One of the factors that may relate to risk perception is knowledge of science, and the claim that increased knowledge is correlated to decreased perception of risk has been suggested in some other studies (OTA, 1987), and is a commonly held view in academia and industry. In this 1993 study most respondents answered that they had some interest in science and technology, with few saying they did not. Another measure may be the response rate, which was generally between 20-30%, significantly higher than commercial mail box response. The 1991 Japan surveys suggest that knowledge of science is not so closely correlated with response rate (Macer, 1992a; 1994a). An indirect measure of the depth of knowledge were the comments that were given in response to open questions.

The results of the awareness question for pesticides, biotechnology and genetic engineering in the International Bioethics Survey are shown in Table 1. It is interesting that biotechnology was generally one of the most unfamiliar terms, next to gene therapy, except in Japan, where it was one of the most familiar, consistent with other surveys (Macer, 1992a). The awareness of gene therapy was the lowest among the eight developments included. Genetic engineering was generally the least familiar among the other areas, with pesticides, in vitro fertilisation, computers and nuclear power being most familiar. Awareness was significantly related to educational attainment in most samples. The samples with the greatest awareness were generally biology teachers, next were medical students (New Zealand, Japan, Australia and the Philippines), followed by the other groups, social studies teachers, biology students and the public. For all developments and in all samples, there was a positive correlation between awareness and the expressed level of interest in science from the results of the earlier question.

Following questions, discussed below, asked them whether they thought each development would have a benefit or not, and their perceptions about the risks of technology by asking them how worried they were about each development. The areas of science and technology included: In vitro fertilisation, Computers, Biotechnology, Nuclear power , Agricultural Pesticides, Genetic engineering. The results for genetic engineering are shown in Table 2. For this question, the comments were assigned into categories, and the results are shown. Both benefits and risks were cited by many respondents.

There was more concern about genetic engineering and pesticides, despite the lower familiarity with biotechnology. The degree of concern depends upon what people know. People do show the ability to balance benefits and risks of science and technology, consistent with earlier surveys (Macer, 1992a; 1994b).

Bioethical maturity

People do not have a simplistic view of the positive or negative face of science and technology, and can often perceive both benefits and risks. Overall we do find a positive view, but for different applications there are quite different opinions. This balancing of good and harm is necessary for bioethics, and I have called this one indicator of the bioethical maturity of a society (Macer, 1992b; 1994b). The use of surveys can provide us with some indicators of the degree to which society can make well-thought out "mature" decisions, rather than impulsive "childish" decisions based on immediate gain.

The types of concern that were expressed over genetic engineering give us some picture of risk perception (Table 2). What is a risk? The idea of interference with nature is an aesthetic, religious or moral concern. It presupposes that it is bad to change nature, and is related to the risk of playing God, that we are changing God-given nature or that we are exerting God-like powers in the modification of nature. Eugenic, ethical and social impact concerns are risks related to the most common category of general human misuse. These extend from the type of ethical concern that we should not modify animals, a type of interfering with nature concern, through the concern that we should not violate human rights, which is more universally accepted in law as a risk. More vague concerns of risk are seen in the categories of fear, and danger. The concerns of insufficient controls, it is a waste of resources, or conversely that we can control technology so we don't need to worry, are more concrete. Ecological and health concerns are also more concrete.

By dividing up the concerns that people have in such a way, we can form a better picture of what risk assessment means in their minds. The same type of analysis was done in 1990 in New Zealand (Couchman & Fink-Jensen, 1990), and in 1991 in Japan among scientists, students, teachers, and the public (Macer, 1992a). There is a trend for scientists to give more concrete concerns, though in related questions on the risks of genetic engineering of animals and humans, in that survey still 16% gave concerns that it was interfering in nature.

Therefore greater awareness of a technology may not mean that the perceived risks are only technical. Risk assessment in the minds of people includes aesthetic, religious and moral concerns which are often vague. Rather than saying that one class of risk perception is mature and another immature, we could actually say that to appreciate the wide range of risks is more mature than to only think of one or two.

We can expect the awareness of both benefits and risks of products will grow with the increased use of biotechnology products, and about 70-80% were already aware that genetically modified organisms are being used to produce foods and medicines. In all countries of the International Bioethics Survey there was an overall 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 (Macer, 1994a).

When specific details of an application are given there is generally greater acceptance, suggesting that people have some discretion, another indicator of bioethical maturity. It also suggests that if details of a technology are given, for example by the company or government related to the release of a GMO, the public will show greater acceptance of an application (Macer, 1992b; 1994a; Macer et al., 1995) This is illustrated in questions looking at environmental release of genetically modified organisms (Q31) which were taken from the OTA (1987) survey, with comparisons to a question of Hoban & Kendall (1992). 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 (Hoban & Kendall, 1992). 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. This has become reality in 1994 with the general use of bovine growth hormone (BST - bovine somatotrophin) 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 widespread questioning of the need given the existing milk surplus in some countries.

Animals have long been used for agriculture, and are likely to continue to be used. 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. 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. People will continue to eat animals, and practical ethics must improve the ethical treatment for all animals. This is a further area of risk assessment that applies to animal use, the risks of unethical treatment of organisms. 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 highest degree of support among the applications of genetic engineering that were given was seen for disease-resistant crops, and bacteria to clean oil spills (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 (OTA, 1987). 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 (Decima, 1994). 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 (Macer 1992a; 1992b). The responses made by the public, teachers and scientists were compared with results from New Zealand (Couchman & Fink-Jensen, 1990), 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 (OTA, 1987).

Table 3: Approval of environmental release of GMOs

	Public							Medical or biology students
%	NZ	A	J	In	T	R	Is	NZ	A	J	In	T	P	S	HK
Tomatoes with better taste
Yes	49	54	69	73	83	35	40	54	53	71	77	88	68	74	58
No	35	35	20	20	10	45	44	21	36	15	17	5	27	17	32
DK	16	11	11	7	7	20	16	15	11	14	6	7	5	9	10
Healthier meat (e.g. less fat)
Yes	54	60	57	66	84	35	44	74	71	65	68	88	75	72	62
No	30	31	26	22	9	43	42	20	23	18	18	4	21	17	27
DK	16	9	17	12	7	21	14	6	6	17	14	8	4	11	11
Larger sport fish
Yes	22	19	22	48	58	13	20	28	23	24	50	64	54	44	42
No	61	65	54	27	25	61	58	63	65	52	31	20	40	39	37
DK	17	16	24	25	17	26	22	9	12	24	19	16	6	17	21
Bacteria to clean up oil spills
Yes	75	82	71	74	87	63	70	92	89	76	74	85	78	86	70
No	11	11	13	14	5	20	12	1	4	10	13	6	19	6	23
DK	14	8	16	12	8	17	18	7	7	14	13	9	3	8	7
Disease resistant crops
Yes	70	78	66	78	91	54	50	81	81	67	81	91	82	83	72
No	16	13	17	13	4	25	28	7	13	13	11	5	15	8	14
DK	14	9	17	9	5	21	22	12	6	20	8	4	3	9	14
Cows which produce more milk
Yes	36	39	44	75	84	23	38	55	44	49	72	86	70	57	54
No	45	42	32	19	7	38	40	31	35	29	19	5	26	25	34
DK	19	19	24	6	9	39	20	14	21	22	9	9	4	18	12

Environmental concerns

Some environmental concerns were seen in the responses to the general questions on genetic engineering and biotechnology (Table 2). In the 1991 survey in Japan (Macer, 1992a) 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 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. This statement was also supported by a majority of respondents in the countries in the International Bioethics Survey (Macer, 1994a).

In 1990 European public opinion poll conducted in the U.K., France, Italy and Germany, by Gallup for Eli Lily (Dixon, 1991), the respondents were asked to choose the largest benefit that they saw coming from biotechnology, between one of four possible benefits from biotechnology. Over half rated cures for serious diseases as the most important benefit. Another option was reducing our dependence upon pesticides and chemical fertilisers, which 26% of Italians, 24% of French, 22% of British and 16% of Germans, chose as the largest benefit. The respondents were asked a similar question about their largest concern. 40% of French, 35% of Germans, and 25% of British and Italian respondents chose eugenics, and slightly lower proportions overall chose environmental harm, 34% in Britain, 33% in France, 22% in Italy and 21% in Germany. Potential health hazards from laboratory genetic research were named by 29% in Italy, 17% in France, 11% in Britain and 10% in Germany. Overall one third of respondents feel that biotechnology is ethical and one third feel that it is unethical, and one third think it is in between, "neither".

