Team:HZAU-China/eco/3
From 2014.igem.org
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
<li class="dropdown"><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Review">Wetlab</a> | <li class="dropdown"><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Review">Wetlab</a> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
- | + | <li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Overview"><span>-</span>Overview</a></li> | |
<li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Construction"><span>-</span>Construction</a></li> | <li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Construction"><span>-</span>Construction</a></li> | ||
<li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Characterization"><span>-</span>Characterization</a></li> | <li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Characterization"><span>-</span>Characterization</a></li> | ||
+ | <li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Help"><span>-</span>Help each other</a></li> | ||
<li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Protocol"><span>-</span>Protocol</a></li> | <li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Protocol"><span>-</span>Protocol</a></li> | ||
<li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Labnotes"><span>-</span>Labnotes</a></li> | <li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:HZAU-China/Labnotes"><span>-</span>Labnotes</a></li> |
Latest revision as of 02:36, 18 October 2014
<!DOCTYPE html>
Economics
Empirical Data—Surveys done between 2000 and 2004
Cheap talk is a special type of signaling game in the decision theory where the information is incomplete [34]. Incomplete means at least one player does not necessarily know the types, strategies or payoffs of the other players [35]. Cheap talk is the kind of signal given to the receiver by the information possessor that requires almost no cost. Cheap talk scripts which are lines that contain explanations of a suggestive nature that have been proven to be effective only to those who already agree with certain ideas suggested by the scrip. Cheap talk script is usually used in surveys to eliminate bias [36].
When investigators implied that GMOs can reduce pesticides, are more nutritious, the ratio of ``very willing'' to buy were 30.8 and 40.6; when investigators implied that GMOs might have unforeseen consequences to human health or have unforeseen influences to nature, the rate was reduced to 2.4 and 2.6. And about a quarter of consumers were impassive towards the investigation and were either ignorant of GMOs or didn’t care about the risks. According to their report, the consumers in Wuhan exhibited much ignorance of GMOs in year 2004, and the tendency to doubt increase with the increase of education background.
And there are still many, such as surveys done in Norway [39], China [40] or the developing world in general [41]; and comparisons such as the drastic difference between EU and US [42].
What I want to say is that these surveys all used various kinds of measure to eliminate what bias people might have about GMOs, and what they did was only a faithful account of their observations. The phrase market failure might have been mentioned somewhere in the analyses and it also exhibited the kind of bias I mentioned earlier (will look into later), but the bias must have been a subconscious one, since they really went to great lengths to eliminate bias and unwarranted tendencies that they realized exist.