Team:UNAM Genomics Mexico/prueba

From 2012.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{:Template:Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/webhtml| content=
{{:Template:Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/webhtml| content=
-
__NOTOC__
 
-
<html>
 
-
<table border="0"  height="150" cellspacing="15" bgcolor="transparent" id="tablecontentbg" cellpadding="10">
 
-
<tr>
 
-
<td id="leftcolumn2" align="center"><br /><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/BiosintetizarteConvocatoria"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/f/f1/CRATELBIOSINTEtizartechico.jpg" alt="some_text" height="170"/><br /><br /><p>Call (Spanish)</p></a></td>
 
-
<td  id="contentcolumn2" align="center"><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/winners"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/f/f9/Unamgenomicsinsecto-utero_para_corazones.jpg" alt="some_text" height="200"/><br /><p>Winners</p></a></td>
+
<h1>Talks</h1>
-
<td id="rightcolumn2" align="center"><a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/2/23/UNAM_MX_Fernanda_Araujo.jpg" alt="some_text" height="200"/><br /><p>Finalists</p></a><br /><br /></td>
+
<br />
-
</tr>
+
We designed and conducted a talk about Synthetic Biology to fulfill out the second approach to our overall objective of meaningful communication of Science: ‘’’to have a direct dialogue with the community’’’. In order to maximize our goal, we decided that we were not following the model in which every concept is explained and detailed in order to arrive eventually to the idea of Synthetic Biology. To cover that, we already have the series of  [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/Outreach_videos outreach videos]]. We also wanted to create an interactive environment, where the audience had an active role corresponding with us and telling us about what they had heard about the topic and what they expected from it. Our talk, more than a soliloquy from our part, has become an intimate dialogue between peers in that sense.
-
</table>
+
-
</html>
+
-
 
+
-
 
+
-
= '''BioSintetizARTE''' =
+
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-
This year we implemented for the second time our Science and Art competition BioSintetizARTE which this year was promoted nationally through a call on[[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/NewsPapers | '''La Jornada''']], '''one of Mexico's leading daily newspapers'''. We are delighted to announce that the [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/NewsPapers | '''nationwide call''']] resulted in '''42 works, four times the amount we had last year.''' <br /><br />
+
The talk was given to undergraduate students from the Renewable Energies Program of the UNAM, in Temixco, Morelos, on October 24th, 2012.
-
 
+
-
We decided to make the call for a second time because we believe artist have the ability to put into their works those things that are difficult to put into words. As it was stated last year: <br />
+
-
 
+
-
"(...)'' artistic disciplines break the boundaries and expand further to form hybrids of art and technology, science or anthropology, fusions that stand out. It is important to emphasize that art is a reflection of the events that occur in society and of the thinking that takes place at different times in history.'' <br />
+
-
 
+
-
''The art is the universal language that permits us to express the invisible, the inexplicable, the intuitive, the inexistent. It presents itself as a way that helps us to diffuse the Synthetic Biology essence, but it goes beyond that, it takes place in this revolution when it transmits its message back to scientist and to the society.''" <br /><br />
+
-
 
+
-
What is the power of Science seen through the artists' eyes? Through the artists' vision, we want to recognize ourselves. Even though it is through that one part of the artists’ perception is a very personal matter, it is evident that there is also an influence of the historical and social context in any given piece of art that might shed light into the things that are at stake with the theme of the work of art. This means that through the works presented at BioSintetizARTE we could infer what kind of things are at stake with the things we do in Synthetic Biology, seen through the eyes of the most sensitive members of our society. <br /><br />
+
-
 
+
-
Acknowledging that we all share a time and space that knit us all together in a shared identity, an identity that could be described with the words of the writer and futurists Alvin Toffler: we are all "immigrants towards the future". BioSintetizARTE serves as a way to register the fears, hopes, and expectations that Synthetic Biology raises within the people we are travelling with to the future.
+
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-
What have we learnt from the submissions to our project BioSintetizARTE?
+
We decided that the content of this dialogue should be something else than a lecture-like activity. Similarly, we wanted that our interaction resulted in something departed from the deficit model regardless of how glamorous it could be. To achieve this, we adopted a historical approach to the topic. Therefore, our talk was divided in two sections. The first section focused on the way mankind has manipulated nature to satisfy its needs. There are three major moments that make up the first section of our talk:
-
<br /><br />
+
-
The descriptions of the artistic works submitted to the contest have given us a great insight into the popular imaginary around Synthetic Biology. These descriptions served as a parting point for us to analyze the set of beliefs and attitudes that the general public had about Synthetic Biology. The categories we used are fears, hopes, and hypes. Fears represent concerns about the use and misuse of the technology; hopes are positive expectations about the benefits of the technology; hypes are the expectations that we consider to be more philosophical, metaphorical, or simply unrealistic to count as part of the other two categories, but that ultimately might reflect any of those in an exacerbated way. Some of the most illustrative insights about what we learnt from our artists are discussed below.
+
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-
'''Fears'''<br /><br />
+
The first moment focuses on how has mankind manipulated nature through domestication, hybridization, and the generation of new varieties of plants and animals to meet up humanity’s needs for food, working aid, and even companion and ludic activities.  
-
 
+
-
The first category of beliefs and attitudes we analyzed and discussed are the fears posed by Synthetic Biology. Works that expressed fears or reservations about the potential uses of this technology include the works presented by [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/HarumiHiroshi | Harumi Hiroshi]]. In the descriptions for the work '''Planta Madre''', we found one of the most basic and common reservations about our work: ''Synthetic biology seems a very exciting area of research because it’s not only know and analyze the existing agencies but is also to have the power to create new ones, the ability to play being God, or maybe not, because this is not a game.'' Similarly, in the work '''"Y en el principio Dios..."''', we find again the fear that we are playing (or indeed, not playing at all) with something as deeply cherished and valued as live, and its creation.
+
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-
'''Hopes'''<br /><br />
+
The second moment of our talk focused on genetic manipulation as a way to improve the way the original manipulations were carried. Here we explained the most representative examples of genetic modification in plants, animals and bacteria.
-
 
+
-
Some artists expressed explicitly their hopes for the future, that might be achieved through Synthetic Biology. Take for example [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/FrancescaDalla | Francesca Dalla's]] work, where she describes her work as ''"a metaphor for a future hope. It is my vision of a world where different species stop fighting each other, where the man puts aside its sovereignty over the animal world, to get to their side, at the same height and level, to merge into one being."''.
+
-
<br /><br />
+
-
The work from [https://2012.igem.org/Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/JuanVerdin Juan Manuel Vazquez] also presents itself as a hope to direct our evolution through Synthetic Biology. He expressed in the description of his work that ''"one of the main goals of synthetic biology, achieve transformation of ourselves to have better biological characteristics and to face the changes that always occur in nature without having to wait for natural selection to do its job"''. Similarly, [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/ErickFlores | Erick Flores's]] work follows this expectation about a better mankind through Synthetic Biology, with a powerful analogy between the creation of Adam and Molecular Biology: ''"Personally I see synthetic biology as the tip of an enormous range of possibilities that will give human tools and solutions to improve your life, but more importantly correct mistakes we made with our environment. Synthetic biology is a turning point in the sciences, perhaps a revolution that will change how we see life and our environment."''
+
-
<br /><br />
+
-
Another example might be found in [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/JonathanPadilla | Jonathan Padilla's]] work, who considers that ''"applications of synthetic biology are legion and range from detection and degradation of toxic compounds in the environment, the creation of biofuels, to the generation of medicines and bioremediation to return an altered environment by pollution to its natural condition, creating undoubtedly a better world."''
+
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-
'''Hypes'''<br /><br />
+
The last moment of our talk follows naturally as the paradigm change enters to the new way of modifying living organisms: Synthetic Biology. Here we also talked about some representative projects and ideas that have been developed within the iGEM competition, including ours.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
Here’s the Prezi presentation we used as visual aid to our talk:
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
-
Take for example the three works submitted by the participant [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/KarenElias | Karen Elias]], who presented three works: '''"Alimentos Transgénicos"''' (''"Transgenic foods"''), '''"Human Tree"''', and '''"Instrumento Humano"''' (''"Human Instrument"''). These works might be interpreted as the fear that Synthetic Biology will be able to facilitate the creation and production of transgenic organisms for human consumption where new favours would be achieved, or the Instrumentalization of human beings as musical instruments. While the perceptions and descriptions of the work do not appear to be of fear in this case, it might be also interpreted as a nuance in the discussion of instrumentalization of nature and our bodies: perhaps there might be some sorts of instrumentalization of our world that would turn to have interesting an noble results, ''i.e.'', new flavors and music. Nevertheless, there is also a call for '''prudence''' within her hyped expectations. '''"Human tree"''' might be interpreted as an invitation to treat nature as if it was an expression of our very nature, of ourselves.
+
<html>
-
<br /><br />
+
<div class="prezi-player"><style type="text/css" media="screen">.prezi-player { width: 550px; } .prezi-player-links { text-align: center; }</style><object id="prezi_y1x8aj5z3x-t" name="prezi_y1x8aj5z3x-t" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="550" height="400"><param name="movie" value="http://prezi.com/bin/preziloader.swf"/><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="allowFullScreenInteractive" value="true"/><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"/><param name="flashvars" value="prezi_id=y1x8aj5z3x-t&amp;lock_to_path=0&amp;color=ffffff&amp;autoplay=no&amp;autohide_ctrls=0"/><embed id="preziEmbed_y1x8aj5z3x-t" name="preziEmbed_y1x8aj5z3x-t" src="http://prezi.com/bin/preziloader.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowFullScreenInteractive="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="550" height="400" bgcolor="#ffffff" flashvars="prezi_id=y1x8aj5z3x-t&amp;lock_to_path=0&amp;color=ffffff&amp;autoplay=no&amp;autohide_ctrls=0"></embed></object><div class="prezi-player-links"><p><a title="Vida 3.0" href="http://prezi.com/y1x8aj5z3x-t/vida-30/">Vida 3.0</a> on <a href="http://prezi.com">Prezi</a></p></div></div>
-
This instrumentalization of humanity took a different interpretation for [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/MariaAngelicaBravo | Maria Angélica Bravo's]] work in which an analogy of "transgenic gummy bears" represents the hyped fear about an army of individuals that could be used for bad purposes (perhaps influenced by Star Wars's Clone Wars).
+
</html>
-
<br /><br />
+
-
Another of these cautionary tales comes from the artist [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/AnaKarenMojica | Ana Karen Mojica]]. In her work, '''"Mujer fotosintética"''' she acknowledges the abuse we have made as species of our environment, stating that ''In a world where humans have endeavored to destroy everything around us, science seems to be our only salvation, if I could use synthetic biology for something I would create humans able to photosynthesize, this way helping our planet be a better place''. While it can be considered as fantastic or ''hyped'' the desire to create a photosynthesizing human, the intention to use science and Synthetic Biology as a way out to have a solution to the current environmental crisis struck us as a very positive attitude.
+
-
<br /><br />
+
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
The second section of our talk was the actual dialogue with the attendees of the talk. In this section, we addressed the beliefs and attitudes we identified through the analysis of the works of [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/BiosintetizarteEN BiosintetizARTE]]. We spoke about the good and bad uses of technology, focusing on what they had heard and what they wanted to know. We also spoke about the common criticism raised about “playing god” with our work. We also discussed and chatted about the value of nature, the role of natural selection, and how evolution has shaped our lives and the lives of the organisms around us.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
Public Perception analysis.
 +
As a way to get feedback and make better talks in the future, we conducted a survey on the attendees of the talk in which we asked before the talk what have they heard about Synthetic Biology and Genetic Modifications in general, and then we asked if their perception (if any) about Synthetic Biology and Genetic Modification had changed after having the interaction with us and how would they explain how Synthetic Biology is to any person who couldn’t attend the talk.
 +
<br />
 +
The first question was asked to get two insights from the attendees of the talk: If they had heard anything about Synthetic Biology, and what had they heard. Answers to this question range from those who claim not knowing or having heard anything, and those who had heard about transgenic organisms and, we quote, ‘’“corporations that want to introduce pig genes into apples to make their skin harder”’’. The analysis of the answers given to us reflects a general bias toward mentioning only transgenic organisms as examples of Genetic Modification and Synthetic Biology. This finding is not gratuitous, and actually it is what we expected. Debate about Genetic Modification in Mexico has centered in the use of transgenic corn for many years, and the popular imaginary is highly influenced by reaction groups that express their views for and against the practice, although in a rarely rational manner. Precisely, this expectation made us, in the first place, design the talk with the historical approach detailed above.
 +
<br />
 +
The other two questions were designed to achieve the following insights: When asked about how they would explain Synthetic Biology to a person not attending the talk, we wanted to know how much would they explain the topic and if any subconscious expectation, fear or hope could be identified in the way they described it. The other question, if they had any change in their point of view about the topic, also served to gain insight into the hidden fears, hopes and hypes that might be difficult to get from a direct question.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
Preeliminary Results
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
Our preliminary results indicate a main finding:
 +
<br />
 +
The change in public perception can be achieved through our method of science communication. For those who answered positively the first question about knowledge of Synthetic Biology, we found that before the talk they had the usual reservations about the technology discussed in our [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/BiosintetizarteEN BiosintetizARTE]] analysis. This means that the perception is consistent among the population. Nevertheless, after the talk, we found many of our attendees had reduced their reservations to those we would have discussed with them, and the worries about pig-skinned apples had been buffered.
 +
<br />
 +
After the talk, we could identify that our approach helped in general to alleviate the concerns that the attendees had about the topic. Among the comments we received, we0d like to share the following:
 +
<br />
 +
‘’“you gave me a broader panorama, since I though it was more physically esthetic. But it isn't, it is synthetical because they are very small manipulable parts to have modifications in a situation that is beneficial for the population. Note: I liked it a lot. :) Thank you for giving us this talk.”’’
 +
<br />
 +
[IMAGEN]
-
'''Interpretations that reflect a deep understanding of Synthetic Biology'''<br /><br />
+
<br />
-
 
