Team:Valencia Biocampus/HumanPractices

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Our Proposal: Responsible Research and Innovation as a tool to choose within the IP ecosystem.)
 
(34 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
<html>
<html>
-
   <div class="container">
+
   <div class="container withBackground">
-
<div class="row">
+
<div class="contentWithPadding">
 +
 
</html>
</html>
-
== Human Practices ==
+
= Human Practices =
 +
<html>
 +
<h2>Open License <span class="small">(and Responsible Research and Innovation)</span></h2>
-
<div class="col-sm-7">
+
<p>
-
== Open LICENSE or patents? Responsible choices within a diverse ecosystem ==
+
    Not unlike scientific research, RRI is about common sense, about combining self-profit with others’ profit, about taking care of our planet. We believe that being responsible is not the opposite of being selfish; responsibility is just a broad-minded way of selfishness that points at the long-term benefit.
 +
    And there is no long-term benefit without a sustainable society in a sustainable environment. What is good for our neighbors and for our home must be good for us as well.
 +
</p>
 +
</html>
 +
=== Our Proposal: Responsible Research and Innovation as a tool to choose within the IP ecosystem.===
<html>
<html>
<p>
<p>
-
     THE ST<sup>2</sup>OOL Project aims at revisiting the principles of Synthetic Biology used in the iGEM competition: Standardization (ST), Stability (ST),
+
     Since we, our Human Practices sub-team, are a biotechnology and a law student, we are also glad to see that another key concept in IP is a beautiful science-law metaphor: Jane Calvert & Drew Endy's <strong>“diverse ecology” scenario</strong>. This image fits well with our interdisciplinary spirit and we found it very useful because it evokes very elegantly the range of different solutions out there to choose from in order to use a scientific invention in a given way.
-
    Orthogonallity (O) and Open License (OL). We plan to critically revise whether three of the so-called engineering dogmas are truly applicable to
+
-
    biotechnology.
+
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
     Additionally, the fourth pillar of our four-legged ST<sup>2</sup>OOL will be Intellectual Property, which we plan to study in an unprecedented way.
+
     Having reached this point, it is obvious which the next step is: there is a whole ecosystem of IP figures (see the poetic cover illustration by Paula, another team member), and one has to be chosen. How? Our bet is simple: by using <strong>RRI principles</strong> (mutual learning, human resources management, fundamental rights respect, research formation and transparency) as the main guide in the decision process.
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
     Our aim is to promote a sustainable protection system displaying a balance between general, commercial and individual interests, as it is discussed in the
+
     The following figure illustrates what we propose:
-
    well-known debate in SynBio on Open License and patenting issues. We would like to develop an idea that we read in an article written by Jane Calvert,
+
-
    “Ownership and sharing in synthetic biology: A ‘diverse ecology’ of the open and the proprietary?”. In this “ecosystem” with a high legal “biodiversity”,
+
-
    we plan to investigate how Responsible Research and Innovation could be the key to decide among all available protection forms. In addition to that, we
+
-
    will perform two tasks aiming at: i) creating a common language for both scientists, engineers and lawyers. We are developing two parallel dictionaries,
+
-
    one with SynBio terms for lawyers, and the other with legal terms for scientists/engineers; and ii) we are developing a math-based formula for helping
+
-
    experts and non-experts to determine whether a SynBio invention is patentable.
+
</p>
</p>
-
 
-
 
-
 
<p>
<p>
-
     These two concepts will be developed as follows, in two annex to our HP report:
+
<div class="thumbnail col-sm-7 center-block">
 +
  <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/07/Vbt_openlicense-results_Figure1.png" rel="lightbox">
 +
     <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/0/07/Vbt_openlicense-results_Figure1.png" alt="Figure 1" /> 
 +
  </a>
 +
  <div class="caption">
 +
    <strong>Figure 1.</strong>
 +
    RRI-based decision process on a diverse ecology scenario. From a diverse array of IP protection possibilities (diverse ecology scenario), we propose RRI as a framework to choose the most suitable one. In order to assist in the decision process, experts’ opinion is the major force, and we propose here two tools to contribute to this process: a common language exemplified by our dictionaries (Annex I), and a formula-based assistance procedure (Annex II).
 +
  </div>
 +
</div>
 +
<p>
 +
<p>
 +
    In our view, the decision process has to fall upon the responsibility of the experts or examiners, as it is the case today. But we propose that a formation
 +
    on RRI for patent examiners and other IP actors is introduced. In the same way that scientists need a basic law background for transferring their knowledge
 +
    into applied solutions, we envisage a future in which everybody involved in the production of a given IP figure (a patent, for example, from scientists and
 +
    engineers to ethics specialists, lawyers and other experts) should share a common interdisciplinary formation on RRI. A common language is the first step
 +
    towards a common goal.
</p>
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
    Additionally, we propose in this report two tools that might contribute to avoid misunderstandings and to make a simplified decision process available for
 +
    a wide audience. In order to accomplish the former objective, we have prepared the <strong>two common-languages short dictionaries</strong> listed in <strong>Annex II</strong>. To achieve
 +
    the latter, we propose, for the first time for the best of our knowledge, <strong>a math-based equation</strong> that could contribute to make IP issues available to a wide
 +
    audience (for a complete description see <strong>Annex I</strong>). We have prepared the equation in two steps. First, we combined the patentability requirements (novelty, inventive step, industrial
 +
    application) in a mathematically logical way to reach our draft equation (<strong>F<sub>0</sub></strong>). Then, we submitted the formula to several experts to have their feedback, and thus
 +
    modify <strong>F<sub>0</sub></strong> accordingly to yield <strong>F<sub>1</sub></strong> (this reflexive process, combining design with improvement rounds, elegantly evokes a biotechnology strategy called
 +
    <em>directed evolution</em>).
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
<div class="thumbnail col-sm-7 center-block">
 +
  <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/42/Vbt_openlicense-results_Figure2.jpg" rel="lightbox">
 +
    <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/42/Vbt_openlicense-results_Figure2.jpg" alt="Figure 2" /> 
 +
  </a>
 +
  <div class="caption">
 +
    <strong>Figure 2.</strong>
 +
    Human decisions are only acceptable if no help is used? Left, chess player. Right, graphic representation of the equation <strong>F<sub>0</sun></strong> we initially proposed for patentability determination, as a function of the Industrial Application (<strong>I</strong>) and the Inventive step (<strong>A</strong>). See <strong>Annex II</strong> for details.
 +
  </div>
</div>
</div>
-
<div class="col-sm-5">
 
-
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/b/bc/VBT_HumanPracticesDrawing.png" alt="Human Practices Drawing" style="width:100%" />
 
-
</div>
 
-
<div class="col-sm-12">
 
-
</html>
 
-
 
-
=== Annex I. Brief dictionary of IP and SB terms for scientists and lawyers, respectively. ===
 
-
<html>
 
-
 
<p>
<p>
-
     We expect to develop two shorts (100 words each) dictionaries allowing non-experts to understand basic legal and technical issues. These will help to
+
<p>
-
     create a shared language among SynBio professionals, and igemites.
+
     The very idea of using maths to decide whether something is patentable may seem odd. The opinion of the law experts was useful; but we wanted to have a
 +
    broader feedback from other social actors. We thus carried out a survey to probe the opinion of <em>iGEMers</em>, scientists/engineers and law students, but also of
 +
     general population to compare their view on our proposal. The <strong>C section of Annex II</strong> describes the results of this survey that can be summarize as follows: the
 +
    vast majority of the 526 respondents (70 to around 80%) found that a math-based approach could be a useful tool, but should not substitute humans as the final decision makers. We
 +
    could not agree more on that.
</p>
</p>
-
 
-
</html>
 
-
 
-
=== Annex II. Developing a revolutionary system to find out the patentability of a SB development. ===
 
-
<html>
 
<p>
<p>
-
    The idea is simple: would it be useful to have a mathematical formula to help experts and non-experts to decide whether something is patentable? In order
+
<p>
-
    to answer this goal, we are currently:
+
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/7/72/FinalCountDown.pdf" target="_blank"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/8b/Vbt_downloadfullreport.jpg" alt="Report" class="col-sm-7 thumbnail center-block" /></a>
-
</p>
+
-
<p style="padding-top:15px;">
+
-
<ol type="i">
+
-
<li>
+
-
    Developing a math-based formula, including concepts such as inventive step, novelty, industrial application and –yes- morality.
+
-
</li>
+
-
<li>
+
-
    We plan to refine our draft formula with a directed evolution-inspired approach. We will submit our draft formula to successive rounds of verification
+
-
    by independent experts
+
-
</li>
+
-
<li>
+
-
    Probing the opinion of experts, igemites, engineers, scientists and lawyers on the suitability of using maths in the patenting process: <br/>
+
-
    <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1i-POgU9uOekCN-YwklYoEd9EvgSqsMorYtSuCaX2O_A/viewform?c=0&amp;w=1">
+
-
        https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1i-POgU9uOekCN-YwklYoEd9EvgSqsMorYtSuCaX2O_A/viewform?c=0&amp;w=1
+
-
    </a>
+
-
</li>
+
-
</ol>
+
</p>
</p>
 +
<div>
 +
<div class="caption" style="text-align:center">
 +
    Original watercolor by Paula Villaescusa.<strong>Click on it to view the full report (pdf)</strong>
 +
   
 +
  </div>
 +
</div>                                                                       
 +
<div style="text-align:center;padding:20px">
 +
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/84/AnnexIFinal.pdf" target="_blank" class="btn btn-lg btn-default"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/20/VBT_pdficon.png" alt="PDF File" /> Annex I. Patentability index</a>
 +
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/5/5c/AnnexII._.pdf" target="_blank" class="btn btn-lg btn-default"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/2/20/VBT_pdficon.png" alt="PDF File" /> Annex 2. Brief dictionary of IP and SB</a>
</div>
</div>
 +
   
</div>
</div>
-
 
-
</html>
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
<html>
 
   </div>
   </div>
</html>
</html>

Latest revision as of 20:35, 17 October 2014

Human Practices

Open License (and Responsible Research and Innovation)

Not unlike scientific research, RRI is about common sense, about combining self-profit with others’ profit, about taking care of our planet. We believe that being responsible is not the opposite of being selfish; responsibility is just a broad-minded way of selfishness that points at the long-term benefit. And there is no long-term benefit without a sustainable society in a sustainable environment. What is good for our neighbors and for our home must be good for us as well.

Our Proposal: Responsible Research and Innovation as a tool to choose within the IP ecosystem.

Since we, our Human Practices sub-team, are a biotechnology and a law student, we are also glad to see that another key concept in IP is a beautiful science-law metaphor: Jane Calvert & Drew Endy's “diverse ecology” scenario. This image fits well with our interdisciplinary spirit and we found it very useful because it evokes very elegantly the range of different solutions out there to choose from in order to use a scientific invention in a given way.

Having reached this point, it is obvious which the next step is: there is a whole ecosystem of IP figures (see the poetic cover illustration by Paula, another team member), and one has to be chosen. How? Our bet is simple: by using RRI principles (mutual learning, human resources management, fundamental rights respect, research formation and transparency) as the main guide in the decision process.

The following figure illustrates what we propose:

Figure 1
Figure 1. RRI-based decision process on a diverse ecology scenario. From a diverse array of IP protection possibilities (diverse ecology scenario), we propose RRI as a framework to choose the most suitable one. In order to assist in the decision process, experts’ opinion is the major force, and we propose here two tools to contribute to this process: a common language exemplified by our dictionaries (Annex I), and a formula-based assistance procedure (Annex II).

In our view, the decision process has to fall upon the responsibility of the experts or examiners, as it is the case today. But we propose that a formation on RRI for patent examiners and other IP actors is introduced. In the same way that scientists need a basic law background for transferring their knowledge into applied solutions, we envisage a future in which everybody involved in the production of a given IP figure (a patent, for example, from scientists and engineers to ethics specialists, lawyers and other experts) should share a common interdisciplinary formation on RRI. A common language is the first step towards a common goal.

Additionally, we propose in this report two tools that might contribute to avoid misunderstandings and to make a simplified decision process available for a wide audience. In order to accomplish the former objective, we have prepared the two common-languages short dictionaries listed in Annex II. To achieve the latter, we propose, for the first time for the best of our knowledge, a math-based equation that could contribute to make IP issues available to a wide audience (for a complete description see Annex I). We have prepared the equation in two steps. First, we combined the patentability requirements (novelty, inventive step, industrial application) in a mathematically logical way to reach our draft equation (F0). Then, we submitted the formula to several experts to have their feedback, and thus modify F0 accordingly to yield F1 (this reflexive process, combining design with improvement rounds, elegantly evokes a biotechnology strategy called directed evolution).

Figure 2
Figure 2. Human decisions are only acceptable if no help is used? Left, chess player. Right, graphic representation of the equation F0 we initially proposed for patentability determination, as a function of the Industrial Application (I) and the Inventive step (A). See Annex II for details.

The very idea of using maths to decide whether something is patentable may seem odd. The opinion of the law experts was useful; but we wanted to have a broader feedback from other social actors. We thus carried out a survey to probe the opinion of iGEMers, scientists/engineers and law students, but also of general population to compare their view on our proposal. The C section of Annex II describes the results of this survey that can be summarize as follows: the vast majority of the 526 respondents (70 to around 80%) found that a math-based approach could be a useful tool, but should not substitute humans as the final decision makers. We could not agree more on that.

Report

Original watercolor by Paula Villaescusa.Click on it to view the full report (pdf)
PDF File Annex I. Patentability index PDF File Annex 2. Brief dictionary of IP and SB