As an interdisciplinary team, we quickly realized that we needed to find effective ways to communicate complex concepts and ideas from each of our disciplines - biochemistry, engineering, biology, chemistry, and law - to other members of the team with no more than a lay background knowledge. Doing this enabled us to take advantage of our different knowledge and perspectives, bringing a new angle and fresh approach to the work in each of our fields, and allowed us to use our combined knowledge to tackle problems which we would not have been able to address individually.
This sharing of knowledge and ideas is essential not only within successful iGEM teams: our interdisciplinary group is, in this regard, a microcosm of society at large. Dialogue between scientists and non-scientists must be two-way, understanding and willingness to listen on both sides; the lack of this mutual communication has caused massive problems for areas of science, biotechnology foremost amongst them, in recent years.
The so-called 'knowledge deficit assumption', according to which public objections to science are based on lack of understanding and misinformation, is no longer an adequate explanation to brush off widespread concerns about synthetic biology. In the 21st Century, scientists have to take some responsibility for education and explaining science in an accessible way, avoiding psychobabble without dumbing down ideas. If this has been achieved, there is then a responsibility to take the views and concerns of the public seriously - as we found on a small scale within our team, in a society of individuals with a wide range of different expertise can offer different perspectives and may be able to spot flaws or potential problems in the bigger picture which a reasearcher, immersed in the minute detail of a project, has not considered. Opposition does not equal misconprehension; a well-informed public may legitimately conclude from the information they have absorbed that the risks of a certain project are unacceptable or outweigh the benefits. Equally, support does not equal understanding; it is important to ensure that where the public do back a development, they do so having made a full assessment of the benefits and risks, with realistic expectations and to the likely benefits and limitations of the science.
With this in mind, we thought about methods of communication our team had found useful during the course of our summer project, and how these could potentially be applied in the dialogue between scientists and the public to ensure that DCMation has the level of public enthusiasm necessary for widespread use in society.

Ten Hundred Word Dictionary

Flick through iGEM dictionary developed by our team using only the most common 1000 words in the English language. We demystify iGEM and synthetic biology concepts relevant to our project.

Try it for yourself at http://splasho.com/upgoer5/ - it's harder than it sounds!

Focus Groups

8th August 2014 - Round 1

Our team hosted a group of volunteers, members of the public with no particular interest or prior experience of biotechnology. Our aim was to gain a deeper understanding of public perceptions and concerns regarding the advance of synthetic biology, and in particular to get an idea of how far these concerns are based on misinformation/lack of understanding, and how far they are legitimate, well-founded fears which need to be addressed by the scientific community as the field grows and develops.
Particular issues which appear to be recurring themes in this discussion include:
- Cross-Contamination of 'engineered' genes between synthetic and natural organisms
There is widespread concern that biological machines may evolve, proliferate, and produce unexpected interactions which might alter the ecosystem.
- Use of Bacteria (such as E. coli and P. pseudomonas)
The notion of 'bacteria' generally, and particularly the strains our team plans to use, have strong medical associations and are believed by many to be hazardous to health. E coli is widely understood to cause diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, whilst pseudomonas is best known for causing infections including pneumonia and swimmer's ear.
- Uncontrolled Release of modified organisms into the environment
- Spread of Antibiotic Resistance from synthetic to natural bacteria
- Bioterrorism

The public are fearful of the ability of synthetic biology to produce known/modified/new organisms designed to be harmful to humans (as demonstrated, for example, by the synthesis of viruses such as the polio virus and the pandemic Spanish Flu virus and nurtured by Hollywood dramas such as 'Outbreak').
- Creation of 'Artificial Life'

Some of the group expressed fears about scientists 'playing God', explaining their philosophical and religious concerns about the process of creation and the nature of 'living' beings. There was significant confusion as to how exactly 'life' should be defined, where it begins and ends, and what the requisite level of complexity is. Some people vaguely expressed fears that synthetic biology will 'blur' the line between the 'artificial and natural worlds', although did not elaborate on what was meant by this nor why this would be such a negative development.
- Creation of Monopolies
There is some concern that patenting could lead to creation of commercial monopolies and inhibit research. [e.g. BRCA 1 Gene monopoly causing increase in price of testing which could potentially save lives).
- Global Justice
Some of the group expressed worries about the fact that much of the development of synthetic biology and resulting intellectual property is likely to take place in and by extension principally benefit rich, developed nations. Particular examples of this concern which were raised included the possibility of farmers in poor countries becoming dependent on modified crop seeds controlled by large corporations which could extract whatever price they wished for the product, and the possibility of cheap alternatives for manufacture of chemicals such as antimalarial medicine (artemisinin) ensuring that local prodiction of natural equivalent products would no longer be sustained. Generally, this fear is expressed as a concern that technologies which are socially accepted on the premise that they will improve quality of life in less developed countries (golden rice and GM mosquitoes being cited as examples of such projects) may in actual fact benefit only rich Western companies and have no or even a detrimental impact on the lives of those the project was intended to help.
- Lack of Regulation
There is great concern that the development of fast-growing fields such as synthetic biology is 'overtaking' the regulation which is in place to regulate its application and to balance the risks and potential benefits. The possibility of biological warfare programmes is a major worry. A further concern is the possibility of 'garbage biology' (DIY home synthetic biology) may become a more popular, widespread hobby in the future - increased accessibility would make regulations which are in place far more difficult to enforce in practice.

15th August 2014 - Round 2

For the second focus group, we decided to produce a brief informative presentation giving an overview of synthetic biology, its pros and cons, and an outline of our project and aims. Also included were some 'mythbusters' directed at addressing the misconceptions we came across during the first focus group.

We hoped that comparison of the results from the group with the benefit of this information would help us to establish which concerns are legitimate and which are alleviated by greater understanding and communication.

With this group, the focus of discussion shifted from the potential problems with biotechnology, to ways in which these could be addressed.

Conclusions

With both groups, there appeared to be a very wide range in the level of understanding of synthetic biology. This is supported by the results of our survey, which also suggest a correlation between age and level of understanding (with younger generations tending to have increased knowledge). Further, it appears that many of the views of those in the focus group were based on media accounts of developments in the field - again, this is consistent with the feedback from our survey. Public concerns regarding synthetic biology arise from a combination of lack of understanding and legitimate worries.
- Listening to Public Concerns
All members of the group agreed that scientists should. Some members also expressed skepticism as to the claims of synthetic biology, and suspected that the potential benefits of the technology had been 'overhyped' in many areas, creating unrealistic hopes. It is important
- Valuing Public Support
It was agreed that it is crucially important for scientists to recognise the importance of securing and maintaining public support and legitimacy. For this reason, scientific development must seek to earn public trust by not advancing too far ahead of public attitudes, and ensuring that potential applications of new technology offer clearly explained social benefits.
- Accessibility of Information
Many of the group felt that there remains a deficit of accessible, reliable, and impartial information. Independent sources of information are particularly significant: some members also expressed skepticism as to the claims of synthetic biology, and suspected that the potential benefits of the technology had been 'overhyped' in many areas, creating unrealistic hopes. Similarly, it was recognised that information concerning the risks of synthetic biology frequently comes from biased sources which may have a motive to overstate the dangers and seek to create excessive public anxiety.
- Balanced Regulation
There is great concern that the development of fast-growing fields such as synthetic biology is 'overtaking' the regulation which is in place to regulate its application and to balance the risks and potential benefits. Such concerns could be addressed

We used the feedback from these focus groups to shape the direction of our survey questions.

Tell us what you think below or download our complete survey here and send it to oxfordigem@bioch.ox.ac.uk.

Video Demonstrations

Corinna explains how to make primers...

Oliver and his bottle rocket...

The Candle Boat...

Presenting to different audiences...

The Royal Society

Phil and Glen...

Sponsors

Leroy, Siân...

Sheffield iGEM Meet Up

In July Oliver, Corinna, Fran, and Emily attended the Sheffield iGEM meet up and presented our project to other teams there. Corinna had this to say:
"For the presentation of our project at the University of Sheffield meet-up, we were expected to remain under a time limit of 5 minutes. This was the main factor in determining the extent of detail we included in the presentation. We were also encouraged to have a PPT slide to accompany our presentation, which we kept very simple: a slide with the animated DCMation logo, and another slide with a team picture. We had four team members attend the meeting, and all of us spoke for about a minute in the presentation. The first minute of the presentation was spent on outlining the uses of DCM, current disposal techniques, and how it is harmful to the environment. The second minute was devoted to describing our user-friendly disposal kit in a very simple manner. We then spent the last three minutes on the three parts of the project we had at that point (A, B, and C), as well as the engineering aspects of our system. These were only one- or two-sentence summaries due to the time limit. We used general scientific jargon in the presentation, since our audience was almost exclusively other iGEMers doing wet-lab work in the project. We could therefore use terms such as E. coli, enzymes, biosensor, regulatory network, etc. without having to explain their meaning."

Oxford University Biochemistry Department

Glen and Oliver...

Public Focus Group

Siân (Phil and Fran?)...

UNIQ Summer School

.Fran and Phil..