"
Team:Peking R/HumanPractice/Investigation2
From 2011.igem.org
Grasscliff (Talk | contribs) |
Grasscliff (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
<p class="clickteam"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/7/7c/PekingR_hp_Q8.png" width="500" height="360" hspace="50" /></p> | <p class="clickteam"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/7/7c/PekingR_hp_Q8.png" width="500" height="360" hspace="50" /></p> | ||
<p>Question 9</p> | <p>Question 9</p> | ||
| - | <p><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/c/ca/PekingR_hp_Q9.png" alt="" width=" | + | <p><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/c/ca/PekingR_hp_Q9.png" alt="" width="500" height="328" hspace="50" /><span class="clickteam">In the final part of our survey, we try to look at the attitudes towards possible approaches to ensure biosafety related to ARB. Most respondents chose to employ proper procedures for processing used microbes in the laboratory rather than use special plasmids that minimize HGT(Q12). This is in fact a more rational choice as adopting special plasmids may lower researchers’ awareness of HGT and give rise to new threats. As to whether the government should implement new policies to regulate the processing of used ARB, most agreed, but some showed opposition(Q13) contending that it might be troublesome in determining the details and that still it would be difficult to make the policies work: the government is unlikely supervise the treatment of RAB every minute. Besides, we also wander whether the government will run the risk of impeding research progress by heavily punishing laboratories for violating these policies.</span></p> |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
<hr /> | <hr /> | ||
Revision as of 12:04, 20 September 2011
Template:Https://2011.igem.org/Team:Peking R/bannerhidden Template:Https://2011.igem.org/Team:Peking R/back2 Template:Https://2011.igem.org/Team:Peking R/Humanpracticebackground
Investigation of Antibiotic Use and
Related Biosafety Issues: What's
happening out there and further.
Question 5
| A.Almost always discard directly or pour into sewage(15.91%) |
B.Usually discard directly and occasionally process them properly(22.73%) |
C.Usually process them properly but occasionally discard directly(21.59%) |
D.Always properly process them separately with other waste(23.86%) |
E.No special attention has been paid(15.91%) |
Question 6
Question 8
Question 9
In the final part of our survey, we try to look at the attitudes towards possible approaches to ensure biosafety related to ARB. Most respondents chose to employ proper procedures for processing used microbes in the laboratory rather than use special plasmids that minimize HGT(Q12). This is in fact a more rational choice as adopting special plasmids may lower researchers’ awareness of HGT and give rise to new threats. As to whether the government should implement new policies to regulate the processing of used ARB, most agreed, but some showed opposition(Q13) contending that it might be troublesome in determining the details and that still it would be difficult to make the policies work: the government is unlikely supervise the treatment of RAB every minute. Besides, we also wander whether the government will run the risk of impeding research progress by heavily punishing laboratories for violating these policies.
