研究動機：基因科技是一項新興的技術，並且包含及應用的範圍相當廣泛，包括臨床醫療、基因檢測、基因改造食品…等；各方面來說，基因科技帶來的效益似乎是顯而易見，然而對於其可能產生的風險，我們又是如何看待？ 而人類基因圖組已經完成，未來在臨床醫療上的應用也是備受期待。基因檢測目前已經被認為在產前檢測、遺傳疾病、易感受基因檢測等方面有顯著的效益，然而後續也產生了許多對倫理及法律議題的關注，因此什麼因素影響民眾對於新興科技的可接受度，成為在政策領域中重要的議題。

研究目的：本研究欲討論臺灣民眾對於基因檢測的態度及可接受度，以及1. 哪些因素影響臺灣民眾對基因檢測的可接受度？ 2. 這些影響因素彼此間是否有相關？

研究方法與材料：資料來源包括 2009臺灣基因體意向調查第二波面訪問卷及 該調查受訪者和成大學生的焦點團體訪談。
研究結果：1. 信任、效益、認知、自身或親人有無癌症或遺傳疾病以及年齡是解釋基因檢測可接受度的顯著變項。2. 質性資料顯示，受訪者認為的基因科技能帶來的效益明顯大於其帶來的風險。

結論：台灣民眾對基因檢測的高接受度，來自：1. 信任特定機構，包括對其立場、身份及倫理的考量。2. 基因科技風險與效益資訊的不均衡，受訪者認為基因科技帶來的風險是可以避免和忍受的，而另一方面所帶來的效益卻是明顯可見。3. 由於基因科技帶來的效益，明顯大於其可能產生的風險，因此對基因科技的發展抱持接受與期待，即風險與效益的抵換。

Motivation: Genetic technology is an emerging technology, its application includes medical treatment, genetic test, GMO food, agriculture, etc. Given the supposed benefits, how do people view its potential risks? Genetic tests such as pre-natal examination and genetic disease detection have raised some juridical and ethical problems. What factors influence the attitude of the public towards emerging technology therefore becomes an interesting policy issue.

Objectives: The study aims to examine the attitude and acceptability of Taiwan’s general public towards genetic test, and to explore (1) what factors influence the acceptability of Taiwan’s general public towards genetic test? and (2) possible association among these factors.
Methods and materials: Source of materials include (1) 2009 Taiwan Genomic Survey and focus group of selected interviewees from that survey and college students from National Cheng Kung University.

Result: (1) Trust, benefit, knowledge, genetic diseases and age are significant sources of variation in acceptability of genetic test. (2) The result of focus group shows that the general public perceives the benefits of genetic technology is greater than its risks.

Conclusion: Taiwan’s general public has been highly acceptive of genetic test, because of (1) their trust on specific institutions with respect to their attribute and code of ethics; and (2) due to uneven information between risks and benefits of genetic technology, participants perceived the risks of genetic technology as preventable and bearable, while the benefits evident. (3) Because the benefits of genetic technology perceived as significantly greater than its potential risks, the participants accept and appreciate the development of genetic technology, as a result of trade-off.

1.Sjöberg L. Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. EMBO reports 2004;5:S47-51.
2.王美仁、林秀娟、蔡文暉：產、兒科醫護人員對遺傳諮詢倫理議題之質性研究。慈濟醫學雜誌2004;16:111-118。
3.周桂田：獨大的科學理性與隱沒的社會理性之對話-在地公眾、科學專家與國家的風險文化探討。台灣社會研究季刊2004;56:1-64。
4.周桂田：全球在地化風險典範之衝突─生物特徵辨識作為全球鐵的牢籠。政治與社會哲學評論2008;24:101-189。
5.Earle TC., Cvetkovich GT. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport: Praeger, 1995.
6.Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999;29:2093-2106.
7.Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000;20:195-204.
8.林宜平、林彥君、詹長權、鄭尊仁：台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場感知的利益、風險與管制信任。臺灣公共衛生雜誌 2010;29:87-96。
9.林宜平、吳亭亭、黎雅如、周桂田、鄭尊仁：台灣成年民眾對奈米產品與科技的公眾感知。臺灣公共衛生雜誌2010;29:431-439。
10.Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 2003;23:961-972.
11.Sjöberg L. Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London: Earthscan, 1999:89-99.
12.Viklund MJ. Trust and risk perception in western Europe： A cross-national study. Risk Analysis 23:727-738.
13.Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological-study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis 1994; 14:1085-1096.
14.Gardner GT, Tiemann AR, Gould LC, Deluca DR,Doob LW, Stolwijk JAJ. Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear-power. J Social Psychology 1982;116:179-197.
15.Bronfman N, Cifuentes L. Risk perception in a developing country： the case of Chile. Risk analysis 2003;23:1271-1285.
16.Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology？ Nature Nanotech 2006;1:153-155.
17.Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J, Veltri G. Imagining nanotechnology： cultural support for technological innovation in europe and the united states. Public Understand Sci 2005;14:81-90.
18.王思薇：基因改造豆腐之消費者偏好行為與市場區隔分析。台北：台灣大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文2008。
19.林慧敏：不同群體對基因改造食品的知識能力與風險感知。台南：長榮大學職業安全衛生學系研究所碩士論文 2008。
20.Gaskell G, Bauer M, Durant J, Allum N. Worlds apart？ The reception of genetically modified foods. Science 1999;285:384-387.
21.洪成志：阿茲海默症的基因檢測與遺傳諮詢。應用心理研究2000;7:143-155。
22.陳瑞容：基因治療對婦女乳癌、卵巢癌治療的衝擊：社會、心理與倫理因素的探討。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告1999。
23.張雅芳：基因檢測倫理問題及倫理指導原則之探討。台南：成功大學護理學系碩士論文2009。
24.胡淑貞、莊茹潔、王瑤華、黃怡瑾、林秀娟：遺傳服務提供者與利用者對現階段尚無法治療之疾病遺傳檢測態度之差異。醫護科技學刊2005;7:246-257。
25.周雅容：焦點團體法在調查研究上的應用。調查研究 1997;3:51-73。
26.中研院學術調查研究資料http：//survey.sinica.edu.tw/Gene_epaper_group.html
27.台灣地區基因體意向調查與資料庫建置之規劃。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告2004。
28.林國明：社會價值與基因科技公眾認知。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告2003。