Synthetic biology helps to build a better tomorrow -
but not without the people's trust
Synthetic biology faces great mistrust in Germany. Performing a nationwide survey we identify a lack of education as the root of this skepticism. Now we want to act!
History has shown that even the most revolutionary ideas can only thrive when embraced by a society that is well-informed and open to new possibilities. As the biotechnology sector experiences unprecedented growth in Germany (Reference), accepting emerging technologies becomes essential. From addressing global health challenges to tackling environmental crises, synthetic biology promises innovative solutions for some of the world’s most pressing problems. Despite this potential, skepticism toward biotechnological advancements remains prevalent. Numerous studies point to the roots of this skepticism, often highlighting the impact of misinformation and public apprehension (Reference). Psychological research highlights the powerful relationship between well-communicated information and shifts in public opinion (Reference). Motivated by these insights, we wanted to understand the landscape of public opinion better. Therefore, we conducted a nationwide survey to examine how well new technologies are received and which factors influence public opinion.
Lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Corrupti pariatur accusamus totam sed blanditiis incidunt aspernatur iure fugit modi nemo. Nobis fugit adipisci esse, sint expedita eligendi voluptatum dignissimos reiciendis.
In order to prove our hypothesis, we conducted a nationwide online survey over three months to explore the publics opinion toward GMOs and assess basic scientific knowledge. After consulting with experts, we split the survey into two parts: one adresses participants’ attitudes toward GMOs, and the other evaluates their scientific knowledge. In a pre-survey phase, we tested twice as many scientific questions as needed, and then selected only those answered correctly by 20-80% of participants to ensure appropriate levels of difficulty. The final survey included 30 questions: 15 assessing scientific knowledge (True/False format) and 15 measuring attitudes towards GMOs (Likert scale: 1-Strongly Agree to 5-Strongly Disagree). Participants were then grouped into three categories based on their Knowledge Score (little, moderate, high knowledge) and their Attitude Score (positive, neutral, negative attitude). This two-part structure allowed us to analyze correlations between knowledge and attitudes effectively, providing a comprehensive understanding of public opinion. We designed, tested, and executed the survey, ultimately reaching 823 participants from 15 of Germany’s 16 federal states. Baden-Württemberg had the highest representation (n=331), while Schleswig-Holstein was the only state not represented.
Percentage of Correct Responses in Pretesting: Selection Criteria for Final Survey Questions
Figure 1: The left bar chart shows the distribution of participants across three GMO attitude categories: Negative (n=174), Neutral (n=488), and Positive (n=161). The right density plot displays the knowledge score distribution within these attitude categories, indicating that participants with a neutral attitude tend to cluster around a moderate knowledge score, while those with a positive or negative attitude have more diverse knowledge levels.
As people gain more scientific knowledge, their attitudes tend to shift towards greater acceptance.
Our data suggests a potential relationship between knowledge and attitude toward GMOs (Figure 1). As the knowledge score increases, the distribution of GMO attitudes shifts, with participants exhibiting a higher scientific knowledge showedshowing a tendency toward more positive attitudes. Conversely, participants with lower knowledge scores are more likely to hold negative attitudes. This trend indicates that education may play a significant role in shaping public perception of GMOs. As knowledge improves, attitudes tend to become more accepting, highlighting the importance of well-informed discussions around biotechnology.
Relationship Between General Scientific Knowledge and Negative Attitudes Towards GMOs
Figure 2: Negative attitudes toward GMOs decrease as general scientific knowledge increases. The scatterplot shows a clear negative correlation (r = -0.62, p-value = 1.00e-89) between knowledge and negative attitudes toward GMOs. Participants with higher general scientific knowledge tend to hold more neutral or positive views on GMOs, while lower knowledge scores are associated with more negative perceptions.
Education is the key to fight GMO mistrust, it has a clear impact in a peoples perception of synthetic biology.
Examining the correlation between general scientific knowledge and attitudes toward GMOs reveals a negative correlation of -0.62 (p-value = 1.00e-89), indicating that as scientific knowledge increases, negative attitudes toward GMOs decrease. Individuals with higher knowledge scores are more likely to hold neutral or positive attitudes, while those with lower scores tend to exhibit stronger negative attitudes. This highlights that while other factors may influence GMO perceptions, general scientific knowledge is a significant predictor of attitudes. We clearly proved our initial hypothesis, highlighting the importance of education.
Proportion of Participants in the Knowledge and Attitude Categories
Figure 3: Distribution of participants across attitude and knowledge categories. The left chart represents the attitude categories, while the right shows the knowledge categories. Results highlight an overrepresentation of participants with a neutral attitude towards GMOs and those with moderate scientific knowledge.
The neutral attitude and moderate knowledge categories are significantly overrepresented, which aligns with expectations based on the survey design. The questions were selected to effectively differentiate between varying levels of scientific knowledge and opinions, ensuring balanced discrimination. Both the positive and negative attitude categories showed nearly equal representation. However, there is a slightly higher proportion of participants in the high knowledge category compared to the little knowledge group. The average knowledge score was 8.99, and the mean attitude score was 38.83, reflecting a general tendency toward moderate responses in both dimensions.
Distribution of Responses to GMO-Related Questions
Figure 4: Responses to three of the 15 GMO-related survey questions, presented on a Likert scale. The chart illustrates participants’ opinions on the use of GMOs in drug and vaccine production, their preference for GMO-free labeled products, and concerns about the long-term health effects of GMOs. Percentages reflect the distribution.
The percentage distribution suggests that respondents are generally more skeptical when it comes to their personal health or consumption. While the majority (54%) support the use of GMOs in drug and vaccine production, a significant portion (47%) would prefer to buy products labeled as GMO-free, indicating greater caution when it comes to direct consumption. Moreover, 42% of participants express concern about the long-term health effects of GMOs. This suggests that while there is some acceptance of GMOs in medical contexts, personal consumption remains a point of contention for many respondents.
Knowledge Score Distribution Across Age Groups
Figure 5: Distribution of knowledge groups along the different age groups. Distribution of participants’ knowledge scores across different age groups, divided into three categories: Little, Moderate, and High Knowledge.
The majority of respondents across all age groups exhibits moderate knowledge, particularly in the 18-24 and 25-34 age ranges, where over 50% fall into this category. Interestingly, older participants (65-74 and 75 and older) also show a relatively high proportion of high knowledge scores, especially compared to younger groups like 35-44, where little knowledge is more prevalent.
Our findings show that good scientific knowledge is the basis of the public’s acceptance of biotechnology, in particular GMOs. The lack of understanding fuels skepticism and mistrust. This reinforces existing psychological research, which highlights how well-communicated and accurate information can shift public perceptions.
Through accessible and inclusive programs, we empower individuals from all backgrounds to understand complex scientific concepts, fostering a more informed and open-minded public discourse on synthetic biology.
We recognize the importance of education in bridging this gap and have committed ourselves to create accessible and inclusive learning opportunities. Our diverse educational programsprovide individuals from all backgrounds with the tools to understand complex scientific concepts. By fostering greater scientific literacy, we empower communities to engage with biotechnological advancements confidently, shaping a more informed and open-minded public discourse.
Methods
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Vel animi praesentium magni exercitationem nemo, illum dolores iste rem odit. Doloribus placeat rerum, possimus neque nobis odit accusamus quo sit quibusdam?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Repudiandae quis accusantium quos quas laborum quod id rerum pariatur fuga quaerat laudantium ab, sapiente porro aut recusandae laboriosam sed magnam necessitatibus!
Results
Lorem, ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Accusamus aliquam sapiente a. Unde ullam quos voluptas alias soluta autem. Repellat nihil reiciendis dolorum cumque consequuntur animi dolor nulla atque eos.
Lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Enim earum architecto officiis doloribus facilis numquam officia fugiat eveniet, quos dolore a quae, voluptates repellendus delectus laudantium, suscipit quam soluta odio!
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Id ipsam numquam aperiam dolorum tempore eos! Animi sapiente nemo illum neque pariatur at doloribus tempora vel, repellendus tenetur praesentium sed nihil.
Percentage of Correct Responses in Pretesting: Selection Criteria for Final Survey Questions
Figure X: Percentage of Correct Responses in Pretesting: Selection Criteria for Final Survey Questions. The chart shows the correct response rates for each question used in the pretesting phase. Questions with less than 20% or more than 80% correct responses, shown in grey, were excluded from the final survey due to being either too difficult or too easy. Questions with response rates between 20% and 80%, highlighted in green, were selected for inclusion in the final survey. The vertical grey lines mark the cut-off points at 20% and 80%.
