"
Team:Heidelberg/Outreach
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
<br /><br /> | <br /><br /> | ||
We talked to <a href=http://www.dkfz.de/de/f030/groups/zawatzky/>Prof. Dr. Rainer Zawatzky </a>, who is <b>group leader and safety representative at the <a href=http://www.dkfz.de/en/index.html>German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) </a></b>as well as <b>deputy chairman of the regional office of the <a href=http://www.bund.net/ueber_uns/bund_in_english/>BUND </a></b> (a German NGO for preservation of the environment) not only for safety concerns, but also majorly for receiving input from a scientific expert. The discussion we engaged in mainly dealt with three topics: Impacts of synthetic biology in general (and our project in particular) on the environment, synthetic biology as a risk-technology and sustainability, as we intend to provide an energy-efficient alternative to conventional gold-recycling. | We talked to <a href=http://www.dkfz.de/de/f030/groups/zawatzky/>Prof. Dr. Rainer Zawatzky </a>, who is <b>group leader and safety representative at the <a href=http://www.dkfz.de/en/index.html>German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) </a></b>as well as <b>deputy chairman of the regional office of the <a href=http://www.bund.net/ueber_uns/bund_in_english/>BUND </a></b> (a German NGO for preservation of the environment) not only for safety concerns, but also majorly for receiving input from a scientific expert. The discussion we engaged in mainly dealt with three topics: Impacts of synthetic biology in general (and our project in particular) on the environment, synthetic biology as a risk-technology and sustainability, as we intend to provide an energy-efficient alternative to conventional gold-recycling. | ||
| - | + | <br /> | |
We received first input concerning the communication of our project and our software to the general public. Prof. Zawatzky pointed out that possible concerns of the public regarding our project are negligible – at least for the planning of our project. In his long experience as researcher, he often experienced anxiety of non-scientists towards his research and doubts the effectiveness of advances in Human Practice, as discussions with concerned people may not lead to the expected result. However, we believe that it is in fact possible to address and to banish fears by informing society about one’s work and by promoting communication between science and the society.<br /><br /> | We received first input concerning the communication of our project and our software to the general public. Prof. Zawatzky pointed out that possible concerns of the public regarding our project are negligible – at least for the planning of our project. In his long experience as researcher, he often experienced anxiety of non-scientists towards his research and doubts the effectiveness of advances in Human Practice, as discussions with concerned people may not lead to the expected result. However, we believe that it is in fact possible to address and to banish fears by informing society about one’s work and by promoting communication between science and the society.<br /><br /> | ||
| - | With Mrs. Van Aaken, who not only is a <b>pedagogue for environmental education</b>, but also <b>member of the BUND</b>, we talked about the impact of synthetic biology on environment and on our lives in general. We cannot foresee all consequences and the impact our actions will have for the future – which accounts for both, the interactions of our “creations” with different ecosystems as well as the impact of synthetic food or medicine on our bodies. The evaluation of possible risks arising from them has to be done according to the specific use of the synthetic product. Furthermore, we should return to our essential needs instead of the urge to pile up cheap goods and wealth at the expense of nature and the poor. | + | With Mrs. Van Aaken, who not only is a <b>pedagogue for environmental education</b>, but also <b>member of the BUND</b>, we talked about the impact of synthetic biology on environment and on our lives in general. We cannot foresee all consequences and the impact our actions will have for the future – which accounts for both, the interactions of our “creations” with different ecosystems as well as the impact of synthetic food or medicine on our bodies. The evaluation of possible risks arising from them has to be done according to the specific use of the synthetic product. Furthermore, we should return to our essential needs instead of the urge to pile up cheap goods and wealth at the expense of nature and the poor.<br /> |
Besides this general issue, we also considered the question whether synthetic biology is an artificial process or rather something natural. When interacting with the non-scientific public in general (see below), a common association to synthetic biology was “artificial”. However, we can ask whether synthetic biology actually is human-made artificial or accelerated natural evolution. Addressing these questions in the discussion with Mrs. Van Aaken lead us further in the very theory behind science in general, hence, what natural sciences really are, what nature is and whether our quest for knowledge and technological advance is part of human nature. These considerations opened up an entirely new point of view on what we as scientists-in-training were doing and hence, we thank Mrs. Van Aaken for broadening our horizon during this enlightening afternoon.<br /><br /> | Besides this general issue, we also considered the question whether synthetic biology is an artificial process or rather something natural. When interacting with the non-scientific public in general (see below), a common association to synthetic biology was “artificial”. However, we can ask whether synthetic biology actually is human-made artificial or accelerated natural evolution. Addressing these questions in the discussion with Mrs. Van Aaken lead us further in the very theory behind science in general, hence, what natural sciences really are, what nature is and whether our quest for knowledge and technological advance is part of human nature. These considerations opened up an entirely new point of view on what we as scientists-in-training were doing and hence, we thank Mrs. Van Aaken for broadening our horizon during this enlightening afternoon.<br /><br /> | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="col-lg-3"> | <div class="col-lg-3"> | ||
| - | <div id="publicbox" class="box" data-name="Public outreach" data-desc="Our second pillar is the communication and interaction with the public. We therefore organized three open 30 minutes presentations on synthetic biology and our iGEM project followed by a question and answer session with the audience. More than 100 people from different backgrounds came to this interactive event, where we collected impressions before and after the talk in a “Live-/Life-Experiment” with the audience. | + | <div id="publicbox" class="box" data-name="Public outreach" data-desc="Our second pillar is the communication and interaction with the public. We therefore organized three open 30 minutes presentations on synthetic biology and our iGEM project followed by a question and answer session with the audience. More than 100 people from different backgrounds came to this interactive event, where we collected impressions before and after the talk in a “Live-/Life-Experiment” with the audience.<br /> |
| - | We started our presentation with the <b>Life-/Live-Experiment</b>: We distributed questionnaires with three different questions. Before the main part of our talk, the audience was asked to answer only question 1, which was either “What is synthetic biology?” or “What do you think synthetic biology is?” – each person could decide which one accounts better to his or her knowledge on synthetic biology. In our talk, we first gave a brief introduction to synthetic biology. Later, we explained the concept and some projects of the iGEM competition and elaborated further on “The Philosopher’s stone” – our own project. Finally, we gave our personal conclusion and outlook on our future with synthetic biology, i.e. opportunities and risks when implementing synthetic biology further into our lives. Before offering time for questions, we ended our presentation with the second part of our Life-/Live-Experiment. The latter two questions were: “What do you associate with synthetic biology?” and “Which questions remained unanswered?”. Here, we did not want to know, if the audience had listened to what we were presenting, but rather in what way the presentation had changed or broadened their opinion on synthetic biology. We intended to stimulate the communication between “science” and “the public”, but in order to do so, the explanations have to reach a certain level of abstraction in order to allow proper discussion. Receiving this feedback from the audience helped us to improve our way of presenting the project. | + | We started our presentation with the <b>Life-/Live-Experiment</b>: We distributed questionnaires with three different questions. Before the main part of our talk, the audience was asked to answer only question 1, which was either “What is synthetic biology?” or “What do you think synthetic biology is?” – each person could decide which one accounts better to his or her knowledge on synthetic biology. In our talk, we first gave a brief introduction to synthetic biology. Later, we explained the concept and some projects of the iGEM competition and elaborated further on “The Philosopher’s stone” – our own project. Finally, we gave our personal conclusion and outlook on our future with synthetic biology, i.e. opportunities and risks when implementing synthetic biology further into our lives. Before offering time for questions, we ended our presentation with the second part of our Life-/Live-Experiment. The latter two questions were: “What do you associate with synthetic biology?” and “Which questions remained unanswered?”. Here, we did not want to know, if the audience had listened to what we were presenting, but rather in what way the presentation had changed or broadened their opinion on synthetic biology. We intended to stimulate the communication between “science” and “the public”, but in order to do so, the explanations have to reach a certain level of abstraction in order to allow proper discussion. Receiving this feedback from the audience helped us to improve our way of presenting the project.<br /> |
| - | After our talk, many questions were addressed, concerning both the principles of synthetic biology in general and the ones of NRPS in particular. However, the vast majority of questions was not about understanding the biology behind “The Philosopher’s Stone”, but rather about the potential of synthetic biology and the concerns our audience had. Hence, the discussions following the presentations were highly interesting and offered valuable input for us, as we could feel that the major concerns of people are based on the fact that synthetic biology, for them, is a black-box. Our task as young researchers is to bring light to the darkness, open the box and show society that synthetic biology – strongly abstracted – is building, not playing, with building bricks. | + | After our talk, many questions were addressed, concerning both the principles of synthetic biology in general and the ones of NRPS in particular. However, the vast majority of questions was not about understanding the biology behind “The Philosopher’s Stone”, but rather about the potential of synthetic biology and the concerns our audience had. Hence, the discussions following the presentations were highly interesting and offered valuable input for us, as we could feel that the major concerns of people are based on the fact that synthetic biology, for them, is a black-box. Our task as young researchers is to bring light to the darkness, open the box and show society that synthetic biology – strongly abstracted – is building, not playing, with building bricks.<br /> |
When analyzing our little experiment, the most striking result was that people who had stated that they did not have any idea what synthetic biology is exactly before our talk, did not at all write down “open questions” concerning the understanding, but rather ones highly stimulating the discussion. This and the feedback some people gave us directly, tells us, that they understood the main ideas of our project.<br /><br /> | When analyzing our little experiment, the most striking result was that people who had stated that they did not have any idea what synthetic biology is exactly before our talk, did not at all write down “open questions” concerning the understanding, but rather ones highly stimulating the discussion. This and the feedback some people gave us directly, tells us, that they understood the main ideas of our project.<br /><br /> | ||
| - | Furthermore, we were invited to the <b><a href=http://www.gbs-rhein-neckar.de/>secular humanists</a></b>, a group of critical minds with a broad range of interests, such as ethics, philosophy, politics, natural sciences, who meet and discuss current issues concerning these topics. Their clear focus is ethics, as many of them are philosophers, however, there are natural scientist, economists and linguists as well. This mix of characters, approaches and expertise made it both challenging to present the project appropriately (i.e. on a suitable level of abstraction) and highly interesting and valuable for a discussion. After our 1-hour long talk, interrupted by first questions, we entered another 2 hours of discussion with the entire audience. Everyone was eager to ask explanatory to drilling questions and to give their opinion. The range of questions was, as indicated earlier, quite broad, ranging from “What exactly is the <i>sense</i> of your project?” to “Is synthetic biology at all controllable? If something has economic value, people won’t be able to control it, right?”. | + | Furthermore, we were invited to the <b><a href=http://www.gbs-rhein-neckar.de/>secular humanists</a></b>, a group of critical minds with a broad range of interests, such as ethics, philosophy, politics, natural sciences, who meet and discuss current issues concerning these topics. Their clear focus is ethics, as many of them are philosophers, however, there are natural scientist, economists and linguists as well. This mix of characters, approaches and expertise made it both challenging to present the project appropriately (i.e. on a suitable level of abstraction) and highly interesting and valuable for a discussion. After our 1-hour long talk, interrupted by first questions, we entered another 2 hours of discussion with the entire audience. Everyone was eager to ask explanatory to drilling questions and to give their opinion. The range of questions was, as indicated earlier, quite broad, ranging from “What exactly is the <i>sense</i> of your project?” to “Is synthetic biology at all controllable? If something has economic value, people won’t be able to control it, right?”.<br /> |
| - | We also performed our Life-/Live-Experiment with the secular humanists, and when analyzing the feedback forms, it was clear that we had talked to philosophers: questions like “Is there anyone (or any institution) who has the authority to set the boarders (i.e. when going far is going too far)?” or | + | We also performed our Life-/Live-Experiment with the secular humanists, and when analyzing the feedback forms, it was clear that we had talked to philosophers: questions like “Is there anyone (or any institution) who has the authority to set the boarders (i.e. when going far is going too far)?” or “Isn't synthetic biology somehow a second industrial revolution? Only that the steam engines we're building have the ability to change when we're turning our backs on them?” remained unanswered. But although not all questions could be answered, we are very happy about the lively discussion and new food for thoughts for the further project. "> |
<div class="btn btn-default btn-lg" style="vertical-align:middle; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.9);" >GeneralPublic <span id= "glyphicon2" class="glyphicon glyphicon-chevron-down"></span><span class="text-left" id="expertnames" style="font-size: 12px;"><br><br>Introductory Talks <br> <br>Secular Humanists</span> | <div class="btn btn-default btn-lg" style="vertical-align:middle; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.9);" >GeneralPublic <span id= "glyphicon2" class="glyphicon glyphicon-chevron-down"></span><span class="text-left" id="expertnames" style="font-size: 12px;"><br><br>Introductory Talks <br> <br>Secular Humanists</span> | ||
Revision as of 12:03, 4 October 2013
Project
Notebook
Human Practice
Talk Evening 24th October 2013, 6pm @ BioQuant, Heidelberg
Experts
Prof. Dr. Rainer Zawatzky
Dorothea van Aaken
ABC Unit of German Armed Forces
TBM Edelmetall Recycling
Prof. Dr. Rainer Zawatzky
Dorothea van Aaken
ABC Unit of German Armed Forces
TBM Edelmetall Recycling
GeneralPublic
Introductory Talks
Secular Humanists
Introductory Talks
Secular Humanists
Young Generation
Essay Competition
Essay Competition
Art & Science
Not invented by Nature
Project by Joanna
Not invented by Nature
Project by Joanna
Our project is designed to provide knowledge to a broader spectrum of people by creating a framework for in vivo peptide synthesis by NRPS including a design-tool for customization of the desired peptides. Therefore, we believe that it is of very high priority to inform the public about our project and to receive feedback and personal perceptions from the society. Hence, we build our concept for the interaction with the public upon four pillars: First, interaction and cooperation with experts from multiple scientific fields, second, interaction with the society in general and third, the young generation in particular. Finally, a close cooperation with artists is the fourth pillar. We round off our human practice advance by bringing together these four pillars under the roof of a talk evening on our future with synthetic biology, allowing interaction and discussion among them.
As conclusion, we believe that our Human Practice advance is well-established on different levels of interaction, as we searched the dialogue with various groups within the society. Furthermore, we strongly believe that we could open up people’s minds to synthetic biology and that we were able to clarify several misunderstanding or misconceptions. This impression is not only our belief, but was also the major feedback we received during our work for Human Practices. In addition to that, the exchange of impression was also very valuable for us and the advance within our project: Often the truth is as an object on a round table, if seen from one position it may clearly be identified as one contour, but from another point of view, it may be something completely different. Choosing the dialogue with people from different backgrounds would then be similar to moving around the table and to understand the nature of the object at the center at least a little better.
As conclusion, we believe that our Human Practice advance is well-established on different levels of interaction, as we searched the dialogue with various groups within the society. Furthermore, we strongly believe that we could open up people’s minds to synthetic biology and that we were able to clarify several misunderstanding or misconceptions. This impression is not only our belief, but was also the major feedback we received during our work for Human Practices. In addition to that, the exchange of impression was also very valuable for us and the advance within our project: Often the truth is as an object on a round table, if seen from one position it may clearly be identified as one contour, but from another point of view, it may be something completely different. Choosing the dialogue with people from different backgrounds would then be similar to moving around the table and to understand the nature of the object at the center at least a little better.
