Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/BroadPublic

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(3 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 24: Line 24:
<div>
<div>
<p>
<p>
-
We have put great effort in communicating with various groups within society and to engage a broader cross section of society in our project, since synthetic biology and our iGEM project in particular has implications for every individual. We as researchers (-to-be) aim to improve lives by solving problems and are therefore working for society. Yet, we can only offer solutions, which have to be approved and applied by the public. Moreover, national and international legal frameworks limit every scientific action, which again, lie in the hand of the people. To promote the dialogue with society, we organized a talk evening addressing the question <b>"On the Way to a Synthetic Future?"</b> in cooperation with the <b><a href='https://bts-ev.de/'>Biotechnological Students Initiative e.V.</a></b>and the <b><a href='http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/initiating_and_networking/assuring_excellence/synthetic_biology/'>Helmholtz-Initiative for Synthetitic Biology</a></b>. Moreover, we introduced synthetic biology and our project to interested students and families from local high schools and engaged in discussions with the <b><a href='http://www.gbs-rhein-neckar.de/'>Secular Humanists Rhein Neckar</a></b> and <b>Dorothea van Aaken</b>, pedagogue for environmental education and representative of the <b><a href='http://www.bund.net/ueber_uns/bund_in_english/'>BUND</a></b> for safety issues and ethical considerations. We further <b><a href='https://2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/Ethics'>summarized our experiences and ethical considerations in an essay</a></b>.
+
To determine the quality of scientific work it is not sufficient to classify the amount of knowledge generated for society but also if this knowledge can be understood and subsequently used by the society. Hence, we to engage as many parts of society into our project as possible, since we believe that synthetic biology and our iGEM project in particular has many implications for every individual. To promote the dialogue with society, we organized a talk evening addressing the question <b>"On the Way to a Synthetic Future?"</b> in cooperation with the <b><a href='https://bts-ev.de/'>Biotechnological Students Initiative e.V.</a></b>and the <b><a href='http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/initiating_and_networking/assuring_excellence/synthetic_biology/'>Helmholtz-Initiative for Synthetitic Biology</a></b>. Moreover, we introduced synthetic biology and our project to interested students and families from local high schools and engaged in discussions with the <b><a href='http://www.gbs-rhein-neckar.de/'>Secular Humanists Rhein Neckar</a></b> and <b>Dorothea van Aaken</b>, pedagogue for environmental education and representative of the <b><a href='http://www.bund.net/ueber_uns/bund_in_english/'>BUND</a></b> for safety issues and ethical considerations. We further <b><a href='https://2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/Ethics'>summarized our experiences and ethical considerations in an essay</a></b>.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Line 32: Line 32:
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-6">  
<div class="col-sm-12 col-md-6">  
<p>
<p>
-
Like most other scientists, we know about the<b> importance of a constant dialogue between science and society</b>. Differents ways of communication are used already, including newspaper articles or tv documentaries. At the same time, the public perception of research is mirrored in latest movies and literature. We think the best and most efficient way of communication is <b>direct communication</b> between experts and the general public. Unfortunately, events aming at this interaction like panel discussions and talks are most often boring or one-sided, since only one of the two partners is present. We ourselves have attended many of these meetings, where scientists lost themselves in discussions on what synthetic biology actually is and whether it is actually new. Moreover, many researchers are afraid to share their visions and the potentials they see in their field of reseach with the public. Maybe, because they want to avoid opposition or because they don't trust "ordinary citizens" to fully understand their science.
+
Like most other scientists, we appreciate the <b>importance of a constant dialogue between scientists and society</b>. However, in reality this dialog is usually no true interaction in both ways but a unidirectional information flow via all sorts of media, including scientific books, tv documentaries, movies etc. Besides open protesting there are close to no possibilities to return constructive and immediate feedback to a scientific controversy.
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
Therefore, we chose a different approach: We established <b>close interactions to different groups of society, to philosophers and critics as well as to other researchers and experts right from the beginning of our project</b> and constantly involved them in discussions on our project and ethical considerations. Between the Jamborees in Lyon and Boston, we organized an <b>open talk evening</b> to bring all these great people and the public together to <b>share and discuss potentials of synthetic biology and its implications on our future</b> entitled <b><a href='https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/d/df/Heidelberg_Auf_dem_Weg_in_die_synthetsische_Zukunft.png'>"On the way into a synthetic future?"</a></b>.
+
This is why we think the best and most efficient way of communication is <b>direct face-to-face interaction</b> between scientific experts and the general public. However, to organize such an event one has to face several challenges. For example the format has to be as such that both parties have enough space to develop their arguments and thoughts and most importantly time to express them. Furthermore, the discussion should be hold in a respectful and stimulating atmosphere.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
To fulfill all of these prerequisites we tried to establish <b>close relations to and between different groups of society</b>. <b>We met philosophers and critics as well as fellow researchers and experts over the whole period of our project.</b> In the focus of these meetings were thorough discussions over ethical considerations, feasibility, safety and most importantly the general gain for society. Under the motto <b><a href='https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/d/df/Heidelberg_Auf_dem_Weg_in_die_synthetsische_Zukunft.png'>"On the way into a synthetic future?"</a></b> this interaction culminated in an <b>open talk evening</b> where all parties got together to share and discuss the potential of synthetic biology and its implications on our future.  
</p>
</p>
</div>
</div>
Line 81: Line 84:
<div class="col-md-12">  
<div class="col-md-12">  
<p>
<p>
-
By establishing a common language and common basic knowledge on synthetic biology, we enabled everyone in the audience to fully understand the science. Our guests, <b>non-scientists like everyday citizens, students from local high-schools, parents and grandparents as well as scientists-to-be and scientists from different fields, participated lifely in controvercial discussions</b> with the lecturers, either by directly asking questions or by filling in the prepared question cards, which were then read out by our moderator <b>Alexandra Moosmann</b> from <b><a href='http://www.genius.de/en#/en'>genius science & communication</a></b>. To <b><a href='2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/BroadPublic/Survey'>statistically analyze</a></b> our audience's optinion of snythetic biology, everyone was asked to fill in a <b> <a href='https://2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/Survey'>short questionnaire</a></b>. Following the talks, we invited the lecturers and our audience to engage in further discussion over snacks and refreshments.
