Team:Freiburg bioware/Human Practice/Ethics

From 2009.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(2 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 654: Line 654:
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ol>
<ol>
-
   <li><a
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/46/Freiburg09_Chinese.pdf">Chinese</a></li>
-
href="https://2009.igem.org/Image:Freiburg09_Chinese.pdf">Chinese</a></li>
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f4/Freiburg09_English.pdf">English</a></li>
-
   <li><a
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/8/8a/Freiburg_09.French.pdf">French</a></li>
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f4/Freiburg09_English.pdf">English</a></li>
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/7f/Freiburg_09.German.pdf">German</a></li>
-
   <li><a
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Freiburg_09.Italian.pdf">Italian</a></li>
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/8/8a/Freiburg_09.French.pdf">French</a></li>
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/2/27/Freiburg_09.Japanese.pdf">Japanese</a></li>
-
   <li><a
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/3/38/Freiburg_09.Portuguese.pdf">Portuguese</a></li>
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/7f/Freiburg_09.German.pdf">German</a></li>
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/c/c8/Freiburg_09.Russian.pdf">Russian</a></li>
-
   <li>a
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/19/Freiburg_09.Romanian.pdf">Romanian</a></li>
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Freiburg_09.Italian.pdf">Italian</a></li>
+
   <li><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b6/Freiburg_09.Spanish.pdf">Spanish</a></li>
-
   <li>a
+
</ol>
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/2/27/Freiburg_09.Japanese.pdf">Japanese</a></li>
+
<ol>
-
   <li>a
+
   <br />
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/3/38/Freiburg_09.Portuguese.pdf">Portuguese</a></li>
+
<p class="MsoNormal"
-
   <li>a
+
  style="text-align: justify; text-decoration: underline;">Raw Data:</p>
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/c/c8/Freiburg_09.Russian.pdf">Russian</a></li>
+
<div style="text-align: left;">
-
   <li>a
+
<ol>
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/19/Freiburg_09.Romanian.pdf">Romanian</a></li>
+
  <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a9/Freiburg_09.RawData.pdf">RawData</a></li>
-
   <li>a
+
-
href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b6/Freiburg_09.Spanish.pdf">Spanish</a></li>
+
-
   <li>a
+
-
  href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a9/Freiburg_09.RawData.pdf">Raw Data</a></li>
+
</ol>
</ol>
<ol>
<ol>

Latest revision as of 09:54, 17 November 2009

FREiGEM

Benefit and Risk Perception of Synthetic Biology by Laymen in Various Countries
A Survey by the “international Genetically Engineered Machine”

(iGEM) Team Freiburg 2009

 

 

Abstract

In the course of the “international Genetically Engineered Machines” (iGEM) competition, the Freiburg team conducted a survey to discover the general population´s opinion on genetic engineering and synthetic biology. To obtain a global perspective, the survey was conducted in 13 countries across the world. Our aim was to collect opinions from laymen who do not study biology and are not involved in biological research. Altogether, 306 people between 15 and 80 years were interviewed in their mother tongue with five questions concerning the relation of synthetic biology to health, food, risks, prospects and ethical-moral worries. Overall, a huge lack of understanding about gene technology and synthetic biology was observed in every country. A negative, skeptical, and incredulous outlook over the potential benefits of synthetic biology became apparent, especially concerning genetically-modified food. In contrast, people have notable confidence in gene technology concerning medical research and the contribution of synthetic biology to environmental and energy problems.

 

Introduction

Synthetic Biology is the standardized, modularized design of biological systems and organisms with help from standardized “BioBricks” involving several scientific disciplines. Based on the principles of genetic engineering, it has been steadily growing and has become its own discipline distinct from conventional biotechnology. The worldwide interconnection between different countries and cultures is higher than ever before. Thus, problems such as climate change, epidemics, pollution and starvation are becoming globally recognized issues. Modern research in genetic engineering tries to find possible solutions to special aspects of these difficulties. However, these technologies raise ethical and moral worries and important questions about its challenges and limits. A survey was conducted to determine whether the perception of new technologies such as genetic technology and synthetic biology is influenced by the nationality of laymen not familiar with the topic.

 

Survey and Results

Because we were highly interested in the opinions of persons from different countries, we tried to interview the majority of people in their country of origin. In total 306 persons were interviewed with at least 20 persons per country (Fig. 1). In order to interview the persons of interest in their proper language, the questionnaires were translated into Chinese, English, French, German, Spanish, Romanian, Portuguese, Italian, Japanese and Russian (Pdf files 1-10).

 

In the case of the Bahamas, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the USA, almost all investigations were carried out directly in the respective countries of interest. People were interviewed at public locations such as pedestrian areas, bus stops, shopping centers, university campuses etc, or in a few cases, by telephone calls. People from China, Japan, Romania, Russia and the Ukraine were interviewed via the internet using such methods as e-mail, Skype etc. or telephone calls (Fig. 11).

 

In general, the five questions regarding gene technology and moral issues were read to the person who chose one of three possible answers (yes, no, or I don´t know). Afterwards, the interviewees had the chance to add personal comments and ideas.

To get a better idea of the demographics of the interviewees, each person was asked for their sex (Fig. 8), age (Fig. 7), actual residence (Fig. 10), and occupation. Occupations were later classified into different categories including pupil, science student, humanities student, scientific employee, and non-scientific employee (Fig. 9). Data (pdf file 11) were collected and analyzed with Excel. 


