. (Q9, P40)

Environment

Damage to the environment and nature. (Q8 ,Q11, P67)

Social effect, Eugenics

Plants and animals are different, how to decide for vegetarians. (Q9, P129)

We're forced by society. (Q10, P45)

The society will be worse if genes of living things can be used and improved to get a new gene. (Q12, S39)

Conditional benefit,

If we can get better things. (Q8 ,Q10, P71)

If it’s necessary to do it after we make sure about safety. (Q10, P30)

If it’s not dangerous and society accepted it. (Q10, P69)

How is it going on? (Q11, P55)

Don't know

I have no background on this subject (Q8 ,Q11, P16)

Same genes OK, No problem

It is not harmful because it is a gene from plants. (Q8, P2,12,16)

Same nutrients can be replaced. (Q8, P36)

It should be the same plant genes. (Q8, P101)

Science/knowledge

It is a valuable discovery. (Q8, P21)

It is scientific knowledge and we an get increased of development (Q8, P69)

We can get increase the better species of rice. (Q9, S63)

Medicine/Health

It is useful for human body. (Q10, S63)

We will get increased valuable nutrients. (Q8 ,Q11, P210)

It is good for health. (Q10, S9)

Agriculture, New varieties, Food

We can increase the quality of products. (Q8, P38)

To get a new tasting product. (Q8, P101)

The taste is similar to chicken. (Q10, P2)

We can improve agricultural science. (Q8, S46)

Humanity benefits, Better

It is a good change for humanity. (Q8, P22)

To get a better taste. (Q8, P38)

To increase the quality of the product. (Q8 ,Q10, P55)

Economy

If the price is not higher. (Q8 ,Q9, P178)

We can sell and get a good price, and overseas accepted it. (Q8, P153, S6)

For economic competition. (Q8, P170)

Don't need

No need to eat such a taste of rice (Q8, P94)

I don’t need to take a risk. (Q9, P130)

Because we are human beings. (Q11, P69)

I'm fearful to eat it. (Q11, P101)

8. Environmental release of GMOs

There was decline in support for question 1d. “Genetically modified plants and animals will help agriculture become less dependent on chemical pesticides.” (Table 4). Both public and student samples showed a similar decrease with approval at 36% for public and 44% for students in the 2000, compared with 51% public and 52% student in the 1993. This is despite the concern people have about pesticides (Q2a). There is a similar drop in approval of environmental release of GMOs, as revealed in Q19 (Table 14).

Table 14: Environmental release of GMOs

Q19. If there was no direct risk to humans and only very remote risks to the environment, would you approve or disapprove of the environmental use of genetically engineered organisms designed to produce...?

%	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
a. Tomatoes with better taste
Yes	58	83	72.3	88
No	29.7	10	18.1	5
DK	12.3	7	9.6	7
b. Healthier meat (e.g.less fat)
Yes	61.3	84	71.4	88
No	26.9	9	15.5	4
DK	11.8	7	13.1	8
c. Larger sport fish
Yes	44.8	58	47	64
No	37.7	25	33.7	20
DK	17.5	17	19.3	16
d. Bacteria to clean up oil spills
Yes	75.5	87	84.5	85
No	13.2	5	6	6
DK	11.3	8	9.5	9
e. Disease resistant crops
Yes	66	91	81	91
No	19.8	4	13.1	5
DK	14.2	5	6	4
f. Cows which produce more milk
Yes	56.6	84	71.4	86
No	28.3	7	17.9	5
DK	15.1	9	10.7	9

9. Medical issues

The indicated preferences for personal use of prenatal tests has stayed similar between 1993 and 2000. There is a strong support for prenatal genetic screening in both groups public and student, with 73% of public saying yes in 2000 and 77% in 1993; with 14% and 13%, respectively, saying no (Q13, Table 15). While the students were even more supportive, with 83% saying yes in 2000, and 82% in 1993. However, there is a drop from 88% to 67% of the public, and from 83% to 73% of students in the support for such tests being available under government-funded Medicare (Q12), and there is some degree of increase with saying no, with 7% and 9% in public and students. Their reasons are similar to most countries (Macer, 1994), with “right to choose” and other reason is saving themselves and children life.

To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments over genetic screening for each of the categories shown in Table 15 are given below:

Don’t know (DK)

I don’t know what to do after I knew the result. (Q12, P6)

No information. (Q12, P103)

Safe life

To protect the babies life. (Q12, P30)

To protect harm that will be occur to the baby. (Q13, P45)

To get treatment and advise from doctor. (Q12, P47)

Parent’s life

To cure in an early stage of pregnancy. (Q12, P36)

To protect before giving birth. (Q13, P60)

To solve the problem before it’s too late. (Q13, 55)

It will be useful to terminating pregnancy in the beginning. (Q13, P100)

Right to choose / know

To prepare and solve the problem. (Q12 ,Q13, P39 )

To know in advance. (Q12, P55)

To prevent some problem that will be happen. (Q12, P66)

I want to know the condition of the baby. (Q13, P71)

Improve quality of life

In order to increase the quality of life. (Q12, P26)

To protect genetic diseases that will affect the quality of human life. (Q12, P89)

To help improve the quality of people that will not be a social responsibility. (Q13, P2 +economy)

Depends on situation

If it is worthwhile to pay from the budget. (Q12, P16 +economy)

If it is not dangerous to both mother and baby (Q13, P30)

If someone has risk to get genetic diseases (Q13, P79)

Improve genes

It will be beneficial for handicapped people if genes can change. (Q12, P85)

