Difference between revisions of "Team:Stony Brook/Collaborations"
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
<a href="#"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/b/bb/T--Stony_Brook--homepage-swords.png" style="text-align: center;width:250px;height:250px;"/></a> | <a href="#"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/b/bb/T--Stony_Brook--homepage-swords.png" style="text-align: center;width:250px;height:250px;"/></a> | ||
</header> | </header> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<h2>iGEM Cornell</h2> | <h2>iGEM Cornell</h2> | ||
<p>We collaborated with iGEM Cornell to design and distribute an anonymous survey that would help us analyze the attitudes of the general public towards genetic engineering and the usage of genetically modified products. This was done to analyze the possible perceptions people may have concerning our treatments and the resulting products. The surveys were distributed online and in person at events such as the New York State Fair and the Ithaca Farmer’s Market; this was done among individuals with differing factors such as age, gender, and educational background. To ensure responses relating to both teams’ projects, we decided to include questions that prompted individuals to consider different aspects of genetic engineering and the merits thereof. We were able to successfully design a survey alongside its distribution, as multiple discussions were held between both teams to analyze the factors that would most relevant to modern societies and the questions that would be subject to the most insight from individuals, regardless of their level of awareness for synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Through this process, we were able to learn more about the prejudices and controversies surrounding synthetic biology, and we used those considerations to design our final survey. Our data results revealed that a larger percentage of people in Stony Brook claimed that they knew what synthetic biology was compared to people in Ithaca. This relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.01). A larger percentage of people in both Stony Brook and Ithaca believed that synthetic biology and genetic engineering had positive impacts on the world, but many believed that synthetic biology should be limited to certain areas in science. The results revealed a negative perception of the term “GMO,” compared to the term “synthetic biology,” and demographics did not significantly affect people’s perceptions of scientific biology. | <p>We collaborated with iGEM Cornell to design and distribute an anonymous survey that would help us analyze the attitudes of the general public towards genetic engineering and the usage of genetically modified products. This was done to analyze the possible perceptions people may have concerning our treatments and the resulting products. The surveys were distributed online and in person at events such as the New York State Fair and the Ithaca Farmer’s Market; this was done among individuals with differing factors such as age, gender, and educational background. To ensure responses relating to both teams’ projects, we decided to include questions that prompted individuals to consider different aspects of genetic engineering and the merits thereof. We were able to successfully design a survey alongside its distribution, as multiple discussions were held between both teams to analyze the factors that would most relevant to modern societies and the questions that would be subject to the most insight from individuals, regardless of their level of awareness for synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Through this process, we were able to learn more about the prejudices and controversies surrounding synthetic biology, and we used those considerations to design our final survey. Our data results revealed that a larger percentage of people in Stony Brook claimed that they knew what synthetic biology was compared to people in Ithaca. This relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.01). A larger percentage of people in both Stony Brook and Ithaca believed that synthetic biology and genetic engineering had positive impacts on the world, but many believed that synthetic biology should be limited to certain areas in science. The results revealed a negative perception of the term “GMO,” compared to the term “synthetic biology,” and demographics did not significantly affect people’s perceptions of scientific biology. | ||
Revision as of 19:14, 29 October 2017
Collaborations
iGEM Cornell
We collaborated with iGEM Cornell to design and distribute an anonymous survey that would help us analyze the attitudes of the general public towards genetic engineering and the usage of genetically modified products. This was done to analyze the possible perceptions people may have concerning our treatments and the resulting products. The surveys were distributed online and in person at events such as the New York State Fair and the Ithaca Farmer’s Market; this was done among individuals with differing factors such as age, gender, and educational background. To ensure responses relating to both teams’ projects, we decided to include questions that prompted individuals to consider different aspects of genetic engineering and the merits thereof. We were able to successfully design a survey alongside its distribution, as multiple discussions were held between both teams to analyze the factors that would most relevant to modern societies and the questions that would be subject to the most insight from individuals, regardless of their level of awareness for synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Through this process, we were able to learn more about the prejudices and controversies surrounding synthetic biology, and we used those considerations to design our final survey. Our data results revealed that a larger percentage of people in Stony Brook claimed that they knew what synthetic biology was compared to people in Ithaca. This relationship was statistically significant (p = 0.01). A larger percentage of people in both Stony Brook and Ithaca believed that synthetic biology and genetic engineering had positive impacts on the world, but many believed that synthetic biology should be limited to certain areas in science. The results revealed a negative perception of the term “GMO,” compared to the term “synthetic biology,” and demographics did not significantly affect people’s perceptions of scientific biology.
iGEM Columbia
Our iGEM team collaborated with Columbia University’s team to create an anonymous survey focused on understanding the perspectives people may have on specified treatments for illnesses. This was done to analyze the possible perceptions people may have concerning our treatments and the resulting products. The surveys were distributed primarily through an online format among individuals with differing factors such as age, gender, and educational background. To ensure responses relating to both teams’ projects, we decided to include questions that prompted individuals to consider different areas of treatment. Our team included questions pertaining to whether people would be willing to receive antimicrobial peptide treatments, while Columbia’s team included questions specifically relating to probiotic alternatives
