"
Team:Evry/Philosophy
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<html> | <html> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <style> | ||
| + | |||
| + | .Team_intervention | ||
| + | { | ||
| + | margin-left:0.5%; | ||
| + | width:60%; | ||
| + | float:right; | ||
| + | border: 4px ridge green; | ||
| + | padding:0.5%; | ||
| + | font-size:85%; | ||
| + | } | ||
| + | |||
| + | .Team_intervention p | ||
| + | { | ||
| + | line-height: 1.1em; | ||
| + | } | ||
| + | <style> | ||
<div id="mainTextcontainer" style="width:115%;"> | <div id="mainTextcontainer" style="width:115%;"> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 43: | ||
<!-- Team intervention --> | <!-- Team intervention --> | ||
| - | <div | + | <div class="Team_intervention"> |
<h3 class="orange" align="center" style="margin-top:0.2%;margin-bottom:0.2%;">Ethics in the team</h3> | <h3 class="orange" align="center" style="margin-top:0.2%;margin-bottom:0.2%;">Ethics in the team</h3> | ||
| - | <p | + | <p><em>I believe that ethics is always necessary when it comes to science and that it is even more important in synthetic biology</em>. The exemple you chose about cars speed limit is really clever. It illustrates exactly what might happens when we lose sight of what matters. Having a way to do something does not mean that you have to do it. Especially when doing those things have negative consequences. Creating cars with a maximum speed of 250 km/h doesn’t have any sense. Indeed, it is just useless. We don’t need our cars to reach that speed. I guess that would be okay if creating such cars had no consequences but it has : it increases the risks of accidents and implies a lot more pollution. <em>So I think that the means do not justify the end</em>. We have to remain responsible in all fields and especially in ours. If we got a tool that can serves a really necessary and good end, that’s okay, otherwise it has to be left on the side.</p> |
| - | <p | + | <p>First of all, I would say that it’s depend on which field you are working in. A foundamental mathematician will not have such thoughts for example (as there is probably no deontology in this field, my remark is probably irrelevant).<br/> |
As biologist, we are working on living systems and I think that <em>it’s important to keep in mind why we are doing this or that experiment</em>. For example, animal models are necessary for science, you can’t do all you experiments <i>in vitro</i> or <i>in silico</i>. If you have to kill thousand of mice to develop a new vaccine, well, do it .But if you can do it just killing hundred of mice, it’s better. That’s not because we could do something that we have to do it.</p> | As biologist, we are working on living systems and I think that <em>it’s important to keep in mind why we are doing this or that experiment</em>. For example, animal models are necessary for science, you can’t do all you experiments <i>in vitro</i> or <i>in silico</i>. If you have to kill thousand of mice to develop a new vaccine, well, do it .But if you can do it just killing hundred of mice, it’s better. That’s not because we could do something that we have to do it.</p> | ||
| - | <p | + | <p>It may be the right moment to ask ourselfs why we pretend doing synthetic biology. According to what you mentionned above, goals are not defined, but the means are very clear. <em>Is it absurd to simply try to push a frontier as far as we humanly can?</em> What if I told you that in my opion, this field is to me a playground where I can be creative and where creativity is rewarded. Playground is obviously a very ‘bad’ word in science, but still, <em>some people just want to experiment a lot</em>.<br/> |
I have a very simple comparison. Imagine a game where you have a undefined target stuck on a tree. You don’t know what it is, but you aim it. The only thing you have at you disposal is a ball. Remember that the ONLY rule is to hit that target. Now, the most obvious way to hit that target is to practice at aiming and try as hard as you can and you’ll get better and better over time. But wait, you realize that this game is boring, trying to aim straight for that thing in the tree. What if you could reach it with a bounce on the ground? What if you could put some spinning effect in that ball? Oh wait, there are other trees: what if I try to bounce first on a tree on the left? After afew days of training, you start to get this. Your friend comes over and has a boomerang. OH WOW, this gives the game a whole new dimension! After you tried several others projectiles after the ball and the boomerang, you start to be really good at aiming things, not even caring what you hit. Some guys asks you to hit a thing on a roof? No problem, you got this.<br/> | I have a very simple comparison. Imagine a game where you have a undefined target stuck on a tree. You don’t know what it is, but you aim it. The only thing you have at you disposal is a ball. Remember that the ONLY rule is to hit that target. Now, the most obvious way to hit that target is to practice at aiming and try as hard as you can and you’ll get better and better over time. But wait, you realize that this game is boring, trying to aim straight for that thing in the tree. What if you could reach it with a bounce on the ground? What if you could put some spinning effect in that ball? Oh wait, there are other trees: what if I try to bounce first on a tree on the left? After afew days of training, you start to get this. Your friend comes over and has a boomerang. OH WOW, this gives the game a whole new dimension! After you tried several others projectiles after the ball and the boomerang, you start to be really good at aiming things, not even caring what you hit. Some guys asks you to hit a thing on a roof? No problem, you got this.<br/> | ||
