Team:BGU Israel/Outreach

Art

To spice up our outreach efforts, we looked for humorous, creative and fun ways to promote synthetic biology.
One of our initiatives was connecting synthetic biology to art!

Click on any image you like to view the full size Gallery.

A Gallery in Google Campus

We took interesting pictures and illustrations of past iGEM projects and made them into an iGEM gallery, to pique interest in synthetic biology.
The exhibit included 20 pictures from past iGEM groups, each with a short caption explaining the project and the image. The gallery was
shown in the Tel Aviv Google Campus during an evening of mini-lectures in which we participated as a part of Festival Utopia.

Bio Ethics

As part of our outreach efforts, we wanted to understand and foster dialogue regarding the ethical concerns that people have about the field of synthetic biology. Our purpose was not only to hear people’s thoughts, but also to give them a voice and an opportunity to interact with researchers. The release of genetically modified organisms could affect society as a whole, and therefore the public should be well informed, educated, and given the chance to voice opinions and concerns.

To do so, we included a question in Our survey asking whether the respondent identified with a number of ethical concerns, and added an open field where people could write any other thoughts they had, which 122 people filled out. In addition, we asked the same question in our Facebook group and a number of other online forums. To get some varied perspectives, we also spoke to Yael Ifergan, the head of the Greenpeace Israel campaign for marking genetically engineered products, and Prof. Isaac (Yanni) Nevo, the chair of the Ben Gurion University Department of Philosophy.

Here, we have highlighted four different concerns that arose again and again, and attempted to address them and consider their consequences.

1. Genetic engineering will be abused by big corporations for profit.

”There’s a starting advantage to the large companies in the market (like Monsanto), that behave immorally and without inhibitions to maximize their bottom line. The problem is the social infrastructure for using the technology, not the technology itself. ”

”It will be possible to patent DNA sequences (as is being tried today). Like if someone patents a variety of tomatoes, you won’t be able to grow it in your garden without paying. ”

”Genetic engineering, politics, and large amounts of money is a dangerous mix. ”


Variations of this concern were among the most popular responses in the free-response section of the survey, and it is one of the main focuses of the Greenpeace campaign against genetic modification. The story of Monsanto has resonated with the public (a number of respondents mentioned them by name), and remains a dominant feature of the debate surrounding genetically modified crops. Just this August, a group of anti-GMO activists in the Philippines destroyed a field of ”Golden Rice”, a beta-carotene enriched strain of rice designed to combat Vitamin A deficiency, for this reason.[1]

The question of patenting gene sequences is currently being debated in courts across the world. A recent landmark ruling by the US Supreme court in June 2013 ruled it illegal to patent naturally occurring genes, but that synthetic gene sequences can be patented.[1] There is a delicate balance between giving incentives to invest money in scientific research, while not making new discoveries prohibitively expensive. This debate has been going on for years in relation to the patent of new medicines: it can take up to 25 years in the US and Europe until generic, less expensive versions of medications become available.

These issues are starting to become relevant as synthetic biology matures, and the coming years will see important legal decisions and regulations, hopefully that balance economic incentives with social repercussions. A promising development is the rise of non-profit NGO’s that support GMO projects. Examples include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,[2] which has funded the development of Golden Rice and other crops for use in developing countries, and of course, the iGEM foundation. iGEM’s BioBrick Registry is a library of gene sequences that are open source and in the public domain, available for researchers or anyone else to freely use.

2. Genetic engineering will increase the gap between rich and poor.

”Genetic improvements will be available only to the rich, like plastic surgery today. ”

”There will be discrimination on a genetic basis. ”

”I’m afraid of the social consequences of advanced genetic engineering, which could create a situation in which the rich are more intelligent, live longer, and hold most of the resources, while the poor are ”slaves” and fair competition and class mobility will become impossible. ”


This was not a concern that we considered beforehand, and therefore we were surprised that it came up again and again in the survey responses and on Facebook. In general, synthetic biology has the potential to dramatically improve life for the very poor. Initiatives like nutrient-enriched crops, bacteria that detect and purify contaminated water, and biological solutions to decrease costs of medicine production hold the potential to benefit first and foremost developing countries.

Another point to consider is that costs associated with genetics have plummeted at an exponential rate: sequencing the human genome cost $1 million in 2007, and just five years later the cost is $1000 to $4000, with hopes to reduce it to under $100 in the near future. While manipulation of the human genome is still far from actual clinical trials, more immediate applications, such as screening for genetic diseases, are already becoming standard medical tools, not just the exclusive property of the rich.

However, these respondents are probably right regarding the genetic engineering of human beings: when this becomes possible, it will likely be available first and foremost to the rich. However, the question is if this is inherently different than other advantages available to the upper-class, such as excellent healthcare and education. This is a larger question about social justice; in any case, it is our hope that biotechnology will improve the quality of life for everyone, rich and poor.

3. This technology could be used for biological warfare.

”Even Einstein didn’t know that nuclear technology would be used for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ”

”As technology becomes less expensive over time, it could fall into the hands of the wrong people. ”

”Scientists don’t have enough control over the future uses of technology that they are creating for innocent purposes. ”


In our survey, 45% of people identified with the following concern, more than for any other option: ”It will be possible to use genetic engineering for harmful purposes such as biological warfare. ” The parallel between biological and nuclear warfare also came up in a number of responses. This discussion seems especially relevant today, in the shadow of the recent accusations of biological warfare in Syria.

How can we prevent the militarization of science? Some ideas are outlined in David Suzuki’s and Peter Knudtson’s Genethics: The Clash Between the New Genetics and Human Values.[2]

1. Strong, international treaties dedicated to preventing biological warfare. Such a treaty exists, the Biological Weapons Convention from 1975, but it allows for a number of loopholes, such as outlawing only the ”development” of biological weapons but not ”research”, providing no concrete upper limit on ”acceptable” stockpiles of weapons, and allowing stockpiling for defensive needs.[2]
2. The creation of a scientific code of ethics, similar to the Hippocratic Oath for doctors. Courses on ethics and discussions of moral questions should be a mandatory part of university education for scientists.
3. An end to secrecy regarding the research of biological warfare. At the moment, much of government research is confidential, or hidden under the guise of defensive measures. This veil of secrecy has crippled public debate and left the actual state of biological weaponry unclear.

4. GMOs will undergo mutations and researchers will lose control over them.

”Genetic engineering isn’t predictable, there are always mutations, so it’s possible to create bacteria and viruses that will attack humans—Frankenstein’s monster will turn on its creator. ”

”It could be like in the movie I Am Legend, where they tried to program bacteria to prevent cancer, and in the end it spread and turned all of humanity into zombies. ”

”The creation of organisms with high resistance to any attempts to neutralize them. ”


The technical concept of genetic mutation has long existed in literature, science fiction, and comic books, and many of our respondents referred to these popular icons. Antibiotic resistance has also become a part of the cultural horizon in recent years, as developing resistant infectious strains have been extensively covered in the media. While the comparisons to Frankenstein and zombies are slightly extreme, there is no doubt that mutations and resistance are real issues that the scientific community is worried about as well.

There are extensive efforts being invested in order to limit the possibility that bacteria could undergo mutations or transfer genes. Examples of intrinsic containment mechanisms being developed include conditional suicide systems, in which the bacteria die once a supplement or their target nutrient is depleted, and gene-flow barriers, that prevent the transmission of genes to other micro-organisms.[3] Team BGU_Israel is also contributing to this field: we are developing a timed, autonomous self-destruct mechanism. Such methods are tested extensively in the lab and in controlled environments, and will continue to be tested before GMOs are released in the environment. Of course, it is impossible to state with absolute certainty that any new technology will not have adverse effects on the environment, as history has proven again and again. However, we can say that the scientific community is aware and working actively on the risks involved in mutations and resistance, and proceeding with all due caution.

Continue the journey: read about our Continuity.

[1] Harmon, Amy (2013) ‘Golden Rice: Lifesaver?’, The New York Times, 24 August. Available online
[2] Liptak, Adam (2013) ‘Justices, 9-0, Bar Patenting Genes,’ The New York Times, 13 June. Available online
[3] The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, ‘What We Do: Agricultural Development.’ Available online
[4] Zimmerman, Eilene (2013) ‘The race to a $100 genome,’ CNNMoney, 25 June. Available online
[5] Suzuki, David; Knudtson, Peter. Genethics: The Clash Between the New Genetics and Human Values. Harvard University Press, 1990. 192-221.
[6] Ibid., 215.
[7] Moe-Behrens, G. H. G., Davis, R., Haynes, K. A., Preparing synthetic biology for the world. Front Microbiol. 4(5) 2013, doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00005