Institute of Biological
Sciences, University of Tsukuba,
Tsukuba Science City
305-8572, Japan
Fax: Int+81-298-53-6614
Email: Macer@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp
Director, Eubios Ethics
Institute <http://eubios.info/index.html>
Head, International Union of
Biological Sciences (IUBS) Bioethics Program
Introduction
The use of living organisms is essential for human
beings. The transformation by
human beings of one variety of plant into another variety of plant, including
parts of a second or third organism as a genetic donor, raises ethical issues
and public concerns that are becoming more obvious with the criticisms made
against biotechnology and genetic engineering. The word "biotechnology" simply means using living
organisms, or parts of them, to provide goods or services. Although it has been practiced ever
since humans farmed food in every culture, the use of genetic engineering has
evoked strong emotions from at least some people in all societies. We must ask the question what people
think of biotechnology, and whether most people share the concerns that the
critics voice. We can ask whether
these concerns are similar between countries and cultures, noting that the
international networking involved in protests has led to the appearance that
similar concerns are shared across all cultures.
There
have been several major surveys on attitudes to biotechnology. Understanding, the public image of biotechnology
is useful for different groups of people.
These type of studies have at least two purposes, one being academic
study, and the other being public relations for the biotechnology industry. Both of these purposes are relevant to
the formulation of policy that will be appropriate to each country. There are
few surveys looking at the acceptance of biotechnology in developing
countries. In 1993 the
International Bioethics Survey was conducted in Australia (A), Hong Kong (HK),
India (In), Israel (Is), Japan (J), New Zealand (NZ), The Philippines (P),
Russia (R), Singapore (S) and Thailand (T), with the aid of collaborators
[1]. The survey finds that people
have both hopes and fears about biotechnology, and in different countries we
see a similarly diverse range of opinions. In all cases more support is given
for specific applications that are perceived to be for a worthy goal than for
general questions. These
conclusions have been maintained through the 1990s, but in all countries there
has been a drop in public support for biotechnology and genetic engineering,
while at the same time genetic engineered crops have become standard varieties
in major agricultural producing countries, such as United States and China.
People's
opinion
There are various strategies being used to study
public opinion. The first type is
the use of fixed response questions, to chose options from set answers. While these surveys provide some
assessment of public acceptance, they generally use simple set questions. Other
survey strategies look at reasoning more than just statistics which may shed
more light on the factors which will affect policy development. In Japan I
started studies with set and open questions in 1991 [2], among public,
academics, and high school teachers, and the most recent survey was conducted
in the year 2000 [3, 4], which allows a decade to be examined.
Open questions are more laborious to analyze, but may
be able to measure the real concerns that people have, and I believe they are
especially useful in cross-cultural studies. There are few surveys looking at the acceptance of
biotechnology in developing countries. The International Bioethics Survey
included 150 questions with 35 open ones, on subjects in biotechnology and
genetics in 1993 [1]. The basic
problem of surveys is how well they represent the population being
surveyed. It is difficult to
obtain samples from countries in Asia with large rural populations which can be
said to represent the whole country.
Another approach to surveys is to sample the same population group
across countries and make comparisons, for example students or teachers.
The surveys 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 [1]. The more common concerns are
interference with nature or general fear of a less concrete nature. In all
cultures many people perceive both benefit and risk simultaneously, they are
attempting to balance these; and also educated people show as much concern as
the ordinary public.
Comparisons of acceptance of enhancement genetic
engineering (e.g. for enhancing intelligence by gene therapy, or making a
sports fish) show opinions in Japan and Oceania are more reserved, with people
in China [5], Thailand and India being significantly more enthusiastic
[1]. Europe [6,7,8] and North
America [9,10,11] tend to be similar to Japan and Oceania. The open comments are discussed
concerning views on the ethical limits of the use of biotechnology and genetics
to change living organisms, including humans. The open comments not only revealed few fears of eugenics or
playing God, but more comments support improving genes or economic benefits.
Benefits and Risks of Science and
Technology
In all countries ever surveyed there is a positive
view of science and technology. It
is perceived as increasing the quality of life by the majority in all
countries, and it is clear that we live in a global culture supporting
technology. In the International
Bioethics Survey, when asked about specific developments of technology,
including in vitro fertilization, computers, pesticides, nuclear power,
biotechnology and genetic engineering, both benefits and risks were cited by
many respondents. These areas of
science and technology include several controversial subjects. Scattergrams of the benefits and risks
of these different examples in India, Japan, New Zealand and Thailand are in
Figure 1.
While surveys show that at least 10% more people are
concerned in the year 2000 than 1993 [3,4,8,11], the relative positions are
similar. That is, inside all countries there remain the cultures of acceptance
and rejection of genetic engineering, with a middle ground. In 1993, 46% (NZ)
and 59% (A) saw biotechnology as worthwhile, less than 72-75% in Israel,
Russia, Japan and India; and about 90% in Thailand [1]. About one third of all samples had no
worries, one third had a few worries, and the rest had some or a lot. The results confirm people can perceive
both benefit and risk, not simply taking up one position, for example, although
Australians were more positive about biotechnology, they also had more worries,
with 17% having a lot of worries, compared to 10% in NZ. About a half did not say any benefit,
and there was a variety of benefits given, with general hopes for humanity
being the major reason. Only a few
saw it as unnatural, the major worry being human misuse.
The
attitudes to genetic engineering varied somewhat, even between close countries
such as New Zealand and Australia, with 41% (NZ) and 62% (A) seeing it as
worthwhile, and 39% (NZ) and 34% (A) having a lot of worries. 13-14% in NZ gave reasons that it was
unnatural or playing God, compared to 9% in Australia, in both the benefit and
risk question. However, as we will
see later, people were more positive about specific examples.
China
was the country which first began growing large areas of GMOs for consumption,
but by 1996 the USA had also approved use of herbicide-tolerant (e.g. to
Roundup herbicide) and disease resistant soybeans and maize. The US is the
world's major soybean producer, and soybean extracts are found in about half
the processed food in a supermarket in Europe. Following this we can see a
clash of cultures between The Monsanto Corporation and Europe, which accused
the that Corporation of not listening to the groups that would be responsible
for marketing their "Roundup Ready" soybean, as they shipped these
beans to soy processors in Europe.
Protesters around Europe in 1996 nearly led to a trade war nearly began
between USA and Europe. The issue was whether the so-called "Roundup Ready"
could be, and should be, segregated from other beans. Earlier in 1996, European
retail and wholesale groups had asked for separate streams for the Roundup
Ready. Retailers in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom
wanted segregation so that they could label the products appropriately. German,
Austrian, Finnish, and Swedish retailers wanted a separate stream so that they
could exclude genetically manipulated food either "for the foreseeable
future" or "until consumers are happy." In 1997 an explosion of
opinion occurred in Europe, followed by other regions of the world, and the GM
debate has led to a significant drop in the proportion of people who support
genetic engineering.
In
1996 1-2% of soybeans were genetically modified, and by the year 2000 over half
are. Monsanto argued that
thousands of different processed food products have soybeans as an ingredient,
and that the products are distinguishable only in insignificant details. The regulators and most retailers
agreed initially, but the public reaction insisted labels are needed. However,
labels are being introduced in Australasia, Europe and Japan as a result of
public pressure by activist groups and the fear of not being in "control" of
the food eaten. Even the US Food
and Drug Administration that long opposed labeling of GM food, made concessions
in the year 2000.
International food trade is globalized under trade
agreements. There can be few
topics of science that touch people everyday more than food. The science of breeding plants and
animals, fermenting products like curds, and using nature to provide for human
need is an ancient one. After a decade of debate on the topic of the safety of
food produced from GMOs (GM food), the Task Force on Novel Foods Produced by
Biotechnology was set up at the 1999 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, the joint FAO/WHO body that regulates the safety of food in the
world.
The debate reveals a clash of political cultures,
though the opinion surveys show these views are found in every society no
matter what position the government takes. Under the WTO trade agreements, a
trade sanction or barrier can only be imposed if there are so-called legitimate
factors. There is much debate on what are other legitimate factors to consider,
because this includes ethical, social, religious, economic and environment
factors. In the intergovernmental
negotiations, some delegations use delaying tactics to try to put debate off
onto other Codex Committees. It is
expected they will enter into discussions in later meetings, but the majority
of delegations want them to be discussed.
Those against are the US-led group of countries. It should be noted that in the year
2000 countries agreed to the Cartegena Protocol to govern international
movement of living modified organisms, which is under the Convention on
Biological Diversity. While this
should manage environmental risks of living modified organisms, that includes
seeds, processed products that are not alive are not included.
Together with the soybeans, Novartis
glufosinate-tolerant (herbicide) Bacillus thuriengensis insecticidal
toxin gene (insect resistance) - containing maize is sold in Europe and around
the world as most processed foods contain soybean or corn. It is difficult to
label so many different food products as having potentially some extract from
the crops which are made from GMOs.
Numerous other companies are introducing crops, and most seed producers
offer the choice of seeds from GMOs.
Not only rich countries but also developing countries plant GM seeds.
Thailand has approved some field trials of GMOs from European and US companies
for GMOs, and the technology can also be easily copied, so that we can expect
widespread use of products around Asia.
Table 1: Approval of
environmental release of GMOs
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...?
Yes- Approve No- Disapprove DK Don't know
|
% |
Public ('93) |
Medical or biology students
('93) |
School biology teachers |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
% |
NZ |
A |
J2000 |
J93 |
J91 |
In |
Th |
R |
Is |
NZ |
A |
J |
In |
T |
P |
S |
HK |
NZ |
A |
J |
In |
|
|
Tomatoes
with better taste |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes |
49 |
54 |
58 |
69 |
- |
73 |
83 |
35 |
40 |
54 |
53 |
71 |
77 |
88 |
68 |
74 |
58 |
67 |
60 |
67 |
76 |
|
|
No |
35 |
35 |
32 |
20 |
- |
20 |
10 |
45 |
44 |
21 |
36 |
15 |
17 |
5 |
27 |
17 |
32 |
22 |
25 |
21 |
20 |
|
|
DK |
16 |
11 |
10 |
11 |
- |
7 |
7 |
20 |
16 |
15 |
11 |
14 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
15 |
12 |
4 |
|
|
Healthier
meat (e.g. less fat) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes |
54 |
60 |
52 |
57 |
- |
66 |
84 |
35 |
44 |
74 |
71 |
65 |
68 |
88 |
75 |
72 |
62 |
72 |
71 |
60 |
72 |
|
|
No |
30 |
31 |
33 |
26 |
- |
22 |
9 |
43 |
42 |
20 |
23 |
18 |
18 |
4 |
21 |
17 |
27 |
18 |
18 |
24 |
16 |
|
|
DK |
16 |
9 |
15 |
17 |
- |
12 |
7 |
21 |
14 |
6 |
6 |
17 |
14 |
8 |
4 |
11 |
11 |
10 |
11 |
16 |
12 |
|
|
Larger
sport fish |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes |
22 |
19 |
19 |
22 |
19 |
48 |
58 |
13 |
20 |
28 |
23 |
24 |
50 |
64 |
54 |
44 |
42 |
26 |
22 |
19 |
56 |
|
|
No |
61 |
65 |
64 |
54 |
50 |
27 |
25 |
61 |
58 |
63 |
65 |
52 |
31 |
20 |
40 |
39 |
37 |
59 |
64 |
64 |
20 |
|
|
DK |
17 |
16 |
17 |
24 |
31 |
25 |
17 |
26 |
22 |
9 |
12 |
24 |
19 |
16 |
6 |
17 |
21 |
15 |
14 |
17 |
24 |
|
|
Bacteria
to clean up oil spills |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes |
75 |
82 |
65 |
71 |
75 |
74 |
87 |
63 |
70 |
92 |
89 |
76 |
74 |
85 |
78 |
86 |
70 |
85 |
91 |
77 |
68 |
|
|
No |
11 |
11 |
21 |
13 |
7 |
14 |
5 |
20 |
12 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
13 |
6 |
19 |
6 |
23 |
7 |
3 |
12 |
16 |
|
|
DK |
14 |
8 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
12 |
8 |
17 |
18 |
7 |
7 |
14 |
13 |
9 |
3 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
11 |
16 |
|
|
Disease
resistant crops |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes |
70 |
78 |
54 |
66 |
75 |
78 |
91 |
54 |
50 |
81 |
81 |
67 |
81 |
91 |
82 |
83 |
72 |
85 |
83 |
71 |
84 |
|
|
No |
16 |
13 |
29 |
17 |
6 |
13 |
4 |
25 |
28 |
7 |
13 |
13 |
11 |
5 |
15 |
8 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
15 |
8 |
|
|
DK |
14 |
9 |
17 |
17 |
19 |
9 |
5 |
21 |
22 |
12 |
6 |
20 |
8 |
4 |
3 |
9 |
14 |
5 |
10 |
14 |
8 |
|
|
Cows
which produce more milk |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes |
36 |
39 |
42 |
44 |
- |
75 |
84 |
23 |
38 |
55 |
44 |
49 |
72 |
86 |
70 |
57 |
54 |
59 |
57 |
56 |
80 |
|
|
No |
45 |
42 |
40 |
32 |
- |
19 |
7 |
38 |
40 |
31 |
35 |
29 |
19 |
5 |
26 |
25 |
34 |
28 |
25 |
26 |
16 |
|
|
DK |
19 |
19 |
18 |
24 |
- |
6 |
9 |
39 |
20 |
14 |
21 |
22 |
9 |
9 |
4 |
18 |
12 |
13 |
18 |
18 |
4 |
|
Support
for use of GMOs
There is support for the specific examples of
environmental release of genetically modified organisms, as shown in Table
1. The highest level of support
was seen for bacteria to clean oil spills and disease resistant crops, with
over half the people supporting tasty tomatoes or meat with less fat. These survey data suggest the products
would be generally supported around the world. There was less support for enhancing milk production in cows
in the International Bioethics Survey, which may be because we ask whether we
really need more milk. It 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. 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%. The FDA has
warned farmers not to label milk BST-free if there is any chance that it is
not, and the labeling issue is another problem. Europe decided not to allow its use based on safety
concerns, public rejection and lack of a need, and banned it. Canada after ten years of trails
decided to also ban the use of BST. Australia, New Zealand and Norway also have
not allowed it. In the USA more than 10% of farmers used it in 1995, but they
kept about one quarter of the 9.5 million dairy cows in the USA. Countries
which have approved BST include Algeria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Czech
Republic, Honduras, Jamaica, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, Rumania, Russia,
Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, USA, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. In this case
the political decision is based on need for self-sufficiency in dairy products
rather than culture in the sense of spirit.
Cross-species
genetic engineering
In all countries surveyed around the world plant
genetic engineering is seen as the most acceptable, followed by animals,
microbes and then humans [2, 3, 7, 9].
Genetic engineering allows us to transfer genes with useful traits from
one species to another. In all the countries surveyed, plant-plant gene
transfers are most acceptable, with animal-animal next, and animal-plant or
human-animal gene transfers generally least acceptable (Table 2). A high proportion gave reasons supporting
these applications in their open comments, and the most common reason against
them was that they were "unnatural" (Table 3). The values in
Australia were the same as India, whereas Japanese were more negative than New
Zealanders. The students were more supportive in all countries.
Table 2: Genetic
engineering and cross species gene transfer
|
% |
NZ |
A |
|
J |
In |
T |
R |
Is |
NZ |
A |
J |
In |
T |
P |
S |
H |
|
Q9. Genes from most types of organisms
are interchangeable. Would
potatoes made more nutritious through biotechnology be acceptable or
unacceptable to you if genes were added from another type of plant, such as
corn? Why? |
||||||||||||||||
|
Acceptable |
56 |
56 |
32 |
39 |
56 |
82 |
45 |
50 |
86 |
75 |
51 |
58 |
78 |
65 |
79 |
76 |
|
Unacceptable |
27 |
23 |
40 |
25 |
21 |
4 |
24 |
24 |
9 |
9 |
18 |
18 |
7 |
17 |
8 |
11 |
|
Don't know |
17 |
21 |
28 |
36 |
23 |
14 |
31 |
26 |
5 |
16 |
31 |
24 |
15 |
18 |
13 |
13 |
|
Q10. Would such potatoes be acceptable or
unacceptable to you if the new genes came from an animal? Why? |
||||||||||||||||
|
Acceptable |
19 |
23 |
19 |
11 |
29 |
48 |
16 |
22 |
49 |
42 |
16 |
27 |
48 |
17 |
25 |
25 |
|
Unacceptable |
60 |
54 |
54 |
40 |
42 |
19 |
42 |
52 |
32 |
24 |
37 |
39 |
19 |
58 |
48 |
48 |
|
Don't know |
21 |
23 |
27 |
49 |
29 |
33 |
42 |
26 |
19 |
34 |
47 |
33 |
33 |
25 |
27 |
27 |
|
Q11. Would chicken
made less fatty through biotechnology be acceptable or unacceptable if genes
were added to the chicken from another type of animal? Why? |
||||||||||||||||
|
Acceptable |
29 |
40 |
- |
20 |
40 |
68 |
32 |
26 |
50 |
42 |
30 |
42 |
68 |
42 |
41 |
42 |
|
Unacceptable |
46 |
40 |
- |
41 |
27 |
10 |
35 |
46 |
25 |
27 |
35 |
24 |
13 |
36 |
27 |
31 |
|
Don't know |
25 |
20 |
- |
39 |
33 |
22 |
33 |
28 |
25 |
31 |
35 |
34 |
19 |
22 |
32 |
27 |
|
Q12. Would such
chicken be acceptable or unacceptable if the genes came from a human?Why? |
||||||||||||||||
|
Acceptable |
10 |
16 |
- |
6 |
16 |
29 |
10 |
14 |
20 |
20 |
11 |
18 |
30 |
7 |
14 |
19 |
|
Unacceptable |
78 |
66 |
- |
53 |
52 |
44 |
66 |
64 |
65 |
53 |
52 |
41 |
44 |
81 |
65 |
70 |
|
Don't know |
12 |
18 |
- |
41 |
32 |
27 |
24 |
22 |
15 |
27 |
37 |
41 |
26 |
12 |
21 |
11 |
In the year 2000 survey in Japan two specific
questions that were modified from the 1993 survey (Q9, Q10) to explore the
acceptance of food products made from cross species gene transfer [3,4]. As in
the 1993 survey, plant-plant gene transfers were more acceptable than plant-animal
gene transfers, and scientists were more approving than the public (Table 4).
We should note that because less people chose the "don't know" option in the
2000 sample the proportion of persons approving of Q6 increased, as did the
proportion that disagreed.
Table 3 (1): Reasoning about cross species genetic
engineering examples in open comments (Q9-12)
|
% |
|
Public |
Students |
|||||||||||||
|
Negative: |
Q? |
NZ |
A |
J |
India |
T |
R |
Is |
NZ |
A |
J |
In |
T |
P |
S |
HK |
|
Unethical |
9 |
0.6 |
0 |
0.6 |
0 |
0 |
0.2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
0 |
0.6 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
10 |
12.0 |
11.6 |
3.0 |
6.0 |
1.3 |
1.8 |
4 |
13.7 |
25.7 |
2.1 |
9.2 |
1.7 |
7.8 |
6.4 |
2.9 |
|
|
11 |
12.9 |
10.6 |
6.0 |
7.7 |
0.6 |
1.6 |
2 |
23.2 |
24.8 |
5.5 |
9.5 |
1.7 |
7.1 |
10.8 |
9.0 |
|
|
12 |
6.2 |
7.0 |
9.4 |
5.6 |
4.7 |
6.2 |
4 |
13.7 |
17.4 |
6.2 |
5.1 |
4.8 |
7.1 |
8.0 |
11.7 |
|
Unnatural, |
9 |
15.5 |
10.6 |
12.8 |
10.6 |
1.3 |
5.3 |
6 |
4.2 |
3.6 |
8.3 |
7.6 |
3.5 |
1.9 |
4.0 |
6.7 |
|
Playing
God, |
10 |
32.0 |
27.6 |
21.2 |
17.7 |
5.4 |
9.1 |
14 |
18.9 |
11.9 |
16.4 |
14.3 |
5.6 |
20.1 |
13.6 |
20.4 |
|
Cross
|
11 |
24.0 |
16.1 |
17.9 |
11.0 |
1.7 |
6.2 |
14 |
16.8 |
11.9 |
12.1 |
5.1 |
1.7 |
7.1 |
3.6 |
11.0 |
|
Species
bad |
12 |
23.3 |
21.6 |
17.6 |
9.4 |
6.4 |
6.2 |
8 |
11.6 |
11.0 |
15.7 |
5.7 |
2.6 |
8.4 |
11.6 |
10.6 |
|
Product
bad |
9 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
3.8 |
0.8 |
2.4 |
0 |
2.1 |
0.9 |
1.9 |
3.5 |
0.4 |
1.9 |
2.4 |
1.0 |
|
Human's |
10 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
1.8 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
0.4 |
0 |
2.1 |
1.8 |
1.4 |
2.5 |
0.9 |
2.6 |
3.6 |
3.9 |
|
special, |
11 |
1.8 |
1.5 |
3.3 |
1.9 |
0.9 |
2.9 |
0 |
1.1 |
0 |
1.2 |
2.9 |
1.3 |
0 |
2.0 |
1.0 |
|
Cannibalism |
12 |
24.5 |
11.6 |
7.0 |
16.6 |
12.0 |
6.9 |
16 |
30.5 |
18.3 |
8.8 |
11.8 |
13.9 |
26.6 |
19.2 |
19.4 |
|
Fear
of |
9 |
3.4 |
5.5 |
7.5 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
5.1 |
6 |
2.1 |
0.9 |
6.4 |
2.2 |
1.7 |
3.9 |
1.2 |
4.8 |
|
unknown, |
10 |
9.5 |
9.0 |
12.8 |
3.0 |
5.8 |
5.3 |
6 |
2.1 |
0 |
14.5 |
4.1 |
6.5 |
10.4 |
6.4 |
10.7 |
|
Bad
Feeling, |
11 |
6.8 |
6.0 |
10.1 |
2.3 |
4.2 |
3.3 |
4 |
2.1 |
1.8 |
8.3 |
1.6 |
3.9 |
6.5 |
2.8 |
8.0 |
|
Dangerous |
12 |
12.7 |
10.1 |
20.2 |
4.1 |
10.1 |
8.0 |
6 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
15.7 |
7.3 |
10.0 |
11.0 |
7.2 |
9.7 |
|
Social
effects |
9 |
0 |
0.5 |
0 |
0.2 |
0 |
0.2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Eugenics |
10 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
11 |
0 |
0 |
0.6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
12 |
0.3 |
0 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.8 |
1.0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.8 |
0 |
|
Harm
health |
9 |
2.4 |
2.5 |
3.3 |
1.7 |
0.9 |
0.2 |
4 |
3.2 |
6.4 |
4.5 |
2.2 |
2.6 |
3.9 |
3.2 |
1.9 |
|
Deformities |
10 |
2.8 |
1.5 |
3.6 |
1.9 |
2.8 |
0.7 |
0 |
2.1 |
6.4 |
3.8 |
3.8 |
6.1 |
6.5 |
3.6 |
1.0 |
|
|
11 |
2.5 |
1.5 |
4.2 |
1.5 |
3.4 |
0.9 |
0 |
1.1 |
4.6 |
4.0 |
0.6 |
4.8 |
5.8 |
4.8 |
1.0 |
|
|
12 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
1.5 |
2.6 |
2.9 |
0.4 |
0 |
1.1 |
2.8 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
4.3 |
2.6 |
4.4 |
1.0 |
|
Environment |
9 |
1.2 |
2.5 |
4.2 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0 |
2.1 |
5.5 |
3.3 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
0 |
0.8 |
0 |
|
|
10 |
0.6 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0 |
0 |
2.1 |
2.8 |
1.2 |
0.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1.0 |
|
|
11 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
2.1 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
1.6 |
0 |
0 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
0.3 |
0 |
2.8 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
12 |
0 |
0 |
1.2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.9 |
2.4 |
0.3 |
0 |
0 |
0.4 |
0 |
|
Insufficient |
9 |
1.8 |
0 |
4.5 |
0.6 |
0 |
1.3 |
0 |
3.2 |
0 |
3.6 |
0.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Controls, |
10 |
2.8 |
1.5 |
5.4 |
0 |
0.3 |
1.1 |
0 |
2.1 |
0 |
3.8 |
0 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0 |
0 |
|
Misuse |
11 |
4.3 |
2.0 |
5.7 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
1.8 |
0 |
3.2 |
0.9 |
9.3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
12 |
4.7 |
1.5 |
6.5 |
0 |
0 |
1.1 |
0 |
7.4 |
2.8 |
4.8 |
0 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0 |
1.0 |
|
Don't
need |
9 |
10.4 |
9.0 |
6.6 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
1.8 |
0 |
6.3 |
5.5 |
7.8 |
0.9 |
1.7 |
1.9 |
0.4 |
1.9 |
|
|
10 |
8.6 |
8.5 |
6.0 |
1.1 |
1.8 |
3.5 |
4 |
5.2 |
5.5 |
4.5 |
1.0 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
0.4 |
0 |
|
|
11 |
12.9 |
15.1 |
11.0 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
2.9 |
2 |
10.5 |
8.3 |
10.5 |
2.5 |
0.9 |
6.5 |
2.4 |
5.0 |
|
|
12 |
6.5 |
9.5 |
5.3 |
1.3 |
2.6 |
1.6 |
4 |
8.4 |
6.4 |
3.8 |
0.6 |
3.9 |
1.3 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
The range of concerns show that there are still
ethical concerns with genetic modification especially those in animals. From the open comments, we can see why
the respondents made a differentiation between the two different types of gene
transfers. Interestingly, the
highest proportion of "Don't Know" was in scientists. For example:
P21 I think that it's good so long as it does not
have harmful effects on the body (Q5)
P21 For some reason I don't like it (Q6)
P25 Because they're both plants (Q5)
P25 Crossing animals with plants is not good (Q6)
Some people did not differentiate between
plant-plant and plant-animal transfers.
P7 if you think about it from man's point of view,
isn't it for our cause? (Q5, Q6)
P20 Because it goes against nature (Q5, Q6)
Table 3 (2): Reasoning about cross species genetic
engineering examples in open comments (Q9-12)
|
% |
|
Public |
Students |
|||||||||||||
|
Positive: |
Q? |
NZ |
A |
J |
India |
T |
R |
Is |
NZ |
A |
J |
In |
T |
P |
S |
HK |
|
Conditional |
9 |
9.8 |
10.0 |
9.9 |
7.2 |
5.0 |
12.4 |
6 |
10.5 |
11.9 |
14.0 |
6.0 |
4.3 |
11.0 |
6.8 |
4.8 |
|
Benefit, |
10 |
9.2 |
11.0 |
13.1 |
8.1 |
11.4 |
12.0 |
6 |
12.6 |
22.0 |
17.3 |
11.7 |
13.0 |
10.4 |
10.8 |
7.8 |
|
Don't
know |
11 |
13.2 |
11.6 |
8.4 |
7.4 |
6.0 |
8.6 |
10 |
14.7 |
25.7 |
11.2 |
8.3 |
6.5 |
7.1 |
9.6 |
6.0 |
|
|
12 |
6.2 |
12.1 |
8.2 |
5.3 |
7.1 |
6.0 |
2 |
6.3 |
16.5 |
11.6 |
8.9 |
10.0 |
3.2 |
7.2 |
2.9 |
|
Medicine |
9 |
7.9 |
8.0 |
3.0 |
8.7 |
3.6 |
1.1 |
2 |
18.9 |
25.7 |
4.8 |
11.1 |
3.5 |
9.7 |
10.8 |
2.9 |
|
|
10 |
2.8 |
3.0 |
2.1 |
2.6 |
3.9 |
0.2 |
0 |
10.5 |
4.6 |
0.5 |
2.5 |
4.4 |
0.6 |
1.2 |
0 |
|
|
11 |
6.8 |
10.5 |
7.5 |
3.2 |
7.3 |
1.6 |
4 |
10.5 |
5.5 |
4.3 |
17.5 |
8.7 |
15.6 |
9.6 |
17.0 |
|
|
12 |
6.9 |
1.0 |
1.8 |
2.3 |
1.6 |
0.2 |
2 |
3.2 |
0 |
2.4 |
3.2 |
1.3 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
1.0 |
|
Agriculture, |
9 |
12.5 |
13.1 |
17.0 |
13.4 |
9.2 |
5.3 |
2 |
11.6 |
6.4 |
11.4 |
18.0 |
9.6 |
11.7 |
11.6 |
19.2 |
|
Food,
Variety |
10 |
1.8 |
6.5 |
1.8 |
3.2 |
2.6 |
1.6 |
0 |
5.3 |
2.8 |
1.9 |
4.1 |
5.7 |
2.6 |
2.8 |
4.9 |
|
|
11 |
1.5 |
5.0 |
4.2 |
1.9 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2 |
3.2 |
2.8 |
3.8 |
1.9 |
3.0 |
3.9 |
2.0 |
3.0 |
|
|
12 |
0 |
2.0 |
0.6 |
0 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
0 |
0 |
1.8 |
0.3 |
0 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
0.8 |
1.9 |
|