To get a healthy and quality baby. (Q13, P112)

Other benefit

The government will get more information to develop in a right way. (Q12, P101)

To get increased benefit from medical sectors. (Q12, P48)

It will be a responsibility of the country. (Q13, P100)

The government might have more responsibility than the private sector (Q12, P45)

To protect making a profit from the private sector. (Q12, P123)

The uneducated people will get more knowledge on this subject. (Q12, P175)

Health care is right

It is the government’s duty to take care and improve citizen's life. (Q12, P60,112)

The government should take action in this case because it’s important. (Q12, P69)

Everyone wants to have a healthy body. (Q13, P134)

Economic concerns

High cost. (Q12, P10)

Poor people can check and get a service (Q12, P24 + Health care is a right)

It will not be commercial. (Q12, P48)

Someone can not provide for the expenses. (Q12, P78)

I'm afraid that it will be high expense. (Q13, P171)

Fetus right to life

To live is a human right and the government should not violate. (Q12, P34)

It will violate human rights. (Q12, P79)

I don’t want to know in advance. (Q13, P67)

Eugenic/ Misuse

It will be selecting a perfect baby and demolishing a handicapped baby. (Q12, P162)

Playing God/ unnatural

I want to do by nature. (Q13, P31)

It is fate to look after a baby. (Q13, P129, P160)

It is my fate. (Q13, P171)

Ethics

It must result in discrimination in the future. (Q13, P100)

Health risk

It will be harmful to a baby. (Q13, P69)

A baby will get a risk from ultrasound. (Q13, S20)

Other harm

The government might get a benefit to control. (Q12, P31, S60)

There should be cooperation among the government and private sector because the government is not efficient. (Q12, P67)

People will be inactive. (Q12, P78)

The government activity takes a long time and confuses. (Q12, P163)

Table 16: Attitudes to persons with HIV

Q14. How do you feel towards people that are HIV-infected or have AIDS?

Reasons (%)	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
Not Stated	7.6	7.6	6.8	4.4
Don't know	7.6	2.6	12.3	1.7
Sympathy/ Compassion	45.0	36.1	41.1	31.1
Want to help / Understand	5.2	16.6	2.7	17.4
Happy about therapy	0	1.5	0	1.3
People are same	5.2	9.3	13.7	13.5
Admire	0	1.0	0	1.3
Rejection/ abnormal	2.8	3.8	2.7	3.0
Own fault / Depends on reasons they contracted it	29.2	11.0	15.1	17.4
Afraid /risk	4.7	5.0	4.1	3.9
Helpless	0	0.7	0	0.4
Other	5.2	1.3	1.4	0.4

AIDS is a major problem in Thailand. The attitudes towards persons with HIV appear to be generally similar between 1993 and 2000 based on analysis of open comments (Q14, Table 16). There is however some indication that more Thai people express sympathy with someone who has HIV or AIDS disease in 2000, with this type of concern increasing by 9% in the public and 10% in the students. There was less feeling among both public and student who had negative comments, with only 3% of both groups rejecting persons with HIV and no one thought they are helpless. They blame those who got infected through sex by promiscuity or drugs, with 29% of public and 15% of student saying that it is their own fault to get AIDS or that their attitude depends on reasons they contracted it. However, there also was quite similar attitudes between both the public and students that less of them are willing to help, with 5% of the public and 3% of the students in 2000 compared to 17% of both groups in 1993. To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments towards person with HIV for each of the categories shown in Table 16 are given below:

Sympathy / Compassion

Sympathy. (S4)

It's fatal disease and I feel personal sympathy. (S18)

Sympathy and sorrowful. (S46)

Want to help / Understand

Compassion and want to help. (S7)

People are same

He is a normal person who can live in our society and I want to help. (S24)

He is the same person who has a right to live, and we should not separate him from society but we should cheer them up to be alive. (S50)

He looks like a person who got caught. (S53)

Rejection / abnormal

Dislike and I don't want it to happen to persons close to me. (S31)

I don't want to be close with them. (P52)

Dislike. (P71)

Own fault / Depends on reasons they contracted it

Sympathy to persons who got it by accident but dislike for those who were infected by their action. (S3)

They are like patients and it depends on how they got it. (P24)

No sympathy for persons who got it from promiscuous sex. (S51)

Afraid / risk

I feel scared if I have to be close to them. (S21)

Afraid even if I know the truth. (P46)

Helpless

They should die as they were not careful. (P153)

They deserve it if they got it from promiscuity. (P175)

Other

No feeling and I want the government to have a policy to help infected persons. (S20)

Without knowledge, understanding and consciousness, and a bad society. (P112)

Table 17: Attitudes to privacy of persons with HIV

Q15. If someone has HIV (the AIDS virus), who else besides that person deserves to know that information?

%	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
Employer
Yes	54	48	57.1	47
No	29.2	27	23.8	32
DK	16.8	25	19	21
Insurer
Yes	56.2	51	41	58
No	25.1	22	22.9	22
DK	18.7	27	36.1	20
Spouse
Yes	97.6	98	98.8	95
No	1.4	1	0	3
DK	.9	1	1.2	2
Other
Yes	82.5	87	79.8	91
No	10.2	6	7.1	4
DK	7.3	7	13.1	5

Table 18: Attitudes to gene therapy

Q16. How do you feel about scientists changing the genetic makeup of human cells to:

%	Agree strongly	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Disagree strongly
a. Cure a usually fatal disease, such as cancer
P2000	64.3	29.1	3.8	2.3	.5
P1993	78	18	1	1	2
S2000	61.9	34.5	0	1.2	2.4
S1993	86	13	0	0	1
b. Reduce the risk of developing a fatal disease later in life
P2000	42.7	38	15.5	2.8	.9
P1993	50	32	12	3	3
S2000	28.9	54.2	8.4	6	2.4
S1993	46	40	11	2	1
c. Prevent children from inheriting a usually fatal disease
P2000	59.6	32.9	5.2	2.3	0
P1993	75	21	2	1	1
S2000	58.3	34.5	2.4	2.4	2.4
S1993	86	12	1	1	0.4
d. Prevent children from inheriting a non-fatal disease, such as diabetes
P2000	46	40.8	9.9	2.3	.9
P1993	63	28	6	2	1
S2000	30.9	48.1	8.6	7.4	4.9
	59	34	4	3	0.4
e. Improve the physical characteristics that children would inherit
P2000	35.7	37.6	19.2	6.1	1.4
P1993	63	28	6	2	1
S2000	22	48.8	17.1	4.9	7.3
S1993	52	35	7	3	3
f. Improve the intelligence level that children would inherit
P2000	30.8	28	28	11.4	1.9
P1993	48	26	16	6	4
S2000	19	41.7	23.8	13.1	2.4
S1993	58	22	12	5	3
g. Make people more ethical
P2000	42.7	22.3	13.7	13.7	7.6
P1993	68	18	11	6	7
S2000	42.2	26.5	9.6	15.7	6
S1993	65	17	9	6	3
h As an AIDS vaccine
P2000	63	23.2	8.5	2.4	2.8
P1993	75	17	3	2	3
S2000	56.6	34.9	2.4	4.8	1.2
S1993	75	20	2	1	2

There were similar attitudes over time towards protection of privacy, when asked who deserves to know that information (Q15, Table 17), both groups gave the highest “yes” response in case of spouse and the immediate family. Over 95% believed that their spouses should know, and over 80% believed that members of the immediate family should know, indicating that the family is very important to them. About half of the people in both years answered that the employer or insurer was entitled to know the HIV status.

When given a list of options for gene therapy (Q16, Table 18), we see that there is less willingness to support gene therapy in 2000. However, still only 6% disagree with altering the physical characteristics that children are born with, and 11% with the intelligence, compared to about 70% in most Western countries and Japan. This means that overall there is very significant acceptance of gene therapy even for enhancement uses, in Thailand.

10. Employment concerns

The results of Q17 shows that there were few people who could think of a specific positive impact of science upon employment (Table 19). For example, one person said “There is an impact on employment, in case the employer is not bioethical, the employee will be dismissed, for example, if they have AIDS or an inherited disease.” This may be because it follows a question that asked about privacy of HIV status.

Table 19: Attitudes towards science and technology and bioethics on employment

Q17. What do you think is the impact of science and technology and bioethics on employment?

	Public	Students
Some affect	14.1	34.5
No impact	6.1	4.9
Other comment	8.2	3.6
Negative impacts 26.6 38.7
Conflict in ethics / economic	0.5	10.9
Rapid change	1.5	0
Employee selection	6.7	13.3
Unemployment	4.8	2.4
Weak lose out	1.9	0
Infectious disease	4.8	3.6
Inherited disease	2.5	4.9
Negative impacts	3.9	3.6
Positive impacts 7.7 8.4
Human enhancement	1.9	2.4
Profits are important	2.4	3.6
Efficiency	2.5	1.2
Positive impacts	0.9	1.2
Don't know what bioethics is	10.8	4.9
Don't know in general	8.9	2.5
Not stated	39.3	35.8

To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments for each of the categories shown in Table 19 are given below:

Conflict in ethics / economic

There are impacts, for example, we get increased production from genetically modified plants and it would decrease employment. On the other hand, farmers who use natural methods might lose money because they cannot be competitive. (P164)

It should be an impact because the feeling of right and wrong is contradictory with economics. (P43)

Rapid change

Where is the scope of life and science? This topic cannot be controlled so that it might change too rapidly for us to predict the impact in the future. (P20)

Employee selection

There are impacts because employers need workers who are in good health and are wise so that they have to select if they can use technology and science. (P162)

Unemployment

It will lead to people becoming jobless. (P119)

Employers have to add capitals to use technology and they will not employ more workers so that the ratio of jobless will be high. (P188)

Weak lose out

Someone who is weak will not be chosen. (P6)

Infectious disease

The employers will not accept the person who got AIDS because they think it will be infectious to another person. (P178)

Employers will dismiss an employee who got infected with AIDS. (P199)

Inherited disease

I believe there are impacts in case of someone who can infect another with inheritable disease. Employers might not employ that kind of person. (P9+ unemployment)

Negative impacts

There are impacts because employers will use science to terminate employment. (P67)

Companies will decrease employment if humans can discover a new high technology.

(P68)

Companies use technology to replace workers. (P73)

Human enhancement

Technology modified humans will get more benefits than the general persons in body and brain. (P101)

Genetically modified humans including for the physical characteristics and intelligence level would be selected for employment. (P107)

The company needs employers who are intelligent and in good health. (P144)

Profits are important

Each person needs more profits so that it should be regulated to control. (P34)

The company would have the philosophy that maximum profit is driving force. Knowing that, the employee has a risk that will effect productivity and investment of the company so that there will be a discrimination problem in employment. (P100)

Efficiency

There are impacts because it makes people more confident and can get increased quality and efficiency of workers. (P38)

We have to consider the efficiency of the employees and company welfare. For the same cost we should select the employees who are more efficient. (P49)

Positive impact

Discovery of technology will use humans to do research that will lead to more employment or construction of factories. (P73)

A case of constructing a new factory was raised in Q21, asking, “Do you support a company which wants to build a new factory that will create 1000 new jobs, but it will convert 100 hectares of forest?”. As shown in Table 20, 88% of the public and 83% of students disagreed with this case. The reasons given were that it damages the environment, and the forest. Actually only a quarter were specifically anthropocentric in their comments, which is interesting. To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments towards environmental concerns for each of the categories shown in Table 20 are given below:

Forest decreasing

Forest is decreased, if possible we should avoid. (P7)

Don't use forest

It should not destroy the forest. (P51)

Avoid using a forest. (P189)

Forest exists for a long time

Damages the natural environment that took a long time to grow up. (P24)

Forest is essential for humans and took a long time to grow up. (P55)

Trees are alive

Avoid using a forest.(P189)

Imbalance of nature

Forest is valuable for the balance of the environment. (P75)

Imbalance of nature. (P148)

Damages the environment

It will damage the natural environment. (P4, P38)

Natural resources

Forest is essential for the environment, water and flood. (P87)

Animals suffer

It will effect humans, air, rain, dust, flood, wild animals and pollution. (P194)

Human are effected

Creating jobs cannot replace the destruction of forest that will be an impact to a human across the world. (P29)

Benefit will be with someone but harm will be with people across the world. (P90)

Not worthwhile

Forests are more valuable than production. (P30)

It cannot be replaced. (P74)

It is hard to plant forest more than creating jobs. (P82)

Forest might be more economic value than creating 1,000 for workers. (P95)

Should find an alternative

We should find another place to construct the factory. (P69)

It should find another place that is useless. (P134)

Pollution

Forest is decreased and it will cause pollution to the environment. (P109)

People can find another job

There is more impact of pollution and 100 persons workers can do other jobs. (S4)

Conditional benefit

That factory can help 1,000 workers survive. (P27)

If that factory produces manufactured products that are beneficial to humans. (P88)

It should be evaluated and compared with benefits and economics. (P89)

Human benefit

I will agree if that factory can help economic growth. (P212)

Table 20: Environmental concerns

Q21. Do you support a company that wants to build a new factory that will create 1000 new jobs, but it will convert 100 hectares of forest? Why?

%	Public	Students
Agree	3.3	4.8
No feeling	2.8	3.6
Disagree	88.2	83.1
Don't know	5.7	8.4
Reasons given:
Forest concerns 23.2 32.5
Forest decreasing	5.2	13.3
Don't use forest	7.2	9.6
Forest exists for a long time	7.8	3.6
Trees are alive	0.5	3.6
We should increase trees	2.5	2.4
Other non-human environmental concerns 37.9 33.7
Imbalance of nature	0.9	3.6
Damages the environment	31.6	24.1
Natural resources	3.9	4.8
Animals suffer	1.5	1.2
Other concerns 43.5 31.2
Humans are affected	15.2	9.6
Not worthwhile	15.2	8.4
Should find an alternative	7.2	4.8
Pollution	1.5	3.6
People can find another job	2.5	2.4
Other comments	1.9	2.4
Conditional benefit	7.2	8.4
Human benefit	0.9	2.4
Don't know	0	1.2
Not stated	24.7	24.1

Table 21: Information Sources

Q7. What things are the source of your feelings about Q5 and Q6? Please list all:

Sources	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
Not stated	14.4	7.4	2.4	7.4
Religion	0.5	0.2	0	0
Newspaper	14.9	22.3	28.9	17.3
TV	31.7	18.5	30.1	16.5
Books	26.4	32.8	26.5	33.8
Journals/Magazines	14.9	31.6	21.6	26.4
Friends	0.5	6.1	0	10
History	0	0.2	0	0.4
Pollution	0	2.5	0	0.4
Common sense	0	4.1	0	9.1
Misuse possible	0	0.7	0	0
Don't understand	0	0.2	0	0
Personal experience	30.2	28.1	53	38.1
Against nature	.5	0	0	0
Media	21.1	20.4	19.2	23.4
Other	13.4	4.8	7.2	1.3
Fear of unknown	0	0.6	0	0
Hope	0.5	1.2	0	0
Social effect	0	0	0	0

Table 22: Trust

Q18. Suppose that a number of groups made public statements about the benefits and risks of biotechnology products. Would you have a lot of trust, some trust, or no trust in statements made by...?

	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
A. Government
A lot	20.1	33	25	28
Some	77.0	63	72.6	66
No	2.9	4	2.4	6
B. Consumer
A lot	30.8	43	36.6	41
Some	67.3	54	63.4	55
No	1.9	3	0	4
C. Company involved with Biotechnology and Environmental Groups (2000) / Industry (1993)
A lot	8.2		19
Some	76.3		78.6
No	15.5		2.4
D. University Professor
A lot	21.2	42	19	29
Some	74.5	57	78.6	69
No	4.3	1	2.4	2
E. Medical Doctor
A lot	42.8	60	36.9	55
Some	55.3	38	60.7	44
No	1.9	2	2.4	1
F. Farm group
A lot	6.2	7	2.4	7
Some	75.1	67	72.3	76
No	18.7	26	25.3	17
G. Nutritionists
A lot	22.6	25	14.6	25
Some	72.6	67	73.2	65
No	4.8	8	12.2	10

