• “No-one in power listens to the Norfolk farmers, people at the UEA and JIC are so close, but don’t listen to us”
• “The presentations given by the scientists were too technical. Your leaflet is also too technical- we need it in language that we understand”
• “How will poorer countries have access to your product, if developed?”
• “Will the plant impact other biodiversity? Soil microbiota?”
• “Your project is a good idea; we need to find a way to feed the growing population”
• “We don’t want DNA that we don’t recognise in our bodies” (argument against GM)

Figure 1: Cara, Jess and Alistair from the NRP-UEA iGEM 2014 team creating 'green rice' to use for a visual demonstration on global food security at The CUT food for thought event.

How did we consider the feedback and act upon it?

Given the feedback from this event, we can improve our project in the following ways:

• Develop ways in which scientists can engage better with the public and farmers: organise an event where scientists discuss public relations, including talks from public relations experts; explore possibility of meeting with MP(s) to discuss project, publicity, and engagement with the public (JIC scientists are only allowed to engage with farmers/public if the government say so).
• Simplify the leaflet we created for the event as well as the poster for public events. This includes checking the readability score of the public information we produce. In light of this event we reduced the readibility score of our leaflet from 17 years of age to 14 years of age, making it more understandable for the wider population without a scientific background.
• We made the decision to organise workshops in schools in order to educate children on aspects of our project, as this event mainly appealed to adults.
• Made the decision to develop a possible business plan for the eventual product that our project produces, including costs of product, what crops could the technology be used for, and which countries would be able to use the product in accordance with its GMO laws.
• We met with Mark Wilkinson on the ethics approval panel at UEA to research the possible implications our product could have on biodiversity, and the effects it may have on the human body if accidentally consumed.
• We would like to use the information collected to produce a set of surveys in order to collect some data about the concerns and opinions of farmers/academics/public about our project and surrounding issues.

To conclude, this event was very helpful for us to hear the variety of opinions offered from the public. It was a great experience to improve our confidence and communication skills and we will endeavour to address some of the concerns highlighted by the general public regarding the safety and ethical issues.