Methods
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam. eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam. eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam
Results
Survey Results: Participant Attitudes Towards GMOs
Figure X: Percentage of Correct Responses in Pretesting: Selection Criteria for Final Survey Questions. The chart shows the correct response rates for each question used in the pretesting phase. Questions with less than 20% or more than 80% correct responses, shown in grey, were excluded from the final survey due to being either too difficult or too easy. Questions with response rates between 20% and 80%, highlighted in green, were selected for inclusion in the final survey. The vertical grey lines mark the cut-off points at 20% and 80%.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Survey Results: Participants Answers to the Scientific Knowledge Questions
Figure X: Percentage of Correct Responses in Pretesting: Selection Criteria for Final Survey Questions. The chart shows the correct response rates for each question used in the pretesting phase. Questions with less than 20% or more than 80% correct responses, shown in grey, were excluded from the final survey due to being either too difficult or too easy. Questions with response rates between 20% and 80%, highlighted in green, were selected for inclusion in the final survey. The vertical grey lines mark the cut-off points at 20% and 80%.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
References
Chen, Y., Qiu, Q., She, J., and Yu, J. (2023). Extrachromosomal circular DNA in colorectal cancer: biogenesis, function and potential as therapeutic target. 42, 941-951.
Dong, Y., He, Q., Chen, X., Yang, F., He, L., and Zheng, Y. (2023). Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in cancer: mechanisms, functions, and clinical implications. Front Oncol 13, 1194405. 10.3389/fonc.2023.1194405.
Douglas, S.M., Dietz, H., Liedl, T., Högberg, B., Graf, F., and Shih, W.M. (2009). Self-assembly of DNA into nanoscale three-dimensional shapes. 459, 414-418.
Kim, H., Nguyen, N.-P., Turner, K., Wu, S., Gujar, A.D., Luebeck, J., Liu, J., Deshpande, V., Rajkumar, U., Namburi, S., et al. (2020). Extrachromosomal DNA is associated with oncogene amplification and poor outcome across multiple cancers. 52, 891-897.
Kweon, J., Jang, A.-H., Kim, D.-e., Yang, J.W., Yoon, M., Rim Shin, H., Kim, J.-S., and Kim, Y. (2017). Fusion guide RNAs for orthogonal gene manipulation with Cas9 and Cpf1. 8, 1723.
Praetorius, F., and Dietz, H. (2017). Self-assembly of genetically encoded DNA-protein hybrid nanoscale shapes. Science 355, eaam5488. doi:10.1126/science.aam5488.
Robledo, M., Álvarez, B., Cuevas, A., González, S., Ruano-Gallego, D., Fernández, L., and de la Cruz, F. (2022). Targeted bacterial conjugation mediated by synthetic cell-to-cell adhesions. Nucleic Acids Res 50, 12938-12950. 10.1093/nar/gkac1164.
Soltysiak, M.P.M., Meaney, R.S., Hamadache, S., Janakirama, P., Edgell, D.R., and Karas, B.J. (2019). Trans-Kingdom Conjugation within Solid Media from Escherichia coli to Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Int J Mol Sci 20, 5212.
Watanabe, T., Okada, H., Kanamori, H., Miyazaki, N., Tsujimoto, A., Takada, C., Suzuki, K., Naruse, G., Yoshida, A., Nawa, T., et al. (2020). In situ nuclear DNA methylation in dilated cardiomyopathy: an endomyocardial biopsy study. ESC Heart Fail 7, 493-502. 10.1002/ehf2.12593.
Waters, V.L. (2001). Conjugation between bacterial and mammalian cells. 29, 375-376.
Wu, T., Cao, Y., Liu, Q., Wu, X., Shang, Y., Piao, J., Li, Y., Dong, Y., Liu, D., Wang, H., et al. (2022). Genetically Encoded Double-Stranded DNA-Based Nanostructure Folded by a Covalently Bivalent CRISPR/dCas System. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 6575-6582.
Zambryski, P., Tempe, J., and Schell, J. (1989). Transfer and function of T-DNA genes from Agrobacterium Ti and Ri plasmids in plants. Cell 56, 193-201.