Therefore, it appears that in all countries medical advances, and the ability to cure genetic diseases are the major benefits people see from genetic engineering and biotechnology. Environmental concerns are a close second, and this is consistent with the International Bioethics Survey when we consider concrete concerns. However, from the results of the open questions, we also see lower proportions of the public cite these concerns, and there are other common concerns including what is natural, or ethical, as discussed above (Table 2). The benefits are divided depending on the organisms that are considered. Microorganisms are seen for both medical use and general use to produce useful substances through fermentation. Plants and animals are seen for their obvious agricultural importance, and genetic manipulation is perceived for its ability to aid the breeding of new varieties, and to increase production of food (Macer, 1992a).

There were also two open questions asking what images people had of life and nature. 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 not to be touched by human beings, and about one tenth mentioned ecological problems (Macer, 1994a). The ethical limits of genetic engineering may in the end be decided by subjective perceptions of "nature" rather than objective environmental risk itself. Subjective concerns are 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. It is essential to understand the images people have of life in order to develop understanding of the bioethics that people have. Public acceptance depends at least as much on these types of concerns as on ecological or health risk, which is an important point in discussion of risk assessment.

III. Risk assessment, bioethics and trust in authorities

One of the central issues of ethics is decision-making, that 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 in the International Bioethics Survey, as shown in Table 4. 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 (Hoban & Kendall, 1992). In hindsight it would have been interesting to ask whether consumers or the public can be trusted, and do people trust such crude transparent democracy.

The lack of trust in companies or governmental regulators is also seen in European (Eurobarometer 1991, 1993) and North American surveys (OTA, 1987; Hoban & Kendall, 1992; Rothenburg, 1994). This lack of trust is a concern. The most trusted source of information are environmental groups. The main source of information is the media in all countries (Macer, 1994a), but people are becoming more selective in what they believe.

There are a variety of arguments calling for public involvement in policy making. 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. We want to give very member in society equal and fair opportunities, and equally share the risks in the application of technology, 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. The concept of "society" includes the future of society, future generations are also an essential part of society, and ethically speaking we should protect the environment for the future generations.

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. It is therefore unacceptable to hold up the progress of a potentially useful technology, unless the harms it may bring are likely to be significant when compared to the benefits. 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, love means to do good to others and not to harm others. 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. Testing of GMOs is a similar case, though we must note the developing country that is growing GMOs over the largest area is China which is doing so for its own reasons. 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 all can 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 (Krattiger & Rosemarin, 1994). This suggests that risk assessment methods should become systemised and standard, though as discussed in other chapters in this book, and as seen in international comparisons, how to effect a system is still contentious.

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 (Macer, 1990; see other papers in this book). 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.

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 non-importance of an issue - rather some of the biggest fundamental questions in bioethics and life are of this nature.

With precautionary laws to prevent risk because of insufficient scientific knowledge, like the regulations on field trials of GMOs, we could expect gradual weakening of control as experience is gained to support reduced controls. However, Jager and Tappeser (1995) in this book would argue that the data from field trials does not support a relaxing of guidelines, as has occured in the USDA and is being called for in Europe. In this case it may be a slippery slope of increasing familiarity, combined with an absence of dramatic incidents, rather than maintenance of the same scientific objectivity as in the initial trials. It may also be led by bureaucratic overload, and pressures for commercial releases. In this case there are differences in the interpretation of risk assessment data. It should also be noted however, that the real safety test of GMOs is large scale commercial releases, and some releases could be justified if a substantial monitoring system was established to track the genes and ecological impacts. In this case, an intermediate phase between large experimental trials and full commercial release that was over the period of several years would seem wise.

Some people, from all countries, say that some developments of science and technology such as genetic engineering are interfering with nature because "nature knows best". However, we have some good reasons to interfere with parts of nature, for example, we try to cure many diseases that afflict humans or other living organisms and we must eat. A negative science fiction image has been easily promoted and is appealing to the human imagination. The fascination with creating "new forms of life" is coupled to a fear of how far it might be taken. There are many movies which play on scary themes, from Frankenstein to the 1993 blockbuster movie Jurassic Park brought genetic engineering into the imagination of many. These are thought to be very powerful in shaping public acceptance and perceptions, though just how influential is a question for research.

(Q29) 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...?

	Public							Students
Trust	NZ	A	J	India	Thai	R	Israel	NZ	A	J	India	Thai	P	S	HK
Government agencies
A lot	5	8	8	25	33	5	24	7	7	4	25	28	20	34	37
Some	52	61	48	47	63	39	38	65	68	37	49	66	62	58	55
No	43	31	44	28	4	56	38	28	25	59	26	6	18	8	8
Consumer agencies
A lot	24	13	12	23	43	33	28	28	8	8	23	41	17	6	25
Some	58	61	65	57	54	44	42	58	54	60	51	55	68	63	58
No	18	26	23	20	3	23	30	14	38	32	26	4	15	31	17
Companies making biotechnology products
A lot	5	4	6	21	8	6	20	3	4	5	25	13	15	7	8
Some	44	52	43	47	70	31	28	49	53	38	54	75	57	66	57
No	51	44	51	32	22	63	52	48	43	57	21	12	28	27	35
Environmental groups
A lot	21	20	15	47	-	53	54	18	14	7	52	-	57	35	45
Some	68	64	60	44	-	37	36	73	73	52	37	-	42	60	50
No	11	16	25	9	-	10	10	9	13	41	11	-	1	5	5
University professors
A lot	25	30	12	38	42	35	42	50	54	10	47	29	46	30	47
Some	65	60	61	53	57	50	48	48	43	62	39	69	52	65	47
No	10	10	27	9	1	15	10	2	3	28	14	2	2	5	6
Medical doctors
A lot	33	30	12	48	60	55	46	55	58	10	55	55	68	42	48
Some	60	64	58	43	38	35	50	44	40	64	37	44	29	54	49
No	7	6	30	9	2	10	4	1	2	26	8	1	3	4	3
Farmers or farm groups
A lot	6	9	6	-	7	-	28	6	6	7	72	7	18	6	6
Some	69	69	50	-	67	-	50	70	70	50	15	76	71	54	43
No	25	22	44	-	26	-	22	24	24	43	13	17	11	40	51
Dietitians or nutritionists
A lot	24	21	6	-	25	-	40	28	21	5	68	25	42	20	20
Some	66	69	54	-	67	-	50	65	69	56	18	65	53	66	71
No	10	10	40	-	8	-	10	7	10	39	14	10	5	14	9

IV. A future with public involvement in risk assessment

We must ensure that efficient and sustainable agriculture is encouraged, but recognise it is only part of a broader solution. Sustainable agriculture could be defined as the appropriate use of crop and livestock systems and agricultural inputs supporting those activities which maintain economic and social viability while preserving the high productivity and quality of the land. We need to improve agricultural efficiency to succeed, however current research interests in biotechnology are not necessarily the best way to provide sustainable agriculture. Large corporations are developing new techniques that may require constant application. For example, biological weed control is more cost effective and has a higher success rate than that achieved in searching for useful agrochemicals, yet development is limited because it may not make commercial profits.

The consequences of these decisions on the different communities involved in agriculture also needs to be considered, with a variety of social risks of new technology, which could in the end be the greatest risk of manipulation of life, as it will shape future public acceptance about the limits to the type of interventions humans can make in nature. This could be called social risk assessment, and it is an area that social scientists will explore, using the tools of descriptive bioethics.

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 the powerful commercial interests do not prevent the eventual widespread use of the ideal, biological control.

The ethical role of scientists is defined by several levels of moral community: the scientific community itself, the local community, the national society, and the global society. Scientists are involved in a number of different relationships, but first they are participants in society, having the same responsibilities as any citizen. Scientists are also part of a profession, which includes some moral responsibility. If the scientific profession or community does not censor themselves others will do so. We can see the trend for different groups or professions to lay out their ethical codes, as written codifications of etiquette, if not always ethics. When scientists fail to regulate their activity, laws and regulations will be made stronger to ensure that they do, this is a risk that scientists take when they go beyond what is publicly acceptable.

Other groups 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 (Krattiger & Rosemarin, 1994). The risks that companies take include investment into unprofitable products, risks of environmental and/or medical legal claims, and risks of unwelcome legal restraints. 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. The risks to the farmers include, crop failure, unprofitable products, damage to their land or their health, and even possible legal claims against them.

