Team:HKUST-Hong Kong/survey.html

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(26 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
</style>
</style>
-
 
-
 
<style type="text/css">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
<!--
-
A:link { COLOR: black; TEXT-DECORATION: none; font-weight: normal }
+
A:link { COLOR: black; font-weight: normal }
-
A:visited { COLOR: black; TEXT-DECORATION: none; font-weight: normal }
+
A:visited { COLOR: black; font-weight: normal }
 +
 
 +
A:active { COLOR: black;}
 +
 
 +
A:hover { COLOR: black; font-weight: normal ; text-decoration:underline}
-
A:active { COLOR: black; TEXT-DECORATION: none }
 
-
A:hover { COLOR: black; TEXT-DECORATION: none; font-weight: none; text-decoration: underline; }
 
-->
-->
-
p{
+
 
-
margin: 20px 20px 20px 20px
+
ul {
 +
 
 +
margin: 0px 60px 0px 60px;
 +
 
}
}
 +
p {
 +
font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, New Times Roman;
 +
font-size:14;
 +
line-height: 18pt;
 +
font-weight:normal;
 +
margin: 0px 20px 0px 20px;
 +
text-align: justify;
 +
}
 +
 +
 +
table{
table{
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px  
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px  
}
}
</style>
</style>
-
 
-
 
-
 
</head>
</head>
-
 
-
 
-
<body bgcolor="#9CC3B1">
 
<table style="border-collapse: collapse" width=963>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse" width=963>
<TR bgcolor="#9CC3B1"><td>
<TR bgcolor="#9CC3B1"><td>
-
<a name=bio>
+
 
 +
<a name=top></a>
<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="7" color="white">  
<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="7" color="white">  
<br>Human Practice<br><br>
<br>Human Practice<br><br>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="5" color="white">
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="5" color="white">
Survey Report</font></font></p>
Survey Report</font></font></p>
-
 
<br><br>
<br><br>
Line 54: Line 62:
<p align="left">
<p align="left">
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3">  
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3">  
-
<a href=#introduction><b>Introduction </b></a>
+
<a href=#abstract><b>Abstract </b></a>
<b>·</b>
<b>·</b>
<a href=#discussion><b>Discussion </b></a>
<a href=#discussion><b>Discussion </b></a>
<b>·</b>
<b>·</b>
-
<a href=#acknowledgement><b>Acknowledgement</b></a>
+
<a href=#acknowledgement><b>Acknowledgements</b></a>
</font>
</font>
</p>
</p>
Line 70: Line 78:
<TR bgcolor="white"><td>
<TR bgcolor="white"><td>
-
<a name=introduction></a>
+
<a name=abstract></a>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">  
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">  
-
<p><b>Introduction</b></p>
+
<p><b>Abstract</b></p>
<p align=justify>
<p align=justify>
-
Regardless the heated discussion atmosphere around the synthetic biology, few systematic surveys in this field has been conducted, especially in Asia. In this case, the iGEM2011 HKUST Team with the help of their Austrian partners, Markus Schmidt and Lei Pei, of IDC <http://www.idialog.eu/> and Biofaction <http://www.biofaction.com/?page_id=10>, launched this survey, treating Hong Kong as a starting point, trying to get the public perception of synthetic biology, especially in Asia, and the key factors influencing this impression. This report is treated as a snapshot of the response got so far to see if this online survey system can work well.
+
Despite the fact that active discussions about the wonders and potentials of synthetic biology are growing increasingly prevalent in the world, few systematic surveys regarding this field have been conducted, especially in Asia. Hence the iGEM2011 HKUST Team, collaborating our Austrian partners Markus Schmidt and Lei Pei of IDC <http://www.idialog.eu/> and Biofaction <http://www.biofaction.com/?page_id=10>, launched this survey, hoping to take advantage of Hong Kong's status as an international city to establish a starting point for meaningful data collection in Asia regarding synthetic biology. The survey tries to obtain public perception of synthetic biology, with particular emphasis on people living in Asia, as well as the key factors influencing their impression. Due to the scale and on-going nature of the survey, this report should be treated as a snapshot of the responses gathered so far, and as a reference to the effectiveness of using online survey formats to gather data.<br><br>
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
</p>
</p>
Line 90: Line 92:
<p align=justify>
<p align=justify>
-
The result shows that this online survey system can be adaptable, but should be spread more widely on the Internet and supported with more distributed hard copies to make the data more valid and reliable. And two major hypotheses have been obtained from this snapshot analysis. The first is that the public in HK tend to have a positive but close to natural perception of the synthetic biology, showing relatively conservative attitudes. Second, the general publics are very likely to know little about the synthetic biology, which probably has a positive correlation with their overall impression about this new technology. However, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, the general awareness of the possible risks is nearly at the same level, and the opinions on the future development of this technology are similar. Finding Three is that the public are more inclined to accept the synthetic biology product when it has a big price advantage over the ordinary product.
+
The results show that this online survey system is quite adaptable, but should be better spread on the Internet and complemented with more distributed hard copies to make the data more reflective and reliable. Two major findings have been obtained from this snapshot analysis. The first is that the public in HK tend to have a neutral to slightly positive perception of synthetic biology, showing a relatively conservative attitude. Second, the general public knows very little about synthetic biology, which possibly has a positive correlation with their overall impression about this new technology. However, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, the general awareness of the possible risks and benefit is nearly at the same level, without specific bias against or favoring future development of this technology. In addition, the public is more inclined to accept synthetic biology products when the technology can lead to a major reduction in product price, echoing the focus on financial benefit as the major driving force of the development of this technology.
-
 
+
<a href=#top>
 +
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
 +
[Top]
 +
</font></a>
Line 99: Line 104:
</font>
</font>
-
<a href=#bio>
 
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
 
-
<p align=right>Top</p>
 
-
</font></a>
 
 +
<br>
<a name=discussion></a>
<a name=discussion></a>
Line 115: Line 117:
-
<ul><li><b>Effectiveness and Feasibility for Further Spreading</b></li></ul>
+
<ul><li><b>Effectiveness and Feasibility for Further Distribution</b></li></ul>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<ul><li>The Form of the Survey</li></ul>
<ul><li>The Form of the Survey</li></ul>
<p align=justify>
<p align=justify>
-
To get more effective and valid results, a more widely distributed online survey should be launched and more hard copies should be distributed randomly to the general public. Originally, the form thought to be adapted for this survey is the online version for the easiness to collect mass responses and unlimited access to the Internet. But the results here show that the online form has a strong inherent bias in the respondents, especially in fields like education and age when the distribution range is relatively small. So a solution for this is to still use the online version as a data input agent, but the link should be spread more widely on the Internet, accompanying with bigger range of field surveys.</p>
+
To obtain results that are more valid and sound, a more widely circulated online survey should be launched, and more hard copies should be distributed at random to the general public. Originally, the intent of adopting the online version of this survey is for the ease of compiling mass responses, as well as utlizing the broad spectrum of people the Internet can access. However, the results here show that the online form has a strong inherent bias in the respondents, especially for fields like education and age where the distribution range is relatively small. So as a compromise, the online version should still be adopted, but accompanied with the wider-reaching range of field surveys. Besides, the link should be better circulated on the Internet in order to reach a wider variety of people.</p>  
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
<ul><li>The Effectiveness of the Parameters in Part Two</li></ul>
+
-
<p align=justify>
+
-
The variances in the personal background in this set of data do not show significant difference. The inherent problems of the online survey may contribute a lot, but the effectiveness of the parameters is also in doubt. However, this should be further checked with the results from the more widely spread survey</p>  
+
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
-
<ul><li><b>Major Hypotheses from the Snapshot Results</b></li></ul>
+
<ul><li><b>Major Findings from the Snapshot Results</b></li></ul>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p align=justify>
<p align=justify>
-
Although the influence of the parameters about the personal information cannot be counted a lot in the analysis due to the relatively big bias, the interaction between the targets of the questions can still give some meaningful hypotheses regarding the factors influencing the general public’s perception about the synthetic biology. To sum up, there are three major findings or possible hypotheses from this snapshot.<br><br>
+
Although parameters about personal information may not be entirely reliable due to the relatively large bias in sample group, the interaction between the targets of the questions can still produce some meaningful findings with respect to the factors influencing the general public’s perception about the synthetic biology. To sum up, there are three major findings from this snapshot.
 +
<br><br>
 +
First of all, the overall impression about synthetic biology in Hong Kong is more likely to be positive according to the data, but at the same time is still very close to neutral. This likely reveals a generally conservative attitude towards synthetic biology among the public since the variance for each parameter is small regardless of the bias.
 +
<br><br>
 +
