Peanut jairs

We employed this material to see what would be the reaction of people in face the three labels, and if it would affect their decision for what peanut they would choose to eat. To our surprise, many of them didn’t care about the labels, and others try one by each jar to taste the “difference” between then (what doesn’t really exist). Few of them just looked to the jars and didn’t take any.

Educational

When we think about the diverse features presented by a Policy & Practices activity and its effects on society, an aspect to be considered is our team’s influence in education. We’ve organized three different activities with the main goal to reach various educational levels in our city. Each one of these activities will be described in the topics shown below.

The proposal of developing a class about Synthetic Biology in high schools encountered problems and challenges that made it impossible to be accomplished.

Reaching high schools with the theme “Synthetic biology and its applications” was an attempt to talk to the students and highlight the advances in research on the DNA molecule and its relation with the realms of engineering science, showing what kind of novelties this knowledge can bring to our contemporary world. It could be as well an opportunity for the students to acknowledge that the contents learned during high school are important for great iGEM projects to happen; to demonstrate the significance of multidisciplinary knowledge and how it can permeate through different fields. Our project, the development of the repellent by understanding the metabolic pathway of limonene synthase and how it could be engineered, would be mentioned as an example of this multidisciplinarity.

Our objective was to present a 45-minute class which we would approach from the origins of synthetic biology, through the basic skills to work in a science lab, to the development of iGEM and its expansion across the globe. After that, we intended to start a discussion about the themes presented with the students and verify whether the Brazilian educational system is able to prepare high school students to think about synthetic biology and to allow the participation of these students in iGEM. The applications of this subject would be brought into discussion, especially about the public’s acceptance on using such products, equipment and, in our case, the Bug-shoo; how safe the students would believe to be a product made by synthetic biology techniques. Would the projects generated by iGEM teams be fully accepted by society?

These are the discussions to be had with high school students: to present the alternatives offered by universities and to attempt bringing them closer to the high schools. The problems caused by dengue fever in our city in 2015 would also be debated at schools, with the development of a record on the disease’s rate between the students.

However, the school’s approach about the possibility of this activity wasn’t very receptive, offering little time for its execution, with little participation from the students. Hence this fact, since the activity wouldn’t happen as idealized, the team decided to put it aside and invest the time in other promising activities. We’ve sought to promote synthetic biology and the bug-shoo in congresses and workshops, with wide participation of students from diverse educational levels.

This intervention gave us a happy opportunity to unite members of our Team. Seeing the smiling faces of the children and their curiosity for our bacteria costumes really inspired UFSCar-Brasil!

1 – Report positive and negative points of the roundtable

This was the first roundtable I attended. I did not know there would be presentations before the final debate, I thought it was just a debate. So, Luana and I ended up coming later, just in time for Ana’s lecture ... I believe this was the iGEM speaker's name. I am very interested in participating in the competition next year as a high school student, if there is an opportunity for Brazilians. Regarding the debate, not even seeing the presentations, I was able to follow and have a good idea about the concept of synthetic biology, something I had never heard. So in short, I believe that the roundtable was very informative for all. Anyway, one negative aspect was the lack of description of the event, which depended on SBPC. I myself would have come earlier if I knew exactly what it was.

2 – According to your training and based on the content presented in three lectures and debates, which are the points you agree/disagree with?

I do not have much to say because I was late ... However, I could say that I agree with everything you've heard about the ethics involved in the matter, ie the UNICAMP philosophy student speech.

3 – How much did you know about Synthetic Biology before the roundtable?

I knew a little about aspects involved in synthetic biology, such as genetic engineering.

4 – What have you learned about Synthetic Biology after the roundtable?

I understood Synthetic Biology as a set of disciplines that "manipulate living things", but also "create" (then I read about it and the fact that bacteria and artificial viruses have been already created impressed me). But I did not imagine anything done on a macroscopic scale, only microscopic, such as gene manipulation, cases involving a part of the cell metabolism, things like that ... I hope you understand.

5 – How do you see this new area of science, from different points of view: ethical, moral, social, biosecurity etc.

I've always been in favor of the development of science and never had any prejudice. However, I understand society´s concerns about this issue. With the development of science, I believe it is almost impossible to prevent bad things to happen. Bioterrorism is an example. Anyway, I believe that stopping science as a whole, in reality will only stop "good science", because "clandestine laboratories" will continue to exist around the world. Therefore, a very precise legislation is important, which does not hinder scientific development, but also prevent the evils sometimes generated by it. Of course, I'm talking about Brazil. It is important for Brazil to stand up for the science. If Brazilian people do not exploit their wealth, others will do it. Then I have this concern, as well as the speakers, on undoing prejudices about synthetic biology. The EMBRAPA scientist said something very interesting, something like "People used to know synthetic biology as genetic engineering, and everyone was more receptive only because 'engineering' was in the middle of the word." Anyway, a complete answer on this question is quite extensive. I think that cultural and religious barriers, if treated very gently, could be overcome; then, there could be harmony between science and religion.

6 – Further comments, if you want…

At school, hear biology teachers saying something strictly on synthetic biology is rare. I think they need to be more interested in bringing this to the students. It is important that everyone is informed about the latest developments of science. I believe this would help in the acceptance of this new field of study for all. When something is "controversial" in a classroom like mine, there is always a student question involving ethics matters, like "Do you think 'test tube babies' are right? (I do not particularly like this name, but it is often used). Or "God created things with perfection, do you think it’s right that humans change it?". Even facing awkward questions, all my biology teachers managed those situations and showed the students "the bright side of things", leading them to understanding how science can be positive for everyone, etc. I think that all teachers need to possess the ability to get out of those “tricky" questions and give satisfactory answers to students. Not necessarily to change their opinions, but in a way where everyone is respected.

 Rafael de Queiroz Garcia.