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

Line 79: Line 79:
 
                       <figure>
 
                       <figure>
 
                         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/7e/Waterloo_differencesbetweenmutaandconvetionalbreeding.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                         <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/7e/Waterloo_differencesbetweenmutaandconvetionalbreeding.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                         <figcpation>Figure E:The degree of which participants know the difference between mutagenesis and conventional breeding.</figcaption>
+
                         <figcpation>Figure E:The degree of which participants are aware the difference between mutagenesis and conventional breeding.</figcaption>
 
                       </div>
 
                       </div>
 
                     </div>
 
                     </div>
Line 109: Line 109:
 
                           <figure>
 
                           <figure>
 
                           <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/eb/Waterloo_labellingGMfoods.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                           <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/eb/Waterloo_labellingGMfoods.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                           <figcaption>Figure H:How many people want the GM food labelled.</figcaption>
+
                           <figcaption>Figure H:Degree with with poeple agree with GM food labeling.</figcaption>
 
                           </figure>
 
                           </figure>
 
                         </div>
 
                         </div>
Line 136: Line 136:
 
               </div>
 
               </div>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>
−
          <h4><strong>Knowledge</strong></h4>
 
−
          <p> The majority of participants had not previously heard of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system prior to the survey. Of those that were knowledgeable on the subject, their information came from a multitude of sources. Websites, news articles, scientific journals, and word of mouth were all heavy sources of information. A breakdown of the sources is displayed in <em>Figure B</em>. Of note, only 3.3% of participants had gained any information about gene-editing from food labels.
 
−
        </p>
 
−
        <h4><strong>Opinion</strong></h4>
 
−
        <p> On the opinion of gene editing applications, there did not appear to be an overarching preference for the technology in any specific area. In fact, there was no substantial consensus on particular applications and organisms that were sanctioned for genetic engineering, providing evidence that gene-editing is a generally validated technique among the public. Surprisingly, there was not a large skew away from applications that involve greater ethical sensitivity. For example, about 14% of participants were okay with genetically modifying humans <em>(Figure C)</em>.  Only 4.2% of participants believed no organisms should be genetically modified, suggesting a high approval rate for gene-editing technologies<em> (Figure C)</em>.
 
−
        </p>
 
−
        <p>Participants were most accepting of using genetic engineering in plants, with 31% approval.  For perspective, ‘Lab Animals’ had the second greatest approval at 21%.  This data is summed up in <em> Figure C</em>. The agriculture industry was likewise favored as an area with high approval for genetic engineering applications.  Interestingly, there was dissonance with participants when asked whether they would actually consume foods that have had some degree of gene editing. <em> Figure F</em> demonstrates a lack of certainty in the consumption of produce with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Only 16.4% of participants were certain with their consumption, compared to the 20% that sanctioned CRISPR-Cas9 technology for agriculture.  About 30% of participants were on the fence, but overall, a greater amount were closer to consumption (5) than non-consumption (1). When asked what foods they were okay with eating in <em>Figure G</em>, organic foods and foods grown without pesticides held a slight majority.  Interestingly, more people were okay with eating CRISPR foods than non-CRISPR foods, whereas less were okay with eating GM foods than non-GM foods. This offers a potential trend in the reputation of gene-editing over GMO technology. These results are taken in the context that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was not widely understood among participants, potentially causing discourse in opinions.
 
−
        </p>
 
−
        <p>Participants appeared to be most compliant with using gene editing for medical and research applications, although 70% agreed that regulations for CRISPR-Cas9 should exist in a research setting.
 
−
        </p>
 
−
        <h4><strong> Confidence</strong></h4>
 
−
        <p> Despite the general acceptance in using CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing techniques in a multitude of applications and organisms, there is still an underwhelming confidence in the safety of the tool. <em> Figure H</em> shows that only 4.9% of participants were completely confident in saying the technology was safe. About half fell in the middle.
 
−
        </p>
 
−
        <h4><strong>Conclusions</strong></h4>
 
−
        <p>The data suggests that the biggest challenges facing gene-editing technologies, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system, are the lack of understanding and awareness of the tool itself, and lack of confidence in its safety within the general public. Barring this, many people favor its use in research and industrial applications.
 