This reflexion emphasizes the fact that <em>you can develop a whole art around a technique</em>, not knowing what your aim is. In synthetic biology, a very concrete example (one I did a lot of litterature on), is the CRISPR/Cas system. People knew what it was, it was hype, it was fency, it was new, but we had no clue what to do with it. So people started to inactivate specific parts of the enzyme and figured out you could silence genes. That’s super cool! Then one guy coupled the protein to a polymerase and notice you could ACTIVATE any gene in the genome. And this still goes on as I’m writing this paragraph. People with a purpose in their research may use these technique and refer to the right person who is an expert in the matter. In fact, to me, he’s an artist, exactly like you ask an architect to build you something how you want it because you saw it this way once.</p> | This reflexion emphasizes the fact that <em>you can develop a whole art around a technique</em>, not knowing what your aim is. In synthetic biology, a very concrete example (one I did a lot of litterature on), is the CRISPR/Cas system. People knew what it was, it was hype, it was fency, it was new, but we had no clue what to do with it. So people started to inactivate specific parts of the enzyme and figured out you could silence genes. That’s super cool! Then one guy coupled the protein to a polymerase and notice you could ACTIVATE any gene in the genome. And this still goes on as I’m writing this paragraph. People with a purpose in their research may use these technique and refer to the right person who is an expert in the matter. In fact, to me, he’s an artist, exactly like you ask an architect to build you something how you want it because you saw it this way once.</p> | ||
| Line 42: | Line 60: | ||
| - | <div | + | <div class="Team_intervention"> |
| - | <p | + | <p>I agree: The further technique gets, the more things we have to learn to master it. Then, technique eventually reaches a point where classic education is not enough to understand every subtility of the technique. At this precise moment, people would start to specialize, use tools and learning shortcuts, thus not always fully understanding the <b>means nor the end</b>, and “become the means for technique to achieve itself”.</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
| Line 53: | Line 71: | ||
<!-- Team intervention --> | <!-- Team intervention --> | ||
| - | <div | + | <div class="Team_intervention"> |
| - | <p | + | <p>The intellectual process should <em>definitely</em> be “we want to do that, is SynthBio a good way to succeed?” etc… But within the competition, these questions are a little bit absurd. |
The thing is, everyone knows that the goal of each project is (almost) always a lie: the goal of the MIT is clear: enhance synthetic biology’s technique. The goal of each team is even clearer: <em>WIN</em>. (Almost) Every team forces itself to find a problem that would fit a cool construction, but the real end is not the “project’s end”, <em>the real end is to win the competition</em>. </p> | The thing is, everyone knows that the goal of each project is (almost) always a lie: the goal of the MIT is clear: enhance synthetic biology’s technique. The goal of each team is even clearer: <em>WIN</em>. (Almost) Every team forces itself to find a problem that would fit a cool construction, but the real end is not the “project’s end”, <em>the real end is to win the competition</em>. </p> | ||
<p>On the other hand, the team yet <em>has to believe in it’s project</em> to succeed. It has to dream a little bit. Thus, a collective chimaera is kept alive, and every team maintains the illusion that it tries to somehow “save the world”.</p> | <p>On the other hand, the team yet <em>has to believe in it’s project</em> to succeed. It has to dream a little bit. Thus, a collective chimaera is kept alive, and every team maintains the illusion that it tries to somehow “save the world”.</p> | ||
| - | <p | + | <p>I agree on this point. I just want to add that if it was a real lab research, we should have think “Is it really usefull to research a new treatment ?” even before ““we want to do that, is SynthBio a good way to succeed?”. But as it was said, it’s a competition and we have to do every part of our project at the same time (bio, modeling, ethics…). It’s a great think that iGEM is not just a biology project and I think that most of us are aware that it is not really how science works.</p> |
| - | <p | + | <p>I partially agree. Actually, the teams’ aim is winning but for each member of a team it could also be: improving oneself skills, strengthening its resume, being a part of a team, leading one’s own project, developing one’s network…<br/> |
Another interesting point is the (bio)bricks system: this competition allows everyone to be a part of an unknown project, but which would be innovative and flexible.</p> | Another interesting point is the (bio)bricks system: this competition allows everyone to be a part of an unknown project, but which would be innovative and flexible.</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 12:01, 19 October 2013
