Team:UGent/Survey
From 2013.igem.org
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
</html>{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}<html> | </html>{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxEnd}}<html> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/f/f6/Word_cloud_future.png" width="600" hspace="50"> | ||
+ | <br><br> | ||
</html>{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}} Should patenting be banned in synthetic biology as to avoid the blocking of innovation?{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxStart1}}{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxStart2}}<html> | </html>{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxStart}} Should patenting be banned in synthetic biology as to avoid the blocking of innovation?{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxStart1}}{{:Team:UGent/Templates/ToggleBoxStart2}}<html> | ||
We present answers to this multiple choice question in a pie graph: | We present answers to this multiple choice question in a pie graph: |
Revision as of 08:11, 2 October 2013
Surveys human outreach![]() We did two different surveys in the frame of human outreach: one where we asked questions to people on the streets and another one made more like a quiz for which we mainly attracted participants via social networks. You can see the results of these two surveys on our Human Outreach page. Survey professional scientists![]() August 19-22 there was a summer school about Ghent Biobased Economy at our faculty. This summer school was mainly oriented towards PhD students working in the field. Part of the programme was a debate about the future of biobased economy. We too attended the debate and saw this as a great opportunity to hand out a survey and our flyer to the participants to get to know how scientists active in biotechnological sciences think about certain aspects related to synthetic biology. Curator of the debate was Prof Dr Willy Verstraete, a specialist in the field of microbiology. We also asked him to fill in our questionnaire. He remarked that he thinks THE big event in synthetic biology is the assembling of microbes adjusted to each other, i.e. the assembling of ‘microbiomes’. About half of the 31 respondents is active in synthetic biology, systems biology or molecular biology research. Half of the respondents is PhD student. We asked them following questions, some of them were multiple choice while others were open questions. You can click on each question to see a short description of the answers. How do you think the science facts are represented in press articles or other reports in media?
Answers to this multiple choice question were almost equally divided between ‘the bottom line of the work is correctly represented’, ‘important facts are often omitted hindering comprehension of the science behind’ and ‘the results and their implications are exaggerated’. Willy Verstraete added an extra answer to this question, being that the road to practical implementation is insufficiently depicted. Close
This was an open question. Several respondents are of opinion that next generation sequencing, “-omics” sciences, computational improvements and improved analytical methods in general were essential for the development that synthetic biology has so far been through. This question lead to varying answers, probably dependent on their exact field of research. This suggests that a lot of different scientific developments are of great importance for all aspects of synthetic biology. CloseFill in: “Over the next five years, synthetic biology will probably lead to …”
Some approached this open question in a scientific way, whereas others approached it in a societal way. According to most respondents (not all) synthetic biology will know a lot of improvements and breakthroughs during the next years. But also changes in society will occur, for example someone answered synthetic biology will lead to more governmental employees while another thinks there will be more and more resistance in Europe to exploit synthetic biology. We think the latter will indeed be the case if nothing is done as prevention for this to occur. It is clear from plant GMOs that once a negative public opinion is present it is hard to turn this around. Therefore in synthetic biology one should make sure the positive public opinion is already present before the negative influences come in. This, however, is far more easily said than done. This topic is also discussed in our ethics page. Out of all the answers we made a word cloud, in which words that occur more are presented in a bigger font. Words besides the obvious ‘micro-organisms’ that come to the foreground in this cloud are…
![]() Should patenting be banned in synthetic biology as to avoid the blocking of innovation? Creating a novel entity such as a microorganism is … We asked to complete this sentence because we wanted to know how scientists think about what they are doing: do they see creating a novel entity as creating life or as creating a biological machine, or maybe something else? Well: 60% of respondents see it in the machine way and 13% as creating life. Other answers were:
Someone who answered ‘creating life’ remarked that this actually is the same as what breeding does in plant genetics. CloseDo you ever dwell on the use of antibiotic resistance genes during your research? One third of respondents said they never do. We asked this question because it relates to our own project. We ourselves are convinced that the use of antibiotic resistance genes and antibiotics in scientific research is not the perfect way to go. The possibility of spreading the antibiotic resistance can never be entirely ruled out. Furthermore when the used antibiotics themselves are released into the environment, development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria can be accelerated. Given the already ruling difficulties and problems with antibiotic resistance in the environment we think this should be avoided as much as possible. CloseThree respondents answered that they did ever feel pressured to this extent. One other respondent remarked that he/she did only for subjective thresholds, e.g. for lag phase thresholds. On a total of 31 respondents this is not negligible. Lately cases were in the media of scientists “caught” on the manipulation or falsification of results in their research project. Publication pressure for scientists is not a good case for science itself if it causes false results to be published. This will probably keep being discussed in the future, especially if more of these cases become known. Close
|
![]() Tweets van @iGEM_UGent |
|
|