The major purpose of this study was to identify high school students` knowledge and attitudes on biotechnology/genetic engineering. For this study, a five-page questionnaire was administered to students in two schools. Students` knowledge of biotechnology and genetic engineering were investigated using open questionnaires. And attitudes were :investigated using a Likert-type scale. Them were 27 statements and students were instructed to tick the relevant box to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each statement. For this study, total 189 students (92 males and 97 females) in a literary course of grade 12 were sampled from high school in Seoul. The major results of this study are as follows: 1. Many students of the sample did not know what biotechnology or genetic engineering was(21%, 12%, respectively). Of those who claimed to know biotechnology, approximately 52% gave a simplistic explanation in terms of life science, Of those who claimed to know genetic engineering, about 43% of the respondents made reference to manipulating or changing genes. 2. About one third of the sample did not give an example of biotechnology. Of those that could, the most common example was `Test-tune babies`(51%). Few gave modern examples of biotechnology (less than 12%). About 16% of the sample did not give a single example of genetic engineering. That the example of genetic engineering quoted by 55% of respondents were non-seeded watermelon is misconception. 3. The respondents got information about biotechnology and genetic engineering largely from mass-media (45%). 4. Attitudes of students on biotechnology and genetic engineering were context-dependent. There was broad approval of genetic engineering applied to microbes and plants but not of genetic engineering applied to animals. Respondents, particularly more females than males, were unsupportive of genetic engineering applied to dogs. 5. Attitudes were influenced by the terminology used: statements involving the terms `biotechnology` and `selective breeding` led to lower levels of student disagreement than a term such as `changing genes`.