Team:UCL/Practice/TED

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "<html> <head> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://2013.igem.org/Team:UCL/static/head.js?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> </script> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text...")
Line 47: Line 47:
<div class="main_image"></div>
<div class="main_image"></div>
-
<p class="major_title">MAJOR TITLE</p>
+
<p class="major_title">TED DEBATE</p>
-
<p class="minor_title">Minor Title</p>
+
<p class="minor_title">The Conversation</p>
<p class="body_text">
<p class="body_text">
-
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus vel fringilla diam. Integer placerat sapien sed risus mollis, eget hendrerit lorem tincidunt. Cras a sem eros. Ut nec ligula eget tortor ornare tempus sit amet quis risus. Quisque condimentum, ipsum ac rhoncus ornare, tellus augue imperdiet libero, in venenatis justo arcu quis tellus. Vivamus magna libero, tempus ac augue at, placerat vulputate nunc. Praesent fringilla id erat ut sagittis. Sed nec semper risus, nec condimentum leo. Vestibulum pharetra pellentesque augue, non ultrices leo varius et. Vestibulum id egestas orci. Vestibulum metus ipsum, iaculis nec sapien in, fringilla cursus orci. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Curabitur eget vulputate ligula. Sed venenatis nulla et porta pharetra. Suspendisse pharetra suscipit justo sagittis consequat. Morbi eu iaculis diam, ac rhoncus urna. Pellentesque eros ligula, mollis vitae metus sit amet, interdum gravida nunc. Duis tempor quam id rhoncus sodales. Nunc commodo accumsan orci ut faucibus. Quisque vitae luctus libero. Nullam risus libero, convallis et viverra sit amet, convallis a neque. Integer adipiscing ac arcu sit amet luctus. In dignissim mauris non justo tempor, in rhoncus augue volutpat. Duis euismod sodales blandit. Vivamus volutpat molestie dignissim. Quisque cursus quam cursus dui faucibus convallis. Praesent dignissim, sem ut posuere accumsan, libero diam consequat libero, vel tempor dui mi sed massa. Aenean eros arcu, sollicitudin a euismod eu, placerat vel nunc. Nunc consequat blandit fermentum. Curabitur ante erat, lobortis ac faucibus a, sollicitudin egestas nisi. Morbi ut dolor scelerisque, fermentum est vitae, commodo tortor. Vestibulum ornare semper lorem vel volutpat. In erat ligula, auctor eu pellentesque vitae, sollicitudin id sapien. Duis pharetra sagittis purus hendrerit pharetra. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus elementum iaculis neque nec fringilla. Nunc a scelerisque nulla, et varius massa. In eu pretium eros. Quisque nec lacus elit. Mauris malesuada luctus dapibus. Vivamus eget ultricies sem. Quisque nulla tellus, euismod vel vehicula adipiscing, ornare sit amet dui. Sed eget mauris aliquam, feugiat diam vel, lacinia nunc. Ut vel est facilisis, dictum sem sit amet, lobortis arcu. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce ut accumsan sapien. Sed pharetra ullamcorper dolor vitae rutrum. Aliquam luctus mattis felis vitae semper. Vivamus id sodales purus. Cras quis quam non tortor tincidunt laoreet varius suscipit lectus. Curabitur faucibus et libero quis vulputate. Nunc sed gravida libero. Phasellus eleifend, metus mattis molestie luctus, augue libero lacinia massa, ac volutpat tortor tortor quis sapien. Donec ultrices felis ut arcu rutrum sollicitudin. Praesent nec ligula at risus hendrerit aliquam. Etiam vestibulum aliquam ultricies. Ut semper libero volutpat, rutrum enim et, eleifend nibh. Nulla ornare, elit sed laoreet condimentum, quam nunc auctor sem, eu commodo elit ante id magna.  
+
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.
</p>
</p>
 +
 +
 +
<p class="minor_title">Snippets From The Debate</p>
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
Here are some excerpts from thee discussion:
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
“...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”
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
“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.”
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
“...on a fundamental level, it has no more ethical limitations than say, a new drug or surgical procedure that requires further testing.”
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
“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.”
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
“It is the nature of medical research that not all of the risks can be quantified.”
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
“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.”
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p class="body_text">
 +
You can follow the debate <a href="http://www.ted.com/conversations/19733/should_the_neuronal_environmen.html" target="_blank">here</a>.
 +
 +
</p>
 +
<div class="gap"></div>
<div class="gap"></div>

Revision as of 16:25, 3 September 2013

TED DEBATE

The Conversation

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.

Snippets From The Debate

Here are some excerpts from thee discussion:

“...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”

“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.”

“...on a fundamental level, it has no more ethical limitations than say, a new drug or surgical procedure that requires further testing.”

“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.”

“It is the nature of medical research that not all of the risks can be quantified.”

“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.”

You can follow the debate here.