Team:Oxford/public engagement

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 32: Line 32:
-  <font style="font-weight:bold"> spread of antibiotic resistance from synthetic to natural bacteria </font> <br>
-  <font style="font-weight:bold"> spread of antibiotic resistance from synthetic to natural bacteria </font> <br>
-  <font style="font-weight:bold">'unnatural' transfer of genes between organisms </font> <br>
-  <font style="font-weight:bold">'unnatural' transfer of genes between organisms </font> <br>
 +
-  <font style="font-weight:bold"> bioterrorism </font> <br>
 +
<p> 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').
 +
<br>
 +
-  <font style="font-weight:bold"> creation of 'artificial life' </font> <br>
 +
<p> 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. 
<br>
<br>
<h3> 15th August 2014 - Round 2 <h3>
<h3> 15th August 2014 - Round 2 <h3>
Line 45: Line 50:
<p> Corinna explains how to make primers...</p>
<p> Corinna explains how to make primers...</p>
<p> Oliver and his bottle rocket...</p>
<p> Oliver and his bottle rocket...</p>
 +
<p> The Candle Boat... </p>
</div>
</div>

Revision as of 11:26, 12 August 2014


Communication

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.


500 Word Dictionary

- Synthetic Biology

- Modelling

- Intellectual Property

- Bioremediation


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
- 'unnatural' transfer of genes between organisms
- 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.

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. In particular:
- explanation of the use of 'kill switches'
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.


Click here to view the information sheet we produced for our focus group.


Video Demonstrations

Corinna explains how to make primers...

Oliver and his bottle rocket...

The Candle Boat...

Audiences

Presenting to different audiences...


The Royal Society

Phil and Glen...


Sponsors

Leroy, Siân...


Sheffield iGEM Meet Up

Fran, Corinna, Emily, Ollie...


Oxford University Biochemistry Department

Glen and Oliver...


Public Focus Group

Siân (Phil and Fran?)...


UNIQ Summer School

.Fran and Phil..


Local High Schoola

.Fran...


Isis Patent Lawyers

Siân...


And of course, Boston!

...



Survey Results

We plan to survey the atttitudes and perceptions of the public, legislators/lawyers, and those working in biotechnology. See below for the results of this survey!

Survey Results

  • lvyucyitciyctitc

    mkmkmmk

  • knknigi

    lkn jfr;ofeiubga oavnieob.

  • jbhgvfctfyguhijkmn bvcfdxredtyuoikplkjhuiokl

    gfchjkmjnbhgvfcdxrtfyiokplkjhgfcdxsew5r6t7y8uiokl;kjhygtrdesxdfcgvhjkl;l,kmnjbh.

  • jhgfdxrdtfyguh

    knknknkn.

  • kjbh,m

    kmkm;dfghjkl;.

  • ;kljhvgcxdszsdtryuhjilko;k,jmnhgmkuhuygnucynim

    ;lmknmbvguhijok;l,.m,mnfdxghjo;lp;hgfdghjkl;kjxvb;lkjhfgdghkjl;kjhgfdghjkl;kjhgfhjkl;kjg.

  • ;kljhvgcxdszsdtryuhjilko;k,jmnhgmkuhuygnucynim

    ;lmknmbvguhijok;l,.m,mnfdxghjo;lp;hgfdghjkl;kjxvb;lkjhfgdghkjl;kjhgfdghjkl;kjhgfhjkl;kjg.

  • ;mnb;lkjhg

    ;kljhgfdg hjnkl;pok ijuhygtfrvh bjnkml;lkjghftgdf xcv bnml,;.lolik ujyd fcv hbjn kml

  • ndxfghjkloiuytryui

    bcxdfc gvhbjnkm lesrdtfyguhijo kplsedr tfghjikol psdf ghjkmlsdf ghjklhjkl.