http://2013.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Weiling&feed=atom&limit=50&target=Weiling&year=&month=2013.igem.org - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T19:41:53ZFrom 2013.igem.orgMediaWiki 1.16.5http://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/NotebookTeam:UCL/Notebook2013-10-05T03:44:45Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/protocolstyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "NOTE";<br />
var word2 = "BOOK";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<p class="body_text"><a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/January">January</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/February">February</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/March">March</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/April">April</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/May">May</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/June">June</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/July">July</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/August">August</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/September">September</a> | <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Notebook/October">October</a> <br />
</p> <br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="main_image"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">January</p><br />
<div class="full_row"><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
After the team had been assembled, several informal meetings were held. During these, introductions were made between team members, allowing everyone to get to know each other. Additionally, talks with previous iGEM team members allowed the team to gain important information and guidance on how to approach the project. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Each member of the team gave a brief presentation on an iGEM 2012 project. The projects strengths, weaknesses and approach to each section were discussed. Medical themed projects were favoured among the majority of the team.<br />
</p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">February</p><br />
<div class="full_row"><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Initial thoughts regarding project ideas were put forward. A speed discussion of ideas took place for brainstorming and basic development of ideas. The following ideas were favoured and put forward as possible project candidates:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Weight control yoghurt<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Anti-cancer yoghurt<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Zebrafish water cleaning system for Third World<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Athletic Drug testing<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Clean Urban Air<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Neural network with glowing bacteria and fibre optics<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
DIY SynBio group at <a href="http://www.artscatalyst.org" target="_blank">The Arts Catalyst</a> were visited for feedback on the project ideas. Posters which the team had created for the group were set up within the space in order to generate feedback from members of the public during SynBio workshops. Overall the anti-cancer yoghurt idea was favoured by the majority of public and previous iGEM candidates. In general the public found the medical projects more appealing, partly because they tried to solve tangible problems that could not be mitigated soley by 'electrical' or 'mechnaical' technologies. The 'neural networks' idea gathers interest with scientists at Cancer Reserach UK and members of the public alike because applying synethtic biology to study neuroscience seems both innovative and relatively original. The zebrafish idea gathered interest due to the novel chassis. The remaining ideas did not generate as much interest as they tend to be common themes amongst iGEM team projects.<br />
</p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">March</p><br />
<div class="full_row"><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Final meetings before exams, both internally and at the Arts Catalyst. In the meantime we had taken on board our feedback, and took the best ideas from each of the most popular project to come up with a new idea that combined tackling a medical condition, with neuroscience, with using a novel chassis in an Alzheimer's disease project. The idea pool has now been narrowed down to:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Anti-cancer yoghurt<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Zebrafish<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Alzheimer's disease<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
• Neural Network<br />
</p><br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Members of the group also held a probiotic yoghurt workshop for the anti-cancer project, where members of the public made yoghurt. The audience were informed about the project and opinions were gathered. Again, the fact that the porject was medical was well received, though some ethical concerns were raised so that we knew we would have to make bioethics a big part of our project from the start.<br />
</p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">April & May</p><br />
<div class="full_row"><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Exam period - iGEM work to commence full time after the slog through exams.<br />
</p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">June</p><br />
<div class="full_row"><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="minor_title">5th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Group discussion concerning the project idea to be carried forward - favouring the 'Anti cancer project'. Roles were then assigned to team members present for intial research roles for the week:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Cancer research roles:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
1. Ruxi Comisel - Proteins upregulated in cancer of the intestines. Specifically in the outer epithelial cell (enterocytes) – in microvilli. Also, what actually is... gut cancer? A general overview would be useful…<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
2. Khaicheng Kiew - Our chassis (bearing in mind that we will also build it in E. coli as a backup). We need to think what would make a good chassis in our case (ie. naturally found in the gut in an obvious one), and how well does the chassis fit.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
3. Alex Bates - What will the killing mechanism be? A broad overview of cancer treatments is required, specifically detailing how a bacterium can administer the treatment.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Considerations:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
a. The bacteria may secrete a toxin etc – how will we ensure that it doesn’t simply diffuse through the gut? <br />
b. If it is a toxin, what sort of biosynthetic pathway is required?<br />
c. Does the bacteria trigger apoptosis in the cancer cells (ie. an intracellular killing mechanism)? How can this be done from an extracellular bacterium? Perhaps beta-arrestin?<br />
d. Are there any treatments which we can take advantage of specifically because we are using bacteria? <br />
e. For example, a protein which creates holes in the cancer cells? Does using a bacterium open up the possibility of using a different cure that currently isn’t in use because we cannot target it to cancer cells – could the use of bacteria allow this?<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
4. Weiling Yuan - Targeting – do we use antibodies? What previous projects have used bacteria expressing antibodies? Are there any other ways of doing this? Perhaps the latching and initiation mechanisms can be incorporated into one protein?<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
5. StJohn Townsend - Initiation – mechanoreceptor activated upon latching? What other ways are there of doing this?<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
6. Tom Johnson - Past iGEM projects which we could incorporate into our own: Cancer projects, Gut projects, Protein engineering, Antibodies expressed in bacteria etc.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">7th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team discusses findings from the initial research - further agreement that the 'Anti Cancer' project seemed to be the best idea, preparation of 'project sheets' to be sent to Dr. Darren Nesbeth for review and subsequent meetings.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">11th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
looked a bit at the possible chassis species: salmonella, clostridium, helicobacter, E. coli. according to the tissue type/cancer type we shall decide which works with which. We start with E. coli in the lab.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We considered a pro-drug approach - bacterially directed enzyme pro-drug therapy which suggests that we may establish a transformed bacterial population with an enzyme capable to activate an ingested prodrug. This pro-drug would be connected to an antibody (possibly part of the tail) and would also have linking consensus sequence targeted by the enzyme produced locally by our bacteria.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
From this above point Alex distinguished 2 scenarios built on the circuit sketch that he and Laia posted a while ago. These would be:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
1) Kill unit produces tailed protein pro-drug (possibly tailed perforin) and signaling molecule, A. When A reaches a threshold amount, perforin and a protease to remove the confounding tail is produced, bacteria lyses and activated pro-drug acts on surrounding cells.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
2) No protease is produced, because the tail can be cleaved off by matrix metalloproteases.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Goals for the end of this week: <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
- Alex, Andy and Weiling continue investigating possible candidates to fill in the parts for the scenarios<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
-Tom, KC and Ruxi make sure we have everything set up to start the work in the lab: protocol, parts etc.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">12th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Ruxi and Tom went through a general cloning protocol but then realised that the best way to prepare for the lab is to get familiarised with the iGEM distribution kits. We discovered that we are given almost everything we need in order to get it right.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex filled in the form with our proposal requested by Darren - we have the sequences and details of potential new biobricks. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We formulated a new proposal regarding the Alzheimer’s disease amyloid plaque degradation.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Andy searched potential cancer killer molecules:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
- CD95 - Fas agonist (http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v14/n4/full/4402051a.html)<br />
- Tumor Necrosis Factor, Histamine - induces inflammation<br />
- HAMLET (human a-lactalbumin) - induces apoptosis <br />
- endostatin, thrombospondin - reduce cancer growth<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling looked at potential promotors: <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
- RacA (based on increased DNA damaged due to radiation) to start the killing cascade and CD95 as a potential killer molecule<br />
- Lux pR promotor<br />
- Lld promoter<br />
- Vgb promotor <br />
- HIP-1<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
(about gastric Oxygen levels: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/11/96) <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
For promoter 1 (switches on the pro-drug and signaling molecule transcription), a very <br />
good candidate is HIP 1 promoter - hypoxia-inducible promoter which drives reporter gene expression under both acute and chronic hypoxia. It was developed in attenuated Salmonella species. Take a look here: http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/cbt/article/2951/mengesha5-9.pdf<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We need to register this part!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">13th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex sent the 3 main project proposals to Dr. Darren Nesbeth for review.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom and Andy edited the wiki page adding various sections and elaborating on previously created pages.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling researched on killing mechanisms being able to target hypoxic regions of solid tumors and promoters in hypoxia environments.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Catrin - General project research<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Ruxi - Further researched the potential promoters esp HIP 1 and the Fas regulated programmed apoptosis.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We attended a Synthetic Biology talk by Neil Dixon, University of Manchester (Tom and Andy).<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Had a general meeting for discussion of what has been accomplished so far, and the subsequent actions, which are to be undertaken by team members. Further documents were also submitted to Dr. Darren Nesbeth concerning 'team roles'. The team then began to do individual research or other activity:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom and Robin - Edited the iGEM wiki, added team information and removed the unnecessary tutorial information, replacing it with more useful information and streamlining the whole interface.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling and Alex - Further development of circuit ideas, taking inspiration from previous iGEM ideas as well as further research into the CD95L molecule.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Ruxi and Catrin - Research into latching molecules for a bacteria to tumour interface to increase target specificity. Idea encounted from Hong Kong 2012 where Colon Cancer was targeted.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">14th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom - Website design for: Main Page, UCL information, Team based pages and Notebook pages<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Robin - Coding in HTML for website<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Ruxi, Catrin, Weiling - Further investigation of Hong Kong 2010 to see what parts may be improved or of use to the project, these were: a blue light activated promoter, how can the quorum sensing and CagA be exploited, a negative regulatory system for drug secretion.