Humanity, |
9 |
16.8 |
13.6 |
11.6 |
11.3 |
18.8 |
6.2 |
4 |
18.9 |
20.2 |
10.9 |
13.6 |
28.2 |
16.2 |
10.4 |
27.9 |
|
Better |
10 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
2.4 |
5.3 |
9.2 |
1.3 |
2 |
12.6 |
7.3 |
3.8 |
4.4 |
14.8 |
2.6 |
2.8 |
4.9 |
|
|
11 |
5.2 |
7.5 |
4.8 |
2.6 |
11.4 |
3.1 |
0 |
9.5 |
4.6 |
7.1 |
4.8 |
19.6 |
2.6 |
2.4 |
3.0 |
|
|
12 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
1.2 |
0.6 |
3.2 |
0.4 |
0 |
2.1 |
1.8 |
1.2 |
1.0 |
5.7 |
2.6 |
1.6 |
4.9 |
|
Same
genes, |
9 |
13.7 |
11.0 |
4.2 |
9.8 |
31.3 |
5.3 |
12 |
24.2 |
15.6 |
5.0 |
7.3 |
20.0 |
8.4 |
23.6 |
10.6 |
|
so it
is no |
10 |
5.5 |
8.5 |
1.2 |
7.9 |
21.1 |
2.9 |
4 |
11.6 |
14.7 |
2.4 |
7.3 |
17.8 |
3.2 |
6.8 |
4.9 |
|
problem |
11 |
6.8 |
12.6 |
0.9 |
5.7 |
24.3 |
2.7 |
2 |
12.6 |
11.0 |
2.4 |
5.1 |
24.8 |
5.2 |
4.8 |
9.0 |
|
|
12 |
4.0 |
2.1 |
1.5 |
7.0 |
13.6 |
9.1 |
0 |
7.4 |
6.5 |
2.1 |
6.1 |
15.7 |
7.3 |
1.3 |
4.9 |
Table 4: Support for plant to plant and plant
to animal gene transfer in 1993 and the year 2000
|
|
plant to
plant |
plant to
animal |
||||
|
% |
P93 |
P2000 |
S2000 |
P93 |
P2000 |
S2000 |
|
Yes |
39.2 |
32.3 |
48.9 |
10.6 |
18.6 |
37.5 |
|
No |
25.5 |
39.5 |
35.2 |
40.3 |
54.0 |
43.2 |
|
DK |
35.3 |
28.2 |
15.8 |
49.1 |
27.4 |
19.3 |
Acceptance
of enhancement genetic engineering on humans is higher in India and Thailand
The
sports fish is an example of genetic engineering for fun - and many people
reject such genetic engineering (Table 1). The highest degree of support for the sports fish is
in the USA where 53% approved in a 1986 survey. One of the most striking points of Table 1 is the high level
of approval of this example in Thailand and India. This trend was also seen in the Singapore and Hong Kong
samples, and also reported in a student survey in China [5]. The general support for products of
genetic engineering seems to be high, especially if they are claimed to be more
healthy. When specific details of
an application were given there was generally greater acceptance, suggesting
people have some discretion. People may approve applications if they see
benefits, not only to themselves but also to the environment and other
people. It also suggests that if
details are given the public will show greater acceptance of an application,
seen also for human gene therapy compared to human gene manipulation in general
[1,12,13]. This discretion has
been called a measure of bioethical maturity of society [14].
Support
for specific applications of gene therapy was significantly less for
"improving physical characters", "improving intelligence"
or "making people more ethical" than for curing diseases like cancer
or diabetes, except in India and Thailand (Table 5), but there was little
difference between inheritable or non-inheritable gene therapy. A significant preference for
therapeutic (Q28abcd) over cosmetic (Q28ef) applications of gene therapy was
also seen in the USA [9]. The year 2000 results in Japan show that
significantly more public disagreed with the application of gene therapy to
specific therapeutic cases than they did in 1993, and continued to reject
enhancement applications [3].
In India and Thailand more than 50% of the 900+ total
respondents in each country supported enhancement of physical characters,
intelligence, or making people more ethical. It could suggest several things: that poor living standards
and infectious disease make people more pragmatic about "improvement",
or that people in those countries have not thought about the implications (even
though they were relatively highly educated samples). It is interesting if this is a general trend in developing
countries, as it could have significant implications for international
policy.
