"
Team:Heidelberg/Outreach
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
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 /><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?”.<br /><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 | + | 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 11:51, 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.
