Team:UCSC/survey

Survey


   Throughout the course of the What is Natural? storyline, the UCSC iGEM learned an incredible amount about the complex, multi-layered nature of the seemingly simple question, “What is Natural?” We had the opportunity to pursue the exploration of this question from a diverse set of viewpoints, ranging from the social, the legal, and the moral. The interplay of genetic engineering constantly weaved in and out of the discussion, and it appears public discussion over this topic will only continue to grow. The foundation of this storyline was intertwined with our feeling of both passion and responsibility to spread awareness of these discussions, and to educate the public on how to view these questions from a scientific standpoint. However, for our final event, we decided we wanted to expand our reach even further. In collaboration with the UC Davis iGEM team, we have conducted a research study on public opinion for the definition of ‘Natural’, and its relationship to GMOs. Each team traveled to the local farmer markets in our respective cities to interview the key demographic that we hoped had the greatest connection towards ‘all-natural’ movement, and could provide the best insight into these questions. This intervention collected valuable information on public opinion, in addition to cultivating internal discussion within the participants as they were forced to question their own beliefs—and to what extent those beliefs were held.

Mountain View
Santa Cruz Farmers Market

   The UC Davis iGEM team and our iGEM team had remarkable similarity for the societal considerations of our projects. Both of our projects centered upon producing a food compound via a genetically modified microbe; erythritol in our case and a blue dye used in food coloring in the case of the UC Davis team. Therefore, we were both very interested in the term: Nature-identical. Nature-identical, having potential to grow in its use and importance, is a term given to compounds that exist in nature but are produced in a different source than is considered natural; such as a blue dye from blueberries being produced in yeast. Our research survey questions thus focused heavily upon how far our participants’ comfortability with genetically modified compounds could stretch. Using blue food dye as our driving example, we explored how the term ‘nature-identical’ and ‘GMO’ affected their concern with the compound. Perhaps most interesting to us was the question we crafted to determine how participants’ views on GMOs changed when the GMO presented an opportunity to alleviate environmental degradation. When asked the question, “If agricultural waste could be dramatically reduced by converting the waste into natural compounds, like caffeine, through a genetically modified organism, would you oppose that?”, 65% of participants answered “No, I would not oppose that”, and only 5% answered “Yes, I would oppose that”; the other 30% remaining “Unsure.” To provide context to that result, when originally asked the question, “Would you buy genetically modified foods if they were labeled?”, only 35% of the participants answer “Yes”, with 45% stating “No” and 20% “Unsure.” We phrased agricultural waste question as a matter of opposition because we feel that the significant majority of uncertainty and fear around GMOs is caused by the vocal opposition against them. Therefore, we were excited to see our data indicate that perceptions on genetic modification can be reshaped when participants discover the environmental benefits that GMOscould provide. The full set of survey questions and the data generated by them presents a full suite of interesting information to consider, and we hope that you’ll explore the data sheet below to create inferences of your own as well!


Davis Farmers Market

   In conclusion to the What is Natural? storyline, it appears evident that the legislature, technologies, and education being forged today establish a pivotal foundation for our future generations to build upon. Given the current trends of humanity, with falling water supplies, rising carbon levels in the atmosphere, and a swelling global population, humanity has immense challenges standing before it. Technologies such as genetic engineering have an invaluable amount to offer, yet they can only accomplish as much as we allow them. Public perception, regardless of its alignment with scientific findings, shapes the technologies we allow to surface. We hope that by dedicating ourselves not only to scientific pursuits, but by also recognizing the immense importance of educating the public thereof, we can set the groundwork of a better future.