This document summarizes a study that examined gaps in attitudes toward stem cell research and regenerative medicine between scientists and the public in Japan. The study found that while scientists want to inform the public about scientific aspects of the topics, the public is more interested in how risks will be managed, how the technology will impact society, and issues of responsibility and regulation. The study also found that scientists have a relatively low awareness of social and policy aspects of regenerative medicine. It concludes that communication and policy need to consider these gaps and that education and support for scientists to discuss societal implications could help address some of the challenges around public engagement.

1. Gaps in attitudes toward science and
technology between scientists and the public:
The case of stem cell research and
regenerative medicine
Ryuma Shineha, Ph.D. (Seijo University)
Yusuke Inoue, Ph.D. (University of Tokyo)
Tsunakuni Ikka, Ph.D. (NCNP)
Atsuo Kishimoto, Ph.D. (University of Tokyo)
Yoshimi Yashiro, Ph.D. (Kyoto University)
Sep 21th 2016, OECD BluSky Ⅲ Conference @ Ghent

2. 1st:
1996
2nd:
2001
3rd:
2006
4th:
2011
5th:
2016
Science Communication in Japanese Science Policy
“Science and Technology Basic Plan”
• Emphasis of
accountability
• Start of change of funding
system from General
University Fund to Direct
Governmental Fund
• Institutional change of
university
• Encouraging scientists’
outreach activity
• Increase of Café Scientific
around 2004 (however, as
actual situation, many of
them were just lecture
with drinking…)
• Several trials of dialogues
on controversial issues
• Emphasis of mutual
dialogue
• Public Engagement in S&T
policies
• Treatment of ELSIs
• Risk communication
• Toughness of deficit
model
Since around 2000, Japanese S&T policy has emphasized scientists’
activities on science communication and PE…however ?

3. Japanese context of SCR and RM
(Shineha et al. 2010; Shineha 2016; Timothy et al. 2016)
• Breakthrough of iPS cell
• High recognition of iPS and RM among the public
• Hype and “perifelalization of ELSIs” in media
• National promotion and increase of funding
• Easing of regulation
• First in human: clinical trial using iPS cell

4. Research Question of this study And STI Policy
What is for STI policy?
• Communication between scientists and the public become
important theme in STI policy.
>> Understanding of differences of interests between scientists and
the public is one of the key factors for effective communication.
• Reflective examination of Science policy on communication
between science and society.
1. Comparison of gap of interests between and the public
2. To examine differences in attitudes between scientists and the
public to media coverage and social aspect of SCR and RM.
3. To identify the challenges faced by scientists regarding
participation in communication activities.

5. 2191 responses of the public monitors
(Oct 2015 to Nov 4th 2015)
- Recognition of RM keywords and
situations
- Topics they want to know
- Case of human-animal chimera
embryo
- Media usage
- Opinion about media discourse on
RM
1115 responses of stem cell scientists of
JSRM members
(Dec 24 2015 to the end of Mar 2016)
- Topics they want to inform to the
public
- Case of human-animal chimera
- Recognition of social aspect of RM
- Opinion about media discourse on
RM
- Motivations, hurdles, measures for
promotion of communication
Description of questionnaire
 Questionnaire are designed to compare attitudes of the public and stem cell scientists
toward science communication concerning stem cell science and regenerative medicine.
>> What scientists would like to inform? vs What the public would like to know?

6. （%）
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Which topics do you want to know / to inform?
Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
• The public have interests in what
will occurred and risk
management after the
appearance of RM
>> Information sharing and
regulation should be designed,
considering this difference.

7. Which point do you think important for public acceptance of RM?
55.7
50.5
33.5
32.2
27.1
24
23.2
21.9
14.7
1.8
57.6
35.4
28.1
23.2
17.7
17.1
20.6
36.3
55.0
2.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Whether experts can deal with risks and accidents or not
Whether society can prevent abuse and misuse by
regulation or not
Seriousness of potential risks and accidents
Clarification of responsibility and liability
Credibility of actors of research acitivities such as
university, government, companies, and so on.
Predictability about what will be occurred by RM in the
future
Event probability of potential risks and accidents
Whether RM is necessary to the society or not
Scientific validation
Interesting or nor from scientific perspective
The public (n=2133) Scientists (n=1110)
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
（%）
Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
• Although scientists think
scientific validation and
possibilities of RM is
important for public
acceptance, the public regard
responsibility and risk
management as important
point in an accidental case.
>> Clarification of ex-post handling
>>Vision of future society with
responsible scheme on RM

