Team:Warwick/Human/Survey
From 2014.igem.org
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/ff/RepliconLogoON.png)
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/f6/Warwick_logo.png)
Survey Analysis
Another way in which we sought to gain awareness about synthetic biology, and specifically our project, was through our survey. We designed a survey using an online third party survey generating tool, and then distributed this link through several sources. These included: social media, email, word of mouth and through other iGEM teams. As a result we managed to obtain 323 responses whilst the survey was active, and we gained quite a balanced set of responses, including: members of the public with little knowledge, leading professors and other students with varying levels of knowledge with respect to synthetic biology.
Before the questions began, we included a prelude to the survey which incorporated details regarding iGEM and synthetic biology as a whole. After speaking to individuals who took the survey they felt that this was a good way to begin and it provided them with some useful background information to allow them to make more informed decisions for the questions to follow. However, we also noticed from some of the responses that these details had clearly not been read by some individuals so in the future it may be better in terms of clarity to make this page stand out more, perhaps through strategic titling or clever background usage.
Qu. 1) If someone modifies an organism or cell such that it now has a new function, do you believe that the person has right to claim ownership of this modified organism?
We started the survey by asking the above question. As the results indicate the response was fairly even, and as a result the written responses reflected this. We had responses ranging from:
“The cell or organism should not belong to anyone”
“Noone has rights over other life”
“Does the plastic surgeon own the face that he helped create? He only enhanced it; but ultimately that face still belongs to the owner.”
to responses such as:
“Modifying cells/organisms in a particular way is its own unique work that should be as copyrightable as any other invention.However, if the initial organism were to reproduce and make other organisms that now have the same type of modified cell, I do not believe that progeny could be owned.”
“Yes as these new cells are a product of somebody's intellect, study and to an extent money through funded studies, they are therefore the intellectual property of that individual, they can then be marketed. Which in-turn can fund further develops in that area of science through research.”
These are just a few responses exemplifying some of the ideas that arose as a result of the question. We felt that to ask such a question (and the one following) in relation to intellectual property would be a good way to instigate people’s thoughts to explore the idea of what a patent is and whether when it comes to something such as cells and organisms, which are considered as alive, can we still uphold the same laws. This was a very topical question as recently in Australia, the Australian federal court ruled that isolated human genetic material can be patented. [1]
Qu.2) If someone modifies human cells, or maybe even a human, to have a new/modified function, can that person claim ownership of these human cells/human?
This question is largely the same as the previous, however has a subtle variation. This being that the question now addresses the subject of altering human cells or even a human. The change in result is drastic as you can see. From roughly 50/50 we reach 90/10.
From the responses and from the feedback we received, this question made people think more about the first and doubt their decisions. Many people who read this and thought “No” then went back to change their first answer to “No” as well. This kind of thinking was exactly what we wanted to get across with these two questions. How can one say that it’s ok to claim ownership of cells yet when they are human cells the issue completely changes?
This also leads further onto the debate of use of human cells, which we used as part of our project in the form of HeLa and Huh-7.5 cells. The ethics of using such cells, are quite varied and there are strong proponents for their use as well as those who oppose them, and the means through which they were obtained. This debate is rather interesting, but we will not go into it here and leave it to the reader of this page to research, should they wish to do so.
Whereas before the responses were largely even across the spectrum, the reasons against were more or less the same as those stated for the first question, however those for the idea of ownership had rather interesting reasoning:
“Ownership should only extend to the copyright over the modified segments of genetic code. The organism itself, however, is under it's own ownership if it has sentience. And as with copyright laws, no one may duplicate the genetic code with the intent of profiting from it without the consent of the author. This of course would exclude any work done BY the modified organism. Such as a job.”
“Technically yes. Obviously you would pay to have a modification done on you. You're paying for both a service and a product. The "product" used to belong them, so technically they were the previous owners; but once someone buys them, they are the new owners.”
These responses illustrate that there is clearly scope for debate with regards to intellectual property on a biological level, and if there had been more time, we would have liked to pursue these ideas further through forms of a public forum, or a debate, and see what would have arose as a result. However, as a standalone form, we felt that the combination of these two questions, illustrated the issue rather well, and the difference in result from the first to the second was definitely noticeable and illustrates how people perceive cells in relation to the subset that is human cells.
Qu.3) Do you believe Synthetic Biology is a dangerous tool, knowing that potentially dangerous organisms are being dealt with?
We then continued with questions pertaining to synthetic biology as a whole, and began to assess whether people felt that synthetic biology is dangerous as a whole. We included an option entitled “Other” so that people could express opinions about the (potential) dangers of synthetic biology without committing to saying “Yes” or “No” if they were unsure as to which category they preferred.
These responses included:
“It can be dangerous, however if it is regulated correctly then that is okay”
“Yes if handled improperly and without extensive safeguarding”
“It's a draw: it can be dangerous, but not necessarily always. It depends on the organism and the research.”
“Synthetic biology is a double edged sword. It has equally well advantages and disadvantages.As responsible scientists/policy makers, We need to make sure that the technology is not being for imparting the life-threatening dangers.”
“Yes and no, like most things the answer is not black and white. Perhaps strict regulation is required to make sure potentially dangerous organisms are not made, or if they are, are contained appropriately.”
We were hoping for a similar result to the one that we achieved whereby people were able to acknowledge that as is the situation with most fields within science, there is the scope for things to go “wrong” and dangerous things to be dealt/tampered with. However if we ensure stringent checks are in place, as is the case with all of science, then we can ensure that we are able to conduct research in an environment that is not only safe but conducive to good results because worries regarding safety are negated.
We felt that the varied result of this question, was surprising, we were expecting more people to be unsure as to whether the field would be unsafe and thereby answer using “Other”. However this could largely be due to the fact that we had iGEM teams, and other leading researchers in the field answering our survey, and as a result the response may have become slightly more biased towards “No”, as was the case. To counteract this in the future, and some of the email feedback we received, in hindsight, we should have distributed two separate surveys: one for iGEM teams and academics and the other for members of the general public. Then by combining the results we could have explored the varying responses. However, as is the case with most iGEM teams, due to time constraints we were unable to explore this option at the time.
Qu.4) Do you agree with the iGEM competition in providing a platform for students to explore Synthetic Biology?