Second, the general public in Hong Kong tend to be unfamiliar about the details of synthetic biology. This possibly affects their perception of synthetic biology, but does not have much impact on their foresight of its potential risks and future development. Although nearly 50% of the respondents claim to have heard of the term “synthetic biology”, few actually know what synthetic biology is or are especially concerned (measured by the frequency that respondents talked or searched about synthetic biology) about this field. The tiny difference in scores of Q12 between the group that has heard of synthetic biology and the group that has not is a solid supporting argument for this.<br><br>
-
First of all, the overall impression about the synthetic biology in HK is more likely to be positive according to the data, but close to neutral. This probably shows a general conservative attitude towards the synthetic biology among the general public in Hong Kong since the variance for each parameter is small regardless the bias.<br><br>
+
This tendency is somehow contrary to the familiarity hypothesis (Kahan et al. 2008a; Macoubrie 2006) and the conclusion from the US synthetic biology survey (Pauwels E. et.al. 2009), which indicated that familiarity of an issue was independent of support for the issue. One possible explanation for this is that the popularity of the idea of synthetic biology is so low in Hong Kong, that there is a general lack of knowledge about synthetic biology. The mysterious quality associated with new technology might have augmented the public's perception, reducing thier mental prohibitions when asked to evaluate the benefits and risks of synthetic biology, hence creating a general trend where vague familarity increases support for the issue. <br><br>
-
Secondly, the general publics in HK tend to know little about the synthetic biology and that possibly affects their perception of the synthetic biology, but does not have much impact on their foresight for its potential risks and future development. Although the overall responses for heard of the term “synthetic biology” is nearly 50%, seldom actually know what the synthetic biology is and spare special concerns (measured as the frequency respondents talked or searched about the synthetic biology) in this this field. The tiny difference of the scores in Q12 between the groups, who have heard of the synthetic biology and the groups not is a kind of effective support for that. <br><br>
+
There is also no differential pattern found in the public's opinions on the possible risks and the future development of synthetic biology. When deciding the future development of synthetic biology, all respondents are more inclined to make their decisions based on expert opinions and scientific evidence rather than on the majority opinion of peers. In addition, "uncontrollable results that may be generated” and “the abuse of the technology by the terrorists” are the top worries for most people. This may show that the public’s foresight of these two situations are similar regardless of their familiarity with synthetic biology. The findings from the US synthetic biology survey (Pauwels E. et.al. 2009) indicated that people tend to use the other biological technologies like stem cell technology and genetic engineering as references for comparison when dealing with issues about synthetic biology, and this observation may be a possible explanation for our results.<br><br>
-
However, the mean score of Q12 is significantly higher in groups who frequently confronted the information about the synthetic biology (F+ group) than others. Also, this “F+ group” show higher confidence towards the potential benefits brought by the synthetic biology (Q5) and fewer tendencies to the tight regulation of the synthetic biology (Q10). And according to the analysis, these two features are very closely related to the higher overall impression score of the synthetic biology (Q11). Then, that should be modestly surprising to see that this “F+ group” holds more positive attitudes towards the synthetic biology.<br><br>
+
The third finding is about the influence pricing has on the acceptance of synthetic biology products (Q7). The public appears to be more accepting to synthetic biology products if they have a strong pricing advantage compared with natural products. Although more than 80% of the respondents chose the ordinary product when both products are of the same price, only one-third kept to their original choice when a more favorable price is introduced for the synthetic biology product. This pattern is independent of the other questions in Part One according to quantitative testing, but the influence of the parameters is unknown due to the biases of our sample population.<a href=#top>
-
 
