Difference between revisions of "Team:Waterloo/Practices/Survey"
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<p> The link at the end of this paragraph leads you to a folder that contains all of the raw survey data and primary analysis. Note the final graphs were touched up before placed on this page and might differ the graphs found within this folder. | <p> The link at the end of this paragraph leads you to a folder that contains all of the raw survey data and primary analysis. Note the final graphs were touched up before placed on this page and might differ the graphs found within this folder. | ||
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/2/2f/Waterloo_surveydata.zip">Supplementary Survey Data and Graphs</a> | <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/2/2f/Waterloo_surveydata.zip">Supplementary Survey Data and Graphs</a> | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p> | ||
| + | Link to the two surveys: <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/1/16/Waterloo_surveyforwiki.pdf" target="_blank">Attitude Survey</a> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<section id="gmos" title="GMOs"> | <section id="gmos" title="GMOs"> | ||
Revision as of 02:47, 19 September 2015
Survey
This year we decided to conduct two surveys to gain an understanding of how the community views the applications of our project. The surveys were conducted on campus, and it was open to all for participation. This allowed not only just students on campus but workers and professors to participate in the survey. Thus, allowing a wider more encompassing range of the University of Waterloo community for analysis. We extended our range to encompass the Waterloo/Kitchener community by hosting the surveys, with permission, at the Downtown Kitchener Market . With both communities we then assessed their opinions on the following topics:
- Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
- Genetically modified foods
- CRISPR-cas9 sysmtem
- Genetic Engineering
Not only were we looking for their opinions but we wondered if by changing the wording from GMOs to gene editing techniques on similar questions if answers would vary. This will be discussed at the end of this page.
The link at the end of this paragraph leads you to a folder that contains all of the raw survey data and primary analysis. Note the final graphs were touched up before placed on this page and might differ the graphs found within this folder. Supplementary Survey Data and Graphs
Link to the two surveys: Attitude Survey
GMOs
The following section outlines the results collected from the Attitude towards GMO survey from 60 participants. The statistics highlight participants’ opinions on the sale and consumption of genetically modified foods and organisms, as well as their thoughts on mandated labeling, further research, and safety of the technology. We have identified several correlations for further discussion in our complex analysis below. We hope this data can be used to form better strategies for presenting GMO products to the general public to ensure their viability in a consumer market.
Knowledge
Opinion
Confidence
Knowledge
The sample of the Kitchener/Waterloo population surveyed indicated that over half of the sample population (51.70%) were knowledgeable on GMOs (Figure A). At the extremes, 10% of the population had no knowledge of GMOs while 8.30% claimed to have expert knowledge of GMOs.
The majority of the participants indicated that they obtained their knowledge of GMOs from websites followed by the news, scientific sources, word of mouth, food labels and others (Figure B). It is important to note that without further probing into these sources, the credibility to provide unbiased information is unknown.
The participants indicated that they believed that at the minimum, of all available foods there is at least a small number that contain GM ingredients. See Figure C. However, the estimates given by the participants differed greatly as 28.30% of participants believed that 71-80% of all available foods contained GM ingredients whereas only 5% of participants believed that 0-10% of available foods contained GM ingredients.
Similar to Figure A, most participants have some awareness but not much of the difference between mutagenesis and conventional breeding. This was not surprising given that mutagenesis and conventional breeding are not discussed as much as GMOs.
Opinion
The vast majority of participants (65%) agreed to the sale of GMOs with the remaining participants disagreeing to the sale of GMOs (Figure E). However, almost the entire survey population (97%) indicated they agree with continuing research in GM foods (Figure F). This indicates that they may not be ready for the sale of GM foods; however, they are in favour of continued research in the field. The population appears to be ready for the benefits that GM foods could bring in the future.
Overall, almost half of the participants (45%) indicated they would agree to have the government require GM foods to be labelled (Figure G). Most participants (78.30%) are passive and neutral towards purchasing their foods whether they are GM or not (Figure H). Interestingly, more participants avoid GM based foods (15%) than seek GM based foods (5%). This was not expected as 65% of participants agreed to the sale of GM foods (Figure D).
Confidence
Over 33% of participants feel very confident in GM food safety while 28.3% of participants are somewhat confident. Given the confidence that the participants have in GM food safety, it would be expected that more consumers would seek GM foods (Figure H). Although the safety of GM foods would not necessarily correlate with sales, there was a notable difference between the participants agreeing to sales of GMOs (65%) and the participants feeling confident or somewhat confident with GM food safety.
Conclusion
The majority of participants were knowledgeable on GMOs and are heavily in favour of continuing research. Furthermore, participants are in favour of the sale of GM foods but indicate less confidence in GM food safety. Reassurance of GM food safety would suggest move acceptance in the sale of GM foods.
Gene Editing
The following section outlines the results collected from the Gene Editing survey from 61 participants. The statistics highlight participants’ opinions on the sale and consumption of products that have been subjected to gene-editing, with special focus on the CRISPR-Cas9 system. The study reviews which applications and organisms have higher approval for genetic engineering, as well as thoughts on mandated labelling, further research, and safety of the technology. We have identified several correlations for further discussion in our complex analysis below. We hope this data can provide insight on the viable options for gene-editing applications based on consumer acceptance going forward.
Knowledge
Opinion
Confidence
Knowledge
The majority of participants had not previously heard of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system prior to the survey. Of those that were knowledgeable on the subject, their information came from a multitude of sources. Websites, news articles, scientific journals, and word of mouth were all heavy sources of information. A breakdown of the sources is displayed in Figure B. Of note, only 3.3% of participants had gained any information about gene-editing from food labels.
Opinion
On the opinion of gene editing applications, there did not appear to be an overarching preference for the technology in any specific area. In fact, there was no substantial consensus on particular applications and organisms that were sanctioned for genetic engineering, providing evidence that gene-editing is a generally validated technique among the public. Surprisingly, there was not a large skew away from applications that involve greater ethical sensitivity. For example, about 14% of participants were okay with genetically modifying humans (Figure C). Only 4.2% of participants believed no organisms should be genetically modified, suggesting a high approval rate for gene-editing technologies (Figure C).
Participants were most accepting of using genetic engineering in plants, with 31% approval. For perspective, ‘Lab Animals’ had the second greatest approval at 21%. This data is summed up in Figure C. The agriculture industry was likewise favored as an area with high approval for genetic engineering applications. Interestingly, there was dissonance with participants when asked whether they would actually consume foods that have had some degree of gene editing. Figure F demonstrates a lack of certainty in the consumption of produce with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Only 16.4% of participants were certain with their consumption, compared to the 20% that sanctioned CRISPR-Cas9 technology for agriculture. About 30% of participants were on the fence, but overall, a greater amount were closer to consumption (5) than non-consumption (1). When asked what foods they were okay with eating in Figure G, organic foods and foods grown without pesticides held a slight majority. Interestingly, more people were okay with eating CRISPR foods than non-CRISPR foods, whereas less were okay with eating GM foods than non-GM foods. This offers a potential trend in the reputation of gene-editing over GMO technology. These results are taken in the context that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was not widely understood among participants, potentially causing discourse in opinions.
Participants appeared to be most compliant with using gene editing for medical and research applications, although 70% agreed that regulations for CRISPR-Cas9 should exist in a research setting.
Confidence
Despite the general acceptance in using CRISPR-Cas9 and gene editing techniques in a multitude of applications and organisms, there is still an underwhelming confidence in the safety of the tool. Figure H shows that only 4.9% of participants were completely confident in saying the technology was safe. About half fell in the middle.
Conclusions
The data suggests that the biggest challenges facing gene-editing technologies, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system, are the lack of understanding and awareness of the tool itself, and lack of confidence in its safety within the general public. Barring this, many people favor its use in research and industrial applications.
Comparing the Two surveys
