Team:INSA-Lyon/Perception

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 53: Line 53:
<p>- 25% (Little informed-Unfavorable) knew a little less about it but were completely opposed to using its products. </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>- 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>
+
<p> The two remaining groups have both little knowledge about synthetic biology. The litt
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The 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>

Revision as of 19:58, 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"