Difference between revisions of "Team:Bordeaux/Practices"
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
<p align="justify">In sciences, the question of intellectual property is recurrent. Concerning synthetic biology, all of the objects used can be patented. Among these are genes, plasmids, biobricks, genetic circuit broads, software modeling of mechanisms etc. Thinking about patentability of live being is very important in synthesis biology because we use living organisms. Apposing a patent allows appropriating a technical invention, as a produce or a process. This statute permits to protect the invention, it’s also called the “invention patent”. To elude an amalgam between creation and scientific discovery, we’ll try to define the difference between these two values. | <p align="justify">In sciences, the question of intellectual property is recurrent. Concerning synthetic biology, all of the objects used can be patented. Among these are genes, plasmids, biobricks, genetic circuit broads, software modeling of mechanisms etc. Thinking about patentability of live being is very important in synthesis biology because we use living organisms. Apposing a patent allows appropriating a technical invention, as a produce or a process. This statute permits to protect the invention, it’s also called the “invention patent”. To elude an amalgam between creation and scientific discovery, we’ll try to define the difference between these two values. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | <br>We can define a discovery as a revelation of what was previously unknown, but already being. Indeed, the scientific discovery is supported by study publications which are in free access for who wants it. So, we can consider it is a part of the common knowledge, ownerless. However, the creation is a process or a product which brings a solution for a particular problem. So it is a new element, previously a lacking element. An invention is supported by a patent. In our case, in synthetic biology, it can be a whole organism, a gene or a DNA sequence. The National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) try to delimitate those processes, it makes impossible to take ownership of organisms already being, with informations which are just revealed and makes sure that a discovery won’t become an invention. Also, the patentability of an element won’t be possible when it was extracted of its natural environment to live in a synthetic environment, or an element which was reproduced in a synthetic environment, but already naturally being. | + | <br>We can define a discovery as a revelation of what was previously unknown, but already being. Indeed, the scientific discovery is supported by study publications which are in free access for who wants it. So, we can consider it is a part of the common knowledge, ownerless. However, the creation is a process or a product which brings a solution for a particular problem. So it is a new element, previously a lacking element. An invention is supported by a patent. In our case, in synthetic biology, it can be a whole organism, a gene or a DNA sequence. The National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) try to delimitate those processes, it makes impossible to take ownership of organisms already being, with informations which are just revealed and makes sure that a discovery won’t become an invention. Also, the patentability of an element won’t be possible when it was extracted of its natural environment to live in a synthetic environment, or an element which was reproduced in a synthetic environment, but already naturally being. </p> |
<br> | <br> | ||
− | < | + | <p align="center"><i>Here, it is a polemical subject because in synthetic biology, we are making “organic inventions”. So, there is a question: “Is it acceptable to be a living being’s owner?” “What about an interior component of it?” In this last case, whose belong the interest element? At the individue? Or at that one who modified it?</i></p> |
<h5 align="center" >The relation to living and its simplification</h5> | <h5 align="center" >The relation to living and its simplification</h5> | ||
− | <p align="justify">With the emergence of synthetic biology, the definition of living may be modified. Indeed, in this field, researchers can generate or modify the genome of an existing organism, insert a whole artificial genome in an existing organism or create a new artificial organism. We can wonder if these modifications made by humans will not have an impact in the nature of the organism. Can we consider that an organism is living if it has been totally or partially created artificially? Synthetic biology regards the “objects” which are created as living beings because they are built from the cell, the basic unit of life. They have the property of self-organization and identical or similar self-replication to those of natural living beings. So we can considerate that they are “alive”. | + | <p align="justify">With the emergence of synthetic biology, the definition of living may be modified. Indeed, in this field, researchers can generate or modify the genome of an existing organism, insert a whole artificial genome in an existing organism or create a new artificial organism. We can wonder if these modifications made by humans will not have an impact in the nature of the organism. Can we consider that an organism is living if it has been totally or partially created artificially? Synthetic biology regards the “objects” which are created as living beings because they are built from the cell, the basic unit of life. They have the property of self-organization and identical or similar self-replication to those of natural living beings. So we can considerate that they are “alive”. |
− | <br> | + | <br>With these "new" organisms, an living being may be considerate as simple and easy to create. Once decoding the DNA of a organism, synthetic biologist is able to do everything with a bacteria, a yeast or animals bigger, tihinking that are like "machines". We can wonder if we can considerate life as a tool and find the limit between an ethical scientific project and an unethical scientific project.</p> |
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | <p align="justify"> | + | <p align="justify">In conclusion, these ethical considerations make us think about the ethical aspects of our project Cured Vine. |
+ | <br>First, it is important to us that our project was related with transparency, so that uninitiated people can apprehend our scientific approach. Our Wiki, in free access on the WEB, allows us to clearly and concisely expose all the thinking steps which governed our Cur’dVine project. It also allows us to share our knowledge and results to as many people as possible. New iGEM teams or other researchers could use our results to continue our project. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br>Our implication in annex projects such as Cap Sciences, making street interviews about GMO's or high school presentations of synthetic biology, makes democratizing synthetic biology to the general public. All these actions incited us to think about the ethical questions that the general audience would wonder. | <br>Our implication in annex projects such as Cap Sciences, making street interviews about GMO's or high school presentations of synthetic biology, makes democratizing synthetic biology to the general public. All these actions incited us to think about the ethical questions that the general audience would wonder. | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | <br>Thinking about ethics aspects of our project help us to consider his profits and risks. Without being paranoiac, we have to think of all potential dangers that may create our molecule. | + | <br>Thinking about ethics aspects of our project help us to consider his profits and risks. Without being paranoiac, we have to think of all potential dangers that may create our molecule. |
+ | The ethical aspects of our project are strongly link to safety, that's more details will be in the next section./p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 23:41, 5 August 2015