8. About making human-chimera animals for organs
• Although over 70 % of the public respondent have supportive attitude
toward RM, they avoid to agree with making human-animal chimeric
embryos for organs…
• It seems to be difficult to get general consent, considering this
trend…At least, there are necessity to think more appropriate scheme
of informed consent, including broad consent or multilayered consent
a. Support for making human-animal chimeric embryos for making organs
a1, General public. a2, Researchers.
(Inoue Y, Shineha R, Yashiro Y. Cell Stem Cell, 19(2), 152-153, 2016)

9. Scientists’ recognition on social aspects of RM
(a) Response of scientists to “Do you know
Regenerative Medicine Three Acts?”
(b) Responses of scientists to “Do you
know a case fatal clinical accident of
administration of stem cell?”
(n=1110) (n=1110)
Is it enough ratio as scientists’
recognition of research policy
and social aspect of RM?

10. Summary of results
• Communication and related policy should be conducted considering
gap of attentions and interests between scientists and the public.
- Although scientists want to inform scientific content, the public has interest in
what will be occurred, responsible regulatory framework, clarification of
liability, etc…
- Scientists’ recognition of social aspects of RM remained at low level.
• Several ELSI case request scientists’ careful discussion.
- Issues on IC and regulation: difficult of general consent in sensitive case
• Media as main information source of RM and scientist’s negative image
- In some case, press releases of institution has reinforced sensationalism
(Sumner et al. 2014).
• Hurdle of communication of scientists and issues on science policy
- Evaluation scheme on scientists’ communication activities...
How to make and share imagination of the society with RM?
STI Polices related to engagement, communication, etc
should take these points into consideration,,,

11. Implications for STI policy, particularly focusing on scientists…
Knowing social
aspects of S&T
Topics which the public want to know
Many things for consideration
Education for RRI
• Competency of
responsible scientists
• Understanding of social
aspects of RM
Community and Institution
• Thinking and sharing
impacts of RM
• Media communication
not reinforcing hype…
S&T Policy
• Evaluation system
• Higher education
• Clarification of liability,
etc
Making
imaginary of
society with RM
Responsibility
and liability
What will be occurred?
Scientific validation
ELSIs
etc…

12. ANNEX

13. Attitudes toward media discourses and their effect on social agenda
General public Scientists
Yes Yes and No No Yes Yes and No No
Media coverage is accurate 40.8 49.5 9.7 21.8 38.8 39.6
Media coverage is objective 36.4 50.3 13.2 20.8 32.4 46.7
Media coverage is well balanced 16.2 63.0 20.8 8.3 35.1 56.6
Media coverage is biased 18.9 58.8 22.3 55.7 28.4 15.9
Media coverage is creditable 32.4 50.0 17.6 13.7 43.8 42.5
Media coverage have enough
amount of information
14.5 44.1 41.3 7.5 23.2 69.4
Public opinion is greatly influenced
by media coverage
75.8 18.7 5.5 92.9 5.2 2.0
Anxieties of the public toward RM
are fueled by sensational media
coverage
35.0 44.8 20.3 37.7 26.7 35.5
People can make a choice
information on RM appropriately
20.4 46.8 32.9 3.8 17.0 79.1
The public usually does not swallow
sensational media coverage
35.2 42.2 22.6 10.1 26.4 63.5

14. What is important information resource of RM?
（%）

15. **
*
**
**
**
Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Scientists’ motivation to participate in communication

16. （%）
**
*
**
*
Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Hurdles for participating in communication with the public
Issues related to S&T policy: place and system on communication

17. （%）
Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
**
**
*
Measures for encouraging scientists’ participation in communication
Decreasing hurdles concerning time, place, and evaluation system

18. What is your interests about donation of your sample?
（%）
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Χ2 test ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
• Trust of primary doctor
• What will be occurred and how
samples will be used?
• Protection of individual information
• Although scientists worry about pain
of harvesting, interests of the public
relatively low.