Figure 1: Total number of interviewees per country.

Figure 2: Percentages of interviewee responses to the question: “In case of severe disease, would you take drugs produced by means of gene technology?” Blue indicates a positive response, red a negative and green indifference/ignorance.

Figure 3: Percentages of interviewee responses to the question: “What do you think about genetically modified food?  Would you by such food?” Blue indicates a positive response, red a negative and green indifference/ignorance. 

Figure 4: Percentages of interviewee responses to the question: “Do you believe that synthetic biology can solve problems concerning energy, production and health?” Blue indicates a positive response, red a negative and green indifference/ignorance. 

Figure 5: Percentages of interviewee responses to the question: “Do you believe that synthetic biology is a risk for health and environment?” Blue indicates a positive response, red a negative and green indifference/ignorance. 

Figure 6: Percentages of interviewee responses to the question: “Do you have ethical-moral concerns regarding gene technology?” Blue indicates a positive response, red a negative and green indifference/ignorance. 

Figure 7: Age demographics of interviewees divided into decades starting at 15 years.

Figure 8: Gender demographics of interviewees, percentage male or female.

Figure 9: Professional categories of interviewees. Raw data was divided into six groups: pupil, sciences student, sciences employee, non-science employee, and unknown.

Figure 10: Percentage of current residence of interviewees at time of interview. Categories include located in the country of origin, located in Germany in the course of exchange, or located in Germany with immigrant status.

Figure 11: Percentage of interviews performed by personal interview, telephone call, or internet correspondence.

Discussion

In the case of endangered health, 73% of interviewees would take drugs produced by means of gene technology (Fig.2). The highest positive response was observed in Italy, Spain, Romania, and the USA with over 70%. The largest negative response was found in the Bahamas with more than 60%. It was observed that the expression “severe disease” often pushed people to answer yes, even if the idea of gene technology derived medication was generally mistrusted.

 

Only 20% of the interviewees responded that they would buy genetically-modified food (Fig.3). Frequently mentioned reasons for this opinion were: i) unknown consequences for human health such as cancer or allergies ii) threat to “natural” biotopes and plant species, iii) loss of flavor and lack of need for such genetic modifications, because all essential food is already present on earth. The most prominent populations against the marketing of genetically-modified food are the Bahamians with 100%, and the Germans with 90%. In Germany the motivation to choose “bio” or “eco” products instead of genetically-modified or treated products was frequently observed. In general many people are afraid that conventional food will be suppressed by genetic modified food and prices will skyrocket. The nutrition of the Romanian population is still based on home farming and traditional agricultural products. This is presumed to be the reason why most of the people do not want to eat artificially modified food and therefore become dependent on the countries selling genetically engineered seeds. In the USA most of the people do not like the idea of genetically modified food either. However, they buy it because it is generally accepted and consequently not well labeled as such. The USA is one of the leading countries for “Green Gene Technology”. An astounding 40% of the cultivatable land is used for RoundupReady-Soy (RR-Soy), which was first introduced by Monsantos in 1996. It contains a modified gene that makes it resistant against the herbicide Roundup, in order to be treated but not damaged by this herbicide.

 

A positive 48% of the interviewees believe that with the help of synthetic biology problems such as energy, production and environmental pollution can be solved (Fig.4). Over 70% of the people interviewed in Brazil and the USA were convinced of this fact. However, the same portion of the interviewees thinks that gene technology bears a risk for the environment and health (Fig.5). The interviewed citizens from the Bahamas, France and Germany turned out to be the most critical. Further research could be improved by de-polarizing the questions as many people claimed that gene technology was not so clear cut.

 

Over 70% of interviewees asked in Germany and China and over 60% of the Bahamas and France have ethical and moral concerns regarding gene technology (figure 6). Most people are afraid of discrimination by health insurances and employers due to possible distribution of personal genome information. In addition, many fear the extent of human genome intervention and the discrepancy of treatment available to different social classes. In contrast, others believe that humans have always been altering nature to their advantage, from dog breeding to crop enhancement, and that gene technology is merely a natural step in this progression. 

 

The answer “I don’t know” was often chosen because the interviewees had no background knowledge about the topic and were therefore not familiar with risks and chances or prospects of the topic. It is important to note that due to the limited number of interviewed persons, the results show a trend but cannot be interpreted as representative for the country´s population.  

 

Conclusion

Ultimately, an overall negative, skeptical, and incredulous outlook over the potential benefits of synthetic biology became apparent. Our international survey about the perceptions of risks and benefits of gene technology from laymen not involved in gene technology shows similar trends for almost all countries. The marketing of genetically modified food is in general not appreciated. Ethical- moral doubts are concerned mainly with interventions occurring in the natural genome of human beings.

 

The high percentage of “I don´t know” answers (24% on average) shows a huge lack and the incomplete understanding of gene technology among laymen in every country. Such misunderstanding could potentially lead to both real and unfounded fears about the risks of such technology.  

 

In contrast, people have notable confidence in gene technology concerning medical research and the contribution of synthetic biology to environmental and energy problems. This supports the conclusion that the maintenance of human health and the ability to heal diseases is one of the most important issues the world is facing today. Gene therapy, a method that tries to replace defective genes with functional ones, could be an important step in providing therapy for currently untreatable genetic diseases. Our project, “universal programmable restriction enzyme,” will help to streamline new therapies in gene therapy and to realize a new standard of healthcare.

Questionnaires: