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

Line 58: Line 58:
  
 
<div id="bannerContainer" style=" padding: 20px;" >
 
<div id="bannerContainer" style=" padding: 20px;" >
                                         <a href= "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/e/e4/Team_HKUST-Rice15_The_Study_of_Stakeholders%27_Perceptions_towards_the_In-Field_Use_of_NPK_Microbial_Biosensor.pdf"target="_blank"><image class=" button" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/6c/Team_HKUST-Rice15_HPcover.png" style="width: 60%; height: auto; position: center;"></a>
+
                                         <a href= "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/b/be/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_The_Study_of_Stakeholders%27_Perceptions_towards_the_In-Field_Use_of_NPK_Microbial_Biosensor_Update.pdf" target="_blank"><image class=" button" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/6c/Team_HKUST-Rice15_HPcover.png" style="width: 60%; height: auto; position: center;"></a>
 
<p style=" font-size: 150%; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Click image for the full version of Exploratory Research Magazine </p>
 
<p style=" font-size: 150%; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Click image for the full version of Exploratory Research Magazine </p>
  

Revision as of 05:21, 17 September 2015


Exploratory Research

Click image for the full version of Exploratory Research Magazine


Objectives

Presently, there is insufficient knowledge involving stakeholders’ opinions on NPK biosensors. This observation is relevant to stakeholders not familiar with genetic engineering principles. The study of stakeholders’ perceptions on microbial NPK biosensors offers new insights into this problem. We use an exploratory research approach in an attempt to answer the following questions:

  1. What criteria govern selection of NPK detectors?
  2. What are the expectations regarding the sustainability of microbial NPK biosensors?
  3. How do stakeholders’ perceptions of microbial biosensors change with different settings?
  4. What are stakeholders’ perceptions of the safety of microbial biosensors?


Methodology on analysis

This exploratory research used interviews to query the perceptions of the participants. To validate the data collected, we used a post-positivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), triangulation (Denzin, 1994), member-checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and the audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).


Target Groups

The sample was drawn from Hong Kong and included potential users of the proposed device, researchers, and government officers; many participants demonstrated knowledge of research in genetic engineering and its possible applications. The ultimate intent of the research was to provide a paradigm for understanding how people perceive the in-field application of microbial biosensors. The findings from this research could enable researchers to address appropriateness and safety concerns. Furthermore, these findings could enable stakeholders to decide whether to apply microbial biosensors in their field. If the stakeholders choose to use microbial biosensors, further research 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 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 genetically engineered machine (GEM).

The paradigm above illustrates interviewees’ perceptions on the in-field use of NPK 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 NPK 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 NPK 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 NPK 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 NPK biosensor, which can only detect specific compounds, as an insufficient measurement. They perceived an effective microbial NPK 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 NPK 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?