Abstract
Synthetic biology and genome editing have become increasingly controversial issues, necessitating careful attention and engagement with the public. Our study examined ambiguity in public perception about emerging biotechnologies through the use of several intermediate response options in a survey. To understand the relationship between respondents' thoughts and attitudes, we also examined how respondents' indecision is related to their cognitive concept of “self” as well as their interpretation of “future generations.” An online survey of 994 respondents living in Japan revealed that around 80% hold intermediate attitudes (two-sided, non-judgmental, or reserved attitudes) toward synthetic biology and genome editing. These results revealed that respondents who have a narrow self-concept tend to postpone decisions about the application of emerging technologies. In contrast, those with a broad self-concept tend to adopt an ambivalent attitude and are more short-sighted, but make judgments based on the impact of their decisions on current and future generations. This study thus demonstrates that public views are more diverse and nuanced than those obtained from conventional public surveys for policy making.
Highlights
Biotechnologies associated with genomic data are dramatically advancing
While the survey includes comprehensive questions related to knowledge of emerging biotechnologies and views of nature, our focus is on the following four areas: 1. Attitude toward synthetic biology: “Do you agree with the development of synthetic biology?” (5 categories: “agree”; “disagree”; “I agree and disagree”; “I do not think I can make a judgement on my own”; and “I cannot judge at this time”)
78.9% respondents chose responses indicating intermediate attitudes toward synthetic biology. 31.0% answered “I agree and disagree”; 17.6% answered “I don’t think I can make a judgment on my own”; and 30.3% answered “I don’t think I can make a judgment at this time”
Summary
Biotechnologies associated with genomic data are dramatically advancing. These advances have provided numerous benefits to society, especially in the areas of medicine, energy, and food production. It is controversial how to practically apply germline genome editing for humans and the natural environment. One of the latter applications is called “gene drives” as it can rapidly disseminate specific genetic properties through a population (Caplan et al, 2015; Carroll and Charo, 2015; Lander et al, 2019). The convergence of genome editing technologies and synthetic biology has yielded rapid advancement in genome synthesis technologies (Boeke et al, 2016; Chari and Church, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
