Q 2010 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
Article Knowlege of, Attitudes Toward, and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms Among Prospective Teachers of Biology, Home Economics, and Grade School in Slovenia Received for publication, July 21, 2009, and in revised form, October 15, 2009 Andrej Sˇorgo‡, and Jana Ambrozˇicˇ-Dolinsˇek§‡|| From the ‡Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, Korosˇka 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia, and §Faculty of Education, University of Maribor, Korosˇka 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
The objective of this study was to investigate knowledge, opinions, and attitudes toward, as well as readiness to accept genetically modified organisms (GMOs) among prospective primary and secondary Slovene teachers. Our findings are that prospective teachers want to take an active role in rejecting or supporting individual GMOs and are aware of the importance of education about genetically modified organism (GMO) items and their potential significance for society. Through cluster analysis, we recognized four clusters of GMOs, separated by degree of genetically modified acceptability. GM plants and microorganisms which are recognized as useful are accepted. They are undecided about organisms used in research or medicine and reject organisms used for food consumption and for fun. There are only weak correlations between knowledge and attitudes and knowledge and acceptance of GMOs, and a strong correlation between attitudes and acceptance. The appropriate strategies and actions for improving university courses in biotechnology are discussed. Keywords: Genetically modified organisms, knowledge, attitudes, acceptance.
In the past decades, rapid developments in the understanding of genetics and molecular biology, combined with new laboratory techniques end equipment, have led to the development of several biotechnological applications, like genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology, gene cloning, therapeutic and reproductive cloning, and many others. These applications and practices have transformed biotechnology into one of the most rapidly changing, exciting, and propulsive areas of science and technology. Besides those advances that have been achieved or anticipated, new findings and applications raise concerns not only in the science community but also in domains classically recognized as social and humanistic. Nowadays we are witnesses that the transfer of biotechnology discoveries to crop production, industry, or medicine is not only restricted by the limiting factors of technology, underdeveloped scientific methods, or modes of scientific reasoning but also by ethics, morals, faith, the economy, environmental responsibility, risks, politics, education, etc. [1–8]. To cover the social and scientific aspects of issues such as environmental issues, biotechnology, genetics, or medicine, the term "socio-scientific issue" was coined [9–11]. From the socio-scientific view, modern biotechnological issues are frequently controversial [12] and, espe-
|| To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
[email protected]. This paper is available on line at http://www.bambed.org
cially in cases when they become the subject of public interest debates, are often backed up with limited knowledge and strong attitudes [2]. In educational practice, such public debates are reflected in the classroom, where teachers are challenged by complex issues and where proficiency in one discipline is in most cases insufficient to answer students’ curiosity. To balance the social and science sides of socio-scientific issues, it was proposed to teach such issues in an interdisciplinary manner [13] which can be accompanied in practice by obstacles [4, 14]. Classroom work in pairs or with larger group of students depends on their syllabuses and course schedules; it is difficult to organize extra instruction in regular school time or to include it in already overloaded courses. When such a theme is assigned to a single teacher, probably the most important obstacle is that science teachers often lack appropriate knowledge about the social side of the issue. In contrast, knowledge of science issues among teachers in social science or humanities subject is often even greater barrier to thorough teaching of the scientific aspect of an issue. Working against enjoyment of such teaching is the worldwide recognition that science is unpopular among students [15–17]. The role of the teachers at school in socio-scientific issues like genetic engineering or biotechnology applications is not neutral, but together with transfer of knowledge, shapes the attitudes of the students, as well. In the case of socio-scientific issues, we can recognize a
141
DOI 10.1002/bmb.20377
142
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
double standard. If standards for the scientific part of the issue are clearly based on scientific paradigms, the social part of the issue is generally undefined and left to the teacher’s own belief and attitudes. As a result, debates around a socio-scientific issue in the classroom often neglect rational explanations and are closer to the paranormal, superstition, fear, and mysticism. As trainers of prospective biology and grade school teachers and providers of in-service training, we have recognized that our students are unprepared for the prospective challenges in teaching socio-scientific issues. So we decided to include socio-scientific issues in courses in didactics of biology and biotechnology, to prepare prospective teachers for forthcoming classroom debates in their career, using GMOs as a model. To set a baseline for the courses, we decided to test not only knowledge of genetics but also attitudes toward and acceptance of GMOs. MATERIAL AND METHODS
Structure of the Sample and Sampling The sample comprised primary and secondary school teachers who are very likely to include teaching about GMOs in their prospective careers. Our sample included prospective teachers from three Slovenian Universities (University of Maribor, University of Ljubljana, and University of Primorska). We collected 565 questionnaires in the academic year 2008 [University of Maribor (N ¼ 264, 46.7%); University of Ljubljana (N ¼ 239, 42.3%); and University of Primorska (N ¼ 62, 11%)]. To seek differences between subgroups in our sample was not a leading idea of our work, so we generally performed analyses with all prospective teachers as a single group. Only in some cases were prospective teachers assigned to one of the two subgroups. When comparing differences between these two subgroups, Group 1: prospective biology teachers (N ¼ 141) and Group 2: prospective teachers of home economics and grade school teachers (N ¼ 269), statistical analysis was performed only in cases where a student gave all answers (N ¼ 410). In our study, we did not ask about gender or other personal data. Although it has been reported that there do exist differences in attitudes toward biotechnology between men and women [18], such findings can be interesting, but unimportant for the purpose of our study because, as teacher educators, we neither form study groups in our courses based on gender, age, religion, etc., nor prepare courses on such a basis.
Structure of the Questionnaire To find out prospective teachers’ knowledge, level of acceptance, and attitudes toward GMOs, a questionnaire was assembled. The questionnaire was divided into four parts: 1) personal data; 2) knowledge; 3) attitudes, and 4) acceptance of GMO and was completed anonymously. Knowledge concerning genetics, biotechnology, and GMO was evaluated through a true–false questionnaire consisting of 30 statements. Prospective teachers had to choose among three options: true; do not know; false. The correct answer on 17 statements was ‘‘true’’ and on 13 statements was ‘‘false,’’ a device which prevented guessing. The statements could be assigned to two general fields. The first set included statements from general genetics, with topics mostly covered in high-school genetics courses. The second set consisted of statements from classic and modern biotechnology and legislation. The questionnaire statements were ordered randomly to prevent automatism in answering. The reliability of the questionnaire, expressed as Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.833, which
can be recognized as good. As a measure of knowledge, the sum of correct answers was used to calculate correlations and means for comparing differences among biology and other teachers from the sample. In Table I, the frequencies and percentages of true, false, and do not know answers are reported. Attitudes and opinions toward GMOs (Table II) were evaluated through a closed questionnaire, using a five-point Likert scale (5, Strongly agree; 4, Agree; 3, Neutral; 2, Disagree; 1, Strongly disagree). Twenty-eight statements were provided. We tried to recognize attitudes toward different applications, so we provided statements from various fields, such as health–medical applications, food applications, farming, education, and society and research (science) applications. Additionally, all statements regardless of field can be grouped into two subgroups: In the first group feelings like anxiety are explored, and the second subgroup includes statements in which we explored preparation for action. In the questionnaire, we used a mixed approach, so in some cases disagreement with a statement represents a positive attitude in reality. For the purposes of statistical analysis, we numerically coded such statements in the opposite direction. Opposite coded statements are designated with an asterisk (*) in the tables. In this way it is possible to compare means and calculate sums for individual prospective teachers. As a general measure of attitudes toward GMOs, we can use the means, and in cases when we are tracking a single prospective teacher, the sum of points received on answers. Hence, a prospective teacher who would in all cases strongly agree with the given statements and in that way express a positive attitude toward GMOs would get the maximum of 140 points, whereas in contrast, a prospective teacher expressing the most negative attitudes would receive 28 points. The reliability of the questionnaire, expressed as Cronbach’s alpha, is 0.854, which can be recognized as very good. Finally, exploratory factorial analysis on attitudes was carried out to define the structure of the data (Table III). Acceptance of GMOs was evaluated with a closed questionnaire, where teachers were asked to circle an answer on a 17item list of different existing or potentially existent GMOs (Table IV) and in this way express their opinion about GMOs. We provided three answers: 3, not acceptable; 2, don’t know, do not have an opinion; 1, acceptable. The direction of the numbering was the opposite to that in the attitude scale to prevent automatism. The level of acceptance was expressed as the sum of different genetically modified (GM) organisms that were acceptable to these prospective teachers. Thus, the score was 17 for a prospective teacher for whom all items were acceptable and 51 in the case of a prospective teacher for whom all items were unacceptable. The questionnaire had a reliability level, expressed as Cronbach’s alpha, of 0.873, which can be recognized as very good. Finally, cluster analysis for acceptance was carried out to assign organisms to groups with as much similarity within and difference among the groups as possible (Fig. 1).
Correlation Between Attitudes, Knowledge, and Acceptability For calculating correlations between attitudes, knowledge, and acceptability only prospective teachers who answered on all fields in the questionnaire were chosen. In that manner we calculated correlations for 410 cases (Fig. 2). We used sums of answers as initial data for the calculations. In the case of acceptability, we used a reversed scale to get a result as a positive correlation.
Statistical Analyses Analysis of the results followed four tracks, and the statistical package SPSS1 17.0 was used for data analysis. Chi-square
143 TABLE I Knowledge of prospective biology, home economics, and grade school teachers about genetically modified organisms True (T)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
False (F)
Do not know/ empty
Statement
N
%
N
%
N
%
Bacteria have the ability to mutually exchange genes. (T) The vaccine against hepatitis B used to vaccinate all school children was produced with genetically modified yeast. (T) Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) occurs only in genetically modified organisms. (F) Bacteria genes from yogurt that can be consumed can be incorporated into cells in the human organism. (F) Genes are sequences (of nucleotides) on chromosomes. (T) Genes are not normally transmitted from species to species in nature. (T) GM crops are cultivated in Slovenia. (F) Insulin for treating human diabetes is produced from GM (genetically modified) pig and cow pancreata. (F) Products from GMOs (genetically modified organisms) must be labeled as containing GM components. (T) A cat can fertilize a female rabbit; the resulting young rabbits have shorter ears. (F) Mutations are the result of cloning. (F) Mutations are always inherited. (F) Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a source of information for the synthesis of proteins. (T) Before application of GM (genetically modified) plants, it is obligatory to perform a risk assessment about possible harmful influences of GM plants on the health of people, animals (other organisms), and the environment. (T) Reproductive cloning from cells harvested from an adult produces an embryo from which develops a child genetically identical to this adult. (F) Therapeutic cloning from cells harvested from an adult produces an embryo, the source of embryonic stem cells, which develop into several types of cells, used for treating diseases or harmful tissues of the same person. (T) Therapeutic cloning from stem cells harvested from an adult produces several types of cells, used for treating diseases or harmful tissues of the same person. (T) Propagation of plants by cuttings is cloning. (T) Recessive genes are never expressed. (F) Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a genetically modified form of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). (F) Slovenia has passed a law dealing with GMOs. (T) The sex of the child depends on male sex cells. (T) Biogas methane from biogas reactors is produced by bacteria. (T) In Slovenia only GM corn is produced and marked as MON 810. (F) All mutations are harmful. (F) Bread rising is a biotechnological process. (T) The cloning of genes and the cloning of organisms require the same methods of work. (F) Stem cells occur in adult humans. (T) Cloning of human embryos is already possible. (T) The transfer of animal genes to plants is possible. (T)
173 57
30.8 10.1
84 61
14.9 10.8
305 447
54.3 79.1
16
2.8
411
72.7
138
24.4
67
11.9
255
45.1
243
43.0
372 165
66.1 29.4
54 270
9.6 48.0
137 127
24.3 22.6
340 62
60.6 11.0
40 93
7.1 16.5
181 408
32.3 72.5
412
73.6
32
5.7
116
20.7
12
2.1
415
73.5
138
24.4
154 103 374
27.3 18.3 67.3
311 342 30
55.1 60.7 5.4
99 118 152
17.6 21.0 27.3
401
71.5
20
3.6
140
25.0
319
56.8
40
7.1
203
36.1
156
28.0
66
11.8
336
60.2
185
33.0
40
7.1
335
59.8
181 43 45
32.3 7.7 8.0
300 227 325
53.6 40.7 57.8
79 288 192
14.1 51.6 34.2
112 364 101 32 43 210 66
20.0 64.9 18.1 5.7 7.7 38.0 11.8
47 135 33 66 418 138 136
8.4 24.1 5.9 11.8 74.9 25.0 24.4
400 62 423 462 97 204 356
71.6 11.1 75.9 82.5 17.4 37.0 63.8
294 316 113
52.6 56.6 20.2
58 84 150
10.4 15.1 26.8
207 158 297
37.0 28.3 53.0
The highest results are given in boldface.
(v2) statistics were used to identify differences in frequencies of answers among different groups of prospective teachers. In preliminary studies when we tried to identify differences among answers within a set of statements, the Mann-Whitney and Kruskall-Wallis tests were performed. To compare differences in means among different groups of prospective teachers, the Ftest was performed, and to correlate their answers, the Pearson correlation coefficient was used. Symbols used in the figures are as follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. To examine latent factors, principal component analysis [19] with varimax rotation was performed. The suitability of the matrix was tested with KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) and Barlett’s test. The internal reliability was tested by Cronbach’s alpha [20, 21].
RESULTS
Knowledge As a measure of knowledge we used a sum of correct answers, in which the highest possible score obtained from a single prospective teacher was 30. The mean result of correct answers for the whole sample was M ¼ 14.8; SD ¼ 5.2. The highest scores were 25 in both groups, a result which means that some prospective teachers possess a very good level of knowledge. The differences were, as expected, statistically significant (F (1, 408) ¼ 151,665; p ¼ 0.000) among prospective biol-
144
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
TABLE II Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of attitudes toward GMOs evaluated through a closed questionnaire, using a five-point Likert scale (5, strongly agree; 4, agree; 3, neutral; 2, disagree; 1, strongly disagree)
1* 2* 3 4 5 6 7* 8*
9 10 11* 12 13 14* 15 16* 17* 18* 19* 20* 21* 22* 23 24* 25* 26 27* 28
Statements
N
M
SD
*I fear that the consequence of GMO usage will be an increased number of allergies. *If I received a gift of chocolate containing fats from GM soya, I would throw it away. If I had an illness caused by genetic malfunction, I would choose treatment by gene therapy. It would be good for farmers to cultivate GMOs because they would use less spray for pests and pathogens. Genetically modified plants are more acceptable than genetically modified animals. Education about GMOs should be organized for all school teachers, regardless of the subject they teach. *Apples genetically modified by genes from other sorts of apples are not acceptable to me. *Beef from animals fed with fodder that was cultivated with pesticides is more acceptable to me than beef from animals fed with genetically modified fodder. I would plant genetically modified plants in my garden. All society should benefit from GMOs, not only their producers. *On no account would I buy foodstuffs containing GMOs. Teaching about GMOs should, besides the facts, also introduce values and a moral and ethical component. I would prefer foodstuffs from GMOs if they were healthier than foodstuffs obtained conventionally. *I would rather die than have an organ from a GM animal transplanted into my body. GMO research should be additionally stimulated. *GMO research should be stopped until it is clear that it is entirely safe. *Researchers working on GMOs conceal from us data about their harmful effects. I would worry about children’s health if school meals were prepared from GMOs. *I would worry that GMOs could cross into the environment. *I would be worried if the effects of GMO consumption could show up after a long time period. *I would worry about nature if I knew that farmers cultivated GMOs. *I am afraid that bacterial resistance to antibiotics may increase because of GMOs. Pupils are not capable of creating their own system of values about GMOs and need to be guided by teachers. *I would be angry if foodstuffs produced from GMOs weren’t marked. *Production of GMOs is against the laws of nature and should be forbidden. I would be glad if we could breed animal – organ donors by gene manipulation GMOs should be a topic in subjects such as biology or home economics and not in other school subjects. I would buy a GM ornamental house plant out of curiosity.
557
3.58
0.994
555
2.68
1.132
549
3.04
1.009
560
2.59
1.145
562
2.90
1.217
563
3.95
1.005
563
2.67
1.035
558
2.58
0.946
562 556
2.44 3.50
1.111 1.027
549 564
2.89 3.98
1.045 0.838
562
3.45
1.094
559
2.54
1.269
559 559
3.43 3.24
1.084 1.211
561
3.62
0.931
563
3.64
1.003
561
3.59
0.920
555
4.18
0.833
561 562
3.57 3.92
0.992 0.899
563
4.01
0.988
563 560
4.29 3.03
0.769 1.017
561
3.04
1.164
562
2.21
1.036
563
2.98
1.240
Statements marked with an asterisk were coded in the opposite direction because disagreement with such statements means a positive attitude toward the issue.
ogy teachers (N ¼ 141;M ¼ 16.1; SD ¼ 3.8) and prospective teachers of home economics and prospective grade school teachers (N ¼ 269; M ¼ 10.6, SD ¼ 4.7). In statistical analysis, only cases where a prospective teacher gave all answers (N ¼ 410) have been used. When correct statements from the whole sample were summarized (Table I), we were able to recognize that only 13 of 30 statements were correctly answered by 50% or more prospective teachers. Nine of them were answers from the classical genetics curriculum
(DNA structure, replication, gene code for proteins, inheritance, plant propagation etc.), whereas the majority of prospective teachers have poor knowledge about issues concerning modern biotechnology. The exceptions were two statements dealing with consumer rights and legislation, in which students know about the need to label GMOs in Slovenia, and about risk assessment for possible harmful effects of GM plants on the health of people, animals (and other organisms) and the environment.
145 TABLE III Factor loadings for attitudes toward gene modified organisms V
Statements/factors
1
*I fear that the consequence of GMO usage will be an increased number of allergies. *If I received a gift of chocolate containing fats from GM soya, I would throw it away. If I had an illness caused by genetic malfunction, I would choose treatment by gene therapy. It would be good for farmers to cultivate GMOs because they would use less spray for pests and pathogens. Genetically modified plants are more acceptable than genetically modified animals. Education about GMOs should be organized for all school teachers, regardless of the subject they teach. *Apples genetically modified by genes from other sorts of apples are not acceptable to me. *Beef from animals fed with fodder that was cultivated with pesticides is more acceptable to me than beef from animals fed with genetically modified fodder. I would plant genetically modified plants in my garden. All society should benefit from GMOs, not only their producers. *On no account would I buy foodstuffs containing GMOs. Teaching about GMOs should, besides the facts, also introduce values and a moral and ethical component. I would prefer foodstuffs from GMOs if they were healthier than foodstuffs obtained conventionally. *I would rather die than have an organ from a GM animal transplanted into my body. GMO research should be additionally stimulated. *GMO research should be stopped until it is clear that it is entirely safe.. *Researchers working on GMOs conceal from us data about their harmful effects. I would worry about children’s health if school meals were prepared from GMOs. *I would worry that GMOs could cross into the environment. *I would be worried if the effects of GMO consumption could show up after a long time period. *I would worry about nature if I knew that farmers cultivated GMOs. *I am afraid that bacterial resistance to antibiotics may increase because of GMOs. Pupils are not capable of creating their own system of values about GMOs and need to be guided by teachers. *I would be angry if foodstuffs produced from GMOs weren’t marked. *Production of GMOs is against the laws of nature and should be forbidden. I would be glad if we could breed animal 2 organ donors by gene manipulation. GMOs should be a topic in subjects such as biology or home economics and not in other school subjects. I would buy a GM ornamental house plant out of curiosity.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
0.489
0.230
0.009
0.045
0.018
0.064
0.215
0.718
0.053
20.165
20.055
0.030
0.136
20.026
0.111
0.044
0.493
0.086
0.365
0.099
0.581
20.067
0.207
0.196
0.068
0.046
0.754
20.035
0.001
20.074
20.022
20.183
20.023
0.769
0.042
20.035
0.269
0.638
0.240
20.122
20.062
0.276
0.113
0.316
20.001
0.162
20.377
0.515
0.355 20.018 0.379 20.358
0.331 0.455 0.583 20.054
0.530 0.332 0.236 0.037
20.077 0.140 20.094 0.595
0.112 0.228 0.107 20.059
0.047 0.060 0.143 20.038
20.094
0.198
0.414
0.052
0.406
0.169
0.122
0.556
20.152
0.041
0.456
20.013
0.037 0.263
0.048 0.136
0.103 20.042
0.075 20.078
0.286 0.149
0.733 0.679
0.619
0.173
0.119
20.092
0.067
0.206
0.662
0.335
0.210
20.069
0.106
0.207
0.660 0.761
0.135 20.034
0.071 0.093
20.007 20.176
0.189 0.000
0.034 0.107
0.633
0.296
0.217
20.124
0.171
0.138
0.678
0.006
0.019
20.063
0.020
0.010
20.359
20.083
0.122
0.459
20.017
0.137
0.522
0.228
0.039
20.262
0.080
20.054
0.360
0.546
0.115
20.043
0.256
0.260
0.135
0.145
0.058
20.124
0.727
0.152
0.049
0.349
20.366
0.618
0.010
0.074
0.265
0.301
0.332
0.110
0.369
20.054
Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation was converged in eight iterations.
When incorrect statements from the whole sample were summarized (Table I), we were able to recognize that only three of 30 statements were incorrectly answered by 50% or more prospective teachers. Two involved statements from the field of modern biotechnology and one from classical genetics. Prospective teachers think that GM crops are cultivated in Slovenia and do not understand the broadest meaning of reproductive cloning. They cannot recognize propagation by cuttings as cloning and hardly recognized that the correct meaning of reproductive cloning is in fact somatic cell nuclear transfer.
When ‘‘don’t know’’ statements from the whole sample were summarized, we found that 11 of 30 statements elicited ‘‘do not know’’ by 50% and more prospective teachers. The majority, nine of them originate from the field of ‘‘modern biotechnology,’’ and among them six are statements about GMOs or about biotechnology and two about therapeutic cloning. Among statements about GMO, five describe medicinal use and possible benefits for human health, and the other three on production of biofuel, cultivation of GM corn, and the existence of legislation for GMO. The minority, two of the ‘‘don’t know’’ statements come from the field of classical genet-
146
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010 TABLE IV Acceptance level of different kinds of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) 1*
2*
3*
V
Genetically modified organisms
N
%
N
%
N
%
1
Domesticated animals with new properties (for example, cats with no-shed or nonallergenic fur). Genetically modified viruses designed for the transfer of genes between organisms. Crop plants with increased tolerance to stress conditions (for example, drought, salinity, etc.) Microorganisms that can degrade toxic or harmful substances previously biologically nondegradable Microorganisms with the ability to synthesize medicinal substances (for example, insulin). Microorganisms with the ability to synthesize applicable organic substances (for example, various organic acids). Microorganisms used for organic synthesis in the food industry (for example, bioethanol). Ornamental house plants with new properties (for example, ornamental plants that glow in the dark). Ornamental garden plants with new properties (for example, blue carnations). Plants used for producing biofuel. Plants for human food with improved quality characteristics of fruit (for example, prolonged cold storage, more intense coloration, etc.). Plants for human food resistant to pests and pathogens. Plants for animal food resistant to pests and pathogens Plants with the ability to synthesize medicinal substances. Animals, for example, goats, that produce milk containing medicinal substances (for example, coagulation blood factor). Animals reared as donors for GM organ transplants (replacing or repairing defective organs or tissue). Animals for food consumption having meat with improved characteristics (for example, meat with low fat or with more intense color).
148
28.1
125
23.8
253
48.1
100
19.0
283
53.8
143
27.2
349
66.3
102
19.4
75
14.3
380
72.2
103
19.6
43
8.2
355
67.5
139
26.4
32
6.1
247
47.0
240
45.6
39
7.4
166
31.6
289
54.9
71
13.5
110
20.9
123
23.4
293
55.7
191
36.3
118
22.4
217
41.3
369 122
70.2 23.2
106 139
20.2 26.4
51 265
9.7 50.4
163 169 299 164
31.0 32.1 56.8 31.2
180 175 160 182
34.2 33.3 30.4 34.6
183 182 67 180
34.8 34.6 12.7 34.2
165
31.4
176
33.5
185
35.2
100
19.0
159
30.2
267
50.8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
The highest frequencies of answers are given in boldface. *1, acceptable; *2, do not have an opinion, don’t know; *3, not acceptable.
ics: the exchange of genes between bacteria and the expression of recessive genes. The biggest surprise was the discovery that 12 of 565 (2.1%) prospective teachers believe that ‘‘A cat can fertilize a female rabbit; the resulting young rabbits have shorter ears,’’ whereas only about three-quarters (73.5%) could provide the correct answer. Moreover, only 64.9% of respondents know that ‘‘The sex of the child depends on male sex cells.’’
tion could show up after a long time period’’ (N ¼ 432; 83.3%). They also recognize the importance of school, where teaching about GMOs should be incorporated into curriculum of all subjects by disagreeing with the state-
Attitudes According to the frequencies of the answers (not presented) and calculated means (Table II), we could say that attitudes toward GMOs among the prospective teachers are not negative in general, but that they are founded on concerns and insecurity about their possible yet unknown impact. The pattern is easily recognizable in a pair where more than half of the prospective teachers disagree or strongly disagree (N ¼ 317; 56.1%) with the statement ‘‘I would rather die than have an organ from a GM animal transplanted into my body,’’ and agreement with the statements ‘‘I would be angry if foodstuffs produced from GMOs weren’t marked’’ (N ¼ 494, 87.8%), and ‘‘I would be worried if the effects of GMO consump-
FIG. 1. Dendrogram of clusters of genetically modified organisms using average linkage (between groups) based on acceptance level. An, animal; Mo, microorganism; Pl, plants; Vi, virus; humfood, human food; medic, medicine; resear, research; foodind, food industry; don, donor of organs; orn, ornamental; dom, domesticated; apl, application; env, environment; fuel, fuel; resist, resistance.
147 Acceptability
FIG. 2. Correlation between knowledge about, attitudes towards and acceptance of GMOs among Slovenian prospective teachers. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.We chose for calculations only students who answered all fields in the questionnaire (N ¼ 410).
ment that ‘‘GMOs should be a topic in subjects such as Biology or Home Economics and not in other school subjects’’ (N ¼ 368; 65.4%), with only one-tenth of the prospective teachers agreeing with such a solution. They also agree with the statement that ‘‘Education about GMOs should be organized for all school teachers, regardless of the subject they teach’’ (N ¼ 408; 72.4%) and recognize the importance of teachers in education about socio-scientific issues by agreeing with the statement ‘‘Pupils are not capable of creating their own system of values about GMOs and need to be guided by teachers’’ (N ¼ 441; 78.3%). We gained additional insight into attitudes toward GMOs with exploratory factorial analysis; we were able to recognize six factors, explaining 52.5% of variance. The first factor (Cronbach’s alpha 0.828) was named ‘‘Concerns and insecurity.’’ We found that prospective teachers mostly worry about the possible yet unknown impacts of GMOs, but that they trust researchers not to hide data about their harmful effects. The second factor (Cronbach’s alpha 0.772) was named ‘‘Active rejection or support’’ for GMOs. Prospective teachers want to play an active role in the acceptance or rejection of GMOs based on their own decisions. The third factor was named ‘‘Scaling of acceptability’’ (Cronbach’s alpha 0.543). Even if our first intention was not to scale acceptability, through this questionnaire we can recognize a pattern where students accept or reject GMOs on an individual basis and not GMOs as a whole group. The fourth factor was named ‘‘Education’’ (Cronbach’s alpha 0.624) and comprises of statements with strongly expressed agreement about the need for such education to be incorporated into the whole curriculum. The fifth factor was named ‘‘Health’’ (Cronbach’s alpha 0.520). In this factor are grouped statements about health. It seems that when health is in question some barriers fall, and the acceptance level toward GMOs is higher. The sixth factor was named ‘‘Research’’ (Cronbach’s alpha 0.496), and we can recognize a pattern that students support research concerning GMOs.
When discussing acceptance, we were able to recognize that prospective teachers do not generally accept or reject GMOs. We can conclude that acceptance of one type of GMO does not mean that some other GMO will also be accepted automatically. GM microorganisms and plants are generally more acceptable than GM animals, and GMOs not used for food consumption are generally more acceptable than GMOs used for food. The majority of choices fall into the pro or contra GSO group, and only a minority of choices into the uncertainty group (do not know; do not have an opinion). This finding can be an indicator that prospective teachers want to make decisions for themselves. We gained additional insight into acceptance of GMOs with cluster analysis, where we can recognize four clusters of organisms. In the first cluster are GMOs that are acceptable to the majority of respondents. The group consists of three microorganisms and three plants, which share perceived usefulness, but are not used for food consumption. In the second cluster are ornamental house and garden plants and domestic animals with new properties that are unacceptable to most respondents. In the third cluster are organisms where opinions about their acceptability are more diverse. In the fourth cluster are grouped together plants and animals for food consumption or feeding animals which are rejected by more than half the respondents.
Correlation Among Attitudes, Knowledge, and Acceptability The correlation among knowledge, attitude, and acceptance level was calculated. There was only a weak correlation between knowledge and attitudes, and an even weaker correlation between knowledge and acceptance, and a solid correlation between attitudes and acceptance (Fig. 2). DISCUSSION
Prospective primary and secondary school teachers from three Slovenian universities (University of Maribor, University of Ljubljana, and University of Primorska) have some basic knowledge of genetics, although we should not be satisfied with the levels demonstrated. They possess at least some knowledge about classical genetics but have very limited knowledge about current applications of modern biotechnology. From the standpoint of teacher educators, this could mean that prospective teachers need additional genetic education, first to repair several serious flaws that should have been fixed during their secondary education (hybridization of cats and rabbits, inheritance of sex) and to inform them about modern biotechnology. We earnestly hope that they would have found the correct answers before entering a classroom and starting discussions about plant, animal, and human reproduction in elementary school, or lessons about human and animal reproduction, which are integral part of every biological sciences curriculum.
148 It is quite important to monitor attitudes toward and acceptance of biotechnology because it is believed that public acceptance plays a major role in determining whether biotechnology development continues to expand [22]. In most cases, the attitudes of prospective teachers toward GMOs are not extreme. The exceptions are statements in which they were asked to express their concerns. We can conclude that they worry mostly about potential unknown impacts of GMOs and want to play an active role in the acceptance or rejection of GMOs based on their own decisions. They recognize the importance of education about GMOs and acknowledge the importance of socio-scientific issues in creating prospective teachers’ individual systems of values about GMOs. The factors describing the attitudes toward GMOs and genetic modifications resemble results from other studies [3 and references therein]. The factors demonstrating that prospective teachers worry most about the possible yet unknown impact of GMOs, unforeseen risks are also the leading aspect of other studies. Our prospective teachers trust scientists not to hide data about GMO harmful effects higher and support research concerning GMOs; trust in government is also found to be important in other studies. Our prospective teachers want to play an active role in the acceptance or rejection of GMOs based on their own decisions and are prepared (or have tried) to make decisions: such support and criticism are important factors in other studies. Rejection or acceptance of one GMO does not necessarily mean that some other will be accepted or rejected too, a pattern already recognized [5]. The results on acceptability are to some degree in line with findings of other studies, made on consumers from different countries [3, 23, 24]. Prospective teachers would accept GMOs when they can recognize them as useful and/or beneficial, what was clearly expressed in our study with recognition of ornamental plants as unacceptable GMOs. In general they reject GMOs especially when their use involves applications in food production, putting such organisms or products into their body or even anything feed with GMO. It seems that when health is in question some barrier falls and the acceptance level toward GMOs is higher. Various studies done on more or less potential consumers of GMOs show either a pattern of three clusters: opponents, supporters, and a group of mostly indifferent individuals; or a pattern of four clusters: two showing different degrees of support and two different degrees of refusal [3]. Almost the same pattern was recognized when we grouped organisms. In our clusters we found combination of different degrees of acceptability: generally acceptable, generally unacceptable in two clusters, and an uncertain cluster. In the first cluster are the clearly acceptable GMOs, with closely connected characteristics: GMOs are very useful or beneficial and clearly not used for food, although some of them are for putting inside the body (medicines). In the second cluster are unacceptable GMOs—ornamental GM plants for the house and garden (of these house ornamentals are less acceptable than garden ornamentals) and domestic GM animals. Also unacceptable to most respondents are also
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010 organisms for human and animal GM food and feed and GM food (milk) with medicinal properties. In the uncertainty cluster we find organisms in which respondents’ opinions are uncertain about their acceptability. It was interesting to find that prospective teachers clearly distinguish GMOs for food (not acceptable) from GMOs to be inserted into the body (acceptable – medicines). As a conclusion, any potential candidate for acceptance must be recognized as useful, be a microorganism or plant, and must not be used for food consumption or, even worse, for fun. Some barriers fall in cases when human health is at stake. Several studies have examined public opinion and attitudes toward science, biotechnology, and related issues [3, 10, 11, 18, 24–29] and findings are rather controversial. The simplest hypothesis of our study should be that knowledge of biotechnology correlates with attitudes toward and acceptance of GMOs. However, the correlation between knowledge and attitudes in our study is weak and that between knowledge and acceptance even weaker. Results corresponding with findings of [25] that there is only a week correlation between knowledge and attitudes toward science in general, but almost nonexistent in some specialized areas of science like biotechnology [25]. As a result, we can conclude that attitudes, and decisions about and acceptance of GMOs are not based on scientific facts and formal reasoning (knowledge) but more probably on informal reasoning, a finding that holds true for other socio-scientific issues [9–11]. Ultimately, there remains the answer on the question of how to organize education about GMOs if we know that: (i) students already have attitudes obtained from informal sources; (ii) existing attitudes are usually deep-rooted and will not easily be changed by new information [23]; (iii) attitudes have a significant effect on how individuals respond to new information [29]; (iv) greater knowledge will not necessarily produce more productive debates but can strengthen support or rejection for genetic modifications [3, 30]. Our answer is education, not only organized simply by providing new information and data but also working in relation to GMOs as socio-scientific issues, including both the social and the scientific aspects. One of first moves in changing prospective teachers’ perception of GMOs and modern biotechnology is to invest in prospective teachers’ professional development [31] and in the development of new teaching strategies [32–34]. We should provide prospective teachers with tools for perceiving the potential risks of GMOs and understanding the dilemmas of society and the choices they make [30]. Teacher should evaluate student attitudes toward and acceptance of GM and adapt their lessons to current understanding and to the choice of appropriate activities [24] preferable, active ones [35, 36]. Students must confront their previous knowledge, belief, and feelings with new ones. There are several suggestions for inciting such changes, mostly prepared on the topic of GM food. One of these is firsthand experience with GMOs in workshops [18]. Where direct exposure to such organisms or techniques is impossible, we should use other strategies. What
149 has been proposed is carefully designed and contextualized education about GMOs in the direction of critical thinking, with analysis of arguments and defense of individual viewpoints, with no need for huge amounts of knowledge [37]; this should help prospective teachers understand the risks, benefits, and disadvantages of genetic modification [26]. Carefully chosen themes might provide in-depth specific knowledge about actual cases, instead of touching lightly on a number of different areas of GMOs [38]. The second task is to provide prospective teachers with first class information based on trusted sources. In some European Union countries there already exist several opportunities for biotechnology education to flow from scientists to nonscientists and several teaching units on various biotechnology topics have been developed and published on the internet available in English and several other languages [26, 12 ali 13], but not in Slovenian. CONCLUSIONS
Based on findings from our study, we can conclude that preparing prospective teachers for the professional challenges concerning socio-scientific issues from the field of genetics and biotechnology will not be an easy task. Weak correlations between knowledge and attitudes and knowledge and acceptance of GMOs indicate that additional knowledge has only a weak influence on attitudes toward, decisions about, and acceptance of GMOs. Hence, simply adding new information about genetics and biotechnology into their courses can only serve to upgrade knowledge, to close the gaps and repair serious identified flaws in their previous knowledge. Challenging attitudes with no intention of influencing prospective teachers’ individual decisions in any direction, but with the aim of creating debate on the topic that moves from informal to formal reasoning based on scientific facts and enquiry would be a much heavier task. Just adding new information into lectures would not influence prospective teacher attitudes, so they should take an active role in constructing their own views. We propose preparing case studies in which prospective teachers should in groups, prepare an acceptability study for an organism or a group of organisms based on verifiable facts. By virtue of such a study they would come to understand the risks, benefits, and disadvantages of GM organisms or biotechnology techniques and their possible impact on society and the environment. When a study is finished its authors should defend it in debate with other prospective teachers and guests not involved in the work. Acknowledgments— We like to thank Dr. Jelka Strgar, Dr. Darja Skribe Dimec (University of Ljubljana), Claudio Battelli, MSc (University of Primorska), Dr. Alenka Lipovec, and Martina Rajsˇp (University of Maribor) for their help in collecting the data. REFERENCES [1] R. Lazarowitz, I. Bloch (2005) Awareness of societal issues among high school biology teachers teaching genetics, J. Sci. Edu. Technol. 14, 437–457.
[2] R. Pardo, C. Midden, J. D. Miller (2002) Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union, J. Biotechnol. 98, 9–24. [3] I. B. Christoph, M. Bruhn, J. Roosen (2008) Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany, Appetite 51, 58–68. [4] V. S. Flores, A. J. Tobin (2002) Frankenfoods: Values about genetics embedded in a metaphor, Am. Biol. Teach. 64, 581–586. [5] P. A. Stewart, W. P. McLean (2005) Public opinion toward the first, second, and third generations of plant biotechnology, In vitro, Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 41, 718–724. [6] E. R. Yunta, C. V. Herrera, A. Misseroni, L. F. Milla, D. Outomuro, I. S. Lemus, M. F. Lues, F. L. Stepke (2005) Attitudes towards genomic research in four latin american countries, Electronic J. Biotechnol. 8, 238–248. [7] M. Usak, M. Erdogan, P. Prokop, M. Ozel (2008) High school and university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 37, 123–130. [8] M. O¨zel, M. Erdog˘an, M. U¸sak, P. Prokop (2009) High school students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology application, Educ. Sci.: Teory Pract. 9, 321–328. [9] T. D. Sadler (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 513– 536. [10] T. D. Sadler, D. L. Zeidler (2004a) Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 42, 112–138. [11] T. D. Sadler, D. L. Zeidler (2004b) The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding sociescientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues, Sci. Educ. 89, 71–93. [12] P. J. Fitzsimons (2007) Biotechnology, ethics and education, Stud. Philon. Educ. 26, 1–11. [13] U. Harms (2002) Biotechnology education in schools, Electron. J. Biotechnol. 5, 205–211. [14] M. L. M. O. M. Serralheiro, A. M. P. Freire (2002) Teaching of biotechnology in the biochemistry course, Electron. J. Biotechnol. 5, 212–215. [15] J. Osborne, S. Simon, S. Collins (2003) Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 1049–1079. [16] J. Osborne (2007) Science education for the twenty first century, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Edu. 3, 173–184. [17] A. Sˇorgo, T. ,Vercˇkovnik, S. Kocijancˇicˇ (2007) Laboratory work in biology teaching at Slovene secondary schools [in Slovene], Acta Biol. Sloven. 50, 113–124. [18] P. Procop, A. Lesˇkova, M. Kubiatko, C. Diran (2007) Slovakian student’s knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 7, 895–907. [19] M. Erdogan, M. O¨zel, M. U¸sak, P. Prokop (2009) Development and validation of an Instrument to measure university students biotechnology attitude, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18, 255–264. [20] P. Kind, K. Jones, P. Barmby (2007) Developing attitudes towards science measures, Int. J Sci Educ. 29, 871–839. [21] L. Cronbach. J. (2004) My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures, Educ. Physiol. Meas. 64, 391–418. [22] H. Cavanagh, J. Hood, J. Wilkinson (2005) Riverina high school students’ views of biotechnology, Electron. J. Biotechnol. 8, 121–127. [23] K. G. Grunert, L. Bredahl, J. Scholder (2003) Four questions on European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production, Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 4, 435–445. [24] A. Ronteltap, J. C. M. Van Trijp, R. J. Renes, L. J. Frewer (2007) Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the prospective of nutrigenomics, Appetite 49, 1–7. [25] N. Allum, P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi, I. Brunton-Smith, (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis, Public Underst. Sci. 17, 35–54. [26] S. Y. Chen, J. Raffan (1999) Biotechnology: Students’ knowledge and attitudes in the UK and Taiwan, J. Biol. Edu. 34, 17–23. [27] T. J. Hoban (2004) Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology, ESA Working Paper No. 04–09, Agricultural and Development Economics Division (esa), The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ ae063e/ae063e00.htm#toc, Accessed September 25,2008. [28] P. Plahuta, B. Tivadar, P. Raspor (2007) Slovenian public opinion regarding genetically modified organisms in winemaking, Acta Alimentar. 36, 61–73. [29] J. L. Lusk, L. O. House, C. Valli, S. R. Jaeger, M. Moore, J. L. Morrow, B. W. Traill (2004) Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auction in the United States, England, and France, Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 30, 179–204.
150 [30] P. Jallinoja, A. R. Aro (2000) Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests, J. Health Commun. 5, 29–39. [31] K. M. Javornik, G. M. Ivanusˇ, P. T. Vrsˇnik (2008) Didactic and methodical characteristics of education in general upper secondary schools, Didact. Sloven. Pedag. Obzor. 23, 62–77. [32] G. Torkar, B. Bajd (2006) Trainee teachers’ ideas about endangered birds, J. Biol. Edu. 41, 5–8. [33] J. Strgar, (2007) Increasing the interest of students in plants, J. Biol. Edu. 42, 19–23. [34] A. Sˇorgo, Z. Hajdinjak, D. Brisˇki (2008) The journey of a sandwich: Computer-based laboratory experiments about the human digestive
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
[35] [36] [37] [38]
system in high school biology teaching, Adv. Physiol. Edu. 32, 92– 99. T. Vidic (2007) Concepts of primary school pupils and students about DNA [in Slovene], Didact. Sloven. Pedag. Obzor. 22, 150– 159. I. Tomazˇicˇ (2008) The influence of direct experience on students’ attitudes to, and knowledge about amphibians, Acta Biol. Sloven. 51, 39–48. J. Lewis, J. Leach (2006) Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge, Int. J. Sci. Edu. 28, 1267–1287. M. Ekborg (2008) Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: The case of genetically modified plants, J. Biol. Edu. 42, 60–65.
