© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com

FEATURE

Changing attitudes tobiotechnology in Japan
Support for biotechnology in Japan is declining, although it remains higher
than the US or Europe.

© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com

Darryl Macer and Mary Ann Chen Ng
A new survey of theJapanese population reveals waning
supportforbiotechnology andgenetic engineering in particular.
Although a majority of people remain
optimistic aboutbiotechnology andits uses, a growing number of people feelthat the risks associated with agricultural
applications, and even environmental andhealth applications, are increasingly unacceptable.
Surveys so far
Several nationwide random surveys of theJapanese public1–3 have been conducted
over the past decade to gain a better understanding of public attitudes to biotechnology. These surveys were carried out in 1991,
1993, and 1997, and on samples of 551, 352,
and 297 people, respectively. In each case,all participants were randomly selectedacross the nation and responses weregathered by mail (except in the 1997 survey,
which used random-digit telephonedialing).
From November 1999 to February 2000,
we also conducted a new nationwide random mail response survey (receiving
answers from 297 people) to assess the attitudes of the Japanese public to biotechnology in the context of increasing attention to
the viewpoints of anti-GMO groups in thelay media.
At the same time, 370 Japanese scientists
were questioned about their attitudes tobiotechnology (complimenting a survey of
555 scientists carried out in 1991) to assess
differences between the lay public and professionals (see “Ask a scientist”).

Darryl Macer is associate professor at theInstitute of Biological Sciences, University ofTsukuba, Tsukuba Science City 305-8572,
Japan macer@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp), andMary Ann Chen Ng is a lecturer at Ateneo deManila University, Manila, The Philippines.
NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOL 18 SEPTEMBER 2000

100%
Interest and optimism
Overall, the Japanese
Approve
population has a high80%
Disapprovelevel of interest in science
Don’t know
4,5
and technology . This60%
has increased in recent
years, as demonstrated by
the growing number of40%
respondents with a highlevel of interest in scien20%
tific innovation (30% in
1991, 39% in 1993, and
0%47% in 2000)1,2. This
Tomatoes
LargerBioremediation
DiseaseCows
Healthierwith better
sportof oil spills
resistant
which
meat
level of interest also
taste
fish
crops
produceapplies to biotechnology,
more milkwith the 1991 and 1993
surveys demonstrating Figure 1. Public attitudes to six applications of biotechnologythat 97% of respondents
had heard the term biotechnology—the puters and information technology (77% in
highest level of reported awareness of 1997 and 82% in 2000) and telecommunibiotechnology in the world (although we cations (76% in 1997 and 77% in 2000).
cannot be sure that people know what it During the past three years, more responmeans).
dents have also become convinced that
A small majority of respondents in the genetic engineering (12% in 1997 and 24%
past three years have been favorably in 2000) could actually make life worse. A
inclined toward genetic engineering as a further distinction is that more peoplemeans of improving the quality of life (54% (62% in 1997 and 66% in 2000) perceivein 1997 and 59% in 2000). However, on the biotechnology in a positive light comparedwhole, respondents view genetic engineer- with genetic engineering, and also believe
ing considerably less favorably than com- that the latter is more risky.

Ask a scientist
In addition to surveys of public attitudes to biotechnology, parallel surveys of scientists
have also been carried out throughout Japan in 1991 (555 respondents) and in 2000 (370
respondents) using the same set of questions. Some interesting findings emerge when thescientist sample is compared with the public sample. For example, scientists consider
biotechnology more similar to telecommunications than does the general public. In
addition, more scientists (72%) than members of the general public (59%) believe thatgenetic engineering will improve the quality of life. However, in nearly every case of specificapplications of biotechnology, there is no significant difference in opinion between the
public and the scientist samples (see Table 2). And even though 59% of scientists said they
approved of “tomatoes engineered for better taste,” only 32% said they would buy fruits,
compared with 52% who said they would not. Overall, scientists appear vague (sometimes
deliberately so) about the definition of genetic engineering (perhaps intent on broadening
the definition of genetic modification so that it is seen within the context of a long history ofanimal and plant breeding and is not singled out for special regulations). Scientists
themselves appear to have a number of critical questions about biotechnology that need to
be answered before they can be expected to widely support the adoption of biotechnology
applications.
DM & MNG

http://biotech.nature.com945

© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com

FEATURE
Table 1. Images that come to mind when respondents think aboutbiotechnology/genetic engineeringa© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com