11. Information Sources and Trust

Regarding where people get their information, as in Japan, in Thailand there has been a shift towards television and newspapers as an information source. Both were quoted by one third of the respondents in 2000, but by only one fifth in 1993. Books were used by a quarter of the 2000 sample, compared to one third in 1993. In both years about one third said personal experience was the reason for their judgment of the benefits and risks of science and technology. Regarding where people get the information, as in Japan, in Thailand there has been a shift towards television and newspapers as an information source. Both were quoted by one third of the respondents in 2000, but by only one fifth in 1993. Books were used by a quarter of the 2000 sample, compared to one third in 1993. In both years about one third said personal experience was the reason for their judgment of the benefits and risks of science and technology. This may be because Thai university education emphasizes lectures rather than outside reading. Lecturers are traditionally regarded as fountainheads of learning, and there is little pressure on them to revise their lectures once these have been prepared. The emphasis on memorization of lecture notes is detrimental to future scholarship, and may be a reason why so many students mentioned this as a source of their attitudes, rather than education.

12. Images of Life

Among the samples of public and students there are many images of the word "life", and one third wrote their ideas by picture. The comments of both groups showed highest expression of "life" as life and death, for example, "life is birth, older, sickness and death" (Table 23). There were some respondents who included the ideas of harmony with scenery of countryside such as mountain, the sun, the moon, trees, canal, fields, birds, fish and flowers. We might suppose that they need nature to be with them or that nature is significant for their life. Science and definition was also included in the meaning of human reproduction. To illustrate the process of categorization some example comments for each of the categories shown in Table 23 are given below:

Beauty

Pic (flower). (P112)

Pic (two flowers in two pots). (S54)

Scenery

Pic (half face of woman and trees in the circle). (P194)

Pic (big tree with birds). (P208)

Pic (bridge cross the river where there are many fish). (S41)

Harmony

Pic (mountain, the waving sun, cloud, birds, trees and fish) (P24)

Pic (A many fields, cloud, a house, coconut tree, fish in the canal) (P38)

Ecology

Good life must live in a good environment and nature. (P50)

Pic (a country side). (P165)

Encounter

Pic (Tree, mountains, the sun, birds, fish, stream, human and dog). (P13)

Human, plant, animal, and the environment. (P28)

God / spiritual

Body and mind become life. (P14)

Life is faithful to God. (P126)

Mind and soulless. (S15)

Action

Life is movement. (P125)

Like looks like long traveling to get aspiration, every life will be different, traveling will face with happiness and suffering, but the important thing is we should not make anybody suffer.(P111)

Life is fighting that is based on correctitude.(P148)

Life is fighting to survive. (P122)

Enjoy

Pic (smile face) happiness of both body and mind is the importance of life. (P30)

Pic (a heart falls in love with the other heart) love make happiness. (P146)

To be saved

Freedom, safety, and good perceiver. (P73)

Baby

Pic (a baby) (P40)

Pic (egg and sperm). (P94)

Pregnant woman who is going to give birth. (S13)

Life & Death

Birth, growing older, sickness and death. (P19)

Life is a cycle, birth and death. It depends on how to live with meaning. (P74)

Pic (Life looks like a cotton thread, there was a beginning and the end) (P79)

Pic (a candle). (S19)

Life is unstable as the way that it should be.(P203)

Natural

Fresh air and cleaning water. (P90)

Life came from nature so that makes life as nature (science and technology should use and support nature, not to change nature because it means changing life). (S53)

Life came from nature, science and technology control the process of life but not the mind and soul.(P151)

Science / definition

Every life has a smallest unit that we call cells. (P1)

Pic (DNA). (P213, S8)

Pic (nucleus). (S46)

Reproductive cells of a man and a woman. (S60)

Animals / living things

Life is a living thing which was born to seek some factor to be survivor. (P17)

Pic (crab, shrimp, fish). (P26)

Family & friends

Pic (family). (P91, S58)

Pic (father and mother). (S59)

Others

Pic. (2 hearts),each say "Love is universal" and "Love is technology".

Empty.(P123)

Pic (a line like string).(P93)

Table 23: Images of Life

Q22. Will you please express freely, in sentences and/or pictures, the images that come to mind when you hear the word "life", and/or any ideas you have on "life".

Reasons (%)	P2000	P1993	S2000	S1993
Not stated	20.1	16.2	13.8	11.6
Beauty	1.9	0.3	2.4	0.9
Scenery	3.9	0.2	1.2	0.9
Harmony	12.4	4.7	16.2	3.0
Ecology	1.0	0.2	2.4	1.3
Picture	33.9	21.2	36.2	24.1
Encounter	9.5	7.9	12.6	8.2
God/spiritual	11.0	4.5	3.8	4.3
Action	5.3	3.8	6.5	3.9
Enjoy	7.2	15.3	2.5	14.2
To be saved	7.2	6.7	3.8	6.0
Baby	3.8	5.0	5.0	5.2
Life & Death	13.0	22.6	13.8	26.3
Natural	6.7	5.0	11.3	3.9
Health	0.5	3.9	1.2	3.4
Science/ definition	5.3	3.5	11.3	5.6
Animals /living things	7.6	4.7	3.8	5.2
Family & Friends	3.4	12.8	5.0	9.9
Other	0	6.4	0	5.2

13. Discussion and Conclusions

In the 2000 sample, religion was considered very important to half the people, with 42% saying it was somewhat important. This is very similar to the 1993 sample, although we feel that there has been a trend towards people being less religious in the past decade. We would like to make one point of caution in the interpretation of these results. It may be that the 1993 sample included some persons associated with biotechnology research, so they could have been particularly favorable to genetic engineering or pesticides; or perhaps they understood gene transfer better than the 2000 public sample. For example, some open comments are very interesting, "changing among nature might be safe and better balanced than using technology" and "it's not necessary to do that because it's against general morals". However, this drop in public support is seen in all other countries in the world surveyed (Macer et al., 2000), so it may well reflect the global concern with biotechnology. One way to examine this is to compare student samples, because they have less diversity than the total public.

