There are a variety of different ethical traditions, and these are also part of our social heritage, though most have a more spiritual base. Any theory of bioethics that will be applied to peoples of the world must also be acceptable to the common trends of major religious thought. The spiritual divisions of humanity are less mixed than the social ones, and these have been used as transnational boundaries in the past, and also today. The Islamic countries, Catholic countries, and loosely-called Christian countries, are major regions of the world. Asia has more diversity of religion, for example, Buddhism in Sri Lanka is different from that in Japan. Within Asia there are also many Christians and Muslims, and most of the world's religions. For those who want to read more on the approaches of different cultures to agricultural biotechnology issues, I refer to other works on the Christian [5,6], Islamic [7], Jewish [8], and Buddhist [9] approaches.

These different traditions should be respected to make this universal bioethics also cross-cultural ethics; respected to the extent that they do not conflict with fundamental human rights, which should be protected, and recognised. One of the assumptions of modern bioethics is that all human beings have equal rights, as defined in the Covenants on Human Rights [10]. We can argue for the foundation of human rights from secular philosophy or religion. Different societies have different goals, as do different people. This diversity is to be valued, we should never expect all people to balance the same values in the same way all the time.

The limits to tolerance are already broadly outlined in international covenants such as the Declaration of Human Rights, and international treaties on environmental protection which include limits on the permitted damage to the common environment, such as the convention on ozone-damaging chemicals, and on deep sea dumping. Agriculture is dependent upon water, and environment, which are sometimes shared resources between different countries. Most maritime nations have declared 200 mile limits within which they claim prior rights to exploit marine resources, and the many examples of over-fished species shows the need for international fishing strategies. We also have economic treaties, such as GATT, defining the limits of unfair trade. However, as will be discussed later, economic priorities conflict with environmental protection, and we need better resolution of this conflict in practical bioethics.

Issues like justice and stewardship of nature have been debated for millenia. Differences in approaches are clear from early historical discussions of these issues, for example, there have always been people supporting and opposing euthanasia or animal use. These differences and similarities are seen within any group of people within every society. Basically data from opinion surveys and observation suggests that the diversity of thinking within any one group is much greater than that between any two groups, therefore we can attempt to look at basic universal principles that can be used in deciding these issues [1]. The social environment that people grow up in, and the education strategies, are becoming more similar with time suggesting that a universal approach is even more possible now than it was a century ago. In agriculture, several of the major divisions are over use of animals, and the exclusion of certain animals by religious dietary laws tend to follow cultural boundaries more than medical issues such as euthanasia, which are divided in all cultures.

C. Public opinion and ethics

Bioethics is not just an academic endeavour or an applied part of philosophical ethics, it is rooted in the daily life and attitudes of all people, hence the title of my recent book, Bioethics for the People by the People [1]. One way to examine the reasoning people have is to ask them in surveys of opinion. Scholars may go through literature, and historical studies, but often these studies are selected by their choices, which may not represent the public. We need to look at more than history, and more than policies that governments have developed, we need to reach into the hearts of people. In 1993 an International Bioethics Survey was performed across ten countries of the world [1]. Some of the relevant results are described in section II, with comparisons to surveys in North America and Europe.

World-wide there have been quite a number of surveys focusing on biotechnology [11]. Surveys, including the International Bioethics Survey will come under criticism for attempting to look at bioethical decision-making and reasoning using opinion surveys [1]. Opinion surveys look at opinions, and not the person as a whole. However, the actions of individuals, and also society, can be predicted by surveys - with a real margin of error that can only be determined after surveys are conducted. The written survey allows more thinking on issues, than an interview does. Also multiple choice answers can be leading, hence the use of many open choices in these surveys. Open responses, free questions, were used but a finite set of categories was used, with an "other" category for the unusual ideas. We must be careful not to over generalise, it is important to look at all the data, and test the data from surveys with the data we obtain from literature, customs, and observation.

Surveys may be misused, but they could be used to form policy that respects the persons and personal choices that are expressed, as some countries in the world do not allow this expression of informed choice. Surveys are just a beginning and from addressing some of the issues exposed it is hoped further research in bioethics based on the perspective of "from the people for the people" may be implemented all around the world. Of course, we also need to ask why people choose the answers that they do [1, 12].

II. Public perception of benefits and risks of biotechnology

A. International comparison of public acceptance

A fundamental question of bioethics is do people in different countries share the same thinking, and reasoning? The basic method of comparison is to estimate the diversity of views within each community, and compare these differences to other societies [1]. If they make decisions in the same way, then we could call this universalism, and it also raises the possibility of further universalisation of ethics. People in the world are increasingly being given the same media coverage of technology, and education also has many similarities - as even this book shows. People may reach different conclusions but if the process of thinking is similar this is still some type of universal approach. If people do not have the same way of deciding, then what we must aim for is cross-cultural understanding, perhaps with some degree of universalism.

The use of surveys is only one part of the overall approach we can use to look at cultures, however, the data from surveys must be explained by any description of the real world. Another part of the data is the use of the products, and we can see current practices in agricultural biotechnology by the preferences of farmers, consumers and what sort of products companies produce. Analysis of all these factors is important, and for the consumption of products of new biotechnology we must see the results of the sales of these products in supermarkets, and their acceptance by the farmers who first use them.