Image

GM food
Medicine
Cloning and IVF
Genetic testing
Gene therapy
Improved crop variety
Genes/genetic engineering
GM animals
GM crops
Specific example
Industry
Tech/scientific progress
Environment
EthicsBenefits and risks
Against nature
Other
Not stated
Don’t know

1997 Public
survey
5%
11%
7%
1%
3%
20%
11%
4%
9%
6%
2%
6%
3%
2%
3%
4%
2%
21%
11%

2000 Public
survey2000 Scientist
survey

17%
13%
25%
3%
11%
11%
16%
3%
16%
5%
2%
9%
3%
9%
9%
7%
6%
9%
1%

9%
17%
10%
2%
12%
15%
21%
5%
8%
8%
7%
21%
2%
4%
6%
3%
5%
7%
1%

decrease in the proportion of people who
thought that biotechnology could substantially reduce environmental pollution (45%in 1997 and 36% in 2000). However, there
was a 7% increase in the number of respondents who considered that biotechnology
could reduce world hunger (38% in 1997
compared with 45% in 2000).

Image, acceptability, and threat
When asked to describe the images evokedby biotechnology and genetic engineering,
respondents gave the specific definitions
and examples given in Table 1. The mostcommon specific examples of biotechnology cited were cloning (7% in 1997 and 25%
in 2000), GM crops (9% in 1997 and 16% in2000), and GM food (5% in 1997 and 17%
in 2000). Although the “pomato” (a somatic
hybrid plant of potato and tomato regenerated from fused protoplasts that had originally received significant coverage in theJapanese media) was cited by 8% of the*Respondents were asked the question: “What comes to mind when you think about modern biotechnology in a broad sense, that is, including genetic engineering?”
respondents in 1997, this example was citedby only 1% in 2000. Significantly, the numThe major concerns expressed about biotechnology on the range of fruits and ber of respondents who associated biotechgenetic engineering were “fear of the vegetables available may reflect increasing nology with the agricultural improvement
unknown,” “going against nature,” and concerns about the industrialization of food of crop varieties dropped from 20% in 1997
“environmental
destruction.”
Many production. Respondents also appear to be to 11% in 2000.
expressed both optimism and pessimism, increasingly concerned about the risk of
Based on the questions from the 1996
saying that more stringent controls of genetic discrimination and its effect on Eurobarometer survey6, respondents were
biotechnology research were needed. An insurance premiums (39% in 1997 com- also asked whether they had heard about six
applications of biotechnology, and then
18% increase in the number of respondents pared with 65% in 2000).
(from 14% in 1997 to 32% in 2000) conIncreasing reticence over the usefulness of about the benefits, risks, and acceptability of
cerned with the deleterious effects of biotechnology is also reflected in a 9% these applications.
Pest-resistant GM crops were themost familiar biotech application,aTable 2. Attitudes toward products originating from GMOs
with a 22% increase in respondents(from 65% in 1997 to 87% in 2000).
Application/
1991 Public 1993 Public 2000 Public 1991 Scientist 2000 Scientist
Overall, more people in the 2000
response
surveysurveysurveysurveysurveysurvey than in the 1997 sample had
Tomatoes with better taste
heard of every development, consisApprove
–
69%
58%
–
59%
tent with an increased interest in
Disapprove
–
20%
32%
–
33%
science and technology.
Don’t know
–
11%
10%
–
8%
In all cases, the most acceptable
Healthier meat
application
was“introducing
Approve
–
57%
52%
–
56%
Disapprove
–
26%
33%
–
34%
human genes into bacteria to proDon’t know
–
17%
15%
–
10%
duce medicines and vaccines” (56%
Larger sport fishin 1997 and 45% in 2000); even forApprove
19%
22%
19%
16%
19%
this application, however, a sizeable
Disapprove
50%
54%
64%
57%
67%
number of respondents disapDon’t know
31%
24%
17%
27%
14%
proved of its use (25% in 1997 andBacteria to clean up oil spills
Approve
75%
71%
65%
83%
66%
33% in 2000). Given that many diaDisapprove
7%
13%
21%
7%
24%
betics depend upon insulin made in
Don’t know
18%
16%
14%
10%
10%
this way, this level of disagreement
Disease-resistant crops
suggests that many people do not
Approve
75%
66%
55%
86%
61%
really understand the implications
Disapprove
6%
7%
29%
5%
26%
of their answers about biotechnoDon’t know
19%
17%
17%
9%
13%
Cows that produce more milk
logical applications.
Approve
–
44%
42%
–
60%
Overall, there has been a signifiDisapprove
–
32%
40%
–
29%
cant decrease in acceptance by theDon’t know
–
24%
18%
–
11%
public regarding biotechnology
aRespondents were asked the question: “If there were no direct risk to humans and only very remote risks to theapplications across the board; forenvironment, would you approve or disapprove of the environmental use of genetically engineered organisms
example, support for pest-resistantdesigned to produce ...?”
crops has dropped from 52% in
946

