Difference between revisions of "Team:UIUC Illinois/Practices"

(Prototype team page)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
<html>
 
<html>
  
<h2> Human Practices </h2>
+
<h2> Public Engagement </h2>
  
<p>iGEM teams are unique and leading the field because they "go beyond the lab" to imagine their projects in a social/environmental context, to better understand issues that might influence the design and use of their technologies.</p>
+
<p>Synthetic biology offers the possibility of making technological innovation accessible to a diversity of people.  Our project, for example, aims to develop a tool that can monitor something as simple as heavy metal pollution levels in groundwater by using an intelligently designed bio-sensing apparatus.  As many teams before us have suggested, biosensors could be a low cost alternative to more expensive technology needed in developing nations.  In short, our technology has the opportunity to impact a diverse group of people holding varying cultural, religious, and educational backgrounds.  As scientists, it is not only our obligation to develop this technology but to communicate our findings to the public.  Unfortunately, a lot of synthetic biology applications have poor public perception, and we must take responsibility for this and attempt to reverse these attitudes. </p>
<p>Teams work with students and advisors from the humanities and social sciences to explore topics concerning ethical, legal, social, economic, safety or security issues related to their work. Consideration of these Human Practices is crucial for building safe and sustainable projects that serve the public interest. </p>
+
<p>Our team organized a community discussion on GMO’s with university students.  Our goal was to address the social stigma behind genetically modified food by presenting the scientific facts while also engaging with people directly about their opinions on the practice.  Our program took place in the lounge of a residence hall on campus and lasted an hour.  The first ten minutes were dedicated to a presentation on the science of a GMO food.  We explained how genetic engineering works, how different organizations define GMO, and how businesses incorporate the synthetic biology practice.  The rest of the time was a facilitated discussion.  At first people seemed against GMO’s.  They weren’t sure why, they just were.  This, however, changed. The consensus by the end of the talk was that the ethics behind genetically modifying food is fairly sound.  Most people had issues with how businesses were using the science at the expense of farmers.   </p>
<p>For more information, please see the <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Practices_Hub">Practices Hub</a>.</p>
+
<p>Our team found the small-scale discussion was effective and left some people with a dramatically different opinion on GMO food.  This event matched our philosophy.    A lack of education leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to fear.  The key to breaking down these barriers is in simply sitting down and having a conversation with someone.  In addition, respecting that someone may have religious or cultural opposition to the science you are doing is a huge part of engaging in ethical practice. Instead of writing people off as stupid if they disagree with you, a simple discussion may lead to more productive results. As scientists we have a responsibility to provide the public a transparent explanation of our practices. </p>
  
<div class="highlightBox">
+
<hr>
<h4>Note</h4>
+
<p>You must fill out this page in order to be considered for all <a href="https://2015.igem.org/Judging/Awards">awards</a> for Human Practices:</p>
+
<ul>
+
<li>Human Practices silver medal criterion</li>
+
<li>Human Practices gold medal criterion</li>
+
<li>Best Integrated Human Practices award</li>
+
<li>Best Education and Public Engagement award</li>
+
</ul>
+
</div>
+
  
 
+
<h2> Educational Engagement </h2>
<h5>Some Human Practices topic areas </h5>
+
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>Philosophy</li>
 
<li>Philosophy</li>

Revision as of 02:12, 18 September 2015

Public Engagement

Synthetic biology offers the possibility of making technological innovation accessible to a diversity of people. Our project, for example, aims to develop a tool that can monitor something as simple as heavy metal pollution levels in groundwater by using an intelligently designed bio-sensing apparatus. As many teams before us have suggested, biosensors could be a low cost alternative to more expensive technology needed in developing nations. In short, our technology has the opportunity to impact a diverse group of people holding varying cultural, religious, and educational backgrounds. As scientists, it is not only our obligation to develop this technology but to communicate our findings to the public. Unfortunately, a lot of synthetic biology applications have poor public perception, and we must take responsibility for this and attempt to reverse these attitudes.

Our team organized a community discussion on GMO’s with university students. Our goal was to address the social stigma behind genetically modified food by presenting the scientific facts while also engaging with people directly about their opinions on the practice. Our program took place in the lounge of a residence hall on campus and lasted an hour. The first ten minutes were dedicated to a presentation on the science of a GMO food. We explained how genetic engineering works, how different organizations define GMO, and how businesses incorporate the synthetic biology practice. The rest of the time was a facilitated discussion. At first people seemed against GMO’s. They weren’t sure why, they just were. This, however, changed. The consensus by the end of the talk was that the ethics behind genetically modifying food is fairly sound. Most people had issues with how businesses were using the science at the expense of farmers.

Our team found the small-scale discussion was effective and left some people with a dramatically different opinion on GMO food. This event matched our philosophy. A lack of education leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to fear. The key to breaking down these barriers is in simply sitting down and having a conversation with someone. In addition, respecting that someone may have religious or cultural opposition to the science you are doing is a huge part of engaging in ethical practice. Instead of writing people off as stupid if they disagree with you, a simple discussion may lead to more productive results. As scientists we have a responsibility to provide the public a transparent explanation of our practices.


Educational Engagement

  • Philosophy
  • Public Engagement / Dialogue
  • Education
  • Product Design
  • Scale-Up and Deployment Issues
  • Environmental Impact
  • Ethics
  • Safety
  • Security
  • Public Policy
  • Law and Regulation
  • Risk Assessment
What should we write about on this page?

On this page, you should write about the Human Practices topics you considered in your project, and document any special activities you did (such as visiting experts, talking to lawmakers, or doing public engagement).

Inspiration

Read what other teams have done:

Integrated Human Practices

Do you want to be considered for the Best Integrated Human Practices award? Make it easy for the judges to find any wiki content that is relevant to this prize. Highlight this content with a header or separate section.

Education and Public Engagement

Do you want to be considered for the Best Education and Public Outreach award? Make it easy for the judges to find any wiki content that is relevant to this prize. Highlight this content with a header or separate section.