Human Practices

Overview

The Bee-tox team used a three-pronged approach to incorporating human practices: (1) reach out to bee research and industry experts, (2) research public opinion about GMOs through a survey, and (3) educate the public about synthetic biology based on the concerns raised in background research. Learn about how each of these components impacted Project Bee-tox below:

Expert opinions

Over the course of our research, we reached out to several experts ranging from synthetic biologists to professional beekeepers. Talking to experts helped us ensure our Bee-tox could be implemented responsibly and have a positive impact on the environment. Feedback from these individuals allowed us to hone and modify our project design and target our audience. Visit our Integrated Human Practices Page for more information about how we modified our design based on feedback from each expert.

Survey

Background

The introduction of GMOs into native plant and animal species can still be a controversial topic in the United States. Since this project could eventually be implemented on a wide scale, affecting products like honey purchased by many consumers, it was essential to consider public opinion. We decided to research the public perception of GMOs in the U.S. and address some common misconceptions and concerns. First, we conducted a literature review on published surveys and reports. Some notable results included a 2016 Pew Research Center report that found 39% of Americans believed GMO foods were worse for their health [1]. After doing some more investigation into the reasons why some Americans are skeptical, such as a concern about the lack of “naturalness” and questions about how GMOs were made, we decided it was time to conduct our own survey.

Survey Design and Distribution

Our survey questions were primarily targeted towards understanding specific consumer concerns and their beliefs on whether GMOs could be beneficial. We also wanted to identify specific applications of GMOs that the public knew little about. Finally, we requested information on the social media platforms these consumers used. This way, we could find the best way to distribute any educational materials we made to address their concerns. The majority of our questions were answered through a 5 point Likert scale, with a sixth possible answer of “I don’t know.” There were also a few questions where individuals could check all answers that applied.
While designing this questionnaire, we received assistance from Dr. Almazán-Casali at the University of Michigan. Dr. Almazán-Casali is a social scientist with extensive experience writing surveys, and she gave us feedback on how to design and distribute an unbiased survey. Before distributing the finished survey, we also applied for and received IRB approval. Our survey was distributed to two distinct populations. First, we distributed our survey to MSU clubs via email with permission from club leadership. To understand the opinions of consumers besides college students, we also distributed the survey to MSU parents through a Facebook group.

Survey limitations

Although these survey results helped understand public opinion and target outreach, it is also important to consider the limitations of this questionnaire. Distribution of this survey was not random; it was voluntary, and only distributed to selective clubs and Facebook groups. Also, approximately 50% of student respondents were from the Biosystems Engineering club at Michigan State University. These students may have significantly different opinions about GMOs than the general student population.

Survey results

After the survey was complete, we identified notable results that would impact our outreach. Data from student clubs are in blue while data from the MSU Parents group is in green.

One question found that approximately 25% of our parent survey group and 23% of our student group said they did not know whether current U.S. regulation and testing of GMOs was satisfactory. Another 36% percent of the parent group and 20% of the student group believed current testing was unsatisfactory.

Besides, less than 15% of the parent group had heard of GMO applications in the fields of medicine, pollution cleanup, sustainability, or energy. Results were similar in the student group, aside from 17% having heard of GMO applications in sustainability. Although crops were the most well-known application, the recognition of GMOs in this field was still at under 40%.

Although 60% of parents and 97% of students said they were interested in learning more about synthetic biology, a near majority of respondents (48% and 50%, respectively) said they felt information about GMOs was not easily accessible.

A full report of the survey results obtained from students can be found below or here.

A full report of the survey results obtained from parents can be found below or here.

Based on these results, we designed an informational handout to address some areas of interest. We went through several lesser-known applications of GMOs, such as in the health, energy, and environmental fields. We also described U.S. regulations concerning GMO production.

Education

To address the concerns we came across in our research, we also worked with iGEM teams from Cornell, Ohio State, Purdue, University of Maryland, and William & Mary to produce an educational video series called Breaking Down Synthetic Biology. Video topics we covered include genome editing, safety regulations, applications of GMOs, and more! We shared these videos via social media channels and distributed them to high school students. Details and full videos can be found on our Collaborations Page.

References

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/11/PS_2016.12.01_Food-Science_FINAL.pdf

Team:MichiganState/Human Practices