Difference between revisions of "Team:HKUST-Rice/Practices ExploratoryResearch"

Line 21: Line 21:
 
                                 top:40%;
 
                                 top:40%;
 
                                   }
 
                                   }
 +
 +
div.project_row ul a, div.project_row ul{
 +
text-align:left;
 +
margin: 30px 30px;
 +
line-height: 1.6em;
 +
font-size: 1.2em;
 +
font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;
 +
padding:inherit 10%;
 +
        color:#0b0b17;
 +
}
 +
 
                        
 
                        
 
           </style>  
 
           </style>  
Line 76: Line 87:
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<h1>Target Groups</h1>
 
<h1>Target Groups</h1>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/d/d0/Team-HKUST-Rice15_Hande_Farm.jpg" style="width: 50%; float: right; padding-left:20px;">
 
<p>The sample was drawn from Hong Kong, including possible end-users, researchers and government officers, where more people are aware of the research in genetic engineering and the possibility of its application in environment or in their field. The ultimate intent of the research was to provide a paradigm for understanding how people perceive the in-field application of microbial biosensor. The findings from this research could enable the researchers to respond to the appropriateness of applying the microbial biosensor in a particular field and to the safety concerns of the application, and provide a paradigm for other stakeholders to decide whether to apply microbial biosensor in their field. And if the stakeholders decide to apply microbial biosensor in their field, further research, for example quantitative analysis of their perception, based on this study’s finding could help establish guidelines for promoting awareness of the pros and cons of the application of in-field microbial biosensor.
 
<p>The sample was drawn from Hong Kong, including possible end-users, researchers and government officers, where more people are aware of the research in genetic engineering and the possibility of its application in environment or in their field. The ultimate intent of the research was to provide a paradigm for understanding how people perceive the in-field application of microbial biosensor. The findings from this research could enable the researchers to respond to the appropriateness of applying the microbial biosensor in a particular field and to the safety concerns of the application, and provide a paradigm for other stakeholders to decide whether to apply microbial biosensor in their field. And if the stakeholders decide to apply microbial biosensor in their field, further research, for example quantitative analysis of their perception, based on this study’s finding could help establish guidelines for promoting awareness of the pros and cons of the application of in-field microbial biosensor.
  
Line 189: Line 201:
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
−
<h1>Transcripts, pictures and recordings </h1>
+
<h1>Transcripts of interview </h1>
−
<p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/e3/Team-HKUST-Rice15_Zen_Organic_Farm.jpg" style="width: 50%; float: right; padding-left:20px;">
−
</p>
+
<ul>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Mr Yu-Wing WONG, Organic Farmer</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Mr Yat-Man TO, Organic Farmer of e-FARM</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Mr LAM, Organic Farmer of Fonley Organic & Friends</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Mr TANG, Organic Farmer of Hande Farm</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Mr YIP, Organic Farmer of Natural Network Farm</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Mr NG, Organic Farmer</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Mr CHAN, iVeggie hydroponic farm operator</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Prof Hong-Ming LAM</a></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/4/4d/Team-HKUST-Rice15-Zen_Organic_Farm4.jpg" style="width: 50%; float: left; padding-right:20px;">
 +
<br><ul>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Ms Nga-Yee LAI</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Ms Christine CHIU, HSEO Senior Officer, Past Regional Jamboree Judge</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Dr. Daniel TANG, Chemist of Hong Kong Drainage Service Department</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Dr. On-On "Joanne" LEE, Fisheries Officer (Aquacultural Environment), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, HKSAR</a></li>
 +
<li><a href="#"target="_blank">Dr. Sai-Chit NG, Conservation Officer (ConO/B4) Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, HKSAR</a></li>
 +
</ul>
 
</div>
 
</div>
  

Revision as of 12:35, 15 September 2015


Exploratory Research

Click image for the full version of Exploratory Research Magazine

Objectives

Presently, there is insufficient knowledge involving stakeholders and their opinion on using KPN microbial biosensor. This is chiefly the case in situations with weak research environments on the study of stakeholders’ perceptions, and in relatively emerging field in which there is insufficient evidence to categorically define them. The study of stakeholders’ perceptions on using microbial KPN biosensor is seemingly in a new field. Deploying an exploratory research is a possible way.