While these surveys provide some assessment of public acceptance, they generally use simple set questions. Recent survey strategies in Europe look at reasoning more than just statistics [19, 20] which may shed more light on the factors which will affect policy development. Martin and Tait [20], conducted surveys of selected groups of the UK public. They conclude that groups with an interest in biotechnology have probably already formed attitudes to it, which are unlikely to significantly change. They looked at industry and environmental groups, and local communities, which are major players in the development of policy at both national and local levels. They also suggest that people with the least polarised attitudes are most open to multiple information sources. Consumer research in the Netherlands conducted by SWOKA - an Institute for Consumer Research, has involved two major studies of what people in the Netherlands think about eating foods made through biotechnology [19, 21].

In New Zealand there was a study using both set and open questions in 1990 [22]. In Japan there have been several studies, the most comprehensive of these being a study that I did in 1991, among public, academics, scientists, and high school teachers, in which I also reviewed all the previous studies in Japan [23]. In these surveys I used open questions, and found that some arguments that are often used in biotechnology debates, such as eugenic fears or environmental risk, are not the major concerns voiced by people in open questions. The more common concerns are interference with nature or general fear of a less concrete nature. Also the survey found that many people perceive both benefit and risk simultaneously, they are attempting to balance these; and also educated people show as much concern, in fact biology teachers considered there was more risk from genetic engineering than the ordinary public.

B. International Bioethics Survey

Questionnaires were distributed randomly nationwide by hand to the public in Australia and New Zealand (with the assistance of Nobuko Macer, Eubios Ethics Institute), India (by Jayapaul Azariah and Hilda Azariah, University of Madras);, Japan (with the assistance of Yuko Kato and Nobuko Macer, University of Tsukuba) and Thailand (by Peerasak Srivines and Prasert Chatwachirawong, Kasetsart University). The samples were chosen by a clustered random sampling method, involving selection of a representative cross-section of the community on maps, then inside those areas every second house on both sides of every second street had a questionnaire delivered into the letterbox. In India and Thailand some members of universities and institutes were also asked to deliver questionnaires, and this explains the higher representation of more educated persons in the samples than the general population (Table 1).

The surveys in Israel and Russia included half public and half academics (including philosophers, molecular biologists, general humanities and science, and medical graduates), and included random delivery to institute members and to households, in the manner described above. The Russian sample included 56% from Moscow, 22% from Ufa, and 22% from Peterozavodsk, and does not therefore represent the rural section of the population of Russia. The sample size from Israel is not sufficient nor random (as the survey was done in English), and this sample is only included as a preliminary observation.

The International Bioethics Survey focused on agricultural biotechnology, and medical genetics, with some other questions looking at environmental attitudes and attitudes to disease. The questionnaires included about 150 questions in total, with 35 open-ended questions. The open questions were designed not to be leading, to look at how people make decisions - and the ideas in each comment were assigned to different categories depending on the question, and these categories were compared among all the samples. In total nearly 6000 questionnaires were returned from 10 countries during 1993 [1].

Student samples were obtained with the kind assistance of the persons indicated. The surveys were distributed by staff of the universities, and returned to a following class and/or department mail box. The samples include: medical schools in Australia (Peter Singer, Monash University);, .i.Japan (Michio Hirayama and Norio Fujiki, Fukui Medical School, N=127; Hideo Hayashi, University of Tsukuba, N=308);, New Zealand (D. Gareth Jones, Otago University), the Philippines (Angeles T. Alora, University of San Tomas); a medical laboratory course in Hong Kong (Maureen Boost, Hong Kong Polytechnic); and biology students in India (Jayapaul Azariah and Hilda Azariah, University of Madras), Singapore (Lim Tit Meng, University of Singapore, N=23; Ong Chin Choon, Singapore Polytech, N=227); and Thailand (Peerasak Srivines and Prasert Chatwachirawong, Kasetsart University).

General information gathered in the surveys included sex, age, marital status, children, education, religion, importance of religion, race, income and rural/urban locality, and some data are in Table 1. Results of the other questions, further background, and more examples of open comments have been published [1]. In this paper the word "significant" implies a statistical significance of P<0.05. The funding for these surveys came principally from the Eubios Ethics Institute, with some assistance from the ELSI (Ethical, Legal, and Social Impact issues) group of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture Human Genome Project, and The University of Tsukuba. The high school samples in Japan are supported by the Ministry of Education, and are part of a longer term project to develop high school materials to teach about bioethical issues in the biology and social studies classes.

C. Knowledge and Awareness of Biotechnology

The level of interest in science and technology was measured using a five point scale, "extremely interested, very interested, interested, not interested very much, not at all interested". In general most respondents answered that they had some interest, with few saying they were not. Another measure may be the response rate, which was generally between 20-30%. However, other data suggests that knowledge of science is not so closely correlated with response rate [1, 23].

Although the principal purpose of the survey was to investigate opinions about genetic engineering, in Q5 some other controversial and non-controversial developments were listed and the results for each can be compared. People were first asked about their awareness of the techniques with the following question:

Q5. Can you tell me how much you have heard or read about each of these subjects? 1. Not heard of 2. Heard of 3. Could explain it to a friend

Agricultural Pesticides

In vitro fertilisation

Computers

Biotechnology

Nuclear power

AIDS

Human gene therapy

Genetic engineering

The awareness of gene therapy was the lowest among the 8 developments. Genetic engineering was generally the least familiar among the other areas, with pesticides, in vitro fertilisation, computers and nuclear power being most familiar. We can compare this result with a question in the USA in 1986 [13] in which 32% said they did not know the meaning of "genetic engineering", whereas 66% said that they thought they knew the meaning of the word. In the International Bioethics Survey, the term "genetic engineering", was significantly more familiar in all samples. The awareness of was significantly related to educational attainment in most samples. There was no question requiring respondents to explain their understanding of technologies, as was used in some surveys [13, 18]. An indirect measure of the depth of knowledge was the comments that were given in response to open questions.

D. Benefits and Risks of Biotechnology

In all countries of the International Bioethics Survey there was a positive view of science and technology, it was perceived as increasing the quality of life by the majority in all countries. Less than 10% in all countries saw it as doing more harm than good [1]. People were asked about the benefits and risks of specific developments of technology, and both benefits and risks were cited by many respondents. The areas of science and technology that were chosen for this survey included several controversial subjects, and this question (Q6, Q7) was modified from one used in Couchman & Fink-Jensen [22] and Macer [23], with the request for a reason. The topic of computers (a neutral control subject) and nuclear power were added to the four biological areas, as below:

Q6. Do you personally believe each of these scientific discoveries and developments is a worthwhile area for scientific research? Why?...

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

Q7. Do you have any worries about the impact of research or its applications of these scientific discoveries and developments? How much? Why?..

1. No 2. A few 3. Some 4. A lot

In vitro fertilisation

Computers

Biotechnology

Nuclear power

Agricultural Pesticides

Genetic engineering

The results for biotechnology are shown in Table 2, to illustrate the analysis. For this question, the comments were assigned into one category, and the results are shown. People do show the ability to balance benefits and risks of science and technology, consistent with earlier surveys [23, 25]. People do not have a simplistic view of science and technology, and can often perceive both benefits and risks. This balancing of good and harm is necessary for bioethics, and I have called this one indicator of the bioethical maturity of a society.

When specific details of an application are given there is generally greater acceptance, suggesting people have some discretion [1, 23]. It also suggests that if details are given the public will show greater acceptance of an application, especially for human gene therapy [1, 26]. This is particularly seen in questions looking at environmental release of genetically modified organisms (Q31) which were taken from the OTA survey [13], with comparisons to a question of Hoban & Kendall [14]:

Q31. 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...?

1. Approve 2. Disapprove 3. Don't know

Tomatoes with better taste

Healthier meat (e.g. less fat)

Larger sport fish

Bacteria to clean up oil spills

Disease resistant crops

Cows which produce more milk

The results are in Table 3. The approval of the Calgene FlavrSavr modified tomato which has delayed ripening for general cultivation in the USA was given by the USDA in 1993, and it was approved for general commercial food consumption by the FDA in 1994, and sold in the summer 1994 in some parts of the USA. The results show that it would be generally supported around the world.

The healthier meat question is relevant to efforts to make less fatty meat, both by hormones in pigs, and other animals. In the USA in 1992, 45% said "acceptable", 32% "unacceptable" and 23% "don't know" to a similar question [14]. In a related question on cows with increased milk, and in the USA in 1992, 36% said "acceptable", 41% "unacceptable" and 23% "don't know" to a similar question in 1992 [14]. This has become reality in 1994 with the general use of bovine growth hormone (BST - bovine somatotropin) in the USA dairy industry, a hormone made by genetic engineering that can increase milk yield by 10-20%. It also received less support in the International Bioethics Survey than the goal of less fatty meat, which is consistent with the existing milk surplus in some countries. In a recent telephone survey in the USA conducted by Hoban [27], it was found that consumers gained confident about consuming milk produced from cows treated with BST after receiving scientific facts attributed to respected agencies (e.g. AMA, FDA, NIH).

The most support is seen for disease-resistant crops, and bacteria to clean oil spills. These are two uses of genetic engineering that most agree with (Table 3). The sports fish is an example of genetic engineering for fun - and it is reassuring that many people reject such genetic engineering. The highest degree of support for the sports fish is in the USA where 53% approved in a 1986 survey, while 73% approved of bacteria to clean oil spills or disease-resistant crops [13]. The general support for products of genetic engineering seems to be high, especially if they are claimed to be more healthy. In the Canadian study comparisons between chemicals and genetically engineered organisms usually found less support for chemical methods [17]. All these examples of genetic engineering are already made.

In the 1991 survey in Japan an open question looking at awareness, benefits, and risks of genetic manipulation of microbes, plants, animals and humans, was asked [23, 26]. The responses made by the public, teachers and scientists were compared with results from New Zealand [22], and few differences were observed. As in the USA, human genetic manipulation is associated with the most risks, and plant genetic manipulation with the least, but unfortunately they didn't compare open comments [13].

E. Food concerns and human health

A question that was repeated from the 1991 Japanese and 1990 New Zealand surveys in the International Bioethics Survey was:

Q14. If any of the following were to be produced from genetically modified organisms, would you have any concerns about using them? How much? Why?

1. No 2. A few 3. Some 4. A lot

Dairy products

Vegetables

Meat

Medicines

Least concern was shown about medicines, than vegetables, and dairy products and most concern about meat (Table 4). A variety of reasons were cited (Table 5). The results of that question found similar concerns to the surveys in New Zealand [22] and Japan [23]. One of the main concerns was that the products would be unnatural, but there were also a variety of other comments as shown in the Table. Comparison with the surveys in the Netherlands [19, 21] allows development of methods to explore people's concerns. In the 1992 US study, price was also found to be a critical factor, rather than whether the product was better quality [14]. However, there is a significant fraction of the food market in most countries from the products that claim to be of higher quality, and the best test of consumer preference is from sales statistics, for example from the sales of the "tasty" tomato released in the USA in 1994.

In the International Bioethics Survey, four specific questions used in the US survey of Hoban and Kendall [14] were used to explore the acceptance of food products made from cross species gene transfer. In all the countries in this survey (Table 6), plant-plant gene transfers (Q9) were most acceptable, with animal-animal (Q11) next, and animal-plant (Q10) or human-animal gene transfers (Q12) were least acceptable (p. 212-213). A variety of reasons were cited which are reproduced elsewhere [1]. Some people made comments that suggested they were looking at secondary aspects, such as whether they liked potato or chicken. In the USA the proportion accepting these were 66% (Q9), 39% (Q11), 25% (Q10), and 10% (Q12) [14], and the trend was also seen in Canada [17]. The generally higher fears about animal genetic engineering, and meat, is also seen in Europe [18, 19]. In another question, over half the respondents in all samples in the International Bioethics Survey said that they had stopped eating a food because of concerns over its safety [1].

Many genetic diseases may be able to be treated by correcting the defective genes, which is called gene therapy. Gene therapy is a therapeutic technique in which a functioning gene is inserted into the cells of a patient to correct an inborn genetic error or to provide a new function to the cell. Over 70 human gene therapy trials have been approved in numerous countries. The responses to the questions about gene therapy show people do have significant discretion over therapeutic and cosmetic applications of gene therapy [1]. This is encouraging for ethicists, and is similar to the discretion shown in the question about use of genetic engineering to make a sports fish, compared to a disease-resistant crop. There was lower support for enhancement uses (improving physique, intelligence, making more ethical) than for treating disease, suggesting some discretion. There was extremely high support for use of gene therapy to cure disease, both as somatic cell (fatal, late onset) or inheritable (fatal, non-fatal); and high support as an AIDS vaccine.

There was least discretion against enhancement uses in Thailand and India, which may suggest that the economic strife and infectious disease makes people more pragmatic about the use of any therapy to treat disease. However in other countries also, the success of cosmetic surgery suggests that once it is possible, the 20-30% who accept genetic engineering to improve intelligence, may do so in practice. Whether this is acceptable is a much bigger question and may require stricter control than today's cosmetics as heritable changes affect future generations.

There is clear support for attempting to do good, and no apparent public rejection of therapy targetted on genes. About three quarters of all samples supported for personal use of gene therapy, with slightly higher support for children's use of gene therapy [1]. The major reasons were to save life and increase the quality of life. Few people gave a reasons like "improving genes". About 5-7% rejected gene therapy considering it to be playing God, or unnatural. There was very little concern about eugenics (0.5-2%), confirming the results of a different open question in 1991 [23, 26].

F. Environmental Concerns

Some environmental concerns were seen in the responses to the general questions on genetic engineering and biotechnology (Table 2, 5). A specific question was also given before these questions:

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

1. Agree 2. Agree Strongly 3. Neither 4. Disagree 5. Disagree Strongly

"d. Genetically modified plants and animals will help agriculture become less dependent on chemical pesticides."

The results are in Table 3. In the 1991 survey in Japan [23] 49% of the public agreed that genetically modified plants and animals would help Japanese agriculture become less dependent upon pesticides, while 49% of teachers and 56% of scientists agreed. 71% of the company scientists agreed with this statement. Only 7% of scientists and the public disagreed with this, while 13% of teachers disagreed. This question statement is a major argument of those calling for the development of genetic engineering in agriculture, and the result suggests that it is supported by a majority of people, though still many people are not sure about how they feel (Table 3).

The way that genetic engineering is being used to introduce pest resistance to plants is to transfer genes to selectively kill insect pests into plants. The research has been conducted on many species of plants, with success, especially transferring the gene encoding the insecticidal protein of the bacteria Bacillus thuriengensis [2]. This protein selectively kills certain insects, while other insects are not killed. When chemical insecticides are used, all insects may die, so this method is an advantage. The protein is not toxic to other animals, so it is also much safer than chemicals. Other examples of environmental benefits are known, and it is likely that this will gain public support of biotechnology.

There were also two open questions asking what images people had of life and nature. The diversity of comments was similar in all countries, with similar proportions expressing different ideas - which is very interesting for looking at what we think of nature or life. The question on nature followed several questions on genetic engineering, so it is not surprising that many (about one quarter) included a comment that nature is something that should not be touched by human beings, and about one tenth mentioned ecological problems [1]. The ethical limits of genetic engineering may in the end be decided by aesthetic perceptions of "nature" rather than environmental risk itself. This is very difficult to define and this survey is an attempt to begin a search among ordinary people around the world on what these limits might be. We all have some limit, whether it be blue roses or chicken with four legs - and we also realise these limits change through time. A simple definition of bioethics, as I said earlier could be love of life. The images of life are therefore most illuminating in the pursuit of bioethics.

G. Source of information and trust in authorities

Another issue of ethics is who should make decisions, and who do people trust. A question on the level of trust that people had in authorities for information on the safety of biotechnology products was asked, as shown in Table 7. There was most trust in the government in Hong Kong and Singapore, and least in Australasia, Japan, Russia, USA and Europe. Despite the lower trust shown in the government in Russia, they had a level of trust in medical doctors. The result is most striking when we compare it to Japan, in which doctors were not trusted. In fact it appears Japanese do not trust anyone very much, but the biggest difference with the other countries was that doctors and university professors were mistrusted, especially so by medical students. Whereas Russians show great trust in doctors and environmental groups, and a high level of trust in professors. Companies were least trusted everywhere. Farmers were also not trusted (unlike the USA, where in 1992, 26% had a lot of trust, 68% had some trust, and 6% had no trust in farmers [14].

The lack of trust in companies or governmental regulators is also seen in European [18] and North American surveys [13, 14, 17, 29]. This lack of trust is a concern. The most trusted source of information are environmental groups [20, 29]. The main source of information is the media in all countries [1], but people are becomes more selective in what they believe.

H. Economic concerns and patenting life

A patented product that reaches the commercial market gives the inventor some compensation for the time they spent in research for the development. The system is self-sustaining, if patents are awarded, companies will invest time into research, but if not, there is less incentive for companies to conduct research and less total research is performed. There may be a greater amount of total knowledge because there is more total research performed. However, property rights are not absolutely protected in any society because of the principle of justice, for the sake of "public interest", "social need", and "public utility", societies can confiscate property. There are also exemptions to patent law if the object is "offensive to (general) public morality", which could prevent the patenting of some animals for ethical reasons.

However, there is still no reward given to the farmers who for millenia have established crop varieties, which plant breeders use as starting materials. In 1983, at a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation conference, representatives from 156 countries recognised that "plant resources were part of the common heritage of mankind and should be respected without any restriction". Since then an international network of gene banks has begun to be established, who will provide genetic material world-wide. These also preserve genetic material from species that are becoming extinct because of environmental destruction. In 1994 the Biological Diversity Convention was ratified, and it specifically protects the intellectual property rights of indigenous biological organisms.

In 1991 a controversy arose when a a single patent application for 337 human genes was made in by the US National Institutes of Health in the USA. In February 1992 they made another application for patents on 2375 genes. The US applications were later rejected for technical reasons rather than ethical ones, and the decision was not appealed. The French government, and Japanese genome researchers announced that they would not apply for similar patents because of ethical reasons. England's Medical Research Council (MRC) applied for a similar patent on more than 1000 genes, but England joined France in calling for an international agreement to waive any of these patents if they should be granted, and withdrew their application when the NIH did. The human genome is common property of all human beings, and no one should be able to patent it en masse, if at all [32]. The policy issue is still being debated [33].

The scientist Craig Venter left the NIH to start the company Human Genome Sciences, which includes The Institute for Genomic Research, Gaithersburg, which continued the work of the NIH to create a database of cDNA sequences from as many human genes as possible. In late 1994 they released terms of the way researchers can access the 150,000 cDNA sequences they compiled into a database, which include 35,000 of unknown function [34]. Users must sign an option agreement, and companies will have 6 months to try to make joint shares in commercial developments. The release of the cDNA sequences from TIGR to the general community is under the condition that they can take first look for 30 days before publication at papers, with an option for a 30 day extra delay. Smith-Kline Beecham (of the UK) has control of Human Genome Sciences, linking pharmaceuticals with the human genome. In a counter move, another giant company, Merck, has made arrangements with the University of Washington to develop an open cDNA database, available for all researchers without charge. Merck is building on the chance to make a good image with the scientists, but TIGR argues that they want some reimbursement for the US$200 million investment in obtaining the sequences and making the database available. However, it is likely that they already have selected some genes for commercial development, and the profits from several hormones could compensate for all the work. The relevance for agriculture is that now such genome companies are applying the techniques to agricultural organisms, and have the resources to sequence all the novel cDNA from a single organism within a year. We should not forget the parallel with farmer's ownership of plants and animals, in which "life" is owned, but the originators of patents did not envisage the ownership options on such substantial portions of a genome of one organism.

III. Bioethical principles for agricultural biotechnology

A. Autonomy of choice versus justice

Respect for the autonomy of individuals is a fundamental principle of ethics, and is found in early times in those religions which recognised freedom of belief. If we respect autonomy of human beings we should respect their right to have at least some property, or territory, and control over their own body. In agriculture this means respect for freedom of growing what crops a farmer chooses, and eating what food we like, within social constraints (e.g. human flesh is a general taboo in most cultures).

People's well-being should be promoted, and their values and choice respected, but equally, which places limits on the pursuit of individual autonomy. People's well-being should be promoted, and their values and choices respected, but equally, which places limits on the pursuit of individual autonomy. We should give very member in society equal and fair opportunities, this is justice. Utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) is useful for general proportions, but it is very difficult to assign values to different people's interests and preferences. Society should also include the future of society, future generations are also an essential part of society. Therefore, we should protect the environment for the future generations [2].