We
should also note the results of a gene therapy question [2] on Chinese medical
staff and students in 1993 found 73% "willing" for personal use and
80% "willing" for children's use [5]. The policy for avoiding births of handicapped persons in
China, which many consider to be close to a social eugenics program to lower
the proportion of handicapped babies born in the population, also suggests
Chinese may follow this trend. In this survey, the largely Chinese populations
of Singapore and Hong Kong biology students were intermediate between the
industrialized countries of Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, and
the USA, and Thailand and India, in their acceptance of enhancement (Table
5). It is future question to more
closely examine factors behind people's acceptance or rejection of enhancement,
for example, how much culture, education, religion, familiarity with medicine,
or living standards, influence this.
We can say that some people agree with enhancement, and the proportion
is of concern to those who consider enhancement to be unethical [13].
Drop
in support for human gene therapy also
One medical application of genetic engineering that
has been widely discussed is gene therapy. In the year 2000 in Japan a general
question asking whether people would accept gene therapy in principle was
asked, and the results are shown in Table 6, with comparisons to the 1991 and
1993 surveys [1,2]. They show
little difference between the public and scientists. The results were more similar to 1991 than to the 1993
sample, suggesting some decrease in public acceptance since 1993. In particular scientists in 2000 were
twice as more likely to say "very unwilling" compared to 1991. The
reasons are being analyzed and will be discussed elsewhere.
Table 6: Acceptance of gene therapy
Q9. If tests showed that you were likely to get a
serious or fatal genetic disease later in life, how willing would you be to
undergo therapy to have those genes corrected before symptoms appear?
|
% |
P91 |
P93 |
P2000 |
S91 |
S2000 |
F99 |
|
Very willing |
25 |
42 |
24.0 |
25.4 |
27.5 |
40.8 |
|
Willing |
29 |
24 |
23.7 |
28.1 |
25.6 |
32.4 |
|
Unwilling |
18 |
15 |
21.6 |
15.6 |
14.2 |
5.6 |
|
Very unwilling |
12 |
6 |
15.9 |
13.6 |
24.4 |
15.5 |
|
Don't know |
16 |
13 |
14.8 |
17.3 |
8.3 |
5.6 |
In the International Bioethics Survey, about three
quarters of all samples supported personal use of gene therapy, with higher
support for children's use of gene therapy [1,13]. The diversity of views was generally similar within each
country. The major reasons given
were to save life and increase the quality of life. About 5-7% rejected gene therapy considering it to be
playing God, or unnatural. There
was very little concern about eugenics (0.5-2%), and more respondents gave
supportive reasons like "improving genes", especially in Thailand and
India. This was also seen in
questions for genetic screening [1].
In the open question on gene therapy up about 5% in all countries gave a
reason like "improving genes", including Japan which was generally
negative towards eugenic or economic reasons for genetic screening. About 10% of Thai respondents gave
"improving gene" reasons for gene therapy. We use the term eugenics in a broad sense, meaning the idea
that we should improve the frequency of "good genes", or decrease the
frequency of disease-causing genes (alleles). The fears of eugenics included both fears of social programs
to enforce eugenics, and the idea that we should not alter gene frequency
because it may affect the future of the human gene pool. The comments in this survey suggests
the main reasons for rejection of enhancement gene therapy are that it is seen
as "unnatural", "Playing God", "unpredictable" or
"unnecessary", rather than "eugenics".
About
10% of the respondents in this survey in Russia, and many in India also, gave
eugenic reasons for support of genetic screening [1], significantly more than
in the other countries. If we
combine this with the economic reasons, we find Australia, New Zealand and
Thailand also show eugenic or economic reasons for supporting prenatal genetic
screening, and we should note that one of the arguments of past eugenic
movements has been the economic type.
Japanese showed the least support for this way of thinking. The opinions
are divided, as typified by Thai respondents, which were the samples with the
highest proportion of both "improving genes" and "playing
God" comments about gene therapy.
In
general open questions on the benefits and risks of "genetic
engineering", some eugenic concerns were expressed. The same conclusion was made from
different open questions on the benefits and risks of "human genetic
manipulation" in the 1991 Japanese survey, and a 1990 New Zealand survey
[2]. The more specific the
question is the less eugenic concerns are expressed. To most people the critical point is that genetics may
offer hope to save life and improve the quality of life, and we even find
positive support for eugenics in genetic screening or therapy is stronger than
fears. Those who argue against
genetic medicine for eugenic reasons may not actually represent the public,
when we consider the degree of support given for eugenics. At the same time, the past history of
eugenic abuses means that we need to educate about the dangers of misuse of
compulsory eugenic programs.
Conclusions
The people in all cultures were supportive of science
and technology in general, and appeared to balance benefit and risk, showing
discretion over the use of genetic engineering for enhancement, and realistic
reasoning in responses to questions.
This conflicts with the commonly held position that the public is uneducated
and naive about the application of biotechnology. That claim is based on the argument that new technology
presents novel choices - which is wrong, the choices themselves have existed
before even if the means for effecting them were less efficient. These glimpses into the public image of
biotechnology provide much food for thought, but we recognize the image may
change.
Although
people have always faced risk, and at least in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, have faced technological forces which transform society,
biotechnology has more critics than most.
These studies suggest many of the claims that critics make may not
represent the views of ordinary people.
Perhaps this influence is no where stronger then in Europe, as seen in
the controversy associated with the bans on the use of BST made by genetic
engineering to boost milk production, and on the US situation where the FDA
opposes labels on products associated with genetic engineering. An educated public should assess the
claims made by different groups, depending upon the trust they have in them,
and may alter its views. There is
also the continuing debate over patenting policy. These studies must be used responsibly, rather than just to
allow better plans for the next line of commercials - public attitude making -
rather than for seeing what the public has to say.
One
thing that is likely to remain is the diversity of opinion and reasoning,
something which makes these studies interesting. Any universal ethics must
include some respect for informed choices of people, and the range of choices
people desire is transcultural.
