Team:Paris Saclay/Ethics/Survey

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "{{Team:Paris_Saclay/ethics_header}} =Survey= ==Sub title== Le text vient là... bla bla bla. '''S'il vous plaît, laissez la dernière ligne de code, elle représente le 'footer ...")
(→Sub title)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Sub title==
==Sub title==
Le text vient là... bla bla bla. '''S'il vous plaît, laissez la dernière ligne de code, elle représente le 'footer du site''''
Le text vient là... bla bla bla. '''S'il vous plaît, laissez la dernière ligne de code, elle représente le 'footer du site''''
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
<html>
 +
    <head>
 +
        <meta charset="utf-8" />
 +
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" />
 +
        <title>test</title>
 +
 +
    <style>
 +
 +
body {
 +
font-family: Arial;
 +
background: none;
 +
}
 +
 +
article
 +
{
 +
    width: 100%;
 +
    margin: auto;
 +
    border: 1px solid black;
 +
    text-align: justify;
 +
    padding: 12px;
 +
    margin-bottom: 20px;
 +
background: none;
 +
border-radius: 10px;
 +
box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px #1c1a19;
 +
}
 +
 +
 +
# bloc_page
 +
{
 +
    width: 100%;
 +
    margin: auto;
 +
    border: 1px solid black;
 +
    text-align: justify;
 +
    padding: 12px;
 +
    margin-bottom: 20px;
 +
    background: none;
 +
}
 +
 +
 +
 +
#survey_cells
 +
{
 +
  font-size : 10pt;
 +
  font-weight: bold;
 +
  text-align : center;
 +
  padding: 12px;
 +
}
 +
 +
figcaption
 +
{
 +
font-size: 8pt;
 +
font-weight: bold;
 +
text-align: center;
 +
}
 +
 +
#citation
 +
{
 +
font-family: Papyrus;
 +
}
 +
 +
table
 +
{
 +
    border-collapse: collapse;
 +
width: 100%;
 +
    margin: auto;
 +
    text-align: justify;
 +
    padding: 12px;
 +
    margin-bottom: 20px;
 +
    background: none;
 +
}
 +
 +
#cite
 +
{
 +
text-align: center;
 +
    padding: 12px;
 +
    margin-bottom: 20px;
 +
    border: 1px solid black;
 +
}
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
    </style>
 +
 +
 +
    </head>
 +
 +
    <body>
 +
<div id = "bloc_page">
 +
 +
<section>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<table>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM?
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
Have you already heard of bioart?
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey2_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> 28% of YES and 72% of NO </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey7_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> 61% of YES and 39% of NO </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn </br> or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ?
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey3_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> | 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% | </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey4_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> | 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% | </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between living beings and machines is broken ?
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey5_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> 23% of YES and 77% of NO </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey6_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> 63% of YES and 37% of NO </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ?
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey8_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> 93% of YES and 7% of NO <figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey9_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> 77% of YES and 23% of NO </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "survey_cells">
 +
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src = "survey10_Paris_Saclay.png">
 +
<figcaption> 69% of YES and 31% of NO </figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<table id = "citation">
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
The boundary between living and not living was broken way before synthetic biology. Synthetic biology only helped to intertwine these two seemed to be opposites together.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2">
 +
Synthetic biology have the potential break or to move the boundary rather than only iGEM experience. I think we have to meditate about what could and what should be synthetic biology in the future, in parallel of the future evolution of the world and the society. I mean, the actual living being/machine concept are pretty clear for common people. It's like comparing a dog and a robot. But with the evolution of sciences and technologies, the comparison between living being and machine is more and more difficult like virus or an engineered organisms or an very smart AI for example.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
I my opinion living beings are all machine-like anyway, every cell has complex internal molecular machinery. Synthetic biology really just industrializes organisms in an attempt to provide cost-effective methods to solve many of the world's problems.
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "3">
 +
Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite" colspan ="2">
 +
Living beings were first classified by Aristo as those that are beneficial and those that are unnecessary. This viewpoint is in complete disparity, however it does also indicate that other organisms are in a sense meant to be in the servitude of man. This does not dictate that one should be violent towards other living beings but they have no compunction or self-thought. They only act on instinct encrypted in to those beings in their creation. If one's use of those living beings is for the good of all, then it would not be an unjust act. Going to a lab and isolating bacterial DNA for fun is not appropriate though.
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
I think of a machine as tool designed to perform an action. I think of a living being as something which reduces the entropy of its local system. I see no incompatibility between the two.
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
The grey areas regarding the division between life and machines is ever-expanding - not because of our progress necessarily but in many ways due to our realization that our attempts to classify things as one or the other do not work for all organisms or systems (e.g. think viruses).
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine ....
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite" >
 +
If the AI contains no organic parts and has nothing that resembles cell processes or a capacity to 'evolve', I do not think it is considered a living creature. I also don't think the ability to learn and feel makes something living since most organisms (bacteria and plants, for example) do not have this capacity but are technically alive. That all being said, I think this AI could still be considered 'pseudo-life'.
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3">
 +
The words 'machine' and 'living' each bear two separate meanings, one based on the literal phenomena the words represent and the other based on the common understanding of what the word means. In the first question, 'living' is used in the common sense (shares qualities of what we think of as life) while 'machine' is used in the literal sense (an object absent of the biological characteristics that define life). In the second question, 'living' is used in the literal sense (an object with the biological characteristics that define life) while 'machine' is used in the common sense (shares the qualities of what we think of as mechanical). It is for this reason that both statements can be true while the third, about bluing the boundary between the two, is not by necessity also true.
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<table id = "citation">
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2">
 +
In general, (Bio)Art or ArtScience is one of the fields or areas that connects wet lab work and research to the actual community. It often does so, as is (or should be, for that matter) inherent to art, by exploring and crossing boundaries. We (as Life Science participants) should be grateful for the exposure.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite" >
 +
I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
Art is a reflection of humanities beliefs and reservations, it is the way that we explore who we are and what we want to be.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3">
 +
I heard about some guy growing cultures in radioactive medium so that when grown, bacteria resemble someone's face for example. I think the technique is quite nice but it lacks some creativity. Art is about creativity. Using scientific techniques is of course legitimate for making art. I agree with using living dancers to dance on stages. I believe altering and transforming living creatures is a very powerful way to do art like Stelarc. And for centuries humans used insects and plants and maybe even mushrooms to produce colors, why whould changing some genes make a difference. It is all legitimate. Wish you all good luck with your project :D
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite" rowspan = "2">
 +
Defense of animals and living beings rights is key to the equilibrium of our society and of the planet. It is already a complex subject when regarding medicine, domestic pet, and so on. Why add art to the list? Everyone might say that using bacteria is ok. But where to stop? Mice? cats and dogs?
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite" colspan = "2">
 +
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable.
 +
</td>
 +
<td id = "cite">
 +
Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3">
 +
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 +
<tr>
 +
<td id = "cite" colspan = "3">
 +
Art is universal; therefore art possesses no boundaries. The field of science is no boundary either. So, who can complain if one was to make cells draw Mona Lisa? Would that not be art?
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
 +
</section>
 +
 +
 +
</div>
 +
</body>
 +
</html>
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}
{{Team:Paris_Saclay/default_footer}}

Revision as of 15:23, 14 October 2014

Survey

Sub title

Le text vient là... bla bla bla. S'il vous plaît, laissez la dernière ligne de code, elle représente le 'footer du site'





test

Have you already done synthetic biology before iGEM? Have you already heard of bioart?
28% of YES and 72% of NO
61% of YES and 39% of NO
Do you think that a really smart AI (artificial intelligence), that could learn
or feel for instance, may be considered as a living creature ? 		Do you think that, if we design a living creature to perform some precise function, it will turn into a machine ?
| 1:30% | 2:5% | 3:14% | 4:6% | 5:6% | 6:5% | 7:4% | 8:14% | 9:4% | 10:12% |
| 1:20% | 2:7% | 3:14% | 4:8% | 5:16% | 6:8% | 7:8% | 8:10% | 9:1% | 10:6% |
With the iGEM experience, do you think that the boundary between living beings and machines is broken ? In general, do you think that synthetic biology transforms our vision of living beings ?
23% of YES and 77% of NO
63% of YES and 37% of NO
Do you think that using scientific techniques in order to do art is legitimate ? Do you agree with using living creatures in an artistic way ?
93% of YES and 7% of NO
77% of YES and 23% of NO
Do you agree with transforming living creature in an artistic way ?
69% of YES and 31% of NO
The boundary between living and not living was broken way before synthetic biology. Synthetic biology only helped to intertwine these two seemed to be opposites together. Synthetic biology have the potential break or to move the boundary rather than only iGEM experience. I think we have to meditate about what could and what should be synthetic biology in the future, in parallel of the future evolution of the world and the society. I mean, the actual living being/machine concept are pretty clear for common people. It's like comparing a dog and a robot. But with the evolution of sciences and technologies, the comparison between living being and machine is more and more difficult like virus or an engineered organisms or an very smart AI for example. I my opinion living beings are all machine-like anyway, every cell has complex internal molecular machinery. Synthetic biology really just industrializes organisms in an attempt to provide cost-effective methods to solve many of the world's problems.
Tools are tools. You can develop attachment towards tools, but they are still tools. Whatever is the synthetic biology, it's always the living that decides of the result.
Living beings were first classified by Aristo as those that are beneficial and those that are unnecessary. This viewpoint is in complete disparity, however it does also indicate that other organisms are in a sense meant to be in the servitude of man. This does not dictate that one should be violent towards other living beings but they have no compunction or self-thought. They only act on instinct encrypted in to those beings in their creation. If one's use of those living beings is for the good of all, then it would not be an unjust act. Going to a lab and isolating bacterial DNA for fun is not appropriate though.
I do not believe that interspecies gene transfer makes a machine. I think of a machine as tool designed to perform an action. I think of a living being as something which reduces the entropy of its local system. I see no incompatibility between the two.
The grey areas regarding the division between life and machines is ever-expanding - not because of our progress necessarily but in many ways due to our realization that our attempts to classify things as one or the other do not work for all organisms or systems (e.g. think viruses). It's hard to imagine a living thing acting like a machine .... If the AI contains no organic parts and has nothing that resembles cell processes or a capacity to 'evolve', I do not think it is considered a living creature. I also don't think the ability to learn and feel makes something living since most organisms (bacteria and plants, for example) do not have this capacity but are technically alive. That all being said, I think this AI could still be considered 'pseudo-life'.
The words 'machine' and 'living' each bear two separate meanings, one based on the literal phenomena the words represent and the other based on the common understanding of what the word means. In the first question, 'living' is used in the common sense (shares qualities of what we think of as life) while 'machine' is used in the literal sense (an object absent of the biological characteristics that define life). In the second question, 'living' is used in the literal sense (an object with the biological characteristics that define life) while 'machine' is used in the common sense (shares the qualities of what we think of as mechanical). It is for this reason that both statements can be true while the third, about bluing the boundary between the two, is not by necessity also true.
In general, (Bio)Art or ArtScience is one of the fields or areas that connects wet lab work and research to the actual community. It often does so, as is (or should be, for that matter) inherent to art, by exploring and crossing boundaries. We (as Life Science participants) should be grateful for the exposure. I do not have a problem with using and manipulating living creatures for art as long as this is limited to bacteria and yeast
Art is a reflection of humanities beliefs and reservations, it is the way that we explore who we are and what we want to be. I think using bacteria is fine, but using stuffed animals for example is not Anything with a brain shouldn't be used in art - they might feel pain
I heard about some guy growing cultures in radioactive medium so that when grown, bacteria resemble someone's face for example. I think the technique is quite nice but it lacks some creativity. Art is about creativity. Using scientific techniques is of course legitimate for making art. I agree with using living dancers to dance on stages. I believe altering and transforming living creatures is a very powerful way to do art like Stelarc. And for centuries humans used insects and plants and maybe even mushrooms to produce colors, why whould changing some genes make a difference. It is all legitimate. Wish you all good luck with your project :D
I have a pretty low opinion of art so maybe my opinions are biased. Defense of animals and living beings rights is key to the equilibrium of our society and of the planet. It is already a complex subject when regarding medicine, domestic pet, and so on. Why add art to the list? Everyone might say that using bacteria is ok. But where to stop? Mice? cats and dogs? I think you can make engineered butterflies to be even more beautiful !
I only agree in using lower organisms like fungi and bacteria for bioart. It's fine with bacteria but its a different matter with higher beings.
The gardens of Versailles castle constitute an exemple of both using and transforming living creatures for artistic realisations. Nor ancient nor innaceptable. Transforming higher living creatures for art should be subject to ethics review
We are living being, and many arts come from our body (like dansing).
Art is universal; therefore art possesses no boundaries. The field of science is no boundary either. So, who can complain if one was to make cells draw Mona Lisa? Would that not be art?




Retrieved from "http://2014.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Ethics/Survey"