"
Team:KULeuven/Ethics/Survey
From 2009.igem.org
(→Other) |
(→Public opinion) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Public opinion == | == Public opinion == | ||
| + | |||
| + | We randomly interviewed 43 people in our survey. This variation in backgrounds will result in a dependable result. The main conclusion is that the interviewed actually aren’t very negative about synthetic biology. Although most people don’t know exactly what it holds, they agree that researchers must be able to explore the field. But they insist there has to be a controlling system, insuring safety during the research process. Before the bacteria are used outside of a lab, the risks should be minimized. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | We asked the subjects what type of synthetic biology research should be allowed. Most people would have no problem with bacteria in their environment, designed to solve major issues in human life. They remark that the synthetic bacteria must change the life quality of the users and it must be financially manageable for everyone. Some interviewed persons would allow synthetic biology to be explored, but think that it’s best if the bacteria stay in the laboratory or in the closed environment of an industrial facility. Although there are few persons who don’t think the research about synthetic biology has to be allowed, most people think that if a good goal is pursued it’s important to allow the research. They want the goal to be socially relevant and not just a luxurious product. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | At the end of the survey we asked if they thought their opinion about synthetic biology was more negative because they’re not familiar with the subject. Most people agreed that not knowing influences their opinion. So they would like an independent communication about the matter in a comprehensible language, so everybody can understand. Some remark that the communication about synthetic biology depends on the amount of money that’s available and the reputation of the institution. This will also influence their opinion and so they recognize the problem of finding an independent and neutral communication. | ||
== Other == | == Other == | ||
Revision as of 16:09, 30 September 2009
Public opinion
We randomly interviewed 43 people in our survey. This variation in backgrounds will result in a dependable result. The main conclusion is that the interviewed actually aren’t very negative about synthetic biology. Although most people don’t know exactly what it holds, they agree that researchers must be able to explore the field. But they insist there has to be a controlling system, insuring safety during the research process. Before the bacteria are used outside of a lab, the risks should be minimized.
We asked the subjects what type of synthetic biology research should be allowed. Most people would have no problem with bacteria in their environment, designed to solve major issues in human life. They remark that the synthetic bacteria must change the life quality of the users and it must be financially manageable for everyone. Some interviewed persons would allow synthetic biology to be explored, but think that it’s best if the bacteria stay in the laboratory or in the closed environment of an industrial facility. Although there are few persons who don’t think the research about synthetic biology has to be allowed, most people think that if a good goal is pursued it’s important to allow the research. They want the goal to be socially relevant and not just a luxurious product.
At the end of the survey we asked if they thought their opinion about synthetic biology was more negative because they’re not familiar with the subject. Most people agreed that not knowing influences their opinion. So they would like an independent communication about the matter in a comprehensible language, so everybody can understand. Some remark that the communication about synthetic biology depends on the amount of money that’s available and the reputation of the institution. This will also influence their opinion and so they recognize the problem of finding an independent and neutral communication.
Other
We helped TU Delft with their [http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dElEZjI4Vk0wWmxHTWoycG03b2RrQ3c6MA.. survey on reductionism in synthetic biology]. Follow the results on their wiki.
We completed the survey from the University of Valencia.