To accomplish this purpose, the following research questions were addressed:

  1. What are the perceived criteria regarding biosensor for KPN concentration detection?
  2. What are the expected achievements in attaining sustainability in applying microbial KPN biosensor in their field?
  3. How do perceptions of stakeholders change with the use of in-field microbial biosensor in terms of appropriateness of their settings?
  4. How do perceptions of stakeholders change with the use of in-field microbial biosensor in terms of safety?

Methodology on analysis

The research questions were examined and validated through various exploratory experimentations. In this research, interviews were used to query the beliefs and perceptions of the participants. Taking a post-positivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), triangulation (Denzin, 1994), member-checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and the audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were used to validate the data collected.

Target Groups

The sample was drawn from Hong Kong, including possible end-users, researchers and government officers, where more people are aware of the research in genetic engineering and the possibility of its application in environment or in their field. The ultimate intent of the research was to provide a paradigm for understanding how people perceive the in-field application of microbial biosensor. The findings from this research could enable the researchers to respond to the appropriateness of applying the microbial biosensor in a particular field and to the safety concerns of the application, and provide a paradigm for other stakeholders to decide whether to apply microbial biosensor in their field. And if the stakeholders decide to apply microbial biosensor in their field, further research, for example quantitative analysis of their perception, based on this study’s finding could help establish guidelines for promoting awareness of the pros and cons of the application of in-field microbial biosensor.

Results

Figure.1 The paradigm of the interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field application of KPN microbial sensor

The participants’ perceptions and emergent themes are consistent with the literature review, in terms of soil and water quality management schemes, local soil and water testing methods, soil management in organic farms, and the international and local regulations on the deliberate release of genetically engineered machine (GEM).

The paradigm above illustrates interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field use of KPN microbial biosensors in their field. While most stakeholders agreed that a biosensor possessing the expected characteristics would be an effective and efficient means to lower their operation cost, reduce their manpower, know the test results quicker, and thereby make immediate strategy to manage soil or water, etc.; followed by notifying the involvement of GEM in the device, stakeholders began to consider how the desired biosensor actually fits into their field. They believed the design should be suitable to their field and considered its appropriateness. Ultimately, stakeholders reflected on potential risks; at the same time, they balanced the perceived benefits and perceived harms of using the microbial biosensor.

Learn more in Exploratory Research Magazine...

Perceptions of HK stakeholders

Ultimately, stakeholders reflected on potential risks; at the same time, they balanced the perceived benefits and perceived harms of using the microbial biosensor. Most stakeholders’ perceptions follow a single path and the majority has no intention to use for the following reasons:

  1. the biosensor is useless in their field,
  2. the biosensor is unable to achieve sustainability in either aspects, including economics, social and environmental,
  3. the biosensor is an inappropriate device in their field,
  4. the biosensor is not suitable to be used in their workplace, and
  5. the perceived risks of the microbial biosensor outweighed the original perceived benefits.


  1. The Expected Achievements in Sustainability
    1. Achieving Eco-Environmental Sustainability
      - FOCUS ON MY NEEDS, NOT ON THE FEES

      Stakeholders were asked about how they perceived the use of microbial KPN biosensor as an effective means to utilise available resources efficiently and responsibly.

      Local organic farmers believed a microbial biosensing should be cheaper than contemporary soil testing methods, and the device should be tolerable and renewable so as to minimise the operation cost. They perceived a microbial KPN biosensor could constantly monitor the fluctuation of soil nutrient concentrations.

      In maintaining the water quality of Gei Wai, a traditional Chinese tidal shrimp pond, Ms Nag-Yee LAI, WWF-HK reserve officer in Mai Po shared the same view towards the device that it should be economically viable.

    2. Socio-Environmental Sustainability
      - CRADLE-TO-CRADLE

      Ms LAI also perceived the KPN microbial biosensor could possibly be a tool in understanding the ecology of Gei Wai as the device would be useful for the surveillance of algal bloom by understanding the ecosystem of the Mai Po reservation zone.

    3. Achieving Socio-Economical Sustainability
      - ACCOUNTABILITY & RESPONSIBILITY ARE HARD

      Ms Christine CHIU, a biosafety specialist in the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, perceived the microbial biosensor should be viable for the poors. Valuing the work ethics of researchers and designers the most, Christine shared a holistic view towards biosafety of microbial biosensors: they should be accountable and responsible to safeguard human health and the ecosystem.

  2. Perceived Usefulness
    1. Effectiveness and Efficiency
      - ONE DEVICE, ONE UNRIVALLED SENSING

      Local organic farmers perceive microbial KPN biosensor, which can only detect specific compounds, as an insufficient measurement. They perceived an effective microbial KPN biosensor should give a complete profile of the nutrients. Speed is not a concern for most of the local organic farmers.

      Prof Hon-Ming Lam, agro-biotechnologist, pointed out the practicality for an effective microbial biosensing. For the possibility of using microbial biosensor to measure soil ionomics, he perceived it would be inefficient since physical method is good enough. Similar view is shared by Mr CHAN, iVeggie hydroponic farm operator in HK, who doubted the efficiency of the microbial biosensor for the detection of the ion concentrations comparing to automated detection facilities in his farm.

      As for the N and K detection in marine environment, Dr Tin-Ki TAM, technician of the HKUST Coastal Marine Laboratory worried the detection environment, in which innumerable factors present would interfere the accuracy of biosensing.

      On the contrary, conservation officer valued the efficiency in generating data and data processing for analysing the nitrate and phosphate concentrations in the traditional tidal shrimp ponds due to the limited manpower.

  3. Changes of Perceptions

    Stakeholders are informed about biosensing involved the use of GEM. Most stakeholders had reservations or negative perceptions regarding on this application.

    1. The Appropriateness of Settings
      - THE MICROBIAL BIOSENSOR TOPS CONCERNS

      Overall, the stakeholders were most concerned with the appropriateness and suitability of using GEM or the GEM-containing device in their field. Some organic farmers believed the application of in-field GMO-containing devices violated the principles of organic farming.

      As in natural reservation zone, conservation officer hesitated and pointed out the possibility that the GEM-containing device would be treated as inappropriate in reservation zone.

    2. The Perceived Risks
      - MICROBIAL BIOSENSOR: SABOTEUR OF THE STATUS QUO?

      Even if it could be an appropriate use, stakeholder questioned on the esoteric character of in-field GEM. They were aware of the risks of using GEM in their field and balancing the perceived risk against the perceived usefulness.

      All organic farmers were hesitated and/or resisted to adopt an in-field microbial biosensor in order to avoid any possible accidents.

      Chemist in Hong Kong Drainage Service Department was suggested using KPN microbial biosensor for in-the-tank detection, he believed the quantity of microbes in the device would be in small quantity and could be handled by disinfection system for any leakage, though leakage may occur after disinfection.

Learn more in Exploratory Research Magazine...

Future Research

The conclusions drawn from the results offer a well-founded point of departure for future studies. Possible topics include:

  1. An investigation of what proportion of the general population perceives biosensors as a risky endeavour with respect to the agricultural goods they consume, especially food products.
  2. Projected cost differences between field-tested soil sensing devices--the proposed microbial biosensor compared to a chemical-based test kit.
  3. A study on differences in time between sample collection and useful results for both the proposed microbial biosensor as well as traditional chemical soil detection methods. How important is this time point to the stakeholders?
  4. The implications of microbial biosensing technology on the existing agricultural workforce. Would the implementation of the proposed device reduce the need for additional manpower? In other words, how does the use of a microbial biosensor affect perceptions of job availability in the agricultural field?
  5. The role of precision agriculture in current farming practices. Could a microbial biosensor be applied to improve these large scale measurements?

Transcripts of interview