"
Team:Paris Bettencourt/Human Practice/Report
From 2012.igem.org
(→Summary) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<div id="grouptitle">Human Practice Report</div> | <div id="grouptitle">Human Practice Report</div> | ||
| - | |||
== Summary == | == Summary == | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
=== I Debate on the technique === | === I Debate on the technique === | ||
| - | Firstly, we studied the historical background of synthetic biology. We presented synthetic biology as an extension to genetic engineering, and examined the shared controversies around recombinant DNA technology. We showed that scientists handled the situation in an exemplary way, and we provided a detailed analysis of the 1975 Asilomar conference. | + | <div style="text-indent:20px;">Firstly, we studied the historical background of synthetic biology. We presented synthetic biology as an extension to genetic engineering, and examined the shared controversies around recombinant DNA technology. We showed that scientists handled the situation in an exemplary way, and we provided a detailed analysis of the 1975 Asilomar conference. |
Secondly, we studied the concerns raised by synthetic biology nowadays. We used numbers from the 2010 Eurobarometer on biotechnologies and Hart Research Associates’ 2010 poll on “Awareness & Impressions of Synthetic Biology” to study awareness, perception, and approval of synthetic biology in the European and American populations. We showed that the level of awareness of synthetic biology in Europe is incredibly low (only 17% of participants had already heard of synthetic biology previous to the poll), that the approval rate is low to average in both Europe and the US, that these populations want tight government regulation, and that the main concerns raised by synthetic biology are: unnaturalness, playing god, status of artificial life, potential physical harms, regulations. We then provided a detail analysis of these concerns. We came to the conclusion that (a) the “unnaturalness” and “playing God” arguments convey the population’s fear of novelty and of the unknown; (b) that religion is in favor of synthetic biology and does not consider that synthetic biologist are “creating life”; (c) that in the future, questions such as “is there such a thing as artificial life?”, “what will be the status of this artificial life?” will have to be addressed; (d) | Secondly, we studied the concerns raised by synthetic biology nowadays. We used numbers from the 2010 Eurobarometer on biotechnologies and Hart Research Associates’ 2010 poll on “Awareness & Impressions of Synthetic Biology” to study awareness, perception, and approval of synthetic biology in the European and American populations. We showed that the level of awareness of synthetic biology in Europe is incredibly low (only 17% of participants had already heard of synthetic biology previous to the poll), that the approval rate is low to average in both Europe and the US, that these populations want tight government regulation, and that the main concerns raised by synthetic biology are: unnaturalness, playing god, status of artificial life, potential physical harms, regulations. We then provided a detail analysis of these concerns. We came to the conclusion that (a) the “unnaturalness” and “playing God” arguments convey the population’s fear of novelty and of the unknown; (b) that religion is in favor of synthetic biology and does not consider that synthetic biologist are “creating life”; (c) that in the future, questions such as “is there such a thing as artificial life?”, “what will be the status of this artificial life?” will have to be addressed; (d) | ||
Revision as of 11:09, 19 September 2012
- Main
- Team
- Project
- Achievements
- Human Practice
- Safety
- Notebook
- Attributions
Overview
Delay system
Semantic containment
Restriction enzyme system
MAGE
Suicide system
Encapsulation
Synthetic import domain
Safety Questions
Safety AssessmentContents |
Summary
Introduction
In our human practice report, we discussed putting genetically modified bacteria in the wild.
When discussing such a question, it is crucial to differentiate the concerns that are just about synthetic biology and the ones that really involve applications in the field. The debate on the technique should happen, and then be closed once and for all so we can move forward to discussing the applications.
Therefore, we decided to separate our human practice report in two distinct parts. The first one will address the concerns raised by synthetic biology per se, that is, as a technique. Then, in our second part, we will analyze the specific concerns that arise from synthetic biology’s potential applications in nature.
I Debate on the technique
Secondly, we studied the concerns raised by synthetic biology nowadays. We used numbers from the 2010 Eurobarometer on biotechnologies and Hart Research Associates’ 2010 poll on “Awareness & Impressions of Synthetic Biology” to study awareness, perception, and approval of synthetic biology in the European and American populations. We showed that the level of awareness of synthetic biology in Europe is incredibly low (only 17% of participants had already heard of synthetic biology previous to the poll), that the approval rate is low to average in both Europe and the US, that these populations want tight government regulation, and that the main concerns raised by synthetic biology are: unnaturalness, playing god, status of artificial life, potential physical harms, regulations. We then provided a detail analysis of these concerns. We came to the conclusion that (a) the “unnaturalness” and “playing God” arguments convey the population’s fear of novelty and of the unknown; (b) that religion is in favor of synthetic biology and does not consider that synthetic biologist are “creating life”; (c) that in the future, questions such as “is there such a thing as artificial life?”, “what will be the status of this artificial life?” will have to be addressed; (d)
