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?

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 roundtable?

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 roundtable?

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.

TESTIMONY #2: PROFESSOR (Ana Maria Bonetti – Universidade Federal de Uberlândia)

1 – Report positive and negative points of the roundtable

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 roundtable?

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 roundtable?

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.

TESTIMONY #3: HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT (Rafael de Queiroz Garcia)

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.