Team:ETH Zurich/human/essay/adaptation


Revision as of 09:51, 15 October 2014 by Lnadine (Talk | contribs)

Going further

In this part, we analyze the methods we used to answer our human practice question. We hope that this analysis will provide iGEMers material to think about their policy and practice project.

Internet diffusion allowed to have more than 800 answers.
We called for other iGEM team solidarity for the survey. The idea of winning a badge for the wiki was appealing to many of them. Every team could participate as much as time allowed it because we had a two-step badge (a colorful badge for 20 answers and a golden badge for 50 answers).
We did not define a target population. We were too ambitious. The data set we collected is strongly biased towards students. It could be interesting to particularly design a survey concerning this part of the population.
Our goal was to understand people's point of view on complexity. Even if, in our survey, there were blank spaces people could use to express themselves, it would be interesting to use another way to draw a picture of complexity in today's world. One option could be to go out on streets and ask people on the streets to answer one question. "What is complexity for you?". This other method, which can be recorded, gives then a video or audio support to understate our survey study. It would be strongly dependent on the country of investigation but it could give some unexpected insights on the topic. Moreover, it would have been an occasion to arise awareness of the public on synthetic biology.
First, we would like to thank every person that accepted to answer our questions.
As one of our goal was to investigate how complexity is taken into account in different fields, interviews seemed to be the best way to get a broad overview on different fields. We achieved to get seven personal and professional points of view about complexity. It was interesting to explore in details different conceptions of complexity in scientific and non-scientific field.
A training to be a good interviewer could be an option to improve our method. Recording the interviews would provide raw material of interest.
We managed to have diverse outreach projects targeting several population groups, from high school students to elder people.
If outreach is an interesting task in itself, it could be wise to add a global theme or topic to be more consistent. For instance, focusing on activities for a certain age group or on media outreach through television, audio and newsletter could give a coherent whole and give rise to multiple interpretations.
Literature Work
Defining a question to answer is a difficult starting point. One has to look through literature for pieces of information. Being mentored in the first part could avoid a team to go into a dead end.
As most of teams, we were overloaded with work, scientific literature reading. Doing one weekly journal club on human practice could broaden our visions and allow us to discover interesting points of view.