Team:UIUC Illinois/Practices

• HOME
• TEAM
• PROJECT
  • Description
  • Experiments & Protocols
  • Results
• PARTS
  • Team Parts
  • Composite Parts
  • Part Collection
• NOTEBOOK
• ATTRIBUTIONS
• COLLABORATIONS
• HUMAN PRACTICES
• SAFETY

Human Practices

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. The topic we chose to consider in correlation with our project design involved intellectual property. Basically, knowing the potential our project has to affect these communities, we questioned the ethics of how we would choose to release this to the public. In the United States, we discovered through further research that obtaining a patent for a life science product is difficult to obtain. However, in other countries it is more feasible. Hypothetically if our project were to go into the stage where this was relevant we made a group decision that our priority would be communicating our findings rather than attempting to profit off of our intellectual property rights, and that we would only consider obtaining rights if it would benefit all nations even those of lower economic standing.

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 public engagement expanded on this topic.

Public Engagement

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. This is especially relevant to our university as it is known for its agricultural studies.

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.

---