Submission

I've submitted the poster, draft submission showed a similarity of 0%

See you guys tomorrow during the presentation! 

- Tarnnum

FINAL POSTER

Hi guys, I've managed to finish off the poster; I've emailed it to the print shop so we will get it on Friday so we can run through it together.                                                      - Tarnnum :)

References (Harvard format)

Hey guys, just a full list of our references which will go on the poster       - Tarnnum :)

AquaBounty. (2016). Sustainabilty. Retrieved 15 February, 2016, from https://aquabounty.com/sustainable/

Bawa, A. S. & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013). Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 50(6), 1035–1046.

Ceccoli, A. & Hixon, W. (2011) Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. International Political Science Review, 33(3), 301-319. doi: 10.1177/0192512111418788 

Dizon, F., Costa, S., Rock, C., Harris, A., Husk, C. & Mei, J. (2015). Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Ethical Eating. Journal of Food Science, 81(2), 287-291. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13191

European Commission. (2016). Genetically modified organisms. Retrieved 20 February, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm

Genetically Modified Foods. (2016)  Retrieved 23 February, 2016, from http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/types-techniques-used-genetically-modify-food.html

Greeniacs. (2016). Retrieved 23 February, from,  http://www.greeniacs.com/GreeniacsArticles/Food-and-Beverage/Genetically-Modified-Organisms.html

GM freeze. (2016). Where to buy non-GM fed. Retrieved 19 February, 2016, from http://www.gmfreeze.org/why-freeze/unwanted/where-buy-non-gm-fed/

International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. (2009). The global status of commercialised biotech/GM crops 2009. Retrieved 18 February, 2016, from http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp

International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. (2013). Global status of commercialised biotech/GM crops 2013. Retrieved 19 February, 2016, from http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/default.asp

Key, S., Ma, J. & Drake, P. (2008). Genetically modified plants and human health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(6), 290-298. doi: 10.1258/jrsn.2008.070372

Laible, G. (2009). Enhancing livestock through genetic engineering — Recent advances and future prospects. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 32, 123–127.

Legge Jr., J. S. & Durant, R. F. (2010). Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 59-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00427.x

Macer, D. (2005). Ethical, legal and social issues of genetically modifying insect vectors for public health. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 35(7), 649-660. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.02.010

Naimov, S., Dukiandjiev, S, & De Maagd, R. A. (2003). A hybrid Bacillus thuringiensis delta‐endotoxin gives resistance against a coleopteran and a lepidopteran pest in transgenic potato. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 1(1) 51-57.

Nature. (2015). Salmon is first transgenic animal to win US approval for food. Retrieved, 20 February, 2016, from http://www.nature.com/news/salmon-is-first-transgenic-animal-to-win-us-approval-for-food-1.18838

Ormandy, E. H., Dale, J., & Griffin, G. (2011). Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 52(5), 544–550.

Pandey, R., Dwivedi, M., Gupta, S. K., Saluja, D. (2016). Genetically Modified Food Animals: An Overview. In R.P. Watson & V.R Preedy (Eds) Genetically Modified Organisms in Food - Production, Safety, Regulation and Public Health (pp. 19-26).

Peter, R. & Mojca, J. (2011). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Encyclopaedia of Environmental Health, 879-999. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52272-6.00481-5

Vàzquez-Salat, N., Salter, B., Smets, G. & Houdebine, L. M. (2012). The current state of GMO governance: Are we ready for GM animals? Biotechnology Advances, 30(6), 1336-1343. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.006

Warick, S. I., Hugh, J.B. & Hall, L.M. (2009). Gene Flow, Invasiveness, and Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Crops. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1168, 72-99.

World Health Organisation. (2015). Food, genetically modified. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

World Health Organisation. (2016). Food safety. Retrieved 16 February, 2016, from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/ 7

Yoshiki, A., Moriwaki, K. (2006). Mouse phenome research: Implications of genetic background. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, 47(2), 94–102.

The following is a summary of a survey on public opinion about food carried out in the US by the Pew research survey. quite interesting.

GM foods

-          A minority of adults (37%) say that eating GM foods is generally safe,

-          57% say they believe it is unsafe. And, most are skeptical about the scientific understanding of the effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on health.

-          (67%) of adults say scientists do not clearly understand the health effects of GM crops

-          28% say scientists have a clear understanding of this

-          About half of U.S. adults report that they always (25%) or sometimes (25%) look to see if products are genetically modified when they are food shopping. 

-          31% say they never look for such labels

-           17% say they do not often look

Gender, age, race and ethnicity

-          Fewer women (28%) than men (47%) believe eating GM foods is safe.

-          Fewer blacks (24%) and Hispanics (32%) than whites (41%) saying that GM foods are safe to eat.

-          Views about GMOs are roughly the same among both younger (ages 18 to 49) and older (50 and older) adults.

reference 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/

Updated poster draft #2

It looks much better than before in my opinion!           - Tarnnum :)

I have added the brief views on what GMO are and nothing on the techniques as of yet but we do have the information available on the blog, I think most of this should be brief.

The survey details have been added but no results have been added as of yet (but we do have all the results); I've made a graph (previous post) from the table of results we got but due to formatting and lag issues, I haven't added it in yet.

I've added most of my research concerning opinions, ethics and factors affecting those opinions; I've got some more bits to add which I will do asap.

We are missing a conclusion and referencing section which we can do tomorrow, we just needed to make room for the survey details. I think the numbering technique would be useful instead of full citations in text (Jordan and Mo agree too).

I did change the background colour to blue because it stands out more but obviously, any changes can be made tomorrow during our meet-up. I did also highlight some boxes to make them stand out. We do have images and such so we will add them tomorrow and hopefully have the poster finalised too.

Please let me know what you think; keep in mind, it is severly unfinished.

I plan to do more research tomorrow and add it in asap.

Thanks!

- Tarnnum :)

Survey data - graph

I converted the table into a graph for question 2-9 because it looks much better on the poster, way more visual and easy to read. There will still be a key on the poster.

I'll put data for questions 1 and 10 in a small table since they differ from the y/n questions.

Let me know what you guys think!

- Tarnnum :)

P.S. I'll have most of the poster completed by tonight, we'll finalise it tomorrow.

GM animals concerns/ethics

Genetically modified animals have many applications; they are most common in basic scientific research, such as gene function and organ interaction and GM animals are used to test therapeutics, GM animals appear in the pet industry were GM fish (GloFish) having a fluorescent gene to glow in the dark. (Vazquez-Salat, Salter, Smets, & Houdebine, 2012).

GM animals can are also developed to improve productivity, AquaAdvantage® salmon are able to grow faster than the wild type salmon and require 25% less feed (AquaBounty, 2016), AquaAdvantage® salmon became the first GM animal to enter the US food supply on November 19th 2015. Other uses for GM animals include Bioreactors were GM animals produce pharmaceutical proteins in their milk/egg white that can be purified and administered to patients. (Vazquez-Salat et al, 2012; Pandey et al, 2016)

As is the case with other GMOs there are a number of ethical and welfare concerns with GM animals these include the sacrifice of animals and surgical procedures (vasectomy, surgical embryo transfer) performed on others in order to produce a new generation of GM animals, (Ormandy, Dale & Griffin, 2011)

In The GM animal field animal welfare organizations are dominant over other interest groups, this has caused a low profile of the biotech industries in GM animals application, other issues with GM animals are the difference in public opinion between GM plants and GM animals, for example GM food in the US has a broad acceptance while guidelines produced by FDA on GM animals received 28,000 comments (Vazquez-Salat et al, 2012), these views may be linked to the closeness of the human-animal relationship present in western society, cultural and religious views are also factors in the concern over GM animals , i.e. muslim communities refusal to consume food which contains pig gene. (Vazquez-Salat et al, 2012)

GM animals have the potential to cause a serious health risk if they are not put through vigorous risk assessments and through safe and thorough examination. Concerns also arise with regards to the naturalness of GM animals, as the genes introduced to the animal are not the natural composite of the host (Pandey, Dwivedi, Gupta & Saluja, 2016).

GM animals also carry concerns over the integrity of species with fears of GM animals breeding with wild animals, infiltrating wild animals habitats and compromising the survival of these wild animals, animal rights activists see this as their major point of contention for GM animals. GM animals have also been prevented from introduction into the food chain because of the possibility of replication compentant viral vectors infecting nontargted species which may cause a host of novel lethal human infections. (Pandey, Dwivedi, Gupta & Saluja, 2016).

The fatality rate of the embryos used in genetic engineering is high, and the embryos that do indeed survive only carry the intended gene a small proportion of the time (1-30%), because of these low number a large number of animals are produced to obtain genetically engineered animals that have significant scientific value, the current genetic engineering techniques are also inefficient and this lead to many of the surplus animals becoming exposed to harmful procedures. (Ormandy, Dale & Griffin, 2011)

The most commonly used species In GM/GE are mice, they make up 90% of GE animals being tested and researched in labs.

Welfare concerns of GE animals
There has very little data collected on the net welfare impacts on the GM animals and on the animals used in creation of the GM animals, and the genetic engineering techniques used during creation have been described as both unpredictable and inefficient. The inefficiency can be connected to the limitations in the control of the integration site of foreign DNA which is essential in some GE techniques, this can lead to production of independent GE animals which increases the amount of animals used, causing further pain and distress to the animals. (Ormandy, Dale & Griffin, 2011)

The unexpected outcomes in animal GE can be attributed to the unpredictable interaction of the DNA introduced with the host genes, these interactions will vary with the genetic background of the animal, this happens frequently in GE mice,(Yoshiki, Moriwaki, 2006).

When the genome of an animal is interfered with by removing or inserting DNA fragments this may lead to an alteration of the animals normal genetic homeostasis which can manifest in the behavior and well being of the animals in unpredictable ways, such as lameness, reduced fertility and susceptibility to stress. (Laible, 2009)


References

AquaBounty. (2016). Sustainabilty. Retrieved 15 February, 2016, from https://aquabounty.com/sustainable/

Laible, G. (2009) Enhancing livestock through genetic engineering — Recent advances and future prospects. Comp Immunol Microb;32:123–127.

Ormandy, E. H., Dale, J., & Griffin, G. (2011). Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns. The Canadian Veterinary Journal,52(5), 544–550.

Pandey, R., Dwivedi, M., Gupta, S. K., Saluja, D. (2016). Genetically Modified Food Animals: An Overview. In R.P. Watson & V.R Preedy (Eds)  Genetically Modified Organisms in Food - Production, Safety, Regulation and Public Health (pp. 19-26).

Vazquez-Salat, N., Salter, B., Smets, G., Houdebine, L.M. (2012). The current state of GMO governance: Are we ready for GM animals?. Biotechnology Advances, 30, 1336- 1343.

Yoshiki, A., Moriwaki, K. (2006) Mouse phenome research: Implications of genetic background. ILAR,;47(2):94–102.

Breif Overview of Current GM Techniques

Bacterial Carriers

Bacteria are effective carriers of DNA via the use of a plasmid vector. Bacteria used are specifically chosen based on how they interact with the plant. They are then prepared in a solution which induces their cell wall to become porous. A plasmid which has had a gene of interest inserted will then be able to merge with the bacterial DNA. The bacteria will then display the gene of interest. The bacteria is then cultured and each new cell will express the gene.  Upon infecting the target plant, the gene can then be transferred to the plant to allow the desired trait.

Viral Carrier

A virus can make an effective carrier for modifying an organism. The virus chosen will be one that does not cause any kind of disease or death. Through the addition of the chosen DNA to the virus genome, the virus can infect the target. Once the virus invades the cell and makes copies of itself, the chosen DNA can be added to the targeted cell.

Calcium Phosphate Precipitation

 The target DNA sequence would be exposed to calcium phosphate, which results in the creation of miniscule granules. The targeted cells react to the granules by essentially 'swarming' them and ingesting them, thereby allowing the granule to release the DNA, delivering it to the host’s nuclei and chromosomes.

Using Electroporation To Create GM Organisms

In electroporation, the prepped target cells are saturated in a solution with the chosen DNA. A brief but strong electric shock is transmitted through the solution, causing little tears in the walls of the cells. This allows for the new genetic material to penetrate the nuclei. Afterwards, the cells are put in a different solution that coaxes the repair of their walls, which works to 'trap' the DNA of the donor in the cell. The chosen DNA becomes joined with the host chromosomes to give the host this new gene.

Gene Silencing Technique

When gene silencing is used, the gene that is responsible for the undesired trait that needs to be silenced  will first be identified in the organism. Then, another copy of the gene is attached but in the other direction, which prevents the expression of that trait. For instance, an allergen that triggers an allergic reaction in humans could be 'silenced' in this manner.

Gene Splicing

Gene splicing includes the modification of  DNA, and then insertion into a target host cell to allow for genes and resulting traits to be modified. An enzyme is then used to fuse the newly added gene into the chromosome.

References

Genetically Modified Foods (2016)  http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/types-techniques-used-genetically-modify-food.html  [accessed on 23rd February 2016]


Greeniacs (2016) http://www.greeniacs.com/GreeniacsArticles/Food-and-Beverage/Genetically-Modified-Organisms.html [accessed on 23rd February 2016]

Reasons for and against GMO and GM foods and factors affecting reasoning

Factors affecting reasoning:

1. Nation
•  Europeans more opposed compared to Americans; Europeans more likely to support if GMO and GM foods offered health benefits and decreased the use of pesticides
• American citizens from a scientific background are more supportive
• Animal welfare is of high importance in the Netherlands thus reducing GMO support
• Newer nations support GM foods due to the need for cheap and a reliable source of food
2. Access to information
•  Greater access to anti-/pro-GM campaigns affect support with those with greater public anti-GM views more likely to oppose GMO
• Scientific evidence proved more efficient in gaining support than evidence concerning ethics
• Those with "hard" sources of information gain are more supportive of GMO than those with "soft" information access
3. Age
•  The young are likely to support, purchase and consume GMO and GM foods
• Young are more likely to support newer technologies and have fewer responsibilities (family, children, etc.) therefore are more likely to take risks
4. Sex
•  Women less supportive than men
• Women are more likely to read packaging labels and are more health conscious
• Anti-GM campaigns have focused around baby health thus making women more sensitive to such information
5. Education level
• Educated more opposed compared to uneducated
• Educated have access to more sources of information but information may not be specific
• Greater information access could make one either supportive of GMO or skeptical of GMO
• Those with lower education levels focus on other factors such as cost and health benefits

References: 

Dizon, F., Costa, S., Rock, C., Harris, A., Husk, C. & Mei, J. (2015). Genetically Modified (GM) Foods and Ethical Eating. Journal of Food Science, 81(2), 287-291. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13191

Legge Jr., J. S. & Durant, R. F. (2010). Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 27(1), 59-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00427.x 

Macer, D. (2005). Ethical, legal and social issues of genetically modifying insect vectors for public health. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 35(7), 649-660. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.02.010

Peter, R. & Mojca, J. (2011). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, 879-999. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52272-6.00481-5
 
Vàzquez-Salat, N., Salter, B., Smets, G. & Houdebine, L. M. (2012). The current state of GMO governance: Are we ready for GM animals? Biotechnology Advances, 30(6), 1336-1343. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.006



Let me know what you guys think. Thanks.

- Tarnnum :) 

 
 

Backgroud Information for the Public Survey, Including Aims and Hypotheses.

Aims:

1. To gain an idea of current public opinion of the genetic modification of food i.e. crops.
2. To provide an informative experience providing information about GMO
3. To gain information on what is currently known by the public about GMO and to find what areas could be improved on via informative blogs/ interesting Facebook/Twitter accounts for people who cannot access information by other means.

Hypotheses:

1. There will be no significant difference in opinion on GMO before and after the questionnaire.
2. Taking previous research surveys into consideration, there will be a relatively equal number of people for/against/undecided GMO.  

Target:
There was no specific target audience for the survey, the survey conducted on survey monkey was shared publicly on Facebook. Here it could be accessed by a range of individuals of all ages and backgrounds. The survey was anonymous but taking into consideration the people who commented on the link the age range of survey replies is 24-50 years.




Background Information


It is thought that the general public are still largely unaware about the genetic modification of foods except the bad press it receives from the media branding it as 'unnatural'. Despite this UK public opinion is not as against GM foods as was first thought. Surveys have reported findings in which only 13% of consumers said they actively avoid GM foods, while 74% were not sufficiently concerned to actively avoid it. It is thought that scientists need to engage with the public and educate as much as possible about the topic as it seems a negative opinion arises through ignorance. (Key, S., Ma, J. & Drake, P. 2008) In contrast to this S Ceccoli and W Hixon, found that within the European union 72.7% of respondents agreed with the statement 'Could you please tell me if you tend to agree or disagree with the following statement about genetically modified foods – ‘I do not want this type
of food.’ that they do not want this type of food.' 19.6% disagreed with the statement. 7.7% of respondents reported an answer of ‘don’t know’ when asked the question. This shows uncertainty among members of the public, and that education would go a long way in helping people come to an educated well thought and reasoned opinion.


References:


Ceccoli, A. & Hixon, W. (2011) Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. International Political Science Review, 33(3), 301-319. doi:                                 10.1177/0192512111418788 
Key, S., Ma, J. & Drake, P. (2008) Genetically modified plants and human health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(6), 290-298. doi: 10.1258/jrsn.2008.070372   

What is Genetic modification?

Genetically modified (GM) organisms are plants, animals or microorganisms in which their DNA has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally. The process of genetic manipulation involves the translocation of genes from multiple genetic sources in a process widely known as recombinant DNA technology (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2013). This process is sometimes referred to as genetic engineering, modern biotechnology or gene technology (WHO, 2016). Genetic modification allows selected individuals genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species. Food produced from using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.

Genetic engineering used to produce plants that produce their own insecticides. The bt toxin gene, which encodes an insecticide, was isolated from bacteria and transferred to tobaccop plants. (Pierce genetic conceptual approach, page 526) 

Examples of GMO in Europe and UK

GM crops have been used as food sources for many years around the world. Since November 2015 the first GM animal in the US, in this case GM salmon was approved for human consumption by the US food and drug administration (Nature, 2015). Although no GM animals have been approved in Europe, it still produces GM crops and allows the import of GM products such as cotton, maize, yeast biomass, oilseed rape, sugar beet and soybean from other countries (EU Plants, 2016). Spain is the largest producer of GM crops in Europe with a hectare of 0.1 used for GM maize (ISAAA, 2013). However, small amounts less than 0.1 hectare are grown in Slovakia, Romina, Poland and Czech Republic (ISAAA, 2009).

Large amounts of GM foods such as soya and maize are imported into Europe including Britain to be used as animal feed. In the UK, meat and dairy products that are fed on GM feed are not labelled. Most of the main supermarkets in the UK such as Asda, Aldi, Tesco, Co-op, M&S and Morrison’s have meat and dairy products that are fed on GM food (Gmfreeze, 2015). One of the most consistently stocked GM items in UK supermarket is cooking oil. Most retailers in UK do not sell any other GM foods and if they do then labelling is required.   

References

http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/default.asp

http://www.nature.com/news/salmon-is-first-transgenic-animal-to-win-us-approval-for-food-1.18838

http://www.gmfreeze.org/why-freeze/unwanted/where-buy-non-gm-fed/

http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm

Summary of all the survey data and key points

I've attached an image with the summary of the survey results in one table using the information Jordan posted yesterday; I was thinking we could just include the summary table on the poster. I've not included the questions asked for question 2 up to question 9 but we will include a key on the poster which we will refer to when talking about the results. The key is shown below the table.

I've also included some main points about the results; they're listed at the end. We can incorporate them into the poster briefly and do most of the talking. Obviously we will add to those when we meet up on Wednesday.

Results:

* Q2: Did you know that plants i.e. crops already contain their own DNA, scientists are just changing tiny fragments to exploit beneficial traits for the plant to grow? 

** Q3: Did you know that genetic modification has been occurring in plants for years via selective breeding?    

*** Q4: Did you know that food production needs to increase by 70% in 1st world countries and 300% in 3rd world countries by 2050 to keep up with the demand of a growing population?  

**** Q5: Did you know that current farming uses harmful pesticides and fertilizers to increase yield? These chemicals damage nearby ecosystems of rivers and forests as well as harming useful insects.

⁺ Q6: Did you know that plants can be modified to become healthier? An example of this is golden rice now carries beta-carotene, a source of vitamin A. 

⁺⁺ Q7: Did you know than plants can be modified to become insect resistant? An Example of this is potato plants expressing bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxins which has proven to allow resistance of Colorado potato beetle, the potato tuber moth and European corn border larvae. 

⁺⁺⁺ Q8: Did you know that plants can be made resistance to stress such as drought and cold? There are many plants showing drought resistance such as corn, cotton, potato, soybean, tobacco and wheat. 

⁺⁺⁺⁺ Q9: Did you know there are multiple safe methods used to insert the gene of interest into a plant? One of which is called transformation and used a binary (two) vector system. Another is known as ‘The gene gun’ and uses bombardment of heavy metal particles carrying DNA or RNA molecules.

Here are a few key points we can take away from our results:

1. The number of people who started the survey in support, not in support or undecided about GMO had reduced by the end of the survey; this may be because those who did not originally support or were undecided now do support it. 
2. The number of people who supported it at first decreased; They may have changed their view to undecided or not in support due to recieving new information from the survey which they were unsure about.
3. Q2 and Q3 gained high percentages (73.17%) indicating most participants had basic knowledge of GMO and it's uses.
4. A slightly large percentage of 68.85% did not know food production had to be increased to aid a growing population (Q4)
5. A large number of individuals (80.49%) were aware of the harmful consequences of using pesticides and herbicides to nearby ecosystems (Q5).
6. Q6 showed majority of the participants (62.50%) were aware of the possible health benefits of GM crops.
7. Figures for Q7 and Q8 had a similar value for yes and no (46-53%) showing only possibly half of the population could be aware of the environmental and economic benefits of GM crops.
8. Majority of people were not familiar with what was asked in Q9 possibly due to not coming from a scientific background and not knowing the detailed methods of transformation.

We are going to need to write-up the objectives and aims/hypotheses of the survey, we have the results and a brief discussion of the results (we need more to talk about though) and the pros and cons of our survey.

See you soon!
 - Tarnnum :)

Survey Results

Question 1:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– I support it	29.27% 12
– I don't support it	21.95% 9
– I am undecided	48.78% 20
Total	41

Question 2:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	73.17% 30
– No	26.83% 11
Total	41

Question 3:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	73.17% 30
– No	26.83% 11
Total	41

Question 4:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	34.15% 14
– No	65.85% 27
Total	41

Question 5:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	80.49% 33
– No	19.51% 8
Total	41

Question 6:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	62.50% 25
– No	37.50% 15
Total	40

Question 7:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	52.50% 21
– No	47.50% 19
Total	40

Question 8:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	46.34% 19
– No	53.66% 22
Total	41

Question 9:

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– Yes	12.20% 5
– No	87.80% 36
Total	41

Question 10

Answer Choices–	Responses–
– I still support it	26.83% 11
– Yes, I have changed my opinion and now support it	17.07% 7
– No, I still do not agree with genetic modification	12.20% 5
– I am Still undecided	43.90% 18
Total	41