There are 61,000 farms in Indiana, which are run by even more farmers. Some use synthetic biology (usually in the form of GMOs) to improve their products and others do not; however, not many know what synthetic biology and GMOs are exactly. It is important that both parties are able to distinguish between these two terms and understand what their capabilities are, from an expert’s perspective. This way, those who choose to use GMOs in their products understand what they are using, and could help those who do not make more informed decisions based on whether to use these techniques in their own products.

There is a significant gap in knowledge between how synthetic biologists see genetically engineered biology and how the public sees it. To diagnose how large this gap was, we decided to go out to a local farmer’s market in Lafayette, Indiana and talk to the farmers about their knowledge of synthetic biology, ethical problems in the field, and their outlook on the future of synthetic biology. We also asked them to tell us the first thing that came to their mind when they heard certain words that we believe are perceived negatively by the public. We hope that our results successfully reveal this gap in knowledge between what we as synthetic biologists think and what the rest of the population thinks about the work that we do.

How much background knowledge do you have in biology? How about synthetic biology?

We asked this question to find out how much knowledge the farmers have in biology, which would contribute to their knowledge of GMOs. In the future we hope to conduct voluntary workshops to provide basic understanding of biology and the principles of synthetic biology. We think that as farmers, they should be more educated about plants and crops that they grow. In this way they are more aware of how any chemicals or GMOs they use impact society and are also aware of opportunities to improve their production.

If you have heard of synthetic biology, where did you hear about it? (For example the news, research papers, word of mouth, etc.)

This was asked to determine what is the major means for communication of synthetic biology (media, school, scientific papers, etc.). We do not believe that synthetic biology is a term familiar to the public. Instead, terms like genetic engineering and Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) are widespread.This is alarming, because as scientists we must use language familiar to the average person in order to have a meaningful conversation. Their responses will give us insight on how our research is currently being communicated as well as pointed out where the are flaws in this communication. From this information we hope to determine how to correct this in the future.

The majority of the people (75%) we surveyed had not heard of synthetic biology. This is worrisome, though expected, as one of the main goals of iGEM is to spread the word of synthetic biology and how it impacts the community. The fact that such a small percentage has heard of synthetic biology means that we have not been successful in this aspect. The majority of media and textbooks refer to synthetic biology as genetic engineering which is not how we want our research to be communicated. The advance of genetic engineering to synthetic biology has not yet been communicated to the public, so people tend to equate the two terms. Getting the community to realize this distinction is the catalyst needed to have the types of discussions we are trying to engage in.

Please write down what first comes to mind when you read the following word:

Question 3 utilized common word association tests to probe the perception around predetermined words we found relevant to synthetic biology.

Genetic Modification/Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Overall responses reflected a negative response to GMOs. "Modified" was often equated to “screwing with” in 3 separate cases. In a particular case, this application of synthetic biology was referred to as “science fiction” which is extremely surprising considering its widespread use and long history. Improper education via media we believe is responsible for the negative portrayal of GMOs. Additionally, none of these vendors used or were aware of the use of GMOs in their products which also could contribute to this lack in knowledge. In summary, ‘genetically modified’ implies unnatural or not intended.

Bacteria

Taking into consideration the use of bacteria as the model organism for synthetic biology, we found it necessary to ask the farmers their perception of bacteria. Based on their responses, the overall perception of “bacteria” had mixed reviews. Most regard bacteria as an infectious agent and “bad” for overall health. The later question about E. coli further supports this belief. Some, however, made conscious exceptions stating that there are differences between “good and bad” bacteria, citing the importance of "good bacteria" in yogurt. This kind of exceptionalism is progress towards changing the established negative perception of bacteria overall.

E. coli

We asked this question to see if people were aware that there are strains of E. coli that are not innately harmful, for instance the E. coli that makes up our natural flora. Most knew that there are good bacteria, but did not realize that E. coli could be one of them or that it could be used for a wide range of applications. The farmers most likely responded this way due instances of harmful E.coli improperly portrayed in media. There is not much media coverage on the other uses or forms of E. coli.

How would you feel about using a product that contained genetically modified and was deemed ‘safe for consumer use’?

The point of the projects that we work so hard on each year is that our research will one day have a beneficial effect on the world that we live in. If people are not willing to use our products, or are not open to understanding the research, it will be difficult to implement these products in the everyday lives of our communities. The deliberate use of GMOs is a sensitive topic, 75% of our surveyed population would not use a product if it was labeled genetically modified. We qualified our question by stating it was “deemed safe for consumer use” and despite that most people still don't trust it’s implementation. Feedback addressed this concern by stating the “long-term effects are unknown.” Further research will not benefit anyone if it can’t be applicable in a way consumers and the public will accept.

We believe that due to lack of education in synthetic biology, the public is not likely to accept something they don’t understand. They also might only understand what the media decides to release which is not always congruent with what research supports. Research is needed to determine where the gaps are between the public and researchers in order for these parties to engage in the exchange of ideas and facts.

How do you feel about the idea of scientists engineering biology? Do you think it is possible and/or ethical to engineer biology?

We asked this question to determine if there are ethical boundaries to engineering biology. Some individuals didn't think it is possible to engineer biology. The context of “genetic” modification versus biological engineering suggests that the public isn’t fully informed about what genetic modification is in comparison to biological engineering. Others support biological engineering from the standpoint that, “hunger kills more folks than GMOs.” Considering hunger is a problem we can solve while the potential issue of GMOs is negligible in comparison. This gap between not knowing what is possible in the field of biological engineering and resolving a grand challenges suggests that there is inconsistency in our communication of our research.

What do you think the future of synthetic biology holds?

We asked this question to see if farmers thought that synthetic biology was going to be a growing industry, and see how they felt about it. All of the farmers agreed that synthetic biology was going to be big in the future. Most of them were optimistic towards the growth, in comparison to a few who were indifferent. Interestingly, more of the positive responses were directed towards the use of synthetic biology in the medical field, than for food and agricultural purposes. We think they answered this way because a large number were not comfortable using it directly if they didn’t have to, but they would be open to using synthetic biology products if they could save someone’s life.

How do you see synthetic biology changing the way YOU live?

We posed this question at the end of the survey because we felt it caused the individual to critically assesses all the information discussed. Many individuals claimed synthetic biology will help by increasing food production. They qualified this statement by reasoning that the negative implications are due to a lack of understanding the “long-term effects”. It would seem that everyone recognizes synthetic biology will impact their lives, but instead of trying to understand it, they reason it is only for scientists to use and understand. Thus we believe proper education of individuals within this space will benefit the general acceptance of the synthetic biology.