Difference between revisions of "Team:Warwick/PracticesPerception"
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
<div class="fifteen columns noleftmargin"> | <div class="fifteen columns noleftmargin"> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<p> | <p> | ||
Synthetic biology is considered a relatively new field of science and with this comes a mixture of public perceptions varying from outright fear to interest regarding its novelty. The applications of synthetic biology continue to penetrate various fields, from biotech, medical applications, sustainability to decreasing resource dependency. With a wide branching range it can be difficult to assess and view how the research is impacting people; as clearly this can happen in a variety of ways. Being a cutting edge field of research also engages the public’s imaginations from its potential uses. Some of these may enter the realm of science fiction, and any new discoveries that are made can be circulated by the media and filter into popular culture. | Synthetic biology is considered a relatively new field of science and with this comes a mixture of public perceptions varying from outright fear to interest regarding its novelty. The applications of synthetic biology continue to penetrate various fields, from biotech, medical applications, sustainability to decreasing resource dependency. With a wide branching range it can be difficult to assess and view how the research is impacting people; as clearly this can happen in a variety of ways. Being a cutting edge field of research also engages the public’s imaginations from its potential uses. Some of these may enter the realm of science fiction, and any new discoveries that are made can be circulated by the media and filter into popular culture. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 37: | ||
Given the bidirectionality of influence between science and society we decided to investigate public perceptions on gene technologies. We began by interviewing a psychologist from the University of Warwick, John Pickering, then we assessed the historic literature on the subject, before conducting our own survey during an outreach session in ThinkTank Museum in Birmingham, UK. | Given the bidirectionality of influence between science and society we decided to investigate public perceptions on gene technologies. We began by interviewing a psychologist from the University of Warwick, John Pickering, then we assessed the historic literature on the subject, before conducting our own survey during an outreach session in ThinkTank Museum in Birmingham, UK. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <h5 class="sidebartitle">Investigation: How the public’s perception of gene technologies has evolved | ||
| + | </h5> | ||
| + | |||
| Line 54: | Line 55: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
| − | Following our discussion with John we decided to research the literature regarding the the public’s distrust of gene technologies in the past few decades. For instance a paper examining results from two major studies found that Europeans had a “deeply rooted” negative views of foods that had undergone genetic modification [1]. | + | Following our discussion with John we decided to research the literature regarding the the public’s distrust of gene technologies in the past few decades. For instance a paper examining results from two major studies found that Europeans had a “deeply rooted” negative views of foods that had undergone genetic modification [1]. <br> |
We also found peer reviewed evidence that the source of information was critical in determining the public’s opinion on genetic modification. For instance, an institution that ranks low in public trust had to have highly persuasive information in order to influence opinion on the matter [2]. | We also found peer reviewed evidence that the source of information was critical in determining the public’s opinion on genetic modification. For instance, an institution that ranks low in public trust had to have highly persuasive information in order to influence opinion on the matter [2]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <div class="boxed">Key findings for researchers: | ||
| + | 1) The public feel excluded from the world of science and unable to have any influence. | ||
| + | 2) In 2010, a very large majority (83%) of Europeans had never heard of synthetic biology. | ||
| + | 3) 87% of those surveyed about synthetic biology felt uninformed about the technology generally to answer questions about the benefits and risks. </div> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br>Take away: communication and outreach are integral in retaining the public’s trust in scientists. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
Revision as of 13:09, 17 September 2015