Difference between revisions of "Team:Waterloo/Practices/Survey"

Line 22: Line 22:
 
         <h2>GMOs</h2>
 
         <h2>GMOs</h2>
 
         <p>
 
         <p>
−
         The following section outlines the results collected from the <em> Attitude towards GMO </em> survey from <strong>60</strong>participants.  The statistics highlight participants’ opinions on the sale and consumption of genetically modified foods and organisms, as well as their thoughts on mandated labeling, further research, and safety of the technology.  We have identified several correlations for further discussion in our complex analysis below.  We hope this data can be used to form better strategies for presenting GMO products to the general public to ensure their viability in a consumer market.
+
         The following section outlines the results collected from the <em> Attitude towards GMO </em> survey from <strong>60</strong> participants.  The statistics highlight participants’ opinions on the sale and consumption of genetically modified foods and organisms, as well as their thoughts on mandated labeling, further research, and safety of the technology.  We have identified several correlations for further discussion in our complex analysis below.  We hope this data can be used to form better strategies for presenting GMO products to the general public to ensure their viability in a consumer market.
 
         </p>
 
         </p>
 
         <div class="panel-group" id="accordian" role="tablist" aria-multiselectable="true">
 
         <div class="panel-group" id="accordian" role="tablist" aria-multiselectable="true">

Revision as of 00:24, 19 September 2015

Survey

This year we decided to conduct two surveys to gain an understanding of how the community views the applications of our project. The surveys were conducted on campus, and it was open to all for participation. This allowed not only just students on campus but workers and professors to participate in the survey. Thus, allowing a wider more encompassing range of the University of Waterloo community for analysis. We extended our range to encompass the Waterloo/Kitchener community by hosting the surveys, with permission, at the Downtown Kitchener Market . With both communities we then assessed their opinions on the following topics:

  • Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
  • Genetically modified foods
  • CRISPR-cas9 sysmtem
  • Genetic Engineering

Not only were we looking for their opinions but we wondered if by changing the wording from GMOs to gene editing techniques on similar questions if answers would vary. This will be discussed at the end of this page.

The link at the end of this paragraph leads you to a folder that contains all of the raw survey data and primary analysis. Note the final graphs were touched up before placed on this page and might differ the graphs found within this folder. Supplementary Survey Data and Graphs

GMOs

The following section outlines the results collected from the Attitude towards GMO survey from 60 participants. The statistics highlight participants’ opinions on the sale and consumption of genetically modified foods and organisms, as well as their thoughts on mandated labeling, further research, and safety of the technology. We have identified several correlations for further discussion in our complex analysis below. We hope this data can be used to form better strategies for presenting GMO products to the general public to ensure their viability in a consumer market.

Knowledge

Figure A:Distribution of knowledge degree on GMOs.
Figure B:Distribution as to where survey participants obtained their knowledge on GMOs.
Figure C: Estimating the amount of available foods that contain GM ingredients.
Figure C: Estimating the amount of available foods that contain GM ingredients.
Figure F:The degree of which participants know the difference between mutagenesis and conventional breeding.

Opinion

Figure D:Percent of people who agree and do not agree with the sale of GMOs
Figure E:Percentage of people who agree or do not agree with continuing research in the GM foods field.
How many people want the GM food labelled.
The types of crops that the community would be most likely to buy.

Confidence

The confidence in GM food safety within the Waterloo/Kitchener community.
Figure A:Current or obtained level of degree and their knowledge of GMOs.
Figure B:Current or obtained level of education and how it effects choice of GM food sale.
Figure C:Does the understanding of GMOs effect confidence in safety?

Gene Editing

The following section outlines the results collected from the Gene Editing survey from 61 participants. The statistics highlight participants’ opinions on the sale and consumption of products that have been subjected to gene-editing, with special focus on the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The study reviews which applications and organisms have higher approval for genetic engineering, as well as thoughts on mandated labelling, further research, and safety of the technology. We have identified several correlations for further discussion in our complex analysis below. We hope this data can provide insight on the viable options for gene-editing applications based on consumer acceptance going forward.

Knowledge

Figure A: Knowledge of CRISPR-cas9 sysyem.
Figure B: Where is CRISPR-cas9 information obtained.

Opinion

Figure C: What would the community be okay with modifying genetically.
Figure D: What applications of engineering the community would be okay with.
Figure E: The opinion on if CRISPR-cas9 should be regulated in research.
Figure F:The degree to which the community would be okay to eating foods with CRISPR-cas9 technology in it.
Figure G: What foods are the community okay with eating.

Confidence

Figure H: The communities confidence levels in the safety of the CRISPR-cas9 system.
Figure A: Does degree level affect knowledge of GMO?
Figure B: Does degree affect what would you modify?
Figure C: Does degree effect choice on where genetic engineering can be applied?
Figure D: If knowing CRISPR affects choice in labelling.
Figure E: Understanding if those who are pro-plant gene editing would allow gene editing in the field of agriculture.
Figure F: Pro-genetic engineering and their opinion eating food with the CRISPR-csa9 system.

Comparing the two surveys

Within this section we will discuss the comparison of the two surveys.

Top