Policy should reflect the universality of diversity and reasoning. The social consequences of
biotechnology do depend on the society that we make - but they also depend on
the people's attitudes, which are international.
The
data presented here suggest that there may be some significant differences in
public opinion concerning biotechnology in India, Thailand (and China) which
poses a dilemma for policy makers.
The widening international use of genetic technology makes us ask
whether regulations should be national and or international, and whether
different standards can be justified in different countries. The call for international approaches
(including education and guidelines) is based on several arguments, including
shared biological heritage and destiny of human beings in all
"nations", and the transitory nature of "nations" and the
precedents for international law to protect common interests of humanity. UNESCO and WHO have developed
international guidelines for genetics research. Those calling for national guidelines argue that each
culture should make its own standards because of national autonomy, and because
people in each country have different attitudes. Perhaps the key balancing
issue is how divergent the perceptions and bioethical reasoning of peoples
around the world are. Most surveys on biotechnology have ignored Asia, yet this
region of the world is where half the people live. The present study suggests that there may be some
education-independent differences in attitudes to biotechnology in India and
Thailand, and that further surveys should clarify these differences.
There
are at least three ways to think of the term bioethics, one is as descriptive
bioethics - the way people view life and their moral interactions and
responsibilities with living organisms in life. Another is prescriptive bioethics - to tell others what is
good or bad, what principles are most important; or to say something/someone
has rights and therefore others have duties to them. Yet another is interactive
bioethics, which requires debate and dialogue between people and cultures
[15]. We need all types, and they
may have many elements in common between cultures, but there needs to be
investigation to provide support to answer whether universal prescriptions
apply. The question is actually
more pressing within each society, where we find most of the diversity of
opinion. Education of
biotechnology, and its benefits and risks should be offered to all, and it will
be interesting to see how the introduction of new applications of biotechnology
itself alters the values people have towards where the limits to what is
natural are. The lesson from Asia
may be that what some in Europe see as the limit now is not what others in the
world perceive.
References
Please
note the references by Macer are available on-line on the Eubios Ethics
Institute Internet site
<http://eubios.info/index.html>.
1. Macer, D.R.J., Bioethics
for the People by the People, (Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute,
1994).
2. Macer,
D.R.J. (1992). Attitudes to
Genetic Engineering: Japanese and International Comparisons. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics
Institute.
3. Chen Ng, M.A., C. Takeda, T.
Watanabe & D. Macer (2000), " Attitudes of the Public and Scientists
to Biotechnology in Japan at the start of 2000", Eubios Journal of
Asian and International Bioethics 10
(2000), 106-13. See also: Macer, D.R.J., et al. "Attitudes to
Biotechnology Japan and New
Zealand in 1997, with International Comparisons", Eubios Journal of
Asian and International Bioethics 7
(1997), 137-151.
4. Macer,
D. & Chen Ng., M. "Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan", Nature
Biotechnology 18
(2000), 945-7.
5. Lo,
W.H.Y., Han, S., Zhang, J. & Lee, J.L. (1994). A survey of people with
higher education to genetics and diseases in Beijing, pp. 195-198 in N. Fujiki
& D.R.J. Macer, eds., Intractable Neurological Disorders, Human Genome
Research and Society.
(Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, N.Z.).
6.
Eurobarometer Survey 37.1, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: What
Europeans Think about it in 1993 (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels 1994).
7. Gaskell, G et al. Europe ambivalent
on biotechnology. Nature 387
(1997), 845-7.
8.
Gaskell, G. et al.
"Biotechnology and the European public", Nature
Biotechnology 18
(2000), 935-8.
9. OTA
(1987) U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Developments in
Biotechnology, 2: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology - Background Paper. Washington D.C.: U.S.G.P.O.
10. Hoban, T. J. & Kendall, P.A.
(1992) Consumer Attitudes About
the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production.
Raleigh, N.C. North
Carolina State University; Hoban, T. J. 1997. Consumer acceptance of
biotechnology: An international perspective. Nature Biotechnology 15: 232-234.
11.
Priest, SH. "US public opinion divided over biotechnology?". Nature
Biotechnology 18
(2000), 939-42; Einsiedel, EF. "Cloning and its discontents? a Canadian
perspective", Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000), 943-4.
12.
Macer, D. (1992). "Public
acceptance of human gene therapy and perceptions of human genetic
manipulation." Human Gene Therapy 3: 511-8.
13.
Macer, D.R.J., et al. (1995), "International perceptions and approval of
gene therapy", Human Gene Therapy 6: 791-803.
14.
Macer, D. (1993). "Perception
of risks and benefits of in vitro fertilization, genetic engineering and
biotechnology", Social Science and Medicine 38 (1): 23-33.
15. Macer, D.R.J., Bioethics
is Love of Life, (Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute,
1998).
Table
5 and Figure 1 follow on separate pages
Tables
and Figures in separate files
Table
1: Approval of environmental release of GMOs
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...?
Yes-
Approve No- Disapprove DK Don't know
Table
2: Trust in authorities
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...?
Table
3: Acceptance of gene therapy for specific cases
Q28.
How do you feel about scientists changing the genetic makeup of human cells to:
Figure
1: Comparative perceptions of science developments in India, Japan, New Zealand
and Thailand
The
results are presented as bar graphs, with percentage of respondents who thought
each development was worthwhile for their country (benefit) and the percentage
of respondents who were worried about the impact of the developments (worry).
Macer, D.R.J., H. Bezar, N. Harman, H. Kamada, and N.
Macer "Attitudes to Biotechnology in Japan and New Zealand in 1997, with
International Comparisons", Eubios Journal of Asian and International
Bioethics 7 (1997), 137-151.
Please send comments to Email < asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz >.