"
Team:Sheffield/Surereport
From 2014.igem.org
Synthetic Biology @ Sheffield
An investigation into the questions, expectations and fears around Synthetic Biology across Faculties at Sheffield University.
Lara Grew - Department of MBB
Academic supervisor: Dr Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Department of Sociological Studies
This project was funded by the SURE scheme at Sheffield University.
Background
Synthetic biology is a relatively new technology, based on the application of engineering principles to biology and genetic modification. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) recently (2012) published a paper looking into the opinions held by the British public regarding this technology, while the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars commissioned a similar research project (2013) to be conducted within America. The UK Synthetic Biology Dialogue offers an insight into the concerns and expectations surrounding synthetic biology in particular, but in the context of other contemporary genetic and biological technologies. The aims of the SURE research were to compare the findings of the Dialogue to those based on a similar range of questions asked within the University of Sheffield, across subject areas.
The research ran alongside the iGEM competition, an international event founded by MIT in which undergraduate and postgraduate teams from around the world compete to produce biological systems based on synthetic biological approaches. Working with the Sheffield University team proved invaluable in providing a greater scientific and ethical context from which to undertake this project.
Basing this task firmly within the University of Sheffield offered the chance to compare the opinions of those within different social and economic backgrounds (as established within the Synthetic Biology Dialogue) to those of members of the University staff who have an established level of education (albeit not regarding biology) and certain social status.
Aims
The aims of this project were to explore participants’ expectations and fears regarding synthetic biology within the five faculties at Sheffield University. This demographic was targeted in order to garner differences in opinion (or to the contrary) from that of the literature already published. It was decided that short spoken interviews would be used to collect information and ethics approval was gained. Time restraints on the part of our interviewees meant that focus groups would have been impracticable set up, although they would have offered a better comparison to the BBSRC Dialogue. The original idea to collect data via questionnaire was dismissed due to difficulties in gaining a sufficient response rate (given the time of the academic year) and the opportunity that interviews provided for more exploratory questioning.
The interview questions were designed based on initial discussions with the Sheffield iGEM team, having begun to explore the scientific side of the project for themselves, as well as the scope of the original Dialogues. A short written synopsis of synthetic biology was taken to interviews to aid those who wouldn’t have heard of the technology. This was written with the aim of giving an overview of the technology without creating a bias, and no example of the technology was used to help demonstrate its possible uses.
Although expectation and risk were discussed within the Dialogue, something that was not covered in that report was the role of the iGEM competition within the synthetic biology field. As students taking part in the competition contribute significantly to progress in the field, we also wanted to investigate how people regarded this approach and interviews best served this purpose.
Findings
Having analysed the Synthetic Biology Dialogue, a recurring theme is the concern of the public regarding the motives behind the technology, rather than the health or safety risks associated with it, which were seen to be a less immediate worry.
Speaking with academics and other (technical?) staff from the university, it became clear from the interviews that a general understanding of how research is undertaken removes much of the concern associated with synthetic biology research. Many participants were aware of potential risks associated with the technology, but were not overtly worried by them.
Overall, reactions to the idea of undergraduates conducting synthetic biology research proved positive.
‘Well I think it’s a good thing … maybe the syn bio is in such a young phase it’s very difficult to have that clarity …so therefore leveraging enthusiastic young scientists in to kind of do some kind of groundwork and build some momentum …it seems like a reasonable model to me if that’s how it works.’
Faculty of Engineering
‘Undergrads have more freedom… I say to my undergraduates that I hope they are the radical voice, always questioning authority, always questioning how information is being used, who is telling them to do what and why… students have traditionally been a more progressive force in society.’
Faculty of Social science
Conclusion and overview
Reflecting on the interviews, it would have been useful to hold a focus group in order to get a discussion between the two ‘factions’ that seemed to emerge. It was decided early on that the interviews would remain fairly structured and so questions outside those that had been decided were used only to clarify points. I felt it would have been beneficial to have some of these ideas contradicted, mainly between those that felt the technology needed to be developed first and then regulation and public opinion would fall into place, and those who felt that the discussions needed to take place before lab work was started. In this, GM was often used as an example to justify both opinions.
This research will feed into further work by Sheffield iGEM team. Knowledge about public concerns for the technology has meant they can tailor their project design and they aim to visit schools to discuss the emerging technology with younger people.
Lara Grew - Department of MBB
Academic supervisor: Dr Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Department of Sociological Studies
This project was funded by the SURE scheme at Sheffield University.
Background
Synthetic biology is a relatively new technology, based on the application of engineering principles to biology and genetic modification. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) recently (2012) published a paper looking into the opinions held by the British public regarding this technology, while the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars commissioned a similar research project (2013) to be conducted within America. The UK Synthetic Biology Dialogue offers an insight into the concerns and expectations surrounding synthetic biology in particular, but in the context of other contemporary genetic and biological technologies. The aims of the SURE research were to compare the findings of the Dialogue to those based on a similar range of questions asked within the University of Sheffield, across subject areas.
The research ran alongside the iGEM competition, an international event founded by MIT in which undergraduate and postgraduate teams from around the world compete to produce biological systems based on synthetic biological approaches. Working with the Sheffield University team proved invaluable in providing a greater scientific and ethical context from which to undertake this project.
Basing this task firmly within the University of Sheffield offered the chance to compare the opinions of those within different social and economic backgrounds (as established within the Synthetic Biology Dialogue) to those of members of the University staff who have an established level of education (albeit not regarding biology) and certain social status.
Aims
The aims of this project were to explore participants’ expectations and fears regarding synthetic biology within the five faculties at Sheffield University. This demographic was targeted in order to garner differences in opinion (or to the contrary) from that of the literature already published. It was decided that short spoken interviews would be used to collect information and ethics approval was gained. Time restraints on the part of our interviewees meant that focus groups would have been impracticable set up, although they would have offered a better comparison to the BBSRC Dialogue. The original idea to collect data via questionnaire was dismissed due to difficulties in gaining a sufficient response rate (given the time of the academic year) and the opportunity that interviews provided for more exploratory questioning.
The interview questions were designed based on initial discussions with the Sheffield iGEM team, having begun to explore the scientific side of the project for themselves, as well as the scope of the original Dialogues. A short written synopsis of synthetic biology was taken to interviews to aid those who wouldn’t have heard of the technology. This was written with the aim of giving an overview of the technology without creating a bias, and no example of the technology was used to help demonstrate its possible uses.
Although expectation and risk were discussed within the Dialogue, something that was not covered in that report was the role of the iGEM competition within the synthetic biology field. As students taking part in the competition contribute significantly to progress in the field, we also wanted to investigate how people regarded this approach and interviews best served this purpose.
Findings
Having analysed the Synthetic Biology Dialogue, a recurring theme is the concern of the public regarding the motives behind the technology, rather than the health or safety risks associated with it, which were seen to be a less immediate worry.
Speaking with academics and other (technical?) staff from the university, it became clear from the interviews that a general understanding of how research is undertaken removes much of the concern associated with synthetic biology research. Many participants were aware of potential risks associated with the technology, but were not overtly worried by them.
Overall, reactions to the idea of undergraduates conducting synthetic biology research proved positive.
‘Well I think it’s a good thing … maybe the syn bio is in such a young phase it’s very difficult to have that clarity …so therefore leveraging enthusiastic young scientists in to kind of do some kind of groundwork and build some momentum …it seems like a reasonable model to me if that’s how it works.’
Faculty of Engineering
‘Undergrads have more freedom… I say to my undergraduates that I hope they are the radical voice, always questioning authority, always questioning how information is being used, who is telling them to do what and why… students have traditionally been a more progressive force in society.’
Faculty of Social science
Conclusion and overview
Reflecting on the interviews, it would have been useful to hold a focus group in order to get a discussion between the two ‘factions’ that seemed to emerge. It was decided early on that the interviews would remain fairly structured and so questions outside those that had been decided were used only to clarify points. I felt it would have been beneficial to have some of these ideas contradicted, mainly between those that felt the technology needed to be developed first and then regulation and public opinion would fall into place, and those who felt that the discussions needed to take place before lab work was started. In this, GM was often used as an example to justify both opinions.
This research will feed into further work by Sheffield iGEM team. Knowledge about public concerns for the technology has meant they can tailor their project design and they aim to visit schools to discuss the emerging technology with younger people.