B. Balancing benefits and risks: love

One of the underlying philosophical ideas of society is to pursue progress. The most cited justification for this is the pursuit of improved medicines or increased stable food supply, which is doing good. A failure to attempt to do good, is a form of doing harm, the sin of omission. This is the principle of beneficence. This is a powerful impetus for further research into ways of improving health and agriculture, and living standards.

Biotechnology is challenging because, like most technology, both benefits and risks will always be associated. A fundamental way of reasoning that people have is to balance doing good against doing harm. We could group these ideals under the idea of love. We need to share benefits of new technology and risks of developing new technology to all people.

People in developing countries should not be the recipients of risks passed onto them by industrialised countries, despite the economic pressure to allow this. We can think of the dumping of hazardous wastes to developing countries, in return for financial reward, but the environmental and human health consequences of dumping toxic waste cannot be measured. Industrialised societies have developed safeguards to protect citizens, and some of these involve considerable economic cost. While it may not be possible for developing countries' governments to impose the same requirements, they should not accept lower standards - rather use data obtained in countries with strict and sufficient safeguards of health, with the aid of inter-governmental agencies. Any basic human right should be the same in all countries, and this is one of the roles of the United Nations. Ethically this would support the implementation of minimum international standards for regulation of biotechnology [35].

The precise outcome of interventions in nature or medicine is not always certain. It has taken major ecological disasters to convince people in industry or agriculture of the risks. Introducing new organisms to the environment is also associated with risk. If we introduce very different gene combinations into the environment they could have major consequences, which may be irreversible [2]. The new genes may enter other organisms, or the new organisms themselves may replace existing organisms in the ecosystem. The ecological system is very complex, minor alterations in one organism can sometimes have effects throughout an ecosystem. Field trials and experimentation are an ethical prerequisite before full scale use of new organisms, as is the scheme used by the USDA in the USA, and quarantine regulations used throughout much of the world.

C. There is ethical value in life

Many want to protect nature, not because of its value or property, but simply because it is there. The concepts and images that the words "life" and "nature" imply are similar in different countries [1]. Many people value nature, and this has suggested some to suggest that it may even be part of our sociobiological traits, a "Biophilia" [36]. The scientific understanding of biological knowledge allows us to understand the reason a flower blooms, but we may still value its beauty. This aesthetic value is also a part of bioethics, yet is difficult to quantify.

Related to this is the concept of biodiversity, which is now legally recognised as a good in the Biological Diversity Convention, primarily because of economic potential, but it is also protected because of aesthetic value. Biodiversity is a word used to picture the great diversity of living organisms on the planet. Just as the individual processes of life are dynamic, so is the composite of the lifeforms. The idea of dynamism also implies a balance. The dynamic nature is implied in both science - the second law of thermodynamics, and religion - in the Biblical doctrine of creation and preservation; and Asian religions with "harmony" [1, 2]. There are various religious stories to support preservation of biological diversity, the most famous of which is the story of Noah, which is shared by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. Noah preserved all the domestic and wild animals from environmental catastrophe, a catastrophe that it says was caused by the actions of humans.

The cross between a horse and a donkey, the mule, is certainly accepted in many cultures. The greatest public concern is over the mixing of human and animal genes. Some people object to the insertion of human growth hormone, or hemoglobin, genes in pigs. These animals may be used to make medically useful proteins, and could be considered just an extension of the modern dairy industry which tries to increase milk production in cows. To challenge the integrity of a species requires more than a single gene change. There is also research to produce transgenic animals which can be organ donors for humans. This is technically difficult, but perhaps possible - but at first people may consider this concept "playing God". However, eating animals, or having inbred dog varieties is considered acceptable, which suggests that it will be within the bounds of common morality to use animals for organ donors. One could argue that medical need is a greater reason than the desire to eat meat, so that this will be accepted, and there is more ethical justification for this type of "bioreactor" agriculture than for meat production. .c

D. Footholds on slippery slopes

In most interventions in life there are slippery slopes. The idea is that because we perform some action, we will perform another. Controls which were adequate for initial exploration may fail under increased pressure. While we may not do any direct harm with the application in question, it could result in progressive lowering of standards towards the ill-defined line beyond which it would be doing harm. The inability to draw a line is no measure of the nonimportance of an issue - rather some of the biggest fundamental questions in bioethics and life are of this nature.

2.

E. Animal regulations

The moral status of animals, and decisions about whether it is ethical for humans to use them, depends on several key attributes; the ability to think, the ability to be aware of family members, the ability to feel pain (at different levels), and the state of being alive. Causing pain is considered bad, and it is the major guiding principle for animal treatment [1, 37]. If we do use animals we should avoid pain.

Animals are part of the biological community in which we live, and we have to consider the ethical implications of whether they possess autonomy. If we consider biological relationships it is natural to ask the question whether animals share similar behaviour to humans. When we look at animals we see that some animals exhibit non-selfish behaviour, called altruism. Some even give when there is no hope to receive any genetic benefit, helping unrelated individuals. We must therefore ask the question is altruism the basis for love?, and does it make an ethical difference [1]. In practice, we need to build a society which minimises the departure from the ideal of doing no harm, and respects the choices that people make.

