Problems with information flow between scientists, politicians and the public

As another part of the human practices side of our project we wanted to investigate how information is passed from scientists to the public. We investigated how problems in this information flow chain can lead to the public being given inaccurate or misleading information and how this can lead to public opinion of a scientific topic being formed without a good understanding of the topic.

Our Investigations:
To investigate the problems with information flow between scientists and the general public, we looked at how information is passed from scientists to members of parliament (MPs), who are involved in the creation and passing of scientific policies and practices. Information is then passed to the general public, very often through the media.
We used an information flow game to investigate this.  In this game the first player (a 'scientist') had a list of objects. The scientist had to mime a word for the middle player (an 'MP') to guess, without talking. This highlighted how scientific language is not understandable to people with no scientific training, as most MPs do not have a scientific background. The MP then had to describe the word he had guessed to a third player (the 'public'), without using the word. The public were not allowed to see the scientist mime the word, highlighting how although scientist often have all the information, they do not often engage with the public. However the MP has the voice and acts as a bridge between scientists and the public. Playing this game highlighted how if the MP does not understand the scientist, incorrect information is passed to the public. It also highlighted that even if the MP understood the scientist, it is very easy for them to incorrectly word their description to the public again leading to inaccurate information being passed on.

From this game we concluded that scientific language is needed to accurately convey scientific topics, but that this makes passing information to people without scientific training very difficult as scientific language is difficult to understand. It highlighted how clearer methods of communication between scientists and non-scientists are needed so that inaccurate information is not passed on. We concluded that scientific organisations should have one or a small number of people dedicated to communicating with non-scientists. This will allow them to specialise in communicating ideas without using too much scientific language and also prevents confusion caused by too many people trying to communicate the same idea.

Back to Top

As part of the human practices side of our project, we wanted to investigate what the impact of our project on society would be, whether good or bad. To do this we brainstormed amongst ourselves, questioned a number of professional scientists and researched published literature. We considered the impact on society if our project was to be scaled up to an industrial level.

Positive impacts of our project
We believe our project could have a number of positive impacts on society if it were to be successfully scaled up to an industrial level. We will discuss these below:

Improved environmental impact :
We believe that our project if implemented on an industrial scale could reduce the damaging environmental impact of fragrance production in industry. Currently essentials oils are extracted from plants using processes such as CO2 extraction, which requires high pressures, and steam distillation, which requires high temperatures, both of which are energy demanding processes. Yields of essential oils obtained through distillation processes are also very low, rarely above 5%, with yields for lavender around 1% and lemon 2%[1], meaning large amounts of crops are grown to obtain very little of the desired product. Our project could allow the production of these fragrant compounds with less energy consumption and less waste products produced.

Increased land availability:
With the human population rapidly increasing, land availability for food production is becoming an increasing problem. A report by the Food and Agriculture Organisation for the United Nations in 2011 states 'Today's population of around 7 billion is expected to increase to about 9 billion by 2050 (United Nations, 2009). By this time, another one billion tonnes of cereals and 200 million extra tonnes of livestock products will need to be produced every year (Bruinsma, 2009)[2].' The reduction in use of land for fragrance production will free up land for food crop production instead.

Creation of jobs:
With more and more people receiving a good and higher level education, we have an increasing number of trained scientists looking for jobs. Our project will create skilled jobs suitable to those with a scientific background.

Scientific advancement/medical research:
Terpenoids are not just used in the fragrance industry, they are also commonly found in antimalarial and anticancer drugs. The creation of terpenoids for use in medical products is also being researched[3], and methods developed in our project could aid this research. It could also aid further synthetic biology research not related to the production of terpenoids by creating a better understanding of the applications of synthetic biology.

Promote environmentally friendly manufacturing:
Creating an environmentally friendly fragrance industry could highlight to consumers the impact on the environment of the products they buy. This may increase the demand for environmentally friendly products created from other industries and thus promote environmentally friendly manufacturing in other industries.

Public image of GMO use:
The use of GMOs in synthetic biology to create fragrances may create a 'route of acceptance' to the use of GMOs by the public. Discussions with a number of people with no scientific background showed us that the public may be more likely to accept a product that is created using GM bacteria, but with the bacteria not present in the final product, that they would be to directly consume or use a GMO. This may allow the public to begin accepting the use of GMOs and synthetic biology, thus improving the image of these.

Safer production methods:
Current chemical production methods involve workers being exposed to a variety of chemicals, and natural production methods involve the use of high pressures and temperatures. Production of fragrant compounds using synthetic biology could eliminate this, and the use of the non-pathogenic E.coli we are using is low risk.

New fragrance markets:
If we were able to successfully express multiple fragrances in each bacterium this could allow for a new market to emerge in customisable fragrances. The customisation would be cheap and easy to do and allow for personalisation of fragrances.

Negative Impacts of our project
We have also considered the potential negative impacts our project could have on society. We will discuss these below:

Biodiversity:
If our project was scaled up to an industrial scale many areas of land currently used to grow a variety of flowering plants may be lost. The land may then be used to grow food crops, and could result in large areas of monocultures. This will cause a loss of plant biodiversity, and could have a knock on negative impact on other species such as bees. An article in Nature in 2011 stated 'What bees need most, the new pollination studies have shown, is a diverse community of flowering plants that bloom throughout the spring and summer' [4].

Public image:
The public often have a bad image of the use of bacteria and of the use of GMOs. If the public rejected the idea of our project this could have a damaging impact on public opinion of using GMOs for other purposes.

Safety/accidents:
We have considered the implications of an accident, or incident occurring with relation to our project. For example we considered what may happen if a spillage were to occur, and the damaging effect this could have on the environment. The antibiotic resistant plasmid we are using could potentially be transferred to other organisms in the environment, passing on drug resistance. We also considered how biological waste from the production of the fragrant compounds would need to be handled correctly to ensure safety.

Tourism:
Many people are attracted to areas of natural beauty when on holiday, and this brings in valuable income for many people who rely on the tourism industry. Removing many areas of land that are currently planted with a variety of flowers may have a damaging effect on this industry in some areas.

Economic damage to third world countries:
Loss of crop sales in poorer countries, and the moving of the production of fragrance compounds from poorer countries to first world countries could have a damaging impact on the economy of some third world countries. This could result in a greater gap between the economies of first and third world countries.

Back to Top

Do you know what synthetic biology is?

Yes - 52.7%
No - 47.3%

Do you know what GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) are?

Yes - 83.1%
No - 16.9%

Do you think synthetic biology can be useful to society?

Yes - 58.1%
No - 4.7%
I do not know what synthetic biology is - 37.2%

Do you think the use of GMO's (genetically modified organisms) can be useful to society?

Yes - 74.3%
No - 11.5%
I don't know what GMO's are - 14.2%

From the questions above, where have you gained the information to form your opinions?

School - 58.8%
Media - 56.1%
Family and friends - 27.7%
Scientific Journals - 23.6%
Scientific Magazines - 23.6%

Do you make a conscious effort to avoid using GMO's?

Yes - 14.2%
No - 85.8%

Which of these products do you think are obtained from GMO's?

Insulin - 65.5%
Soya - 57.4%
Crisp flavourings - 53.4%
Computers - 5.4%

Reading the passage above, what impact do you think our project will have on society and the environment?

Positive - 60.4%
Neutral - 34%
Negative - 5.6%

How often do you use the following perfumed products? >Cleaning products >Perfume >Personal hygiene (shampoo, body wash, toothpaste etc)

Everyday - 87.5%
3-5 times a week - 8.3%
1-2 times a week - 0.7%
Less than once a week - 3.5%

Would you buy products created using synthetic biology?

Yes - 90.3%
No - 9.7%

Are you in favour of the production of fragrant compounds produced from bacteria occurring in the UK?

Yes - 76.4%
No - 23.6%

Do you think ethics and regulations are necessary for the following: >Science >Industry >Society and development?

Yes - 89.6%
No - 10.4%

The survey showed us that more people are aware of what GMO's are than of what synthetic biology is, with 83.1% of respondents answering YES to the question 'Do you know what GMO's are?', compared to 52.7% answering YES to the question 'Do you know what synthetic biology is?'. One possible reason for this difference in knowledge could be due to the higher media attention that GMO's receive compared to synthetic biology, which brings GMO's to the attention of large numbers of people who may otherwise not pay attention to or research a scientific technology. An interesting point was raised with the responses to the questions 'Do you think synthetic biology can be useful to society?', and 'Do you think GMO's can be useful to society?'. A greater number of the respondents thought synthetic biology could be useful to society, 58.1%, than the 52.7% who knew what synthetic biology is. The opposite was true for GMO's, with only 74.3% of respondents believing they can be useful to society, compared to 83.1% who know what they are.

When asked where they had gained the information from which they formed their opinion of synthetic biology and GMO's, 58.8% of respondents said school, and 56.1% said media. With over half of the respondents saying they had gained at least some of their knowledge from the media, this shows that many people's opinions may be formed from possibly unreliable or inaccurate scientific information, which is often heavily biased. A much smaller number of respondents, 23.6%, reported that they had gained their information from scientific journals, which is perhaps the most unbiased source of accurate scientific information. This shows that many peoples opinion of synthetic biology and GMO's may be based upon biased and inaccurate scientific information.

Another interesting result of the survey is that while 90.3% of respondents answered YES to the question 'Would you buy products created using synthetic biology?', only 76.4% of respondents answered YES to 'Are you in favour of the production of fragrant compounds produced rom bacteria occurring in the UK?'. This shows a difference in the number of people who would be happy to buy synthetic biology products, compared to people who would be happy for synthetic biology products to be created in the UK. One reason could be a lack of understanding that the second question relates to synthetic biology. Another reason could be that while people are happy for something to take place, they are not comfortable with it happening close to home.

It was interesting to look at the results of the survey, and this highlighted to us how important it is that the public are well informed about scientific issues.

Back to Top