"
Team:NRP-UEA-Norwich/HP Ethics
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
JessicaG93 (Talk | contribs) |
JessicaG93 (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
<div class="container"> | <div class="container"> | ||
<center> | <center> | ||
| - | Rather than focusing on our iGEM research simply as a summer project, this year we have taken the ethical approach to our project very seriously | + | Rather than focusing on our iGEM research simply as a summer project, this year we have taken the ethical approach to our project very seriously. Thus, we have followed the robust ethical procedures for the University of East Anglia as if our biosensor product was to be taken to market and developed. |
<h2>What ethical questions and concerns did we consider in relation to the Green Canary iGEM project?</h2> | <h2>What ethical questions and concerns did we consider in relation to the Green Canary iGEM project?</h2> | ||
Latest revision as of 20:55, 17 October 2014
Ethics of Public Consultation
What ethical questions and concerns did we consider in relation to the Green Canary iGEM project?
- Is it safe to use a genetically modified plant sentinel in amidst non GM crop plants?
- How can food security sustainability be achieved?
- What do the public think about the use of GM to help improve global food security?
- Do young people understand what the global food crisis is and methods used to tackle this important issue?
How did we address the ethical concerns raised by our project?
We wished to address the above questions through research and extensive public engagement. Our qualitative approach to public engagement meant that we undertook a multi-step process to ensure opinions were conveyed accurately and without bias. We sought ethics approval prior to public engagement to ensure that our research and data gathering was in accordance wirh the ethics regulations of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. This is a lengthy process; however it was necessary as it highlighted many issues including how to remove bias from studies and not asking leading questions. Our method included an initial outreach event titled ‘Food for Thought’ at The Cut Arts Centre, Halesworth, Suffolk, UK, where we gathered comments made by visitors, pertaining to the above questions and had discussions and demonstrations about the global food security issues. The public comments gathered were used to generate topics of discussion for focus groups held in secondary schools with participants aged 14-15. Informed consent was gathered during all discussion events as approved by Mark Wilkinson, Deputy of the Ethics Committee at UEA. During the focus groups, notes were taken to highlight points raised and how the discussion developed. The Anglia Farmer magazine ran an article on our project and helped us to advertise for our focus groups, survey and follow up event at the Cut. Furthermore, running an article in this specific magazine allowed details of our project to access those that it would predominantly affect including farmers and agricultural workers.
How did our school outreach events address the ethical issues surrounding our project?
We ran workshops at local schools to raise awareness to young people of secondary school age about the global food crisis and discuss with them what they believe should be done to address this issue. This is a particularly important aspect of our human practices as this is the generation that we believe genetically modified crops will affect the most. It has also been shown that young people are the most excluded from surveys pertaining to major world decision and opinion, even though they are those that will be affected. Furthermore, school outreach is particularly important as many young people attending schools in rural Norfolk are from deprived communities with low university progress rates. Finally, many of these young people come from farming communities and agricultural research could be part of their future.How did we gain UEA ethics approval for our project?
Our approach included following appropriate and proper protocols for gaining ethics approval for outreach and data gathering purposes. This approach influenced our project in the sense that it allowed us to direct our outreach accordingly and the learning process of ethical approval has made us aware of the implications and sensitivity of human data collection. Data gathered from the completion of our survey and data gathering processes will influence the manner by which our scientific research project would develop in the future.
