Difference between revisions of "Team:Stony Brook/Collaborations"

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.

The results from Stony Brook revealed a larger percentage of people who claimed that they knew what synthetic biology was, as compared to the percentage of people in Ithaca. After running a T-test, this was confirmed to be statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.01. This was an interesting result, since Cornell is a larger institution with easy access to events, seminars, and programs. The results may suggest an extent of segregation between Cornell’s student body and its surrounding community. Many people viewed synthetic biology as a positive influence on the world. Although more people in Stony Brook viewed synthetic biology as a positive contributor, we found that there was an insignificant difference (p = 0.41) in how people felt about synthetic biology in Stony Brook aside from Ithaca. People also believed that synthetic biology should be more restricted to certain areas of science, but there was no difference in this view between Stony Brook and Ithaca (p = 0.21). Most people appeared to have an equal understanding of synthetic biology and GMOs, but as shown by our graphs, people tended to have a better grasp of GMOs than synthetic biology. While a few people answered that they had never heard of synthetic biology, no one answered that they had never heard of GMOs. This is likely due to the media attention placed on GMOs. When we tested for regression, we found that the difference in response was statistically significant (p = 3 x 10-53), indicating that people had different understandings of synthetic biology and GMOs. People generally felt more negatively about the GMOs compared to synthetic biology (p = 2 x 10-17). Education levels did not significantly affect a person’s perceptions of synthetic biology (p = 0.10). As we compared the positive responses and negative response across the bars, the corresponding percentages stayed relatively the same for each education level. We found no correlation between people’s political leanings and their view of synthetic biology (p = 0.8).

Most of our independent variables were not strongly correlated in a pairwise manner, thereby supporting the statistical strength of our multiple regression models. Perceived understanding of synthetic biology and perceived understanding of genetically modified organisms were the variables indicating significant pairwise correlation. Our statistical results may have been affected by multiple biases, such as high amounts of politically liberal college students at Stony Brook. Reporting bias may have also been especially significant in the current political climate and the resulting responses for this survey.

Figure 1: People’s understanding of synthetic biology/genetic engineering in Ithaca and Stony Brook

Figure 2: People’s perceptions on the impact of synthetic biology/genetic engineering on the world, as observed among Ithaca and Stony Brook populations

Figure 3: People’s understanding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ithaca and Stony Brook

Figure 4: People’s perceptions on the impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the world, as observed among Ithaca and Stony Brook populations

Figure 5: People’s views on the safety of GMO products on human health, as assessed among Ithaca and Stony Brook populations

Figure 6: People’s perceptions of the use of synthetic biology/genetic engineering for future science, as assessed among Ithaca and Stony Brook populations

Figure 7: Comparison of people’s answers to the questions “How would you rate your understanding of synthetic biology?” vs. “How would you rate your understanding of GMOs?”

Figure 8: Comparison of people’s answers to the questions “How do you feel about the impact of synthetic biology?” versus “How do you feel about the impact of GMOs?”

Figure 9: The effect of education levels on people’s perceptions on the impact of synthetic biology.

Figure 10: The effect of political affiliations on people’s perceptions of synthetic biology.

Figure 11: Statistical measures of the categories of the perception of synthetic biology based on perception, and the correlation between each category.

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