In the beginning of our project we wanted to achieve the gold medal criteria for policy and practice by doing lot of public work like informing the public about our project. After our balloon Saturday night fever action and talking to friends and family we became aware of the fact that the main reason people are skeptical towards synthetic biology were safety concerns. These concerns were often not funded. To gain statistically funded data about the opinions regarding synthetic biology we started a survey about synthetic biology in general and the main concerns of people towards synthetic biology. (Auswertung ergab_ ) As a team from Germany we dealt with a lot of prejudices about genetically modified organisms. To point out the general opinion, we created a mindmap giving you a small collection showing mixed opinions of the public.

We also wanted to consult experts on the field of scientific law and ethics. Therefore we partook in a symposium, learning about conferences from the experts. We also consulted an expert of synthetic biology ethics, Dr. Joachim Boldt. During this learning process, starting with talking to the public to consulting different experts, we became more and more aware of the problem we really wanted to encounter: How can we, as a small student group alleviate concerns that running through all walks of life. For us it was crucial that the only way to gain acceptance was to overcome the fears.

This is the reason why we started LINK-IT. Becoming aware of the safety concerns, let us see our project from a different angle. After doing so we also concerned ourselves with the ethical aspects of our project. The problem of safety concerns does not only lie in the way people observe laboratory work but also starts with the way terms are used in synthetic biology. We analyzed ethical problems regarding the terms "living machine" and "artificial cell" and came to the conclusion that for a public debate a clear and precise nomenclature of terms used in synthetic biology is very important. For the reason that synthetic biology is a young field of research we have now the chance to build up an informed basis for debate. We propose the usage of "mechanical living organisms" and "genetically artificial" cell as proper terms for the discussion. As a new field of science synthetic biology has the opportunity to  model the public awareness. Synthetic biology has the potential to change the life of people and to solve important problems. It is crucial to include the public to achieve these prime goals.

Changes always begin with a small step. We asked ourselves how to make a difference in the public perception of our project. Even though we are confident about the safety of our projects, people hearing about viral vectors create horror scenarios in their minds. Often when explaining the safety of our project to the public we did not realize using certain terms that might be obvious for us but swamped the public. Therefore we created a spreadsheet explaining safety aspects of our project and viral vectors in general to inform the public. We wanted to make it understandable for not only scientists but for everybody.

As a conclusion we want to once more accent our goals we want to achieve by creating LINK-IT. In our opinion it is very important to link policy and practice with safety. It is or strong believe that after careful investigation these two belong together and safety should always be a part of policy and practice. This is the only way to create a public acceptance of synthetic biology and it is also a great opportunity to bring synthetic biology to the center of society. You cannot change the world if you are not aiming to achieve understanding.

In Germany and many other parts of the western world there is a huge negative public opinion about genetic engineering. Especially reports in mass media often stoke further prejudices. Sadly, these reports are mostly unqualified and unscientific. Due to the reports and a general lack of education about molecular biology, many people indeed reject genetic engineering, but have no idea, what genetic engineering is about. This leads to an ambivalent public opinion. On the one hand, biofuel production (“green” energy) via (usually genetically modified) algae or bacteria is widely supported, on the other hand especially synthetic engineered plants are hardly condemned.

According to that ambivalence in media and educational system, many people do not know that genetic engineering and synthetic biology are indeed part of our everyday life and have many different promising approaches to help our society or even safe life. As iGEMers it is our duty to change something about this deficiency. Our contribution was the Saturday Balloon Fever.

“Have you ever heard about synthetic biology?” – “Did you know that…?” were the two main questions we asked to passengers at this special event, which took place at august the 16th. We wanted to know, what people know about synthetic biology and also show examples for products of synthetic biology in everyday life. Therefore, we distributed cards with facts about synthetic biology in everyday life (for further information we added the URL of our homepage). Furthermore, passengers could get a free balloon attached to one of the cards in exchange for a small conversation with one of our members about synthetic biology. Since balloons obviously attract young and old, we had the chance to speak to people of all ages.

The conversations were very interesting and varying, but most passengers had several opinions in common:

• Almost no one knew synthetic biology
• Many passengers were positively surprised about the facts we told them
• After the mention of genetic engineering almost every passenger rated synthetic biology as dangerous
• Most people concerned about: uncontrollable super-viruses, bacteria, etc. accidently evolved in research and low biosafety standards in labs and factories that may set them free
• These concerns were usually not funded

Based on these impressions we decided to gain statistically valid data about the public opinion regarding synthetic biology. Hence, we started an online survey about synthetic biology (LINK).

Furthermore, we decided to focus on biosafety issues, since a lot of people seem to concern biosafety (LINK).

Synthetic biology is still a young science field, which combines areas of engineering, chemistry, biotechnology, computer science and molecular biology.

The synthetic biology can be defined by their objectives. This definition encompasses four points. One goal is to gain new scientific knowledge about the processes within cells by trying to build cells from the bottom up or the top down. Another goal is to open up new fields of possible applications for synthetic modified organisms for example in medicine. A key issue involves the creation of novel, non-naturally occurring organisms and structures, as well as modularization and standardization of repeatedly compassable components: Biobricks.(TESSY).

Before discussing the definitions of „artificial cell“ and „living machine“ it is crucial to define to what extend can ever be spoken about a creation of life in synthetic biology.

The currently pursued research approaches in the synthetic biology do not aspire the creation of life "de novo". “De novo” can be explained from the Latin term “newly create, invent”(Pons). In connection with synthetic biology this implies the creation of new organisms without any foundation in already existing organisms. Up to this day researchers are working with organisms found in nature.

However, in the future scientist attempt to design and manufacture new biological systems, with no origin in nature. (Boldt et al. 2009). Creating new life is consequently one main goal of synthetic biology.

There are three different approaches aiming at the goal: the DNA-based device construction, genome-driven cell engineering and protocell creation (O´Malley et al. 2008).

The DNA-based device construction approach engages with the method of modularization, standardization and abstraction of biological constructs (Arkin 2008). Building a collection of biobricks and inserting them in organisms gives these new functions. Creating new, not in nature occurring species (European Commission 2003).

Model for this is the technical field. Genetic sequences are intended to function like a construction kit, working in every desired organism. For the following discussion, the sematic analogy between the genetic constructs and man made machines is further investigated. Apparent are the used terms „bioengineering product“ or „living machines“ (Deplazes ans Huppenbauer 2009; Tucker/Zilinskas 2006).

The genome-driven cell engineering approach aims to create a so-called „minimal cell“. Parts of the cell should be reduced to a minimal extend, leaving only necessary properties for survival. Minimizing the genome after the top-down-approach pursues the creation of an organisms as a „cassis“. A variable frame where every biobrick can be introduced into the genome. (Gibson et al. 2008)

The protocell creation approach seeks to build a new organisms „de novo“ after the „bottom-up-approach”(Luisi et al. 2006). Unlike the two other approaches the protocell-creation is not guided by an archetype  (Boldt 2008).

These three approaches raise different ethical questions.

The ethical implications using the appellation of „living machines“ and „artificial cells“ will be elucidated. Focusing on the implicated hybrid-character of such designation, with regards of the relation between machines and living organisms and the deceptive idea of an “artificial cell”. Also  the acquaintance arising from the determination between “artificial cell/living machine” is illuminated.

Machine originates from the Latin term „machina“ and means „tool, artificial equipment“ and is defined as „a piece of equipment with moving parts that is designed to do a particular job.[..]“ (Pons; Oxford dictionary 1884).

It follows that machines are designed for a particular purpose, according to the plans of humans and adopt a predetermined, defined and by itself immutable function. Machines are per definition not in the position to plan and conduct their behavior autonomically. They cannot change actions by themselves and can only operate in a certain way with the environment. Crucial characteristic for a machine is the autonomy but not the material, organic or inorganic (Deplazes 2011).

In contrast to the heteronomous machine stands life itself. The discussion about the concept of life in synthetic biology is a complex and wide-ranging field, where the difficulties of a definition lie just in the diversity of life. It is noteworthy that the researchers themselves are trying to find a suitable explanation, as it is an objective of synthetic biology to create new life (Deplazes / Huppenbauer 2009). Here is a brief description how researchers are trying to define life or alive.

After a minimal definition each organism is alive, which has an independent genome, has a cellular membrane structure and a sustainable and autonomous replication system (Endy 2005; Toepfer 2005).

The autopoiesis theory acts on a philosophical assumption when developing a concept of life. Living organisms differ from non-living organisms by" [the fact that they are] the product of their organization […]. There is no separation between producer and product. Being and doing [of an] autopoietic unity is inseparable, and this constitutes their specific type of organization "(Maturana, Varela 1987). Consequently, the products of synthetic biology would not been self-caused, but organized externally by humans. Consequently, following this train of thought, scientists will never succeed in producing an autopoietic system synthetically. The human as manufacturer of the genome states himself as the creator of the organism. The postulated unit of producer and product can never be succeeded. The organism remains heteronomous by the determination of the genome by man.

