Team:INSA-Lyon/Perception

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 49: Line 49:
<p>The results underwent a process of clustering, a computed algorithm aiming at roughly distribute them in different groups according to their answers. By the end of the process all the people who had answered similarly were put together in the same group. From that process we sorted out five « clusters » (the groups), each with a different profile of answers.</p></br>  
<p>The results underwent a process of clustering, a computed algorithm aiming at roughly distribute them in different groups according to their answers. By the end of the process all the people who had answered similarly were put together in the same group. From that process we sorted out five « clusters » (the groups), each with a different profile of answers.</p></br>  
-
<p>We note that the ones with the most people have the opposite profiles : 24% (in the cluster_0) of the surveyed knew about synthetic biology, the issues it poses but were still supportive of it, or at least not against it, while 25% (the cluster_3) knew a little less about it but were completely opposed to using its products. After them, 17% of people (cluster_1) have, like in the cluster_3, 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. The two remaining clusters are similar in regard of how little known synthetic biology is (very little for cluster_4 and not at all for cluster_2). However, as we can see there’s a paradox in the answer of cluster_4, 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 cluster_2 (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>We note that the ones with the most people have the opposite profiles : 24% (Informed-Favorable) of the surveyed knew about synthetic biology, the issues it poses but were still supportive of it, or at least not against it, while 25% (Little informed-Unfavorable) knew a little less about it but were completely opposed to using its products. After them, 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. 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>

Revision as of 18:50, 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 with the aim of understanding the perception of synthetic biology and the impact of our biotechnology project by public opinion. We insist on historic approach of biology in Lyon (France) because it shows how a population on a city scale co-building science, technology and health, environment in the middle of society.


  • International survey

  • CurLy'on for dummies

  • Walk in the Lyon Biopole

Retrieved from "http://2014.igem.org/Team:INSA-Lyon/Perception"