Difference between revisions of "Team:Toulouse/Practices"

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are at the heart of the current debate focusing on their use. Synthetic biology, an emerging science that only now reaches the public, is a field that sets off strong reactions. Used to questions, comments such as “researchers play God by modifying living beings”, and the prevailing societal distrust, we naturally developed a reflexion about the limits to give to our project.

Formerly, the field of biology matched its greek definition: bios meaning life and logos, study, biology was indeed the study of life and living beings. This has changed in the recent years since biology today does not describe life, but rather rebuilds it.

This evolution induced a certain fear in societies marked by an historical creationism springing from monotheistic religions. In these societies, living beings are held to be untouchable, it is thus necessary to comprehensively explain what synthetic biology is, what our project is, as well as what experiments we are conducting in the lab in order to give people who have no background in this field the key elements to start a discussion. Indeed, since most people have a vague or no idea of what synthetic biology covers, they tend to be negatively prejudiced towards the unknown. As scientists, we have to take these fears into consideration and address them as best we can.

But this must be accompanied by a questioning of Science itself. Indeed, Science cannot assume that the regulation of its researches is the lot of scientists only, rather it is its duty to communicate the results of the researches and to have transparency on the experiments conducted. Scientists should be able to acknowledge that they don’t know something rather than lying to the public. Indeed it is often easier to trust someone when the doubts are clearly stated than when everything is allegedly under control but it cannot be verified.

Before we can have any kind of ethical reflexion concerning our project, we asked ourselves how to best define our “work material”, meaning living beings. Indeed, to be able to estimate the possible consequences of our actions, we first have to characterize what we are modifying.

As was said previously, living beings are sacred in our society because they still hold some part of mystery. Christianity having been predominant historically in Western Europe, it still has an influence on people’s minds and a notion that could be assimilated to sin still clings to the modification of organisms.

We can then ask ourselves the following questions: is it possible to have control over organisms, and if yes, to which extent? It actually seems that we do not have the power to control them entirely, we can only act on a few metabolic pathways, a few functions, at the same time.

When discussing the different concepts and approaches of synthetics biology, we have to take into account that ethical reflexions depend on the core values of a society and thus differ from one to the other.

First of all, since we are participating in iGEM, we reflected on its acronym: international Genetically Engineered Machine. Using the word “machine” appears to us as a mechanistic reductionism. A machine is the assembly of known and controllable components, and this term seems to indicate that we assimilate a living being to a completely characterized system responding to physical and chemical laws. But a machine such as a plane can be built from start to finish whereas a living being like a bacterium cannot. Thus it appears that to use the word machine is somewhat misleading, because biology is much more complicated than that.

For the competition, we have to build genetic constructs called Biobricks. The name Biobrick calls to mind the Lego game and this parallel further asks the question of synthetic biology being conceived as an assembly game.

Hence we asked ourselves the extent to which we could consider our experiments commonplace or ordinary.

Our reflexion on these ethical issues led us to realize that the reluctance towards the modification of living organisms could be linked to an anthropocentric vision of the world. Indeed, as long as human actions do not have an impact on man himself, they do not cause much reaction.

However, it has been shown that bacteria are extremely numerous in nature and that they are even a part of human beings (digestive system…). The relationship between humans and environmental bacteria is close, and even more so with the bacteria in our body. Indeed a symbiosis between man and specific bacteria is essential to its survival, and we can wonder what the impact of the modification of bacteria interacting (closely or not) with human beings will be.

Anthropocentrism, which places human beings above everything and particularly above nature, is the utilitarian vision. Naturalists on the contrary believe that nature takes precedence over humans and must be protected from their utilization. For them, humans are not above nature, they are at a level with non-human elements.

Ethics is in close relationship with law, especially when it comes to modifying living organisms.

If we focus on the human being, according to the law, his body does not belong to him, he only has a right of use. This means that he cannot sell, rent or modify his body.

On a closer scale, mammals, and for instance domestic animals like cats, are less obvious but still recognized legal entities. They are granted sensibility, have a status of slave, their master is held responsible for their actions, and the law protects them to a certain extent.

Finally, some organisms are qualified as “res nullus”. This includes for instance bees, bacteria and all other micro-organisms. Nevertheless the loss of a bacterial colony does not affect us emotionally in the same way the loss of a swarm does. Invisible organisms hold less emotional importance in our eyes.

The link we keep with nature is complex and ambivalent. On the one hand, we consider nature as fragile and in need of protection whereas on the other hand we see it as strong enough to provide all the resources we need to survive.

In the previous decades or centuries, our vision of nature was more pragmatic and focused on the fulfilling of our needs. Today we tend to “mummify” it in order to preserve it. This change in attitude brought along a defiance towards everything that aims at modifying nature.

Numerous products synthesized through the modification of microorganisms (reprogrammed bacteria…) are currently of great significance. For example they can be used to synthesize drugs, or produce biofuels…

Modifications can appear on organisms without the intervention of human beings. Microorganisms actually possess diverse means enabling them to evolve in order to adapt to new environments. Among these, we can name horizontal transfer, a phenomenon that happens between bacteria from different lines, from the same species or not. This way, the bacteria that receive the genes develop new characteristics such as resistance to an antibiotic.

These mutations appearing without the intervention of man are accepted by society because they are considered as natural. Synthetic biology reproduces this mechanism while reducing the time normally required for it to appear.

Another ethical issue that was raised by the concept of modifying living organisms was that of intellectual property. If patenting an organism were possible, it would lead us back to the perception of life as a machine, or a chemical factory, with no sense of wonder or admiration. GMOs are new creations in that a genetic modification gives a new strain, but this strain has been obtained from organisms coming from nature. Thus it does not seem moral to reduce life to a trading object.

However, patents on living beings do not patent the organism in itself, rather a specific technique or modification. Therefore the patent does not grant a property right on the biological material.

Does having the power to act on DNA and thus to modify the characteristics of a microorganism change our relationship to nature? Working with living organisms induces all kinds of emotions, be it wonder, curiosity or even fear. Contrary to what one could think, feeling fear as a scientist is essential and should not be overlooked since this is what makes us be more cautious and take a step back to study the implications of our work.

Furthermore bees are the first pollinating species in terms of fruits and vegetables produced thanks to them thus the advantages of protecting them are obvious for global trade.

Being aware of the worrying decrease in bee population and having developed an ethical reflexion since the beginning of this project, we endeavoured to learn more about the causes of this decrease.

It is due primarily to the overuse of pesticides that have proven to act as neurotoxins to bees. However we decided not to act against this threat. Indeed using synthetic biology to solve a problem attributed to a human behaviour did not seem relevant to us. Measures to educate populations to a rational and responsible use of those pesticides would be more appropriate.

Another of the major causes of death for the bees is the parasitic mite Varroa Destructor. The infestation of European bee colonies by this parasite was caused by their contact (wanted or not) with infested asian bees through globalization. Though it is true that the problem first originated with men, today we cannot solve it by changing our behaviour. In this case, synthetic biology could prove to be the solution.

Furthermore we tried to design a system that would be as respectful of the bee’s life cycle and products as possible, hence the circadian regulation and natural molecules.

Finally, we do not aim at completely eradicating the parasite from the environment. In fact, Asian honeybees are capable of identifying the varroa’s presence on themselves and of getting rid of it. Some colonies in Europe seem to start developing behaviours of the same kind. Thus we only wish to slow down the infestation by varroa with our system, to grant honeybees enough time to adapt to the menace and reach a balance with Varroa.

Bacteria have a high growth rate and can spread and mutate quickly. This aspect is all the more frightening as bacteria are microscopic and thus the risk is invisible. When the invisible can have an impact on the visible, fear might arise.

On the other hand it is also crucial to make sure that our molecules do not have a negative impact on the bees.

Early on in the project, we thought about how best to address the biocontainment issue regarding our bacterial system. Thus we have decided to put our bacteria in a small plastic bag. This specific plastic called TPX® is microporous and the size of the pores will not allow the bacteria to pass through. We also chose to place this bag in a solid device, adding yet another barrier between the bacteria and the environment.

The iGEM competition is not all about wet lab and finding sponsors. For our project to really be alive, public contact is paramount. When we first started to reach out to the public we realised that the issue of the decline in bee population was a well-known issue. Still in spite of this, most of the people interviewed weren't aware of the role played by Varroa destructor. This is why we focused a big part of our energy on communicating with the public, in order to raise awareness about a worrying situation.

At the very beginning of the project, we were not at all specialists of the bees. That’s why we met with a beekeeper (who was also a microbiologist) to discuss our project and the material restrictions we should submit to.

Our project was followed by the regional newspapers (20 minutes, Métronews, La Dépêche), but also by some national magazines such as Capital or Industrie et Technologies.
This increased our visibility, and thanks to an article we were contacted by the Director of the “Laboratoire Français d’Apidologie” (French Laboratory of Apidology). He offered us his collaboration, and made available his infrastructures, and his teams.
Furthermore, several beekeepers from the forum “La Ruche Warré” heard about the project thanks to the same article. In order to discuss our project with people having a first hand experience of the problem, we joined this forum. We had a very interesting exchange with the beekeepers about our project and synthetic biology in general, explaining about its principle, its interest and the practicability of our solution with the beekeepers.

Our team took part in the regional ExpoSciences in Toulouse. This event brings together scientists of all ages and levels who want to share their knowledge. It’s a good exercise in communication and it enabled us to make synthetic biology better known. Given that DNA is our main work tool, we decided to engage the children by letting them extract DNA from bananas, with ethanol and dishwashing soap.

To carry on with our education mission, we agreed with one of the science teachers from the Leonard de Vinci junior high school of Tournefeuille to meet with the students. The plan? Bees, Varroas, an introduction to synthetic biology and, of course, banana DNA extraction!

The main aim of this intervention was to teach children about varroa and synthetic biology while trying to spark an interest inscience in general. But to us it was a time that taught us how to adapt our speech to a young audience. Indeed we had to stop taking for granted notions such as genes and even DNA. The experience we acquired there was put to good use later and made us able to switch from a full science explanation to a simpler overview of our project without getting boring or simplistic.

Our team had the wonderful opportunity to take part in the International ExpoSciences in Brussels. During this science fair we had the chance to meet people from all around the world and exchange knowledge and ideas. This happened at the end of July and our project had matured a lot thus the ExpoSciences was the occasion for us to test its welcome in the real world by exchanging with scientists.
We also spent a good deal of our time explaining the iGEM competition to visitors and participants alike, bringing the synthetic biology field, still quite unknown, into light.
This communication experience was fully integrated to the Apicoli project, enhancing its exposure and credibility towards the public. This experience also enabled us to meet his Excellency M. Bernard Valero, the ambassador of France in Belgium, and M. Jean-Claude Guiraudon, CIRASTI President and MILSET Honorary President. Both of them wished us luck in our endeavours.
Finally we took the opportunity of being in Belgium to organize a quick meetup with the KU Leuven iGEM team.

During the summer vacations and particularly August, we had trouble organizing any education event. But iGEM does not stop on the 28th of september, and we have everything planned to keep our education project alive after the competition: