Difference between revisions of "Team:Aix-Marseille/Human Practices"
(→Integrated Human Practices) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
= Integrated Human Practices = | = Integrated Human Practices = | ||
| + | We had to conceive our project and make design choices that would result in an efficient and usable trap, acceptable both to professionals and the general public. Our initial plan was to develop an enhanced fungus able to attract bed-bugs and kill them more quickly than an unmodified fungus. However, our discussions with experts and feedback from the general public resulted in several modifications to this plan. First, discussions concerning biosafety suggested that a super-virulent fungus was probably not acceptable to legislative authorities. Second, discussion with the bed bug expert, Mr. Berenger, comforted us in the use or a pheromone-based trap. Third, feedback from the general public indicated a trap containing live genetically modified organisms was only partially acceptable. Based on this human practices input our final design incorporates, pheromones extracted from bacteria, and adjuvants to facilitate infection of bed-bugs also extracted from bacteria - but the traps do not contain, or release into the environment, any genetically modified organisms. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!-- | ||
Since the beginning of our project we thought about the Human Practices. In order to make it serving all we discussed with specialist and we investigated the needs of people. By this way we designed and developed our scientific approach. Through this view we were able to optimize and make a relevant process. | Since the beginning of our project we thought about the Human Practices. In order to make it serving all we discussed with specialist and we investigated the needs of people. By this way we designed and developed our scientific approach. Through this view we were able to optimize and make a relevant process. | ||
Hence, we interested in the different sides of the Human Practices Integrated. This is why we devoted our effort in three points : | Hence, we interested in the different sides of the Human Practices Integrated. This is why we devoted our effort in three points : | ||
| − | + | --> | |
== Surveys == | == Surveys == | ||
Revision as of 20:18, 15 October 2018
Integrated human practices
Integrated Human Practices
We had to conceive our project and make design choices that would result in an efficient and usable trap, acceptable both to professionals and the general public. Our initial plan was to develop an enhanced fungus able to attract bed-bugs and kill them more quickly than an unmodified fungus. However, our discussions with experts and feedback from the general public resulted in several modifications to this plan. First, discussions concerning biosafety suggested that a super-virulent fungus was probably not acceptable to legislative authorities. Second, discussion with the bed bug expert, Mr. Berenger, comforted us in the use or a pheromone-based trap. Third, feedback from the general public indicated a trap containing live genetically modified organisms was only partially acceptable. Based on this human practices input our final design incorporates, pheromones extracted from bacteria, and adjuvants to facilitate infection of bed-bugs also extracted from bacteria - but the traps do not contain, or release into the environment, any genetically modified organisms.
Surveys
At first, we didn't know the relation between citizens and bed bugs, how they were impacted by this scourge ? Moreover we wanted to expand our knowledges : what was the needs of infested people? To improve our understanding we decided to perform surveys which was the most appropriate method. First we focused to the general public opinion about : the issues caused by bed bugs, the kind of solutions they needed and theirs GMO's thoughts. Thanks to these surveys we determined the current solution is the insecticides which are a source of pollution. Besides general public reported us a lack of efficiency due to the resurgence of bed bugs. Afterwhile the major feedback to the use of our solution was a trap than a spread. We observed a division in the matter of GMOs, 48,1% for and 51,9% against. This is why we choose to design a trap without including GMOs.