Difference between revisions of "Team:Vilnius-Lithuania/HumanPractices/Ethics"
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
<p class="text-justify">Firstly, we asked what is GMO, that is, which of a few following statements best describe GMOs. The results in numbers are provided in a Table 1. We can see that the most GMO fearful possible answer is not the first one in range and only takes up about 10 per cents of respondents. On the other hand, even a less number (9 per cents) of respondents thought that it could help them to improve their lives. The answer which received the least number of claimers (7 per cent) is the one we think people should be more familiar with. GMOs are not only crops or mice – bacteria as well. In this case – there is always some kind of miscommunication. When scientists talk about GMO having in mind bacteria, people think that all the information they hear is about plants or animals.</p> | <p class="text-justify">Firstly, we asked what is GMO, that is, which of a few following statements best describe GMOs. The results in numbers are provided in a Table 1. We can see that the most GMO fearful possible answer is not the first one in range and only takes up about 10 per cents of respondents. On the other hand, even a less number (9 per cents) of respondents thought that it could help them to improve their lives. The answer which received the least number of claimers (7 per cent) is the one we think people should be more familiar with. GMOs are not only crops or mice – bacteria as well. In this case – there is always some kind of miscommunication. When scientists talk about GMO having in mind bacteria, people think that all the information they hear is about plants or animals.</p> | ||
− | + | </html> | |
− | + | [[File:Vilnius15_pirmas.png |800px|thumb|<strong>Table 1.</strong>"What is GMO?" answer results|center]] | |
− | + | <html> | |
− | + | ||
<p class="text-justify">Afterwards people were asked more precisely to name the GMOs which are used for food (Table 2). This time the respondents were really active and every one expressed their opinion and knew at least one of the products. Respondents mentioned over 20 different items (but some of them were not even food). As there is no law that validates the GMO usage for food in Lithuania, people still know the most popular ones. We divided the answers into two groups – the ones that are the best known for people and the others that were named seldom. Among these rarely mentioned answers there were some interesting answers, which are not very true. So the first sights of disinformation appeared.</p> | <p class="text-justify">Afterwards people were asked more precisely to name the GMOs which are used for food (Table 2). This time the respondents were really active and every one expressed their opinion and knew at least one of the products. Respondents mentioned over 20 different items (but some of them were not even food). As there is no law that validates the GMO usage for food in Lithuania, people still know the most popular ones. We divided the answers into two groups – the ones that are the best known for people and the others that were named seldom. Among these rarely mentioned answers there were some interesting answers, which are not very true. So the first sights of disinformation appeared.</p> | ||
+ | </html> | ||
+ | [[File:Vilnius15_antras.png |800px|thumb|<strong>Table 2.</strong> GMO used for food|center]] | ||
+ | <html> | ||
<p class="text-justify">Following the question about products of GMO, the next one was about products which are not used for food. This time people were less active, but some of respondents were really well informed and mentioned precisely the names of hormones or proteins produced by GMM. At least 30 of them did not provided any answer ant almost the same number indicated that they do now know any! This makes almost half of sample group not knowing GM not-food-related products. And this is where the problem about miscommunication arises again. Scientists are usually talking precisely about this type of production, while general public interprets their talk as if they were talking about food: soya, corns or tomatoes.</p> | <p class="text-justify">Following the question about products of GMO, the next one was about products which are not used for food. This time people were less active, but some of respondents were really well informed and mentioned precisely the names of hormones or proteins produced by GMM. At least 30 of them did not provided any answer ant almost the same number indicated that they do now know any! This makes almost half of sample group not knowing GM not-food-related products. And this is where the problem about miscommunication arises again. Scientists are usually talking precisely about this type of production, while general public interprets their talk as if they were talking about food: soya, corns or tomatoes.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </html> | ||
+ | [[File:Vilnius15_trecias.png |800px|thumb|<strong>Table 3.</strong>|center]] | ||
+ | <html> | ||
<p class="text-justify">We are at least happy that about 10 per cent of respondents knew about the origin of insulin, as this fact was also the most astonishing for people during the presentations we made in public.</p> | <p class="text-justify">We are at least happy that about 10 per cent of respondents knew about the origin of insulin, as this fact was also the most astonishing for people during the presentations we made in public.</p> |
Revision as of 02:25, 19 September 2015