Revision as of 13:04, 15 September 2015

Community Outreach Debate

Exploratory research

Introduction

The debate was held on June 24, 2015. The HKUST-Rice iGEM team collaborated with the Rice University Institute of Biosciences and Bioengineering (IBB) Girls’ BioScience STEM initiative program. Participants were presented with the following question for the debate: “Is it ethical to treat micro-organisms as a machine for the betterment of agriculture?” After receiving various reading materials for the topic, the participants discussed a few key points to solidify their arguments. Exploring the results of this investigation shows that our aim was, in fact, achieved.

Participants

Twelve members of the Rice Institute of Biosciences and Bioengineering (IBB) Girls STEM Initiative were invited to participate in our bioethics debate. These rising high school seniors—all females—from economically disadvantaged backgrounds take part in several mentored science and math activities throughout the year. This outreach program cultivates interest in STEM fields through exposure to the latest advances in biomedical research. Furthermore, the program promotes college readiness and encourages meaningful student-mentor interactions. More information about this organization can be found HERE.

Preparation

To prepare for this activity, students were asked to read the following two articles outlining some applications of synthetic biology, especially with respect to agriculture.

Beyond GMOs: The Rise of Synthetic Biology
Synthetic Biologists and Conservationists Open Talks

Objectives

1. To critically examine the ethical and moral landscapes of synthetic biology.
2. To reflect on the benefit and harm conferred by human activities.
3. To assess various attitudes towards the controversies surrounding synbio applications to improve people’s lives.

Debate Topic

“Is it ethical to treat micro-organisms as a machine for the betterment of agriculture?”

Video

Preparation and Affirmative Opening Statement:

Each group took two minutes to present opening statements in support of its assigned stance. The affirmative side pushed for synthetic biology research to harness advancements in technology to create more crops and resources, while reducing pollution.

Negative Opening Statements:

On the contrary, the side against using synthetic biology research for agricultural uses argued that using this type of research would disrupt the natural balance of our ecosystems, which could possibly result in mutant species and other irreversible effects.

Counter Arguments:

The students elaborated on their initial statements for an additional two minutes per argument. Rebuttal and counterargument periods were one minute each.

Free Arguments and Wrap-up

Discussion:

By the end of the debate, most students were still uncertain about whether the use of microorganisms to promote human agricultural practices was definitively right or wrong. The overarching complexities underlying this ethical issue were summarized in a brief wrap-up discussion.

Significance

The participants of the debate presented well-reasoned arguments for and against synthetic biology on moral grounds. The debate analyzed the ethics of using this type of research; findings included dynamic rational opinions against using synthetic biology, even if it improved lives. However, the proponents of synthetic biology pushed in their forward reasoning that we must learn more by doing research, while concurrently appeasing the opponents ethically by putting regulations in place.

In addition, exposing economically disadvantaged high school girls to complex, upcoming ideas and knowledge such as controversial synthetic biology research can spark curiosity and interest, essential to support our next generation of college undergraduates, researchers, and ultimately, foster encouragement for STEM and synthetic biology.

Participant Feedback

The girls filled out a survey at the end of the activity, and this is what they had to say:

“This was a very interesting topic to introduce to us. Thank you for doing this activity! This is what continues to encourage my pursuit in science and reminds me of all its interesting possibilities.”

“This was a very interesting debate; this topic was new to me and gave me a better understanding of what synthetic biology is.”

“The debate was great and it allowed me to consider both sides of experiments and scientific changes in the environment. It opened my mind on how scientists should consider the bigger picture rather than just the goal in mind.”

“I love this activity. Even though I was scared at first, this activity helped me understand certain ethical issues that arise. Everything is constantly changing, and we have to decide when is the right time to stop or continue changing.”

“I had fun! I learned to fight for a side I didn’t support and see from an ‘outsiders view.’ I would like to [learn] more about syn bio and what specifically it is researching.”

“This activity was very educational and thought-provoking.”

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 	<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://2015.igem.org/Template:HKUST-Rice/CSS?action=raw&ctype=text/css" type="text/css" />
 <style type= "text/css">
+    img#HKUSTlogo{
+  opacity: 0.3;
+}
                         div#MYicon1{

Difference between revisions of "Team:HKUST-Rice/Practices Debate"