−
        </p>
 
 
           <div class="panel panel-default">
 
           <div class="panel panel-default">
 
             <div class="panel-heading" role="tab" id="headingTwo">
 
             <div class="panel-heading" role="tab" id="headingTwo">
Line 169: Line 153:
 
                       <figure>
 
                       <figure>
 
                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/b7/Waterloo_educationadnknowGMOs.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/b7/Waterloo_educationadnknowGMOs.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                       <figcaption>Figure A:Current or obtained level of degree and their knowledge of GMOs.</figcaption>
+
                       <figcaption>Figure A:The knowledge of GMOs based on the participants degree.</figcaption>
 
                       </figure>
 
                       </figure>
 
                     </div>
 
                     </div>
Line 187: Line 171:
 
                       <figure>
 
                       <figure>
 
                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/1/14/Waterloo_knowledgeversussafetyconfidence.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/1/14/Waterloo_knowledgeversussafetyconfidence.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                       <figcaption>Figure C:Does the understanding of GMOs effect confidence in safety?</figcaption>
+
                       <figcaption>Figure C:Does the understanding of GMOs affect their confidence in safety?</figcaption>
 
                       </figure>
 
                       </figure>
 
                     </div>
 
                     </div>
Line 225: Line 209:
 
                                     <figure>
 
                                     <figure>
 
                                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/ee/Waterloo_knowCRISPR.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/ee/Waterloo_knowCRISPR.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                                       <figcaption>Figure A: Knowledge of CRISPR-cas9 sysyem.</figcaption>
+
                                       <figcaption>Figure A: Knowledge of CRISPR-cas9 system.</figcaption>
 
                                     </figure>
 
                                     </figure>
 
                                   </div>
 
                                   </div>
Line 231: Line 215:
 
                                     <figure>
 
                                     <figure>
 
                                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/1/1d/Waterloo_whereobtainknowledgeonCRISPR.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                                       <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/1/1d/Waterloo_whereobtainknowledgeonCRISPR.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                                       <figcaption>Figure B: Where is CRISPR-cas9 information obtained.</figcaption>
+
                                       <figcaption>Figure B: Where do the participants obtain CRISPR-cas9 information.</figcaption>
 
                                     </figure>
 
                                     </figure>
 
                                   </div>
 
                                   </div>
Line 244: Line 228:
 
                             <figure>
 
                             <figure>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/71/Waterloo_okaywithwhatbeingengineered.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/7/71/Waterloo_okaywithwhatbeingengineered.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                               <figcaption>Figure C: What would the community be okay with modifying genetically.</figcaption>
+
                               <figcaption>Figure C: What organisms would the community be okay with modifying genetically.</figcaption>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </figure>
 
                           </div>
 
                           </div>
Line 250: Line 234:
 
                             <figure>
 
                             <figure>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/63/Waterloo_applicationsofgeneticengineering.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/63/Waterloo_applicationsofgeneticengineering.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                               <figcaption>Figure D: What applications of engineering the community would be okay with.</figcaption>
+
                               <figcaption>Figure D: What applications of genetic engineering would the community be okay with.</figcaption>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </figure>
 
                           </div>
 
                           </div>
Line 262: Line 246:
 
                           <figure>
 
                           <figure>
 
                             <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/4/4b/Waterloo_CRISPRcas9regulatedinresearch.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                             <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/4/4b/Waterloo_CRISPRcas9regulatedinresearch.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                             <figcaption>Figure E: The opinion on if CRISPR-cas9 should be regulated in research.</figcaption>
+
                             <figcaption>Figure E: The opinion on CRISPR-cas9 research regulation.</figcaption>
 
                           </figure>
 
                           </figure>
 
                         </div>
 
                         </div>
Line 279: Line 263:
 
                         <div class="col-sm-6 text-center">
 
                         <div class="col-sm-6 text-center">
 
                           <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/e3/Watrloo_whatfoodwouldyoueat.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                           <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/e3/Watrloo_whatfoodwouldyoueat.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                           <figcaption>Figure G: What foods are the community okay with eating.</figcaption>
+
                           <figcaption>Figure G: The different types of food the community would consume.</figcaption>
 
                         </div>
 
                         </div>
 
                       </div>
 
                       </div>
Line 290: Line 274:
 
                         <div class="col-sm-6 text-center">
 
                         <div class="col-sm-6 text-center">
 
                           <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/d/d6/Waterloo_safetyofCRISPR.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                           <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/d/d6/Waterloo_safetyofCRISPR.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                           <figcaption>Figure H: The communities confidence levels in the safety of the CRISPR-cas9 system.</figcaption>
+
                           <figcaption>Figure H: The confidence in the safety of the CRISPR-cas9 system within the Waterloo/Kitchener community.</figcaption>
 
                         </div>
 
                         </div>
 
                       </div>
 
                       </div>
Line 298: Line 282:
 
                 </div>
 
                 </div>
 
             </div>
 
             </div>
 +
          <h4><strong>Knowledge</strong></h4>
 +
          <p> The majority of participants had not previously heard of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system prior to the survey. Of those that were knowledgeable on the subject, their information came from a multitude of sources. Websites, news articles, scientific journals, and word of mouth were all heavy sources of information. A breakdown of the sources is displayed in <em>Figure B</em>. Of note, only 3.3% of participants had gained any information about gene-editing from food labels.
 +
        </p>
 +
        <h4><strong>Opinion</strong></h4>
 +
        <p> On the opinion of gene editing applications, there did not appear to be an overarching preference for the technology in any specific area. In fact, there was no substantial consensus on particular applications and organisms that were sanctioned for genetic engineering, providing evidence that gene-editing is a generally validated technique among the public. Surprisingly, there was not a large skew away from applications that involve greater ethical sensitivity. For example, about 14% of participants were okay with genetically modifying humans <em>(Figure C)</em>.  Only 4.2% of participants believed no organisms should be genetically modified, suggesting a high approval rate for gene-editing technologies<em> (Figure C)</em>.
 +
        </p>
 +
        <p>Participants were most accepting of using genetic engineering in plants, with 31% approval.  For perspective, ‘Lab Animals’ had the second greatest approval at 21%.  This data is summed up in <em> Figure C</em>. The agriculture industry was likewise favored as an area with high approval for genetic engineering applications.  Interestingly, there was dissonance with participants when asked whether they would actually consume foods that have had some degree of gene editing. <em> Figure F</em> demonstrates a lack of certainty in the consumption of produce with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Only 16.4% of participants were certain with their consumption, compared to the 20% that sanctioned CRISPR-Cas9 technology for agriculture.  About 30% of participants were on the fence, but overall, a greater amount were closer to consumption (5) than non-consumption (1). When asked what foods they were okay with eating in <em>Figure G</em>, organic foods and foods grown without pesticides held a slight majority.  Interestingly, more people were okay with eating CRISPR foods than non-CRISPR foods, whereas less were okay with eating GM foods than non-GM foods. This offers a potential trend in the reputation of gene-editing over GMO technology. These results are taken in the context that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was not widely understood among participants, potentially causing discourse in opinions.
 +
        </p>
 +
        <p>Participants appeared to be most compliant with using gene editing for medical and research applications, although 70% agreed that regulations for CRISPR-Cas9 should exist in a research setting.
 +
        </p>
 +
        <h4><strong> Confidence</strong></h4>
 +
        <p> Despite the general acceptance in using CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing techniques in a multitude of applications and organisms, there is still an underwhelming confidence in the safety of the tool. <em> Figure H</em> shows that only 4.9% of participants were completely confident in saying the technology was safe. About half fell in the middle.
 +
        </p>
 +
        <h4><strong>Conclusions</strong></h4>
 +
        <p>The data suggests that the biggest challenges facing gene-editing technologies, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system, are the lack of understanding and awareness of the tool itself, and lack of confidence in its safety within the general public. Barring this, many people favor its use in research and industrial applications.
 +
        </p>
 
             <div class="panel panel-default">
 
             <div class="panel panel-default">
 
                 <div class="panel-heading" role="tab" id="headingFour">
 
                 <div class="panel-heading" role="tab" id="headingFour">
Line 315: Line 315:
 
                             <figure>
 
                             <figure>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/c/c4/Waterloo_levelofeducatiovsCRISPRcas9.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/c/c4/Waterloo_levelofeducatiovsCRISPRcas9.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                               <figcaption>Figure A: Does degree level affect knowledge of GMO?</figcaption>
+
                               <figcaption>Figure A: Does knowledge of GMOs depend on level of education.</figcaption>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </div>
 
                             </div>
Line 321: Line 321:
 
                             <figure>
 
                             <figure>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/d/d8/Waterloo_degreeandwhatwouldyoumodify.jpg" at=""/>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/d/d8/Waterloo_degreeandwhatwouldyoumodify.jpg" at=""/>
−
                               <figcaption>Figure B: Does degree affect what would you modify?</figcaption>
+
                               <figcaption>Figure B: Would choices of gene modifications be affected by level of education.</figcaption>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </div>
 
                             </div>
Line 333: Line 333:
 
                             <figure>
 
                             <figure>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/1/1f/Waterloo_educationapplicationofgeneediting.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/1/1f/Waterloo_educationapplicationofgeneediting.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                               <figcaption>Figure C: Does degree effect choice on where genetic engineering can be applied?</figcaption>
+
                               <figcaption>Figure C: Does degree effect choice on where genetic engineering should be applied?</figcaption>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </div>
 
                             </div>
Line 339: Line 339:
 
                             <figure>
 
                             <figure>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/b4/Waterloo_CRISPRknowlabellingchoice.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/b4/Waterloo_CRISPRknowlabellingchoice.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                               <figcaption>Figure D: If knowing CRISPR affects choice in labelling.</figcaption>
+
                               <figcaption>Figure D: If knowing CRISPR affects the participants' choices in labeling.</figcaption>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </div>
 
                             </div>
Line 357: Line 357:
 
                             <figure>
 
                             <figure>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/f9/Waterloo_degreeandwhoisprogeneediting.jpg" alt=""/>
 
                               <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/f9/Waterloo_degreeandwhoisprogeneediting.jpg" alt=""/>
−
                               <figcaption>Figure F: Pro-genetic engineering and their opinion eating food with the CRISPR-csa9 system.</figcaption>
+
                               <figcaption>Figure F: Pro-genetic engineering and their opinion on eating food with the CRISPR-csa9 system.</figcaption>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </figure>
 
                             </div>
 
                             </div>

Revision as of 01:45, 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:Degree of knowledge of 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 D: Estimating the amount of available foods that contain GM ingredients.
Figure E:The degree of which participants are aware the difference between mutagenesis and conventional breeding.