Each of the groups, or players, involved in the release of GMOs also has their own set of benefits. Ideally, all may share the goal of human progress, but they also share the benefits for their own progress. All three have economic interests, perhaps scientists less than the other two groups if the scientists have the luxury of financial support unlinked to research application. The general public also shares these benefits, but may have a longer term economic and environmental framework, and has the benefit of being consumers. Variety or alternatives can give choice, if such a variety is available, and many people may also welcome a variety which is lower cost. In fact, when we consider this factor the public may also have short term economic sights, when it enters the supermarket. Nevertheless, as discussed above, there are a number of ethical reasons to give the general public the major role in deciding what risks and benefits are acceptable for technologies which do have broad implications, in fact global implications in the case of genetic engineering. This means that risk assessment strategies need to be developed from public concerns as well as the concerns of specialists. The broad nature of a technology also suggests that social and ethical impact issues can be included as "risks", and methods to assess these types of risks would be needed. Genetic engineering is certainly not an special case, but it has made people wake up to the fact that many technologies have such broad potential impacts, and we need to think of risk assessment and technology assessment in general. In this respect the decision by the 1995 US government to virtually dismantle the Office of Technology Assessment is surprising and short-sighted.

However, 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 (Macer, 1994a), 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 is now some 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 on-line 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. People who have high familiarity with such techniques, such as scientists and high school biology teachers, are also concerned about such technology (Macer, 1992a). Rather than attempting to dismiss feelings of concern, society should value and debate these concerns to improve the bioethical maturity of society. The data suggests that the public is already informed enough to be trusted in the formation of policy, and there needs to be inclusion into policy making. Several countries including Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK have had public consensus conferences as new methods to involve the public in decision-making. Public forum, and public notification, and chance for response, are assumptions of democracy that are still being excluded in some genetic engineering applications.

In some discussions of the impact of biotechnology safety and risk are considered separate from bioethical concerns. However, as shown above, the origin of concern about safety and impact is the ethical principle of do no harm. People of various cultures, ages, educational training, occupation and outlook on life perceive both benefits and risks from developments of science and technology. People do show the ability to balance benefits and risks of science and technology. People in the countries surveyed do not have a simplistic view of science and technology, and can often perceive both benefits and risks, which calls for public involvement in the process of risk definition and assessment.

I wish to thank Ad, the editor, for numerous useful comments on this paper. On-line materials for teachers, books, papers, the Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, and up-to-date news are available from Eubios Ethics Institute (http://eubios.info/index.htm").

References
Alstad, D.N. & Andow, D.A. "Managing the evolution of insect resistance to transgenic plants", Science 268 (1995), 1894-7.
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.
Decima Research, Final Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on Public Attitudes to Biotechnology, Ottawa, 1993.
B. Dixon Biotech a plus according to European poll. Biotechnology 9: 16 (1991).
B. Dixon, Biotech in Thailand, Biotechnology 12: 954 (1994).
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.
A.M. Hamstra, Biotechnology in Foodstuffs, SWOKA Report 105, Institute for Consumer Research, Koningin Emmakade 192-195, 2518 JP 's-Gravenhage, The Netherlands, (1991).
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) .
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.
A.F. Krattiger and A. Rosemarin, eds., Biosafety for Sustainable Agriculture. Sharing Regulatory Experiences of the Western Hemisphere, Stockholm Environmental Institute, Stockholm, 1994.
D.R.J. Macer, Shaping Genes: Ethics, Law and Science of Using Genetic Technology in Medicine and Agriculture Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1990.
D.R.J. Macer (1992a), Attitudes to Genetic Engineering: Japanese and International Comparisons, Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1992.
D. Macer (1992b), Public acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic manipulation, Human Gene Therapy 3: 511-8 (1992).
D. Macer, No to "genethics", Nature 365: 102 (1993).
D.R.J. Macer (1994a), Bioethics for the People by the People Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, 1994.
D. Macer (1994b), Perception of risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and biotechnology, Social Science and Medicine 38: 23-33.
Macer, D. et al. (1995) International perceptions and approval of gene therapy. Human Gene Therapy 6: 791-803.
D.R.J. Macer (1995), 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.
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.
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.
I. Rabino, The impact of activist pressures on recombinant DNA research, Science, Technology and Human Values 16: 70-87 (1991).
I. Rabino, A study of attitudes and concerns of genetic engineering scientists in Western Europe, Biotech Forum Europe 9: 636-40 (1992).
L. Rothenburg, Biotechnology's issue of public credibility, Trends in Biotechnology 12: 435-8 (1994).
von Schomberg, R. (ed.) Contested technology. Ethics, Risk and Public Debate (International Centre for Human and Public Affairs, 1995)
D. Suzuki and P. Knudtson, Genethics: The Clash Between the New Genetics and Human Values Harvard University Press, Boston, 1989.
B. Zechendorf, What the public thinks about biotechnology, Biotechnology 12: 870-5 (1994).

Please send comments to Email < Macer@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp >.