<center><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/39/OxiGEM_Public_Survey.pdf">CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SURVEY IN PDF FORMAT</a></p></center><br>
<center><a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/3/39/OxiGEM_Public_Survey.pdf">CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SURVEY IN PDF FORMAT</a></p></center><br>
+
+
+
<!-- Timeline script adapted from http://www.csslab.cl/2011/08/18/jquery-timelinr/. Thanks!! -->
The majority of teams (85%) appear to feel that there is at least the possibility that their project could be turned into a viable business or project – this makes sense given that many teams seek to use their project as an opportunity to use synthetic biology to address a problem.
Again this chart shows how few teams believe their project is relevant to society. There was a split, slightly skewed towards commercial investment, in terms of the favoured means of funding, although it should be noted that many participants selected more than one option, suggesting mixed feelings and uncertainty on this question. Donation to the public domain was a popular option, indicating that many students support the BioBrick agreement and are keen to contribute their parts to it.
Responses to this question support the need for guidance for iGEM teams on IP issues. Possible explanations for this the larger than expected (29%) group selecting 'adequate' include: evidence of a Drunning-Kruger effect whereby people overestimate their level of knowledge; underestimating the significance and relevance of intellectual property law to synthetic biology; or a genuinely adequate understanding amongst students.
<p>Sangamo's patent, titled "Nucleic acid binding proteins (zinc finger proteins design rules)", ensures that any use or production of zinc fingers with attached nucleases is the intellectual property of Sangamo.</p>
The graph indicates that profit is the least important considerations to students, but all others ranked more or less equally overall. The most important factor overall was benefit to society.
+
+
</li>
+
</ul>
+
+
<div id="grad_left"></div>
+
+
<div id="grad_right"></div>
+
+
<a href="#" id="next">+</a>
+
+
<a href="#" id="prev">-</a>
+
+
</div>
+
+
+
+
+
</div>
+
+
<!-- END TIMELINE WHITEBOX HERE -->
Revision as of 10:38, 13 October 2014
Public Participation
Focus Groups
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. If synthetic biology is to become increasingly socially accepted, public participation in it’s growth will be essential.
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:
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.
People have concerns that these will have unpredictable effects on ecosystems and that once taken these actions are difficult if not impossible to reverse. For example, synthetic organisms may outcompete their ‘natural’ counterparts and permanently damage biodiversity.
Based on vague knowledge that bacteria used in research are generally given characteristics of anti-biotic resistance and that these can spread between organisms.
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').
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.
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).
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.
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.THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
All members of the group agreed that scientists should. Some members also expressed scepticism 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 CONTINUE HERE
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.
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 scepticism 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.
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. far more difficult to enforce.
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.
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.
Survey Results
Guided by the feedback we discovered during the focus group activities. We analysed the responses from over 100 members of the public aged 16-85, selected randomly and coming from all walks of life. Again, we split the respondents into two equal groups, one of which answered the questions after having had the benefit of the introductory presentation above (this time in the form of a leaflet). We compared the responses from these two groups, again to see whether responses were changed by a basic level of understanding (most of the respondents commented that they had had little understanding or had misunderstood many aspects of the topic). The results of our survey are illustrated below.
The majority of teams (85%) appear to feel that there is at least the possibility that their project could be turned into a viable business or project – this makes sense given that many teams seek to use their project as an opportunity to use synthetic biology to address a problem.
Again this chart shows how few teams believe their project is relevant to society. There was a split, slightly skewed towards commercial investment, in terms of the favoured means of funding, although it should be noted that many participants selected more than one option, suggesting mixed feelings and uncertainty on this question. Donation to the public domain was a popular option, indicating that many students support the BioBrick agreement and are keen to contribute their parts to it.
Responses to this question support the need for guidance for iGEM teams on IP issues. Possible explanations for this the larger than expected (29%) group selecting 'adequate' include: evidence of a Drunning-Kruger effect whereby people overestimate their level of knowledge; underestimating the significance and relevance of intellectual property law to synthetic biology; or a genuinely adequate understanding amongst students.
Sangamo patents zinc finger nuclease technology
Sangamo's patent, titled "Nucleic acid binding proteins (zinc finger proteins design rules)", ensures that any use or production of zinc fingers with attached nucleases is the intellectual property of Sangamo.
The graph indicates that profit is the least important considerations to students, but all others ranked more or less equally overall. The most important factor overall was benefit to society.
Check out our youtube channel aiming to make iGEM, synthetic biology, and science generally accessible to a worldwide audience of all ages. We have everything from fun try-it-at-home science experiments to get children involved, to explanations of primer construction for older synbio enthusiasts.
Oxford iGEM 2014
Public Engagement Events
Inspired by the results of the focus groups and survey we organised and developed activities to bring the world of synthetic biology to members of the public. Click on the link below to check out more!
Oxford iGEM 2014
"
Again this chart shows how few teams believe their project is relevant to society. There was a split, slightly skewed towards commercial investment, in terms of the favoured means of funding, although it should be noted that many participants selected more than one option, suggesting mixed feelings and uncertainty on this question. Donation to the public domain was a popular option, indicating that many students support the BioBrick agreement and are keen to contribute their parts to it.
Responses to this question support the need for guidance for iGEM teams on IP issues. Possible explanations for this the larger than expected (29%) group selecting 'adequate' include: evidence of a Drunning-Kruger effect whereby people overestimate their level of knowledge; underestimating the significance and relevance of intellectual property law to synthetic biology; or a genuinely adequate understanding amongst students.
