Difference between revisions of "Team:NYMU-Taipei/HP/Gold-Media Analysis"
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<p style="font-size:16px; white-spce:pre-wrap;">Previous iGEM teams provides precious survey outcome about it: | <p style="font-size:16px; white-spce:pre-wrap;">Previous iGEM teams provides precious survey outcome about it: | ||
| − | Although 85% of our respondents said that they would support, or strongly support environmental remediation projects and initiatives, the number dropped to 60% when respondents were told that these projects would use genetically modified organisms. | + | Although 85% of our respondents said that they would support, or strongly support environmental remediation projects and initiatives, the number dropped to 60% when respondents were told that these projects would use genetically modified organisms. ──2014 iGEM York |
| − | In 2013 iGEM, BGU_Israel asked the question “In the sources you were exposed to, do you feel that the subject was covered in a positive or negative manner?” in their survey. 48% of their respondents feel positive, 28% of respondents consider neutral, and 14% think it negative. | + | In 2013 iGEM, BGU_Israel asked the question “In the sources you were exposed to, do you feel that the subject was covered in a positive or negative manner?” in their survey. 48% of their respondents feel positive, 28% of respondents consider neutral, and 14% think it negative. |
| − | In 2014, iGEM team Warwick asked” Do you believe Synthetic Biology is a dangerous tool, knowing that potentially dangerous organisms are being dealt with?” in their survey. 30% of respondents say yes, 45% give negative answer. | + | In 2014, iGEM team Warwick asked” Do you believe Synthetic Biology is a dangerous tool, knowing that potentially dangerous organisms are being dealt with?” in their survey. 30% of respondents say yes, 45% give negative answer. |
In investigating their survey design and outcome, we thought the iGEM community are getting a clearer image of how the general public percept gene-tech related information. We, as well as another iGEM team HSiTAIWAN, however, wondered more about how and why these perception is formed? When genetic-engineering related information, or more generally speaking, gene-technology related information is transferred, in what attitude is the story being reported? Does the report contain too much terminology that distant the audience with scientific outcome? Does the information sufficient enough to transfer correct and complete story to public? What about iGEM wiki? Are the stories in iGEM wikis being told in a hard way that can be challenging for science-laymen to realize? | In investigating their survey design and outcome, we thought the iGEM community are getting a clearer image of how the general public percept gene-tech related information. We, as well as another iGEM team HSiTAIWAN, however, wondered more about how and why these perception is formed? When genetic-engineering related information, or more generally speaking, gene-technology related information is transferred, in what attitude is the story being reported? Does the report contain too much terminology that distant the audience with scientific outcome? Does the information sufficient enough to transfer correct and complete story to public? What about iGEM wiki? Are the stories in iGEM wikis being told in a hard way that can be challenging for science-laymen to realize? | ||
Revision as of 21:41, 18 October 2016
Assessment of Transfer Effectiveness of Gene-Tech Related Information
Introduction
In our project, we try to diminish concerns over genetically-engineered entomogenous fungi both from building a plasmid construct and a functional prototype. However, several worries arise when comes to the word ‘genetically-engineered’. But why?
Previous iGEM teams provides precious survey outcome about it:
Previous iGEM teams provides precious survey outcome about it: Although 85% of our respondents said that they would support, or strongly support environmental remediation projects and initiatives, the number dropped to 60% when respondents were told that these projects would use genetically modified organisms. ──2014 iGEM York In 2013 iGEM, BGU_Israel asked the question “In the sources you were exposed to, do you feel that the subject was covered in a positive or negative manner?” in their survey. 48% of their respondents feel positive, 28% of respondents consider neutral, and 14% think it negative. In 2014, iGEM team Warwick asked” Do you believe Synthetic Biology is a dangerous tool, knowing that potentially dangerous organisms are being dealt with?” in their survey. 30% of respondents say yes, 45% give negative answer. In investigating their survey design and outcome, we thought the iGEM community are getting a clearer image of how the general public percept gene-tech related information. We, as well as another iGEM team HSiTAIWAN, however, wondered more about how and why these perception is formed? When genetic-engineering related information, or more generally speaking, gene-technology related information is transferred, in what attitude is the story being reported? Does the report contain too much terminology that distant the audience with scientific outcome? Does the information sufficient enough to transfer correct and complete story to public? What about iGEM wiki? Are the stories in iGEM wikis being told in a hard way that can be challenging for science-laymen to realize? This year, we NYMU iGEM, as long as HSiTAIWAN collaboratively investigate into these questions.
