"
Team:SF Bay Area DIYbio/ELSEI
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
MariaChavez (Talk | contribs) |
MariaChavez (Talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
<b>Education</b><br><br> | <b>Education</b><br><br> | ||
| - | Engage the public about biology, biotechnology and their possibilities. Our education philosophy moves beyond a “deficit” model that sees the public as lacking in scientific knowledge, to one that seeks to harness the diverse skill sets of community members and engage them in substantial discussion about how to steer the development of biotechnologies. We recognize that everyone – those with scientific training included – comes to the table with expertise in some areas and not others, and we seek to learn from each other. By working on meaningful, member-guided projects, the question we are asking the public changes from “should scientists or corporations be allowed to…?” to “how should we use these tools?” This education philosophy is supported by recent scholarship in Science and Technology Studies (STS). STS scholarship has moved beyond often misleading and over-simplifying “for or against” opinion polling to show that both European and US publics are not anti-GMO, but rather ambivalent about technologies that seek to modify organisms. In general, people who express apprehension about these technologies are not dead set against a particular technique (such as genetic modification). Instead, they frequently have concerns about the context in which such techniques are “developed, evaluated, and promoted” - concerns which can stem from a lack of faith that institutional actors and processes are acting in the best interests of the public (Marris 2001). Finally, members of the public also express concern regarding the complexity of biology and the unknown consequences of intervening in systems which are not fully characterized (Pauwels 2013). These concerns will not necessarily evaporate by feeding the public more technical information, although many of our members join because they want to learn more about biology. Instead, we believe that the best and most respectful response to public ambivalence is to develop and use biotechnologies in a radically open and transparent manner.<br><br> | + | Engage the public about biology, biotechnology and their possibilities. Our education philosophy moves beyond a “deficit” model that sees the public as lacking in scientific knowledge, to one that seeks to harness the diverse skill sets of community members and engage them in substantial discussion about how to steer the development of biotechnologies. We recognize that everyone – those with scientific training included – comes to the table with expertise in some areas and not others, and we seek to learn from each other. By working on meaningful, member-guided projects, the question we are asking the public changes from “should scientists or corporations be allowed to…?” to “how should we use these tools?” This education philosophy is supported by recent scholarship in Science and Technology Studies (STS). STS scholarship has moved beyond often misleading and over-simplifying “for or against” opinion polling to show that both European and US publics are not anti-GMO, but rather ambivalent about technologies that seek to modify organisms. In general, people who express apprehension about these technologies are not dead set against a particular technique (such as genetic modification). Instead, they frequently have concerns about the context in which such techniques are “developed, evaluated, and promoted” - concerns which can stem from a lack of faith that institutional actors and processes are acting in the best interests of the public (Marris 2001). Finally, members of the public also express concern regarding the complexity of biology and the unknown consequences of intervening in systems which are not fully characterized (Pauwels 2013). These concerns will not necessarily evaporate by feeding the public more technical information, although many of our members join because they want to learn more about biology. Instead, we believe that the best and most respectful response to public ambivalence is to develop and use biotechnologies in a radically open and transparent manner, with a continual solicitation of input and participation from the public.<br><br> |
<b>Safety</b><br><br> | <b>Safety</b><br><br> | ||
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
<p><h2>Themes from Discussions</h2><br> | <p><h2>Themes from Discussions</h2><br> | ||
| - | Our project is motivated by the desire to find a more sustainable and humane method of cheese production. However, we acknowledge that it is not enough to simply have good intentions - we need to consider potential unintended consequences (good or bad) of our actions. So, we had a brainstorming session to think about the potential risks | + | Our project is motivated by the desire to find a more sustainable and humane method of cheese production. However, we acknowledge that it is not enough to simply have good intentions - we need to consider potential unintended consequences (good or bad) of our actions. So, we had a brainstorming session to think about the potential risks and concerns that may arise - even those that may be very unlikely. We included some concerns that members of the public have communicated to us. No matter how unlikely, we believe it is important to be open and honest about these potential concerns and welcome dialogue from members of the public about the potential risks and benefits of our project. We continue to have ongoing discussions about these issues and how best to address them.<br><br> |
<b>Complexity vs. simplification </b><br><br> | <b>Complexity vs. simplification </b><br><br> | ||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
<br>-Possibility of creating a more allergenic protein (through site-directed mutagenesis) <br><br> | <br>-Possibility of creating a more allergenic protein (through site-directed mutagenesis) <br><br> | ||
| + | <b>Access</b><br><br> | ||
| + | -Access: can our project contribute to making healthy food more egalitarian? Healthy foods are often more expensive or inaccessible to a majority of people. Localized food and cheese making could be more possible by way of local labs. <br><br> | ||
| - | < | + | <h2>Citations</h2><br><i><ol> |
