FAQs

• General FAQs
• In-depth FAQs

1. Why is it needed to understand the public perception and level of awareness of a society towards Synthetic Biology and related topics?

It’s important to know the level of approval and understanding about SynBio and related topics because this information can be used as a tool in programs such as regulatory policy development and its advertisement. Knowing how informed or not is a population will dictate the severity of the regulatory process and how it is advertised. This can also help governments to know which kind of educational programs are going to be more effective in order to help people develop a better criteria about SynBio based upon reliable information and avoiding the distortion of public perception caused by popular media.

Rationale and Assumptions

Since Synthetic Biology (SynBio) is not as old as other related sciences, many people around the world are just getting an idea about what SynBio is. According to the context and environment of the people, the public perception that they get will be positive or negative.

If people are more aware about the benefits and possible hazards regarding SynBio, risk assessments will be required to be less strict because it will be more focused on controlling the hazards that have a more logical causal connection.

Methodology

To have a better idea of how we did the public perception statistical analisis please follow the next link:
https://2014.igem.org/Team:Zamorano/PerceptionMethodology

2. Is our copper biosensor a risk to society? Can there be an alternative method to perform a risk assessment on these Living Modified Organisms than the one proposed by the Cartagena Protocol?

Our modified bacterium was developed upon a non-pathogenic E. coli. In consequence, it is not a risk to society. None the less, we conducted a responsible risk assessment in order to determine the risks that our bacterium may represent to society. Two approaches were compared to perform the environmental risk assessment (ERA): the ERA guide proposed by the Cartagena Protocol and the Latin America ERA guide proposed by 14 expert scientists. The current risk assessment method suggested by the Cartagena Protocol is quite extensive. It tries to take into considerations all possible hazards. But in its quest to do so, it includes hazards that are possible but not realistic; and the process becomes over strict and tedious.

Rationale and assumptions

Experiments in new fields of study like synthetic biology raise a lot of questions regarding biosafety. Therefore, coherent and effective ways to evaluate the risk an organisms represents are necessary. Currently, the one environmental risk assessment proposed by the Cartagena Protocol is too unnecessarily strict.

Honduras, being the only country with approved GMOs for commercial release, has a well-developed and mature legislation in comparison to other countries of Central and South America. Simplifying the process of evaluating the risk of an organism and submitting it to a government entity, as the Honduras legislation has done, improve the investigation process. If the process becomes easier and more dynamic, a wider audience of people will be able to perform these kinds of assessments.

Methodology

We chose to adapt the assessment upon the Latin America ERA guide due to it been more simple and dynamic than the one of the Cartagena Protocol. It is so simple that inexperienced youngsters are able to make coherent, government-approved risk assessments.

Bibliography

For the public perception analysis bibliography that we consulted please follow the next link:

https://2014.igem.org/Team:Zamorano/PerceptionBibliography

For The Risk Assessment section of our project bibliography follow the next link:

https://2014.igem.org/Team:Zamorano/Bibliography