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex - searched for potential bacterial receptor to be modified in order to be a good target for something else in the environment/cancer cell surface.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">17th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group had a meeting to discuss what had been achieved so far and what needed to be done today. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom - Continued on website design and wrote several pieces concerning UCL to be used on the website when it goes live.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Robin - Continued on website coding.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling & Catrin - Researched for project sponsors and potential contacts.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex, Ruxi, StJohn & Andy - Continued research into the project ideas.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">18th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group met with advisors Darren Nesbeth and Philipp Boeing to discuss the three project suggestions. The 'Neural Network' proposal was effectively ruled out due to the high risk and low probablility of project success in terms of medals.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The anti-cancer project was previously the favoured idea, but after extensive review ,the Alzheimers project gained favour due to being relatively new (and hence exciting) to iGEM compared to a cancer project, which has been done several times already at iGEM. No final decision has been made however, work has continued on researching both projects. The wiki is also still being worked on.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team also had a social gathering: pizza for lunch.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">19th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group continued work on all three projects in order to send improved proposals to Darren Nesbeth by the end of the day. Many professors and experts were also emailed to seek guidance, in particular for the Alzheimer's project which seems to be particularly difficult.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">20th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom - Prepared a presentation to be given next week about iGEM to prospective UCL students to raise interest in the engineering faculty and also the iGEM competition. After this was complete, joined the rest of the group in research. Also performed wiki coding for the team page and notebook page.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group continued what was started yesterday: Rectifying the proposals, with both sent off at the end of the day once they were complete. A group meeting was held at the end of the day to gauge interest and vote for the most popular idea, followed by a social gathering.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">21st June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom - Continued wiki design, coding and content uploads.<br />
Alex - Continued to redraft the proposal for Alzheimer's<br />
StJohn - Continued to redraft the proposal for Cancer<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
KC - Researched into other iGEM teams to colloborate with and initiated correspondence via email<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team then discusses which project was favoured. It was fairly even but Alzheimer's was slightly more popular.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">24th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom continued wiki design whilst the rest of the group performed research.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Once this was complete, the group had a meeting with Yanika Borg and Philipp Boeing concerning the two project ideas. Philipp favoured the Alzheimer's project whilst Yanika was somewhat undecided. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
A vote was taken with Alzheimer's being the prefered project by the group as a whole once more, although consensus was not fully reached. The group agreed to decide on the project on Wednesday proceeding a meeting with Prof. Lazaros Lukas.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">25th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group continued with general research, and also went to the Wellcome trust to seek any extra information, although this was unfruitful.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">27th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group voted 29 -11 in favour of Alzheimer's after a meeting with Prof. Lazaro Lukas, who was helpful and seemed excited about the project. The group also met advisor Yanika Borg and she agreed with the choice. The group also scheduled lab safety training for next thursday.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">28th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom presented to prospective students about the iGEM project for the day.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling, Alex, Andy & Catrin began to produce a 'stop motion' explanation of the Alzheimer's project.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
KC, Robin and StJohn discussed lab protocols and also modelling ideas.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">29th June</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom, Alex, Catrin, Emily, Andy – Continued work on the stop-motion project.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
KC, Ruxi & StJohn – Continued work on the proposals for the meeting with Dr. Nesbeth on Thursday.<br />
</p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">July</p><br />
<div class="full_row"><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="minor_title">1st July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom – Extracted information from private wiki and shutdown performed by Philipp Boeing. Prepared for narration of stop-motion. Also discussed project proposals with StJohn and Ruxi.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex, Catrin, Emily, Andy – Continued work on the stop-motion project.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
StJohn & Ruxi – Formed project proposals for the laboratory experiments.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">2nd July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team had a meeting with Philipp Boeing, primarily about Human Practice and which direction should be taken in terms of gaining awareness and also funding for the project. Ruxi and StJohn then continued working on experimental protocol preparation while the rest of the team visited the Science Museum to look at their Alzheimer's exhibit for inspiration on both project development and artistic direction that our human practices should take.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">3rd July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The Majority of the group continued to work on the proposals as some of the components were found to be difficult to obtain or not feasible. Tom began the YSB poster design, Robin continued on the modelling proposal.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">4th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The entire group attended safety training demonstrated by Brian O’Sullivan. A meeting was also held with experts in the field concerning microglia, Jenny Reagen amongst others.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom continued on poster design with Catrin looking at previous posters for inspiration. Andy met with Bethan Wolfenden to talk about debating, the rest of the group. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">5th July</p><br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom & Catrin – Worked on the poster and finished it, as well as the presentation<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex, Andy and Weiling – Focussed on human practises, pafrticularly essay writing and documentary planning.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
KC, Ruxi and StJohn – Continued work on proposals and sent completed documents to Darren.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">8th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Meeting with Darren leads to more work on proposals, particularly procurement and logistics of items required for laboratory work. The group also spent a lot of time discussing titles for the project, with ‘Plaque Buster’ and ‘Memory Guardian’ being the more popular names in an alternate voting system.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">9th July</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Following the meeting with Darren yesterday, the group met and rectified the experiments system to make it clearer and more achievable to obtain bronze, silver and gold medals, reducing the number of new parts required from 12 to 3 essential ones, for example.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">10th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group sent the new proposal to Dr. Darren Nesbeth, and are to wait for a response before continuing with specific inventory/experiment write ups. Instead, the group allocated roles for this should the proposal be accepted, and then went to the gallery of surgery to investigate cranial injections, and the implications and feasibility of this form of surgery.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">11th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group spent the majority of the day preparing for the Young Synthetic Biologists event, with Tom, Alex and KC practised their presentations, with the whole group contributing to the poster and also deciding on the working title, although this was unsuccessful.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">12th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The group spent the majority of the day preparing for the Young Synthetic Biologists event, with Tom, Alex and KC practised their presentations, with the whole group contributing to the poster and also deciding on the working title, although this was unsuccessful.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">13th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
YSB Day 2: Collaboration continued between teams for feedback and suggestion purposes. Tom and Alex initiated the creation of a national SynbioSoc so it easier for iGEM teams to communicate ideas and generally collaborate for both this year and the future. Tom also announced the iGEM football tournament, which was met with enthusiasm by other teams.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">15th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
First day of lab, under instruction by Dr. Darren Nesbeth and Yanika Borg, the team were shown various items in the labs and how to use them, with emphasis on good laboratory practice at all times. The team also met up with Oran and FongYi to discuss how the artistic side of the project will be undertaken. Oran and FongYi joined the team.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">16th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom, Catrin, Andy & Weiling - Under supervision from Yanika Borg, the team created ‘minimal agar’ plates to grow W3110 E. coli cells on. The cells were left to incubate overnight for a 16 hour period.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
KC, Alex & StJohn – Worked on primer design for the PCR reactions planned. Difficulties with finding flanking DNA sequences were encountered.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">17th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom, Catrin, Andy & Weiling - Under supervision from Yanika Borg, the team looked at the cell cultures in the morning and discovered that the cells had not grown, so came back in the afternoon and noticed growth on 2 of the 5 plates. Further incubation of 17 hours was agreed upon.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
KC & Alex – Started mammalian cell lab induction.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team then met with artists to further develop the branding of the whole project.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">18th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom, Catrin, Andy & Weiling – Lab experiment with Yanika Borg – Selection of colonies then resuspension into growth media, followed by incubation until 10:00 tomorrow.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
StJohn & KC – Primer design for the PCR protocols<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex – Continued work on ethics and feasibility report & bioinformatics<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">19th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom, Catrin, Andy & Weiling – Continued Lab experiments with Yanika Borg – Re-suspension & centrifugation of colonies.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
StJohn & KC – Primer design for the PCR protocols<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex – Continued work on ethics and feasibility report & bioinformatics<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">22nd July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Meeting with Darren reveals that primer design needs to be reconfigured, and that the strategy for Gold is currently not acceptable, so this will be worked on. We won the inter-UCL award for best wiki of July. StJohn worked on primers and KC worked on protocols.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom, Catrin, Andy & Emily performed bacterial labs, using transformation skills.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">23rd July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Tom, Catrin, Andy & Emily performed bacterial labs once more, repeating yesterday’s experiments due to a failed transformation.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
StJohn did more rectification work on primer design. KC searched for any possible molecules which could be used as an alternative molecules that naturally exist in the brain as replacements for auxin detection system.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling & Alex went to KCL (Institute of Psychiatry) to interview professor John Powell, an expert in the field of Alzheimer’s diseases, and other brain related diseases.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">24th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Until the 26th of July the bacterial lab work did not get any further. Several transformations were performed but neither was successful. After these trials, the decision of making new competent cells was taken.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The entire team was sent the information regarding mammalian lab aseptic techniques.<br />
StJohn analised an <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277080/" target="_blank"> article</a> on Microglia function in Alzheimer’s disease.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex gathered more <a href="http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v38n7/v38n7a03.pdf" target="_blank"> information</a> regarding main transcription factors/promotors we could use for detecting the oxidative stress caused near plaques.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team decided to meet over for a barbeque on the 7th of August.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">25th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Oran came to the lab and was introduced to the lab routine and to the activities on going.<br />
The team met again in the Student Anatomy hub to continue research on useful articles.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">26th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
A summary of the week lab work:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
- We have made stocks of all constituents needed to grow cells (E. coli W3110) and have a stock in the -80C cold storage.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
- We attempted transformation (p1313) on three separate occasions but it failed each time (although controls worked as expected).<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
- We used Yanika's personal cell stock of W3110 and performed the transformation successfully.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
- Therefore today we remade the constituents needed at the start, we will perform plate streaking etc. after the weekend, and hopefully have more success with transformation as well.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The following biobricks were ordered BBa_1712004, BBa_K812014, BBa_J63008. They’re supposed to arrive through UPS service by the 31st of July.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">29th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
An important day for our team! The project name “Spotless mind” was chosen!<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The MathWorks license for the 2013 iGEM student competition has been created.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The Biobricks from the iGEM HQ arrived today, which includes a mammalian plasmid backbone and 2 auxin signalling parts.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">30th July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The entire team is involved in organising the speed debate taking place tomorrow, 31st.<br />
FYi and Oran produced a nice poster. <a href="https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/q71/s720x720/1098138_10151827937531617_373872629_n.jpg" target="_blank"> debate poster</a> and a new logo!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">31st July</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We organised a neuroethics themed Speed Debate at Print Room Cafe, UCL. We started preparation such as buying refreshments, setting up the venue, printing survey sheets and poster at 4pm. At 7pm, guests started to arrive. Over 90 participants attended the speed debate. Dr. Howard Boland, Alex Bates, Philipp Boeing and Shirley Nurock from the Alzheimer's Society spoke at the speed debate.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The event was a success, many guests stayed to discuss further and alot of interests were received regarding the progress of our project. We cleaned the venue and wrapped up at 10.30pm<br />
</p><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">August</p><br />
<div class="full_row"><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="minor_title">1st August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Bacterial lab had good results today in the preparation of a new stock of competent cells.<br />
In the evening we celebrated the success of the speed debate.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">2nd August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Stjohn designed the linkers for the Mammalian Oxidative Stress Inducible Promoter.<br />
The team met to discuss fundraising ideas somehow making use of [kickstarter.com]. A starting idea: brain-with-plaques-for-sale.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We came up with the idea of a Memory Lane, where people could upload a photo of one of their memories and write a small description about it.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex suggested a collaboration with Westminster iGEM team regarding the speed debate idea.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">5th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Snapshots of the team members were taken!<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team worked on the abstract which must be uploaded shortly on wiki as the deadline is on the 9th.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex contacted the Imperial iGEM team regarding an eventual collaboration. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">6th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Rob invited the team at 12 noon in the Anatomy Hub to discuss about the wiki design in order to make sure that all the ideas about this matter are taken into account.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">7th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Barbeque evening, venue Wilkins Roof Garden!<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Prof. Eli Keshavarz-Moore was our guest and at 3 pm we also had the chance to present our project. (venue: Malet Place Engineering LT 1.03)<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">8th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team discussed about the work on zeocin,pA-f1-Zec biobrick, which will indeed be an improvement of BBa_J176124 because:<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
i) it gives most of the functionality of BBa_J176124 but is compatible with standard assembly<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
ii) it allows people to simply insert a PROMOTER-ORF fragment upstream of a pA to give an expression cassette for the ORF of interest, and a ZEC to select stable transfectants. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">9th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Project description is up on Wiki!<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Darren gave us a visit at the lab to check if everything is O.K. with our work and enthusiasm.<br />
The requested batch of biobricks arrived as glycerol stocks.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team discussed about Kickstarter crowdfunding and planned to launch the Memory Lane/Map thing WITHOUT getting people to pay. We will get people to upload their best memories in different forms and potentially do some beautiful art with it like the Memory Palace FYi suggested. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">12th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We had a strategy chat at the lab with Darren. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
FYi drawn the wiki background for the diary section. She also made the illustrations for the T-shirts.<br />
The team also debated on the wiki design and a consensus was reached regarding the site map, default banner, logo.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
In 'Memory Lane', we are going to ask people to 'leave one strong memory' on one page whether in text or pictures. These will be done anonymously but they will leave their emails with us so they will be notified when the 'compilation' is up. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The website came to life today!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">13th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex and Oran came up with the idea of a Creative writing competition. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
FYi, Robin, Alex and Stjohn and Oran focused on wiki building for the weeks to come while the rest of the team worked in the Bacterial Labs.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">14th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The advertisement for the competition was written and the competition was launched. More details about the outcome can be found on the ‘Competition’ subsection.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Met the Westminister team to discuss about the potential modelling collaboration. It was a nice gathering.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">15th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Continued intensively planning and brainstorming for the design of our wiki, especially on the front page design. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">16th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex finished the essay on Neuroethics on which he has dedicated around 2 weeks of research.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">19th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex advertised the writing competition on prizemagic.co.uk.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Stjohn released a new set of rules for managing wiki content in order to make work easier before the wiki freeze.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">20th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The actual work on the main poster on the frontal page started. FYi produced the first sketch and the team gave feedback.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The members’ Profiles are ready to be uploaded on wiki!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">21th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The lab was closed in the morning, however in the afternoon the Bacteria Team prepared selective plates and selective media in order to culture the last arrived biobricks from the HQ. Darren assisted us.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The linkers designed by Stjohn: IGM Ox L1, L2, L3, L4 as well primers for cmv promoter were ordered.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">22th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The first Creative Competition Entry! Yey! Thank you!<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The atmosphere in the Bacterial Lab became slightly more cheerful. The amplification of zeocin from the 2 types of ordered primers was successful as well as the digestion of K812014 and pSB1C3 and pSB1A3. We decided to use the zec bb F,R primers for the further amplification of zeocin. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The Zeocin kill curve was derived, a concentration of 150 ug/ml was used.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">23th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The main poster for the front page was finalised. Well done FYi!<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
New submissions for the Creative writing! <br />
Lonza confirmed a sponsorship of £1, 207. Happy Happy Joy Joy! Well done Weiling!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">26th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The lab was closed today hence we all focused on the wiki content.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The front page poster background - wasteland was completed.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">27th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling emailed Geneious and Eppendorf with regards to Sponsorship.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">28th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The Biosafety forms were filled in as necessary. These must be signed by Darren before the 30th.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We met Darren at 4 pm in the lab to discuss about the biobrick processing.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">29th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We considered the strategy to deal with the linker region. First step is to achieve the annealing of the oligonucleotides making up this linker. We're still waiting for these sequences.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Agreed on the final design of the T-shirts. We're aiming to order them as soon as possible.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">30th August</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We uploaded the first samples of memories on the Memory Lane page.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">September</p><br />
<div class="full_row"> <br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">1st September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The Bacteria Team is living some intense moments! The first transformation of the zeocin ligation took place yesterday and we're all very optimistic! We're about to know the results of this zeocin cloning on the 2nd, the latest the 3rd.<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">2nd September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We finally received the oligonucleotides needed for the linker region! We can now start the cloning plan for this biobrick.<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">3rd September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We started to consider which type of poster would be the best for the Jamboree presentation.<br />
We met Darren at 4 pm to discuss about the cloning strategy for MMP9.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">4th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We used SurveryMonkey in order to make a decision on who should present at the Jamboree. <br />
We reached a consensus for Alex, Tom and Casey to carry out this precious job for the team.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">5th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We decided that the best option as the background colour for the T-shirts would be white.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">6th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
HQ replied about zeocin resistance biobrick. It will count as a new part. They also confirmed our attendance to the Regional Jamboree. Lyon, here we come!<br />
<br />
Alex produced a first draft of the poster while the other gave him feedback and FYi offered to take care of the actual design.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">9th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Today Darren visited us at the lab and brought us MMP9 which was used to transform our competent cells. <br />
A new ligation for zeocin was prepared and competent cells were transformed with it.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">10th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
All the photos of the team members and supervisors were mounted on wiki.<br />
We had another discussion with Darren who advised us to test again the chloramphenicol and also to prepare more competent cells. He also reminded us to always use pSecTag2A as a positive control when minipreping.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">11th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Intense work in the Bacterial Lab as the Biobrick Submission deadline is nigh. Obtained new stocks of valuable pSB1C3.<br />
</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling sent further sponsorship proposals to GSK and New England Biolabs.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">12th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We agreed on the final details for the T-shirts.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Robin released the update on Modelling. Yey!<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Darren gave us some OneShot Top 10 competent cells from 2004 in order to continue with the transformations.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">13th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Bacterial Lab is experiencing some sparks of success. Possibly the ligated zeocin biobrick was achieved!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">14th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We decided not to use K812014 biobrick anymore because of the inconsistent digestion. We're always obtaining 3 bands instead of 2 when digesting with EcoR1 and Pst1.<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">15th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
After many minipreps of the stock of 4 transformations and subsequent digestions of these DNAs, we finally identified the ligated zeocin into pSB1C3 (origin, second ligation and transformation set).<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">16th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Weiling set ligations of MMP9 in pSB1C3 after pcr-ing it and digesting it with EcoR1, Pst1 and Dpn1.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">17th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Began the narration filming for the documentary. This start happened in the Grant Museum of Zooloy.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">18th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Work is being done on the presentation preparation. A first draft of the powerpoint was produced and people invited to give feedback on it.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">19th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Bacteria Lab worked on maxipreping the recombinant zeocin plamid as well as on the MMP9 recombinant plasmid.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">20th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Today is the deadline for sending our biobrick. Casey prepared for shipping and sent the zeocin biobrick.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">23rd September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Narration filming for documentary continued in the UCL campus. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Apart from that, Professor John Powell was very kind to accept to be interviewed by our team.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">24thSeptember</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Transformation of HeLa cells with the recombinant zeocin plasmid was performed today under the assistance of Alex Kinna. Thanks Alex! <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This transformation was proven to be successful!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">25th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The company to print our T-shirts was chosen. We're going with Image Scotland.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">26th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Two representatives of Source Biosciences payed us a visit in the tissue culture lab at 2pm. They discussed transfection methods with us and advertised their reagents.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Alex finished the bioinformatics work at Cancer Research UK in the BMM lab. The programme intended to be run with cancer data to produced results for a paper being written in the lab. Alex begins to run the programme with Alzheimer's data to see how our circuit could be improved.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">27th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Darren confirmed with us the funding for the trip to come! Friday, the 11th of October, in the afternoon, we're flying to Lyon!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">30th September</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The Narration for our documentary was continued with the interview of Professor Patrick Haggard followed by interviewing Professor Stephen Hart. <br />
</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
More information on Documentary subsection of Human Practice section.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">October</p><br />
<div class="full_row"> <br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">1st October</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Darren visited us in the Mammalian Lab and gave us the CMV-MMP9 control plasmid. We then transformed MMP-9 CMV and spread plates <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">2nd October</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The entire team met Darren to rehearse the presentation for the Jamboree in Lyon. We minipreped the ligated MMP-9 and CMV inoculations. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">3rd October</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Robin took charge of the collaboration on Modelling for Westminster iGEM team.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
FYi finalised the circuit drawing which was mounted on the Wiki.<br />
The digestion of cmv+MMP9 recombinant plasmid showed promising results.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">4th October</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Today we received the T-Shirts. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The team reunited at Robin's to make sure that everything is mounted and that the wiki is in order right before the Wiki Freeze at 4:59 am.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
We also took advantage of this event and had our group photo taken all of us wearing our brand new Spotless mind T-shirts! We also included Stjohn's photo who wasn't able to be with us tonight but with whom we'll be finally reunited in Lyon! Yey!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T03:36:57Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/95/GM-animals.png');height:350px;width:430px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T03:36:26Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/95/GM-animals.png');height:350px;width:470px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T03:35:51Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/95/GM-animals.png');height:250px;width:300px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T03:34:28Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T03:32:28Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:360px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Team/AttributionsTeam:UCL/Team/Attributions2013-10-05T03:25:35Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/teamprofilestyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ATTRI";<br />
var word2 = "BUTIONS";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
<style><br />
#all_content #container .row_small<br />
{<br />
height:320px;<br />
}<br />
</style><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">SUPERVISORS</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/1/10/Darren_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Dr. Darren Nesbeth</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Lecturer in Synthetic and Molecular Biology.</b> Supervisor and overall co-ordinator of iGEM at UCL. Lecturer in Synthetic Biology at the Department of Biochemical Engineering, who has been responsible for overseeing the iGEM competition at UCL for many years! Loves to eat porridge and watch vintage VHS films when away from iGEM planning.</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Philipp Boeing</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Msc Computer Science. Human Practice Supervisor.</b> I have been leading iGEM teams at UCL since 2011, including last year’s Plastic Republic team. This year, I principally supervise team Spotless Mind on Human Practice, as well as general iGEM best practice. Apart from iGEM, I spend my time on SynBioSoc and DIYbio. Diversity!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/a/a0/Philipp_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/a/ae/Yanika_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Yanika Borg</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b> PhD Student. Bacterial Lab Supervisor.</b> When I’m not working on my PhD in Synthetic Biology, I am supervising Spotless Mind’s bacterial team. My role is to oversee all experiments carried out on E. coli, to demonstrate molecular cloning techniques to the team, and to calm Andy down on a daily basis. This is my second year supervising iGEM at UCL, and I love the whole experience.</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Alex Kinna</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>PhD Student. Mammalian Lab Supervisor.</b> I am a 2nd year PhD student studying biochemical and protein engineering. My role is to advise and support mammalian cell culture, testing of circuits in mammalian cells and production of target proteins.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/6c/Kinna_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">SCIENTIFIC ADVICE</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>In the course of the development of our idea, we consulted synthetic biologists, neuroscientists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists and geneticists and took on board their feedback in order to develop our idea and add the detail to our genetic circuit. We show what advice we received here and how this advice was incorporated into our final project.</p></b><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Jeremy Cook</b> is a senior lecturer and the programme tutor for the Neuroscience Bsc at UCL. His research interests concern the development the visual system, including the embryonic emergence of retinal cell patterns. He advised us to carefully consider the neurosurgical implications of our project, noting the preferability of an autograph of microglia, and the need to design our circuit so that the microglia only become de-activated at plaques, because a degree of activation is required for chemotaxis. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Dr. John Scholes</b> is an honorary senior lecturer, and lectures on the Neuroscience Bsc course at UCL. He supported the idea of using BDNF in the circuit in order to stop cell cycle re-entry in AD and suggested ApoE as a possible circuit component, as it could increase the activity of our chosen protease. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Jennifer Pococks'</b> research involves cell signaling in neurodegenerative dieseases and this onvolves the study of microglia in the context of AD. She advised the team on using microglia in the lab.<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>Professor Patrick Haggard</b> is a prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, UCL. We are thankful to him for providing inspiration and being a sounding board for our neuroethical investigations, and for agreeing to be filmed as part of our documentary. <br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Professor John Powell</b> is a geneticist in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism. He helped direct our theoretical work on how synthetic neurobiology could be expanded to different brain conditions, therapies and enhancements.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Professor Stephen Hart</b> works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We are thankful for him on his advice concerning how to transfect native microglia in vivo. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using lipid-peptide nanocomplexes. This result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains but increases the feasibility of our idea.<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Tammy Cheng</b> and <b>Dr. Paul Bates</b> are scientists at the BMM lab at Cancer Research UK that envisioned and helped team member Alex create and run a bioinformatics network analysis programme, as well serving as discussing our ideas more generally and so helping to improve them. <br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">OTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>content</b></p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>content</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><p class="body_text"><b>Lubmilla Ruban</b> is a stem cell biologist in UCL's Biochemical Engineering Department, who manages the Cell Culture, Cell Bioprocessing and the Liquid Nitrogen facilities. We are thankful to her for teaching us the basics of mammalian cell culture, including how to passage cells and how to use the essential equipment of the mammalian labs. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Sean Tuite</b> is a first year undergraduate film student to whom we owe thanks for his help in creating our documentary as cameraman and editor. <br />
</p><br />
<b>Annie Wei</b> is a PhD student of the UCL Biochemical Engineering department who offered us supervision and support with lab work<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Team/AttributionsTeam:UCL/Team/Attributions2013-10-05T03:22:32Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/teamprofilestyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ATTRI";<br />
var word2 = "BUTIONS";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
<style><br />
#all_content #container .row_small<br />
{<br />
height:320px;<br />
}<br />
</style><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">SUPERVISORS</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/1/10/Darren_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Dr. Darren Nesbeth</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Lecturer in Synthetic and Molecular Biology.</b> Supervisor and overall co-ordinator of iGEM at UCL. Lecturer in Synthetic Biology at the Department of Biochemical Engineering, who has been responsible for overseeing the iGEM competition at UCL for many years! Loves to eat porridge and watch vintage VHS films when away from iGEM planning.</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Philipp Boeing</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Msc Computer Science. Human Practice Supervisor.</b> I have been leading iGEM teams at UCL since 2011, including last year’s Plastic Republic team. This year, I principally supervise team Spotless Mind on Human Practice, as well as general iGEM best practice. Apart from iGEM, I spend my time on SynBioSoc and DIYbio. Diversity!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/a/a0/Philipp_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/a/ae/Yanika_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Yanika Borg</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b> PhD Student. Bacterial Lab Supervisor.</b> When I’m not working on my PhD in Synthetic Biology, I am supervising Spotless Mind’s bacterial team. My role is to oversee all experiments carried out on E. coli, to demonstrate molecular cloning techniques to the team, and to calm Andy down on a daily basis. This is my second year supervising iGEM at UCL, and I love the whole experience.</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Alex Kinna</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>PhD Student. Mammalian Lab Supervisor.</b> I am a 2nd year PhD student studying biochemical and protein engineering. My role is to advise and support mammalian cell culture, testing of circuits in mammalian cells and production of target proteins.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/6c/Kinna_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">SCIENTIFIC ADVICE</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>In the course of the development of our idea, we consulted synthetic biologists, neuroscientists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists and geneticists and took on board their feedback in order to develop our idea and add the detail to our genetic circuit. We show what advice we received here and how this advice was incorporated into our final project.</p></b><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Jeremy Cook</b> is a senior lecturer and the programme tutor for the Neuroscience Bsc at UCL. His research interests concern the development the visual system, including the embryonic emergence of retinal cell patterns. He advised us to carefully consider the neurosurgical implications of our project, noting the preferability of an autograph of microglia, and the need to design our circuit so that the microglia only become de-activated at plaques, because a degree of activation is required for chemotaxis. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Dr. John Scholes</b> is an honorary senior lecturer, and lectures on the Neuroscience Bsc course at UCL. He supported the idea of using BDNF in the circuit in order to stop cell cycle re-entry in AD and suggested ApoE as a possible circuit component, as it could increase the activity of our chosen protease. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Jennifer Pococks'</b> research involves cell signaling in neurodegenerative dieseases and this onvolves the study of microglia in the context of AD. She advised the team on using microglia in the lab.<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>Professor Patrick Haggard</b> is a prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, UCL. We are thankful to him for providing inspiration and being a sounding board for our neuroethical investigations, and for agreeing to be filmed as part of our documentary. <br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Professor John Powell</b> is a geneticist in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism. He helped direct our theoretical work on how synthetic neurobiology could be expanded to different brain conditions, therapies and enhancements.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Professor Stephen Hart</b> works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We are thankful for him on his advice concerning how to transfect native microglia in vivo. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using lipid-peptide nanocomplexes. This result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains but increases the feasibility of our idea.<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Tammy Cheng</b> and <b>Dr. Paul Bates</b> are scientists at the BMM lab at Cancer Research UK that envisioned and helped team member Alex create and run a bioinformatics network analysis programme, as well serving as discussing our ideas more generally and so helping to improve them. <br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">OTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>content</b></p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>content</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><p class="body_text"><b>Lubmilla Ruban</b> is a stem cell biologist in UCL's Biochemical Engineering Department, who manages the Cell Culture, Cell Bioprocessing and the Liquid Nitrogen facilities. We are thankful to her for teaching us the basics of mammalian cell culture, including how to passage cells and how to use the essential equipment of the mammalian labs. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Sean Tuite</b> is a first year undergraduate film student to whom we owe thanks for his help in creating our documentary as cameraman and editor. <br />
</p><br />
<b>Annie Wei</b> is a PhD student of UCL Biochemical Engineering department who offered us supervision and support with lab work<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Team/AttributionsTeam:UCL/Team/Attributions2013-10-05T03:20:25Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/teamprofilestyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ATTRI";<br />
var word2 = "BUTIONS";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
<style><br />
#all_content #container .row_small<br />
{<br />
height:320px;<br />
}<br />
</style><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">SUPERVISORS</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/1/10/Darren_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Dr. Darren Nesbeth</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Lecturer in Synthetic and Molecular Biology.</b> Supervisor and overall co-ordinator of iGEM at UCL. Lecturer in Synthetic Biology at the Department of Biochemical Engineering, who has been responsible for overseeing the iGEM competition at UCL for many years! Loves to eat porridge and watch vintage VHS films when away from iGEM planning.</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Philipp Boeing</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Msc Computer Science. Human Practice Supervisor.</b> I have been leading iGEM teams at UCL since 2011, including last year’s Plastic Republic team. This year, I principally supervise team Spotless Mind on Human Practice, as well as general iGEM best practice. Apart from iGEM, I spend my time on SynBioSoc and DIYbio. Diversity!<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/a/a0/Philipp_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/a/ae/Yanika_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Yanika Borg</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b> PhD Student. Bacterial Lab Supervisor.</b> When I’m not working on my PhD in Synthetic Biology, I am supervising Spotless Mind’s bacterial team. My role is to oversee all experiments carried out on E. coli, to demonstrate molecular cloning techniques to the team, and to calm Andy down on a daily basis. This is my second year supervising iGEM at UCL, and I love the whole experience.</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Alex Kinna</p> <br />
<p class="body_text"><b>PhD Student. Mammalian Lab Supervisor.</b> I am a 2nd year PhD student studying biochemical and protein engineering. My role is to advise and support mammalian cell culture, testing of circuits in mammalian cells and production of target proteins.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/6c/Kinna_profile.jpg');"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">SCIENTIFIC ADVICE</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>In the course of the development of our idea, we consulted synthetic biologists, neuroscientists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists and geneticists and took on board their feedback in order to develop our idea and add the detail to our genetic circuit. We show what advice we received here and how this advice was incorporated into our final project.</p></b><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Jeremy Cook</b> is a senior lecturer and the programme tutor for the Neuroscience Bsc at UCL. His research interests concern the development the visual system, including the embryonic emergence of retinal cell patterns. He advised us to carefully consider the neurosurgical implications of our project, noting the preferability of an autograph of microglia, and the need to design our circuit so that the microglia only become de-activated at plaques, because a degree of activation is required for chemotaxis. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Dr. John Scholes</b> is an honorary senior lecturer, and lectures on the Neuroscience Bsc course at UCL. He supported the idea of using BDNF in the circuit in order to stop cell cycle re-entry in AD and suggested ApoE as a possible circuit component, as it could increase the activity of our chosen protease. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Jennifer Pococks'</b> research involves cell signaling in neurodegenerative dieseases and this onvolves the study of microglia in the context of AD. She advised the team on using microglia in the lab.<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>Professor Patrick Haggard</b> is a prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, UCL. We are thankful to him for providing inspiration and being a sounding board for our neuroethical investigations, and for agreeing to be filmed as part of our documentary. <br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Professor John Powell</b> is a geneticist in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism. He helped direct our theoretical work on how synthetic neurobiology could be expanded to different brain conditions, therapies and enhancements.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>Professor Stephen Hart</b> works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We are thankful for him on his advice concerning how to transfect native microglia in vivo. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using lipid-peptide nanocomplexes. This result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains but increases the feasibility of our idea.<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Dr. Tammy Cheng</b> and <b>Dr. Paul Bates</b> are scientists at the BMM lab at Cancer Research UK that envisioned and helped team member Alex create and run a bioinformatics network analysis programme, as well serving as discussing our ideas more generally and so helping to improve them. <br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<p class="major_title">OTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_small"><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><p class="body_text"><b>content</b></p><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b>content</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_1"><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><p class="body_text"><b>Lubmilla Ruban</b> is a stem cell biologist in UCL's Biochemical Engineering Department, who manages the Cell Culture, Cell Bioprocessing and the Liquid Nitrogen facilities. We are thankful to her for teaching us the basics of mammalian cell culture, including how to passage cells and how to use the essential equipment of the mammalian labs. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="col_2"><p class="body_text"><b>Sean Tuite</b> is a first year undergraduate film student to whom we owe thanks for his help in creating our documentary as cameraman and editor. <br />
<b>Annie Wei</b> is a PhD student of UCL Biochemical Engineering department who offered us supervision and support with lab work<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/DocumentaryTeam:UCL/Practice/Documentary2013-10-05T03:07:07Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "STOP";<br />
var word2 = "MOTION";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="main_image" style="height:315px;width:420px;"><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-F6LZAyuz9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">EXPLANATORY VIDEO</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">GEM Cells In Plasticine Stop-Motion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Communicating ideas in synthetic biology is often difficult, not only because public understanding of the field is limited but because the field is necessarily cross-disciplinary since it tries to apply genetic engineering techniques as new solutions to diverse array of different problems. When making an explanatory video, it is important to be aware of the public perception. For example, genetic engineering is often seen unfavorably with its reputation in genetically modified foodstuffs and fears over eugenics. Neuroscience can cause unease because brain tampering, even for medical purposes, sounds dangerous especially if the method in question seems opaque and amoral to the layman. Our aim in making this short video was to convey our project, in which we fuse these two controversial fields, in a simple and engaging way that does not skimp on the science to make it as translucent and informative as possible. We chose plasticine stop animation because of its simplistic, unassuming, fun feel. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">DOCUMENTARY</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Interviewing Top Scientists</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We are in the process of putting together a documentary on <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/Neuroethics">'neuro-genethics'</a> which will appear on this website later this month. The narrator's script for our documentary can be found here. We also conducted three interviews as a part of our filming process, which have proved invaluable into informing and improving our project work. This documentary explores the views of both science-related professionals and non scientists on the neuroethics and feasibility of neuro-genetic engineering. We prepared a series of questions that targeted the ethical side of brain cell modification for t various purposes, focusing on Alzheimer’s disease, specifically, whether the alteration of native brain cells will prompt a change of ‘self hood’, and how much this kind of new technology can be trusted outside of science. We also examine the economics feasibility of distributing the treatment, looking at resource allocation, the cost of research for Alzheimer's and the cost-benefit of spending on the ageing population. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=10468"target="_blank">Professor John Powell </a></b> - a Professor in Genetics in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism.<br />
Who is an expert in the field of Neuroscience has been instrumental in finding new candidate genes involved in Alzheimer’s disease. From the discussion with Professor Powell, we disussed the science behind genetically engineering microglia to degrade the Alymoid plaques in the brain. He also pointed out that reducing amyloid plaque density in Alzheimer’s patients will not help much to relieve or stall the progression of the disease. He mentions that it is morally wrong to publicise the plight of specific AD cases, in order o gather support for a new treatment, and that it is not entirely ethical to offer late- stage Alzheimer’s patients neuro-genetically engineered treatments, when they not have the presence of mind to understand what they are agreed to or rejecting. The method of our delivery is not entirely favourable in that to insert a new genetic information in a microglial chassis, we may need to perform a brain surgery and that might not be viable for Alzheimer’s patients and might be risky especially for old age patients. <br />
However he seemed to welcome the idea of having scientists come up with genetic treatments which could alter the way genes are turned on and off and use genetic engineering in the brain for the benefit of humankind. He thinks it is justifiable to change genetic information in brain to replace faulty genes or introduce new genes to treat currently incurable neurological disorders. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor Patrick Haggard</a></b> - A prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, University College London (UCL). His interests lie in voluntary action, and so the question of whether or not we have 'free will', as well as how the brain represents an individual's body within themselves, and so the question of selfhood. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Professor Patrick Haggard, who specializes in the neurophysiology of free will, met us on the 26th of July to discuss our project. During this meeting, we covered areas such as the uniqueness of our project and the ethical issues revolving around preventing degeneration and compromising identity.<br />
He emphasized how we would be changing the person as we would be changing the bits and pieces that are central to the person’s identity, the brain. We are working with biological circuits that are closely related to the humanity of the individual. It is completely different to genetic engineering hair or the kidneys. Click <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/46/Haggard.mp3" target="_blank">here</a> to listen to the audio sample from the documentary.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Furthermore, he points out that our project targets on dementia rather than behavioral and movement disorders as do most current research does. With dementia, the goal is to restore the capacity to remember and process information. The outcome is intrinsically subjective. This is contrasted with treating movement disorders such as Parkinson’s with electrical stimulation. He warns us about the risks in our intervention. The main question that needs to be addressed is how much of an individual’s identity or memory would be comprised. He asks us whether we would be able to show people our treatment would not modify memories or interfere with central brain circuits that give us our identity. <br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Next, we discussed whether there would be any additional risks with using genetic engineering in the brain. Both these fields are of high risk, but Professor Haggard believes there is no additional risk from this overlap. He believes the risks with any intervening treatments in the brain are universal, such as pharmacological ones. Drugs, machinery or genetically modified cells all disturb the brain, therefore there should not be any additional concern when compared with other more conventional treatments.<br />
</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Many people have ethical concerns about technology that prolongs people’s lives indefinitely, Professor Haggard is definitely one of them. He says that degeneration is a natural process and people ought to accept it. The ethics of moving towards ‘immortality’ is new and underdeveloped as modern medicine is still far from achieving ‘immortality’. He admits that he tolerates the natural degeneration of his body but he refuses to allow his mind to degenerate. The mind is so closely linked with the capacity to enhance the happiness of the people around us and ourselves. It is also the basis of our personality. The thought of losing one self and one’s memories is horrifying and tragic. Professor Haggard states that if modern medicine is truly moving towards granting immortality, it is correct how we chose to target a neurodegenerative disease. <br />
<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SLHAR52" target="_blank">Professor Stephen Hart</a></b> - Stephen Hart works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We contacting him for interview because we wanted to discuss methods of gene delivery to the brain that could be incorporated into the clinical theory behind our genetic circuit. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Project/Chemotaxis">lipid-peptide nanocomplexes</a>. Interestingly, this result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains. Their unintended discovery is a great boon for our idea. It is a great example of how our synthetic neurobiological treatment could be brought to the clinic, and selectively target microglia and could be used to develop microglia as a chassis for gene and drug delivery.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_medium" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/Plasticine_banner_UCL.png');height:400px;width:1000px"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:37:29Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:360px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:36:50Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:360px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:300px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:36:00Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:360px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:271px;width:450px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:35:08Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:360px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Altering-brain-cells.png');height:271px;width:375px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:33:54Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:360px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:33:26Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:375px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:33:00Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:380px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:32:25Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:30:40Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:450px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:29:40Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:275px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:28:59Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/4/4f/GM-cells.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:500px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:22:27Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f5/Survey_monkey_high_res.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:300px;width:450px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:21:25Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f5/Survey_monkey_high_res.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:270px;width:500px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:20:31Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f5/Survey_monkey_high_res.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:250px;width:475px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:17:00Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f5/Survey_monkey_high_res.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:400px;width:600px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:16:17Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f5/Survey_monkey_high_res.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/22/Age-of-people.png');height:258px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/File:Survey_monkey_high_res_2.pngFile:Survey monkey high res 2.png2013-10-05T02:08:14Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T02:03:33Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f5/Survey_monkey_high_res.png');height:304px;width:469px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/File:Survey_monkey_high_res.pngFile:Survey monkey high res.png2013-10-05T02:00:58Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/DocumentaryTeam:UCL/Practice/Documentary2013-10-05T01:56:33Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "STOP";<br />
var word2 = "MOTION";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="main_image" style="height:315px;width:420px;"><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-F6LZAyuz9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">EXPLANATORY VIDEO</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">GEM Cells In Plasticine Stop-Motion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Communicating ideas in synthetic biology is often difficult, not only because public understanding of the field is limited but because the field is necessarily cross-disciplinary since it tries to apply genetic engineering techniques as new solutions to diverse array of different problems. When making an explanatory video, it is important to be aware of the public perception. For example, genetic engineering is often seen unfavorably with its reputation in genetically modified foodstuffs and fears over eugenics. Neuroscience can cause unease because brain tampering, even for medical purposes, sounds dangerous especially if the method in question seems opaque and amoral to the layman. Our aim in making this short video was to convey our project, in which we fuse these two controversial fields, in a simple and engaging way that does not skimp on the science to make it as translucent and informative as possible. We chose plasticine stop animation because of its simplistic, unassuming, fun feel. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">DOCUMENTARY</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Interviewing Top Scientists</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We are in the process of putting together a documentary on <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/Neuroethics">'neuro-genethics'</a> which will appear on this website later this month. The narrator's script for our documentary can be found here. We also conducted three interviews as a part of our filming process, which have proved invaluable into informing and improving our project work. This documentary explores the views of both science-related professionals and non scientists on the neuroethics and feasibility of neuro-genetic engineering. We prepared a series of questions that targeted the ethical side of brain cell modification for t various purposes, focusing on Alzheimer’s disease, specifically, whether the alteration of native brain cells will prompt a change of ‘self hood’, and how much this kind of new technology can be trusted outside of science. We also examine the economics feasibility of distributing the treatment, looking at resource allocation, the cost of research for Alzheimer's and the cost-benefit of spending on the ageing population. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=10468"target="_blank">Professor John Powell </a></b> - a Professor in Genetics in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor Patrick Haggard</a></b> - A prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, University College London (UCL). His interests lie in voluntary action, and so the question of whether or not we have 'free will', as well as how the brain represents an individual's body within themselves, and so the question of selfhood. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SLHAR52" target="_blank">Professor Stephen Hart</a></b> - Stephen Hart works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We contacting him for interview because we wanted to discuss methods of gene delivery to the brain that could be incorporated into the clinical theory behind our genetic circuit. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Project/Chemotaxis">lipid-peptide nanocomplexes</a>. Interestingly, this result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains. Their unintended discovery is a great boon for our idea. It is a great example of how our synthetic neurobiological treatment could be brought to the clinic, and selectively target microglia and could be used to develop microglia as a chassis for gene and drug delivery.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_medium" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/Plasticine_banner_UCL.png');height:400px;width:1000px"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/DocumentaryTeam:UCL/Practice/Documentary2013-10-05T01:55:07Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "STOP";<br />
var word2 = "MOTION";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="main_image" style="height:315px;width:420px;"><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-F6LZAyuz9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">EXPLANATORY VIDEO</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">GEM Cells In Plasticine Stop-Motion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Communicating ideas in synthetic biology is often difficult, not only because public understanding of the field is limited but because the field is necessarily cross-disciplinary since it tries to apply genetic engineering techniques as new solutions to diverse array of different problems. When making an explanatory video, it is important to be aware of the public perception. For example, genetic engineering is often seen unfavorably with its reputation in genetically modified foodstuffs and fears over eugenics. Neuroscience can cause unease because brain tampering, even for medical purposes, sounds dangerous especially if the method in question seems opaque and amoral to the layman. Our aim in making this short video was to convey our project, in which we fuse these two controversial fields, in a simple and engaging way that does not skimp on the science to make it as translucent and informative as possible. We chose plasticine stop animation because of its simplistic, unassuming, fun feel. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">DOCUMENTARY</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Interviewing Top Scientists</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We are in the process of putting together a documentary on <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/Neuroethics">'neuro-genethics'</a> which will appear on this website later this month. The narrator's script for our documentary can be found here. We also conducted three interviews as a part of our filming process, which have proved invaluable into informing and improving our project work. This documentary explores the views of both science-related professionals and non scientists on the neuroethics and feasibility of neuro-genetic engineering. We prepared a series of questions that targeted the ethical side of brain cell modification for t various purposes, focusing on Alzheimer’s disease, specifically, whether the alteration of native brain cells will prompt a change of ‘self hood’, and how much this kind of new technology can be trusted outside of science. We also examine the economics feasibility of distributing the treatment, looking at resource allocation, the cost of research for Alzheimer's and the cost-benefit of spending on the ageing population. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=10468"target="_blank">Professor John Powell - a Professor in Genetics in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor Patrick Haggard</a></b> - A prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, University College London (UCL). His interests lie in voluntary action, and so the question of whether or not we have 'free will', as well as how the brain represents an individual's body within themselves, and so the question of selfhood. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SLHAR52" target="_blank">Professor Stephen Hart</a></b> - Stephen Hart works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We contacting him for interview because we wanted to discuss methods of gene delivery to the brain that could be incorporated into the clinical theory behind our genetic circuit. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Project/Chemotaxis">lipid-peptide nanocomplexes</a>. Interestingly, this result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains. Their unintended discovery is a great boon for our idea. It is a great example of how our synthetic neurobiological treatment could be brought to the clinic, and selectively target microglia and could be used to develop microglia as a chassis for gene and drug delivery.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_medium" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/Plasticine_banner_UCL.png');height:400px;width:1000px"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/DocumentaryTeam:UCL/Practice/Documentary2013-10-05T01:51:48Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "STOP";<br />
var word2 = "MOTION";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="main_image" style="height:315px;width:420px;"><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-F6LZAyuz9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">EXPLANATORY VIDEO</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">GEM Cells In Plasticine Stop-Motion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Communicating ideas in synthetic biology is often difficult, not only because public understanding of the field is limited but because the field is necessarily cross-disciplinary since it tries to apply genetic engineering techniques as new solutions to diverse array of different problems. When making an explanatory video, it is important to be aware of the public perception. For example, genetic engineering is often seen unfavorably with its reputation in genetically modified foodstuffs and fears over eugenics. Neuroscience can cause unease because brain tampering, even for medical purposes, sounds dangerous especially if the method in question seems opaque and amoral to the layman. Our aim in making this short video was to convey our project, in which we fuse these two controversial fields, in a simple and engaging way that does not skimp on the science to make it as translucent and informative as possible. We chose plasticine stop animation because of its simplistic, unassuming, fun feel. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">DOCUMENTARY</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Interviewing Top Scientists</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We are in the process of putting together a documentary on <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/Neuroethics">'neuro-genethics'</a> which will appear on this website later this month. The narrator's script for our documentary can be found here. We also conducted three interviews as a part of our filming process, which have proved invaluable into informing and improving our project work. This documentary explores the views of both science-related professionals and non scientists on the neuroethics and feasibility of neuro-genetic engineering. We prepared a series of questions that targeted the ethical side of brain cell modification for t various purposes, focusing on Alzheimer’s disease, specifically, whether the alteration of native brain cells will prompt a change of ‘self hood’, and how much this kind of new technology can be trusted outside of science. We also examine the economics feasibility of distributing the treatment, looking at resource allocation, the cost of research for Alzheimer's and the cost-benefit of spending on the ageing population. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=10468">Professor John Powell - a Professor in Genetics in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor Patrick Haggard</a></b> - A prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, University College London (UCL). His interests lie in voluntary action, and so the question of whether or not we have 'free will', as well as how the brain represents an individual's body within themselves, and so the question of selfhood. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SLHAR52" target="_blank">Professor Stephen Hart</a></b> - Stephen Hart works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We contacting him for interview because we wanted to discuss methods of gene delivery to the brain that could be incorporated into the clinical theory behind our genetic circuit. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Project/Chemotaxis">lipid-peptide nanocomplexes</a>. Interestingly, this result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains. Their unintended discovery is a great boon for our idea. It is a great example of how our synthetic neurobiological treatment could be brought to the clinic, and selectively target microglia and could be used to develop microglia as a chassis for gene and drug delivery.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_medium" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/Plasticine_banner_UCL.png');height:400px;width:1000px"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/DocumentaryTeam:UCL/Practice/Documentary2013-10-05T01:50:29Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "STOP";<br />
var word2 = "MOTION";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="main_image" style="height:315px;width:420px;"><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-F6LZAyuz9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">EXPLANATORY VIDEO</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">GEM Cells In Plasticine Stop-Motion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Communicating ideas in synthetic biology is often difficult, not only because public understanding of the field is limited but because the field is necessarily cross-disciplinary since it tries to apply genetic engineering techniques as new solutions to diverse array of different problems. When making an explanatory video, it is important to be aware of the public perception. For example, genetic engineering is often seen unfavorably with its reputation in genetically modified foodstuffs and fears over eugenics. Neuroscience can cause unease because brain tampering, even for medical purposes, sounds dangerous especially if the method in question seems opaque and amoral to the layman. Our aim in making this short video was to convey our project, in which we fuse these two controversial fields, in a simple and engaging way that does not skimp on the science to make it as translucent and informative as possible. We chose plasticine stop animation because of its simplistic, unassuming, fun feel. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">DOCUMENTARY</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Interviewing Top Scientists</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We are in the process of putting together a documentary on <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/Neuroethics">'neuro-genethics'</a> which will appear on this website later this month. The narrator's script for our documentary can be found here. We also conducted three interviews as a part of our filming process, which have proved invaluable into informing and improving our project work. This documentary explores the views of both science-related professionals and non scientists on the neuroethics and feasibility of neuro-genetic engineering. We prepared a series of questions that targeted the ethical side of brain cell modification for t various purposes, focusing on Alzheimer’s disease, specifically, whether the alteration of native brain cells will prompt a change of ‘self hood’, and how much this kind of new technology can be trusted outside of science. We also examine the economics feasibility of distributing the treatment, looking at resource allocation, the cost of research for Alzheimer's and the cost-benefit of spending on the ageing population. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor John Powell - a Professor in Genetics in the Department of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in schizophrenia and autism.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor Patrick Haggard</a></b> - A prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, University College London (UCL). His interests lie in voluntary action, and so the question of whether or not we have 'free will', as well as how the brain represents an individual's body within themselves, and so the question of selfhood. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SLHAR52" target="_blank">Professor Stephen Hart</a></b> - Stephen Hart works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We contacting him for interview because we wanted to discuss methods of gene delivery to the brain that could be incorporated into the clinical theory behind our genetic circuit. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Project/Chemotaxis">lipid-peptide nanocomplexes</a>. Interestingly, this result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains. Their unintended discovery is a great boon for our idea. It is a great example of how our synthetic neurobiological treatment could be brought to the clinic, and selectively target microglia and could be used to develop microglia as a chassis for gene and drug delivery.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_medium" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/Plasticine_banner_UCL.png');height:400px;width:1000px"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/DocumentaryTeam:UCL/Practice/Documentary2013-10-05T01:48:12Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "STOP";<br />
var word2 = "MOTION";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="main_image" style="height:315px;width:420px;"><iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-F6LZAyuz9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">EXPLANATORY VIDEO</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">GEM Cells In Plasticine Stop-Motion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Communicating ideas in synthetic biology is often difficult, not only because public understanding of the field is limited but because the field is necessarily cross-disciplinary since it tries to apply genetic engineering techniques as new solutions to diverse array of different problems. When making an explanatory video, it is important to be aware of the public perception. For example, genetic engineering is often seen unfavorably with its reputation in genetically modified foodstuffs and fears over eugenics. Neuroscience can cause unease because brain tampering, even for medical purposes, sounds dangerous especially if the method in question seems opaque and amoral to the layman. Our aim in making this short video was to convey our project, in which we fuse these two controversial fields, in a simple and engaging way that does not skimp on the science to make it as translucent and informative as possible. We chose plasticine stop animation because of its simplistic, unassuming, fun feel. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">DOCUMENTARY</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Interviewing Top Scientists</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We are in the process of putting together a documentary on 'neuro-genethics' which has been fully filmed and will appear on this website later this month. The narrator's script for our documentary can be found <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f9/Neuroethics_of_Engineering.pdf"><b>here</b></a>. We also conducted three interviews as a part of our filming process, which have proved invaluable into informing and improving our project work.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
We are in the process of putting together a documentary on <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/Neuroethics">'neuro-genethics'</a> which will appear on this website later this month. The narrator's script for our documentary can be found here. We also conducted three interviews as a part of our filming process, which have proved invaluable into informing and improving our project work. This documentary explores the views of both science-related professionals and non scientists on the neuroethics and feasibility of neuro-genetic engineering. We prepared a series of questions that targeted the ethical side of brain cell modification for t various purposes, focusing on Alzheimer’s disease, specifically, whether the alteration of native brain cells will prompt a change of ‘self hood’, and how much this kind of new technology can be trusted outside of science. We also examine the economics feasibility of distributing the treatment, looking at resource allocation, the cost of research for Alzheimer's and the cost-benefit of spending on the ageing population. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor John Powell - a Professor in Genetics in the Departments of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine at Kings College London. His research interests are in the application of human genetics to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders; in particular the neurological disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and motor neurone disease and the psychiatric disorders schizophrenia and autism. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/personal?upi=PHAGG98" target="_blank">Professor Patrick Haggard</a></b> - A prominent figure in neuroethical debate, Patrick Haggard is is a neuroscientist at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Department of Psychology, University College London (UCL). His interests lie in voluntary action, and so the question of whether or not we have 'free will', as well as how the brain represents an individual's body within themselves, and so the question of selfhood. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
<b><a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=SLHAR52" target="_blank">Professor Stephen Hart</a></b> - Stephen Hart works on gene therapy at Wolfson Centre for Gene Therapy of Childhood Disease, UCL. We contacting him for interview because we wanted to discuss methods of gene delivery to the brain that could be incorporated into the clinical theory behind our genetic circuit. By pure serendipity we found that he and his research team had developed a method of transfecting microglia in vivo using <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Project/Chemotaxis">lipid-peptide nanocomplexes</a>. Interestingly, this result of his was un-expected as his team had been trying to transfect cancerous cells in rat brains. Their unintended discovery is a great boon for our idea. It is a great example of how our synthetic neurobiological treatment could be brought to the clinic, and selectively target microglia and could be used to develop microglia as a chassis for gene and drug delivery.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="row_medium" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/Plasticine_banner_UCL.png');height:400px;width:1000px"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T01:35:15Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Data analysis indicates that the majority is against large enhancements involving alteration of intellectual and cognitive traits from intelligence to memory,as this concerns a relative sensitive topic concerning identity modification. It is interesting to see how much alteration of the brain the public deem to be appropriate <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/TEDTeam:UCL/Practice/TED2013-10-05T01:29:03Z<p>Weiling: Undo revision 305722 by Weiling (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "TED";<br />
var word2 = "DEBATE";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/e/ec/TED.png');height:400px;width:470px;"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">TED DEBATE</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">The Conversation</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
On TED conversations, an engagement part of a site renown for spreading innovative ideas, we posed the question ‘Should the neuronal environment of the brain be genetically modified to treat some forms of neurodegeneration?’ Specifically, we wanted to know if users thought it ethical for scientists to use genetic treatments which involve introducing new genes into native cells and injecting them into the brain for the benefit of patients; how much external intervention into the brain they deemed appropriate; to what degree resources ought to be spent on such an ethically grey area. The responses were used, along with the responses from our speed debate, to inform and help shape the direction of our Neuroethics Speed Debate and our feasibility reports. They also helped to lead to the conception of ‘Eternal Sunshine’ as a good entry point for the public into our ideas, by emphasising the gravity of Alzheimer’s disease.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="minor_title">Snippets From The Debate</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
Here are some excerpts from the discussion:<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="citation_text"><b><br />
“...we must be careful not to "replace" anything in the brain unless we can be sure that it won't CHANGE THE PERSON'S THINKING PROCESS COMPLETELY”<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="citation_text"><b><br />
“Side effects and complications may cause problems, potentially fatally so, but the long term benefit outstrips the risk--we couldn't advance medical science without it.”<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="citation_text"><b><br />
“...on a fundamental level, it has no more ethical limitations than say, a new drug or surgical procedure that requires further testing.”<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="citation_text"><b><br />
“As long as the researcher is fully honest and open with the people he is working with, I see no ethical problems at all with brain research or genetic modification research.”<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="citation_text"><b><br />
“It is the nature of medical research that not all of the risks can be quantified.”<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="citation_text"><b><br />
“What is unethical today becomes ethical tomorrow. It happened time and again in the human history. The speed of innovation has always been faster then the evolution of morality and ethics in society.”<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
You can follow the debate <a href="http://www.ted.com/conversations/19733/should_the_neuronal_environmen.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T01:25:21Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is somehow justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T01:22:47Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority is against genetic neuro-therapy for cosmetic psychology purposes, however using genetic neuro-therapy for rehabilitation to reduce criminality is justified. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:45:01Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:44:26Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:43:44Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:42:21Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:41:47Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c5/Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.png');height:302px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/File:Survey_monkey_gene_manipulation.pngFile:Survey monkey gene manipulation.png2013-10-05T00:40:55Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:38:35Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Survey_monkey_age3.png');height:240px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:37:48Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Survey_monkey_age3.png');height:240px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:36:57Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Survey_monkey_age3.png');height:240px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c9/Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.png');height:257px;width:401px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/File:Survey_monkey_altering_brain_cells.pngFile:Survey monkey altering brain cells.png2013-10-05T00:35:18Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:33:42Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Survey_monkey_age3.png');height:240px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.png');height:258px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/File:Survey_monkey_GM_cells_in_body.pngFile:Survey monkey GM cells in body.png2013-10-05T00:32:52Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Weilinghttp://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/Practice/SurveyTeam:UCL/Practice/Survey2013-10-05T00:29:50Z<p>Weiling: </p>
<hr />
<div><html><br />
<br />
<br />
<head><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/essaystyles.css?action=raw&ctype=text/css" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<script><br />
var word1 = "ONLINE";<br />
var word2 = "SURVEY";<br />
</script><br />
<br />
</head><br />
<br />
<br />
<body><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/header.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="menu"><br />
<br />
<div id="dropdown"><br />
<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/dropdown.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="all_content"><br />
<br />
<div id="container"><br />
<!-- START CONTENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="full_page"><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/3/3c/Survey_monkey_age3.png');height:240px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="gap"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<p class="major_title">Online Survey</p><br />
<p class="minor_title">Consulting Public Opinion</p><br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The online survey serves the purpose of exploring the public opinion on synthetic biology and neuro-engineering. We wanted to research who are the ones that are interested and concerned about this line of research, and what their opinion are on different forms of neuro-genetic engineering, how much alteration is deemed appropriate, and what are the major concerns of neuro-genetic engineering. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to benefit human health? These products are created outside of the body, and administered as drugs.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This concludes that the majority (53.1%) of the people who responded to the survey are positive about using gene products from genetically modified bacteria created outside of the body through drug delivery to benefit human health. This indicates a positive respond from the public in that they are comfortable using such technology for the benefit of human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/a/af/Survey_monkey_occupation.png');height:315px;width:425px"></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable are you about using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health? These products are taken from animals, and may involve killing the animal.<br />
</b>['</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The results from this question is relatively mixed, this indicates roughly that the public is generally not in favour of using gene products from GM animals to benefit human health, these products are taken from animals and may involve killing the animal. A big portion (34.4%) is indifferent about the matter and (28.1%) is in favour of using gene products from GM animals. This indicates that the ethical side of using animals for drug making is justified if it is seen to benefit the human kind. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
How comfortable do you feel about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being inserted into your body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits? For example, ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This diagram indicates that the majority (59.4%) are in favour of both the use of GM human cells in the body (excluding the nervous system) for health benefits such as ingesting a yoghurt with live GM bacteria or inserting GM human cells to tackle cancer. Second in line is people in favour of inserting live GM bacteria into the body through ingestion to tackle cancer cells, but not genetically modifying native human cells to tackle cancer. This data concludes that the public is generally more comfortable to have foreign substance be injected into the body rather than having their own cells modified. In general, the responses show that people are more in favour of using genetically modification to treat health diseases. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<div class="small_image_right" style="background-image:url('https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/5/5e/Survey_monkey_GM_animals.png');height:271px;width:400px"></div><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you feel comfortable with a medical procedure that alters gene expression in the brain?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
This question concludes that most people are in favour of altering brain cells as a medical procedure against dementia, though there is only a slight difference between those who are against and those who are in favour. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you support the use of genetic neuro-enhancements in society, which alter gene expression / connectivity in the brain? These procedures could alter intellectual and cognitive traits, from intelligence to memory.<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
Would you generally support the use of genetic neuro-therapy in society? This could reduce, for example, violent behaviour in criminals, sexual preferences of paedophiles, etc., as well as introduce 'cosmetic psychology', the ability to choose religiosity, optimism/pessimism, sleeping patterns, sexual orientation, etc?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The majority of the reply is against large enhancements <br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><b> <br />
What do you feel are the main driving influences behind your answers to the last three questions concerning gene manipulation in brain cells?<br />
</b><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"><br />
The last question concludes that the public opinion on the driving influences behind gene manipulation in the brain comes largely from the benefits/ costs to society, the next one comes from benefits/ costs to the happiness of the treatment user. Religious moral view take up a very little percentage of the reply. It appears that more people care largely about the benefit and cost to society rather than the benefit and costs to the health of the treatment user.<br />
</p><br />
<br />
<p class="body_text"> <br />
In conclusion, the result seemed to give a nice overview of the public opinion of synthetic biology and neuro-genetic engineering. Data analysis and a graphic display of the results conclude that most of the young people care about synthetic biology more than the older generation. The greatest split of opinion is still the debate between whether genetic engineering of native cells in the brain is acceptable or not. This indicates that as a relatively new field of therapy, the public is still uncertain whether the treatment is safe and effective to use. The cost to society is also a concern as it appears to be relatively expensive to research and use genetically engineer cells as a medical treatment. <br />
</p><br />
<br />
</p><br />
<div class="gap"></div><br />
<br />
<!-- END CONTENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
</div><br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/footer.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> <br />
</script><br />
<br />
</body><br />
</html></div>Weiling