CiRA　Reporter

It is my second year in Kyoto, and I often get approached by foreign tourists.

Of course, they ask for directions, but the other day, while I was admiring my favorite anpan (sweet bean bun) at the supermarket, a young man with a Latin accent asked in English, with a curious look on his face, “What does that taste like?”

“It’s amazing!” I almost replied without hesitation, but then I remembered that in some countries, the idea of “sweet beans” is hard to accept. I stopped myself for what could be a classic cross-cultural communication moment.

Now, you might think that cutting-edge medical science, like iPS cell research, has nothing to do with cultural differences. But that is not entirely true. These differences become apparent when we ask, “Should society allow the use of this new technology?”

About 10 years ago, an international debate began over whether it was acceptable to modify the DNA of human embryos using a technique called “genome editing.” At that time, researchers from one country said, “Our society would gladly accept this for treating genetic diseases,” while researchers from another country insisted, “This is ethically unacceptable.” The differences in attitudes toward technology between nations and cultures were striking.

Three years later, when the first babies with genome-edited DNA were born in China, global criticism erupted. Yet, before that, the United Kingdom had legalized a technique called “mitochondrial replacement,” which involves replacing defective mitochondria (commonly known as cellular power plants) in embryos to prevent mitochondrial disease from being inherited. According to a recent report, eight babies conceived using this technique have already been born in the UK. What causes such differences in acceptance?

The question of “Should we use this new technology?” involves not only safety but also ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding its integration into society. There is no textbook answer, and what is considered “right” varies depending on cultural and other factors. However, in today’s globalized world, saying “every country for itself” is problematic, and creating uniform rules based solely on one cultural norm or expert opinion is also questionable. We need new ways of communication that allow diverse perspectives to be shared and lead to solutions everyone can accept.

So, I explained in my clumsy English: “It has sweet beans inside. I like it, but it’s kind of unique to Japan.” He replied, “We have something similar in my country. Sounds good. I’ll try it! Thanks!” and walked to the cashier with an anpan in hand.
Maybe anpan is already a global item. If so, what makes some people dislike it? How can anpan respond to different values, and what can it bring to the world? The quest for new forms of communication that transcend cultures while cherishing them continues.

Black sesame topping means chunky bean paste,
while white sesame (poppy seeds) means smooth bean paste.
Even here, you can sense consideration for the “chunky vs. smooth” debate.