knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes ... - Wiley Online Library

Article Turkish University Students’ Knowledge of Biotechnology and Attitudes Toward Biotechnological Applications

€ u € rk-Akar* Ebru Ozt

From the Department of Secondary School Science and Mathematics € lko € y, Education, Faculty of Education, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Go Turkey

Abstract This study questions the presumed relation between formal schooling and scientific literacy about biotechnologies. Comparing science and nonscience majors’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnological applications, conclusions are drawn if their formal learnings improve pupils’ understandings of and attitudes toward biotechnology applications. Sample of the study consists of 403 undergraduate and graduate students, 198 nonscience, and 205 science majors. The Biotechnology Knowledge Questionnaire and the Biotechnology Attitude Questionnaire were administered. Descriptive statistics (mean and

Keywords: Biotechnology; biotechnological nonscience majors; science majors

applications;

Introduction Biotechnology is one of the relatively new areas of science that increasingly impacts our lives worldwide nearly in all fields of society from health care and food products to environmental issues and energy sources [1, 2]. Traditional areas of biotechnology such as cheese, wine, and beer production are generally regarded as acceptable aspects of human technology activity. However, modern biotechnology still exhibits high salience combined with limited knowledge on part of the society [3, 4]. Today, scientific literacy, the ability to read and write about science and technology, biotechnology in particular within the context of this study, is intended for all due to its Volume 45, Number 2, March/April 2017, Pages 115–125 The abbreviations used are: BKQ, Biotechnology Knowledge Questionnaire; BAQ, Biotechnology Attitude Questionnaire; GM, Genetically Modified; PAGMO, Public Awareness of GM Organisms; SGMP, Shopping of GM Products *To whom correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: ebruoztrk@ yahoo.com Received 14 April 2016; Revised 27 June 2016; Accepted 13 July 2016 DOI 10.1002/bmb.20996 Published online 10 September 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education

percentages), t test, and correlations were used to examine the participants’ knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes toward biotechnological applications and differences as regards their majors. Although the science majors had higher knowledge and attitude scores than the nonscience majors, it is not possible to say that they have sufficient knowledge of biotechnologies. Besides, the participants’ attitudes toward biotechnological applications were not considerably related to their knowledge of biotechnology. C 2016 by The International Union of Biochemistry and V Molecular Biology, 45(2):115–125, 2017.

practical usefulness in everyday contexts, and that it enables individuals to engage in debate and decision-making in contexts featuring scientific information [5, 6]. Therefore, current arguments focus strongly on the need for all people to know something about science and how to make science accessible to all. According to Miller [6], formal schooling is the most effective way for an individual to obtain scientific literacy and to retain and enrich that understanding of science and technology. Besides preuniversity and university education is seen as the most effective path to a higher proportion of civic scientific literacy [6]. Therefore, life science and physical science requirements are included in core curricula of schools from elementary to higher education in many parts of the world [7]. However, differences are expected between science and nonscience majors’ knowledge and attitudes toward scientific and technological issues due to the manner in which scientific processes and knowledge are presented to them and the amount of their exposure to epistemic views of science [8].

Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Biotechnology A substantial number of studies were conducted on attitudes toward biotechnology among the general public.

115

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education Many of these studies draw from Eurobarometer, an extensive survey on society, science and technology in European countries [9]. There are also a number of studies worldwide on the understandings and attitudes of students about biotechnology since formal schooling is seen as one of the most effective ways that contributes to scientific literacy of individuals [6]. For instance, Dawson and Schibeci [9], Massarani and Moreira [10], Gunter et al. [11], Chen and Raffan [12], Kolarova [13], Saez et al. [14], and Us¸ak et al. [15] reported weak-to-good knowledge of biotechnology among Brazilian, British, Taiwanese, Australian, and Turkish students. Prokop et al. [16], Hill et al. [17], and Moerbeek and Casimir [18] related students’ acceptance of and positive attitudes toward genetically modified organisms with their increased knowledge of biotechnology. However, research also reported negative correlations and/or no difference between attitudes toward and knowledge of biotechnology among students who studied biology/biotechnology/genetics and who did not [19–21]. This study questions this presumed relation between formal schooling and scientific literacy because pupils’ familiarity about socioscientific topics, biotechnologies in particular, is often overlooked. For instance, do the manner and the amount of science majors’ exposure to scientific knowledge really make them more knowledgeable about biotechnologies? Do their attitudes differ because they are assumed to be more knowledgeable than nonscience majors? On the other hand, we do not have a general view of nonscience majors’ knowledge of and attitudes toward science, biotechnologies in particular [22]. Are they able to develop a reasonably cogent set of views toward biotechnology [23] in such times that all people are expected to make informed decisions about its benefits and credible risks. Therefore, the below mentioned research questions are formulated. Sample of the study consists of university students because universities, the final stage of formal education, contribute to a higher proportion of civic scientific literacy regardless of pupils’ majors. What are the university students’ knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes toward biotechnological applications? Is there any correlation between the participants’ knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes toward biotechnological applications? Do university students’ majors cause any difference between their knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes toward biotechnological applications?

Methods This is a cross-sectional descriptive study. University students’ knowledge and attitudes toward biotechnology were explored through Biotechnology Knowledge Questionnaire (BKQ) [16] and the Biotechnology Attitude Questionnaire

116

(BAQ) [23]. Descriptive statistics (mean and percentages), t test, and correlations were used to examine the participants’ knowledge and attitudes and differences as regards their majors.

Sample Through convenience sampling 465 university students in class groups were invited to participate in the study. Response rate was 87% in total. The students were informed about the study, and the questionnaires were administered by the researcher with their informed consent. A total of 403 Turkish undergraduate and graduate students, consisting of 198 nonscience and 205 science majors, participated in the study. The sample represents 0.02% of all students enrolled in the university where the study was conducted. The science majors were studying Science Education and Mathematics; mainly the third and fourth year and graduate students. They all studied elective science courses i.e. physics, chemistry, and biology in the high school, and their undergraduate programs include science courses. The nonscience majors were from the Departments of English Language Teaching and Physical Education and Sports; mainly the fourth year and graduate students. They did not study elective science courses in the high school and their undergraduate programs do not include science related courses. A total of 238 of the participants were female and 108 of them were male (N’s vary somewhat due to missing data). A total of 46% of the participants were below the age of 20 years (n 5 185). Participants between the ages of 21 and 24 years constituted 36.5% of the sample (n 5 147). A total of 14 of the participants were older than 25 years.

Data Collection The BKQ [16] and the BAQ [23] were administered in the autumn and spring semesters of 2013–2014 and 2014– 2015 academic years. The BKQ was used to examine participants’ biotechnology knowledge. The BKQ was developed by Prokop et al. [16] through an extensive work on several other studies (e.g. refs. 20, 24–28) focusing on the same topic. The BKQ is one factorial, and it consists of 16 items on a five-point Likert-type scale i.e. 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Five of the items were negatively worded, and they were reverse scored for statistical analysis. Turkish version of the questionnaire was used as it was published in Us¸ak et al.’s [15] study. The BAQ was used to examine participants’ attitudes toward biotechnology. The BAQ was developed in Turkish an et al. [23]. The BAQ contains all aspects of bioby Erdog technology and consists of 7 factors and 28 items on a fivepoint Likert type scale i.e. 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. The factors are Consumption of Genetically Modified (GM) Products (four items), GM in Agro Industry (five items), Public Awareness of GM Organisms (PAGMO) (three items), Shopping of GM Products (SGMP) (six items), Ethics

Biotechnology Knowledge and Attitudes

FIG 1

Participants’ knowledge of biotechnology: percentages of their correct and incorrect responses to the BKQ. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

of Genetic Modification (three items), Ecological Impact of Genetic Engineering (four items), and Use of Genetic Engineering in Human Medicine (three items). In order to check if the BKQ and BAQ yield reliable and valid scores in this study i.e. if the factorial structures of these instruments would be confirmed in the present sample, two separate Confirmatory Factor Analyses were conducted by using LISREL 8.80 (28]). X2/df ratio (5) and root mean square error of approximation (0.08) were used [29, 30] to assess the data fit (see Appendices A and B for internal reliability of the factors, items, and their parameter estimations). Results of the first Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the BKQ’s one factor demonstrated acceptable fit to the data X2/ df 5 3.62; root mean square error of approximation 5 0.081. Internal reliability of the scale was 0.94 (see Appendix A for the items and their parameter estimations). The results of the second Confirmatory Factor Analysis for seven attitude factors of the BAQ also demonstrated acceptable fit to the data X2/df 5 2.52; root mean square error of approximation 5 0.061. However, R2 was lower for the first and the fifth items of the second factor i.e. GM in Agro Industry, and the third item of the seventh factor i.e. Use of Genetic Engineering in Human Medicine. When the items 2A “I support the use of food biotechnology to modify plant’s genetic structure to be more resistant to damage by insects, thereby reducing pesticide applications” 2E “I want to know more about genetically engineered foods” and 7C “I agree with production of insulin with using genetically modified microbes” were excluded from the analysis; fit indices improved (X2/df 5 2.03, root mean square error of approximation 5 0.051). Internal reliability of the subscales ranged from 0.58 to 0.83. Internal reliability of the factors, items and their parameter estimations are presented in Appendix B. Based on confirmatory factor analysis, it is

€ €urk-Akar Ebru Ozt

concluded that the BKQ [16] and the BAQ [23] were also valid and reliable in this study.

Data Analysis Descriptive statistics (mean, frequencies, and percentages) was used to conclude about the participants’ knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes toward biotechnological applications. The participants’ responses in the BKQ were recorded to conclude about their correct/incorrect responses. The participants’ “strongly agree” and “agree” responses were treated as correct responses whereas their “disagree” and “strongly disagree” choices were treated as incorrect responses. The participants’ choices of “undecided” were evaluated as if they do not know and/or have no idea about the item. It is expected that participants’ attitudes toward biotechnological applications correlate with their knowledge levels (Hypothesis 1). Therefore, Pearson Product–Moment correlation coefficients among the participants’ knowledge and attitude responses were computed. Independent samples t- test was also used to test the participants’ knowledge levels of biotechnology for statistically significant differences by their specialism. It is hypothesized that the science majors are more knowledgeable about biotechnology (Hypothesis 2). Independent samples t- test was used to test the participants’ attitudes toward biotechnological applications for statistically significant differences by their specialism. It is hypothesized that the science majors have a more positive attitude toward biotechnological applications (Hypothesis 3).

Results Knowledge of Biotechnology Figure 1 presents the percentages of the participants’ correct, incorrect and undecided responses to the BKQ items.

117


TABLE I

Mean scores of attitude factors

M

SD

N

Ecological Impact of Genetic Engineering (EIGE)

3.76

0.65

384

GM in Agro Industry (GMAI)

3.66

0.56

384

Use of Genetic Engineering in Human Medicine (UGEHM)

3.65

0.73

392

Ethics of Genetic Modifications (EGM)

3.40

0.85

390

Public Awareness of GMO (PAGMO)

2.63

0.79

388

Shopping of GM Products (SGMP)

2.14

0.79

385

Consumption of GM Products (CGMP)a

1.85

0.73

384

a. Factor is consisted of negatively worded items and responses were recoded.

The participants’ correct responses were used to deduce that they hold the biotechnology knowledge in questions. Their incorrect responses pointed to their misinformation i.e. they were exposed to biotechnological knowledge but processing and storage of that information were somehow flawed, and/or they exhibit partial understanding of biotechnology in questions and/or their knowledge is insufficient for a correct answer. Their undecided answers implied that they did not receive and stored biotechnological knowledge. As seen in Fig. 1, the participants’ undecided responses had the lowest percentages. This finding is used to infer that the participants had information about majority of the items. However, it was seen that the percentages of their incorrect responses were higher than the percentages of their correct responses i.e. percentages of the participants’ incorrect responses ranged from 48.1% to 69.2% for all items in the BKQ. Only for two i.e. the first and the third items of the BKQ, percentages of participants’ correct responses were higher than 40% that they know the applications of GM methods on animals and plants can increase their productivity and resistance against diseases. Therefore, it is inferred that the participants’ exposure to information did not help them to wholly process, store and/or build biotechnological knowledge. Their understandings of biotechnology processes rather remain superficial.

Attitudes Toward Biotechnology Responses of the participants showed that they were conservative to consume genetically modified products and unwilling to purchase these products. As seen in Table I, Consumption of GM Products and SGMP were the lowest rated attitudes toward biotechnology and biotechnological applications (Consumption of GM Product: M 5 1.85, SD 5 0.73, SGMP: M 5 2.14, SD 5 0.79). The participants were not satisfied with PAGMO (M 5 2.63, SD 5 0.79).

118

They were not convinced with human rights to perform genetic modifications (Ethics of Genetic Modifications, M 5 3.40, SD 5 0.85), either. High mean score of Ecological Impact of Genetic Engineering factor pointed to participants’ concerns for the negative impact of genetic engineering on the natural environment (Ecological Impact of Genetic Engineering: M 5 3.76, SD 5 0.65). However, the participants were supportive for the use of genetic engineering in agro industry, especially in the elimination of plant diseases (GM in Agro Industry: M 5 3.66, SD 5 0.56). Use of Genetic Engineering in Human Medicine factor also had a relatively high mean score which meant that the participants were supporting the use of genetically modified organisms in human medicine and in decomposing human sewage.

Relationships Among Biotechnology Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Biotechnological Applications Correlation coefficients were computed among knowledge and attitude factors to see a possible relationship between the participants’ biotechnology knowledge and attitudes toward biotechnological applications. The results of the correlational analyses presented in Table II show that two of the correlations were statistically significant but lower than 0.30 i.e. pointing to a weak relation. Therefore, it is concluded that the participants’ attitudes toward biotechnological applications did not considerably relate to their knowledge of biotechnology. This finding did not confirm Hypothesis 1.

Differences in Knowledge and Attitudes by Majors Independent t-test was used to test the participants’ knowledge levels of biotechnology and attitudes toward biotechnological applications for statistically significant differences by their majors. Considering their knowledge levels of biotechnology for statistically significant differences by their


TABLE II

Correlation of attitude and knowledge factors

CGMP

GMAI

PAGMO

SGMP

EGM

EIGE

UGEHM

CGMP GMAI

0.03

PAGMO

20.19

0.04

SGMP

20.56

0.13

0.29

EGM

0.36

20.12

20.01

20.16

EIGE

0.45

20.10

20.12

20.39

0.35

UGEHM

0.18

0.39

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.04

20.02

0.07

0.24a

0.18a

0.03

20.08

KNOWLEDGE a

0.07

p 0.05.

specialism, t-test results revealed that the science majors had higher scores (M 5 3.40, SD 5 0.29) than the nonscience majors (M 5 1.23, SD 5 0.30) supporting the second research hypothesis, t (360) 5 68.94, p 5 0.00. It was seen that more than 55% of science majors answered eight items of the BKQ correctly (see Fig. 2). Majority of science majors know that application of GM methods on animals can increase animal resistance against diseases (Item 1), practical application of GM plants may increase productivity and resistance of plants against diseases (Item 3) and consumption of GM food can destroy human genes (Item 14) (88.29%, 86.34%, and 81.77% respectively). Majority of the science majors also know that GM organisms are used in medicine (Item 2) and manipulation with DNA changes genes of GM organisms (Item 13) (76.47% and 70.94%,

FIG 2


respectively). The other correctly answered items by the science majors are genetic modification to plants can increase nutritional quality and flavor of fruits and develops traits to withstand shipping process (Item 6), microbes should be genetically engineered to make them more efficient at decomposing human sewage (Item 5), and foods with increasing nutritional value and vitamins can be created through genetic modification (Item 8). Similar to the science majors, more than 60% of the nonscience majors correctly responded to items about the application of GM methods on animals, practical application of GM plants, manipulation with DNA and utilization of GM organisms in medicine (Items 1, 3, 13, and 2, respectively). As seen in Fig. 3, their correct answers were 5 in total. The nonscience majors answered 16th item correctly

Science majors’ knowledge of biotechnology (n 5 205): most frequent correct responses. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

119


FIG 3

Nonscience majors’ knowledge of biotechnology (n 5 198): most frequent correct responses. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

that science majors failed to answer: GM crops are sterile (correctly answered by 62.44% of nonscience majors). Least correctly answered items by the science majors were Items 16, 4, and 12 (see Fig. 4). A total of 58.05% of the science majors think that GM crops are sterile, 45.54% of them think that GM organisms are always bigger than normal, and 35.78% of them think that GM of poultry results in greater proportion of lean. There were five items (Items 15, 7, 10, 11, and 10), which greater proportion of the science majors mentioned that they do not know. For instance, 76% of them mentioned that they do not know if recombinant bovine somatotropine is an animal drug that increases milk produced by dairy cows (Item 15). A total of 68.14% of the science majors also stated that they do not know if porcine somatotropin is a hormone active in hogs that directs dietary energy from fat disposition toward production of lean muscle (Item 7). See Fig. 4 for other items the science majors do not know. As seen in Fig. 5, majority of the nonscience majors (81.82%) least correctly answered the 14th item which is

FIG 4

120

about consumption of GM food that can destroy human genes. More than 60% of the nonscience majors also mentioned that they do not know about recombinant bovine somatotropin and porcine somatotropin and/or their functions, and if it is possible to transfer genetic material between dissimilar organisms (Items 15, 7, and 11) (see Fig. 5). The percentages of the nonscience majors’ correct responses to Items 9, 10, 4, 8, and 12 ranged between 18.37% and 33.50%. Therefore, it is concluded that the nonscience majors do not know if GM organisms contain dangerous chemicals, if genetic modification is painful for animals and if GM organisms are always bigger than normal. Their responses also showed that a greater proportion of the nonscience majors failed to correctly answer if foods with increasing nutritional value and vitamins can be created through genetic modification and if genetic modification of poultry results in greater proportion of lean. When an independent samples’ t-test was conducted to evaluate the third research hypothesis i.e. the science

Science majors’ knowledge of biotechnology (n 5 205): least frequent correct responses. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]


FIG 5

Nonscience majors’ knowledge of biotechnology (n 5 198): least frequent correct responses. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

majors’ attitude scores would be higher than the nonscience majors as they are more knowledgeable about biotechnology, results revealed significant differences between the science and the nonscience majors for the factors of PAGMO (t (384) 5 4.17, p 5 0.000) and SGMP (t (383) 5 3.59, p 5 0.000). The nonscience majors’ lower mean scores for both of the factors (PAGMO: M 5 2.45, SD 5 0.82 and SGMP: M 5 1.99 and SD 5 0.75) pointed to the fact that they are not satisfied with PAGMO, and they are less willing to purchase GM products compared to the science majors (PAGMO: M 5 2.78, SD 5 0.73 and SGMP: M 5 2.27 and SD 5 0.80) (Hypothesis 3 was confirmed).

Discussion This study focused on a sample of university students’ biotechnology knowledge and attitudes. On the basis of previous research [6–8], it was expected that the participants were exposed to biotechnology knowledge during their preuniversity and university education. Therefore, it was not surprising to see that the participants responded to the majority of items in the BKQ. Findings revealed that they knew the application of GM methods on animals and plants can increase their productivity and resistance against diseases. However, their responses were incorrect in general i.e. the participants’ processing and storage of biotechnological information were somehow flawed, their knowledge was insufficient for a correct answer and/or they exhibited partial understanding of biotechnology in questions. This finding on the other hand supports the previous research [11, 12, 15, 31], which also reported weak knowledge of biotechnology among different student groups. However, the participants had supportive attitudes toward the use of GMO and genetic engineering in agro industry, human medicine and decomposition of human sewage. Contrasting


the previous research [16, 18] i.e. better knowledge of biotechnology resulting in more positive attitudes, this finding is more related with Kolarova [13] and Saez et al.’s [14] conclusions i.e. attitudes toward biotechnology applications depend on the purpose of the genetic manipulation. Though the participants had weak knowledge of biotechnology, they have positive attitudes toward above mentioned biotechnological applications for the reason that these applications are known to facilitate and/or to contribute to human life. Besides, the correlation analysis also revealed a contrasting finding [16, 18] that the presumed relation between the participants’ knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes toward biotechnological applications was so weak. These findings are used to draw a conclusion that the participants’ attitudes toward biotechnological applications did not considerably relate to their knowledge of biotechnology. As a matter of fact, the participants were not satisfied with PAGMO. They were conservative to consume genetically modified products and unwilling to purchase them. These responses can be associated with the public fear and suspicion of biotech products seen among Turkish people i.e. public opinion is dominated by information on possible hazards from the consumption of biotech products such as an accepted link between GMOs and cancer [32]. Then the ways biotechnology issues were presented and/or taught in schools are questioned.

Do Majors Really Matter? Considering their knowledge levels of biotechnology for statistically significant differences, the participants’ majors seemed to be important. The science majors had higher scores of biotechnology knowledge than the nonscience majors. Yet, when their correct answers were examined, it was seen that they answered 8 out of 16 items correctly. Four of these items were also answered correctly by the

121

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education nonscience majors i.e. items about application of GM methods on animals, practical application of GM plants, manipulation with DNA and utilization of GM organisms in medicine. Similarly, both the science and the nonscience majors failed to present sufficient knowledge about the same items i.e. four items about the function of recombinant bovine somatotropine in milk production, function of porcine somatotropine, transfer of genetic material between dissimilar organisms and the size of genetically modified organisms. Despite the above mentioned similarities in their responses, the science majors’ correct but the nonscience majors’ incorrect responses to items about the influence of genetic modification on plants’ nutritional quality, value and flavor, and their withstanding to shipping processes seemed to have an influence on their consumer behaviors. For instance, the nonscience majors lacked the above mentioned knowledge and they were less willing to purchase genetically modified products compared to the science majors. Yet, they were more unsatisfied with PAGMO. It is deduced that they are in the need of making informed decisions about genetically modified products. However, their formal learning about biotechnologies is limited because they are nonscience majors. Findings of this study pointed to the fact that formal education did not help all participants to obtain scientific literacy about biotechnologies, the nonscience majors in particular. On the basis of their higher knowledge and attitude scores than the nonscience majors, it is not possible to say that the science majors have scientific literacy about biotechnologies, either. Besides, the participants’ attitudes toward biotechnological applications were not considerably related to their knowledge of biotechnology.

Limitations of the Study This study drew a profile of a convenient sample of university students. Similar studies should be conducted to test the generalizability of the findings and to draw a national

profile of Turkish university students. The influence of participants’ informal learning experiences and the role of public presentation of biotechnological applications in Turkey cannot be disregarded in drawing conclusions about the participants’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnologies.

Suggestions for Further Research Findings of this study pointed to the need to examine how biotechnology education is promoted in the Turkish formal education system. Identification of the type of distributed information about biotechnology also emerged as a need. Therefore, future research should seek if credible and accurate biotechnology information is discussed properly in classrooms, and if effective ways were utilized to facilitate learning of biotechnologies. In order to be able to make generalizations of this study’s findings and further studies about the factors influencing its efficiency, biotechnology education should be investigated in different contexts i.e. both formal and informal ways of its teachings, and in different countries where biotechnology topics have been integrated in school curricula. For better teaching practices, multidisciplinary knowledge and innovative teaching strategies should also be developed and utilized. In order to overcome the overestimated obstacles presented in the international research i.e. material and resource limitations, informative actions and teacher meetings such as credited biology-oriented courses and workshops should be organized as suggested by Fonseca et al. [33]. This study also provides a framework for the investigation of other socioscientific topics such as global warming and nuclear energy utilization that people are expected to be able make informed decisions about them.

APPENDIX A CFA of BKQ: items and their parameter estimations

Item

P.E.

S.E.

t values

1

Application of GM methods on animals can increase animal resistance against diseases (T)

0.11

0.96

25.46

2

GM organisms are used in medicine (e.g. insulin production with GM microorganisms) (T)

0.18

0.91

23.67

3

Practical application of GM plants may increase productivity and resistance of plants against diseases (T)

0.11

0.94

25.24

4

GM organisms are always bigger than normal (F)a

0.56

0.67

14.97

5

Microbes should be genetically engineered to make them more efficient at decomposing human sewage (T)

0.23

0.88

22.44

122


(Continued)

Item

P.E.

S.E.

t values

6

Genetic modification to plants can increase nutritional quality and flavor of fruits and develops traits to withstand shipping process (T)

0.24

0.87

22.08

7

Porcine somatotropin is a hormone active in hogs that directs dietary energy from fat disposition toward production of lean muscle (T)

0.34

0.81

19.84

8

Foods with increasing nutritional value and vitamins can be created through genetic modification (T)

0.31

0.83

20.38

9

GM organisms contain many dangerous chemicals (F)a

0.38

0.79

18.78

0.45

0.74

17.31

a

10

Genetic modification is painful for animals (F)

11

It is possible to transfer genetic material between dissimilar organisms, such as animals and plants, because DNA is chemically identical (T)

0.41

0.77

18.08

12

GM of poultry results in greater proportion of lean (T)

0.45

0.74

17.31

13

Manipulation with DNA changes genes of GM organisms (T)

0.22

0.88

22.50

14

Consumption of GM food can destroy human genes (F)a

0.16

0.92

24.24

15

Recombinant bovine somatotropin is an animal drug that increases milk produced by dairy cows (T)

0.47

0.78

16.86

16

GM crops are sterile (F)a

0.59

0.64

14.25

a

(F): negatively worded item. Reverse scored for further statistical comparisons.

(T): true item.

APPENDIX B CFA of BAQ: internal reliability of the factors, items, and their parameter estimations

Factors

P.E.

S.E.

t values

Altering the genes in fruit to improve their taste is not acceptable to me

0.49

0.72

15.39

I am against altering the genes of fruits and vegetables to make them stay fresh longer

0.42

0.76

16.77

Consumption of genetically modified food is risky

0.37

0.79

17.67

I would not give GM food to children

0.68

0.57

11.31

Consumption of GM Products (CGMP) (a 5 0.79, ıtem mean 5 4.14)

GM in Agro Industry (GMAI) (a 5 0.49, Item mean 5 3.66) I support the use of. . . I support the use of food biotechnology to modify plant’s genetic structure to be more resistant to damage by insects, thereby reducing pesticide applications.


Item is excluded from analysis after CFA 0.68

0.57

9.78

123


(Continued)

Factors

P.E.

S.E.

t values

Altering the genes of plants so that they will grow better in salty soils is acceptable to me

0.45

0.74

12.27

I agree with the use of plants in which genes increasing quality and productivity were inserted

0.76

0.49

8.41

I want to know more. . .

Item is excluded from analysis after CFA

Public Awareness of GMO (PAGMO) (a 5 0.61, Item mean 5 2.63) I trust the food industry to take necessary actions to provide safe genetically engineered foods

0.68

0.56

9.10

I think that current governmental regulations are sufficient to protect the public from risks associated with genetically engineered foods.

0.57

0.66

10.30

Public is sufficiently informed about risks associated withgenetically engineered foods

0.69

0.55

8.96

Genetically modified food does not influence human health

0.59

0.64

13.33

I would eat genetically modified tomatoes

0.44

0.75

16.42

I think that genetically modified products taste better

0.56

0.66

13.98

If I find that the product is made from genetically modified stuff, I will buy it

0.45

0.74

16.22

Inserting genes from human cells into the fertizilized eggs of sheep is acceptable to me

0.63

0.61

12.57

I support changing the genes in cattle to make their meat more nutritious to eat

0.57

0.66

13.87

I am opposed to transfer of genetic materialbetween plantsand animals

0.53

0.68

13.24

Manipulations with DNA are unethical

0.43

0.76

14.70

Men do not have rights to intervene to DNA, it is against nature

0.58

0.65

12.50

We should not alter the genes in plants to get them to make more oils useful in manufacturing

0.83

0.41

7.28

Genetic manipulations disturb ecological relationships

0.53

0.60

12.66

There is a threat of hybridization between genetically modified and normal plants which would endanger original genetic resources of wild plants

0.60

0.64

11.72

I would support a ban on the production and purchase of genetically engineered products

0.73

0.52

9.32

Shopping of GM Products (SGMP) (a 5 0.83, Item mean 5 2.14)

Ethics of Genetic Modifications (EGM) (a 5 0.74, Item mean 5 3.40)

Ecological Impact of Genetic Engineering (EIGE) (a 5 0.63, Item mean 5 3.76)

Use of Genetic Engineering in Human Medicine (UGEHM) (a 5 0.58, Item mean 5 3.65) Use of GM microbes to decompose human sewage is acceptable to me

0.48

0.72

8.65

I support the use of genetic engineering for non food purposes such as production of human medicines

0.68

0.57

7.83

I agree with production. . .

124

Item is excluded from analysis after CFA


References [1] Borgerding, L. A. Sadler, T. D., and Koroly, M. J. (2013) Teachers’ concerns about biotechnology education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 22, 133–147. [2] Dawson, V. and Venville, G. J. (2009) High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 1421–1445. [3] Pardo, R. Midden, C., and Miller, J. D. (2002) Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. J. Biotechnol. 98, 9–24. [4] Amin, L. Johi, J. M., and Nor, A. R. M. (2007) Public acceptance of modern biotechnology. Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology 15, 39–51. [5] Thomas, G. and Durants, J. (1987) Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Sci. Lit. Pap. 1, 1–14. [6] Miller, J. D. (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Pub. Understanding Sci. 7, 203–223. [7] Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2011). Global Learning and Scientific Literacy at the Crossroads. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2011/spring. [8] Miller, M. C. D. Montplaisir, L. M. Offerdahl, E. G. Cheng, F.-C., and Ketterling, G. L. (2010) Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience major. CBE- Life Sci. Educ. 9, 45–54. [9] Dawson, W. and Schibeci, R. (2003) Western Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 57–69. [10] Massarani, L. and Moreira, I. C. (2005) Attitudes towards genetics: A case study among Brazilian high school students. Pub. Understanding Sci. 14, 201–212. [11] Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., and Beyleveld, D. (1998) Teenagers and biotechnology: A survey of understanding and opinion in Britain. Stud. Sci. Educ. 32, 81–112. [12] Chen, S. Y. and Raffan, J. (1999) Biotechnology: students’ knowledge and attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. J. Biol. Educ. 34, 17–23. [13] Kolarova, T. (2011) Modern biotechnology from the point of view of 15– 19-year-old high school students. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 25, 2538–2546. [14] Saez, M. J. Nino, A. G., and Carretero, A. (2008) Matching society values: students’ view of biotechnology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 30, 167–183. € [15] Us¸ak, M., Erdo gan, M. Prokop, P., and Ozel, M. (2009) High school and university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 37, 123–130. [16] Prokop, P. Leskova, A. Kubiatko, M., and Diran, C. (2007) Slovakian students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 895–907. [17] Hill, R., Stanisstreet, M. Boyes, E., and O’Sullivan, H. (1998) Reactions to the new technology: Students’ ideas about genetically engineered food stuffs. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 16, 203–216.


[18] Moerbeek, H. and Casimir, G. (2005) Gender differences in high school students’ views about science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 363–381. [19] Dawson, V. and Soames, C. (2006) The effect of biotechnology education on Australian high school students’ understandings and attitudes about biotechnology processes. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 24, 183–198. [20] Olsher, G. and Dreyfus, A. (1999) The “ostension-teaching” approach as a means to develop junior-high student attitudes towards biotechnologies. J. Biol. Educ. 34, 25–31. [21] Dawson, V. and Schibeci, R. (2004) Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. J. Biol. Educ. 38, 7– 12. [22] Arwood, L. (2004) Teaching cell biology to nonscience majors through forensics, or how to design a killer course. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 131–138. € [23] Erdo gan, M. Ozel, M. Us¸ak, M., and Prokop, P. (2009) Development and validation of an instrument to measure university students’ biotechnology attitude. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18, 255–264. [24] Arvanitoyannis, I. S. and Krystallis, A. (2005) Consumers’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards genetically modified foods, based on the “perceived safety vs. benefits” perspective. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 40, 343–360. [25] Lock, R. and Miles, C. (1993) Biotechnology and genetic engineering: Students’ knowledge and attitudes. J. Biol. Educ. 27, 267–273. [26] Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., and Rusanen, M. (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal. 23, 751–766. [27] Subrahmanyan, S. and Cheng, P. S. (2000) Perceptions and attitudes of Singaporeans toward genetically modified foods. J. Consum. Aff. 34, 269–290. [28] Wie, S. H., Strohbehn, C. H., and Hsu, C. H. (1998) Iowa dietitians’ attitudes toward and knowledge of genetically engineered and irradiated foods. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 98, 1331–1333. € reskog, K.G. and So € rborn, D. (2007). Lisrel & Structural Equation [29] Jo Modeling with the Simplis Command Language, Scientific Software International, Inc, Lincolnwood. [30] Klein, P. D. (2006) The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 2–3. € rkmen, L. and Darc¸ın, E. E. (2007) A comparative study of Turkish ele[31] Tu mentary and science education major students’ knowledge levels at the popular biotechnological issues. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2, 125–131. [32] United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). Turkey Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. Retrieved from https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/ turkey-agricultural-biotechnology-annual. [33] Fonseca, M. J., Costa, P. Lencastre, L., and Tavares, F. (2012) Disclosing biology teachers’ beliefs about biotechnology and biotechnology education. Teaching Teach. Educ. 28, 368–381.

125