+
<br />
-
Lastly, but not least importanly, we also had some of our colleagues participating with their artistic impressions. As expected, these works might not reflect a deeper perception of the general public, but serve as an example of a way to interpret their own work in a different way (outside of the box of routine!).
+
Future talks
-
<br /><br />
+
<br />
-
The works we liked the most are those by [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/RebecaBorges | Rebeca Borges]], who expressed in a very colorful way the need for standardization of plasmids; also, [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/BioSintetizarteEN/Finalists/MarioSandoval | Mario Sandoval's]] work struck us as a way to contextualize things: Synthetic Biology appears to be a way to achieve new ways to produce things, but we might be currently neglecting our natural bioechemical factories for compounds we could use in a sustainable way.
+
<br />
-
<br /><br />
+
Make sure to visit the section of [[Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/Future_Work future work]] to find out the next steps in this project!
-
BioSintetizARTE has helped us understand a little bit more what people are thinking, and this has certainly helped us into the design of the rest of the other components of our project. To learn how we incorporated all the insights into our conference, go to that section now.
+
<br />
-
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
+
-
<br /><br /><br /><br />
+
}}
}}

Revision as of 06:35, 14 October 2012


UNAM-Genomics_Mexico

Talks


We designed and conducted a talk about Synthetic Biology to fulfill out the second approach to our overall objective of meaningful communication of Science: ‘’’to have a direct dialogue with the community’’’. In order to maximize our goal, we decided that we were not following the model in which every concept is explained and detailed in order to arrive eventually to the idea of Synthetic Biology. To cover that, we already have the series of Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/Outreach_videos outreach videos. We also wanted to create an interactive environment, where the audience had an active role corresponding with us and telling us about what they had heard about the topic and what they expected from it. Our talk, more than a soliloquy from our part, has become an intimate dialogue between peers in that sense.

The talk was given to undergraduate students from the Renewable Energies Program of the UNAM, in Temixco, Morelos, on October 24th, 2012.



We decided that the content of this dialogue should be something else than a lecture-like activity. Similarly, we wanted that our interaction resulted in something departed from the deficit model regardless of how glamorous it could be. To achieve this, we adopted a historical approach to the topic. Therefore, our talk was divided in two sections. The first section focused on the way mankind has manipulated nature to satisfy its needs. There are three major moments that make up the first section of our talk:

The first moment focuses on how has mankind manipulated nature through domestication, hybridization, and the generation of new varieties of plants and animals to meet up humanity’s needs for food, working aid, and even companion and ludic activities.

The second moment of our talk focused on genetic manipulation as a way to improve the way the original manipulations were carried. Here we explained the most representative examples of genetic modification in plants, animals and bacteria.

The last moment of our talk follows naturally as the paradigm change enters to the new way of modifying living organisms: Synthetic Biology. Here we also talked about some representative projects and ideas that have been developed within the iGEM competition, including ours.

Here’s the Prezi presentation we used as visual aid to our talk:




The second section of our talk was the actual dialogue with the attendees of the talk. In this section, we addressed the beliefs and attitudes we identified through the analysis of the works of Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/BiosintetizarteEN BiosintetizARTE. We spoke about the good and bad uses of technology, focusing on what they had heard and what they wanted to know. We also spoke about the common criticism raised about “playing god” with our work. We also discussed and chatted about the value of nature, the role of natural selection, and how evolution has shaped our lives and the lives of the organisms around us.

Public Perception analysis. As a way to get feedback and make better talks in the future, we conducted a survey on the attendees of the talk in which we asked before the talk what have they heard about Synthetic Biology and Genetic Modifications in general, and then we asked if their perception (if any) about Synthetic Biology and Genetic Modification had changed after having the interaction with us and how would they explain how Synthetic Biology is to any person who couldn’t attend the talk.
The first question was asked to get two insights from the attendees of the talk: If they had heard anything about Synthetic Biology, and what had they heard. Answers to this question range from those who claim not knowing or having heard anything, and those who had heard about transgenic organisms and, we quote, ‘’“corporations that want to introduce pig genes into apples to make their skin harder”’’. The analysis of the answers given to us reflects a general bias toward mentioning only transgenic organisms as examples of Genetic Modification and Synthetic Biology. This finding is not gratuitous, and actually it is what we expected. Debate about Genetic Modification in Mexico has centered in the use of transgenic corn for many years, and the popular imaginary is highly influenced by reaction groups that express their views for and against the practice, although in a rarely rational manner. Precisely, this expectation made us, in the first place, design the talk with the historical approach detailed above.
The other two questions were designed to achieve the following insights: When asked about how they would explain Synthetic Biology to a person not attending the talk, we wanted to know how much would they explain the topic and if any subconscious expectation, fear or hope could be identified in the way they described it. The other question, if they had any change in their point of view about the topic, also served to gain insight into the hidden fears, hopes and hypes that might be difficult to get from a direct question.

Preeliminary Results

Our preliminary results indicate a main finding:
The change in public perception can be achieved through our method of science communication. For those who answered positively the first question about knowledge of Synthetic Biology, we found that before the talk they had the usual reservations about the technology discussed in our Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/BiosintetizarteEN BiosintetizARTE analysis. This means that the perception is consistent among the population. Nevertheless, after the talk, we found many of our attendees had reduced their reservations to those we would have discussed with them, and the worries about pig-skinned apples had been buffered.
After the talk, we could identify that our approach helped in general to alleviate the concerns that the attendees had about the topic. Among the comments we received, we0d like to share the following:
‘’“you gave me a broader panorama, since I though it was more physically esthetic. But it isn't, it is synthetical because they are very small manipulable parts to have modifications in a situation that is beneficial for the population. Note: I liked it a lot. :) Thank you for giving us this talk.”’’
[IMAGEN]



Future talks

Make sure to visit the section of Team:UNAM_Genomics_Mexico/HumanPractices/Future_Work future work to find out the next steps in this project!