{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024812734082397005, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03838951310861423, 'mean_word_length': 4.952646239554317, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Attitudes of the public and scientists to biotechnology in Japan at the start of 2000.

This survey on biotechnology and bioethics was carried out on national random samples of the public and scientists in November 2000-January 2000 [sic]throughout Japan, and attendees at the Novartis Life Science Forum held on 29 September 1999 in Tokyo. The sample size was 297, 370, and 74 respectively. While there is a better awareness of GMOs in 2000 compared to 1991; the trend shows an increase in the perceived risks of GMOs followed by growing resistance in Japan. While a majority of persons believed genetic engineering would make life better over the next twenty years (57%), the proportion of respondents who thought genetic engineering would make life worse over the next twenty years doubled from 1997 to 2000 (from 12% to 25%). Respondents were asked whether they had heard about applications in several areas and the order of familiarity (high-low) was: pest-resistant crops, human genes in bacteria, mouse to develop cancer, food and drinks, pigs with human hearts and pre-implantation diagnosis. A divide of opinion can be seen when the results on benefit, risk and moral acceptability of applications of biotechnology by the public are compared to the forum and scientist samples. A significant change in the acceptance of the public occurred in 2000 where only 22% agreed on the moral acceptability of GM food compared to 41% in 1997. In 2000 fewer people said they are willing (20%) to buy genetically modified fruits that taste better compared to 1997 (36%). The results show less public support for use of gene therapy than 1993 and twice as many scientists rejected gene therapy than they did in 1991. When asked who is best placed to regulate modern biotechnology, the respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of international regulatory bodies, such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization (72%), rather than national bodies. The comparison between scientists and public is interesting, however the more enthusiastic sample were participants from the Novaritis Life Science Forum with its mixed occupations.