Team:BGU Israel/Human Practice/Ethics

Much of Human Practice as we see it is to check the readiness of a society and prepare the atmosphere for Synthetic Biology research and development. However, what if you over-excel and do too much of a good job, what if you raise the bar too far up high? In psychology it would resemble the tension existing in a man, trying to portray an image of a millionaire for some social click, while being just a simple normal-income man. This causes constant schizophrenia between his ego and his true character.

This Ethical case or question is very relevant for iGEM groups in general because this conflict gets even deeper when it's not inside only one man, but involves different people. It is even more relevant for iGEM groups like ours where not all members come from the biology field of study. This conflict is likely to grow (as we have learned) in a group environment which is highly motivated and goal driven, yet lacks enough coordination and professional communication . It came to surface at critical times such as: important group meetings, core document making and after major presentations. Along the project we found ourselves polarized between two Diverting drives.

One is the drive to serve one of iGEM's core goals and spread the word of Synthetic Biology so it would be accepted and trusted around the world. To push forward, gain more publicity, more public relations, more social-media exposure, more VIP support and more recognition. This drive required us to inflate our project so it would be attractive to Press journalists and interesting to top level managers.

The other drive is to be and act like scientists, which is with no doubt part of iGEM community's mission. To pursuit first and for all Synthetic Biology research, to be modest, to be cautious and present results only at the end of the process, to dive into details and to explain every capability and limitation elaborately. This drive , especially regarding a project with such a life-saving potential, required us to walk on a thin ice and be very thoughtful about every word we said.

We were very dedicated to share our vision and promote the project, and did so through a video with hundreds of shares, meetings with everyone from the mayor of Beersheva to the Minister of Health of Israel, with volunteer work with Diabetes communities and associations and through various academic relations. We wanted to bring the prophecy to the world, so everyone would know about The Inner Doctor and we and did our best to make it happen.

But suddenly people started to really believe in us, and to build hopes on the success of our projects. We had patients wanting to volunteer for clinical experiments, emails from all over the world asking for information hoping for a solution to their situation, responses from officials and organizations treating us as if our treatment will tomorrow be on the shelf. It all felt like a balloon full of hot air, and we the Human Practice team kept on pushing forward…

".…your post and video sounds great although a bit like a science fiction to an uneducated patient, at the moment. I wish you succeed and help so many ill people ! Keep doing your precious work, keep my fingers crossed for your team ! :-) from Croatia. Mario
P.S. I have diastolic disfunction I/IV (heart disease) and as it also has to do with some mitochondria issue, I wonder if your project/device could help me as well ? Could you check it for me, I mean check theoretically…."

It was only when our research team confronted us with the fact that research is still in the beginning, much of the presumptions are still theoretical and have not been proved or tested yet, and that work on the project may take much longer that imagined and maybe not be completed in the near future, only then, did we understand the gap between our views. With this understanding came to our conscious a feel of bit guilty for maybe doing too much marketing and putting the cart before the horse. It felt bad knowing you mislead people and will now have to disappoint them. The whole thing started unnoticed, got built up slowly along the project and now became an actual decision making influencing dilemma.

Is it right to make a buzz, introduce, interact and market a project to society, even if it's not a real working solution, all in the name of sharing Synthetic Biology with the world? How to treat challenging questions? Does the cause make up for the actions? Do your true intentions play a role in the morality of your actions - what if you really wanted to promote your project for the glory of it and the promotion of Synthetic Biology only came second?

Dealing with this ethical question that was unexpected and affected the whole group, there was never really one aligned decision, however a few guidelines were agreed by us all, some more spoken about and some less. These are the most important ones: Honesty - always keep it straight and tell the facts as they are, if you need to break the myth in someone's mind , do it, the group, the academic integrity, and the respect to human beings is much more important than any momentarily pat-on-the-back. Vision - as long as you make it clear you're working on something in the lab, doing long term research, and you don't have an actual product in your hand, it's ok to inspire and share your vision with the world because that is what progresses the science in the first place and what's attractive about iGEM to the nonscientific world. Balanced Enthusiasm -Always respond to queries and personal approaches with a cooling atmosphere, not to make them abandon their love of the project, but to lower their flame a bit to be proportional to the real state of the research so no huge disappointments will take place later. Right Actions - We believe the cause does not compensate for actions and that all our conduct must be ethical and professional. Intentions – we can relate to iGEM in this case as the same as capitalist market where if every "individual group" in iGEM micro-cosmos works for their own sake, they have more motivation to put in energy soul and work, thus producing a better project with better results, and in a macro iGEM prospective making all iGEM constantly moving forward and improving, like in an ideal capitalist market.

In conclusion we were challenged and fascinated by this Ethical obstacle, our values have been tested yet we believe we triumphed and emerged with a stronger, more trustworthy approach. We advise other iGEM groups to also analyze the situations and feelings they experience through the project, to check themselves, ask questions and hopefully reach and find the right answers so we can work towards an impeccable science of Synthetic Biology.

Genetic modification, or genetic engineering, is a way of action to improve, change, treat or destroy organisms. it uses a verity of biotechnology and biological techniques and tools, to modify the genetic composition of an organism, thankfully to the resemblance in the basic components of the living world (DNA, RNA, Proteins), in that way for example a cell that naturally does not create one type of protein can after DNA modification\addition, actually create it permanently or temporarily. another example can be the use of a small molecules to inhibit the creation of a specific protein, an action that can be used as a treatment for many illness.

To do so a species should first be picked, and a culture of cells, or even a hole body, should be researched in a laboratory. that poses the first ethical concern that we encountered, is that OK to do with living creatures as we like in the sake of since? do they suffer? and if so do we try and make it so the wont? should there be a personal, social or legal restrections on that sort of research?

As the research process continues ethic issues pile up, the idea of creating a chimeric entity- adding genomic information from one animal to another, even to humans, can show beneficial properties, as making creatures more durable to changes in the environment, higher durability to microorganisms and disease, more productivity of a curtain product and more. but the impact of making creatures as so, can be massive, could we control the issue of making a new species? Will this new species if gets to the environment be a problem? Will transgenic interventions in humans create physical or behavioral traits that may be massively distinguished from what is usually perceived to be Humanity? with there be a long term natural effect of changing one variable in nature that is built of an infinite number of variables?

Another concern is the financial issue, let's say we have made a genetic change for the better, that didn't influence the environment, how much will it cost? genetic engineering research is a very expensive thing, and implementing it would be very costly. would everybody "enjoy" the treatment? would society monetary differences grow deeper? would the weak survive the deep deference between the reach and the poor?

concerning our own project regarding the terrible Metabolic syndrome, that is present statistically in the weaker communities, will our treatment be available to wide verity of patient with deferent economical background? will it be efficient on deferent ethnical societies? and if so, that the idea we came up succeeds, will the world be able to hold a massive growth in population?

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

****THE REST OF THE CONTENT HERE...****

*
*
*
*
*
*
*