People will continue to eat animals, and practical ethics must improve the ethical treatment for all animals. One area of concern is whether animals should be in a field or in a caged box, or factory farm. There have been several countries which have banned the use of battery caged hens. It has been illegal to use battery; cages in Switzerland since 1992. The possible boredom of animals on factory farms [39] may be another ethical argument against their use. People need to decide how much more they are prepared to pay for better treatment of animals, such as the costs of eliminating battery farming, or the costs in not using new animal treatments that produce cheaper milk or meat such as bovine growth hormone. The consequences on the different communities involved in agriculture of these decisions also needs to be considered, with a variety of external factors.

F. Sustainability and balancing ideals

Rather than calling these factors principles, we could call them ideals [1]. These ideals all need to be balanced, and the balance varies more within any culture than between any two. Surveys combined with observations of policy and behaviour in different countries allow us to look at how these principles and ideals are balanced. An examination of history also shows how the balancing act has varied in different times and places. In another paper I have discussed what is ethical biotechnology [40].

Some of the criticism is against technology in general, and needs balanced consideration. For example, there are valid criticisms about the development of herbicide-tolerant plants, that biological control is better, but they do have immediate environmental advantages in some cases. For example, maize growers make 4-6 herbicide applications a season, but if the crop was tolerant to a broad-spectrum post-emergence herbicide only one application would be needed. Reducing herbicide use and switching to biodegradable products is consistent with sustainable agriculture and is an important practical step in that direction, as long as commercial interests do not prevent the eventual widespread use of the ideal, biological control [2].

IV. The future of bioethical biotechnology

A. Scientific responsibility

A basic human responsibility is honesty, which unfortunately is broken by some. The USA established a special Office of Research Integrity to investigate cases of alleged scientific misconduct. They define "research misconduct is plagiarism; fabrication or deliberate falsification of data, research procedures, or data analysis; or other deliberate misrepresentation in proposing, conducting, reporting, or reviewing research" [1]. Just less than half the cases brought to the office have resulted in guilty charges being upheld against scientists.

There are social responsibilities in the choice and use of research. Some basic areas of responsibility include: those related to the acquisition of scientific knowledge, awareness of the potential for misapplication of their findings, to make society a partner in the management of knowledge, bearing in mind the interests of present and future generations and the need to actively value human beings and other life, as described above.

Other people are involved in the application of science in the world. Companies have been responsible for about 80% of the releases of GMOs in the world [35]. As commercial seeds and animals are passed on to farmers the farmers will assume increasing responsibility for sensible farming practice, which is usually in their long term interests also, e.g. monitoring of pest resistance to insecticidal proteins.

B. Teaching ethical, environmental and social issues science raises

Unless the broader dimensions of applied science are taught, society will be unable to make balanced decisions about the use of technology. In all countries in the International Bioethics Survey there is strong support for teaching students about the ethical and social issues associated with science and technology [1], and such issues are already introduced into the curriculum to varying degrees in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, as measured in the International Bioethics Education Survey. The general attitudes to the teaching of bioethics were extremely positive. It is interesting that more biology teachers thought bioethics should be taught in biology classes, while social teachers thought they should teach it.

There is more inclusion in Australia and New Zealand teachers than in Japan. There should be research into how these issues are being best taught, the most suitable issues, the suitable classes and the most effective delivery. They are relevant to both science and social studies classes. The next stage in the education project is the development of materials to aid the teaching of these issues, and the responses obtained were used to make such materials. Teachers are testing some materials, and developing them for use at appropriate times in existing courses.

Public education is a special responsibility of scientists, who have the best knowledge of the technology, even if they may not know of the impact so much. Recently, surveys of scientists in the USA [15] and Europe [16] engaged in recombinant DNA research, found that more saw public attention on genetic engineering research as beneficial or neutral than harmful to their research. The view in America was more positive than in Europe. Further public education programs to stress the benefits of biotechnology have been called for by others in North America and Europe as well [14]. Their goal is to reduce what is seen as a high level of concern about the technology, which seems unobtainable given the views of educated groups that have been surveyed People who have high familiarity with such techniques, such as scientists and high school biology teachers, are also concerned about such technology [23], and the emotions concerning acceptance of technology are varied and complex.[1, 23]. Rather than attempting to dismiss feelings of concern, society should value and debate these concerns to improve the bioethical maturity of society.

In fact, in the International Bioethics Survey the most positive samples towards enhancement genetic engineering were from Thailand and India, which as a country in general may not be as highly educated as Japan or Australasia. Even if those samples did include more graduates than the other countries, the trend is also seen in an educated sample from a medical school in China [41] that used questions used in Japan in 1991 [23]. The results of another survey in China on science and technology in 1989 also found extremely positive attitudes towards technology with only 2% saying that science and technology did more harm than good, with 82% saying more good and 12% saying the same [42]. In the International Bioethics Survey Thailand was most similar to China, with 3% saying more harm, 54% more good and 42% the same [1]. The effect of education on attitudes to biotechnology needs to be examined, with comparisons to other influences on opinion, such as experience of pollution, food supply, medical benefit, etc.

C. Safety and risk are bioethical concerns

D. Conclusions

The results are also being used in an attempt to develop a method for assessing the general "bioethical maturity" of different societies, which includes the ability to balance benefit and risk; and discretion between enhancement and therapy; and the balance between autonomy and freedom/restriction [1]. The social consequences of biotechnology depend on the society that we make - but they are international. We can conclude that bioethical concerns are already one factor affecting the implementation of biotechnology in agriculture, because they are part of the "equation" that people use when deciding whether to accept the products. It is in the interests of the whole of society that people make good decisions considering the total current and future impact of their choices, and scientists have a role in education to enable this.

