Team:UFSCar-Brasil/educacional.html
Educacional
Bug Shoo teaches synthetic biology!
Educational
When we think about the diverse features presented by a Policy & Practices activity and its effects on society, an aspect to be considered is our team’s influence in education. We’ve organized three different activities with the main goal to reach various educational levels in our city. Each one of these activities will be described in the topics shown below.
Series of seminars
From May to September 2015, our team offered weekly series of seminars to academic community, which aimed to present topics related to the competition iGEM and synthetic biology. With this activity, the group sought to divulgate our project bases, enabling the public to know the team plans and progress, the competition structure, the new era and advances of synthetic biology, sharing cutting edge information and encouraging people to join the iGEM UFSCar-Brasil team in 2016.
Topics of each seminar were published weekly on our facebook page. Most students who have followed the lectures was freshmen biotechnology at the UFSCar.
The first topic presented was "Drawing life - Building the next biological revolution", which introduced the key concepts of molecular biology applied to the work of synthetic biology. A comparison of the electrical and biological circuits that influenced the development of synthetic DNA manipulation technique was presented.
The second lecture dealt with "Research and innovation - The power of Syntethic Biology", which was presented history, methods, research, and also the large innovative potential of synthetic biology.
The lecture "Standard Biobrick and Assembly method" explained the concept of BioBrick and applications of the Assembly methods.
In "Resuscitation of ancestral genes - Applications of synthetic biology", discussed the molecular evolution techniques to the discovery of ancestral genes, the motivations behind these studies and how the machinery of synthetic manipulation of organisms is used as a tool for further studies and discoveries in this area.
Biosecurity aspects related to the development and application of synthetic biology techniques and modeling tools used were also treated, respectively, in the lectures "Biosecurity and Syntethic Biology: risks and challenges", "Less is more - Coco Chanel" and "Mathematics - The biological tool".
The team also presented the project in development in the lecture "2015 project" and “BUG-SHOO: From lab to society – Results and Perspectives”, and about the iGEM competition in the lecture "iGEM: The competition", giving an overview of its history, participating countries, the Brazilian participation, objectives and covered areas, tips for starting a new project and also the requirements for achieving each of the medals.
Aspects of human practices and social impacts of the project were discussed in the lecture "Improving education and human practices with Synthetic Biology" when it discussed how synthetic biology, iGEM competition and the very basic science are linked with the problems faced by society.
Impact of the seminars
The series of seminars had positive impacts on attendees, since most students reported having learned a lot about various aspects of Synthetic Biology.
We also achieved our expectation of inspiring students to participate in future iGEM team.
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:
Figure 1: Extraction of strawberry DNA
Figure 2: Daniel Silva explaining the activities
Figure 3: Workshop attendee applying DNA sample in agarose gel
Attendees profileThe group consisted of 11 women and 1 man. Eight people were between 17 and 19 years, two were 26-27 years and two were 36-37 years. Eleven people reported having monthly family income of $ 800-2400 reais (between 200 and 600 dollars). Two people did not report their incomes. Only three people reported their professions: beautician, administrative assistant and secretary. Three of the twelve attendees had dengue.
Workshop impactTo evaluate the result of the activity, we prepared the following questionnaire, which was answered by 11 of the 12 participants of the workshop.
1. Do you consider current measures against dengue as effective? Why?
2. Did you know the term Synthetic Biology before this workshop?
3. Repellents are an alternative in dengue prevention. Would you use a repellent based on modified bacteria? Why?
4. Do you think that a product with GMOs can be harmful to health? Why?
5. Do you think that a product with GMOs can be harmful to environment? Why?
6. Do you believe that science can contribute to solve society demands? Why?
Only some of the attendees answered “Why?” questions.
Answers to the questionnaireSeven people felt that dengue prevention measures are ineffective.
When asked "Why?", three people who gave negative answers explained that "There are still many cases of dengue"; two said that "population does not help to prevent"; one person noted that "there is still no vaccine," and another said "it is difficult to have control over the mosquito environment." Among the four people who considered effective measures, two said they believed that "following the preventive measures is enough" to eradicate dengue.
The term "Synthetic Biology" was unknown for five of the eleven participants.
All eleven people who answered the questionnaire said they would use a repellent made with modified bacteria.
Despite considering a repellent made with bacteria as a potentially safe product, seven people believed that products with genetically modified organisms could harm health. Two people could not answer the question. Two others considered them safe.
One person justified its response saying that "one could not foresee all the consequences of genetic modification." Another believed that modifications could have negative effects. Two people who considered GMO products safe, mentioned that they "are sufficiently tested before being offered for sale" and another believed that the "genetic changes are beneficial."
Regarding the effect of GMOs on the environment, six people believed it is safe. Four thought that some environmental damage is possible and one person did not know why.
Two people who responded negatively responded that "one can not foresee all the consequences" and "GMOs can cause changes in the environment." Two people who responded positively explained that "GMOs can be compatible with other organisms" and that "changes could be beneficial."
