One of the core segments that iGEM wishes teams to work upon requires us to reflect on multiple standards, with the most important idea being "how does your work affect the world, and how the world affects your work."

The idea of responsibility is one of the most important that we have to reflect upon as we work on this project.

What can we do with what we are given? How can we help better the environment? Who are some people that we can affect positively with our project? Answering these questions enables us to enhance and further our vision, striving towards a more fulfilling end goal. This has led us to different interactions with various people from diverse backgrounds, in hopes of finding a way to increase the effect that our project might have on the world. With each coming interaction, we gain more knowledge that is incorporated into our project.

That is what Human Practices is to us: Social interactions with all types of people that grant us new perspectives allowing us to improve upon our project; a chance for us to reflect upon the project and the effects that it can have on these new perspectives. A chance for us to potentially change people's lives. A chance for us to have an impact upon the world.

Before initiating our lab work, we identified the three stakeholders most affected by the modified bombolitin peptide: businesses, farmers, and consumers. However, before interviewing these stakeholders, we needed foundation from professors about the feasibility of our project.

In order to make sure that our project will be beneficial to the population, we integrated feedback that we receive in order to “close the loop”.

Dr. Theerapat → Dr. Karsidete → Dr. Pimsiri → Por Kasem → Ms. Kate Bhasamol → Mr. Yutthana → Survey at Sammakorn → Google form survey

Interview with Dr. Theerapat Luangsupabol

The first professor that we interviewed was Dr. Theerapat Luangsuphabool and his team from the Biotechnology Research and Development Office, Department of Agriculture. From this interview, we were able to gain incredibly insightful feedback about our project and the things that we should consider when making the antimicrobial peptides an actual product. He brought up the fact that proteins need specific conditions to work, so we need to be careful about the conditions that the peptide will be used in, since it could denature at high temperatures. Considering Thailand's warm climate, this perspective was very beneficial. From this feedback, we were able to brainstorm the idea of applying the antimicrobial peptide on the crops exclusively at night, eliminating the possibility of denaturation. Additionally, he also brought up the topic of shelf life and the potential side effects of the antimicrobial peptide on the consumers. At this point in time, we are not able to answer that question yet, as more research had to be done before it became a full fledged product.

Interview with Dr. Karsidete Teeranitayatarn

The second professor that we interviewed was Dr. Karsidete Teeranitayatarn from the research and development team at Molena and Green Innovative Biotechnology. He specializes in food safety, food security, and sustainable agriculture. From the interview, we learned of the significant threat that bacterial wilt is, especially in Thailand and southeast Asian countries alike. We discovered traces of pesticides in the food we eat, which are causes of diseases such as cancer. He also noted that organic pesticides might not take effect as fast as chemical pesticides, so the consistent use of our antimicrobial peptide will be needed in order to see noticeable results. From this, we decided that if the product were to be used in real life, it would need to be applied to the crop regularly, unlike chemical pesticides. Furthermore, the company that he works for is also manufacturing herb extracts to combat against plant pathogenic bacteria, so he will be very beneficial to the development of our research. He also gave insight on how consumers are often willing to pay more in order to feel safer about the food that they eat. Considering this, the change in price of crops from the shift of chemical pesticides to our antimicrobial peptide will not be an issue for people in terms of price.

Interview with Dr. Pimsiri Tiyayon

The interview that we conducted with Dr. Pimsiri, enabled us to learn that it is better to have multiple techniques working together to solve the problem, rather than a single technique, in order to ensure the best results.

From this interview, Dr. Pimsiri shared her knowledge about the impacts of Ralstonia on solanaceous crops. She informed us on how Ralstonia is able to easily spread from one plant to another. In fact, the bacteria can spread simply by using the same scissors that were used to cut infected plants to cut uninfected plants. It can even spread through water irrigation systems. In order to combat this, she suggested that we use a combination of various solutions. Along with our initial antimicrobial peptide, we could use non-uv plastic to cover up the crops, helping to prevent the growth of bacteria through heat, while also utilizing crop rotation, the process of growing crops from separate families in different seasons.

This allows us to prevent Ralstonia from having control over the solanaceous crops, as Ralstonia is able to live in the soil for a long time, even after the crops die. With all of these techniques working in conjunction, we believe that it will achieve the optimum results.

Interview with Mr. Kasem Jenjob

We got the chance to interview Mr. Kasem Jenjob, a farmer from Nan, a province in Northern Thailand. Being one of the stakeholders affected by our product, his insight on the issues we are trying to solve will be very beneficial. He has experienced major problems with bacterial wilt in one of his fields where he grows pepper. Mr. Kasem told us that he started growing peppers two years ago, in which he experienced success only in the first year, with around 10% of the crops being affected by bacterial wilt. However, during the second year, that proportion had risen to 100% causing him to lose all 30,000 THB that he had invested into his field. He also mentioned that there is no current solution to this, as the chemicals that he has been given by the district agricultural officer are inadequate due to them not understanding bacterial wilt completely. Having not received any profits back from his investment, Mr. Kaseem also revealed that he felt discouraged in his efforts to grow pepper. Other than suggesting that he should try crop rotation this year, we also decided to educate people about what bacterial wilt actually is in our brochure and educational outreach aspects of the project.

Interview with Mr. Yutthana Klinsukhon

Mr. Yutthana Klinsukhon is another farmer that we had the pleasure of interviewing. During this meeting, we learned about a new medium of how pesticides are being used. He taught us how drones can be used to spray pesticides on crops, eliminating the problem of the pesticide exposure on farmers. Our antimicrobial peptide, contrary to commercial pesticides, does not result in any harm, allowing farmers to also not have to worry about financial troubles when trying to afford drones. A downside of drones, however, is that they are incapable of spraying pesticides in a highly concentrated fashion. This leaves zones that are particularly condensed with pests only susceptible to pesticides sprayed by farmers themselves. Furthermore, we learned about how people will doubt the safety of our product, since it is a product of synthetic biology, which is something that Thai people still have a negative stigma towards. Furthermore, concerns about synthetic biology were brought up, since many Thai people are still skeptical about the safety of modified organisms. He mentioned that in order to make people trust in our product, we should educate them, and get an endorsement from the government. Since we are not able to go to the level of working with the government just yet, we decided that we could educate people through our brochure, and teach the next generation about what synthetic biology actually is.

Interview with Ms. Kate Bhasamoln

Calling all the way from Khao Yai, we got to interview Ms. Kate Bhasamol through Zoom. Ms. Kate is the manager of an agricultural business in Khao Yai, where she takes care of the farms that the business owns. Being a business, the money they use and receive needs to be carefully thought through. Since chemical pesticides are much cheaper than organic pesticides, they opted for the former, as it is better to use them than to lose all their crops. To our surprise, she disagreed with Dr. Karsidete’s opinion of how although there are certain groups of people who are willing to pay more money for organic crops, most people in Thailand would choose the cheaper option over the healthier option. In order to find out what consumers actually think, we decided to conduct a survey at a local market called Sammakorn. Additionally, similar to what Dr. Karsidete said, Ms. Kate agreed that organic pesticides have a slower effect on crops compared to chemical pesticides. Furthermore, chemical pesticides make the crops look nicer, while organic pesticides leave minimal aesthetic flaws. This could lead consumers to think that chemical pesticides are better. Since we were planning to conduct a public survey at a local market, this was something that we had to keep in mind since she also mentioned that some businesses lie about their use of chemical pesticides.

Public Survey at Sammakorn (Businesses)

The Human Practices team decided to conduct surveys on stalls at the Sammakorn market in order to gain more insight from the businesses themselves. After surveying many different stalls, we saw a common pattern: all the stalls either said that they do not use chemical pesticides, or that they were unaware; no stalls were determined they used chemical pesticides. They also mentioned how customers do care about whether or not chemical pesticides are used, and that consumers are willing to pay more for produce that is grown organically. Thus, it can be assumed that people are aware of the negative effects of pesticides, and safety is prioritized over pricing. Additionally, as Ms. Kate had mentioned, produce grown by organic farming will have some small imperfections unlike those grown with chemical pesticides, which can be seen in most of the stalls. However, there were some stalls that looked a bit suspicious, since all their crops looked perfect, without any bite marks from worms or insects at all. This could mean that the stalls lied about the use of chemical pesticides, they genuinely do not know, or maybe it really was organic farming. We believe that all of these stalls have to promote their products as organic in order to be able to sell to their customers, even if some may not be completely true, since there was no way for customers to prove that they were lying.

Public Survey at Sammakorn (Customers)

At the Sammakorn market, we were able to survey a total of 15 people who belong to the consumer stakeholder group. The main takeaway from this was that their main priority when buying fruits and vegetables is the quality of the produce, which includes whether or not pesticides are used to grow them or not. Furthermore, they also mentioned that income is also a very important factor when choosing what to buy. When the income is low, people often prioritize the price of the product over its quality, and when the income is high, the opposite is true. Additionally, there were mixed opinions about the use of synthetic biology to create an alternative to pesticides. Some people said that they supported synthetic biology, while others were completely against it. Their opinions about synthetic biology seem to be split in half, with half of the people supporting synthetic biology and the other half going against synthetic biology. Since this was a small sample, we needed to find a way to collect more data.

Google Form Survey

Since we got to survey only a few customers at Sammakorn, we decided to make a google form to collect more information about the general public’s opinions on the use of pesticides and synthetic biology. From the survey, we were able to collect data from a total of 511 people.

In this google form, we made sure that the first question our participants answered was whether or not they consented to us collecting their information, while also making sure that all responses were anonymous. From the 511 people who filled out the google form, 83% were adults who are already working. This means that the conclusions drawn from this google form will be most applicable to Thai adults.

The next two questions asked were about the awareness of negative effects pesticides leave on both the consumers and the environment. 95.7% of the respondents said that they do know of the detrimental effects of pesticides on themselves, while 3.9% said that they do not, and 0.4% said “other”.

Even higher than in the question about the effects of pesticides on people, 98% of the respondents were already aware that pesticides have affected the environment negatively. On the other hand, only 1.8% said that they did not and 0.2% said “other”. This suggests that most people are privy to the negative impacts of pesticides on both the environment and humans.

For the next question, 90.8% of the people that did the google form agreed that the negative effects of pesticides molded and impacted the way that they view agriculture practices. 8.4% answered no, while the other 0.8% answered others.

Worryingly, only ~55% of the respondents would prefer a synthetic pesticide over chemical pesticides, meaning almost half of them are unsure about the use of synthetic biology. Even though most of the people doing this google form are aware of the negative effects of pesticides, nearly half of those people are still doubting synthetic biology. From this, we have realized that what Mr. Yutthana said was true, and educating people about synthetic biology should be one of the main goals of our project.

A total of 435 out of 511 people said that they do think finding an alternative to pesticides is of utmost importance, which makes up a total of 85.1%. Although there is still a small number of people who do not think that an alternative to pesticides is important, the majority of the people do. Relating back to the previous question, this means that people do care about finding an alternative to pesticides, but half of them do not think that synthetic biology is the answer. This demonstrates the need to change the negative stigma against synthetic biology in Thailand.

Lastly, when people were asked whether or not the price of crops affected their decision of choosing pesticides or not, 86.3% of the people said that they would rather pay more in order to buy a product that has not been exposed to pesticides. This was the same information that we received from our local survey at Sammakorn, so we are able to conclude that price is not a problem for people in Thailand, as long as they are able to gain access to an option safer than pesticides.

We believe that we have done our part in “closing the loop”. We have interacted with all three groups of stakeholders in order to make sure that our product is adjusted according to the needs of these three groups. From the feedback that we have gotten from the professors, the businesses, the farmers, and the consumers, we were able to adjust our project accordingly. We realize that their needs need to be prioritized, since they were the people who will be affected by our work the most.