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

Line 10: Line 10:
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<div class= "project_superrow">
 
<div class= "project_superrow">
−
<div id= "page_title"><h1>Exploratory Research</h1>
+
<div id= "page_title">
 +
                                        <h1>Exploratory Research</h1>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
 
−
<div class="project_content">
 
−
<div class="project_row"><br>
 
−
<h1>Objectives</h1>
 
−
<p>Whilst risk assessment is a possible way to determine potential hazards, public communication
 
  
−
is another good practice in knowing how people think of our ideas. This year, we work beyond
+
<div id="bannerContainer">
 +
                                        <image src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/fe/HKUST-Rice15_Statistics.jpg" style="width: 80%; height: auto; position: center;">
  
−
the bench and inquire about the stakeholders’ opinions about microbial biosensor. The
+
</div>
 +
<div class="project_content">
 +
<div class="project_row">
 +
<hr class="para"><h1>Objectives</h1>
 +
<p>Presently, there is insufficient knowledge involving stakeholders and their opinion on using NPK 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 NPK biosensor is seemingly in a new field. Deploying an exploratory research is a possible way.<br><br>
  
−
collaboration of two universities expanded our focus group in the study of stakeholders’
+
To accomplish this purpose, the following research questions were addressed:<br><br>
 +
1. What are the perceived criteria regarding biosensor for NPK concentration detection?<br><br>
 +
2. What are the expected achievements in attaining sustainability in applying microbial NPK biosensor in their field?<br><br>
 +
3. How do perceptions of stakeholders change with the use of in-field microbial biosensor in terms of appropriateness of their settings?<br><br>
 +
4. How do perceptions of stakeholders change with the use of in-field microbial biosensor in terms of safety?
  
−
perceptions on the use of microbial biosensor. We are curious if they feel discomfort with synbio
+
</p>
−
 
+
−
applications and if they will perceive an in-field microbial biosensor as a Pandora’s box.</p>
+
  
 
 
Line 33: Line 37:
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
−
<h1>Target Groups</h1>
+
<h1>Methodology on analysis</h1>
−
<p>Future iGEMers may consider how a biosensor is designed for a safe use. In government and
+
<p>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.</p>
−
 
+
−
international organisations’ shoes, they may consider how these applications should be
+
−
 
+
−
regulated to reassure the public that the use of microbial biosensor is safe.</p>
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
Line 44: Line 44:
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
−
<h1>Methodology on analysis</h1>
+
<h1>Target Groups</h1>
−
<p>Now, human proceed to another watershed in which we are manipulating microorganisms to
+
<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.
−
 
+
−
offset the harms we brought about along the history. Ethical issue on treating microorganism as
+
−
 
+
−
a machine for the betterment of our lives popped out in recent years. It is time to consider
+
−
 
+
−
whether we are the creatures specially fashioned by God or playing God is simply a  
+
  
−
meaningless cliché.</p>
+
</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
Line 59: Line 53:
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<h1>Result</h1>
 
<h1>Result</h1>
−
<p>Now, human proceed to another watershed in which we are manipulating microorganisms to
+
                                        <image src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/3/3f/HKUST-Rice15_MediatingProcess.jpg.png" style="width: 100%; height: auto; position: left;">
 +
<p style=" text-align: center" ><strong>Graph 2.The paradigm of the interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field application of NPK microbial sensor </strong></p>
  
−
offset the harms we brought about along the history. Ethical issue on treating microorganism as
+
<p>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 GEM. <br><br>
  
−
a machine for the betterment of our lives popped out in recent years. It is time to consider  
+
The paradigm above illustrates interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field use of NPK microbial biosensors in their field (Graph 1). While most stakeholders still agreed that a biosensor possessing the expected characteristics would be an effective and efficient means to lowering their operation cost, reducing their manpower, knowing the test results quicker, and thereby making 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. <br><br>
  
−
whether we are the creatures specially fashioned by God or playing God is simply a
+
<br><br>
 +
</p>
  
−
meaningless cliché.</p>
 
  
−
<div id="bannerContainer">
 
−
                                        <image src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/fe/HKUST-Rice15_Statistics.jpg" style="width: 80%; height: auto; position: center;">
 
−
 
−
</div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="project_content">
 
<div class="project_content">
Line 78: Line 69:
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<h1>Perception of HK stakeholders</h1>
 
<h1>Perception of HK stakeholders</h1>
−
<p>Whilst risk assessment is a possible way to determine potential hazards, public communication
+
<p>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: (i) the biosensor is useless in their field, (ii) the biosensor is unable to achieve sustainability in either aspects, including economics, social and environmental, (iii) the biosensor is an inappropriate device in their field, (iv) the biosensor is not suitable to be used in their workplace, and (v) the perceived risks of the microbial biosensor outweighed the original perceived benefits.</p>
−
 
+
−
is another good practice in knowing how people think of our ideas. This year, we work beyond
+
−
 
+
−
the bench and inquire about the stakeholders’ opinions about microbial biosensor. The
+
−
 
+
−
collaboration of two universities expanded our focus group in the study of stakeholders’  
+
−
 
+
−
perceptions on the use of microbial biosensor. We are curious if they feel discomfort with synbio
+
−
 
+
−
applications and if they will perceive an in-field microbial biosensor as a Pandora’s box.</p>
+
  
 
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
 
−
<div class="project_row">
 
−
<hr class="para">
 
−
<h1>Hypotheses</h1>
 
−
<p>Future iGEMers may consider how a biosensor is designed for a safe use. In government and
 
  
−
international organisations’ shoes, they may consider how these applications should be
 
−
 
−
regulated to reassure the public that the use of microbial biosensor is safe.</p>
 
−
</div>
 
  
  
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
−
<h1>Future work</h1>
+
<h1>Future Research</h1>
−
<p>Now, human proceed to another watershed in which we are manipulating microorganisms to
+
<p>The conclusions drawn from the results offer a well-founded point of departure for future studies. Possible topics include: <br><br>
−
 
+
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.<br><br>
−
offset the harms we brought about along the history. Ethical issue on treating microorganism as
+
2. Projected cost differences between field-tested soil sensing devices--the proposed microbial biosensor compared to a chemical-based test kit.<br><br>
−
 
+
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?<br><br>
−
a machine for the betterment of our lives popped out in recent years. It is time to consider
+
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?<br><br>
−
 
+
5. The role of precision agriculture in current farming practices.  Could a microbial biosensor be applied to improve these large scale measurements?
−
whether we are the creatures specially fashioned by God or playing God is simply a  
+
</p>
−
 
+
−
meaningless cliché.</p>
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
Line 121: Line 91:
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<h1>Transcripts, pictures and recordings </h1>
 
<h1>Transcripts, pictures and recordings </h1>
−
<p>Now, human proceed to another watershed in which we are manipulating microorganisms to
+
<p>
−
 
+
</p>
−
offset the harms we brought about along the history. Ethical issue on treating microorganism as
+
−
 
+
−
a machine for the betterment of our lives popped out in recent years. It is time to consider
+
−
 
+
−
whether we are the creatures specially fashioned by God or playing God is simply a
+
−
 
+
−
meaningless cliché.</p>
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
  

Revision as of 10:29, 29 August 2015


Exploratory Research

Objectives

Presently, there is insufficient knowledge involving stakeholders and their opinion on using NPK 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 NPK 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 NPK concentration detection?

2. What are the expected achievements in attaining sustainability in applying microbial NPK 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.

Result

Graph 2.The paradigm of the interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field application of NPK 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 GEM.

The paradigm above illustrates interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field use of NPK microbial biosensors in their field (Graph 1). While most stakeholders still agreed that a biosensor possessing the expected characteristics would be an effective and efficient means to lowering their operation cost, reducing their manpower, knowing the test results quicker, and thereby making 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.



Perception 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: (i) the biosensor is useless in their field, (ii) the biosensor is unable to achieve sustainability in either aspects, including economics, social and environmental, (iii) the biosensor is an inappropriate device in their field, (iv) the biosensor is not suitable to be used in their workplace, and (v) the perceived risks of the microbial biosensor outweighed the original perceived benefits.

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, pictures and recordings