Team:INSA-Lyon/Perception

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Undo revision 344940 by Ylouis (talk))
Line 24: Line 24:
<div align="justify">
<div align="justify">
<p>
<p>
-
This Human Practice section aims at explaining the synthetic biology field as a compromise between science and society. </br> Our approach includes an international survey with the aim of understanding the perception of synthetic biology and the impact of our biotechnology project by public opinion. We insist on historic approach of biology in Lyon (France) because it shows how a population on a city scale co-building science, technology and health, environment in the middle of society.
+
This Human Practice section aims at explaining the synthetic biology field as a compromise between science and society. </br> Our approach includes an international survey aiming at understanding the perception of synthetic biology and the impact of our biotechnology project by the public opinion. We insist on the historical approach of biology in Lyon (France) because it's an example of how population and scientists co-build science, technology, health and environment within a society.
</p>
</p>
</div></br>
</div></br>
Line 40: Line 40:
<div align="justify">
<div align="justify">
<p>
<p>
-
This survey allowed to discuss about the relation between the scientific community (biological engineering students) and the wider society to improve knowledge about Synthetic Biology. We considered engineer's responsibilities, the impact of our work and the understanding by people.</br>  
+
This survey allowed us to discuss about the relation between the scientific community (biological engineering students) and the general public and to improve their knowledge about Synthetic Biology. We considered the engineer's responsibilities, the impact of our project and the understanding by people.</br>  
So we decided to make <a href="https://www.quicksurveys.com/s/y5HQg72">a survey</a> targeting high school first year students studying sciences, as they are the future of the scientific community.</br>
So we decided to make <a href="https://www.quicksurveys.com/s/y5HQg72">a survey</a> targeting high school first year students studying sciences, as they are the future of the scientific community.</br>
Line 47: Line 47:
-
<p>The results underwent a process of clustering, a computed algorithm aiming at roughly distribute them in different groups according to their answers. By the end of the process all the people who had answered similarly were put together in the same group. From that process we sorted out five « clusters » (the groups), each with a different profile of answers.</p></br>  
+
<p>The results underwent a process of clustering, a computed algorithm aiming at roughly distributing them in different groups according to their answers. By the end of the process all the people who had answered similarly were put together in the same group. From that process we sorted out five « clusters » (the groups), each one with a different profile of answers.</p></br>  
-
<p>We note that the ones with the most people have the opposite profiles : 24% (Informed-Favorable) of the surveyed knew about synthetic biology, the issues it poses but were still supportive of it, or at least not against it, while 25% (Little informed-Unfavorable) knew a little less about it but were completely opposed to using its products. After them, 17% of people (Informed-Unfavorable-User with restrictions) have, like in the Little informed-Unfavorable group, a little understanding of what synthetic biology is and are against purifying drinking water through its processes but are fine with using it for purifying water that will be used for domestic purposes. The two remaining groups are similar in regard of how few knownledge synthetic biology. It is very few for Little informed-Favorable-User with restrictions group and not at all for Not informed-Favorable group. However, as we can see there’s a paradox in the answer of Little informed-Favorable-User with restrictions group
+
<p>We note that the groups containing the most people have the opposite profiles : </p>
 +
<p>- 24% (Informed-Favorable) of the people knew about synthetic biology and the issues it raises but were still supportive of it, or at least not against it</p>
 +
<p>- 25% (Little informed-Unfavorable) knew a little less about it but were completely opposed to using its products. </p>
 +
<p>- 17% of people (Informed-Unfavorable-User with restrictions) have, like in the Little informed-Unfavorable group, a little understanding of what synthetic biology is and are against purifying drinking water through its processes but are fine with using it for purifying water that will be used for domestic purposes. </p>
 +
<p>- The two remaining groups are similar in regard of how few knownledge synthetic biology. It is very few for Little informed-Favorable-User with restrictions group and not at all for Not informed-Favorable group. However, as we can see there’s a paradox in the answer of Little informed-Favorable-User with restrictions group
, which represents 20% of the panel, as they seem rather acceptant of synthetic biology, and yet would choose water purified with physical or chemical methods over methods involving synthetic biology. Our interpretation is that despite not being against these techniques, these people may still consider the conventional ones more efficient and safe. They are therefore less oriented toward synthetic biology than the people of the Not informed-Favorable group (14%  of the surveyed) who, despite not knowing anything about synthetic biology, would still be willing to use it without reluctance. We can see it as a proof that many people still don’t have prejudices against this science.</p></br></div>
, which represents 20% of the panel, as they seem rather acceptant of synthetic biology, and yet would choose water purified with physical or chemical methods over methods involving synthetic biology. Our interpretation is that despite not being against these techniques, these people may still consider the conventional ones more efficient and safe. They are therefore less oriented toward synthetic biology than the people of the Not informed-Favorable group (14%  of the surveyed) who, despite not knowing anything about synthetic biology, would still be willing to use it without reluctance. We can see it as a proof that many people still don’t have prejudices against this science.</p></br></div>

Revision as of 19:54, 17 October 2014

Curly'on - IGEM 2014 INSA-LYON

This Human Practice section aims at explaining the synthetic biology field as a compromise between science and society.
Our approach includes an international survey aiming at understanding the perception of synthetic biology and the impact of our biotechnology project by the public opinion. We insist on the historical approach of biology in Lyon (France) because it's an example of how population and scientists co-build science, technology, health and environment within a society.


  • International survey

  • CurLy'on for dummies

  • Walk in the Lyon Biopole

Retrieved from "http://2014.igem.org/Team:INSA-Lyon/Perception"