Difference between revisions of "Team:Edinburgh/Practices/Experts"

Line 15: Line 15:
 
<!-- TEXT -->
 
<!-- TEXT -->
 
             <p> <!-- This is the start of a paragraph -->
 
             <p> <!-- This is the start of a paragraph -->
−
                 Coming away from the sandpit, we knew .  
+
                 Coming away from the sandpit, it was time to put our ideas to the test. First, we needed to find out whether our biosensor would actually be useful, and if it was, how (or even if) it could be put into practice in the real world. Consequently, we got in contact with two experts on UK drug policy, Susan Deacon, former Scottish MSP and member of the RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy, as well as Anna Ross, doctoral researcher at the University of Edinburgh.
 +
 
                 <br> <!-- This is enter -->
 
                 <br> <!-- This is enter -->
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
  
−
Indeed, while iGEM projects that attempt to "save the world" are met with little ethical opposition, it seemed that an iGEM team that tried to tackle a subject as taboo as drug use would meet resistance every step of the way. Nevertheless, we took the idea forward, perhaps driven by the romantic mantra "Edinburgh iGEM 2015: keeping drug addicts alive long enough to recover". Thus, it was time to get out in the real world and see whether this ideal was made of stone or sand.
+
We headed to Susan Deacon’s office in Edinburgh, City Centre to learn more about the current political climate and prevailing attitudes towards drug policy. Thankfully, she reaffirmed our suspicions that our biosensor could in fact be sold on the free market without facing serious legal opposition, as similar testing kits already exist for retail. However, she gave us advice that would significantly change how we envisioned the implementation of our biosensor.
 +
 
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
  
−
We left the sandpit with interesting thoughts regarding the design of, and biology behind, our putative biosensor. In the case of design, we first imagined a device similar to that of a Gameboy with a biosensor as its processor: users would input a sample of their heroin and the device would output a simple text-based estimate of how much a user could inject without expecting to overdose.
+
Deacon suggested that, instead of viewing UK law as an obstacle that needs to be overcome in order for our biosensor to be used by the public, we should consider how the government could help facilitate its use. Politicians often refer to a concept known as ‘harm reduction’ when drafting public health policy, which is the idea that we should seek innovative solutions to limit the negative effects certain acts (for example, drug use) have on society.
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
  
−
As far as the biology, we knew we roughly had two options: we could construct either a cell-based or cell-free biosensor. Having a rough idea of the potential benefits and disadvantages of both, we set off on a mission to research the most viable option.  
+
After Deacon’s input, we began looking at possible harm reduction programs that could potentially incorporate our biosensor. The National Healthcare Service (NHS), which is the social health care service in the UK, funds many initiatives, and so we spoke to Anna Ross to determine potential leads. Check out the video below to hear her thoughts:       
 +
 
</p>
 
</p>
 
 

Revision as of 13:33, 14 August 2015

A Chat with Policy Experts

Coming away from the sandpit, it was time to put our ideas to the test. First, we needed to find out whether our biosensor would actually be useful, and if it was, how (or even if) it could be put into practice in the real world. Consequently, we got in contact with two experts on UK drug policy, Susan Deacon, former Scottish MSP and member of the RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy, as well as Anna Ross, doctoral researcher at the University of Edinburgh.


We headed to Susan Deacon’s office in Edinburgh, City Centre to learn more about the current political climate and prevailing attitudes towards drug policy. Thankfully, she reaffirmed our suspicions that our biosensor could in fact be sold on the free market without facing serious legal opposition, as similar testing kits already exist for retail. However, she gave us advice that would significantly change how we envisioned the implementation of our biosensor.


Deacon suggested that, instead of viewing UK law as an obstacle that needs to be overcome in order for our biosensor to be used by the public, we should consider how the government could help facilitate its use. Politicians often refer to a concept known as ‘harm reduction’ when drafting public health policy, which is the idea that we should seek innovative solutions to limit the negative effects certain acts (for example, drug use) have on society.


After Deacon’s input, we began looking at possible harm reduction programs that could potentially incorporate our biosensor. The National Healthcare Service (NHS), which is the social health care service in the UK, funds many initiatives, and so we spoke to Anna Ross to determine potential leads. Check out the video below to hear her thoughts:

Back