"
Team:Heidelberg/Outreach
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
m |
|||
| (43 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
{{:Team:Heidelberg/Templates/outreach-css}} | {{:Team:Heidelberg/Templates/outreach-css}} | ||
{{:Team:Heidelberg/Templates/Navigation}} | {{:Team:Heidelberg/Templates/Navigation}} | ||
| + | {{:Team:Heidelberg/Templates/css-project}} | ||
<html> | <html> | ||
| - | + | <div class="container" style="margin-left:6%; margin-top:5%;"> | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | <div class="container" style="margin-left:6%; margin-top: | + | |
<div class="container"> | <div class="container"> | ||
<div id="talkbox" class="box"> | <div id="talkbox" class="box"> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
| - | < | + | <div class="btn btn-default btn-lg" style="margin-top:21%; margin-left:40%; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.9);">Talk Evening <span id="expertnames" style="font-size:12px;">24th October 2013, 6pm @ BioQuant, Heidelberg</span> |
</p> | </p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 42: | Line 20: | ||
<div class="col-lg-3"> | <div class="col-lg-3"> | ||
| - | <div id="expertbox" class="box" data-name="Experts" data-desc="We | + | <div id="expertbox" class="box" data-name="Experts" data-desc="We highly value interactions with experts from different scientific areas in order to get input and reflect on our own work as a student team. Focusing on one specific project for weeks and months poses the risk of losing sight of the big picture and getting lost in details. Input from experts from outside of our own research proved to be very helpful and opened up fascinating new aspects of our project. We discussed our project with multiple experts in order to obtain as much feedback concerning various aspects of our work as possible. Our reference persons (whom we are very thankful for spending their valuable time with us) were: Prof. Dr. Rainer Zawatzky, safety representative of the DKFZ for scientific input and safety concerns, Dorothea van Aaken, pedagogue for environmental education and representative of the BUND for safety concerns, the secular humanists Heidelberg for ethical input, the Federal German Armed Forces for safety concerns and finally TBM Edelmetal Recycling (a company in gold recycling) for technical input. |
<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. | ||
| + | <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.<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 /> | |
| - | + | Seeing safety concerns as one of the major issues in a Human Practice Advance, we wanted to gain a deeper knowledge of professional biosafety, in this case, defense against biological weapons. We arranged to take part in an open day at the <b>ABC-defense</b> regiment (i.e. atomic, biological and chemical weapon defense) organized by the <b>German Armed Forces</b>. Especially the part about biological weapons was of special interest for us, as many people we talked to pointed out safety concerns as one of their major fears regarding synthetic biology. Hence, we wanted to know, how experts in biosafety approach these issues. Read about our <b>experiences</b>!<br /><br /> | |
| - | + | Additionally, as part of our project aims at improving the efficiency of gold-recycling, we concluded that we should gain an understanding of the current methods to recover gold and discuss the potential of our gold recovery approach with experts in this field. Hence, we set up a visit of a delegation of our team to a professional <b>gold-recycling company</b> <a href='http://tbm-edelmetallrecycling.net/'>TBM Edelmetall Recycling</a>. This visit will take place in October, as they are working short time over the summer. "> | |
| - | + | <div class="btn btn-default btn-lg" style="vertical-align:left; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.9);">Experts <span id= "glyphicon1" class="glyphicon glyphicon-chevron-down"></span><span class="text-left" id="expertnames" style="font-size:12px;"><br><br>Prof. Dr. Rainer Zawatzky <br><br> Dorothea van Aaken <br><br> ABC Unit of German Armed Forces <br><br> TBM Edelmetall Recycling</span> | |
| - | + | ||
| - | <div class="btn btn-default btn-lg" style="vertical-align: | + | |
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 61: | Line 40: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="col-lg-3"> | <div class="col-lg-3"> | ||
| - | <div id="publicbox" class="box" data-name=" | + | <div id="publicbox" class="box" data-name="Outreach to general public" 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 | + | We started our presentation with the <b>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, | + | 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 secular humanists, 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, | + | 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 /> |
| - | <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 id="expertnames" style="font-size: 12px;"> | + | |
| + | 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> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 76: | Line 58: | ||
<div class="col-lg-3"> | <div class="col-lg-3"> | ||
| - | <div id="youngbox" class="box" data-name="The | + | <div id="youngbox" class="box" data-name="The next generation" data-desc="Thirdly, we wish to involve the young generation to a special extent, as they are the <b>future of this society and future scientists</b>. Our project is designed to provide a sustainable alternative to classical gold recovery; hence it affects especially next generations. We therefore wanted to know what high school students think about our project and how they imagined the future if our project was to be realized. We organized an essay competition where students from the <a href='https://www.life-science-lab.org/cms/'>Life Science Lab Heidelberg</a> at the DKFZ (German Cancer Research Center) could participate and hand in essays dealing with the consequences and implications of bacteria-facilitated gold recovery for either society and politics, economy and industry, the environment or on an individual level. We selected the best-written essays and invited the respective authors for a tour in our lab.<br /> |
| + | |||
| + | We are grateful for the input we received as the different aspects and target groups were covered by the individual essays. The essay describing these far-reaching consequences best was submitted by <b><a href='https://2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/Outreach/EssayCompetition'>Isabel Marleen Pötzsch</a></b>. "> | ||
| + | <div class="btn btn-default btn-lg" style="vertical-align:middle; background-color:rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.9);" >Young Generation <span id= "glyphicon3" class="glyphicon glyphicon-chevron-down"></span><span class="text-left" id="expertnames" style="font-size:12px;"> <br><br>Essay Competition <br></span> | ||
| + | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 85: | Line 69: | ||
<div class="col-lg-3"> | <div class="col-lg-3"> | ||
| - | <div id="artbox" class="box" data-name="Artists in the science world" data-desc="Fourthly, we built up a cooperation with the artists participating in the joint project “not invented by nature” by the DKFZ, the Heidelberg University, the Heidelberger Life Science Lab as well as the Bauhaus University Weimar. One may ask what art and synthetic biology have in common. To answer this question is the very aim of this cooperation. The visiting artists were introduced to basic methods in synthetic biology such as working with bacteria and mammalian cells, cloning DNA, protein expression and analytical evaluation of their results by e.g. microscopy and gel-electrophoresis. After an introductory lab-course, they plan to work in our lab, gain experiences and | + | <div id="artbox" class="box" data-name="Artists in the science world" data-desc="Fourthly, we built up a cooperation with the artists participating in the joint project <b><a href='http://notinventedbynature.org/'>“not invented by nature”</a></b> by the </b><a href='https://www.dkfz.de/en/index.html'>DKFZ</a></b>, the <b><a href='http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/index_e.html'>Heidelberg University</a></b>, the <b><a href='https://www.life-science-lab.org/cms/'>Heidelberger Life Science Lab</a></b> as well as the <b><a href='http://www.uni-weimar.de/en/university/start/'>Bauhaus University Weimar</a></b>. <b>One may ask what art and synthetic biology have in common.</b> To answer this question is the very aim of this cooperation. The visiting artists were introduced to basic methods in synthetic biology such as working with bacteria and mammalian cells, cloning DNA, protein expression and analytical evaluation of their results by e.g. microscopy and gel-electrophoresis. After an introductory lab-course, they plan to work in our lab, gain experiences and work on their exhibits. Discussion rounds and mutual presentations accompany this collaboration. |
| - | + | <br /> | |
| + | We thank the international group of artists, participating in this project: <b><a href='http://c-lab.co.uk/home.html'>Howard Boland</a>, <a href='http://www.johoffmann.com/'>Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich</a>, <a href='http://jihyunpark.org/'>Ji Hyun Park</a> and <a href='http://www.santosmiguel.com/Site/Welcome.html'>Miguel Santos</a> for their philosophical and creative input</b> and a completely new point of view on synthetic biology which itself can be regarded as artistic: Out of existing small pieces, one creates something synthetic, thus entirely new. This would also implicate that in every project in synthetic biology one can find a piece of its scientific creator, which is, after all, a soothing thought. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | Read about Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich's experience and adaptation of our project: | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | <b><a href='http://www.johoffmann.com/philosophers.stone.htm'>NRPSs & Philosophers’ Stone </a></b> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | The project calls attention to ecological and environmental issues. On one hand, it refers to the need of exploitation of natural resources, on the other hand, it underlines the growing problem of technological waste. Advances in synthetic biology depend on technology and it is important that young scientists reflect on this problem. Environmental and ecological aspects of the project surely prove a wider and interdisciplinary way of thinking. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | One can also point out that the recycled gold may help scientists to finance their research, which in the time of the economic crisis might be worth considering. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | As an artist, I have been especially attracted by the project’s cultural and social contexts. The title of the project “Philosophers’ Stone” not only comprises the idea of changing something of no value (in this case the electronic waste) to something of a big value (gold). It refers to the ever-lasting human endeavors to comprehend the nature and to the tradition in which knowledge (guiding to wisdom) was the highest value. | ||
| + | The intersection of contemporary scientific practices and their reach cultural contexts became the inspiration for my artistic work. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | Indeed, philosophers’ stone (Latin: <i>lapis philosophorum</i>) is mostly associated with the legendary alchemic substance used for the transmutation of base metals into precious stones: gold or silver. However, for alchemists, the human greed was not the ground for their research. The Greek alchemist, Zosimos qualified the philosophers’ stone as <i>xerion</i> (Arabic. <i>El Iksir</i>, Latin. <i>Elixir</i>). Apart of transmutation, it was supposed to heal all forms of diseases, prolong life, secure agelessness and even immortality. Thus the philosophers’ stone expressed the deepest human desires to control and gain power over natural processes and, ultimately, to conquer the death. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | In many interpretations however, the philosophers’ stone was not a real substance but a metaphor for enlightenment (full comprehension) and knowledge. The search for “philosopher’s stone” was in fact the search for the deeper knowledge and its power. It is worth to underline that lapis philosophorium was not considered as the possession or achievement of a singular scholar but a shared property of those who “love wisdom”. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | Sharing ideas, experience and knowledge is one of the main objectives of the iGEM competition. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | <b>The artistic project</b> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | My “Philosophers’ Stone” is a 3D stereoscopic narrative. In this case, looking through binoculars of a virtual microscope we do not see bacterium <i>D. acidovorans</i> or <i>E-coli</i>, just as we cannot see molecular processes like synthetases or chelation. Instead we see a cloud of points – pixels of data. Gradually we can recognize a model of Delftibactine (NRP) in the middle of the cloud . Thus, the isolated peptide suggests to be a part of some larger spatial system. This spatial formation is not static but animated be the movement of water, the metaphor for life. Slowly it changes into a precious and desired gold, a symbol of immortality, excellence, the highest value and beauty. However, the stone turns out to be made of notes, records and drawings accompanying the experimental phase of the scientific project. Slowly, the solid form diffuses itself into particles: dispersed carriers or seeds of information…. | ||
| + | <br /><br /> | ||
| + | |||
Inspiring interaction with artists<br /><br /> | Inspiring interaction with artists<br /><br /> | ||
| - | [[Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich's experience and adaptation| Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich's experience and adaptation]] of our project. | + | [[Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich's experience and adaptation| Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich's experience and adaptation]] of our project. File:IMG_4379.JPG File:IMG_4380.JPG File:IMG_4384.JPG File:IMG_4391.JPG File:IMG_4382.JPG"> |
| - | + | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <div class="btn btn-default btn-lg" style="vertical-align:middle; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.9);" >Art & Science <span id= "glyphicon1" class="glyphicon glyphicon-chevron-down"></span><span class="text-left" id="expertnames" style="font-size:12px;"> <br><br> Not invented by Nature <br> <br>Project by Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich </span> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 96: | Line 112: | ||
| - | <div id="memberdesc" class="panel panel-default" style="text-align:justify; margin: | + | <div id="memberdesc" class="panel panel-default" style="text-align:justify; margin-top:30%; max-width:100%; max-height:100%;"> |
<div class="panel-heading"><h3></h3></div> | <div class="panel-heading"><h3></h3></div> | ||
| - | <div class="panel-body"></div> | + | <div class="panel-body">Our project is designed to provide knowledge to a broader spectrum of people by creating a framework for <i>in vivo</i> 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 <b>experts from multiple scientific fields</b>, second, interaction with the <b>society in general</b> and third, the <b>young generation</b> in particular. Finally, a close <b>cooperation with artists</b> is the fourth pillar. We round off our human practice advance by bringing together these four pillars under the roof of a <b>talk evening</b> on our future with synthetic biology, allowing interaction and discussion among them. |
| - | + | <br /><br /> | |
| + | 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. | ||
| + | </div> | ||
| + | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/23/Heidelberg_IMG_4387.JPG" width="500"> | ||
| + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/8/87/Heidelberg_IMG_4379.JPG" width="500"> | ||
| + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/1/14/Heidelberg_IMG_4380.JPG" width="500"> | ||
| + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/e/e0/Heidelberg_IMG_4384.JPG" width="500"> | ||
| + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/8/8c/Heidelberg_IMG_4382.JPG" width="500"> | ||
| + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c1/Heidelberg_IMG_4391.JPG" width="500"> | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
<script> | <script> | ||
| Line 120: | Line 141: | ||
</script> | </script> | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
<script> | <script> | ||
| Line 135: | Line 150: | ||
}); | }); | ||
</script> | </script> | ||
| - | </ | + | |
| + | <script> | ||
| + | $(document).ready(function(){ | ||
| + | $('#glyphicon2').click(function(){ | ||
| + | $(this).animate({opacity:1}); | ||
| + | }); | ||
| + | }); | ||
| + | </script> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <script> | ||
| + | $(document).ready(function(){ | ||
| + | $('#glyphicon3').click(function(){ | ||
| + | $(this).animate({opacity:1}); | ||
| + | }); | ||
| + | }); | ||
| + | </script> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <script> | ||
| + | $(document).ready(function(){ | ||
| + | $('#glyphicon4').click(function(){ | ||
| + | $(this).animate({opacity:1}); | ||
| + | }); | ||
| + | }); | ||
| + | </script> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
| + | {{:Team:Heidelberg/Templates/Footer-Nav}} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:20, 5 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 Hoffmann-Dietrich
Not invented by Nature
Project by Joanna Hoffmann-Dietrich
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.
