Seminar Cycles

For an extended period in the first and second semester of 2015, our team offered weekly seminar cycles to the academic community, which aimed to increase the participants’ knowledge about the iGEM competition and synthetic biology as a whole. With this activity we sought to instruct the essential characteristics of Synthetic biology. This activity is the basis of the project’s development, and also enables the public to know more about the team and the competition’s organization, giving it more public visibility and increasing interest in future participations.

The lectures’ themes were published weekly on our Facebook page, in a way that many people could see and, depending on their interest, attend the lectures. There was a lot of interest from biotecnology students, especially freshmen, showing the biggest interest in new knowledge areas like Synthetic biology.

In the first lecture, entitled "Drawing life - Building the next biological revolution", we sought to introduce the main concepts of molecular biology applied to synthetic biology projects and also a simple comparison between electric circuits and biological ones that influenced the developing of synthetic DNA manipulation technic.

In another moment, we discussed the topic, "Research and innovation - The power of Syntethic Biology", which presented the history, methods and research that have already been developed and also the immense and innovative potentiality of synthetic biology.

The lecture "Biobrick standard and Assembly method", as its name suggests, showed the characteristics behind the biobrick concepts and the applications of Assembly methods.

The objective being to increase the perceptions of the application of synthetic biology, we prepared the lecture "Resuscitation of ancestral genes - Applications of syntethic biology", where we explained molecular evolution, techniques involved in ancestral genes discovery, motivation behind that kind of research and how synthetic organism manipulation machinery is used like a tool for new research and discoveries in that area.

Furthermore, the development and application of synthetic biology biosecurity aspects were also addressed in a lecture "Biosecurity and Syntethic Biology: risks and challenges", and the modelling tool was emphasized in the lectures ", “Less is more – Coco Chanel” and “Mathematics – A biological tool”.

In addition to characteristics of synthetic DNA manipulation techniques, we also sought to explain our own project, which was in development, in the lecture “2015 project” and “BUG SHOO: From lab to society – Results and Perspectives”. In the lecture “iGEM: The competition”, we Included an overview about its history, participating countries in the competition, the Brazilian participation, the objectives and covered areas, tips to start a new project, teams related to iGEM and also all the requests to reach every medal.

To highlight the human practices aspect and the significance of social and educational application required by the competition, we presented the lecture "Improving the education and human practices with Syntethic Biology", which exposed how synthetic biology, the iGEM competition and science itself are linked to societal problems.

Workshop with students of pre-university course

To complement the intervention with children from São Carlos 8 neighborhood, we proposed something with the same main objective (approaching those outside the University of daily life and the work we do), but this time with adult target audience. On August 29, we invited a group of pre-university1 course students to participate in a practical activity, which happened in teaching laboratory of the Department of Genetics and Evolution.

The twelve people who attended had never been in a lab before, and were very curious. We briefly present our project and started the process of strawberry DNA extraction. In the intervals of the activity, workshop participants were able to observe slides with bacteria under a microscope. There have been several questions about the activities we developed and at the end, participants answered a questionnaire assessment. See workshop photos bellow:

Poster

To help us on Synthetic Biology tools explanation, we created a visual comparison between car machinery and the components of genic circuit. The comparison was: the plasmid with chassis, the promoter with the key, RBS with accelerator, the interest gene with the engine, the terminator with brake and the bacteria as the car as all.

Blank Posters

To make possible to us evaluate the previous and posterior public’s knowledge of the theme, we manufactured two blank posters named “What is synthetic biology?” and provide hydrographic pens, so that the people could express themselves in that. Through this material we could visualize that few of them had a small notion about synthetic biology concepts.

On the first poster, many of them wrote things like “I don’t know” or “Not natural”, and also made jokes like “I Buged”. In contrast, we also found things like “The organisms creation or DNA sequence synthesis technics that can be insert in bacteria”, showing us a significant conceptual notion.

On the last poster, we found interesting things like “The use of biotechnology on the production of genetically modified structures that can be used to play certain function in an organism”, but also find “It’s crazy!”.

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.

EVA Genic Circuit confection and auxilliary material

5 EVA foam sheet, which one of different color like green, blue, yellow, red and purple

Scissor

Protractor

Compasses

Hydrographic pens

5 Cardboard boxes

How to do

At first, was selected the colors which would be destined to each circuit part; green to the promotor, blue to the RBS, yellow to the gene, red to the terminator and purple to the vector (plasmid)

On each EVA sheet, with the assistance of the protractor and the compasses, were outlined various circular crowns having an inner radius of 12 cm and an outer radius of 16 cm. After that, was established the size of each circuit segment, once they completely fill the 360˚ of the circumference. Defined the size, the cohesive extremities were fixed by draw, so they could be correctly cut and separated, allowing the subsequent assembling.

To store each sequence part were used five cardboard boxes properly labeled with sequences names. And also, to make the search for the components harder, a lot of ticker tape and EVA’s were added in the boxes.

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.

Round table debate on Synthetic Biology - 64th Annual Meeting of SBPC

Every year, Brazilian Society for Science Progress – SBPC, in Portuguese – organizes a meeting which is considered as the biggest scientific event in whole Latin America. In 2015, the 64th Annual Meeting of the SBPC took place in Universidade Federal de São Carlos. The debate “Synthetic Biology: solutions for usual problems” happened in July 17th, and it was coordinated by our instructor Dr. Francis Nunes.

The audience could learn about the researches carried on by Dr. Fabio Squina, from CNPEM (National Research Center in Energy and Materials), and Dr. Valquiria Michalczechen Lacerda, from EMBRAPA (Brazilian Agricultural Research Company). Also, Ana Paola Sifuentes Infante, from iGEM Foundation, lectured on the importance of the competition itself as an opportunity for young people develop Synthetic Biology innovative projects.

Measuring the impact: interview with representatives of the audience who attended to the round table

These three reports were shared by representatives of the attendees at the round table on Synthetic Biology. We believe they reflect the diversity of people we had contact in our Policy & Practices activities. They are also a good tool to measure the impact that the activity had.

TESTIMONY #1: PHILOSOPHY STUDENT (Tennessee Williams Monteiro Matos)

1 – Report positive and negative points of the roundtable

Positive: The competence of the speakers, proper functioning of audio-visual equipment. The provocation for debate by the chairman of the board. The presence of people from different areas.

Negative: Few time for questions.

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.

Measuring the impact: interview with representatives of the audience who attended the round table

These three reports were shared by representatives of the attendees at the round table on Synthetic Biology taking place in the 64th. Annual Meeting of the SBPC. We believe they reflect the diversity of people with whom we had contacts in our Policy & Practices activities. They are also a good tool to measure the impact that the activity had.

1 – Report positive and negative points of the round table

- Positive: The competence of the speakers, proper functioning of the audio-visual equipment. The provocation for debate by the chairman of the board. The presence of people from different areas.

- Negative: Few time for questions.

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

To introduce the answer, I will use the following dialogue:

Savant - How important is philosophy?

Philosophe - I do not know. Do you know the importance of science?

Savant - Look. Science, insofar as it is proposed ....

Philosophe - Um .... that's it, you're philosophizing.

Whereas the philosophy, or rather, the activity or philosophical conduct comes within the justification context, a philosophical approach to science leads to talk about themselves, reflect on their goals and methods, forcing a detachment movement from the position where it is towards criticism, investigation, reflection on research in specific, and five minutes later, falls into a discussion about science and society. Therefore, I fully agree with the way that science seeks to constantly improve, qualify, enhance, through the introduction of new knowledge and technology, life in society. And I believe this was implied in the speeches of the 3 speakers. Now, I disagree and I care excessively with a certain impression of the research in initial character, without results that can be defended as ready for direct application, needs no reflections and criticisms about what potentially wants to offer to society. Here, of course, my criticism is biased towards the study of philosophy, to the extent that philosophy is realized almost most of the time in hypothesis, in situations or assumptions made in abstract terms, and often do not depend on concrete things.

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

Almost nothing. Whereas many products in market resulted from this research area, I was surprised to see that there is a direct relationship between these products and synthetic biology. It seems to me that, for example, GM foods have been in the media for a while, but I found an explanation of a relationship between this issue and synthetic biology.

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

I had the feeling that it tends to develop as a very important area in biology; That there is an effort to develop this part of biology in consonance with social demands but , at the same time, there is an expectation that synthetic biology will configure a strong branch within the industry.

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

SBPC made me re-think the urgency of inter-disciplinarity between different fields of knowledge. It seems to me that science arises as a social component, constantly worried about clarifying society what its role and importance is, and I think at the same time, the challenge is to get out of the practice of “myopic science”. The research paper, "the hard Science" leads the researcher to long working hours, inflexible timetables, and a deep involvement with the day-to-day research, so often, the future of results research, is its financing, implementation, marketing, transcends the researcher's field of view. This discussion of field, worry, almost always revolves around precisely the ethical, moral and social reflection, and that, for many, is seen as unessential. Then I go back to the urgency of inter-disciplinarity. The social sciences, philosophy need to set foot in the laboratory, and the researcher has to hang up his/hercoat, and sit back to reflect on ethical, moral and social issues. In my view, the absence of such dialogue leaves the ethical, moral and social concern for groups of individuals who are not part of either blocks, and that, in general, will punctuate the issue pragmatically, not for say, economically. This reminds me of some discussions about ethics: How is possible that there still exists today, individual sympathizers of the Nazi regime, organizing themselves around neo-Nazi groups? There are different readings of Nazism. Those who were on one side of the military front witnessed Nazism as a regime of imperialist intentions. Those who were inside the regime itself experienced the advance of mankind in many ways, and science, will be the trump card of this regime because under its control, science will make great strides in medicine and biology, physics, chemistry , etc. The idea that Nazism was bad because of the Jewish genocide, the conduct of research in an unethical way (in the same period, unethical research, was also being developed on American soil), is information that arises years after war. And only later generations will have access. That young man who lived during the war, and lived up to mid-years in the 80s/90s, does not have an opinion on the period from the books, but what was said in the media. No. I do not think today's science can become, again, adomination instrument of a government under other governments. But I think that just as at that time, society and scientific community still fail from the debate on what role science has for society itself. In that, I see with hope, round tables like these in the SBPC. In my view, it should not be to discredit or denigrate science, but to bring to light the reasons and justifications for which it is practiced.

6 – Further comments, if you want…

1 – Report positive and negative points of the round table

The round table was quite informative and fulfilled its purpose of showing what Synthetic Biology is, as such awaken young people's interest in the subject and participate in activities involving the theme. It was very clear (for those who did not know exactly what it was) the exposure of the IGEM International Competition and its importance in knowledge generation.

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 agree with what was said about the wonders of dealing with Synthetic Biology, its applicability and potential, and disagree (somewhat) on how easy the development of activities and research on the subject could be.

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

I only knew what I read in popular articles, which did not always address the issue in the form of scientific journalism and call attention only to what is sensational.

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

I learned the correct definition of Synthetic Biology and the importance of using tools from different areas to understand biological systems. Before this round table I was unaware of the broad and real applicability of Synthetic Biology on the environment, industry, agriculture, medicine, generation of products, etc.

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

I see huge potential for products generation in this area. The knowledge of biological systems opens up the possibility of applying synthetic biology to solve everyday problems unresolved until today, at least not properly. The intrinsic potential of synthetic biology in creating parts to obtain products, can bring great benefits to humans and other species.

I see no ethical, moral or social problem that synthetic biology could cause. Biosafety concerns should be answered by the evaluation of each generated product. There is no zero risk and scientific research should not stop because of it. The potential of Synthetic Biology is undeniable.

6 – Further comments, if you want…

Congratulations to the UFSCar team for participating in this Competition and, more importantly, for focusing on studying this promising area. Manipulation of organisms and genomes can bring so many benefits to different sectors, including the economic sector.