Introduction

"Synthetic biology is a field of science that involves redesigning organisms for useful purposes by engineering them to have new abilities. Synthetic biology researchers and companies around the world are harnessing the power of nature to solve problems in medicine, manufacturing, and agriculture." (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2019).

In Panama, GMO’s are not generally approved beyond commercial purposes. The population is unaware of the advantages this knowledge can provide, such as input for politicians, growth and development. The Protocol of Cartagena (Protocolo de Cartagena) was ratified by Panama’s government in December of 1991, as it follows an objective of contributing to ensure an adequate level of protection safe transfer, handling, and use of genetically modified organisms, GMOs (CIISB Panama, 2020). This established the National Commission on Biosafety for GMOs, which defines institutional competencies, and mandates the creation of sectoral committees in the agricultural, environmental, and public health sectors (CIISB Panama, 2020). The project aimed to facilitate and ensure transparent, informed, and appropriate decision making about GMOs, advancing responsible GMO production in Panama and preserving the conservation of native genetic resources (CIISB Panama, 2020).

The perception of Synthetic Biology in Panama is greatly varied, due to context. This context surrounds the level of education and interest an individual has on scientific-based knowledge. When analyzing public perception, we focus on their understanding and knowledge of technology, and a positive correlation is frequently seen between the knowledge of the topic, and the acceptance of it.

Our focus of research is the perception of GMO’s based on the knowledge students have received in Panama, predominantly in higher-education institutions which provide rigorous courses such as the International Baccalaureate. Participants’ interests related to sciences range from physics-mathematical sciences, biochemical medicinal sciences, social sciences and humanities, as well as arts and culture.

Survey on Public Perception of Synthetic Biology and GMOs

The process of making an analysis of the public perception about Synthetic Biology and GMO, our group has decided to make alterations to an already done survey by Dr. William K. Hallman from the Department of Human Ecology at the State University of New Jersey “Rutgers''. Dr. Hallman’s survey is titled “Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents''. After having studied this survey and the responses from the public, we adapted the survey to the local context in Panama, specifically, Panama City students in private schools such as ISP and the MET. We modified Dr. Hallman's to the context in Panama among students, as well as, modifying certain questions and formatting responses with a scale from 1 to 5 on how much the receiving side agrees with such statements.

The target audience for this survey were students from the International School of Panama and the Metropolitan School of Panama with a range between 15 and 19 years old. These students' responses were segmented by sampling age, gender, school, educational inclines, and classes that the student would like to take in the Diploma Programme. The students sampled are focusing on either social, physical, biological, or art sciences. With this information, we also studied what classes they would like to study in the DP, deciding between the sciences of: physics (HL/SL), chemistry (HL/SL), biology (HL/SL), or environmental social sciences.

The survey we conducted was launched online through Google Forms (link) and was distributed by email and social media applications, such as Instagram and WhatsApp group chats to random students studying at ISP, MET, or any other school contacts this might have reached, this was labeled as the “Other” option.

The survey was based on the Likert scale, giving values from 1 to 5, represented by stars, to the answers of the questions. The possible answers were: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree. The survey consists of 30 questions, grouped by different topics. These topics include:

• Basic knowledge about food production.
• Knowledge and level of approval of hybrid plants and animals.
• Level of approval of GMO’s and general knowledge about biotechnology.
• GMO considerations.
• Synthetic Biology considerations and awareness.

After a few days of gathering responses, 101 surveys were answered, having to filter them to 87, as 14 of them were not filled out correctly. As the size of the analyzed population was not big enough to differentiate each school's group, the team decided to segment it into only two groups; “MET students”, “ISP students”, and other schools.

Results were finally analyzed by using the chi-squared test with the significance level (x^2 & p) in order to find significant differences between both groups and correlations among different questions in search for reasons and causes of their level of approval about biotechnology practices and GMO’s. These results were used for the development of the risk analysis tool and the planning of the educational practices with high-school students that the team conducted.

Result

To determine if the difference in acceptance of genetic modification between the two schools is significant, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The results of the analysis showed that the difference is significant (p < 0.001). This means that there is a very low probability that the difference is due to chance.

Specifically, the analysis showed that the mean acceptance of genetic modification at the MET school (0.68) is significantly higher than the mean acceptance at the ISP school (0.44). This means that MET school students are 51.1% more likely to accept the creation of genetically modified plants and animals than ISP school students (Table 1).

Table 1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) between ISP and MET students

Source of Variation	Degrees of Freedom	Sum of Squares	Mean Square	F	p-value
Between Groups	1	0.618	0.618	23.84	0
Within Groups	98	0.501	0.005	N/A	N/A
Total	99	1.119	N/A	N/A	N/A

MET school students have more favorable attitudes towards genetic modification than ISP school students, as in all cases the p-value is <0.001, meaning that there is a significant difference between the two schools in the response to the question (Table 2 and Table 3).

Table 2. Statistically significant differences in attitudes towards genetic modification

Question	p-value
In the supermarkets where your family normally shops, have you seen fresh fruits and vegetables labeled “Organic,” “Pesticide-Free,” or “GMO-Free”?	0.001
In the supermarkets where your family normally shops, have you seen fresh fruits and vegetables labeled “Organic,” “Pesticide-Free,” or “GMO-Free”?	0.001
Awareness of crossbreeding methods for food production	0.001
Production of hybrid plants morally correct?	0.001
Genetically modified animals production is morally correct	0.001
Approval of hybrid plants	0.001
Morally correct hybrid animals	0.001
Science and Technology understanding	0.001
Genetically modified plants level of approval	0.001
Is plant genetically modification morally correct?	0.001
Genetically modified animals level of approval	0.001
Is animal genetic modification morally correct?	0.001
GMO's could be dangerous for the environment if they could reproduce by themselves	0.001
Genetically modified plants are better than plants which requires pesticides	0.001
Genetically modified plants should be considered as “organics”	0.001
Genetically modified plants should not be sold in “natural product shops”	0.001
Genetically modified organisms are a potential risk for human health	0.001
Genetically modified organisms requires a strict regulation	0.001
Genetically modified organisms risk have been exaggerated	0.001
People should not know how to genetically modify an organism	0.001
Only moderate regulations would be needed to regulate genetic modification of organisms	0.001
Unjustified fears about the genetic modifications of organism have seriously blocked the development of beneficial foods	0.001
Genetic modification of organisms could improve my quality of life	0.001
Research in genetic modification or organisms should increase worldwide	0.001
Knowledge about Synthetic biology and its potential uses	0.000
Agree with the use of this technology in the scientific field	0.000

The answers to questions 13, 14, 15, and 22 are correlated with an average correlation of 0.78. This indicates that there is a strong positive relationship between the variables. This means that, in general, the answers to questions 13, 14, 15, and 22 tend to go in the same direction.

Statistical analysis of the significant differences between MET and ISP schools in each question and their correlation:

Table 3. Correlations between attitudes towards genetic modification and other factors among MET and ISP students

In this case, the correlation indicates that students who are more in favor of genetic modification also tend to agree more with the following statements:

• Genetic modification of plants is morally correct.
• Genetic modification of animals is morally correct.
• Genetic modification of plants is safe for the environment.
• Genetic modification of plants requires strict regulation.

Therefore, the value of 0.78 suggests that the answers to questions 13, 14, 15, and 22 are indicators of general acceptance of genetic modification.

A person who has a high response to one of questions 13, 14, 15, or 22 has approximately a 78% chance of having a high response to the other questions.

A person who has a low response to one of questions 13, 14, 15, or 22 has an approximately 22% chance of having a low response to the other questions.

Discussion

Finally, the results showed a tendency towards acceptance of genetic modification associated with students who intend to select university careers in Biosciences, chemistry, and health sciences compared to their peers in Physical Sciences-Mathematics, Humanities, and Social Sciences and Arts.

The iGEM Team Zamorano study on the Public perception of university students in Honduras about Biotechnology, Synthetic Biology, and GMOs (2014), the findings from this study demonstrate how students from Zamorano and other Honduran universities reflect significant differences amongst their knowledge, and attitude towards Biotechnology. Zamorano students demonstrated greater knowledge on food production, hybrid plant and animal techniques, and genetic modification, compared to students from other schools. Although, Zamorano students appeared to be less concerned about pesticides, and more favorable and accepting of GMOs. In contrast, students from other universities appeared to be more cautious of genetically modified food production and animals. In accordance, both groups supported the strict regulation of GMOs, yet they both showed limited knowledge about synthetic biology and GMOs. Overall, the results demonstrate how educational background plays an influential role in the knowledge and understanding of biotechnology in a student population.

In the New Jersey study, Synthetic Biology Perceptions: Aligning the Public View with Scientific Fact (2015), the study focused on the current public perception of synthetic biology and the reasons behind these perceptions. The study identifies how sensationalist thinking and false information, along with how complex synthetic biology can be, contributes to the prejudiced opinions of members of the general public. In order to resolve these concerns, the article provides three primary initiatives: the first is introducing nations to genetic modification to educational systems, second is creating a separate government agency with authority, and offering adult learners appropriate educational opportunities. These initiatives are designed to correct factual errors and raise awareness of synthetic biology, promoting more informed decision-making. The adoption of these alternatives is anticipated to have a substantial influence on bringing public awareness of synthetic biology into line with scientific agreement.

Overall, both articles present the significance of educational context/background in the understanding and development of approval of GMOs in many parts of the world. Both studies agree upon the importance of monitoring and regulating GMOs and Synthetic biology practices.

The results associated with the significant approval of MET students may be influenced by their lower average age compared to ISP students. This suggests a potential connection between academic maturity and the public perception of biotechnology. In this context, both schools displayed higher biotechnology approval rates among students who intend to pursue careers in the life sciences, which could also impact the positions of these student groups.

The analysis confirms a trend observed by the iGEM Zamorano team, where a majority of students expressed approval for agricultural sciences, aligning with our study results.

Another interesting point is that, in both studied groups, approval for synthetic biology significantly surpassed that for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Despite being closely related disciplines, this discrepancy in acceptance may be attributed to the unfamiliarity and novelty of synthetic biology within the emerging field of biotechnology.

This analysis offers an initial assessment of biotechnology, GMOs, and synthetic biology approval among high school students. It could potentially inform the development of policies aimed at fostering students' interest in these fields and thus strengthen the capabilities of the science, technology, and innovation ecosystem.