"
Team:UCL/Humans/Collab
From 2014.igem.org
Lewismoffat (Talk | contribs) |
Lewismoffat (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
<div class="textTitle"><h3 class="widthCorrect">Lisbon</h3></div> | <div class="textTitle"><h3 class="widthCorrect">Lisbon</h3></div> | ||
<p class="widthCorrect">Considering the complex and novel nature of scientific practices in synthetic biology there is a need to look at adapted forms of governance that deal with processes of innovation in a reflexive manner. This is seen as necessary in order to devise policies that can accommodate a sustainable development of the emerging technology within society. Considering the environmental risks to which they are ascribed, policy frameworks ought to engender effective governance that seeks to foster good science, not to hamper it. It also recognises that good science goes hand in hand with open, clear, transparent regulation to ensure both trust and accountability. Another prominent feature of synthetic biology is its ‘cross-borderness’, in addition to the embedded scientific uncertainty. It simultaneously crosses the borders of scientific disciplines, industrial sectors, and geopolitical areas. Considering the transboundary and uncertain nature of this emerging technology it might be interesting to look at how policies are being developed within the framework of transnational governance. Some views support the idea that synthetic biology policies should not only be regulated from a top down perspective through governments, but that non-governmental stakeholders and organisations should be able to engage in self-regulation. The transboundary – and transnational nature of synthetic biology practices makes it pertinent to examine biosecurity and sustainable innovation discourses at the level of transnational governance structures such as iGEM. The latter holds a series of promising characteristics with regard to innovative regulatory frameworks.</p> | <p class="widthCorrect">Considering the complex and novel nature of scientific practices in synthetic biology there is a need to look at adapted forms of governance that deal with processes of innovation in a reflexive manner. This is seen as necessary in order to devise policies that can accommodate a sustainable development of the emerging technology within society. Considering the environmental risks to which they are ascribed, policy frameworks ought to engender effective governance that seeks to foster good science, not to hamper it. It also recognises that good science goes hand in hand with open, clear, transparent regulation to ensure both trust and accountability. Another prominent feature of synthetic biology is its ‘cross-borderness’, in addition to the embedded scientific uncertainty. It simultaneously crosses the borders of scientific disciplines, industrial sectors, and geopolitical areas. Considering the transboundary and uncertain nature of this emerging technology it might be interesting to look at how policies are being developed within the framework of transnational governance. Some views support the idea that synthetic biology policies should not only be regulated from a top down perspective through governments, but that non-governmental stakeholders and organisations should be able to engage in self-regulation. The transboundary – and transnational nature of synthetic biology practices makes it pertinent to examine biosecurity and sustainable innovation discourses at the level of transnational governance structures such as iGEM. The latter holds a series of promising characteristics with regard to innovative regulatory frameworks.</p> | ||
| - | + | </div> | |
<div class="textArena"><!--- This is the were your text goes, play with it but dont change the class names--> | <div class="textArena"><!--- This is the were your text goes, play with it but dont change the class names--> | ||
Revision as of 21:55, 4 September 2014
Collaborations
Laboratory Team
Lisbon
Considering the complex and novel nature of scientific practices in synthetic biology there is a need to look at adapted forms of governance that deal with processes of innovation in a reflexive manner. This is seen as necessary in order to devise policies that can accommodate a sustainable development of the emerging technology within society. Considering the environmental risks to which they are ascribed, policy frameworks ought to engender effective governance that seeks to foster good science, not to hamper it. It also recognises that good science goes hand in hand with open, clear, transparent regulation to ensure both trust and accountability. Another prominent feature of synthetic biology is its ‘cross-borderness’, in addition to the embedded scientific uncertainty. It simultaneously crosses the borders of scientific disciplines, industrial sectors, and geopolitical areas. Considering the transboundary and uncertain nature of this emerging technology it might be interesting to look at how policies are being developed within the framework of transnational governance. Some views support the idea that synthetic biology policies should not only be regulated from a top down perspective through governments, but that non-governmental stakeholders and organisations should be able to engage in self-regulation. The transboundary – and transnational nature of synthetic biology practices makes it pertinent to examine biosecurity and sustainable innovation discourses at the level of transnational governance structures such as iGEM. The latter holds a series of promising characteristics with regard to innovative regulatory frameworks.
University of Westminster
Considering the complex and novel nature of scientific practices in synthetic biology there is a need to look at adapted forms of governance that deal with processes of innovation in a reflexive manner. This is seen as necessary in order to devise policies that can accommodate a sustainable development of the emerging technology within society. Considering the environmental risks to which they are ascribed, policy frameworks ought to engender effective governance that seeks to foster good science, not to hamper it. It also recognises that good science goes hand in hand with open, clear, transparent regulation to ensure both trust and accountability. Another prominent feature of synthetic biology is its ‘cross-borderness’, in addition to the embedded scientific uncertainty. It simultaneously crosses the borders of scientific disciplines, industrial sectors, and geopolitical areas. Considering the transboundary and uncertain nature of this emerging technology it might be interesting to look at how policies are being developed within the framework of transnational governance. Some views support the idea that synthetic biology policies should not only be regulated from a top down perspective through governments, but that non-governmental stakeholders and organisations should be able to engage in self-regulation. The transboundary – and transnational nature of synthetic biology practices makes it pertinent to examine biosecurity and sustainable innovation discourses at the level of transnational governance structures such as iGEM. The latter holds a series of promising characteristics with regard to innovative regulatory frameworks.
