Team:SF Bay Area DIYbio/ELSEI
From 2014.igem.org
MariaChavez (Talk | contribs) |
MariaChavez (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
<p><b>What's in a Name?</b><br><br> | <p><b>What's in a Name?</b><br><br> | ||
- | During the Human Genome Projects, issues "beyond the bench" went under the category of ELSI: “Ethical, Legal, Societal Implications. However, this name was critiqued by social scientists who pointed out that <i>implications</i> implies a “downstream” model of social engagement; it suggests that we do the science first, then think about the implications later. This model neglects the fact that social values are present in the practice of science from the start, whether we choose to acknowledge them or not: for example, in the kinds of questions we choose to pursue and how we go about our research. The name that was later used in synthetic biology and iGEM, “Human practices,” suggested a move to integrate thinking about issues “beyond the bench” with laboratory practices, being more reflexive about these issues from the start and allowing them to shape the way we work. However, “Human practices” sounds anthropocentric – it doesn’t reflect our concern for nonhumans (animals, the environment)! We aim to work from a framework of co-production: the idea that science and other sectors of society mutually constitute each other (Jasanoff 2004). Our work and our organization as a collaboration between community labs is already motivated by concerns "beyond the bench," so even "Policy and Practices" felt too restrictive for the broad scope of issues we discussed. Finally, we decided to call this section “Ethical, Legal, Societal, and Environmental Issues,” with the understanding that these issues are woven into the fabric of our work. | + | During the Human Genome Projects, issues "beyond the bench" went under the category of ELSI: “Ethical, Legal, Societal Implications. However, this name was critiqued by social scientists who pointed out that <i>implications</i> implies a “downstream” model of social engagement; it suggests that we do the science first, then think about the implications later. This model neglects the fact that social values are present in the practice of science from the start, whether we choose to acknowledge them or not: for example, in the kinds of questions we choose to pursue and how we go about our research. The name that was later used in synthetic biology and iGEM, “Human practices,” suggested a move to integrate thinking about issues “beyond the bench” with laboratory practices, being more reflexive about these issues from the start and allowing them to shape the way we work. However, “Human practices” sounds anthropocentric – it doesn’t reflect our concern for nonhumans (animals, the environment)! We aim to work from a framework of co-production: the idea that science and other sectors of society mutually constitute each other (Jasanoff 2004). Our work and our organization as a collaboration between community labs is already motivated by concerns "beyond the bench," so even "Policy and Practices" felt too restrictive for the broad scope of issues we discussed. Finally, we decided to call this section “Ethical, Legal, Societal, and Environmental Issues,” with the understanding that these issues are woven into the fabric of our work.<br><br> |
- | + | <b>Ethical and Environmental Motivations</b><br><br> | |
Factory farming often entails treating animals less well than most of us would like, and it is likely that providing better alternatives will decrease demand for traditional products and thus decrease the number of poorly treated animals. We acknowledge that the cost of yeast-based production of cheese protein makes it unlikely that it will pose a threat to traditional methods in the near future. At first, it is more likely that this method will provide an alternative for those with dietary restrictions, whether ethical, religious, or health-related. But over time and with continued work, we believe it has the potential to be a more ethical and sustainable alternative to our current system of production. <br><br> | Factory farming often entails treating animals less well than most of us would like, and it is likely that providing better alternatives will decrease demand for traditional products and thus decrease the number of poorly treated animals. We acknowledge that the cost of yeast-based production of cheese protein makes it unlikely that it will pose a threat to traditional methods in the near future. At first, it is more likely that this method will provide an alternative for those with dietary restrictions, whether ethical, religious, or health-related. But over time and with continued work, we believe it has the potential to be a more ethical and sustainable alternative to our current system of production. <br><br> | ||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
The conclusion of the 400-page UN report "Livestock’s Long Shadow" has this to say:<br><br><i> | The conclusion of the 400-page UN report "Livestock’s Long Shadow" has this to say:<br><br><i> | ||
…the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity…</i><br><br> | …the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity…</i><br><br> | ||
- | While our team is still working on a comparison of the expected impact on climate change per gram of cheese produced using traditional methods versus yeast-based production, it will likely be relatively simple to contain the carbon dioxide released from large bioreactors, while doing the same for the methane produced by grazing cattle poses a unique and difficult challenge. At first glance, the required food source for yeast is potentially less favorable than that preferred by cows, since yeast’s preferred diet of sugars makes it compete with humans for arable land capable of supporting sugar-producing plants, whereas ungulates are able to digest foods that grow on land less suited for traditional crops. In reality, both bioreactors and livestock are often fed with various industrial byproducts not fit for human consumption, which complicates the comparison and makes it difficult to ascertain how bioreactors compare to cows in their effect on biodiversity and on the global food supply. A more thorough analysis is part of our effort, and we welcome anyone who wishes to collaborate or critique. | + | While our team is still working on a comparison of the expected impact on climate change per gram of cheese produced using traditional methods versus yeast-based production, it will likely be relatively simple to contain the carbon dioxide released from large bioreactors, while doing the same for the methane produced by grazing cattle poses a unique and difficult challenge. At first glance, the required food source for yeast is potentially less favorable than that preferred by cows, since yeast’s preferred diet of sugars makes it compete with humans for arable land capable of supporting sugar-producing plants, whereas ungulates are able to digest foods that grow on land less suited for traditional crops. In reality, both bioreactors and livestock are often fed with various industrial byproducts not fit for human consumption, which complicates the comparison and makes it difficult to ascertain how bioreactors compare to cows in their effect on biodiversity and on the global food supply. A more thorough analysis is part of our effort, and we welcome anyone who wishes to collaborate or critique.<br><br> |
<p><b>Concerns about GMOs</b><br><br> | <p><b>Concerns about GMOs</b><br><br> | ||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
<b>Community</b><br><br> | <b>Community</b><br><br> | ||
- | Reach out to the local community, carefully listen to any concerns and questions and respond honestly. We have made an effort to respond thoughtfully to those who reached out to us with sincere concerns on social media. In addition, we have reached out to Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that is also located in the Bay Area and has been critical of synthetic biology. We hope to start a dialogue that builds on our common concern for the environment, and we hope that they can provide constructive criticism that helps us stay true to our vision of producing a more ethical and sustainable cheese. | + | Reach out to the local community, carefully listen to any concerns and questions and respond honestly. We have made an effort to respond thoughtfully to those who reached out to us with sincere concerns on social media. In addition, we have reached out to Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that is also located in the Bay Area and has been critical of synthetic biology. We hope to start a dialogue that builds on our common concern for the environment, and we hope that they can provide constructive criticism that helps us stay true to our vision of producing a more ethical and sustainable cheese. Finally, this project is helping to build the DIYbio community in the Bay Area, attracting people and resources to our community labs so that they can continue their mission of providing the education and tools to make science more accessible. <br><br> |
- | + | ||
<b>Citations</b><br><i><br><ol> | <b>Citations</b><br><i><br><ol> |
Revision as of 02:47, 18 October 2014
| |||||||||||||
Ethical, Legal, Societal, and Environmental IssuesWhat's in a Name? Concerns about GMOs
STATEMENT OF ETHICS |