... PAGE HINT ...


... FLASH BACK ...


... NEWSBEAT ...




In Japan in 1991, 48% of the public agreed that genetically modified plants and animals would help Japanese agriculture become less dependent upon pesticides,

Preparing the wool locally  while 49% of teachers and56% of scientists agreed with this. 71% of company scientists agreed with this statement. Only 7% of scientists and the public disagreed with this, while 13% of teachers disagreed. This question statement is a major argument of those calling for the development of genetic engineering in agriculture, and the result suggests that it is supported by a majority of people. In the Netherlands in a 1991 survey, foodstuffs made from genetic engineering that were perceived to have reduced levels of pesticide were more acceptable
 than better for health, longer shelf life or better taste .The sports fish is an example of genetic engineering for fun - and 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. However, this was lower in 1993. One of the most striking points of this collection 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 .

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. This discretion has been called a measure of bioethical maturity of society.

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, but there was little difference between inheritable or non-inheritable gene therapy. A significant preference for therapeutic over cosmetic applications of gene therapy was also seen in the USA.
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 Selling GMOs on the street
significant implications for international policy.