+
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
-
This tendency is somehow contrary to the familiarity hypothesis (Kahan et al. 2008a; Macoubrie 2006) and the conclusion from the US synthetic biology survey (Pauwels E. et.al. 2009). One possible explanation for this is that the spreading of the idea of the synthetic biology is so low in HK that the major problem faced by the public is the lack of information about the synthetic biology. The mysterious feeling towards this new technology outweighs the tradeoff effects between the benefits and risks when asking for its perception. In this case, the clearness of the mysteries will help to increase the support a bit. The highest concerns and curiosity about the “scientific processes and techniques of the synthetic biology” in Q4 can also be a side support for the relative blankness of the public’s knowledge for the synthetic biology.
+
[Top]
-
Despite the obvious difference in the responses for Q5, Q10, Q11 and Q12 between the “F+ group” and the other groups, there is no differential pattern for their opinions on the possible risks and the future development. All respondents are more inclined to trust the experts and scientific evidence rather than base on the social concerns about the thoughts of the majority when deciding the future development of the synthetic biology, and “uncontrollable results may be generated” and “the abuse of the technology by the terrorists” are the top worries for most people. This may prove that the public’s imagination of these two factors are similar regardless their different familiarity with the synthetic biology. The finding from the US synthetic biology survey (Pauwels E. et.al. 2009) that people tend to use the other biological technologies like stem cell technology and genetic engineering as references when dealing with some issues about the synthetic biology may be a possible explanation for this.<br><br>
+
</font></a>
-
 
+
-
The third finding is about the price influence on the acceptance of the synthetic biology product (Q7). The public turns out to be more acceptable to the synthetic biology product if an enough strong price advantage of the synthetic biology product is shown. Although more than 80% respondents choose the ordinary product when the two products are of the same price, only one-third stick to their choice when a more favorable is introduced to the synthetic biology product. And this pattern is independent of the other questions in Part One according to the quantitative testing, but the influence of the parameters in unknown due to the biases.
+
</p>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Line 150: Line 148:
</font>
</font>
-
<a href=#bio>
 
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
 
-
<p align=right>Top</p>
 
-
</font></a>
 
 +
<br>
Line 168: Line 163:
<p align=justify>
<p align=justify>
-
For successfully completing this snapshot survey report, the heartfelt thanks should give to the people below for their continuous support and guidance to this synthetic biology survey:
+
For the successful completion of this snapshot survey report, we would like to give heartfelt thanks to the people below for their continuous support and guidance to this synthetic biology survey:<br><br>
Line 175: Line 170:
<p>
<p>
-
Dr Markus SCHMIDT and Dr Lei PEI, from <a href=http://www.idialog.eu/><b>IDC</b></a> and  
+
Dr. Markus SCHMIDT and Dr. Lei PEI, from IDC (Organisation for International Dialogue and Conflict Management) and  
-
<a href=http://www.biofaction.com/?page_id=10><b>Biofaction</b></a>
+
Biofaction
<br>
<br>
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST)
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST)
Line 184: Line 179:
Professor Michelle YIK, from the Department of Social Science in HKUST
Professor Michelle YIK, from the Department of Social Science in HKUST
<br>
<br>
-
Mr Jin ZENG, Teaching Assistant from the Department of Social Science in HKUST
+
Mr. Jin ZENG, Teaching Assistant from the Department of Social Science in HKUST
<br>
<br>
The Hong Kong Institute of Engineers (HKIE)
The Hong Kong Institute of Engineers (HKIE)
Line 200: Line 195:
</font>
</font>
-
<a href=#bio>
 
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
 
-
<p align=right>Top</p>
 
-
</a>
 
-
<p>
 
-
For a complete survery report, please click <a href=><b>here</b></a> to download the PDF file.
+
<p><br>
 +
 
 +
For a complete survery report, please click <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/f/f3/HKUST_Survey_Report.pdf" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a> to download the PDF file.
</p>
</p>
</font>
</font>
 +
<br>
-
</td></tr></table>
 
-
 
-
<br>
 
 +
</TD>
 +
  </TR>
 +
</table>
Line 227: Line 220:
-
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10">
+
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" width=963>
<tr>  
<tr>  
<td width="100px" height="150px"; bgcolor="#980000" >  
<td width="100px" height="150px"; bgcolor="#980000" >  
-
<p align="center"><b><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" color="#FFE1E1">  
+
<p name=1 align="center">  
-
<a href=https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong target=_top><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4" color="#FFE1E1" font color=white><span style="font-weight:700">Home</span></font></a></font></b></p>
+
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong" target=_top>
 +
<b><font color="#FFE1E1" size=3>Home</font></b>
</p>
</p>
</td>
</td>
-
<td width="332px" bgcolor="#CCFF99" valign="baseline">  
+
<td width="382px" bgcolor="#CCFF99" valign="baseline">  
-
<p align="center" valign="baseline"><b> <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3" color="green">
+
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<b><font color="green">Our Project</font></b></p>
 +
 
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/overview.html" target=_top>Overview</a><font color="green"> | </font>
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/data.html" target=_top>Data Page</a><br></p>
 +
 
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<b><font color="green">Experiments and Results</font></b></p>
 +
 
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/asm.html"  target=_top>Strain Construction</a><font color="green"> | </font>
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/mic.html"  target=_top>Culture Test</a><font color="green"> | </font>
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/modeling.html"  target=_top>Modeling</a><br></p>
 +
 
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<b><font color="green">Miscellaneous</font></b></p>
 +
 
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/notebook.html" target=_top>Notebook</a></p>
-
Our Project</font></b></p>
 
-
<p align="left"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color="green">
 
-
<a href=team.html><font color=green>
 
-
<a href="overview.html" target=_top>Overview</a> |
 
-
<a href="data.html" target=_top>Data Page</a><br>
 
-
<span style="line-height:1; font-weight:600">Experiments and Results</span><br>
 
-
<a href="asm.html"  target=_top>Strain Construction</a> |
 
-
<a href="mic.html"  target=_top>Culture Tests</a> |
 
-
<a href="modeling.html"  target=_top>Modeling</a><br>
 
-
<span style="line-height:1; font-weight:600">Miscellaneous</span><br>
 
-
<a href="future.html" target=_top>Future Plans</a> |
 
-
<a href="notebook.html" target=_top>Notebook</a>
 
-
</font></a><br></font></p>
 
</td>
</td>
-
<td width="332px" bgcolor="#D09C00" valign="baseline">
 
-
<p align="left"><b><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3" color="#FFF4D0">
 
-
         
 
-
iGEM Resources</font></b></p>
 
-
<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#FFFFFF">
 
-
<a href="acknowledgement.html" target=_top>Acknowledgements</a><br>
 
-
<span style="line-height:0.7; font-weight:600">The Team</span><br>
 
-
<a href="team.html" target=_top>iGEM Member List</a> |
 
-
<a href="contribution.html" target=_top>Contributions</a><br>
 
-
<span style="line-height:0.7; font-weight:600">Achievements</span><br>
 
-
<a href="medal.html" target=_top>Medal Requirements</a> |
 
-
<a href="biosafety.html" target=_top>BioSafety</a><br>
 
-
<span style="line-height:0.7; font-weight:600">Biobricks</span><br>
 
-
<a href="characterization.html" target=_top>Master List & Characterization Data</a>
 
 +
<td width="302px" bgcolor="#D09C00" valign="baseline">
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<b><font color="#FFF4D0">iGEM Resources</font></b></p>
 +
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/acknowledgement.html" target=_top>Acknowledgements</a></p>
 +
 +
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<b><font color="#FFF4D0">The Team</font></b></p>
 +
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/team.html" target=_top>iGEM Member List</a><font color="#FFF4D0"> | </font>
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/contribution.html" target=_top>Contributions</a><br></p>
 +
 +
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<b><font color="#FFF4D0">Achievements</font></b></p>
 +
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/medal.html" target=_top>Medal Requirements</a><font color="#FFF4D0"> | </font>
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/biosafety.html" target=_top>BioSafety</a><br></p>
 +
 +
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<b><font color="#FFF4D0">BioBricks</font></b></p>
 +
 +
 +
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
 +
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/characterization.html" target=_top>Master List & Characterization Data</a><br></p>
-
<a href=.html><font color=white>
 
-
</font></a><br><font></p>
 
</td>
</td>
-
<td width="200px"bgcolor="#980000"valign="baseline">  
+
<td width="180px"bgcolor="#980000"valign="baseline">  
-
<p align="left" valign="baseline">
+
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
-
<b>
+
<b><font color="#FFE0E0">Human Practice</font></b></p>
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3" color="#FFE0E0">Human Practice
+
 
-
</font>
+
<p align="center" valign="baseline">
-
</b>
+
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/workshop.html" target=_top>Workshop</a><font color="white"> | </font>
-
</p>
+
<a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:HKUST-Hong_Kong/survey.html" target=_top>Survey</a><br></p>
-
<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#FFFFFF">
+
 
-
<a href="workshop.html" target=_top>Workshop</a> |
+
 
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#FFFFFF">
+
-
<a href="survey.html" target=_top>Survey</a>
+
-
</span></p>
 
</td>
</td>
</tr>
</tr>
</table>
</table>
-
 
-
 
</body>
</body>
</html>
</html>

Latest revision as of 17:24, 28 October 2011


Human Practice

Survey Report



Abstract · Discussion · Acknowledgements




Abstract

Despite the fact that active discussions about the wonders and potentials of synthetic biology are growing increasingly prevalent in the world, few systematic surveys regarding this field have been conducted, especially in Asia. Hence the iGEM2011 HKUST Team, collaborating our Austrian partners Markus Schmidt and Lei Pei of IDC and Biofaction , launched this survey, hoping to take advantage of Hong Kong's status as an international city to establish a starting point for meaningful data collection in Asia regarding synthetic biology. The survey tries to obtain public perception of synthetic biology, with particular emphasis on people living in Asia, as well as the key factors influencing their impression. Due to the scale and on-going nature of the survey, this report should be treated as a snapshot of the responses gathered so far, and as a reference to the effectiveness of using online survey formats to gather data.

The results show that this online survey system is quite adaptable, but should be better spread on the Internet and complemented with more distributed hard copies to make the data more reflective and reliable. Two major findings have been obtained from this snapshot analysis. The first is that the public in HK tend to have a neutral to slightly positive perception of synthetic biology, showing a relatively conservative attitude. Second, the general public knows very little about synthetic biology, which possibly has a positive correlation with their overall impression about this new technology. However, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, the general awareness of the possible risks and benefit is nearly at the same level, without specific bias against or favoring future development of this technology. In addition, the public is more inclined to accept synthetic biology products when the technology can lead to a major reduction in product price, echoing the focus on financial benefit as the major driving force of the development of this technology. [Top]


Discussion

  • Effectiveness and Feasibility for Further Distribution
  • The Form of the Survey

To obtain results that are more valid and sound, a more widely circulated online survey should be launched, and more hard copies should be distributed at random to the general public. Originally, the intent of adopting the online version of this survey is for the ease of compiling mass responses, as well as utlizing the broad spectrum of people the Internet can access. However, the results here show that the online form has a strong inherent bias in the respondents, especially for fields like education and age where the distribution range is relatively small. So as a compromise, the online version should still be adopted, but accompanied with the wider-reaching range of field surveys. Besides, the link should be better circulated on the Internet in order to reach a wider variety of people.

