One of the central questions in the development of international biotechnology policy is whether persons have the same concepts of benefit and risk between countries, and how these views influence the policy. The first part of this paper presents analysis of comments on the benefits, risks and moral acceptability of biotechnology in Japan as viewed from different sectors of society. Two samples were obtained from mail response surveys in the year 2000, from the general public (N=297) and scientists (N=370), and one from the general public in 2003 (N=377). Comparison was made for a series of four questions on utility, risk, moral acceptability and overall encouragement, for applications of technology. The questions requested both agreement with a 5-point self-indicated scale, and the reasons behind these attitudes through open comments. The most acceptable of the applications were medicines produced in genetically modified microorganisms and a transgenic cancer mouse for research use. These were perceived to bring benefits by two thirds of the public in 2000 and 85% of the scientists. The least acceptable application was xenotransplantation, which even many of the scientists considered to be unnatural. Embryonic genetic diagnosis was more acceptable than xenotransplantation, however, more respondents saw ethical concerns with this application. The second part of the paper will review some of the policies and practice for intellectual property protection from biotechnology in Japan. These include statements from bodies like the Japan Bioindustry Association (JBA) on benefit sharing, and positions that have been taken by scientists in debates over gene patenting. Japanese companies are among the world's leading holders of patents on human genes, but this is not necessarily a reflection of the views of most academics on whether products of biotechnology should be patented. Finally, the bioethical maturity of different sectors of the Japanese society, public, scientists, policy makers, can not be measured by merely education level. It needs to be investigated in the context of the culture of information and high degree of distrust in the system that surveys reveal. Scientists tended to mention ethical issues less than the general public, which raises questions over whether scientists should really represent the views of the "public" in policy making in these areas, as they do in Japan. There is no real evidence that the concept of risk is dealt with differently in Japan by individual persons, however, some policy practices suggest Japanese companies are extremely cautious over the use of genetic engineering in products. Some comments from persons interviewed in different sectors of the community shed light on this.
