RESUMEN

Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 have been developed in the last decade and have been applied to new food technologies. Genome-edited food (GEF) is a crucial issue with those new food technologies. Thus, each country has established GEF governance systems to maximize benefits and minimize risks. These emphasize the importance of communicating about GEF to the public. The key concerns are understanding various viewpoints and value perspectives (framings) in science and technology and encouraging and opening communication with the public. Thus, it is essential to understand differences between the public and experts' interests and discuss various framings and effective communication with regard to GEF. Accordingly, this study involved administering a questionnaire to analyze the public's attitudes in Japan and identify gaps between these and expert opinions on GEF. A total of 4000 responses from the public and 398 responses from GEF experts were collected. The study found that the Japanese public has a "wait-and-watch" attitude toward GEF, and the demand for basic information on it is quite high. Moreover, they are apprehensive about proper risk governance systems for GEF. This is despite experts' emphasis on the adequacy of the mechanism, necessity of technology, and trust in the scientific community. Understanding gaps between the public and experts' opinions on and interests in GEF provides essential insight for effective communication and acts as the basis for appropriate governance of emerging science and technology.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Breakthroughs in stem cell research (SCR) and regenerative medicine (RM) have attracted significant public attention worldwide. Simultaneously, scientific communities and science policies have tried to establish appropriate governance of SCR and RM. In this context, effective communication between scientific communities and the public is regarded as a key factor. However, the diversity of public attitudes and interests has not been sufficiently examined, especially the differences across countries. Methods: We conducted an international comparison of public attitudes toward SCR and RM. We circulated an internet questionnaire among people in six countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, the UK, Germany, and France. We collected 100 valid responses from each country, and a total of 600 responses were obtained. Results: Our key findings are the diversity of interests in RM, which can be expressed as user pragmatism, governance and handling of RM, risk, and benefit, and scientific interests. The priority of interests varied across the six countries, and the variations may be influenced by the political, social, cultural, and media contexts of SCR and RM in each country. Conclusion: The implications can contribute to a deeper understanding of the diversity of public attitudes, and bring about an appropriate examination of a wide range of ethical and social concerns of SCR and RM in global contexts.

RESUMEN

Owing to the rapid progress in stem cell research (SCR) and regenerative medicine (RM), society's expectation and interest in these fields are increasing. For effective communication on issues concerning SCR and RM, surveys for understanding the interests of stakeholders is essential. For this purpose, we conducted a large-scale survey with 2,160 public responses and 1,115 responses from the member of the Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine. Results showed that the public is more interested in the post-realization aspects of RM, such as cost of care, countermeasures for risks and accidents, and clarification of responsibility and liability, than in the scientific aspects; the latter is of greater interest only to scientists. Our data indicate that an increased awareness about RM-associated social responsibility and regulatory framework is required among scientists, such as those regarding its benefits, potential accidents, abuse, and other social consequences. Awareness regarding the importance of communication and education for scientists are critical to bridge the gaps in the interests of the public and scientists. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2018;7:251-257.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

It is essential to understand the hurdles, motivation, and other issues affecting scientists' active participation in science communication to bridge the gap between science and society. This study analyzed 1115 responses of Japanese scientists regarding their attitudes toward science communication through a questionnaire focusing on the field of stem cell and regenerative medicine. As a result, we found that scientists face systemic issues such as lack of funding, time, opportunities, and evaluation systems for science communication. At the same time, there is a disparity of attitudes toward media discourse between scientists and the public.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The lack of knowledge of current public attitudes towards basic research into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) is a serious problem when considering appropriate ways of governance regarding research and its clinical applications. We therefore conducted an internet-based survey to determine public opinion regarding the research and development of iPSCs and regenerative medicine (RM). A total of 14,908 valid responses were collected, which revealed that the Japanese public were familiar with the terms iPSCs and RM, and many of them had received information about iPSCs and RM through the television and newspapers. They also generally accepted the need for extra funding for research into iPSCs, but also decided to adopt a "wait and see" approach and thought that research and development of iPSCs and RM should be conducted under proper governance in accordance with an international regulatory framework. It will be necessary to discuss an internationally consistent regulatory system and effective mechanisms for information flow.

Asunto(s)