Regarding the expectation of science to meet society demands, one person did not believe one can expect this contribution. Eight people said they believe that science can solve social problems, while two responded that science has limited power in solving problems.
Two people believe that scientific knowledge has been used for the good of humanity. Another quoted the science increases the population's access to benefits. But a person sees the possibility of occurrence of excesses that can be harmful.
ConclusionKnowing what community outside the University thinks about the activities that we develop, and allowing people who are not familiar with science know its role is part of an exchange that must exist between the institution and society. This dialogue should guide both scientific practices ("whom we serve?") and the functioning of society itself, focused on the pursuit of knowledge that provides a better life in a broad sense.
It is important to know that science is not universally considered as a panacea for all ills, and that people have critical sense. At the same time, it is a function of the University to demystify the role of science in society.
1The pre-university course is an outreach program of UFSCar, which offers preparation classes for people who want to go to college.
SBPC Jovem
Universidade Federal de São Carlos (campus São Carlos), hosted the 64th Annual meeting of the Brazilian Society to the Progress of Science (SBPC), the biggest scientific event in Latin America July 12th-18th. This year, the theme event was “Light, Science and Action”, in reference to the International year of Light.
The event included a rich scientific schedule, composed by diverse conferences, symposiums, round-tables, mini-courses, poster exhibitions, special sessions, and more. Moreover, activities focused on high school students (SBPC Jovem), exposure of science, technology and innovation (ExpoTEC) and also artistic activities and cultural discussions were created.
The SBPC Jovem organization allowed us to approach and interact with a young audience, aging from 14-16 years, who arrived from schools from different Brazilian States and, more importantly, with different perceptions about basic concepts of biology and Synthetic Biology. This interaction was filled with a lot of curiosity, fun, experience and knowledge sharing, in which we sought, in a simple and interactive way, to get the participants more involved in the syntethic biology scope and our project.
The Workshop
To start the workshop, the participants were shown a blank poster entitled “What is Synthetic biology?”, in which they could express their previous knowledge about the theme using their creativity They were also shown three identical peanuts jars, labelled “Transgenic”, “Conventional” and “Synthetic Biology” respectively. All the students present, including the team members who perform the workshop, presented themselves saying their names, ages, hometowns, grades and other curiosities to increase the interaction between the young people and us.
After that, the attendees were introduced to a video from BBC Knowledge and Learning, whose content talked about the main and basic concepts of molecular biology. By the end of the video, we began explaining the iGEM Competition, the principles, history and, using a poster of Synthetic Biology being compared to a car, the synthetic biology base tools. Our project’s motivation, goals, and mechanism were exposed, using samples by each bean experiment group as visual proof to enhance the project’s importance.
The main point of our workshop was the EVA genic circuit assembly activity, in which the participants were separated into groups and took turns to search among the five boxes for the right parts which circuit would promote the limonene Synthase expression correctly. The group that assembled an extra circuit the fastest received chocolate candies as a prize.
Poster
To help us with Synthetic Biology tools explanation, we created a visual comparison between car machinery and the components of gene circuits. The comparisons were: The plasmid with chassis, the promoter with the key, RBS with the accelerator, the interest gene with the engine, the terminator with the 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 pots
We tested people reaction in face the three different labels, and if they would affect their decision for what peanut they would choose to eat. Most of people didn’t care about the labels; some tried peanut of all jars to taste the “difference” between them (what doesn’t really exist). Only a few people just looked to the jars and didn’t take any peanut.
EVA Genic Circuit confection and auxilliary material
Materials5 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.
To assist the participants in the correct assembling of the circuit was made a registry table with the segment’s registry.
Special participation
On the last day of workshop, we counted with the eminent presence of Ana Paola Sifuentes, iGEM foundation member.
Conventional schools were not interested in our team’s proposal to offer an activity on Synthetic Biology
Offering an workshop in high schools about “Synthetic biology and its applications” was the first idea that occurred to us. We imagined that it would be the perfect opportunity to introduce that almost unknown issue to students. We would highlight the advances in research on DNA and Engineering, showing the novelties this knowledge would bring… Perhaps, trying to start a high school team for iGEM 2016… We were very excited about it, but…
The responses we had from schools we have contacted were not receptive. All the three schools justified themselves with the same excuses: (1) students would not be able to follow the concepts we aimed to approach, and (2) students would not be interested on the issue. The most remarkable pretext was: our activity would hinder the development of content already planned for the classes.
These reactions discouraged us in trying to contact other schools. We wondered why the replies we got from schools were so similar (what did we do wrong?). After the alternative activities we put in practices and succeeded (all reported in our wiki), we concluded that Brazilian educational system maybe is not ready yet for simple initiatives like we have tried to put into practice. Unfortunately, innovation still does not have a place in Brazilian classrooms.
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:Tennessee Williams Monteiro Matos (Undergraduate Program in Philosophy at UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil)
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: Profa. Dra. Ana Maria Bonetti (Full Professor of Genetics at Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Brazil)
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: Rafael de Queiroz Garcia (High school student at Colégio Petrópolis, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil)
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.
Our amazing sponsors!