V. References

1. D.R.J. Macer, Bioethics for the People by the People Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1994.

2. D.R.J. Macer, Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1990.

3. D. Macer, No to "genethics", Nature 365: 102 (1993).

4. D. Suzuki and P. Knudtson, Genethics: The Clash Between the New Genetics and Human Values Harvard University Press, Boston, 1989.

5. D. Macer, Genetic engineering in 1990, Science & Christian Belief 2: 25-40 (1990).

6. R.J. Berry, Christianity and the Environment. Science & Christian Belief 3: 3-18 (1991).

7. M.A. Anees, Islam and Biological Futures, Mansell Publishing, London, 1989.

8. F.J. Leavitt, Israel's tradition in the age of the new genetics, Intractable Neurological Disorders, Human Genome Research and Society, (N. Fujiki and D.R.J. Macer, eds.), Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1994, pp. 214-7.

9. P. Ratanakul, BioEthics. An Introduction to the Ethics of Medicine and Life Sciences, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 1986.

10. P. Sieghart, The Lawful Rights of Mankind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985.

11. B. Zechendorf, What the public thinks about biotechnology, Biotechnology 12: 870-5 (1994).

12. B. Dixon, Biotech in Thailand, Biotechnology 12: 954 (1994).

13. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Developments in Biotechnology, 2: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology - Background Paper, U.S.G.P.O., Washington D.C., 1987.

14. T.J. Hoban and P.A. Kendall, Consumer Attitudes About the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., 1992.

15. I. Rabino, The impact of activist pressures on recombinant DNA research, Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 70-87 (1991).

16. I. Rabino, A study of attitudes and concerns of genetic engineering scientists in Western Europe, Biotech Forum Europe 9: 636-40 (1992).

17. Decima Research, Final Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes to Biotechnology, Ottawa, 1993.

18. European Commission, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What Europeans Think About It in 1993, Eurobarometer Survey 39.1 (and 35.1) is available in French or English from M. Lex, DG XII/E-1 SDME 2/65, Commission of the European Communities, Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049, Brussels, Belgium.

19. A.M. Hamstra, Biotechnology in Foodstuffs, SWOKA Report 105, Institute for Consumer Research, Koningin Emmakade 192-195, 2518 JP 's-Gravenhage, The Netherlands, (1991).

20. S. Martin and J. Tait, Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to biotechnology, Biotechnology in Public, (J. Durant, ed.), Science Museum, London, 1992, pp. 28-41. A full report is available.

21. A.M. Hamstra, Consumer Acceptance of Food Biotechnology, SWOKA Report 137, Institute for Consumer Research, Koningin Emmakade 192-195, 2518 JP 's-Gravenhage, The Netherlands (1993) .

22. P. Couchman and K. Fink-Jensen, Public Attitudes to Genetic Engineering in New Zealand, DSIR Crop Research Report No. 138. DSIR Crop Research, Private Bag, Christchurch, NZ, 1990.

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

24. RSGB. Public perceptions of biotechnology: interpretative report . RSGB Ref. 4780, UK, 1988.

25. D. Macer, Perception of risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and biotechnology, Social Science and Medicine 38: 23-33 (1994).

26. D. Macer, Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation, Human Gene Therapy 3: 511-8 (1992).

Macer, D. (1992c) The 'far east' of biological ethics. Nature 359: 770.

27. T.J. Hoban, (1994) Reported in USDA Biotechnology Notes (March 1994), p. 2-3.

28. B. Dixon Biotech a plus according to European poll. Biotechnology 9: 16 (1991).

29. L. Rothenburg, Biotechnology's issue of public credibility, Trends in Biotechnology 12: 435-8 (1994).

30. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Developments in Biotechnology, 4: Patenting Life, U.S.G.P.O., Washington, March 1989.

31. W.H. Lesser, Equitable Patent Protection in the Developing World: Issues and Approaches, Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1991.

32. D. Macer, Whose genome project?, Bioethics 5: 183-211 (1991).

33. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Patenting cDNA..., U.S.G.P.O., Washington, In Press 1994.

34. Nature 371: 363-6; 371: 463; Science 265: 1991; 266: 25 (1994).

35. A.F. Krattiger and A. Rosemarin, eds., Biosafety for Sustainable Agriculture. Sharing Regulatory Experiences of the Western Hemisphere, Stockholm Environmental Institute, Stockholm, 1994.

36. S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson, eds., The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island Press, Washington D.C., 1993.

37. P. Singer, Animal Liberation, Jonathan Cape, London, 1976.

38. J. Rachels, Created from Animals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990.

39. M.Appleby, Frustration on the factory farm, New Scientist (30 March 1991), 34-6.

40. D.R.J. Macer, Bioethics and biotechnology: What is ethical biotechnology?, Modern Biotechnology: Legal, Economic and Social Dimensions, Biotechnology, Volume 12, (ed. D. Brauer), VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 1995, pp. 115-154.

41. W.H.Y. Lo et al., A survey of people with higher education to genetics and diseases in Beijing, Intractable Neurological Disorders, Human Genome Research and Society, (N. Fujiki and D.R.J. Macer, eds.), Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1994, pp. 195-198.

43. D. Macer, The 'far east' of biological ethics, Nature 359: 770, 1992.