"
Policy and Practices
From 2014.igem.org
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
<li>David Lloyd, <a href="http://www.fredsense.com/">FREDsense Technologies</a></li> | <li>David Lloyd, <a href="http://www.fredsense.com/">FREDsense Technologies</a></li> | ||
<li>Kenneth Oye, <a href="http://poet.mit.edu/">MIT Program on Emerging Technologies</a></li> | <li>Kenneth Oye, <a href="http://poet.mit.edu/">MIT Program on Emerging Technologies</a></li> | ||
| - | <li>Piers Millett, <a href="http://www. | + | <li>Piers Millett, <a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/">Woodrow Wilson Center</a> and <a href="http://www.unidir.org/">UN Institute for Disarmament Research</a></li> |
<li>Samuel Yu, <a href="http://www.ust.hk/eng/index.htm">Hong Kong University of Science and Technology</a></li> | <li>Samuel Yu, <a href="http://www.ust.hk/eng/index.htm">Hong Kong University of Science and Technology</a></li> | ||
<li>Scott Edmunds, <a href="http://www.genomics.cn/en/index">BGI</a></li> | <li>Scott Edmunds, <a href="http://www.genomics.cn/en/index">BGI</a></li> | ||
Revision as of 15:09, 18 August 2014
What is "Policy & Practices"?
"Policy & Practices is the study of how your work affects the world, and how the world affects your work."
— Peter Carr, Director of Judging
(Note: difference between P&P track and P&P component of all projects)
Suggested Topic Areas
Assessing Your Project
Risk Assessment
How might your project affect the health of humans or the environment? If it is a Health & Medicine project, will it be safe for patients, and will it have side effects? If it is an Environment project, will it affect biodiversity?
Consult with experts and consider the potential risks of your project. Think about how to address and minimize those risks.
Feasibility Assessment
Consider the economics of your project. How does it compare to competing technologies and methods for accomplishing the same goal? Is it possible to manufacture and sell your product at a price that your users are willing to pay? Who might lose their job -- or gain a new job -- as a result of your project?
End-User Considerations
How will people actually use your project? How will it be delivered (as a pill, as an environmental monitoring station, as a garden spray, as an industrial/factory process)? What should it cost? How quickly must it operate? How should users safely dispose of your product, once they are finished using it?
Approach some potential end-users of your project and find out about their daily lives. Examine how your project might fit into their daily routines, or how it might change their daily routines.
Helping the Practice of Science and Engineering
Law and Regulation
Synthetic biology is a new and rapidly changing field of engineering, and it presents great challenges for local, national, and international laws.
Are there lawmakers in your country who ought to know more about synthetic biology? See if you can give them an informative presentation!
What are the laws that apply to scientists and engineers in your country? Are any of them too strict, preventing the advancement of science? Are any of them too permissive, allowing scientists to proceed without accounting for the possible harms that might result? Discuss the situation with experts and write to your lawmakers!
Safety
Security
Could your project be misused by someone who wanted to purposefully hurt humans or the environment? Can you make changes in your design to prevent such purposeful misuse?
Can you spot any gaps in the laws, customs, and institutions that prevent malicious people from using synthetic biology to do harm? What exactly are the vulnerabilities? Can you do some "white hat hacking" to test those vulnerabilities? How could those vulnerabilities be fixed?
("White hat hacking" means that you openly and honestly test the security of a system, intending to expose and repair a vulnerability without exploiting it. For example, to test the security of a DNA synthesis company against people ordering dangerous pathogenic genes, you might place an order for dangerous pathogenic genes, but then contact the company, explain your intent, and ask them to halt the order before they actually send you any dangerous DNA.)
Philosophy
Public Engagement
Education
Public Outreach & Dialogue
Ethics
Exemplary Past Projects
Area of HP work:Using Policy and Practices to inform the design of the synthetic biological device.
The Policy and Practices in this project was extremely well-integrated into the scientific work – the team put equal weight on experimental work, Policy and Practices and modelling. Policy and Practices work involved engaging with a wide range of stakeholders including companies, plant scientists and charities concerned with desertification, and holding interdisciplinary Policy and Practices panel discussions drawing on people with a range of different expertise. These discussions informed the design choices made by the team.
Contributor: Jane Calvert
Area of HP work: Philosophical investigation concerning the introduction of Xenopus tropicalis as a new chassis for iGEM.
This is a very original philosophical project that was closely related to the scientific work being done by the team, who introduced Xenopus tropicalis as a new chassis for iGEM. The sophisticated philosophical and historical analysis of the Policy and Practices work challenges some of the taken-for-granted assumptions of iGEM, by asking whether the term ‘chassis’ – borrowed from mechanical engineering – is appropriate to apply to a model organism (and animal) like a frog. Importantly, the project draws attention to the ‘non-innocence’ of metaphors in synthetic biology. Overall, it transcends ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ discussions, raising thought-provoking questions rather than imposing one particular answer.
Contributor: Jane Calvert
Area of HP work: Marketing and Commercialization
The Bristol team was working on developing a nitrate sensor for soil applications. What was impressive about this Policy and Practices project was how the team was able to take their idea and look at the possibilities for implementing this project in the real world. They went out and engaged farmers in their area, asking them if they saw value in using their system as a product, challenged ideas pertaining to GMO use in industry, and gathered a large amount of data to show whether their concept could be adopted in the real world. From these interviews they inspired their system and developed marketing materials (pamphlets, etc.) to engage their potential customer base.
Contributor: David Lloyd
Indian Institute of Technology Madras 2013
Area of HP work: Engagement with broader communities, education and helping society.
The team that won the HP award in the 2013 Asian Jamboree, was selected as they pushed the boundaries of the education side of human practice, being the only team we saw that potentially saved peoples lives. Being based in India and doing a project on Shigella transmission and food poisoning, for the HP part of their project they instigated a grass roots campaign to educate consumers of the dangers and how to avoid shigella contamination. Translated materials on the dangers of shigellosis into a number of regional languages, also going to small-scale slaughter houses across the country to explain these issues in person.
Contributor: Scott Edmunds
Area of HP work: Social and educative side, democratizing and making iGEM participation easier for participants.
The team that won the HP award in the 2012 Asian Jamboree demonstrated how a software team can make a great impact on the education and practices side, producing a much more intuitive BioBrick search interface, as well as gamification of software to help the teaching of BioBrick standard assembly using fun puzzle games. Building something useful on an open API, this is also a nice example of the benefits of the iGEM open source approach.
Contributor: Scott Edmunds
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2013
Area of HP Work: Looking at the economic and policy dimensions of synthetic biology.Why Notable: This was one of the runners up for the HP award at the 2013 Asian Jamboree, and they did a good job cataloging the synthetic biology ecosystem in East Asia. The team produced detailed and well researched summaries of the various academic and industrial players, iGEM teams, and relevant funding bodies and regulations in each of the countries covered.
Contributor: Scott Edmunds
Area of HP work: Looking into legal and intellectual property rights in iGEM and synthetic biology.
The 2012 Stanford-Brown iGEM team forayed into the realm of Practices when they encountered a patent that appeared to cover a gene they wished to use in their work. Unsure how to approach reading or understanding the patent, they sought the help of experts (It turns out both parents of one of the students were patent attorneys). They realized they were not the only iGEM team to encounter patenting issues and decided to create a practical iGEM-specific guide to U.S. patent law. As a complement to their practical guide, the team also compiled reviews to spur discussion amongst iGEMers on the ethics of gene patenting.
Useful project links:
University of British Columbia 2012
Area of HP work: Looking into legal and intellectual property rights in iGEM and synthetic biology.
The 2012 UBC iGEM team also explored intellectual property as part of their work on Practices, but came up with a different approach. They developed a survey to assess the experience of iGEM teams with patents and other property rights, and then created a country-neutral guide to intellectual property that reflected the interests of the iGEM community. Importantly, the UBC iGEM team networked with other iGEM teams to get an impressively high rate of participation for their survey.
Useful project links:
Tips & Tricks
Remember to consult with experts even if you are planning to do a public survey or outreach to high schools. With a little bit of help from experienced survey designers or professional educators, your work can become much more effective!
Where can I start?
Seeking Expert Consultations
Who is the Policy & Practices Track Committee?
- Megan Palmer, Stanford University and UC Berkeley (co-chair)
- Emma Frow, University of Edinburgh (co-chair)
- Laura Adam, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Nancy Burgess, US Department of Health & Human Services
- Jane Calvert, University of Edinburgh
- Linda Kahl, BioBricks Foundation
- Todd Kuiken, Synthetic Biology Project, Woodrow Wilson Center
- David Lloyd, FREDsense Technologies
- Kenneth Oye, MIT Program on Emerging Technologies
- Piers Millett, Woodrow Wilson Center and UN Institute for Disarmament Research
- Samuel Yu, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
- Scott Edmunds, BGI
- Tim Trevan, International Council for the Life Sciences
- (others TBA)
