Team:UNILausanne/GMOsurvey

menu

• Home
• Project
  Project Description Motivation Design Contribution Attributions
• Results
  Results Overview Engineering Success Proof of concept Parts Measurement Experiments Protocols Lab book
• Modelling
• Safety
• Human
  Practices
  Human Practices Overview Women in STEM GMO survey Science Communication & Education Inclusion Integrated Human Practices
• Implementation
  Proposed
  Implementation Entrepreneurship Overview Entrepreneurship
• Collaborations
• Medals &
  Awards
• Team

GMO Survey

Agricultural GMOs have a bad reputation in Switzerland and Europe. In 2013, the Swiss Federal Council has placed a moratorium on the use of agricultural GMOs, which has been extended several times. In order to understand if the bad reputation of agricultural GMOs could have an impact on our project and what were the concerns of the population regarding medical GMOs are, we decided to set up a survey. It was distributed via social networks and we collected 244 replies from different age groups and backgrounds. This allowed us to have representative answers of the Swiss opinion on agricultural and medical GMOs.

Our survey shows that the agricultural GMO controversy does not affect medical GMOs. Moreover, the main concerns about medical GMOs are their environmental and health impacts. Finally, the participants seem to agree with the use of medical GMOs to treat themselves. This survey had a significant impact on our project because it allowed us to target the concerns of the population about medical GMOs and pushed us to develop a biosafety system, our kill switch, to avoid health and ecological problems (see "Integrated Human Practices" and "Kill switch" parts). 

Introduction show

Since the 1990s, consumers have been seeing new products from genetically modified organisms appearing on their plates. In 1994, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the FLAVR SAVR tomato, making it the first genetically modified crop to be commercialized [1]. Genetically modified crops have since become a common commodity with 58 GMOs currently authorised in the European Union for human and animal food production [2] and more than 90% of certain crops being GMOs in the US (e.g. soybean or rapeseed) [3]. Despite their omnipresence in society, food GMOs are not unanimously accepted. Growing opposition from public opinion, particularly in Europe, is even leading some major companies to withdraw their applications for authorization to grow GMOs in the European Union [4]. In Switzerland, the situation is similar: a moratorium on the use of GMOs in agriculture, which began in 2013, is constantly being extended and should end in 2021 [5]. In 2015, a demonstration gathering more than 4'000 people took place in Morges, Basel and Bern (three Swiss cities) to protest "Monsanto and the GMO and pesticide multinationals" [6].

However, this anti-GMO opposition seems to have only a minor impact on medical GMOs, and there are few movements or demonstrations criticizing drugs derived from genetically modified organisms. This absence of medical GMOs in the public debate has led us to wonder whether the population is against the use of drugs based on genetically modified organisms or whether, conversely, it accepts their marketing and use. Moreover, if GMO drugs were indeed treated differently from GMO crops, we wanted to understand what the causes were. To answer these questions, we decided to create a survey where medical GMOs are confronted with food GMOs. The main objectives of this survey were to analyse whether a difference in treatment between medical and food GMOs did indeed exist, to understand where this difference comes from if there is one, and to study the acceptability of our B.O.T. therapy by society.

Our survey was approved by our supervisors and was anonymized. Two versions were available, one in French and one in English, in order to reach as many people as possible. The survey was conducted using Google Forms software and the results of both versions were then aggregated to obtain the results. The survey is divided into several parts: the first one consists in collecting information on the public's knowledge about GMOs (6 questions), the second one is about food GMOs (7 questions), the third one about medical GMOs (6 questions) and the fourth one allows a comparison between medical and agricultural GMOs (7 questions including 3 open questions). The first part has very general questions and allows to have some information on the participants (gender, age, level of education, ...). The second section allowed us to understand the public opinion on agricultural GMOs without considering medical GMOs. Conversely, the third section made it possible to understand the public's opinion on medical GMOs without considering agricultural GMOs. Finally, the last part was designed to try to understand the reasons for the difference in treatment between agricultural and medical GMOs.

Here, we decided to highlight the main results of your survey. All the questions and analysis can be fund here: link to the pdf.