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOL 18 SEPTEMBER 2000

http://biotech.nature.com

© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com

FEATURE
Table 3. Attitudes toward cross-species gene transfer
Type of genetic modification/
response

1993 Public
survey2000 Public
survey2000 Scientist
survey

39.2%
25.5%
35.3%

32.3%
39.5%
28.2%

48.9%
35.2%
15.8%

10.6%
40.3%
49.1%

18.6%
54.0%
27.4%

37.5%
43.2%
19.3%

© 2000 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com

Crops containing exogenous plant genes
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Don’t know
Crops containing exogenous animal genes
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Don’t know

1997 to 33% in 2000, and support for GM
food has dropped from 45% in 1997 to 31%
in 2000. Fewer people in 2000 said they werewilling to buy GM fruits that taste better(36% in 1997 compared with 20% in 2000).
Unlike public attitudes in other parts of theworld (e.g., see p. 935), however, medical
applications of biotechnology, such as“preimplantation diagnosis” and “xenotransplantation,” are less acceptable than GM
crops and food.
In order to understand whether the people differentiate between the various applications of genetic engineering in terms ofperceived benefits and risks, respondents
were asked whether each application was
useful to society, and how much risk they
perceived. High levels of benefit and low risk
were perceived for medical applications,such as introducing human genes into bacteria to produce medicines/vaccines anddeveloping genetically modified animals for
medical studies.
Both 1997 and 2000 data on the public
sample show that the highest level of perceived benefit was for animals used in medical studies followed by modified bacteria
used in producing medicine. The lowest
level of perceived benefit and highest risk for
all samples was for xenotransplantation.
Another compelling finding was that the
respondents in the 2000 survey considered
GM food and drinks (cited as a high risk by
the 1997 sample) to be less risky than pestresistant crops and (to a lesser extent) xenotransplantation.
A glance at Table 2 reveals that respondents gave the highest levels of support for“the use of bacteria to clean oil spills,” followed by “disease-resistant crops” and“tomatoes with better taste.” The high disapproval of applications such as transgenic fish
engineered for sport fishing demonstrated
the degree to which people are willing to support genetic engineering for “fun” rather
than “need.” Both 1997 and 2000 samples
showed majority support for the release of
GM plants, namely tomatoes and diseaseresistant crops.
When asked to explain their level of support, respondents in the 2000 survey indicated that they believed a particular application
had “unknown effects” or was “unnatural,”“unethical,” or “unnecessary” (the “fourU’s”). In particular, cross-species (plant–animal) gene transfer (rather than plant–plant)
was perceived to be particularly unacceptable(Table 3). Whereas the opponents (from40.3% in 1997 to 54.0% in 2000) of such procedures increased, so did the proponents(from 10.6% in 1997 to 18.6% in 2000), indicating that viewpoints are becoming morepolarized.
Conclusions
The majority of the Japanese public still has
optimistic views about biotechnology. In
both 1997 and 2000, Japanese respondents
were more favorably disposed to biotechnology and genetic engineering than their counterparts in Europe6,7 or New Zealand3.
The population is well informed about
scientific developments and even discriminates between biotechnology and genetic
engineering, which is viewed less favorably.
In this regard, the long history of fermenta-

