"
Team:Heidelberg/Outreach
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
m |
|||
| Line 40: | 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 <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 /> | 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 /> | ||
| Line 58: | 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 Isabel Marleen Pötzsch. "> | + | 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 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> | ||
Revision as of 02:59, 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.
