Team:York/Cake

Surveys

Through our surveys, we aimed to determine whether age, gender, nationality, scientific literacy and religious and political views significantly influence public opinion on the topic of GMOs, GMO based projects and portrayal of GMO in the media.

91% of respondents considered environmental protection important or extremely important. For this question, significant differences between groups were only observed between genders, with 78% of females saying that environmental protection is extremely important, compared to only 40% of males (figure 1.).

We asked our respondents whether they would support or discourage environmental remediation projects and initiatives. Significant differences were observed between age groups, genders and Western and Eastern Europeans.

95% of respondents under the age of 24 said that they would support or strongly support environmental remediation projects, compared to only 73% of those over 24 (figure 2.).

At 92%, females are also more likely than males to support or strongly support environmental protection initiatives, who would only do so 80% of the time (figure 3.).

As opposed to 98% of Western European respondents, only 75% of those from Eastern Europe would support projects aiming to protect the environment (figure 4.)

Although 85% of our respondents said that they would support, or strongly support environmental remediation projects and initiatives, the number dropped to 60% when respondents were told that these projects would use genetically modified organisms. Compared to the previous question, where there were significant differences between groups based on age, gender and nationality, in this case the only significant differences are based on religious affiliation(figure 5) and scientific literacy (figure 6)

For the purposes of this report, we have divided our respondents into two categories: religious and non-religious. However, we plan on carrying out more in depth analysis of our data in the near future, when we will further divide the “religious” category based on the specific affiliation indicated by our responders.

As far as scientific literacy is concerned, we asked our respondents to select the level of scientific literacy they possess from the following:

1. Little or no contact with science and no understanding of the scientific method.
2. Occasional contact with science(eg. media) and a basic understanding of the scientific method.
3. Contact with science through secondary education(eg. high school science classes) or equivalent level and a moderate understanding of the scientific method.
4. Contact with science through higher education(eg. university science degree) or equivalent level, ability to read and understand articles in scientific journals and a good understanding of the scientific method.
5. An understanding of science equivalent to having a career in a scientific field, ability to read and understand articles in scientific journals, a very good understanding and experience of applying the scientific method.

Although there is no significant difference between levels 2 and 3, respondents who have identified with level 4 scientific literacy were significantly more likely to support environmental projects that relied on GMOs and over 80% of those who identified with level 5 scientific literacy said they would support such initiatives. None of our respondents have selected level 1 scientific literacy.

Our respondents were asked to what extent they had researched GMOs before taking the survey. Our findings show that, as expected, the responders who had done extensive research into the topic were more likely to “Strongly support” or “Strongly discourage” environmental projects that relied on GMOs. Responders who had done little to no research into GMOs were less likely to take a stance on this issue, with 40-50% of them saying that they would neither support nor discourage these projects (figure 7).

Respondents were asked to rate on a scale from 1(lowest) to 5(highest) the impact that they believe certain factors have had on their attitude towards GMOs. Our findings show that up to 70% of our respondents believe that their opinion was shaped by scientific consensus as well as independent research. At the other end of the spectrum are religious and political affiliation, with less than 10% of respondents saying that these factors have had an impact on their attitude towards GMOs (figure 8). Figure 8. Responses to the question “On a scale from 1(lowest) to 5(highest), how would you rate the impact that each of the below has had on your attitude towards GMOs?”

5. Additional Comments and Opinions

Our responders were given the opportunity to comment on our survey and on the topic of GMOs. A significant number have expressed their disappointment in the way GMOs are portrayed in the media and in how the concept of GMOs is understood by the public:

• “We urgently need more scientifically accurate info throughout the media! Sensationalist fear mongering is a poison and the antidote is lacking. “
• “GMO subject is poorly understood by general public and superficially treated by media “
• “Having talked to non scientific friends I have found that the vast number are unaware that plants and other organisms have genes. As a consequence they assume that we are putting human genes into foreign bodies and "making them humanoids" “
• “Generally considered to much more of an unknown terror in England than in America (where I presume you are based?). Viewed by the general public, by spin in the media, as unnatural and hazardous but I think it surely it has to be the future for crop development in a world where population growth is far outstripping food production. “
• “Depending on what continent your survey participants are from, some of the answers may have entirely opposite meanings: in the U.S. GMOs are largely accepted as useful and safe (and are therefore legal) while in the E.U. there is a lot of misinformed public opposition to them (and also some legislation aiming to limit or prohibit their use)."

Some of the comments have also expressed the view that the problem with GMOs is not the organism itself, but the way it is used by corporations:

• “I don't mind GMOs designed to thrive in harsh environment or have a stable fertile crop. But I do have a problem with copywriting them, designing them to be drowned in pesticides or making the crops sterile as to require the re-purchasing of seed stock ever year. So really it's the business/politics not the science that bothers me. “
• “I think a major factor is the gap between the problems of uses of the technology and whether it has inherent issues - the exploitation of GMOs by major companies is a real problem but has led to excessive fear of the technology. “