Engaging scientists: An online survey exploring the experience of innovative biotechnological approaches to controlling vector-borne diseases

Abstract

Abstract:BackgroundPioneering technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, synthetic biology or climate engineering) are often associated with potential new risks and uncertainties that can become sources of controversy. The communication of information during their development and open exchanges between stakeholders is generally considered a key issue in their acceptance. While the attitudes of the public to novel technologies have been widely considered there has been relatively little investigation of the perceptions and awareness of scientists working on human or animal diseases transmitted by arthropods.MethodsConsequently, we conducted a global survey on 1889 scientists working on aspects of vector-borne diseases, exploring, under the light of a variety of demographic and professional factors, their knowledge and awareness of an emerging biotechnology that has the potential to revolutionize the control of pest insect populations.ResultsDespite extensive media coverage of key developments (including releases of manipulated mosquitoes into human communities) this has in only one instance resulted in scientist awareness exceeding 50 % on a national or regional scale. We document that awareness of pioneering releases significantly relied on private communication sources that were not equally accessible to scientists from countries with endemic vector-borne diseases (dengue and malaria). In addition, we provide quantitative analysis of the perceptions and knowledge of specific biotechnological approaches to controlling vector-borne disease, which are likely to impact the way in which scientists around the world engage in the debate about their value.ConclusionsOur results indicate that there is scope to strengthen already effective methods of communication, in addition to a strong demand by scientists (expressed by 79.9 % of respondents) to develop new, creative modes of public engagement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13071-015-0996-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficiency of an air curtain as an anti‐insect barrier: the honey bee as a model insect

“…The method used to assess the number of bees that entered the building in the presence of the air curtain is pragmatic because it corresponds to the measure of the number of bees on the food source during a given period. Because very few bees (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), not concerned with the feeder, were flying in the building, the number of bees on the food source can be considered a reflection of the number of insects that could cross the airflow to enter the building.…”

“…These measures include long-lasting insecticidal nets, indoor and outdoor insecticidal treatments, the addition of chemicals to water, insect repellents, the reduction of breeding habitats, biological control, genetic control, waste management, housing modification, personal protection, and food safety along with medication and vaccines. 1,[4][5][6][7] However, many of these diseases are transmitted by insects, especially flying insects. The number of insect species has been estimated at five million.…”

“…The number of bees in the building in the absence of the air curtain was recorded on 2 days: 1 day before the testing of the air curtain at a given voltage and 1 day after testing. Because very few bees(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) remained flying in the building, the number of bees on the food source (FS) located in the building reflected the foraging activity of the honey bee colony (HBC). The foraging profile enabled a modulation of the number of bees in the building due to the action of the air curtain to be distinguished from a natural modulation of the foraging activity during the day.…”

Synthetic livestock vaccines as risky interference with nature? Lay and expert arguments and understandings of “naturalness”

“…Scientists often consider the lay public as misinformed about, and excessively suspicious of, biotechnologies (Horst, 2013; Wynne, 2006). They, as well as politicians and government officials, tend to limit their concerns to questions about the risks and benefits of the use of biotechnologies (Boëte et al, 2015; Lassen, 2018). At the same time, it has been suggested that “scientists” are not as uniform a group as some social scientists have hitherto thought, and that expert perceptions vary greatly (e.g.…”

“…At the same time, it has been suggested that “scientists” are not as uniform a group as some social scientists have hitherto thought, and that expert perceptions vary greatly (e.g. Besley and Nisbet, 2013; Boëte, 2011; Boëte et al, 2015). A growing body of studies has identified recurrent themes and concerns among lay people in relation to new technologies (Giordano et al, 2018; Irwin and Wynne, 1996; Kronberger et al, 2013; Lassen, 2018).…”