"
Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/Experts
From 2013.igem.org
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
<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 | + | 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><a href='http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde'>Federal German Armed Forces</a></b>. Especially the part about biological weapons was of 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><a href='https://2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/GermanArmedForces'>experiences here</a></b>! |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
Revision as of 19:08, 20 October 2013
Project
Notebook
Human Practice
Experts. Valuable new Perspectives.
Already in a very early phase of the project, we talked to Prof. Dr. Rainer Zawatzky, group leader and safety representative at the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) as well as deputy chairman of the regional office of the BUND (a German NGO for preservation of the environment). Our discussion focused on three topics: The impact of synthetic biology in general and our project in particular on the environment, synthetic biology as a risk-technology and finally sustainability, since we intend to provide an energy-efficient alternative to conventional gold-recycling.
We received valuable input concerning communicating our project and software to the general public. Prof. Zawatzky pointed out that possible concerns of society regarding our project should be negligible for the planning of our project. In his long experience as researcher, he often experienced anxiety of non-scientists towards his research as well as doubts regarding the effectiveness of advances in Human Practice. He emphasized that interactions with critical people may not lead to the anticipated outcome. However, we believe that it is in fact possible to address and to banish fears by engaging society in your work and by encouraging communication between science and the society.
We visited Peptide Specialties Laboratories GmbH, a Heidelberg-based leader in customized peptide synthesis. Managing director Dr. Hans-Richard Rackwitz offered us a tour of their company and gave us fascinating insight in chemical peptide synthesis (a German video tour is availible on youtube), which is performed from C to N-term in contrast to our in vivo assembly.
One of their “specialties” is the incorporation of many non-proteinogenic amino acids including D-conformations, phosphorylated monomers, DTPA- and DOTA-coupled amino acids as well as e.g. chloride and amid substitutions, if the according MOC-coupled monomer is commercially available. Depending on the synthesizer, they are able to produce 5 to 100 mg of up to 75mers within 2 to 3 weeks. In order to guarantee nearly 100 % purity of the final product, PSL is performing extensive HPLC purification and analysis, reducing the final yield to 5 to 20 %.
Dr. Rackwitz pointed out that most of the produced peptides are used for immunological studies; therefore, a minimal length of 8 amino acids should be achieved by NRPS synthesis to be commercially relevant. Furthermore, he told us that up scaling of chemical peptide synthesis up to tones as needed for clinical research is comparably easy. The challenge herein lies in fulfilling good manufacturing practices requirements, which also involve separate production lines to avoid cross-contamination. Since our peptides are currently expresses in vivo, this implies complex purification strategies. Alternatively, one could think of in vitro production using immobilized NRPSs.
We wish to thank Dr. Rackwitz for a fascinating and inspiring morning!
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 ABC-defense regiment (i.e. atomic, biological and chemical weapon defense) organized by the Federal German Armed Forces. Especially the part about biological weapons was of 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 experiences here!
With Mrs. Van Aaken, who not only is a pedagogue for environmental education, but also member of the BUND, 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.
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.