Opinion

Figure F:Percent of people who agree and do not agree with the sale of GMOs
Figure G:Percentage of people who agree or do not agree with continuing research in the GM foods field.
Figure H:Degree with with poeple agree with GM food labeling.
Figure I:The types of crops that the community would be most likely to buy.

Confidence

Figure J:The confidence in GM food safety within the Waterloo/Kitchener community.
Figure A:The knowledge of GMOs based on the participants degree.
Figure B:Current or obtained level of education and how it effects choice of GM food sale.
Figure C:Does the understanding of GMOs affect their 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 system.
Figure B: Where do the participants obtain CRISPR-cas9 information.

Opinion

Figure C: What organisms would the community be okay with modifying genetically.
Figure D: What applications of genetic engineering would the community be okay with.
Figure E: The opinion on CRISPR-cas9 research regulation.
Figure F:The degree to which the community would be okay to eating foods with CRISPR-cas9 technology in it.
Figure G: The different types of food the community would consume.

Confidence

Figure H: The confidence in the safety of the CRISPR-cas9 system within the Waterloo/Kitchener community.

Knowledge

The majority of participants had not previously heard of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system prior to the survey. Of those that were knowledgeable on the subject, their information came from a multitude of sources. Websites, news articles, scientific journals, and word of mouth were all heavy sources of information. A breakdown of the sources is displayed in Figure B. Of note, only 3.3% of participants had gained any information about gene-editing from food labels.

Opinion

On the opinion of gene editing applications, there did not appear to be an overarching preference for the technology in any specific area. In fact, there was no substantial consensus on particular applications and organisms that were sanctioned for genetic engineering, providing evidence that gene-editing is a generally validated technique among the public. Surprisingly, there was not a large skew away from applications that involve greater ethical sensitivity. For example, about 14% of participants were okay with genetically modifying humans (Figure C). Only 4.2% of participants believed no organisms should be genetically modified, suggesting a high approval rate for gene-editing technologies (Figure C).

Participants were most accepting of using genetic engineering in plants, with 31% approval. For perspective, ‘Lab Animals’ had the second greatest approval at 21%. This data is summed up in Figure C. The agriculture industry was likewise favored as an area with high approval for genetic engineering applications. Interestingly, there was dissonance with participants when asked whether they would actually consume foods that have had some degree of gene editing. Figure F demonstrates a lack of certainty in the consumption of produce with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Only 16.4% of participants were certain with their consumption, compared to the 20% that sanctioned CRISPR-Cas9 technology for agriculture. About 30% of participants were on the fence, but overall, a greater amount were closer to consumption (5) than non-consumption (1). When asked what foods they were okay with eating in Figure G, organic foods and foods grown without pesticides held a slight majority. Interestingly, more people were okay with eating CRISPR foods than non-CRISPR foods, whereas less were okay with eating GM foods than non-GM foods. This offers a potential trend in the reputation of gene-editing over GMO technology. These results are taken in the context that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was not widely understood among participants, potentially causing discourse in opinions.

Participants appeared to be most compliant with using gene editing for medical and research applications, although 70% agreed that regulations for CRISPR-Cas9 should exist in a research setting.

Confidence

Despite the general acceptance in using CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing techniques in a multitude of applications and organisms, there is still an underwhelming confidence in the safety of the tool. Figure H shows that only 4.9% of participants were completely confident in saying the technology was safe. About half fell in the middle.

Conclusions

The data suggests that the biggest challenges facing gene-editing technologies, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system, are the lack of understanding and awareness of the tool itself, and lack of confidence in its safety within the general public. Barring this, many people favor its use in research and industrial applications.

Figure A: Does knowledge of GMOs depend on level of education.
Figure B: Would choices of gene modifications be affected by level of education.
Figure C: Does degree effect choice on where genetic engineering should be applied?
Figure D: If knowing CRISPR affects the participants' choices in labeling.
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 on eating food with the CRISPR-csa9 system.

Comparing the Two surveys

Figure A: Seeing how many people know GMO and CRISPR-cas9.
Figure B: Comparing the opinions on labeling for GMOs and CRISPR-cas9 system.
Figure C: Comparing to see who would eat which technology.
Top