Q 2010 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION
Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
Article
Knowlege of, Attitudes Toward, and Acceptance of Genetically
Modified Organisms Among Prospective Teachers of Biology,
Home Economics, and Grade School in Slovenia
Received for publication, July 21, 2009, and in revised form, October 15, 2009
Andrej Šorgo‡, and Jana Ambrožič-Dolinšek§‡||
From the ‡Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, Koroška 160, 2000 Maribor,
Slovenia, and §Faculty of Education, University of Maribor, Koroška 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
The objective of this study was to investigate knowledge, opinions, and attitudes toward, as well as
readiness to accept genetically modified organisms (GMOs) among prospective primary and secondary
Slovene teachers. Our findings are that prospective teachers want to take an active role in rejecting or
supporting individual GMOs and are aware of the importance of education about genetically modified organism (GMO) items and their potential significance for society. Through cluster analysis, we recognized
four clusters of GMOs, separated by degree of genetically modified acceptability. GM plants and microorganisms which are recognized as useful are accepted. They are undecided about organisms used in
research or medicine and reject organisms used for food consumption and for fun. There are only weak
correlations between knowledge and attitudes and knowledge and acceptance of GMOs, and a strong
correlation between attitudes and acceptance. The appropriate strategies and actions for improving university courses in biotechnology are discussed.
Keywords: Genetically modified organisms, knowledge, attitudes, acceptance.
In the past decades, rapid developments in the understanding of genetics and molecular biology, combined
with new laboratory techniques end equipment, have led
to the development of several biotechnological applications, like genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology, gene cloning, therapeutic and reproductive cloning,
and many others. These applications and practices have
transformed biotechnology into one of the most rapidly
changing, exciting, and propulsive areas of science and
technology. Besides those advances that have been
achieved or anticipated, new findings and applications
raise concerns not only in the science community but
also in domains classically recognized as social and
humanistic. Nowadays we are witnesses that the transfer
of biotechnology discoveries to crop production, industry,
or medicine is not only restricted by the limiting factors
of technology, underdeveloped scientific methods, or
modes of scientific reasoning but also by ethics, morals,
faith, the economy, environmental responsibility, risks,
politics, education, etc. [1–8].
To cover the social and scientific aspects of issues
such as environmental issues, biotechnology, genetics,
or medicine, the term "socio-scientific issue" was coined
[9–11]. From the socio-scientific view, modern biotechnological issues are frequently controversial [12] and, espe-
|| To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
[email protected].
This paper is available on line at http://www.bambed.org
cially in cases when they become the subject of public
interest debates, are often backed up with limited knowledge and strong attitudes [2].
In educational practice, such public debates are
reflected in the classroom, where teachers are challenged by complex issues and where proficiency in one
discipline is in most cases insufficient to answer students’ curiosity. To balance the social and science sides
of socio-scientific issues, it was proposed to teach such
issues in an interdisciplinary manner [13] which can be
accompanied in practice by obstacles [4, 14]. Classroom
work in pairs or with larger group of students depends
on their syllabuses and course schedules; it is difficult to
organize extra instruction in regular school time or to
include it in already overloaded courses. When such a
theme is assigned to a single teacher, probably the most
important obstacle is that science teachers often lack
appropriate knowledge about the social side of the issue.
In contrast, knowledge of science issues among teachers
in social science or humanities subject is often even
greater barrier to thorough teaching of the scientific aspect of an issue. Working against enjoyment of such
teaching is the worldwide recognition that science is
unpopular among students [15–17].
The role of the teachers at school in socio-scientific
issues like genetic engineering or biotechnology applications is not neutral, but together with transfer of knowledge, shapes the attitudes of the students, as well. In
the case of socio-scientific issues, we can recognize a
141
DOI 10.1002/bmb.20377
142
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
double standard. If standards for the scientific part of the
issue are clearly based on scientific paradigms, the
social part of the issue is generally undefined and left to
the teacher’s own belief and attitudes. As a result,
debates around a socio-scientific issue in the classroom
often neglect rational explanations and are closer to the
paranormal, superstition, fear, and mysticism.
As trainers of prospective biology and grade school
teachers and providers of in-service training, we have
recognized that our students are unprepared for the prospective challenges in teaching socio-scientific issues.
So we decided to include socio-scientific issues in
courses in didactics of biology and biotechnology, to
prepare prospective teachers for forthcoming classroom
debates in their career, using GMOs as a model. To set a
baseline for the courses, we decided to test not only
knowledge of genetics but also attitudes toward and acceptance of GMOs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Structure of the Sample and Sampling
The sample comprised primary and secondary school teachers who are very likely to include teaching about GMOs in their
prospective careers. Our sample included prospective teachers
from three Slovenian Universities (University of Maribor, University of Ljubljana, and University of Primorska). We collected 565
questionnaires in the academic year 2008 [University of Maribor
(N ¼ 264, 46.7%); University of Ljubljana (N ¼ 239, 42.3%); and
University of Primorska (N ¼ 62, 11%)].
To seek differences between subgroups in our sample was
not a leading idea of our work, so we generally performed analyses with all prospective teachers as a single group. Only in
some cases were prospective teachers assigned to one of the
two subgroups. When comparing differences between these
two subgroups, Group 1: prospective biology teachers (N ¼
141) and Group 2: prospective teachers of home economics
and grade school teachers (N ¼ 269), statistical analysis was
performed only in cases where a student gave all answers (N ¼
410). In our study, we did not ask about gender or other personal data. Although it has been reported that there do exist differences in attitudes toward biotechnology between men and
women [18], such findings can be interesting, but unimportant
for the purpose of our study because, as teacher educators, we
neither form study groups in our courses based on gender, age,
religion, etc., nor prepare courses on such a basis.
Structure of the Questionnaire
To find out prospective teachers’ knowledge, level of acceptance, and attitudes toward GMOs, a questionnaire was
assembled. The questionnaire was divided into four parts: 1)
personal data; 2) knowledge; 3) attitudes, and 4) acceptance of
GMO and was completed anonymously.
Knowledge concerning genetics, biotechnology, and GMO
was evaluated through a true–false questionnaire consisting of
30 statements. Prospective teachers had to choose among
three options: true; do not know; false. The correct answer on
17 statements was ‘‘true’’ and on 13 statements was ‘‘false,’’
a device which prevented guessing. The statements could be
assigned to two general fields. The first set included statements from general genetics, with topics mostly covered in
high-school genetics courses. The second set consisted of
statements from classic and modern biotechnology and legislation. The questionnaire statements were ordered randomly to
prevent automatism in answering. The reliability of the questionnaire, expressed as Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.833, which
can be recognized as good. As a measure of knowledge, the
sum of correct answers was used to calculate correlations
and means for comparing differences among biology and other
teachers from the sample. In Table I, the frequencies and percentages of true, false, and do not know answers are
reported.
Attitudes and opinions toward GMOs (Table II) were evaluated through a closed questionnaire, using a five-point Likert
scale (5, Strongly agree; 4, Agree; 3, Neutral; 2, Disagree; 1,
Strongly disagree). Twenty-eight statements were provided. We
tried to recognize attitudes toward different applications, so we
provided statements from various fields, such as health–medical
applications, food applications, farming, education, and society
and research (science) applications. Additionally, all statements
regardless of field can be grouped into two subgroups: In the
first group feelings like anxiety are explored, and the second
subgroup includes statements in which we explored preparation
for action. In the questionnaire, we used a mixed approach, so
in some cases disagreement with a statement represents a positive attitude in reality. For the purposes of statistical analysis,
we numerically coded such statements in the opposite direction. Opposite coded statements are designated with an asterisk (*) in the tables. In this way it is possible to compare means
and calculate sums for individual prospective teachers. As a
general measure of attitudes toward GMOs, we can use the
means, and in cases when we are tracking a single prospective
teacher, the sum of points received on answers. Hence, a prospective teacher who would in all cases strongly agree with the
given statements and in that way express a positive attitude toward GMOs would get the maximum of 140 points, whereas in
contrast, a prospective teacher expressing the most negative
attitudes would receive 28 points. The reliability of the questionnaire, expressed as Cronbach’s alpha, is 0.854, which can be
recognized as very good. Finally, exploratory factorial analysis
on attitudes was carried out to define the structure of the data
(Table III).
Acceptance of GMOs was evaluated with a closed questionnaire, where teachers were asked to circle an answer on a 17item list of different existing or potentially existent GMOs (Table
IV) and in this way express their opinion about GMOs. We provided three answers: 3, not acceptable; 2, don’t know, do not
have an opinion; 1, acceptable. The direction of the numbering
was the opposite to that in the attitude scale to prevent automatism. The level of acceptance was expressed as the sum of
different genetically modified (GM) organisms that were acceptable to these prospective teachers. Thus, the score was 17 for
a prospective teacher for whom all items were acceptable and
51 in the case of a prospective teacher for whom all items were
unacceptable. The questionnaire had a reliability level,
expressed as Cronbach’s alpha, of 0.873, which can be recognized as very good. Finally, cluster analysis for acceptance was
carried out to assign organisms to groups with as much similarity within and difference among the groups as possible (Fig. 1).
Correlation Between Attitudes, Knowledge,
and Acceptability
For calculating correlations between attitudes, knowledge,
and acceptability only prospective teachers who answered on
all fields in the questionnaire were chosen. In that manner we
calculated correlations for 410 cases (Fig. 2). We used sums of
answers as initial data for the calculations. In the case of
acceptability, we used a reversed scale to get a result as a positive correlation.
Statistical Analyses
Analysis of the results followed four tracks, and the statistical
package SPSS1 17.0 was used for data analysis. Chi-square
143
TABLE I
Knowledge of prospective biology, home economics, and grade school teachers about genetically modified organisms
True (T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
False (F)
Do not know/
empty
Statement
N
%
N
%
N
%
Bacteria have the ability to mutually exchange genes. (T)
The vaccine against hepatitis B used to vaccinate all
school children was produced with genetically
modified yeast. (T)
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) occurs only in genetically
modified organisms. (F)
Bacteria genes from yogurt that can be consumed can
be incorporated into cells in the human organism. (F)
Genes are sequences (of nucleotides) on chromosomes. (T)
Genes are not normally transmitted from species to
species in nature. (T)
GM crops are cultivated in Slovenia. (F)
Insulin for treating human diabetes is produced from GM
(genetically modified) pig and cow pancreata. (F)
Products from GMOs (genetically modified organisms)
must be labeled as containing GM components. (T)
A cat can fertilize a female rabbit; the resulting young rabbits
have shorter ears. (F)
Mutations are the result of cloning. (F)
Mutations are always inherited. (F)
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a source of information
for the synthesis of proteins. (T)
Before application of GM (genetically modified) plants, it is
obligatory to perform a risk assessment about possible harmful
influences of GM plants on the health of people, animals
(other organisms), and the environment. (T)
Reproductive cloning from cells harvested from an adult
produces an embryo from which develops a child genetically
identical to this adult. (F)
Therapeutic cloning from cells harvested from an adult
produces an embryo, the source of embryonic stem cells,
which develop into several types of cells, used for treating
diseases or harmful tissues of the same person. (T)
Therapeutic cloning from stem cells harvested from an adult
produces several types of cells, used for treating diseases
or harmful tissues of the same person. (T)
Propagation of plants by cuttings is cloning. (T)
Recessive genes are never expressed. (F)
Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a genetically modified form of
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). (F)
Slovenia has passed a law dealing with GMOs. (T)
The sex of the child depends on male sex cells. (T)
Biogas methane from biogas reactors is produced by bacteria. (T)
In Slovenia only GM corn is produced and marked as MON 810. (F)
All mutations are harmful. (F)
Bread rising is a biotechnological process. (T)
The cloning of genes and the cloning of organisms require
the same methods of work. (F)
Stem cells occur in adult humans. (T)
Cloning of human embryos is already possible. (T)
The transfer of animal genes to plants is possible. (T)
173
57
30.8
10.1
84
61
14.9
10.8
305
447
54.3
79.1
16
2.8
411
72.7
138
24.4
67
11.9
255
45.1
243
43.0
372
165
66.1
29.4
54
270
9.6
48.0
137
127
24.3
22.6
340
62
60.6
11.0
40
93
7.1
16.5
181
408
32.3
72.5
412
73.6
32
5.7
116
20.7
12
2.1
415
73.5
138
24.4
154
103
374
27.3
18.3
67.3
311
342
30
55.1
60.7
5.4
99
118
152
17.6
21.0
27.3
401
71.5
20
3.6
140
25.0
319
56.8
40
7.1
203
36.1
156
28.0
66
11.8
336
60.2
185
33.0
40
7.1
335
59.8
181
43
45
32.3
7.7
8.0
300
227
325
53.6
40.7
57.8
79
288
192
14.1
51.6
34.2
112
364
101
32
43
210
66
20.0
64.9
18.1
5.7
7.7
38.0
11.8
47
135
33
66
418
138
136
8.4
24.1
5.9
11.8
74.9
25.0
24.4
400
62
423
462
97
204
356
71.6
11.1
75.9
82.5
17.4
37.0
63.8
294
316
113
52.6
56.6
20.2
58
84
150
10.4
15.1
26.8
207
158
297
37.0
28.3
53.0
The highest results are given in boldface.
(v2) statistics were used to identify differences in frequencies of
answers among different groups of prospective teachers. In
preliminary studies when we tried to identify differences among
answers within a set of statements, the Mann-Whitney and
Kruskall-Wallis tests were performed. To compare differences in
means among different groups of prospective teachers, the Ftest was performed, and to correlate their answers, the Pearson
correlation coefficient was used. Symbols used in the figures
are as follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. To examine latent factors,
principal component analysis [19] with varimax rotation was
performed. The suitability of the matrix was tested with KMO
(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) and Barlett’s test. The internal reliability
was tested by Cronbach’s alpha [20, 21].
RESULTS
Knowledge
As a measure of knowledge we used a sum of correct
answers, in which the highest possible score obtained
from a single prospective teacher was 30. The mean
result of correct answers for the whole sample was M ¼
14.8; SD ¼ 5.2. The highest scores were 25 in both
groups, a result which means that some prospective
teachers possess a very good level of knowledge. The
differences were, as expected, statistically significant (F
(1, 408) ¼ 151,665; p ¼ 0.000) among prospective biol-
144
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
TABLE II
Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of attitudes toward GMOs evaluated through a closed questionnaire, using a five-point Likert scale
(5, strongly agree; 4, agree; 3, neutral; 2, disagree; 1, strongly disagree)
1*
2*
3
4
5
6
7*
8*
9
10
11*
12
13
14*
15
16*
17*
18*
19*
20*
21*
22*
23
24*
25*
26
27*
28
Statements
N
M
SD
*I fear that the consequence of GMO usage
will be an increased number of allergies.
*If I received a gift of chocolate containing
fats from GM soya, I would throw it away.
If I had an illness caused by genetic malfunction,
I would choose treatment by gene therapy.
It would be good for farmers to cultivate GMOs
because they would use less spray for pests
and pathogens.
Genetically modified plants are more acceptable
than genetically modified animals.
Education about GMOs should be organized for all
school teachers, regardless of the subject they teach.
*Apples genetically modified by genes from other
sorts of apples are not acceptable to me.
*Beef from animals fed with fodder that was
cultivated with pesticides is more acceptable
to me than beef from animals fed with
genetically modified fodder.
I would plant genetically modified plants in my garden.
All society should benefit from GMOs, not only
their producers.
*On no account would I buy foodstuffs containing GMOs.
Teaching about GMOs should, besides the facts,
also introduce values and a moral and ethical component.
I would prefer foodstuffs from GMOs if they were healthier
than foodstuffs obtained conventionally.
*I would rather die than have an organ from a GM animal
transplanted into my body.
GMO research should be additionally stimulated.
*GMO research should be stopped until it is clear
that it is entirely safe.
*Researchers working on GMOs conceal from us
data about their harmful effects.
I would worry about children’s health if school
meals were prepared from GMOs.
*I would worry that GMOs could cross into the
environment.
*I would be worried if the effects of GMO consumption
could show up after a long time period.
*I would worry about nature if I knew that farmers cultivated GMOs.
*I am afraid that bacterial resistance to antibiotics
may increase because of GMOs.
Pupils are not capable of creating their own system
of values about GMOs and need to be guided by teachers.
*I would be angry if foodstuffs produced from GMOs weren’t marked.
*Production of GMOs is against the laws of nature
and should be forbidden.
I would be glad if we could breed animal – organ donors by gene
manipulation
GMOs should be a topic in subjects such as biology or home
economics and not in other school subjects.
I would buy a GM ornamental house plant out of curiosity.
557
3.58
0.994
555
2.68
1.132
549
3.04
1.009
560
2.59
1.145
562
2.90
1.217
563
3.95
1.005
563
2.67
1.035
558
2.58
0.946
562
556
2.44
3.50
1.111
1.027
549
564
2.89
3.98
1.045
0.838
562
3.45
1.094
559
2.54
1.269
559
559
3.43
3.24
1.084
1.211
561
3.62
0.931
563
3.64
1.003
561
3.59
0.920
555
4.18
0.833
561
562
3.57
3.92
0.992
0.899
563
4.01
0.988
563
560
4.29
3.03
0.769
1.017
561
3.04
1.164
562
2.21
1.036
563
2.98
1.240
Statements marked with an asterisk were coded in the opposite direction because disagreement with such statements means a positive
attitude toward the issue.
ogy teachers (N ¼ 141;M ¼ 16.1; SD ¼ 3.8) and prospective teachers of home economics and prospective
grade school teachers (N ¼ 269; M ¼ 10.6, SD ¼ 4.7). In
statistical analysis, only cases where a prospective
teacher gave all answers (N ¼ 410) have been used.
When correct statements from the whole sample
were summarized (Table I), we were able to recognize
that only 13 of 30 statements were correctly answered
by 50% or more prospective teachers. Nine of them
were answers from the classical genetics curriculum
(DNA structure, replication, gene code for proteins, inheritance, plant propagation etc.), whereas the majority
of prospective teachers have poor knowledge about
issues concerning modern biotechnology. The exceptions were two statements dealing with consumer rights
and legislation, in which students know about the need
to label GMOs in Slovenia, and about risk assessment
for possible harmful effects of GM plants on the health
of people, animals (and other organisms) and the environment.
145
TABLE III
Factor loadings for attitudes toward gene modified organisms
V
Statements/factors
1
*I fear that the consequence of GMO usage will be an
increased number of allergies.
*If I received a gift of chocolate containing fats from
GM soya, I would throw it away.
If I had an illness caused by genetic malfunction, I would
choose treatment by gene therapy.
It would be good for farmers to cultivate GMOs because they
would use less spray for pests and pathogens.
Genetically modified plants are more acceptable than
genetically modified animals.
Education about GMOs should be organized for all school
teachers, regardless of the subject they teach.
*Apples genetically modified by genes from other sorts of
apples are not acceptable to me.
*Beef from animals fed with fodder that was cultivated with
pesticides is more acceptable to me than beef from
animals fed with genetically modified fodder.
I would plant genetically modified plants in my garden.
All society should benefit from GMOs, not only their producers.
*On no account would I buy foodstuffs containing GMOs.
Teaching about GMOs should, besides the facts, also
introduce values and a moral and ethical component.
I would prefer foodstuffs from GMOs if they were healthier
than foodstuffs obtained conventionally.
*I would rather die than have an organ from a GM animal
transplanted into my body.
GMO research should be additionally stimulated.
*GMO research should be stopped until it is clear
that it is entirely safe..
*Researchers working on GMOs conceal from us
data about their harmful effects.
I would worry about children’s health if school meals
were prepared from GMOs.
*I would worry that GMOs could cross into the environment.
*I would be worried if the effects of GMO consumption
could show up after a long time period.
*I would worry about nature if I knew that farmers
cultivated GMOs.
*I am afraid that bacterial resistance to antibiotics may
increase because of GMOs.
Pupils are not capable of creating their own system of values
about GMOs and need to be guided by teachers.
*I would be angry if foodstuffs produced from GMOs
weren’t marked.
*Production of GMOs is against the laws of nature and
should be forbidden.
I would be glad if we could breed animal 2 organ donors by
gene manipulation.
GMOs should be a topic in subjects such as biology or home
economics and not in other school subjects.
I would buy a GM ornamental house plant out of curiosity.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
0.489
0.230
0.009
0.045
0.018
0.064
0.215
0.718
0.053
20.165
20.055
0.030
0.136
20.026
0.111
0.044
0.493
0.086
0.365
0.099
0.581
20.067
0.207
0.196
0.068
0.046
0.754
20.035
0.001
20.074
20.022
20.183
20.023
0.769
0.042
20.035
0.269
0.638
0.240
20.122
20.062
0.276
0.113
0.316
20.001
0.162
20.377
0.515
0.355
20.018
0.379
20.358
0.331
0.455
0.583
20.054
0.530
0.332
0.236
0.037
20.077
0.140
20.094
0.595
0.112
0.228
0.107
20.059
0.047
0.060
0.143
20.038
20.094
0.198
0.414
0.052
0.406
0.169
0.122
0.556
20.152
0.041
0.456
20.013
0.037
0.263
0.048
0.136
0.103
20.042
0.075
20.078
0.286
0.149
0.733
0.679
0.619
0.173
0.119
20.092
0.067
0.206
0.662
0.335
0.210
20.069
0.106
0.207
0.660
0.761
0.135
20.034
0.071
0.093
20.007
20.176
0.189
0.000
0.034
0.107
0.633
0.296
0.217
20.124
0.171
0.138
0.678
0.006
0.019
20.063
0.020
0.010
20.359
20.083
0.122
0.459
20.017
0.137
0.522
0.228
0.039
20.262
0.080
20.054
0.360
0.546
0.115
20.043
0.256
0.260
0.135
0.145
0.058
20.124
0.727
0.152
0.049
0.349
20.366
0.618
0.010
0.074
0.265
0.301
0.332
0.110
0.369
20.054
Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation was converged in eight
iterations.
When incorrect statements from the whole sample
were summarized (Table I), we were able to recognize
that only three of 30 statements were incorrectly
answered by 50% or more prospective teachers. Two
involved statements from the field of modern biotechnology and one from classical genetics. Prospective teachers think that GM crops are cultivated in Slovenia and do
not understand the broadest meaning of reproductive
cloning. They cannot recognize propagation by cuttings
as cloning and hardly recognized that the correct meaning of reproductive cloning is in fact somatic cell nuclear
transfer.
When ‘‘don’t know’’ statements from the whole sample
were summarized, we found that 11 of 30 statements elicited ‘‘do not know’’ by 50% and more prospective
teachers. The majority, nine of them originate from the
field of ‘‘modern biotechnology,’’ and among them six
are statements about GMOs or about biotechnology and
two about therapeutic cloning. Among statements about
GMO, five describe medicinal use and possible benefits
for human health, and the other three on production of
biofuel, cultivation of GM corn, and the existence of
legislation for GMO. The minority, two of the ‘‘don’t
know’’ statements come from the field of classical genet-
146
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
TABLE IV
Acceptance level of different kinds of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
1*
2*
3*
V
Genetically modified organisms
N
%
N
%
N
%
1
Domesticated animals with new properties (for example,
cats with no-shed or nonallergenic fur).
Genetically modified viruses designed for the
transfer of genes between organisms.
Crop plants with increased tolerance to stress
conditions (for example, drought, salinity, etc.)
Microorganisms that can degrade toxic or harmful
substances previously biologically nondegradable
Microorganisms with the ability to synthesize
medicinal substances (for example, insulin).
Microorganisms with the ability to synthesize
applicable organic substances (for example,
various organic acids).
Microorganisms used for organic synthesis in the
food industry (for example, bioethanol).
Ornamental house plants with new properties
(for example, ornamental plants that glow in the dark).
Ornamental garden plants with new properties
(for example, blue carnations).
Plants used for producing biofuel.
Plants for human food with improved quality
characteristics of fruit (for example, prolonged
cold storage, more intense coloration, etc.).
Plants for human food resistant to pests and pathogens.
Plants for animal food resistant to pests and pathogens
Plants with the ability to synthesize medicinal substances.
Animals, for example, goats, that produce milk
containing medicinal substances
(for example, coagulation blood factor).
Animals reared as donors for GM organ transplants
(replacing or repairing defective organs or tissue).
Animals for food consumption having meat with
improved characteristics (for example, meat with
low fat or with more intense color).
148
28.1
125
23.8
253
48.1
100
19.0
283
53.8
143
27.2
349
66.3
102
19.4
75
14.3
380
72.2
103
19.6
43
8.2
355
67.5
139
26.4
32
6.1
247
47.0
240
45.6
39
7.4
166
31.6
289
54.9
71
13.5
110
20.9
123
23.4
293
55.7
191
36.3
118
22.4
217
41.3
369
122
70.2
23.2
106
139
20.2
26.4
51
265
9.7
50.4
163
169
299
164
31.0
32.1
56.8
31.2
180
175
160
182
34.2
33.3
30.4
34.6
183
182
67
180
34.8
34.6
12.7
34.2
165
31.4
176
33.5
185
35.2
100
19.0
159
30.2
267
50.8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The highest frequencies of answers are given in boldface. *1, acceptable; *2, do not have an opinion, don’t know; *3, not acceptable.
ics: the exchange of genes between bacteria and the
expression of recessive genes.
The biggest surprise was the discovery that 12 of 565
(2.1%) prospective teachers believe that ‘‘A cat can fertilize a female rabbit; the resulting young rabbits have
shorter ears,’’ whereas only about three-quarters (73.5%)
could provide the correct answer. Moreover, only 64.9%
of respondents know that ‘‘The sex of the child depends
on male sex cells.’’
tion could show up after a long time period’’ (N ¼ 432;
83.3%). They also recognize the importance of school,
where teaching about GMOs should be incorporated into
curriculum of all subjects by disagreeing with the state-
Attitudes
According to the frequencies of the answers (not presented) and calculated means (Table II), we could say
that attitudes toward GMOs among the prospective
teachers are not negative in general, but that they are
founded on concerns and insecurity about their possible
yet unknown impact. The pattern is easily recognizable in
a pair where more than half of the prospective teachers
disagree or strongly disagree (N ¼ 317; 56.1%) with the
statement ‘‘I would rather die than have an organ from a
GM animal transplanted into my body,’’ and agreement
with the statements ‘‘I would be angry if foodstuffs produced from GMOs weren’t marked’’ (N ¼ 494, 87.8%),
and ‘‘I would be worried if the effects of GMO consump-
FIG. 1. Dendrogram of clusters of genetically modified
organisms using average linkage (between groups) based
on acceptance level. An, animal; Mo, microorganism; Pl,
plants; Vi, virus; humfood, human food; medic, medicine;
resear, research; foodind, food industry; don, donor of organs;
orn, ornamental; dom, domesticated; apl, application; env, environment; fuel, fuel; resist, resistance.
147
Acceptability
FIG. 2. Correlation between knowledge about, attitudes
towards and acceptance of GMOs among Slovenian prospective teachers. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.We chose for calculations only students who answered all fields in the questionnaire
(N ¼ 410).
ment that ‘‘GMOs should be a topic in subjects such as
Biology or Home Economics and not in other school
subjects’’ (N ¼ 368; 65.4%), with only one-tenth of the
prospective teachers agreeing with such a solution. They
also agree with the statement that ‘‘Education about
GMOs should be organized for all school teachers,
regardless of the subject they teach’’ (N ¼ 408; 72.4%)
and recognize the importance of teachers in education
about socio-scientific issues by agreeing with the statement ‘‘Pupils are not capable of creating their own system of values about GMOs and need to be guided by
teachers’’ (N ¼ 441; 78.3%).
We gained additional insight into attitudes toward
GMOs with exploratory factorial analysis; we were able
to recognize six factors, explaining 52.5% of variance.
The first factor (Cronbach’s alpha 0.828) was named
‘‘Concerns and insecurity.’’ We found that prospective
teachers mostly worry about the possible yet unknown
impacts of GMOs, but that they trust researchers not to
hide data about their harmful effects.
The second factor (Cronbach’s alpha 0.772) was
named ‘‘Active rejection or support’’ for GMOs. Prospective teachers want to play an active role in the acceptance or rejection of GMOs based on their own
decisions.
The third factor was named ‘‘Scaling of acceptability’’
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.543). Even if our first intention was
not to scale acceptability, through this questionnaire we
can recognize a pattern where students accept or reject
GMOs on an individual basis and not GMOs as a whole
group.
The fourth factor was named ‘‘Education’’ (Cronbach’s
alpha 0.624) and comprises of statements with strongly
expressed agreement about the need for such education
to be incorporated into the whole curriculum.
The fifth factor was named ‘‘Health’’ (Cronbach’s alpha
0.520). In this factor are grouped statements about
health. It seems that when health is in question some
barriers fall, and the acceptance level toward GMOs is
higher.
The sixth factor was named ‘‘Research’’ (Cronbach’s
alpha 0.496), and we can recognize a pattern that students support research concerning GMOs.
When discussing acceptance, we were able to recognize that prospective teachers do not generally accept or
reject GMOs. We can conclude that acceptance of one
type of GMO does not mean that some other GMO will
also be accepted automatically. GM microorganisms and
plants are generally more acceptable than GM animals,
and GMOs not used for food consumption are generally
more acceptable than GMOs used for food. The majority
of choices fall into the pro or contra GSO group, and
only a minority of choices into the uncertainty group (do
not know; do not have an opinion). This finding can be
an indicator that prospective teachers want to make
decisions for themselves.
We gained additional insight into acceptance of GMOs
with cluster analysis, where we can recognize four clusters of organisms. In the first cluster are GMOs that are
acceptable to the majority of respondents. The group
consists of three microorganisms and three plants, which
share perceived usefulness, but are not used for food
consumption. In the second cluster are ornamental
house and garden plants and domestic animals with new
properties that are unacceptable to most respondents. In
the third cluster are organisms where opinions about
their acceptability are more diverse. In the fourth cluster
are grouped together plants and animals for food consumption or feeding animals which are rejected by more
than half the respondents.
Correlation Among Attitudes, Knowledge, and
Acceptability
The correlation among knowledge, attitude, and acceptance level was calculated. There was only a weak
correlation between knowledge and attitudes, and an
even weaker correlation between knowledge and acceptance, and a solid correlation between attitudes and acceptance (Fig. 2).
DISCUSSION
Prospective primary and secondary school teachers
from three Slovenian universities (University of Maribor,
University of Ljubljana, and University of Primorska) have
some basic knowledge of genetics, although we should
not be satisfied with the levels demonstrated. They possess at least some knowledge about classical genetics
but have very limited knowledge about current applications of modern biotechnology. From the standpoint of
teacher educators, this could mean that prospective
teachers need additional genetic education, first to repair
several serious flaws that should have been fixed during
their secondary education (hybridization of cats and rabbits, inheritance of sex) and to inform them about modern biotechnology. We earnestly hope that they would
have found the correct answers before entering a classroom and starting discussions about plant, animal, and
human reproduction in elementary school, or lessons
about human and animal reproduction, which are integral
part of every biological sciences curriculum.
148
It is quite important to monitor attitudes toward and
acceptance of biotechnology because it is believed that
public acceptance plays a major role in determining
whether biotechnology development continues to expand
[22]. In most cases, the attitudes of prospective teachers
toward GMOs are not extreme. The exceptions are statements in which they were asked to express their concerns. We can conclude that they worry mostly about
potential unknown impacts of GMOs and want to play an
active role in the acceptance or rejection of GMOs based
on their own decisions. They recognize the importance of
education about GMOs and acknowledge the importance
of socio-scientific issues in creating prospective teachers’ individual systems of values about GMOs.
The factors describing the attitudes toward GMOs and
genetic modifications resemble results from other studies
[3 and references therein]. The factors demonstrating
that prospective teachers worry most about the possible
yet unknown impact of GMOs, unforeseen risks are also
the leading aspect of other studies. Our prospective
teachers trust scientists not to hide data about GMO
harmful effects higher and support research concerning
GMOs; trust in government is also found to be important
in other studies. Our prospective teachers want to play
an active role in the acceptance or rejection of GMOs
based on their own decisions and are prepared (or have
tried) to make decisions: such support and criticism are
important factors in other studies. Rejection or acceptance of one GMO does not necessarily mean that some
other will be accepted or rejected too, a pattern already
recognized [5].
The results on acceptability are to some degree in line
with findings of other studies, made on consumers from
different countries [3, 23, 24]. Prospective teachers
would accept GMOs when they can recognize them as
useful and/or beneficial, what was clearly expressed in
our study with recognition of ornamental plants as unacceptable GMOs. In general they reject GMOs especially
when their use involves applications in food production,
putting such organisms or products into their body or
even anything feed with GMO. It seems that when health
is in question some barrier falls and the acceptance level
toward GMOs is higher.
Various studies done on more or less potential consumers of GMOs show either a pattern of three clusters:
opponents, supporters, and a group of mostly indifferent
individuals; or a pattern of four clusters: two showing different degrees of support and two different degrees of
refusal [3]. Almost the same pattern was recognized
when we grouped organisms. In our clusters we found
combination of different degrees of acceptability: generally acceptable, generally unacceptable in two clusters,
and an uncertain cluster. In the first cluster are the clearly
acceptable GMOs, with closely connected characteristics: GMOs are very useful or beneficial and clearly not
used for food, although some of them are for putting
inside the body (medicines). In the second cluster are
unacceptable GMOs—ornamental GM plants for the
house and garden (of these house ornamentals are less
acceptable than garden ornamentals) and domestic GM
animals. Also unacceptable to most respondents are also
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
organisms for human and animal GM food and feed and
GM food (milk) with medicinal properties. In the uncertainty cluster we find organisms in which respondents’
opinions are uncertain about their acceptability. It was
interesting to find that prospective teachers clearly distinguish GMOs for food (not acceptable) from GMOs to be
inserted into the body (acceptable – medicines). As a
conclusion, any potential candidate for acceptance must
be recognized as useful, be a microorganism or plant,
and must not be used for food consumption or, even
worse, for fun. Some barriers fall in cases when human
health is at stake.
Several studies have examined public opinion and
attitudes toward science, biotechnology, and related
issues [3, 10, 11, 18, 24–29] and findings are rather controversial. The simplest hypothesis of our study should
be that knowledge of biotechnology correlates with attitudes toward and acceptance of GMOs. However, the
correlation between knowledge and attitudes in our
study is weak and that between knowledge and acceptance even weaker. Results corresponding with findings
of [25] that there is only a week correlation between
knowledge and attitudes toward science in general, but
almost nonexistent in some specialized areas of science
like biotechnology [25]. As a result, we can conclude
that attitudes, and decisions about and acceptance of
GMOs are not based on scientific facts and formal reasoning (knowledge) but more probably on informal reasoning, a finding that holds true for other socio-scientific
issues [9–11].
Ultimately, there remains the answer on the question of
how to organize education about GMOs if we know that:
(i) students already have attitudes obtained from informal
sources; (ii) existing attitudes are usually deep-rooted
and will not easily be changed by new information [23];
(iii) attitudes have a significant effect on how individuals
respond to new information [29]; (iv) greater knowledge
will not necessarily produce more productive debates
but can strengthen support or rejection for genetic modifications [3, 30].
Our answer is education, not only organized simply by
providing new information and data but also working in
relation to GMOs as socio-scientific issues, including
both the social and the scientific aspects. One of first
moves in changing prospective teachers’ perception of
GMOs and modern biotechnology is to invest in prospective teachers’ professional development [31] and in the
development of new teaching strategies [32–34]. We
should provide prospective teachers with tools for perceiving the potential risks of GMOs and understanding
the dilemmas of society and the choices they make [30].
Teacher should evaluate student attitudes toward and
acceptance of GM and adapt their lessons to current
understanding and to the choice of appropriate activities
[24] preferable, active ones [35, 36]. Students must confront their previous knowledge, belief, and feelings with
new ones. There are several suggestions for inciting such
changes, mostly prepared on the topic of GM food. One
of these is firsthand experience with GMOs in workshops
[18]. Where direct exposure to such organisms or techniques is impossible, we should use other strategies. What
149
has been proposed is carefully designed and contextualized education about GMOs in the direction of critical
thinking, with analysis of arguments and defense of individual viewpoints, with no need for huge amounts of
knowledge [37]; this should help prospective teachers
understand the risks, benefits, and disadvantages of
genetic modification [26]. Carefully chosen themes might
provide in-depth specific knowledge about actual cases,
instead of touching lightly on a number of different areas
of GMOs [38].
The second task is to provide prospective teachers
with first class information based on trusted sources. In
some European Union countries there already exist several opportunities for biotechnology education to flow
from scientists to nonscientists and several teaching
units on various biotechnology topics have been developed and published on the internet available in English
and several other languages [26, 12 ali 13], but not in
Slovenian.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on findings from our study, we can conclude
that preparing prospective teachers for the professional
challenges concerning socio-scientific issues from the
field of genetics and biotechnology will not be an easy
task. Weak correlations between knowledge and attitudes and knowledge and acceptance of GMOs indicate
that additional knowledge has only a weak influence on
attitudes toward, decisions about, and acceptance of
GMOs. Hence, simply adding new information about
genetics and biotechnology into their courses can only
serve to upgrade knowledge, to close the gaps and
repair serious identified flaws in their previous knowledge. Challenging attitudes with no intention of influencing prospective teachers’ individual decisions in any
direction, but with the aim of creating debate on the
topic that moves from informal to formal reasoning based
on scientific facts and enquiry would be a much heavier
task. Just adding new information into lectures would not
influence prospective teacher attitudes, so they should
take an active role in constructing their own views. We
propose preparing case studies in which prospective
teachers should in groups, prepare an acceptability study
for an organism or a group of organisms based on verifiable facts. By virtue of such a study they would come to
understand the risks, benefits, and disadvantages of GM
organisms or biotechnology techniques and their possible impact on society and the environment. When a
study is finished its authors should defend it in debate
with other prospective teachers and guests not involved
in the work.
Acknowledgments— We like to thank Dr. Jelka Strgar, Dr.
Darja Skribe Dimec (University of Ljubljana), Claudio Battelli,
MSc (University of Primorska), Dr. Alenka Lipovec, and Martina
Rajšp (University of Maribor) for their help in collecting the data.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Lazarowitz, I. Bloch (2005) Awareness of societal issues among
high school biology teachers teaching genetics, J. Sci. Edu. Technol. 14, 437–457.
[2] R. Pardo, C. Midden, J. D. Miller (2002) Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union, J. Biotechnol. 98, 9–24.
[3] I. B. Christoph, M. Bruhn, J. Roosen (2008) Knowledge, attitudes
towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany,
Appetite 51, 58–68.
[4] V. S. Flores, A. J. Tobin (2002) Frankenfoods: Values about genetics
embedded in a metaphor, Am. Biol. Teach. 64, 581–586.
[5] P. A. Stewart, W. P. McLean (2005) Public opinion toward the first,
second, and third generations of plant biotechnology, In vitro, Cell.
Dev. Biol. Plant 41, 718–724.
[6] E. R. Yunta, C. V. Herrera, A. Misseroni, L. F. Milla, D. Outomuro, I.
S. Lemus, M. F. Lues, F. L. Stepke (2005) Attitudes towards
genomic research in four latin american countries, Electronic J. Biotechnol. 8, 238–248.
[7] M. Usak, M. Erdogan, P. Prokop, M. Ozel (2008) High school and
university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 37, 123–130.
[8] M. Özel, M. Erdoğan, M. Uşak, P. Prokop (2009) High school students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology application, Educ. Sci.: Teory Pract. 9, 321–328.
[9] T. D. Sadler (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific
issues: A critical review of research, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 513–
536.
[10] T. D. Sadler, D. L. Zeidler (2004a) Patterns of informal reasoning in
the context of socioscientific decision making, J. Res. Sci. Teach.
42, 112–138.
[11] T. D. Sadler, D. L. Zeidler (2004b) The significance of content
knowledge for informal reasoning regarding sociescientific issues:
Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues, Sci.
Educ. 89, 71–93.
[12] P. J. Fitzsimons (2007) Biotechnology, ethics and education, Stud.
Philon. Educ. 26, 1–11.
[13] U. Harms (2002) Biotechnology education in schools, Electron. J.
Biotechnol. 5, 205–211.
[14] M. L. M. O. M. Serralheiro, A. M. P. Freire (2002) Teaching of biotechnology in the biochemistry course, Electron. J. Biotechnol. 5,
212–215.
[15] J. Osborne, S. Simon, S. Collins (2003) Attitudes towards science:
A review of the literature and its implications, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25,
1049–1079.
[16] J. Osborne (2007) Science education for the twenty first century,
Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Edu. 3, 173–184.
[17] A. Šorgo, T. ,Verčkovnik, S. Kocijančič (2007) Laboratory work in
biology teaching at Slovene secondary schools [in Slovene], Acta
Biol. Sloven. 50, 113–124.
[18] P. Procop, A. Leškova, M. Kubiatko, C. Diran (2007) Slovakian student’s knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology, Int. J. Sci.
Educ. 7, 895–907.
[19] M. Erdogan, M. Özel, M. Uşak, P. Prokop (2009) Development and
validation of an Instrument to measure university students biotechnology attitude, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18, 255–264.
[20] P. Kind, K. Jones, P. Barmby (2007) Developing attitudes towards
science measures, Int. J Sci Educ. 29, 871–839.
[21] L. Cronbach. J. (2004) My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and
successor procedures, Educ. Physiol. Meas. 64, 391–418.
[22] H. Cavanagh, J. Hood, J. Wilkinson (2005) Riverina high school students’ views of biotechnology, Electron. J. Biotechnol. 8, 121–127.
[23] K. G. Grunert, L. Bredahl, J. Scholder (2003) Four questions on
European consumers’ attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production, Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 4,
435–445.
[24] A. Ronteltap, J. C. M. Van Trijp, R. J. Renes, L. J. Frewer (2007)
Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the prospective of nutrigenomics, Appetite 49, 1–7.
[25] N. Allum, P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi, I. Brunton-Smith, (2008) Science
knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis, Public
Underst. Sci. 17, 35–54.
[26] S. Y. Chen, J. Raffan (1999) Biotechnology: Students’ knowledge
and attitudes in the UK and Taiwan, J. Biol. Edu. 34, 17–23.
[27] T. J. Hoban (2004) Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology, ESA Working Paper No. 04–09, Agricultural and Development
Economics Division (esa), The Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations, Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/
ae063e/ae063e00.htm#toc, Accessed September 25,2008.
[28] P. Plahuta, B. Tivadar, P. Raspor (2007) Slovenian public opinion
regarding genetically modified organisms in winemaking, Acta Alimentar. 36, 61–73.
[29] J. L. Lusk, L. O. House, C. Valli, S. R. Jaeger, M. Moore, J. L. Morrow, B. W. Traill (2004) Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food:
evidence from experimental auction in the United States, England,
and France, Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 30, 179–204.
150
[30] P. Jallinoja, A. R. Aro (2000) Does knowledge make a difference?
The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests, J. Health Commun. 5, 29–39.
[31] K. M. Javornik, G. M. Ivanuš, P. T. Vršnik (2008) Didactic and methodical characteristics of education in general upper secondary
schools, Didact. Sloven. Pedag. Obzor. 23, 62–77.
[32] G. Torkar, B. Bajd (2006) Trainee teachers’ ideas about endangered
birds, J. Biol. Edu. 41, 5–8.
[33] J. Strgar, (2007) Increasing the interest of students in plants, J. Biol.
Edu. 42, 19–23.
[34] A. Šorgo, Z. Hajdinjak, D. Briški (2008) The journey of a sandwich:
Computer-based laboratory experiments about the human digestive
BAMBED, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 141–150, 2010
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
system in high school biology teaching, Adv. Physiol. Edu. 32, 92–
99.
T. Vidic (2007) Concepts of primary school pupils and students
about DNA [in Slovene], Didact. Sloven. Pedag. Obzor. 22, 150–
159.
I. Tomažič (2008) The influence of direct experience on students’
attitudes to, and knowledge about amphibians, Acta Biol. Sloven.
51, 39–48.
J. Lewis, J. Leach (2006) Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The
role of science knowledge, Int. J. Sci. Edu. 28, 1267–1287.
M. Ekborg (2008) Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: The
case of genetically modified plants, J. Biol. Edu. 42, 60–65.