Confidence in regulatory bodies
One part of the 1997 and 2000 surveys asks the public to comment on their confidence andapproval of regulatory structures. The results show respondents were overwhelmingly infavor of international regulatory bodies, such as the United Nations and the World HealthOrganization (62% in 1997 and 69% in 2000). Following in a distant second position werescientific organizations and ethics committees. There was a significant drop in confidencein scientific organizations among respondents in the 2000 survey compared with 1997. Very
low confidence was shown for the Diet and other government agencies in Japan. Schools
and universities were the most trusted sources of information, and will be expected to be
influential in opinion making through the media.
DM & MNG

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOL 18 SEPTEMBER 2000

http://biotech.nature.com

tion technology in Japan may help explain
people’s familiarity with the concept of
biotechnology; after all, almost every
household uses microorganisms to makepickles daily.
In the past three years, awareness of
biotechnology has increased, and the number of proponents and opponents has also
grown, suggesting that viewpoints are
becoming increasingly polarized (as is thecase in other parts of the world). Although
the majority remains favorably disposed tobiotechnology, acceptance for its applications has declined overall. Even environmental applications of GMOs have dropped
in acceptance between 1991 and 2000
(Table 2), suggesting that bad publicity
concerning GM crops has tainted perceptions of other applications. The results of
the 1997/2000 surveys in Japan (and New
Zealand survey in 1997) suggest that it isthe debate on GM crops rather than cloningthat has made people negative3. In general,people appear more skeptical about thepotential of biotechnology, as demonstrated by the 9% drop (45% in 1997 and 36% in2000) in the proportion believing thatbiotechnology would substantially reduce
environmental pollution. The public clearly
also feels that there is a great need for
improved regulation of the area (see“Confidence in regulatory bodies”).
Areas of particular concern are the impactof genetic engineering on the variety of fruitand vegetables available and the possibility ofcompulsory genetic testing and discrimination by insurance companies. Whereas medical applications of biotechnology receive
high approval ratings, applications such as“preimplantation diagnosis” and “xenotransplantation” are less acceptable thanagricultural applications, such as GM crops
and food.
Acknowledgment
We thank Chika Takeda and Tomoyuki Watanabe
for their assistance in conducting the 2000 survey,
and to the other contributors acknowledged in previous surveys7.
1. Macer, D.R.J. Attitudes to genetic engineering:
Japanese and international comparisons. (Eubios
EthicsInstitute,
Christchurch,
New
Zealand;1992).
2. Macer, D.R.J. Bioethics for the people by the people. (Eubios Ethics Institute, Christchurch, New
Zealand; 1994).
3. Macer, D.R.J., Bezar, H., Harman, N., Kamada, H. &Macer, N. Attitudes to biotechnology in Japan and
New Zealand in 1997, with international comparisons. Eubios J. Asian Int. Bioethics 7, 137–151(1997).
4. Zechendorf, B. What the public thinks aboutbiotechnology. Biotechnology 12, 870–875 (1994).
5. Hoban, T.J. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: an international perspective. Nat. Biotechnol.
15, 232–234 (1997).
6. Gaskell, G. et al. Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature 387, 845–847 (1997).
7. http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/index.html

947