Abstract
The concepts behind the technology of genetic modification of organisms and its applications are complex. A diverse range of opinions, public concern and considerable media interest accompanies the subject. This study explores the knowledge and attitudes of science teachers and senior secondary biology students about the application of a rapidly expanding technology, genetic engineering, to food production. The results indicated significant difference in understanding of concepts related with genetically engineered food stuffs between teachers and students. The most common ideas about genetically modified food were that cross bred plants and genetically modified plants are not same, GM organisms are produced by inserting a foreign gene into a plant or animal and are high yielding. More teachers thought that genetically engineered food stuffs were unsafe for the environment. Both teachers and students showed number of misconceptions, for example, the pesticidal proteins produced by GM organisms have indirect effects through bioaccumulation, induces production of allergic proteins, genetic engineering is production of new genes, GM plants are leaky sieves and that transgenes are more likely to introgress into wild species than mutated species. In general, more students saw benefits while teachers were cautious about the advantages of genetically engineered food stuffs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dawson V (2007) An exploration of high school (12–17 year old) students’ understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Res Sci Edu 37(1):59–73
Dawson V, Schibeci R (2003) Western Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. Int J Sci Edu 25:57–69
Dawson V, Taylor PC (2000) Do adolescents’ bioethical decisions differ from those of experts? J Biol Edu 34:1–5
Dreyfus A, Roth Z (1986) The consistency of the opinions of 12th grade biology pupils on the desirability of biotechnologies. Res Sci Technol Edu 4:139–152
Falk MC, Chassy BM, Harlander SK, Hoban TJ, McGloughlin MN, Akhlaghi AR (2002) Food biotechnology: benefits and concerns. Am soc Nutrition Sci 132(6):1384–1390
Fisher KM (1992) Improving high school genetics instruction. In teaching genetics: recommendations and research proceedings of a national conference, eds. Smith MU and Simmons PE pp 24–28. Cambridge
Frewer LJ, Shepherd R, Sparkes P (1994) Biotechnology and food production–knowledge and perceived risk. Brit Food J 96:26–33
Frewer LJ, Hedderley D, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) ‘Objection’ mapping in determining age group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agric Hum Values 14:67–79
Fritz S, Husmann D, Wingenbach G, Rutherford T, Egger V, Wadhwa P (2002) Awareness and acceptance of biotechnology issues among youth, undergraduates and adults. J Agrobiotechnol Manag Econ 6 (4), article 5
Garton GL (1992) Teaching genetics in the high school classroom. In teaching genetics: recommendations and research proceedings of a national conference, eds. Smith MU and Simmons PE pp 20–23. Cambridge
Hallman WK (1996) Public perceptions of biotechnology: another look. BIO/TECHNOLOGY 14:35–38
Hill R, Stanisstreet M, Boyes E, Sullivan O (1998) Reactions to a new technology: students’ ideas about genetically engineered foodstuffs. Res Sci Technol Edu 16(2):203–216
Hoban TJ (1997) Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: an international perspective, nature biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 15:232–234
Hoban TJ, Kendall PA (1992) Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Holdredge C, Talbott S (2001) Sowing technology: the ecological argument against genetic engineering down on the farm. Sierra: the magazine of the Sierra Club, 24–72
Jenkins EW (1999) School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. Int J Sci Edu 21:703–710
Kalaitzandonakes N, Marks LA, Vickner SS (2005) Sentiments and acts towards genetically modified foods. Int J biotechnol 7(1–3):161–177
Kindfield ACH (1992) Teaching genetics: recommendations and research. In teaching genetics: recommendations and research proceedings of a national conference, eds. Smith MU and Simmons PE pp 39–43. Cambridge
Kirkpatrick G, Orvis K, Pittendrigh B (2002) A teaching model for biotechnology and genomics education. J Biol Edu 37(1):31–35
Lewis J, Wood-Robinson C (2000) Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-do students see any relationship? Int J Sci Edu 22:177–195
Lock R, Miles C (1993) Biotechnology and genetic engineering: students; knowledge and attitudes. J Biol Edu 27:267–273
Lock R, Miles D, Hughes S (1995) The influence of teaching on knowledge and attitudes in biotechnology and genetic engineering contexts: implications for teaching controversial issues and the public understating of science. School Sci Rev 76:47–59
Losey J, Raylor R, Carter M (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214
Macer D (1994) Bioethical reasoning of students in Singapore and Hong Kong Bioethics for the people by the people. Ethics Institute, 165–169
Magnusson MK, Hursti UK (2002) Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 39(1):9–24
Marbach-Ad (2001) Attempting to break the code in student comprehension of genetic concepts. J Biol Edu 35(4):183–189
Marchant R, Marchant EM (1999) G M plants: concepts and issues. J Biol Edu 34:5–12
Marlier E (1992) Euro barometer 351-: opinions of Europeans on biotechnology in 1991. In: Durant J (ed) Biotechnology in public: a review of recent research. Science Museum Publications, London
Millar R (1996) Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Sci Rev 77:7–18
Popli R (1999) Scientific literacy for all citizens: difference concepts and contents. Public Understand Sci 8:123–137
Quan L, Curtis KR, McCluskey J, Wahl TI (2002) Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. J Agro Biotechnol Manag Econ 5(4):145–152
Saher M, Lindeman M, Hursti UK (2006) Attitude towards genetically modified and organic foods. Appetite 46(3):324–331
Sanbonmatsu D, Fazio R (1990) The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 59(4):614–622
Seethaler S, Linn M (2004) Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of trade offs. Int J Sci Edu 26(14):1765–1785
Solomon J, Thomas J (1990) Science education for the public understanding of science. Stud Sci Edu 33:61–90
Stewart BJ (1987) Genetics in relation to biology. School Sci Rev 68:645–653
Stewart JH, Van Kirk J (1990) Understanding and problem solving in classical genetics. Int J Sci Edu 12:575–588
Tada Y, Nakase M, Adachi T, Nakamura R, Shimoda H, Takahashi M, Fujimura T, Matsuda T (1996) Reduction of 14–16 kDa allergenic proteins in transgenic rice plants by antisense gene. FEBS Lett 391:341–345
Thayer A (1999) Transformic agriculture: transgenic crops and the application of discovery technologies are altering the agrochemical and agricultural business. Chemical and Engineering News, 19 April, 21–35
Williamson M (1996) Can the risk from transgenic crop plants be estimated? Tibtech 14:449–450
Wolfenbarger L, Phifer P (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290:2088–2093
Ye X, Al-Babali S, Kloti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I (2000) Engineering the provitamin- A (β-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid free) rice endosperm. Science 287(5451):303–305
Yoon C (1999) Stalked by deadly virus, papaya leaves to breed again. The New York Timer, 20 July
Zechendedorf B (1994) What the public think about biotechnology. BIO/TECHNOLOGY 12:871–875
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Prof. V. G. Jadhao, Principal and Prof. K.B. Rath, Dean of Instruction, Regional Institute of Education (NCERT) for their valuable comments and encouragement. We also thank Principals of various schools for their kind cooperation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mohapatra, A.K., Priyadarshini, D. & Biswas, A. Genetically Modified Food: Knowledge and Attitude of Teachers and Students. J Sci Educ Technol 19, 489–497 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9215-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9215-x