From 2014.igem.org

Revision as of 14:35, 17 October 2014

• Home
• Team
  • Meet our team
  • Official team profile
• Project
  • Overview
  • System
  • Parts
  • Golden Gate cloning
  • Golden Gate Modular Flipper
  • Collaborations
  • Judging Criteria
• Lab Notebook
  • Notebook
  • Protocols
• Policy and Practices
  • Overview
  • The CUT event
  • The Hewett School
  • Science Café
  • Ethics of Public Consultation
• Safety
  • Safety Overview
  • Risk Assessments
  • UEA Safety
• Attributions
  • Advisors and helpers
  • Sponsors

Science Café at The CUT, Halesworth

NRP-UEA iGEM attendees: Jack Day, Steven Monsey, Richard Bowater (Advisor)

What was the aim of our event?

On the 18th of September 2014 we once again ventured out to The Cut in Halesworth; this time to facilitate a more in-depth discussion in a ‘Science Café’ style debate on the topics surrounding our project, which included: genetic modification of plants and other organisms, crop disease, food security, the ethics behind scientific discovery, and the way scientists conduct themselves. This was also a great opportunity to build on the feedback on our project from the last event, as well as presenting our project to new audiences.

What happened

There was a good turnout for this type event, with the audience of about 30 people being a good mix of attendees from the previous event and new members, representing various professions and walks of life. The night started with Steven presenting the team’s project and motives to the audience, which then lead into a natural debate and discussion on the project and its surrounding topics with Steven, Jack and Richard answering questions from the audience.

What feedback did we receive?

The discussion highlighted a number of points that were of interest to our project. Wherever possible, straightforward, clear answers to the questions were provided, but many of the discussion points were open-ended with no single answer. Here are some of the more interesting points and questions that were raised during the debate:

• Can the canary plant detect disease a lot earlier than the main crop so that there was a big enough window to allow spraying to happen and to protect the crop without crop loss?


• The concept may work for some crop diseases, such as those propagated by the target bacteria, but would it work for others carried into the plants by insect vectors?


• Would the fact that this plant is not a crop mean that it would avoid legislation involved or associated with GM crops?


• Some agrochemicals currently used by farmers are thiocyanides and there are implicit health costs associated with indiscriminate use for farmers and agricultural workers, so the canary plants would help reduce this.


• Indicator plants would need to have the same growth pattern and growth span as the crop which it is an indicator and this would need to be a major consideration in the final design.


• The idea of having rainbow indicators so an indicator plant that could detect more than one disease and indicate the disease it was detecting was thought to be valuable.


• How would the canary plants be delivered to the farmers? Would it be transported as a plant? Would it be transported as seeds?


• Considering the third world audience and problems targeted by the green canary project, there would need to be a set of educational packages and supporting mechanisms available to farmers to ensure that the ‘canary plants’ were used effectively and well – some of these points could be quite simple. For example how and when should they be planted? What does it mean when the plants change colour? What would you do to change the treatment plans or what do you do after you spot or see a certain colour change?


• Concern that indicators may not be ideal for people that are colour blind, which affects a significant amount of the population.


• Would the indicator crops be lost or revert back to wild type after disease detection?


• Would it affect other animals if they decided to eat it? How would it be made unattractive to other animals who might want or fancy eating it?

On a general note the audience had real concerns about the idea and philosophy of having technology that was freely available to be used by anyone anywhere. They saw the potential that ‘big business’ could swoop in take on the ideas being produced by the iGEM teams and using it for ‘big business’ ends and means, which involved profit and also science and scientific practices that may be neither ethical or acceptable to the public. There was a clear suspicion of big business in this regard.

The audience was also concerned that the iGEM Foundation/teams were not taking enough responsibility when it came to these concerns. They wanted to know what iGEM was doing to stop any of the scientific advances that have emerged from the programme to be used in potentially unethical or dangerous ways? Was iGEM taking no regulatory role in this at all? Were they really that naïve or was it a money thing where there is no money to look after this aspect and to evaluate the long-term impact of the competition within the scientific community or was it an optimism and a utopian vision that science is always for the good. Our audience felt this was not an acceptable standpoint and the iGEM committee needed to think about its role as guardian for the common good.

Going forward

This debate produced some really interesting points and ideas regarding our project and the way scientists and iGEM conducts itself in the wider community interacting with members of the general public.

The event was such a success, that the Science Cafes will continue at The Cut on a regular basis in the future, discussing a wide variety of scientific subjects.

Next Event: http://newcut.org/events/entry/2049
Visit The Cut Website: http://newcut.org/