This logical problem with the autopoiesis-theory in synthetic biology leads to restricted and modified applicability of the theory .

Thus, the following discussion will concentrate on the definition of life first illustrated and includes the autopoiesis theory in restricted form, as this will gain importance in synthetic biology for future developments.

After consideration of the machine concept and definitions of life it is evident that the organisms named "living machine" are by no means machines but living organisms. Today synthetically engineered organisms satisfy the minimum requirements of reproduction, metabolism and evolution. The term "machine" emphasizes the intended machine-like function. The organisms are alive but perform a machine-related purpose.

The claim of the synthetic biology is to create living organisms, which act simultaneously as a machine. The synthetic biology changes the definitions of living organisms and aims to abolish the separation between life and machine. It follows that the discussion with this term is not regarding the definition, but rather an ontological problem.

The term suggests a utilization of life with the pure focus on the control and goals of the humans.

On the one hand the term "living machine" generates an ethical problem, for the reason that it reduces living organisms to their purpose and implies a total control of created existence. Man breeds and keeps animals for the purpose of procuring food, which includes utilization and control of these creatures. There is an analogy to the organisms of the synthetic biology, however in synthetic biology humans appear as self-creators. Synthetic biology aims the creation of new organisms, in which the structures and properties are artificially defined by man whereas breeding and keeping animals is still subordinated through evolution.

On the other hand, "living machine" belies the fact that, due to a lack of understanding any intervention in the genome can indeed provide the desired functionality, but might also have not foreseeable effects. A feature of living cells is the interaction with the environment. It is difficult to assess the impact such interaction for the environment is as expected.

Furthermore, it has to be noted that currently it is possible to manipulate and utilize unicellular organisms, however in the future it is also conceivable to engineer higher organisms. The designation of "living machines" then abates these creatures to their pure function.

The concept of "living" and "non-living" organisms create a hybrid of both and does not answer which properties apply to these exactly. This might implicate associations about properties and facts which do not match the actual conditions in these organism. Furthermore the linguistic imprecision could have an effect on future ethical debates since it can open up possibilities for interpretation.

This has, under the assumption of a future "minimal cell" the result of changing perspective on life itself. The clear distinction between animate and inanimate is repealed, life as a laboratory adjustable process is demystified.

An often used term in synthetic biology besides "living machines" is "artificial cell" or "synthetic cell". Both terms mean artificial, constructed, pseudo and pose as the opposite of "natural" (Oxford dictionary).

It should be noted what is exactly characterize as an "artificial" cell, as the term has no clear semantic boundaries. The laboratory-designed organisms are made as well as natural cells of organic material and have cellular structures. “Natural" cell carry the DNA or RNA necessary for reproduction, evolution, and metabolism information as well as the “artificial cell”.

The artificiality of the cells lies precisely in the laboratory completed synthetic production method, which is why they can be labeled as "genetic artificiality" (Birnbacher 2006).

The ambiguous and imprecise formulation can lead, as much as the phrase "living machine" to ethical problems. It is indicated that the synthetic modified organisms differentiate from "natural" organisms and are in contrast "unnatural". Splitting organisms in these two groups leads to an apparent dissection of the concept of life, even though both are "natural."

Again, as with the distinction between "living" and "non-living" this leads the division between "natural" and "artificial" to an altered prospect on life and a problematic classification and grading of the unit life (Boldt / Müller 2009 ).

Thinking ahead, the possibilities of creating new organisms through manipulation, reduction and modularization leads to man as a kind of "Creator". This opens up new ethical, social and philosophical areas of conflict. In this article the problem arising from the use of terms like "living machines" and "synthetic / artifical cell" were highlighted.

Particularly problematic is in our eyes, that there are several types of interpretation.

A science which has the possibility to improve the lives of people with new, low-cost and effective methods of environmental protection, the treatment of diseases and many other areas, should provide an unambiguous basis for an informed discussion. The fact that terms imply false and failing to reach full potential scenarios, prevents a qualified debate on opportunities and risks in this field. An example of this can be seen in the genetechnology debate, in which, through ignorance of the topic often irrational fears are raised which prevents a professional informed debate on this matter.

It is crucial to apply a definition, which is without ambiguity and reflects real possibilities and boundaries of this field. A proposal for a solution could be "mechanical living organism", through which the problem of the misleading hybrid character of terms is dissolving.