Daniel Rodriguez working on the GMO survey

Survey results and analysis show

Question 1 and 2:

Barplot showing agricultural GMO perception, 1=Against & 10=For

As we can see on this first graph, there is no clear trend. The results are really spread on the scale from 1 to 10. The answer "8" (17%) received most votes. The results reflect the controversy around the GMO crops in Switzerland. They are currently prohibited as a moratorium is still going on in our country.

Barplot showing medical GMO perception, 1=Against & 10=For

In the second graph about the opinion on medical GMO, more than 50% of the participants stated that they were totally in favour of their use. Overall, more than 85% of the responses were between 8 and 10, while less than 3% were between 1 and 3. The general opinion of the participants is oriented towards the use of GMOs in the medical field. These answers contrast sharply with question 1 (question about agricultural GMOs). There is a strong difference of opinion regarding the acceptance of agricultural GMOs and medical GMOs and the agricultural GMO controversy doesn’t seem to have an impact on medical GMOs.

Question 3:

Pie plot showing how many par participants will use medical GMO

An overwhelming majority of participants are in favour of the use of GMOs for medical purposes. Indeed, the question concerning genetically modified organisms in the world of health received a 93% positive response. In addition to showing that the controversy around agricultural GMOs does not seem to have a negative impact on people's opinion about medical GMOs, these answers give legitimacy to our therapy. Our B.O.T. therapy, if marketed, should not have a problem with the public opinion.

Question 4 and 5:

Barplot showing if medical GMOs are perceived as a potential environmental issue, 1=Against & 10=For

Barplot showing if medical GMOs are perceived as a potential health issue, 1=Against & 10=For

The answers to question 4 and 5 had a significant impact on our project. As we can see, the participants are very divided as to the impact that medical GMOs can have on the environment. With most replies (20%) for the answer "5", the participants do not have a clear-cut opinion. Similarly, the participants are very divided as to the impact that medical GMOs can have on health. Once again, most responses (20%) are at "5". It should be noted, however, that there is a tendency towards "no" (answers 1, 2, 3 and 4) but the answers are still very spread out on the scale. Faced with ambiguous answers to those questions, we decided to think about how to secure our B.O.T. therapy in terms of the potential ecological and health problems that it could generate. Therefore, we decided to implement a "kill-switch" to our bacteria (see "Integrated Human Practices" and "Kill switch" parts). 

Question 6:

Pie plot showing how many par participants will use a similar B.O.T therapy

This last question puts the participant in a situation that could be soon real and helps to understand the general reaction when a therapy such as B.O.T. is marketed. 95% of the participants say they are ready to use the therapy and would agree that it should be marketed. The conclusions that can be drawn with this question have a direct impact on our "Business Plan" project: we can see here that the controversy around food GMOs does not seem to have a direct impact on the vision that society has of our product.

Conclusion show

Overall, the survey was a success. It pointed out the differences between agricultural and medical GMOs, highlighted the main concerns of the population about medical GMOs (environmental and health) and showed that people would be willing to treat themselves with our technology. Moreover, it pushed us to set up a biosafety system, our "kill-switch", which is one of the most essential parts of our project.

Reference show

1. G. Bruening, J.M. Lyons, "The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato", California Agriculture, 2000.

2. European Parliament, "Huit choses à savoir sur les OGM", 2015, consulted October 24^th on https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/headlines/society/20151013STO97392/huit-choses-a-savoir-sur-les-ogm

3. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond", 2020, consulted October 24^th on https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmo-crops-animal-food-and-beyond

4. RTS info, "Monsanto retire ses demandes de culture d’OGM dans l’Union européenne", 2013, consulted October 24^th on https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/5076323-monsanto-retire-ses-demandes-de-culture-dogm-dans-lunion-europeenne.html

5. Le Conseil fédéral, « Cultures d’OGM : le Conseil fédéral veut prolonger le moratoire et préparer la réglementation », 2016, consulted October 24^th on https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-62442.html

6. Lematin, « Manifestation massive contre Monsanto à Morges et à Bâle », 2015, consulted October 24^th on https://www.lematin.ch/story/manifestation-massive-contre-monsanto-a-morges-et-a-bale-962427164164

A big thank you to our sponsors for their valuable support!