"
Team:Evry/HumanPractice/future
From 2012.igem.org
(Created page with "{{:Team:Evry/template_v1}} <html> <h1> Should we meet <i> Xenopus </i> again in iGEM ? </h1> </html>") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<h1> Should we meet <i> Xenopus </i> again in iGEM ? </h1> | <h1> Should we meet <i> Xenopus </i> again in iGEM ? </h1> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <p> This article doesn’t reflect the opinions of the whole team, however those questions were debated and no consensus were fully accepted. This dividing topic was represented by our T-Shirts: some of us believed that the term chassis should be maintain, as a mark of the identity of synthetic biology and it’s engineering methodology. Others believe that it should not be kept, for the various reasons said through this investigation: the term chassis does not seem epistemologically or ethically relevant. This human practice had for ambition to challenge the usual conception of beings in synthetic biology through the case of the toad Xenopus tropicalis. It was an occasion to deal with theories that rarely enters in the laboratory because they are mostly upheld by opponents to synthetic biology or revolutionary technoscience (the development of synthetic biology is quite similar in communication as the one of nanoscience, except for one remarkable thing: synthetic biology opened its doors to embedded humanities). </p> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 26 September 2012
Should we meet Xenopus again in iGEM ?
This article doesn’t reflect the opinions of the whole team, however those questions were debated and no consensus were fully accepted. This dividing topic was represented by our T-Shirts: some of us believed that the term chassis should be maintain, as a mark of the identity of synthetic biology and it’s engineering methodology. Others believe that it should not be kept, for the various reasons said through this investigation: the term chassis does not seem epistemologically or ethically relevant. This human practice had for ambition to challenge the usual conception of beings in synthetic biology through the case of the toad Xenopus tropicalis. It was an occasion to deal with theories that rarely enters in the laboratory because they are mostly upheld by opponents to synthetic biology or revolutionary technoscience (the development of synthetic biology is quite similar in communication as the one of nanoscience, except for one remarkable thing: synthetic biology opened its doors to embedded humanities).