  • Major Findings from the Snapshot Results

Although parameters about personal information may not be entirely reliable due to the relatively large bias in sample group, the interaction between the targets of the questions can still produce some meaningful findings with respect to the factors influencing the general public’s perception about the synthetic biology. To sum up, there are three major findings from this snapshot.

First of all, the overall impression about synthetic biology in Hong Kong is more likely to be positive according to the data, but at the same time is still very close to neutral. This likely reveals a generally conservative attitude towards synthetic biology among the public since the variance for each parameter is small regardless of the bias.

Second, the general public in Hong Kong tend to be unfamiliar about the details of synthetic biology. This possibly affects their perception of synthetic biology, but does not have much impact on their foresight of its potential risks and future development. Although nearly 50% of the respondents claim to have heard of the term “synthetic biology”, few actually know what synthetic biology is or are especially concerned (measured by the frequency that respondents talked or searched about synthetic biology) about this field. The tiny difference in scores of Q12 between the group that has heard of synthetic biology and the group that has not is a solid supporting argument for this.

This tendency is somehow contrary to the familiarity hypothesis (Kahan et al. 2008a; Macoubrie 2006) and the conclusion from the US synthetic biology survey (Pauwels E. et.al. 2009), which indicated that familiarity of an issue was independent of support for the issue. One possible explanation for this is that the popularity of the idea of synthetic biology is so low in Hong Kong, that there is a general lack of knowledge about synthetic biology. The mysterious quality associated with new technology might have augmented the public's perception, reducing thier mental prohibitions when asked to evaluate the benefits and risks of synthetic biology, hence creating a general trend where vague familarity increases support for the issue.

There is also no differential pattern found in the public's opinions on the possible risks and the future development of synthetic biology. When deciding the future development of synthetic biology, all respondents are more inclined to make their decisions based on expert opinions and scientific evidence rather than on the majority opinion of peers. In addition, "uncontrollable results that may be generated” and “the abuse of the technology by the terrorists” are the top worries for most people. This may show that the public’s foresight of these two situations are similar regardless of their familiarity with synthetic biology. The findings from the US synthetic biology survey (Pauwels E. et.al. 2009) indicated that people tend to use the other biological technologies like stem cell technology and genetic engineering as references for comparison when dealing with issues about synthetic biology, and this observation may be a possible explanation for our results.

The third finding is about the influence pricing has on the acceptance of synthetic biology products (Q7). The public appears to be more accepting to synthetic biology products if they have a strong pricing advantage compared with natural products. Although more than 80% of the respondents chose the ordinary product when both products are of the same price, only one-third kept to their original choice when a more favorable price is introduced for the synthetic biology product. This pattern is independent of the other questions in Part One according to quantitative testing, but the influence of the parameters is unknown due to the biases of our sample population. [Top]


Acknowledgement

For the successful completion of this snapshot survey report, we would like to give heartfelt thanks to the people below for their continuous support and guidance to this synthetic biology survey:

Dr. Markus SCHMIDT and Dr. Lei PEI, from IDC (Organisation for International Dialogue and Conflict Management) and Biofaction
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST)
Professor King L. CHOW, from the Department of Life Science in HKUST
Professor Michelle YIK, from the Department of Social Science in HKUST
Mr. Jin ZENG, Teaching Assistant from the Department of Social Science in HKUST
The Hong Kong Institute of Engineers (HKIE)
The Hong Kong Teachers’ Association (HKTA)
Members and Advisors of the iGEM2011 HKUST Team


For a complete survery report, please click here to download the PDF file.


Home

Our Project

Overview | Data Page

Experiments and Results

Strain Construction | Culture Test | Modeling

Miscellaneous

Notebook

iGEM Resources

Acknowledgements

The Team

iGEM Member List | Contributions

Achievements

Medal Requirements | BioSafety

BioBricks

Master List & Characterization Data

Human Practice

Workshop | Survey