<li>Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations. “Greenhouse Gases From the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment.” 2010. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf | <li>Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations. “Greenhouse Gases From the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment.” 2010. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e/k7930e00.pdf | ||
<li>Jasanoff, Sheila. States of Knowledge: the Co-production of Science and Social Order. New York: Routledge, 2004. | <li>Jasanoff, Sheila. States of Knowledge: the Co-production of Science and Social Order. New York: Routledge, 2004. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:44, 18 October 2014
| |||||||||||||
Ethical, Legal, Societal, and Environmental IssuesWhat's in a Name? Concerns about GMOs
Statement of EthicsPurpose of this statement As part of our work on this project, we drew up a statement of ethics to help guide our practices. This document describes our core values and how we are striving to implement them in our work on the Real Vegan Cheese Project. Our code of ethics is based on the draft code formulated by participants in the 2011 North American DIYbio Congress. See also, the draft code developed at the 2011 European DIYbio Congress. These ethics are for the Real Vegan Cheese Project and do not represent the ethics of Counter Culture Labs, or Biocurious. Open Access Promote citizen science and decentralized access to biotechnology. We believe all people have the right to engage in scientific inquiry and we strive to promote access to tools and technical knowledge to make that engagement possible. Asking questions and seeking answers is a fundamental part of who we are as humans, and crucial to securing a hopeful future for the planet. We are committed to keeping Real Vegan Cheese 100% open, but in a world in which openness is not the norm, it is not necessarily obvious how best to achieve that goal. Our meeting notes and lab experiments are available online, but would this be enough to keep another entity from patenting our techniques? We considered several options to ensure that anybody who wants to can continue to work on this project in the future. One option we considered is the newly developed Defensive Patent License (DPL), which would make our technique freely available to anyone else who also agrees to put their patents in a common “pool” (a legal mechanism similar to and inspired by the GNU General Public License and other efforts to promote free and open source software development) (Schultz and Urban 2012). However, the DPL would restrict access to those who do not opt in to the pool. After some spirited discussion and a vote, our current plans are to patent our innovation and then “abandon” the patent into the public domain. This way, no one will be able to privatize our work and it will remain truly open to anyone who wants to use it. In addition, we are furthering openness in synthetic biology by contributing to iGEM's public Registry of Standard Biological Parts. Transparency Emphasize transparency, the sharing of ideas, knowledge and data. We believe that transparency breeds trust. So many organizations work behind closed doors or patent walls. Like the many processes before us, our open process enhances innovation, brings the conversation to a wide audience, and asks for participation - not exclusion. We implement transparency by publishing meeting minutes and lab notes on our wiki, and publicizing our meeting times and location on Meetup.com and on our website. Those who want to participate but are not local can join us virtually. Education Engage the public about biology, biotechnology and their possibilities. Our education philosophy moves beyond a “deficit” model that sees the public as lacking in scientific knowledge, to one that seeks to harness the diverse skill sets of community members and engage them in substantial discussion about how to steer the development of biotechnologies. We recognize that everyone – those with scientific training included – comes to the table with expertise in some areas and not others, and we seek to learn from each other. By working on meaningful, member-guided projects, the question we are asking the public changes from “should scientists or corporations be allowed to…?” to “how should we use these tools?” This education philosophy is supported by recent scholarship in Science and Technology Studies (STS). STS scholarship has moved beyond often misleading and over-simplifying “for or against” opinion polling to show that both European and US publics are not anti-GMO, but rather ambivalent about technologies that seek to modify organisms. In general, people who express apprehension about these technologies are not dead set against a particular technique (such as genetic modification). Instead, they frequently have concerns about the context in which such techniques are “developed, evaluated, and promoted” - concerns which can stem from a lack of faith that institutional actors and processes are acting in the best interests of the public (Marris 2001). Finally, members of the public also express concern regarding the complexity of biology and the unknown consequences of intervening in systems which are not fully characterized (Pauwels 2013). These concerns will not necessarily evaporate by feeding the public more technical information, although many of our members join because they want to learn more about biology. Instead, we believe that the best and most respectful response to public ambivalence is to develop and use biotechnologies in a radically open and transparent manner, with a continual solicitation of input and participation from the public. Safety Adopt safe practices. Comply with FDA guidelines; Biosafety level 1. Environment Respect the environment. We believe that using animals as large-scale food production machines is ethically and environmentally irresponsible. The Real Vegan Cheese project was motivated by a desire to find more sustainable and humane alternatives to the model of industrial agriculture. While using yeast seems clearly preferable from an animal welfare perspective, assessing the environmental impact of shifting production to yeast is more complicated. To understand whether large-scale cheese production using yeast would be more environmentally friendly than the current mammal-based model, our team is working on comparing the efficiency of each method: how much biomass is required to produce a given amount of cheese through each method? How much energy input is required for both? Finally, the dairy industry is known to be a significant contributor of the greenhouse gases that are warming our planet (producing 4% of the total human-caused greenhouse gases, according to a 2010 UN report). Could our method of cheese production help reduce this number? Peaceful Purposes Biotechnology should only be used for peaceful purposes. We are currently living the consequences of science used in the name of creating power and profit for people (environmental degradation, poor access to meds). If humanity wants to grow and evolve into the future, we must harness the power of biology for the betterment of the planet and its inhabitants. Real Vegan Cheese has committed itself to producing a sustainable and renewable food source that is not only good for human consumption, but also good for the planet. We recognize the potential of open-access projects to contribute to resource equality and peace around the globe and are committed to playing our part in moving humanity forward. Tinkering Tinkering with biology leads to insight; insight leads to innovation. In our work, we are not only tinkering with biology; we are also tinkering with the kinds of social forms that support scientific innovation. Our diverse, open, and decentralized group is practicing science in a new way, with different constraints and motivations than teams in the academic or corporate world. We are consensus based, rather than having a PI or a CEO. Inevitably, our organization will inflect the work we do and the direction we take the project. It takes continued reflection, and occasional readjustments, to the organizational aspects of the project (for example, how team members communicate) to keep things moving forward. As one example of this reflection and readjustment, members with extensive lab experience recently led a discussion about to include in the lab notebook, to make sure that everyone is on the same page and information about experiments is recorded consistently. Community Reach out to the local community, carefully listen to any concerns and questions and respond honestly. We make an effort to respond thoughtfully to those who reached out to us with sincere concerns on social media. In addition, we have reached out to Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that is also located in the Bay Area and has been critical of synthetic biology. We hope to start a dialogue that builds on our common concern for the environment, and we hope that they can provide constructive criticism that helps us stay true to our vision of producing a more ethical and sustainable cheese. Finally, this project is helping to build the DIYbio community in the Bay Area, attracting people and resources to our community labs so that they can continue their mission of providing the education and tools to make science more accessible. Themes from DiscussionsOur project is motivated by the desire to find a more sustainable and humane method of cheese production. However, we acknowledge that it is not enough to simply have good intentions - we need to consider potential unintended consequences (good or bad) of our actions. So, we had a brainstorming session to think about the potential risks and concerns that may arise - even those that may be very unlikely. We included some concerns that members of the public have communicated to us. No matter how unlikely, we believe it is important to be open and honest about these potential concerns and welcome dialogue from members of the public about the potential risks and benefits of our project. We continue to have ongoing discussions about these issues and how best to address them. Complexity vs. simplification -We tend to value decentralization and as a participant in the DIY movement, our organization is all about making science more accessible. A concern is that we may make the cheesemaking process more complicated and thereby less accessible – more dependent on expert knowledge and industrial capabilities. -Some people think it could theoretically be done as a “homebrew” process, but this would be more likely to distribute yeast into the environment (conflicting with other potential concern below) -Someone suggests that an alternative use of the technology is to replace the caseins in other products that use casein as an extract, to “veganize” other products that contain casein but are otherwise vegan Yeast escape -Many of us are concerned about what could happen if our genetically engineered yeast escaped into the environment; for this reason we have taken precautions to keep our yeast contained, and intend for them to stay contained in bioreactors -Disrupting microbial/ fungal ecosystems (brings up issues of scientific uncertainty since these ecosystems are poorly characterized – we might not even be aware if we had disrupted them!) What if RVC is wildly successful? -Unforeseen consequences of shifting production – possible destabilization of economies. -Possibility of putting current (more sustainable) producers of cheese out of business. -Could cows go extinct?! -The more popular RVC, the more impact our decisions about where to source ingredients will have on the environment. Highlights need to identify and use sustainable sources from the start (palm oil problem) Risks to humans (health and safety) -Our cheese might lack some of the nutrients of regular cheese (like B vitamins). We could add them back in but it doesn’t seem feasible to do this for every nutrient…and the more we do this, the more complicated our product gets, the more sourcing concerns are likely to arise -Does casein cause cancer? (we don’t think the evidence suggests this) -Possibility of transferring antibiotic resistance to other organisms (like gut bacteria) -Possibility of creating a more allergenic protein (through site-directed mutagenesis) Access -Access: can our project contribute to making healthy food more egalitarian? Healthy foods are often more expensive or inaccessible to a majority of people. Localized food and cheese making could be more possible by way of local labs. Citations
| |||||||||||||
