According to our interview with a manager from a fragrant products company, it is apparent that most of consumers don’t have a comprehensive understanding of GMO, even the companies lack such knowledge about GMO. Hence they hold prejudice towards GMO and GMO produced fragrant products, naming them “cancerous” “unsafe”. 
Links-China 2023 targets the production of “Aroma anchor” (fragrance fixatives) containing molecules of ambrein and santalol produced by genetic modified yeast. We purpose to provide a more sustainable way to produce fragrance molecules through synthetic biology, substituting the natural sources and chemical sources which are more costly and not environmental-friendly. We realise public’s and companies’ concerns about GMO and derived products, hence, we hosted several activities to disrupt people’s concern and prejudice towards GMO.

Perfume DIY Workshop

Overview:

Content:

People who are interested in perfume and fragrance were attracted. They were willing to learn more about genetically modified engineering and the impact of genetically modified engineering on our lives and the fragrance industry. We explain the fundamental knowledge about gene editing, and how it can be used to produce fragrance molecules and other products in the market. Through learning the mechannism, they became not that prejudiced about GMO (Feedback see in analysis).

Feedback Analysis:

One of the locations where we conduct this activity is high school, most people who filled in the questionnaire are high school students under the age of 18. The majority of people who filled in the questionnaire were female, and the proportion of female answering the questionnaire was as high as 70% (68.42).
Almost everyone expressed that their understanding of GMOs had improved after LINKS-China members explained the science and principles behind GMOs. Among those who participated in the questionnaire, only one person expressed that they still do not understand after the explanation by the members, but his understanding of GMOs had improved (from 1-4). Most people feel neutral about GMO-produced fragrances, with slightly more positive feeling(mode from 4-6) after learning more about them. Before the explanation, most people have a narrow understanding   toward fragrance products produced by GMO methods and believed that this technology was not very safe. After the explanation, only three people still had doubts about GMO-produced fragrance products.
After learning more about GMO technology, most people agreed that fragrance products produced using genetically modified biotechnology can be used and are safe, but there are still 3 or 4 people who are not very accepting toward the use of GMO fragrance products. Before explanation, almost everyone believed that using GMO fragrance products was harmful to human health. After learning about it, most people were feeling more neutral about the negative impact of using GMO fragrance products on health.

Conclusion:

However, although after understanding GMO technology, most people are still more inclined to use fragrance products made from natural raw materials.  Most people believe that GMO products will have a certain impact on society. After learning about GMO technology, 95% of people think the public should know more about genetically modified products, which is almost 30% higher than before they learned about the genetic modifications.

Play acting in Nursing home

Overview:

Content:

In order to educate them about synthetic biology and increase the acceptance of GMOs through science-supported clarifications, we prepared two sections of activities. In the first part, we first made a short speech on GMOs and clarified some previously mentioned concerns and initial perceptions brought up about GMOs being evil during conversations with the elders before the start of the activities. Next, we the prepared two plays, one on GMO organisms and one on the differences and social perspectives between naturally grown and GMO plants. After that we held a Q&A session for the middle-aged to old-aged audience present.
Throughout the speech and play performance, the audience was very polite, and expressed that they received useful information from the material we provided. The most response and participation we had from the was during the Q & A.

Response:

In the Q & A session, we received a diverse range of responses. Firstly, the audience mentioned that they recognize the effort we put in, and are now clearer on the definition of GMOs and their uses. On the other hand, the people from the older generation provided many negative, but insightful comments on our content. The older generations's view is extremely negative toward GMOs. They believe that GMOs has caused the regression of the health and intelligence of the current youth. Facing these opinions, we felt rather surprised, and had to take more time to clarify some of their claims. After a rather fierce discussion, we finally came to a conclusion the GMOs do hold some risk, and that genetic editing is just a technology, and is something that can be used for both good and bad things.

Conclusion:

The attempt to educate the elderly population on GMOs and synthetic biology had not been successful due to inner bias and previous assumptions. The older population is also comparably more stubborn. But our attempt to educate them did bring out their real view on GMOs and genetic editing, allowing us to better understand the hostile social environment present for synthetic biology, giving us motivation to work harder in our project so that we can earn the acknowledgement of the public through solid scientific results and proof.

Overall: