Team:UFRGS Brazil/HPGraphs
HP STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
As GlyFloat repercussion in many different Brazilian media increased, UFRGS_Brazil was positively surprised with the proportions that project achieved. Hence, we felt the need to talk to the society about the subjects of science and agriculture.
Talking about science is essential for society to grow together. After all, everybody has the right to knowledge and education. Sharing knowledge simply, yet clearly, is even more important. Through an online survey, we collected the opinion of approximately 200 people, among these were students, farmers, professors, agronomists and environmentalists. Questions regarding the use of herbicides and their impacts were addressed, emphasising topics about glyphosate, synthetic biology and the use of genetically modified organisms for bioremediation, beyond the possible impacts to the environment and people’s lives.
The abusive use of pesticides is a huge environmental problem of our time. The ways the massive use of these chemicals affect the environment are still being studied, even though we already know we are only scratching the surface of the problems of these compounds. In Brazil, only in the present year, 2019, 382 new pesticides have been approved (Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture). This fact does not represent the real impacts on the environment and human health, and it is a setback to many environmental movements that are taking place worldwide, like the prohibition of some agrochemicals in the European Union.
GRAPH 1 - “How favorable are you regarding herbicide use?”
Fig. 1: Bar chart of responses distribution by occupation for the question “How favorable are you regarding herbicide use?”.
To us, it felt that opinions about the use of agrochemicals diverges, and these premises were demonstrated in our results. Figure 1 describes the favorability of different groups - classified by their occupancy - regarding the use of herbicides (where 1 means very unfavorable and 5 very favorable). Visually, the chart shows us the difference between the opinion of environmentalists, who feel very unfavorable about the use of agrochemicals, and the agribusiness group, who tend to feel very favorable towards its use. After performing a Kruskal-Wallis test, accompanied by a Mann-Whitney post-hoc in order to verify if the groups statistically differed between themselves, a significative difference (p<0.05) was obtained between agribusiness and every other group, except for farmers. Furthermore, the most significant result was between environmental/life sciences and farmers, corroborating with what was previously seen in the Figure 1. Although we expect this different, since it is likely that farmers and environmentalists generally have very different points of view, as for productivity and environmental preservation. We also expected that the farmers were not so favorable to the herbicides usage, once other studies show that they notice harmful effects in their health (Silva et al., 2019) and, even, they would like to cultivate without agrochemicals (de Souza., 2018).
Following the idea previously exposed, there was also a statistically significant difference for the question: “How harmful do you consider the presence of the glyphosate agrotoxic in water?” (where 1 means no harmful, and 5 very harmful) when analyzing the groups: i. agribusiness and environmental/life sciences and ii. farmers and environmental/life sciences.
As stated by the Brazilian researcher Natália Pasternak in a TEDx talk, “science is being affected by the Cassandra syndrome” (Cassandra is a character in Greek mythology, who was gifted with prophecy, but was cursed by the god Apollo so that no one would believe her prophecies - she could see the future, and tell others about it, but it was effectless. Science predicts the future, in a way, and absolutely tells us a lot about our present and past. But recently, there has been some resistance by many in the society in believing in facts.
GRAPH 2 - “Do you know what synthetic biology is?”
Fig. 2: Bar chart of responses distribution by occupation for the question “Do you know what synthetic biology is?”.
When asked about knowing synthetic biology, the answers were quite surprising. We thought the students - a good part of the young population who answered our survey - had at least some knowledge about biotechnology and would know synthetic biology. However, on a first visual analysis of the Fig. 2, most of the students contradicted the expectations, answering negatively the question. This was then confirmed by a chi-squared test, in which the students group had, on average, less knowledge of the term synthetic biology when compared to the agribusiness group.
This may be due to the relatively recent broad use of the term ‘synthetic biology’, in a way that familiarity with the term may be restricted to some groups, more directly involved with the technology related to the subject. As discussed by Shapira, Kwon e Youtie (2017) “[…] annual worldwide synthetic biology publication output grew from an average of about 170 publications per year from 2000 to 2005 to well over 1200 publications in 2015. […] Synthetic biology publication output noticeably accelerated from 2008.” This corroborates with the idea that the use of the term is still growing, and may not have achieved multiple sectors of society.
We hypothesize that the agribusiness group knowledge about synthetic biology may be due to the acquaintance of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms destined to agriculture, since the majority of this group respondents was somehow related to GM crops cultivation and agricultural consulting. In addition, the knowledge and concordance regarding GMOs and synthetic biology are usually related, as shown in a recent review of publications about public perception of the topics: “[…] public concerns about synthetic biology were expressed in a similar way to those associated with GM.” (JIN et al., 2019) The use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in diverse situations, like agriculture and even bioremediation, for example, is discussed. When asking about the use of GMOs for the treatment of contaminated environments, an uneven distribution was observed in the answers.
GRAPH 3 - “How much do you agree with GMOs (Genetic modified organisms) usage for contaminated environmental treatment?”
Fig. 3: Bar chart of responses distribution by occupation for the question “How much do you agree with GMOs (Genetic modified organisms) usage for contaminated environmental treatment?” by occupation.
By observing the concordance of the use of OGMs for water treatment with the respondents' occupation area, we notice higher acceptance by the agribusiness respondents group in relation to other groups. This may be explained due to their knowledge regarding commonplace irregularities in the amount of glyphosate applied and the techniques used for its application in the fields, as many of our interviews pointed out.
Glyphosate is necessary for the cultivation of 95% of the area of soybean, corn and cotton produced in Brazil, three of the main agricultural crops of the country, as stated by the Brazilian Agriculture Minister, Blairo Maggi. About its safety in the fields, according to professor José Otávio Menten, senior professor and researcher at Esalq-USP, “If there was any clear evidence that [glyphosate] has any carcinogenic effect, or any other detrimental effect [...], it would not have been registered or its registration would have already been revoked. This, of course, assumes that the product is applied correctly.” In real life, the scenario involving glyphosate in Brazil is controversial: according to ARPAC CEO, Eduardo da Costa Goerl, Brazilian farmers may use up to five times more glyphosate than recommended, as they think this is a way to ensure that they will not be harmed by pest attacks on their crops. Moreover, according to Lisiane Becker, an expert at the Environmental Department of Canoas and president of the NGO Mira-Serra, glyphosate is not restricted to the area in which it was applied: she cites the case of a farmer she met in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, who lost all his bees due to glyphosate drift from a neighboring plantation to its organic arable lands. Besides, Eliane Dallegrave, a toxicologist from Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, highlighted the toxicity of the Round Up compound for metazoans: a trial she conducted with a lower dose of RoundUp than the one considered with no effect killed half of the mice tested.
As glyphosate is highly important for Brazil’s agricultural production, in the same way it has been increasingly related to environmental impacts and possible health complications, it is latent that the agribusiness respondents show favorable positions for its degradation from the environment. Due to their answers, we thought that an interesting application for GlyFloat would be in crop drainage systems, also because there is a higher concentration of glyphosate in water leaving the farmland than in the water coming into our homes.
The acceptance of degrading glyphosate with GMOs by life sciences professionals and students, in general, were statistically positively relevant as well. As a recent survey evaluating public perception of biotechnology shows, “The higher the level of education, the higher the appreciation of synthetic biology, biotechnology or genetic engineering” (PORCAR et al., 2019). A research conducted by Julia S. Guivant, a researcher at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, showed that "the more information, the greater the acceptance [with] transgenic [organisms]": 81% of the Brazilians interviewed said they agreed with the statement that biotechnology in agriculture can improve our quality of life. Thus, taking into account that our team reinforced the seriousness of GlyFloat, which intersects biotechnology and agriculture, regarding its biosecurity - especially our auxotrophic control mechanisms and containment of our bacteria in the filter - the overall result was positive. In addition, we assume that the acceptance of GMOs for bioremediation by farmers may be related to their increased familiarity regarding GMOs and their safety, since GM crops have been grown commercially since 1995 (Bagavathiannan et al., 2010), and acceptance of GM crops has been rapid, with the global GM production area growing from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications [ISAAA], 2015) to 182 million hectares in 2014. With this in mind, UFRGS_Brazil found it relevant to seek the opinion of the population on three fundamental issues: how necessary is the removal of glyphosate from rivers; how much can this removal improve water quality; how necessary it is to have a technology capable of degrading glyphosate from water bodies.
GRAPH 4 - “General Questions”
Fig. 4: Histogram of responses distribution three questions described on the subtitles.
It can be seen in figure 4 that, in general, most respondents believe that glyphosate removal from water bodies is of great value as this may improve water quality. Likewise, they agree that the use of new technologies is a major advance for this purpose.
As stated by the agronomist Bruno Candido Fornarolli, CEO of Fornarolli Agricultural Science in an interview to the team: "Sometimes there's no evidence that any compound is actually doing any damage. But better than speaking out, is preserving. Save the planet before anything!"
Despite the important quote, however, it is already stated in academic publications that glyphosate is, in fact, a polluting molecule of watercourses. According to Székács and Darvas (2018), glyphosate is a globally occurring pollutant in surface water due to its widespread use, good solubility (11.6 g/L at 25 ° C) and degradation (half-life time (DT50) = 28–91 days, if photodegradation is excluded) in water (MacBean, 2012). Numerous surveys indicated residue levels between the limit of detection (LOD) of the analytical method used (e.g., 0.01 μg/L) and substantial concentrations.
In addition to scientific papers, the numerous Brazilian news reports reporting glyphosate as an aquatic pollutant inform citizens in general, who are aware of the importance of eliminating this substance from water: "Brazil has 5,000 times more glyphosate in water than European countries," by Portal UOL, and "It is urgent to resume analysis of glyphosate and other poisons in the water," says agronomist," by the Século Diário, are some of the related headlines.
Regarding the need to develop new technologies for glyphosate degradation, we also had a statistically significant positive response. In fact, there is a lot of news and research showing the need for degradation of this compound, but in general, no feasible solution is presented. In 2018, Rocha et. al., researchers from the water treatment area of the Federal University of Goiás and the Federal University of São Paulo, stated that "many studies that include glyphosate removal in water have not been found in the literature."
Given this, it was likely that most of the respondent groups were in favor of glyphosate degradation on water courses, as well as to make available a new technologic method for it.
Over the course of this year, we came across a huge number of people who have somehow shown prejudice against the use of genetically modified organisms. Perhaps our surprise was due to the fact that many times, we get somewhat “immersed” in the academic world, and this surprise was a great advice for us to look more broadly to society. We also realized that some of these people had this prejudice towards GMOs without having much information about them. The scientific community has a role in all of this, since it may not be well connected and the communication to the rest of society is flawed.
Thinking about this topic, our team considered it fundamental to reach schools and student events, in order to talk about science, and Synthetic Biology (SynBio). This may not have directly impacted GlyFloat per se, but it sure impacted the perception of youngsters towards biotechnology and SynBio. As discussed by Porkar et al. (2019): "There are many factors at play that determine how lay people perceive new technologies and a better understanding of these can help to inform debate."
GRAPH 5 - “In your opinion, what is the impact of glyphosate on the environment?”
Fig. 5: Bar chart of responses distribution by occupation for the question “In your opinion, what is the impact of glyphosate on the environment?” by occupation.
With this insight, we also used this idea to question respondents about how capable projects using bioremediation OGMs, such as GlyFloat, are able to change the public's negative opinion of genetically modified organisms. Analyzing the data, 131 people out of 177 who answered the form positively believe that our project can impact the population's negative opinion about the use of OGMs.
Betten et al. (2018) conducted a review of the mapping of existing research on public perceptions and attitudes towards synthetic biology and its applications in agriculture and food production. As discussed in their results: "research participants expressed more optimism when applications benefiting human health, energy and environment were presented to them [...] when compared with agrifood sector use” , which corroborates our data.
Human Practices are a great part of iGEM projects, and are a source of the teams and the collective growth.
Talking about such a project with people, and analyzing their perceptions is essential. To UFRGS_Brazil, this was an extremely rich experience. Talking to people from different cities, different ages and occupations, showed us that there are many who feel worried about the environment and the future of our planet.
GlyFloat is still a prototype in development, but we do believe in it! Among so many different discussions about the toxicological potential of herbicides and mainly glyphosate, we are sure of one thing:
"Save the planet before anything!"
Here you can see a list of other people and their curriculum that support this wiki page:
Daniel Fornarolli | Agronomist | CEO Fornarolli Agriculture Science Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-fornarolli-747674b8/ "Synthetic biology is very crazy. I believe it has two major sides: a world of tragedy when misused or a world of salvation!"
Cláudio Luis Heinzmann | Agronomist | CEO Preciza Precision Agriculture Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/claudio-luis-heinzmann-348b6936/ "Farmers are already realizing that crop management is not correct."
Júlia Heinzmann | Biotechnologist | CEO Microbioma Agronomic analysis Lattes - http://lattes.cnpq.br/5481494686172759 "A lot of times, the biggest problem is the residues in agrochemicals packages, and not the improper agrochemical use."
PhD Fernando Thomé Kreutz | Medical and PhD in Biotechnology | CEO FK Biotech Lattes - http://lattes.cnpq.br/3150074537946167 "The idea is interesting. When we think of a product, it is even more interesting to generate a product with the degradation product."
Me. Adrik Francis Richter | Agronomist and Master in Vegetable Production | Federation of Agricultural Workers in Rio Grande do Sul (FETAG) Lattes - http://lattes.cnpq.br/0379913255390246 "Changing a consolidated habit is difficult, mitigating the problems of this habit may be a quicker and more correct way to resolve."
Me. Lisiane Becker | Master in Life Science and expert in Environmental Law | Guaíba City Hall Lattes - http://lattes.cnpq.br/1506074847681940
PhD Nadilson Roberto Ferreira | Agronomist and expert in zootechnics | State Agriculture Research Foundation (FEPAGRO) Lattes - http://lattes.cnpq.br/3942826127387378
PhD Ilza Maria Tourinho Girardi | Environmental journalist | Professor at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) Lattes - http://lattes.cnpq.br/2958087259315385 “The ones positively affected by it [GlyFloat] would be every organism, those who speak and those who do not.”
PhD Giancarlo Pasquali | Pharmaceutical and expert in molecular biotechnology | Professor at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) Lattes - http://lattes.cnpq.br/5706127102565274
All interviews were conducted with the consent of respondents when exposing their names and opinions on the issues discussed. To access the duly signed consent terms go to: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iPJNSYXbm8YMBJwbOHfEn3sbcD1uP6AU LINKS / REFS:
BAGAVATHIANNAN, M. V. et al. Genetic diversity of feral alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) populations occurring in Manitoba, Canada and comparison with alfalfa cultivars: an analysis using SSR markers and phenotypic traits. Euphytica, v. 173, n. 3, p. 419-432, Mar 2010.
VAN BRUGGEN, A. H. C. et al. Environmental and health effects of the herbicide glyphosate. Science of the Total Environment, v. 616, p. 255-268, Mar 2018.
COUZEMENCO, Fernanda. 'É urgente retomar análises de glifosato e outros venenos na água', diz agrônomo. Disponível em:
DE SOUSA, D. G.. Uma percepção ambiental de agricultores da comunidade águas turvas sobre o uso de agrotóxico na região da bacia hidrográfica do Rio Gramame, João Pessoa (PB). Revista Brasileira de Educação Ambiental (RevBEA), v. 13, n. 2, p. 332-339, 2018. JIN, Shan et al. Synthetic biology applied in the agrifood sector: Public perceptions, attitudes and implications for future studies. Trends In Food Science & Technology, [s.l.], v. 91, p.454-466, set. 2019. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.025.
LAZZERI, Thais. Brasil libera quantidade até 5.000 vezes maior de agrotóxicos do que Europa. Disponível em:
MAHLER, Barbara J. et al. Similarities and differences in occurrence and temporal fluctuations in glyphosate and atrazine in small Midwestern streams (USA) during the 2013 growing season. Science Of The Total Environment, [s.l.], v. 579, p.149-158, fev. 2017. Elsevier BV.
MOTTA, Erick VS; RAYMANN, Kasie; MORAN, Nancy A. Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 115, n. 41, p. 10305-10310, Oct 2018.
PORCAR, Manuel et al. Words, images and gender: Lessons from a survey on the public perception of synthetic biology and related disciplines. EMBO reports, v. 20, n. 7, Jul 2019.
RELYEA, R.A. The lethal impact of RoundUp on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications, 2005. Disponível em: < https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1434/ML14345A564.pdf >.
ROCHA, Ketley Costa et. al. Remoção de glifosato de águas destinadas ao abastecimento público na etapa de coagulação e floculação com sulfato de alumínio ferroso e policloreto de alumínio. Goiânia, GO, Brasil, jul. 2018.
SHAPIRA, Philip; KWON, Seokbeom; YOUTIE, Jan. Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology. Scientometrics, [s.l.], v. 112, n. 3, p.1439-1469, 1 jul. 2017.
SILVA, E. M.; OLIVEIRA, V. S.; BRINATI, A.. ANÁLISE DA PERCEPÇÃO DE RISCOS SOBRE O USO DE AGROTÓXICOS EM SÃO JOÃO DO MANHUAÇU-MG. Anais do Encontro Virtual de Documentação em Software Livre e Congresso Internacional de Linguagem e Tecnologia Online, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 1, may 2019. ISSN 2317-0239. Available at:
SZÉKÁCS, András; DARVAS, Béla. Re-registration challenges of glyphosate in the European Union. Frontiers in Environmental Science, v. 6, p. 78,Jul 2018.
