Team:Paris Bettencourt/Human Practice/Overview

Aim

To chart new venues of best practice for synthetic biology. To this end, we examined the ethical, biological and social concerns related to the release of genetically modified bacteria in the wild.

Metodology

1. Interviews with experts which enabled us to have a broad overview of the state of the art. Read More
2. We screened previous iGEM team’s wikis to trace the evolution of biosafety concerns in the iGEM competition when it comes to releasing genetically modified bacteria in the wild. We especially examined the containment systems that have been proposed. Read More
3. We set the bar for risk at horizontal gene transfer. Therefore HGT is what we are trying to prevent.
4. We wrote a report where we addressed the concerns raised by synthetic biology per se, that is, as a technique. Then, we analyzed the specific concerns that arise from synthetic biology’s potential applications in nature.  Read More

Main Conclusions

1. Societal interaction:

   • The need to raise awareness of synthetic biology in the population so people can decide in the most enlightened way possible if they want of this new technology and of its applications (A),
   • The need of a discussion between society’s different protagonists to set goals, define what they would consider as benefits and acceptable risks (B),

2. Best research practice:

   • Nowadays, a risk 0 is impossible to achieve as no containment system can be 100% safe (bacteria can always escape by mutations) (C),
   • There is a lack of quantitative data evaluating the probability of failure of containment systems (D),
   • There is a lack of quantitative data evaluating the risk of HGT assuming containment systems failed (E),
   • The compiling of the wiki screen shows that no containment systems created in iGEM is robust: they are all one mutation away from failure. We call for more biosafety in iGEM (F),
   • The need for an INDEPENDENT committee of scientists to test any application of synthetic biology that requires releasing in the environment (G),

You can find the full list of conclusions here

Main Proposals

1. Societal interaction:

   • Organizing a workshop on synthetic biology and a tour of our lab for 60high school students, (addresses issue A and B) Read More. Ultimately, we would like interaction with high school or middle school students to be a requirement for an iGEM gold medal.
   • Organizing a debate with 10 non expert students from various background, and then opening the debate to the floor (the public), which was made up of both experts and non experts, (addresses issue A and B) Read More.

2. Best research practice:

   • Creating a system as robust as possible, that is many mutations away from failure (this is what all our bench work has been about) (addresses issue C and F),
   • Creating a safety page on the biobrick registry where all the safety devices that exist are listed and characterized (included evaluation of their robustness) in order for iGEM teams to pick the most appropriate device to add to their newly created genetic circuit. Ultimately, we would like the integration of a safety device (already listed in the safety page or created de novo by the team) to be a requirement for an iGEM bronze medal (addresses issue D, F), [http://partsregistry.org/Biosafety Go to safety page]
   • Making a list of proposals