Biotechnology Survey

Our project relies heavily on education for effective implementation. However, before one is able to educate, it is useful to gauge prior knowledge on the subject one wishes to educate about. The WLC iGEM Team worked to develop a survey to gauge knowledge as well as feelings towards biotechnology since using our probiotic effectively depends on understanding of this topic. Our team faced challenges developing this survey. Biotechnology is a polarized topic and therefore there are a limited amount of unbiased and reliable sources involving biotechnology, and specifically, genetically modified organisms (GMOs). As an iGEM team, we wish to use biotechnology to solve problems in order to help others. To reach a middle ground of understanding between those who have positive feelings towards GMOs and those who feel negatively, it will be useful to assess their feelings quantitatively.

When we developed these questions, we took into account different articles for and against the use of GMOs. We developed questions that will hopefully be able to assess feelings towards GMOs. This year, we focused on survey development and assessing if those who are well educated in biotechnology will consistently trend the same pole of our scale.

We received responses from 18 current iGEM members (faculty and student population). The following questions were posed to the participants. The participants then rated each question on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 5 being "strongly agree." The participants were also given the option of "I do not know."

Knowledge Questions

1. Scientists are able to extract genes from a glowing jellyfish and add the genes to a bacterium to make the bacterium glow.
2. Genetic engineering is not important for medical research testing.
3. DNA is genetic information.
4. Humans have genetic code for their entire body in most cells.
5. When you eat lettuce, you are eating DNA or genes.

Opinion Questions

Science
6. Genetically modified organisms are dangerous to human health.
7. Monsanto is a company with a main goal of ending world hunger through acceptable means.
8. Genetically engineering results are predictable.
9. Genetically modified organisms do not help the environment (unless they were intended to).
10. All biotech companies are only interested in gaining larger profits.
11. Genetically modified animal feed harms animals being fed.
12. Genetic engineering is safe.
13. Genetically engineering plants can be a faster way of crossbreeding.

Regulation
14. Genetically modified foods are acceptably regulated by the government.
15. Genetically modified foods are acceptably regulated by researchers.
16. Genetically modified foods are acceptably regulated by the companies that sell them.
17. Products that are genetically modified should be labeled for consumers.
18. Genetically modified foods should be regulated by the government.
19. Genetically modified foods should be regulated by researchers.
20. Genetically modified foods should be regulated by the companies that sell them.
21. Genetically modified products should not be used in animal feed.
22. Genetically modified products are properly labeled.
23. All genetically modified products should be labeled.

Farming
24. Genetically modified organisms reduce the need for herbicides/pesticides.
25. Genetically modified plants produce a greater amount of crops than not genetically modified plants.
26. Farmers who use genetically modified seed tend to make more profit from crops than those who do not, if the genetically modified crop is used correctly.
27. Prohibiting genetically modified organisms would stop the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds.

Use
28. We currently must use genetically modified food to feed the world.
29. In the future, genetically modified foods will be needed to support the world's growing population.
30. Genetically modified organisms have helped the survival of the human race.
31. Genetically engineered food should not be consumed.
32. Genetically modified organisms, in and of themselves, are morally wrong.
33. Biotechnology has helped the survival of the human race.
34. Genetically modifying organisms is against God's Word.

Pro GMO and Neutral Population

This is a representation of the average response (on a scale of 1-5, explained above). The black thin bars represent a standard deviation. Blue represents the response of those who identified themselves as "neutral" feeling towards GMOs prior to the survey. Green represents those who identified themselves as "Pro-GMO" before the survey.

Figure 1 Discussion

At first glance, Neutral and Pro-GMO responders had similar answers. There was not a dramatic difference between any questions. As this population was involved in iGEM, we assume at least a small base knowledge about GMOs. We were curious to see if more education would cause answers to be polar.

Overall, we did not see a high amount of difference between those who identified them as "Neutral" and those who identified themselves as "Pro-GMOs. This could be attributed to similar awareness levels for GMOs. We saw the highest difference in number 2, which asked if genetic engineering if important for medical research testing. This was surprising, yet it did have a higher standard deviation, so this may have been caused by a couple outlying answers.

Section Evaluation

Science

Overall, there was disagreement that genetically modified organisms are dangerous to human health, all biotechnology companies are only interested in gaining larger profits, and that genetically modified animal feed harms animals being fed. There was agreement that genetic engineering can be a faster way of crossbreeding. The Pro-GMO population agreed with the statement that genetic engineering is safe, while the Neutral population had a neutral response.

Regulation

Overall, responses averaged to be neutral but there was a stronger feeling toward the statements that genetically modified foods should be regulated by researchers.

Farming

The responses in the farming section showed that both Pro GMO and Neutral populations generally agreed that GMOs reduce the need for herbicides/pesticides, that GMOs produce a greater amount of plants than non GMO, and that farmers who use GMO seed tend to make more profit than those who do not. However, it was interesting to note that the Pro GMO population trended to have stronger feelings of agreement. This is what we would expect, since they have identified themselves as having stronger feelings. These questions are also often asked in debate between Anti GMO and Pro GMO populations. Both groups of Neutral and Pro GMO disagreed that prohibiting GMOs would stop the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds. This would suggest that using GMOs has no effect on herbicides, so this eliminates concern for this and may be able to promote the use.

Use

Responses of Pro GMO and Neutral populations also coincided in the Use section. There was slight agreement that we must currently use GMO food to feed the world, and strong agreement that they will be needed in the future to support the world's growing population. There was also agreement that GMOs as well as biotechnology have helped the survival of the human race. There was disagreement that GMO food should not be consumed or that GMOs are morally wrong or against God's Word.

Summer Camp Survey

Camp Survey Analysis

We were glad to see that our students answered number one more strongly to agree with scientists are able to extract genes from a glowing jellyfish and add the genes to the bacterium to make the bacterium glow as well as DNA being genetic information. We also were glad that they continued to disagree that genetic engineering is not important for medical research testing after they heard a presentation from Dr. Geurts about his application of genetic engineering in medicine. Our students disagreed strongly that genetic engineering results are predictable before and after the camp, but strongly agreed that they should be labeled. Overall, for the rest of our survey, the students remained neutral in response. This can be attributed to their new knowledge on biotechnology, and their lack of in depth research. Next year, we can aim to address some of these questions in the survey more directly to spur discussion between the students.