Two thirds of the respondents are employed by the government, which could explain their relatively good awareness of the biotechnology. They likewise generally have a positive outlook towards the need to integrate bioethical issues in the exercise of government decision making and policy formulation. Exposure to biotechnology issues may have brought about by the fact that these respondents currently reside or stay in Bangkok, where the access to information is better.

The 2000 sampling was done in Bangkok, but some respondents come from the rural areas (21%) and are only presently staying in Bangkok to study or work. This being the case, it may be mentioned that some of the responses to the survey, may have been shaped or influenced by their upbringing whether in the rural or urban areas. In particular aspiration for development, which is associated with fruits of biotechnology, may be stronger for respondents who come from rural areas. On the other hand, those who come from the urban areas may have negative attitude towards biotechnology in the light of the risks associated with it, which are very much evident in the urban areas.

Public optimism in biotechnology is balanced with growing concern about science and technology. The ecosystem is delicately balanced and the introduction of new organisms into the environment may upset this balance. The questionnaire respondents have relatively high level of support in science and technology in general, especially for computers. Many of them said it improves efficiency and is part of globalization, but there are some people who are concerned about the rapid change of the technology. Some example comments for computers included; "It was used within educated persons", or "Cannot catch it, it changed very quickly". It means that the computer technology is not for all the people but it only will help improve the quality of life for rich people. The same was said, and can be said, for other areas of science.

If the general public focuses on the benefits from the development of this technology to industry and not to the farmers, or consumers, then the acceptance of the technology and product will be low among the groups who do not benefit. There is a strong need for the effective communication of the perceived risks and benefits among the consumer to seek their acceptance. The farming community may tend to be positive if the consumers will buy their products, as shown from the experience in North America where more than half the soybeans, corn and cotton in 2000 was GM. In the USA there has been rapid acceptance since the mid 1990s when GM crops were introduced.

There is also need to understand its impact on the environment so that this technology can be used without exacerbating genetic erosion. The social issues are complex in the developing world where the so-called environmentalists are highlighting GM crops to be monopoly of multinational companies (Macer et al., 2000). But the fact that Thai farmers have to be globally competitive means that due importance is to be given to the reduction in production cost and quality of the product that some GM crops show. If this is considered, breeding with biotechnological tools may be only a fraction of the cost of traditional plant breeding. There will have to be much greater transparency in the system, and data on GM products must be publicly available and debate on risks and benefits should be conducted in public.

Heavy application of pesticides to protect crops in order to increase yield have ultimately boomeranged and given birth to the major concerns like the pesticide residues in foodstuffs, development of resistance among pests and harm to non target organisms. This is of special importance in developing countries, where, at least 2 billion people that are living and working in farming areas are exposed to pesticides. The continuous and injudicious use of pesticides has resulted in development of resistance in pests and currently, more than 500 species of insects show resistance to one or more chemicals and a few serious pests resist nearly all poisonous pesticides. Most survey respondents have negative views about using pesticides in agriculture. Some example comments include, "It will be dangerous to human health" or "It might have chemical contaminate to consumers". However, it is also interesting to note that some people could think about more benefits than risks. This may be because Thailand is currently an economic losers in international competition, so they would think that the situation can only get better. Some open comments were "it is necessary for economic development ", or "it can help increase production." These strong attitudes should be considered in policy by the government.

Two thirds of the people in Thailand live in rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on productivity increases in agriculture to get out of poverty. Biotechnology, if appropriately focused on solving small farmers problems, together with traditional research methods, better agronomic practices, and better markets and policies, may help these farmers to increase productivity (Pinstrup-Andersen 2000). There are some areas of biotechnology where Thailand has been successful, for example in the tissue culture of orchids for at least 20 years. It is often cited as an example in text books in Thailand, which may give a positive image to citizens.

However, it is dangerous to rely only on modern biotechnology, ignoring traditional technology and traditional breeds. If we would raise productivity of foods by using biotechnology by force, there are a variety of potential dangers, for example soil degradation. Because of soil erosion and mistakes over soil administration by ignoring the sustainability of agriculture, ancient civilizations declined (Uemura et al.1998).

Another reason for the drop in support may be that the trust in all groups in society that may make a public statements about the benefits and risks of biotechnology products has fallen, as we found in a question, which is not shown here.

The National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (1999) said that "based on what Thailand has experienced in implementing biosafety regulations and more recently in the broader debate about GMO issues, the following lessons have been learned:

1. Regulations must be revised as needed.

2. The flexibility of biosafety guidelines is the key to success. In response to increasing needs or new scientific evidence, changes should be made to the regulations, as was the case of the field trial system in Thailand and the amendment of the Plant Quarantine Act.

3. Carefully chose and include a representative of the public to participate in committees.

4. NGOs or community representative should be included in designated committees from the start to ensure public participation. This might narrow the gap between the government and its people and create more trust between both parties.

5. The future lies in the public acceptance of biotechnology." (NCGEB, 1999)

They are correct when they say that Thailand should have been more aware of the importance of public education and should have done more to raise awareness before implementing regulations. In that respect, a social scientist should have been involved during the formulation of the biosafety guidelines. Nevertheless, now is the time to boost public awareness of the benefits and risks of biotechnology and how the biosafety system operates to ensure the safe use of GMOs. There is daily discussion or debate over GMOs in Thailand, and survey respondents gave a variety of concerns in their answers, which reflects this debate. Some example comments on the system include: "I don't know that the food that we eat is GMOs". It means that they prefer to have food labeling to know the contents of their foods. They still have not accepted GMO foods because they don't really know for sure that the products are safe for them.

However, a public awareness campaign is not sufficient in itself. There has to be substantial efforts to fix current flaws in the system to ensure the sustainability of the system and its implementation, and that will in turn catalyze public acceptance. Recognition of human rights and autonomy is a background for people to have a right to choose what they consume. The survey shows that people in Thailand are ready to exercise their informed choice in food preferences, and are waiting for better information on the foods they consume.

Most survey respondents had a negative view on all the questions on this type of genetic engineering, although least for plant to plant transfer, it was particularly strong rejection for animal genes to plants, and highest for animal to human gene transfer. Their concerns were raised both for the consequences of gene transfer to human health and to the environment, for example; "it will cause side effects on the body" or "I am not sure whether it is save or not".

While we can see from the comments that many of perceived fears about using the new technology were not founded in concrete reasons but rather were their feelings. Some persons were concerned that "super bugs" might be produced, or plants that out performed the norm. For example comments like, "it might create new strength gene", or " it might create new diseases". Despite these popular concerns seen in all countries that have been surveyed (Macer et al. 1997), not one concrete safety or health concern has been attributed to the direct use of genetic technology.

However, some people readily accept the fact that pharmaceuticals are being developed and produced using genetic engineering techniques. Some example comments of this line of thinking include, "It is useful for human health" or "we will get increase a valuable nutrient". They see the benefits and put the risks in perspective. This group of the public has trust in the companies producing these new drugs.

On the other hand, it is interesting to address some respondents more philosophical or ethical concerns over gene transfer. Transferring animal genes into plants can raises important ethical issues for vegetarians and religious groups. Some example comments were, "Plants and animals are different, how to decide for vegetarians", and "It depends on the kind of animal genes used", or "It is against morals." It may also involve animal experiments which are unacceptable to many people. In this way plant to plant gene transfer will be the most acceptable, as has been found in earlier surveys in all countries of the world that these surveys have been conducted (Macer, 1992; 1994; Ng et al. 2000).

Thailand was never colonized and therefore it has no historical influence favouring any particular pattern of health services like Western versus indigenous. The Thai Ministry of Health has a well-developed system of hospitals and health centres across the country to serve both rural and urban people. General health and standards of medical practice in Thailand have improved greatly since 1950. For example, malaria has been mostly eliminated from Bangkok and large areas elsewhere in the country. Outside agencies such as the Rockefeller Foundation in Bangkok and the World Health Organization have substantially helped the government to improving public health. In the 1980s Thailand faced the most publicized AIDS epidemic in Asia, linked especially to prostitution. Over the 1990s the situation has remained a challenge, but among different countries in Asia the population has not appeared to be negative towards persons with HIV (Srinives et al., 1994; Kato and Macer, 2000).

The situation regarding medical genetic services is mixed by the provision of diagnostic services to common genetic diseases such as thalassemia (Ratanakul, 1994), and the Buddhist philosophy of respect for the life of the fetus. The prediction of genetic diseases as early as the embryonic stages, in a sense underscores the fact that it is a social norm to believe that people have the right to enjoy normal living. That is whatever genetic diseases that might develop, which would deprive a person to enjoy this basic minimum quality of life should be removed or prevented at the early stage. At the same time, Buddhist philosophy supports a right to life of the fetus (Ratanakul, 1994). It is within this context that the question, as a reflection of a difficult bioethics question, was included in the survey.

There was very high support for the prenatal genetic screening under government funding, but there was somewhat less support for personal use. Maybe in Thailand there are not good services from the health care system in government hospitals. The respondents who agreed with this said that "it's might be discrimination in the future but it will be useful for termination of pregnancy in the first period of pregnancy".

An overwhelming number of respondents (70%) would want to be benefited by the prediction of genetic diseases, the same as in 1993. Similarly, when hypothetically asked whether or not one or one’s spouse would want to be subject to such action, the response was significantly positive.

As early as the fetal stages these respondents recognize medicine under the government funded Medicare and privately funded schemes, is aimed to meet the need to save both the life of fetus and the parents, as reflected in the choice of reasons indicated in the survey. Some open comments reveal people saw this technique to save the life of the sick fetus, for example, “to protect harm that will be occur to baby” or “to get properly medical treatment”.

More people would prefer that these tests are borne by the person themselves as opposed to making these tests available under government funded medical care. The respondents think that taking these tests represents a choice that some people would be willing to take while others would not, such that it would need to be shouldered on a personal basis.

Some, on the other hand, do not want to rely on the government to provide such a service because they perceive the government to be inefficient in handing matters such as these. May be because they don’t trust the government activities (political conditions). Some example comments like this were “the government might get benefit to control”. Other people have the opinion that the costs should be sponsored by both the government and the private sector. It will be high expense under the private sector.

It is also interesting to note that some people would not want to be subject to such tests because they are uncertain of what their decisions would be if it turns out from result, that tests are negative. Some open comment include; “don’t know how to do after the result come out” or “I don’t want to know”. The people or the government in general might not have the access or means to alleviate the situation and that under those circumstances, abortion may just be the convenient option.

New technology has brought about both job-gains and job-losses, with gains apparently exceeding the losses. Industry and governments have linked their support for biotechnology to hopes that its development could create many new jobs. However, in agricultural countries like Thailand, some people have expressed concerns that biotechnology could have negative employment effects. Some example comments from the surveys include, "Employers have to add capital to use technology and they will not employ more workers so that the ratio of jobless will be high" or "The company would have the philosophy that maximum profit is driving force. Knowing that, the employee has a risk that will effect productivity and investment of the company so that there will be a discrimination problem in employment".

Of the numerous possible employment effects of biotechnology, those that can be expected in agriculture are, without doubt, the most critical ones, both politically and economically. Biotechnology could facilitate agricultural adjustment if it were to concentrate its efforts more on quality improvements and the development of new, industrially useful crops rather than on further agricultural production increases. Some people can think about marketing competition, for example, "There are impacts, for example, we get increased production from genetically modified plants and it would decrease employment. On the other hand, farmers who use natural methods might lose money because they cannot be competitive". Developing countries are currently economic losers in international competition, so many would say that the situation can only get better. However, if commercial forces are left to operate unconstrained by morality, and trade barriers to the import of foodstuffs continue to exist, in terms of international competition, the situation will clearly get worse for developing countries. This is principally because of product substitution, and by the increasing ability of industrialised countries to produce enough foodstuffs to become self-sufficient. Agricultural producers already have very difficult times, especially with protectionism. If trade barriers were removed, the future would be brighter for developing countries if they could produce cheaper foodstuffs, industrial raw materials and products in transgenic plants and animals, and especially so if the storage life of foods was increased so that it did not spoil during transport.

One of the central questions for developing countries is whether they have to adopt a modern industrial world view. Bodley (1999) discussed whether all cultures have to conform to the image of a modern “civilization”. In Thailand there are some hill tribes, although exposed to more tourism than those in Papua New Guinea. It would be interesting to examine the views of those tribes persons towards some of these issues to see whether they have a more traditional view than the city people of Bangkok.

According to theories of cultural evolution, adaptation and integration, and resistance to change are understandable as by nature we gradually specialize to fit the requirements of successful adaptation to a specific environment. In the 21st century it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain different culture systems because of globalization of media, political treaties and trade. In the point of globalization, cultures have some similarity to civilizations, in that they are all tending to be absorbed into the current global way of thinking. While civilizations may come and go, in the end I expect cultures will continue to follow some traditions, such as Thai or Japanese, even though we may pass through several periods of civilization as different cultural values dominate the global thinking. We can see periods in history when different ideologies, for example, communism, religion faiths, and their associated civilizations dominate one land, but they may still remain as one “cultural identity” throughout this. Civilizations are dynamic; they rise and fall; they divide and merge. Faced with modern science and technology, one wonders whether traditional civilization will be buried soon, as Huntington (1999) wrote, “civilizations disappear and are buried in the sand of time.” The rural/urban culture differs and this is a challenge for policy makers in Thailand, as in all countries.

In conclusion, we can see that although this sample had a positive view towards technology, but when they come to some environmental issues they show much concern. There was a significant drop in support for all examples of genetic engineering between 1993 and 2000, This research allows us a better picture of how Thai people balance the different impacts of science and technology on human life and on protection of the environment. These are key questions as people grapple with the dilemmas on how to balance economics, progress of technology, improving quality of life and increasing the choices for citizens, and preservation of the environment.

14. Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Peerasak Srinives, who conducted the bioethics survey with Darryl Macer in 1993 in Thailand, and advised us in 2000 with useful suggestions for the current survey. And also all persons who cooperated, especially all those who answered the questionnaires.

15. References

Bodley, John H. Victims of Progress (Mayfield 1999).

Britanica Ecyclopedia, 2000, 23:811-2

Gaskell, G. et al. "Biotechnology and the European public", Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000), 935-8.

Huntington, Samuel P. "The Clash of Civilizations", Foreign Affairs 72 (Summer 1993), 22-49.

Kato, M. & Macer, D. (2000) “Metaphors of AIDS from around Asia”, International Journal of Bioethics 11: 201-16.

Macer, D.R.J. Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Japanese and International Comparisons. (Eubios Ethics Institute, 1992).

Macer, D.R.J. Bioethics for the People by the People. (Eubios Ethics Institute, 1994).

Macer, D.R.J., H. Bezar, N. Harman, H. Kamada, and N. Macer “Attitudes to Biotechnology in Japan and New Zealand in 1997, with International Comparisons”, Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 7 (1997b), 137-151.

Macer, D. & Chen Ng, MA. "Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan", Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000), 945-7.

Macer, DRJ., Azariah, J. & Srinives, P. (2000) “Attitudes to biotechnology in Asia”, International Journal of Biotechnology 2: 313-332.

NCGEB (1999) National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Thailand.

Ng, M.A. C., C. Takeda, T. Watanabe & D. Macer (2000), " Attitudes of the Public and Scientists to Biotechnology in Japan at the start of 2000", EJAIB106 (2000), 106-13.

Srinives, P., Chatwachirawong, P., Tsuzuki, M. and Macer, D. "Bioethical reasoning in Thailand", pp. 161-164 in Macer, D.R.J. Bioethics for the People by the People. (Eubios Ethics Institute, 1994).

Uemura, Kenji, Takesima, Seiji, Ishigaki, Itsuro, Sugita, Haruo, Sumida, Hiroaki, Hirota, Saisi. Seitai kankyo kagaku gairon. (Tokyo: Koudansya saientyific, 1998). (in Japanese)., Major concerns about Biotechnology, Agromedia, 2000).

---