Strategy

What we did, how we did it, why we did it

It is immediately obvious that we are using terms, such as intelligence, cognition, labour, that were originally coined to describe humans and people-based systems. These terms have then been adapted for use in various other systems, either biological or technological. Such is also our ultimate aim -- to use these concepts to describe a bacterial system. However, in order to do that, it makes sense to start by exploring a human system and determine its processes, and then compare that to a biological system. And what better system to explore than the one we are a part of?

Therefore, our Policy & Practices strategy moves on to look at distribution of knowledge, cognition and labour within iGEM teams. There are several advantages to choosing an iGEM team as the system of interest:

• An iGEM team is set in the well-defined context of a competition;
• It is bound by clearly defined rules;
• It has a particular aim/output it strives to achieve;
• The boundaries of the system are well defined, with a limited team size and a well-defined advisors and supervisors role;
• The structure of project work is fairly similar to many teams and is restricted by the deadlines and requirements of the competition.

Such things as distribution of labour, knowledge and communication are quite difficult to measure in quantitative terms; we therefore decided to do a qualitative analysis. Thus, doing interviews with other teams seemed the logical course of action, since we wanted to give the teams an opportunity to tell us as much as they would like, rather than restrict them to very detailed questions.

Who did we talk to?

We interviewed members from 6 iGEM teams from across the UK exclusively. Such decision was made in order to limit the variables in our research group. Teams from other UK-based universities come from a similar academic background, from institutions that are likely to be organised in similar ways. Hence, the chance of miscommunication/misunderstanding is minimised, and so are the effects of cultural barriers. Furthermore, we had the amazing opportunity to meet all the teams we interviewed at an iGEM meet-up in London in beginning of September! A huge thank you to all the teams who agreed to participate - we enjoyed the conversations thoroughly and learnt a lot from you all!

We also analysed the way our own team worked, because we are important too! The interviews with our team members were similar to those with other iGEM teams. However, with our own team, we had the benefit of being able to talk to each individual. So we gained a fuller view, and could observe the effect that a team member’s role plays on his/her view. In fact, because with other iGEM teams, we also got to talk to a couple of people, this also worked as a control group for the other interviews - it quickly emerged that on some topics, everyone completely agreed, whereas on others, the opinions varied across the team. So we made sure when analysing the results, to carefully consider any bias that a team member’s role may introduce in their answers.

What did we talk about?

Before the interviews, we did a little bit of planning and decided on the main themes we wanted to explore. The beautiful diagram below shows our train of thought - what the themes are and how they are relevant to our research.

Go to the research section to find out more about the questions we asked, the answers we received and the lessons we learned from it.

Ethical Review

Before proceeding with the interviews, we undertook self-audit for ethical review, in accordance with the University ethical research procedures. The purpose of this was just to ensure that we are ourselves aware of potential risks that our social research may cause and have planned on how to mitigate these should they arise.

The self-audit checklist included the following points:

• Potential risks to participants and researchers: This part made us evaluate whether our research or its findings are likely to cause any stress or discomfort, psychological or physical, to the participants. Our conclusion was that there were no risks on either party created by our research. All the team members we interviewed volunteered for it, and besides were given a choice not to answer any particular question. I.e. due to the semi-formal interview format, if a team did not want to disclose certain information, they were completely free to do so. The teams were also informed from the very beginning about the purpose of the interview and how the information would be used.
• Participants: The section inquires about the vulnerability of participants, and whether the participants are likely to receive material benefits for participation. It was concluded that no participants are part of any of the vulnerable groups. We did promise the teams cookies as a thank you for their contribution, but we thought it was safe to conclude this as ‘standard practice’ in iGEM research with no adverse consequences.
• Confidentiality and handling of data: This section helped us consider how the acquired data will be handled: whether personal data will be obtained, whether the responses will be attributed to particular individuals, and how the data will be stored during and after the study. Consideration of these questions made us plan carefully how we will analyse and represent the data in our project. Because we wanted to avoid any risk of discomfort for any of the participants, and because we did not want to draw anyone out, we decided that any information we gain shall remain anonymous when represented. The results of our interviews are therefore presented in the form of a summary of ideas we discovered during the interviews, with anonymous quotes supporting these.

Hence, it was concluded that no reasonably foreseeable ethical risks were present for our research, and no further action was required. The ethics form can be seen here.