What do people think about genetic modification? How does society feel about it? Young researchers Anders Chau and Aarnav Anand conducted a study on the sentiment surrounding these new technologies, leading to surprising results. Read on for the findings of their research, which we've summarized for you. Alongside interesting outcomes, the study also raised more questions for potential follow-up research.
Anders Chau, 16 years old, was born in Hong Kong and has lived in Ireland for several years. He is interested in genetic modification and biotechnology and has conducted research in these fields. He learned about the history of genetic modification and its processes, as well as the basics of molecular biology. In Ireland, the fourth year of secondary school is called the Transition Year, focusing more on gaining experiences and learning in practice. Anders decided to participate in the BT Young Scientist Competition and Exhibition in 2024, one of the largest science competitions for secondary school students in Ireland, together with his friend Aarnav Anand. They are eager to share their findings with you.
"I wanted to do something related to genetic engineering but at the time I didn’t have enough knowledge or experience to even try to attempt designing my own genetic engineering experiment," says Anders. "So I decided to do a project on DIY genetic engeneering: assessing accessibility, ethics, and public sentiment." This allowed him to gain practical experience working with a DIY genetic modification kit and theoretical knowledge through research on various aspects of the topic.
Anders explains, "We also ended up choosing this specific project because the more we researched genetic engineering, the more we realized how advanced the technology is. This just led us to believe more that genetic engineering will be a big part of the near future of humanity, whether we like it or not. It's just a matter of time. We believe that this technology should not be banned or restricted but continually developed carefully, because we think that banning genetic engineering and related areas of research is a mistake. This is because banning human genetic engineering would lead to the science wandering off to a place with jurisdiction and rules that no one is uncomfortable with."
For their research on societal sentiment, they distributed questionnaires to different groups. The 260 respondents included secondary school students from the first to sixth grades (200), university students (50), and professors (10). Anders and Aarnav wanted to see if educational level influenced participants' views on genetic modification.
Overall, the people who participated in the study were positive but cautious about genetic modification. Most believed this technology should not be used for altering appearances and creating "designer babies" or making people superior. As some participants noted, it is not meant to create "Captain America."
Among students on a theoretical learning path (higher-educated), Anders and Aarnav observed differences in thinking compared to other participants. Their views on genetic technology were more thoughtful, structured, and well-founded.
The study results showed many ethical objections to modifying human genes. Genetic modification could be used to enhance the human gene pool and create an ideal gene pool. The immediate question is what this ideal gene pool entails and the goal of creating it. Would it be used to prevent hereditary diseases? And if so, how should new hereditary diseases be prevented?
The researchers' expectations were partly confirmed and partly not. There was a correlation between educational level and knowledge of genetic technology, awareness of CRISPR technology, practical experience with genetic technology, and whether genetic modification was viewed as natural or unnatural. As educational level rises, so does knowledge of genetic technology, awareness of CRISPR technology, and practical experience. Additionally, higher-educated people are more likely to see genetic modification as natural than those with a lower educational level.
Other expected correlations did not hold. There was no correlation between educational level and the overall sentiment about genetic modification or the interest in conducting genetic experiments.
Anders and Aarnav had expected that concerns would increase with higher educational levels, but the opposite was true. It appears that more knowledge of genetic modification leads to fewer concerns about using the technology in general.
However, caution increases with educational level. Higher-educated individuals are more aware of the risks of misuse or abuse of genetic modification. How the technology is used, by whom, and for what purpose is important, though this does not lead to more concerns.
According to Anders and Aarnav, there is a correlation between educational level and the degree of caution regarding genetic modification. "It is likely that people are less cautious as educational level decreases," says Anders. "The group of participants with a doctoral degree are the most aware of genetic modification and also the most cautious group." It seems that those with a lower educational level are less aware of the risks of genetic modification.
Anders believes there is a lack of knowledge about genetic modification in society. This could be due to the insufficient coverage of current topics in school lessons. Only when a student asks about it does attention get paid. Anders suggests it would be beneficial to have more discussions about genetic modification to increase knowledge on the subject in an accessible way.