+
Our guests, <b>non-scientists like students from local high-schools, parents and grandparents as well as scientists-to-be participated lively in controversial discussions</b> with the lecturers, either by directly asking questions or by filling in the prepared question cards, which were then read out by our moderator <b>Alexandra Moosmann</b> from <b><a href='http://www.genius.de/en#/en'>genius science & communication</a></b>. To get an overview about the audience's opinion of snythetic biology, everyone was asked to fill in a short questionnaire. See our  <b> <a href='https://2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/Survey'>survey</a></b> to find out what our guests think of synthetik biology! Following the talks, we invited the lecturers and our audience to engage in further discussion over snacks and refreshments.
</p>
</p>
</div>
</div>
Line 90: Line 93:
<p>
<p>
<br/>
<br/>
-
In summary, the field of synthetic biology was attributed to harbor great potential, yet, the fact that we are unable to foresee possible risks of this new technology was often pointed out. One of the major demands of our lecturer's and our audience was to promote the dialogue between science and society, by public talk evenings and panel discussions just like ours to allow direkt and personal communication. Another aspect was the more philosophical question on whether we actually want to realize everything that might be possible. This led to the important issue how to regulate research and who is in the position to do so. Of course, national and international legal frameworks limit every scientific action, which again, lie in the hand of the people. The presented data as well as our <b><a href='2013.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg/HumanPractice/BroadPublic/Survey'>survey</a></b> shows that the general public has a very heterogenous perception of synthetic biology. According to the Eurobarometer 2010, only 18% of the people have heard of synthetic biology. Germans are the most sceptical of all European countries: only 27% support synthetic biology, 20% of society strongly disagree and 31% disagree with exceptions. In the public perception, synthetic biology is mainly associated with biotechnology, human enhancement, cloning of human and green biotechnology. As expected, we also got a bit lost in defining what synthetic biology actually is. Whether is really is a new research field or rather a summarizing term for of many interacting disciplines.
+
In summary, the field of synthetic biology was agreed to <b>capture great potential, yet, the fact that we are unable to foresee possible risks of this new technology was often considered to be dangerous</b>. One of the major demands of lecturer's and the audience was to promote the dialogue between science and society, by public talk evenings and panel discussions just like ours to allow direct and personal communication. Another aspect was the more philosophical question on whether we actually want to realize everything that might be possible to achieve researching synthetic biology. This led to the important issue how to regulate research and who is in the position to do so. Of course, national and international politics set boundaries to every scientific action, but is this sufficient to avoid misuse? In agreement to this result an<b> international survey</b> shows that the general public has a very heterogeneous perception of synthetic biology. According to the Eurobarometer 2010, only 18% of the people have heard of synthetic biology. Germans are the most skeptical of all European countries: only 27% support synthetic biology, 20% of society strongly disagree and 31% disagree with exceptions. In the public perception, synthetic biology is mainly associated with biotechnology, human enhancement, cloning of human and green biotechnology.  
</p>
</p>
</div>
</div>
Line 188: Line 191:
<div class="col-md-12">  
<div class="col-md-12">  
<p>
<p>
-
We want to <b>improve communication between science and society</b>, based on a common language and common basic knowledge on the issue. Together with <b><a href='https://2012hs.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg_LSL'>last years high school iGEM Team from Heidelberg</a></b>, we held three open 1 hour presentations on synthetic biology and our iGEM projects followed by a question and answer session with the audience. More than 100 people from different backgrounds attended this interactive event. We collected valuable feedback by our “Live-Experiment”: We handed out questionnaires with three different questions, which was ansered by the audience in two parts. Before the main part of our talk, our guests were asked to answer only part 1, either the question “What is synthetic biology?” or “What do you think synthetic biology is?” – each individual 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, explained the concepts of some iGEM projects and elaborated further on “The Philosopher’s Stone” – our own project, before <b><a href='https://2012hs.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg_LSL'>last years high school iGEM Team from Heidelberg</a></b> presented their project <b>iGEMs - Unveil the Invisible</b>. 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 Live-Experiment. The latter two questions were: “What do you associate with synthetic biology?” and “Which questions remained unanswered?”. Here, we of course did not want to know, if the audience had listened to what we were presenting, but rather in which way our presentation had influenced their opinion on synthetic biology.
+
As a first step to <b>improve the public perception of synthetic biology</b>, we wanted to establish a common understanding between science and society. Together with <b><a href='https://2012hs.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg_LSL'>last years high school iGEM Team from Heidelberg</a></b>, we held three open 1 hour presentations on synthetic biology and our iGEM projects followed by a question and answer session with the audience. More than 100 people from different backgrounds attended these interactive events. To get more specific we handed out questionnaires with three different questions, which were answered by the audience in two parts. Before the main part of our talk, our guests were asked to answer only part 1, either the question “What is the definition of synthetic biology?” or “Do you have an idea of what synthetic biology could mean?” – each individual could decide which one accounts better to his or her knowledge on synthetic biology. In our talk, we first gave a brief introduction into synthetic biology, explained the concepts of iGEM and elaborated further on our project “The Philosopher’s Stone”, before <b><a href='https://2012hs.igem.org/Team:Heidelberg_LSL'>last years high school iGEM Team from Heidelberg</a></b> presented their project <b>iGEMs - Unveil the Invisible</b>. Finally, we gave our personal outlook for a future with synthetic biology. Before offering time for questions, we ended our presentation with the second part of our questionaire. The latter two questions were: “What do you associate with synthetic biology?” and “Which questions remained to be answered?”. Here, we wanted to know, in which way our presentation had influenced their opinion on synthetic biology. 

After our talk, many questions were addressed, concerning both the principles of synthetic biology in general and NRPS in particular. However, the vast majority of questions dealt not with understanding the biology behind “The Philosopher’s Stone”, but rather with <b>the potentials of synthetic biology</b>.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
Many of our guests pointed out their <b>concerns regarding missing safety regulations of synthetic biology</b>. They strongly insisted for <b>more transparency and communication by scientists and industry</b>. The discussions following the presentations revealed that the <b>skepticism to synthetic biology is mainly based on a lack of communication and the difficulty to acquire trustworthy knowledge</b>.

 When analyzing our questionnaire, the most positive and striking result was that people who had stated that they did not have any idea of synthetic biology prior to our talk, found the discussion highly stimulating and informative. In conclusion, we believe that organizing such an interactive evening should be obligatory to following iGEM generations. It not only informs the public about ongoing research but also helps the teams to <b>formulate their ideas in an understandable and comprehensive way</b>. And last but not least it is a <b>perfect opportunity to enlarge the number of friends for synthetic biology</b>. 
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
After our talk, many questions were addressed, concerning both the principles of synthetic biology in general and NRPS in particular. However, the vast majority of questions was not about understanding the biology behind “The Philosopher’s Stone”, but rather about the potentials of synthetic biology. Many of our guests pointed out their concerns regarding missing safety and regulation of synthetic biology. They strongly asked for more transparency and communication by scientists and industry. In contrast to that, many people underlined quite the opposite. The discussions following the presentations were highly interesting and revealed that the scepticism to synthetic biology is mainly based on a lack of knowledge compared to a black-box. Our task as young researchers is to bring light to the darkness, open the box and show society that synthetic biology – strongly abstracted – is building, not playing, with building bricks.
+
Furthermore, we were invited to the <b><a href='http://www.gbs-rhein-neckar.de/'>Secular Humanists Rhein Neckar</a></b>, a group of critical minds with a broad range of interests, such as ethics, philosophy, politics, natural sciences etc. who meet and discuss current issues. Their main focus is ethics, as many of them are philosophers, however, there are natural scientists, economists and linguists as well. This mix of characters, their way of thinking and expertise made it both challenging to present the project appropriately (i.e. on a suitable level of abstraction). After an 1-hour long talk, often interrupted by critical questions, we engaged in another 2 hours of discussion with the entire audience. The range of questions was, as indicated earlier, quite broad, ranging from “What exactly is the sense of your project?” to “Is synthetic biology at all controllable? If something has economic value, people won’t be able to control it, right?”. 

We also conducted our questionnaire among the secular humanists, with a particular philosopher-appropriate feedback. We got questions like: “Is there anyone (or any institution) who has the authority to set legal boarders? And when is going further 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 thrilled about the lively discussion and new food for thoughts for our project.
-
<br/>
+
</p>
-
<br/>
+
<p>
-
When analyzing our questionnaire experiment, the most positive and striking result was that people who had stated that they did not have any idea what synthetic biology exactly was prior to our talk, did not write down any “open questions” concerning the understanding, but rather ones highly stimulating the discussion. This and the feedback some people gave us directly, tells us, that they understood the main ideas of our project.
+
-
<br/>
+
-
<br/>
+
-
<br/>
+
-
Furthermore, we were invited to the <b><a href='http://www.gbs-rhein-neckar.de/'>Secular Humanists Rhein Neckar</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. Their main focus is ethics, as many of them are philosophers, however, there are natural scientists, 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 exciting and productive for a discussion. After our 1-hour long talk, often interrupted by critical questions, we engaged in 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 Live-Experiment on 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 legal boarders? And when is going further 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 thrilled about the lively discussion and new food for thoughts for the further project.
+
-
<br/>
+
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
With <b>Mrs. Van Aaken</b>, who not only is a <b>pedagogue for environmental education</b>, but also <b>member of the BUND</b>, 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.
+
With <b>Mrs. Van Aaken</b>, who not only is a <b>pedagogue for environmental education</b>, but also member of the <b><a href='http://www.bund.net/ueber_uns/bund_in_english/'>BUND</a></b> (a German NGO for preservation of the environment), 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, 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 theory behind science in general, 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 were doing and thus, we thank Mrs. Van Aaken for broadening our horizon during this enlightening afternoon!
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
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!
 
</p>
</p>
</div>
</div>

Latest revision as of 10:47, 28 October 2013

Broad Public. Engaging a Broad Cross Section of Society.

To determine the quality of scientific work it is not sufficient to classify the amount of knowledge generated for society but also if this knowledge can be understood and subsequently used by the society. Hence, we to engage as many parts of society into our project as possible, since we believe that synthetic biology and our iGEM project in particular has many implications for every individual. To promote the dialogue with society, we organized a talk evening addressing the question "On the Way to a Synthetic Future?" in cooperation with the Biotechnological Students Initiative e.V.and the Helmholtz-Initiative for Synthetitic Biology. Moreover, we introduced synthetic biology and our project to interested students and families from local high schools and engaged in discussions with the Secular Humanists Rhein Neckar and Dorothea van Aaken, pedagogue for environmental education and representative of the BUND for safety issues and ethical considerations. We further summarized our experiences and ethical considerations in an essay.


Like most other scientists, we appreciate the importance of a constant dialogue between scientists and society. However, in reality this dialog is usually no true interaction in both ways but a unidirectional information flow via all sorts of media, including scientific books, tv documentaries, movies etc. Besides open protesting there are close to no possibilities to return constructive and immediate feedback to a scientific controversy.

This is why we think the best and most efficient way of communication is direct face-to-face interaction between scientific experts and the general public. However, to organize such an event one has to face several challenges. For example the format has to be as such that both parties have enough space to develop their arguments and thoughts and most importantly time to express them. Furthermore, the discussion should be hold in a respectful and stimulating atmosphere.

To fulfill all of these prerequisites we tried to establish close relations to and between different groups of society. We met philosophers and critics as well as fellow researchers and experts over the whole period of our project. In the focus of these meetings were thorough discussions over ethical considerations, feasibility, safety and most importantly the general gain for society. Under the motto "On the way into a synthetic future?" this interaction culminated in an open talk evening where all parties got together to share and discuss the potential of synthetic biology and its implications on our future.



We were able to put together an interesting and diverse program:

  • Introduction to Synthetic Biology by Philipp Walch from the iGEM Team Heidelberg 2013
  • The New Creation – What We Could Expect from the Next 50 Years by Olaf Fritsche, author and science journalist
  • Philosopher’s Stone by Tania Christiansen and Sophie Rabe from the iGEM Team Heidelberg 2013
  • iGEMs – Unveil the Invisible by Charlotte Bunne, biology student and member of the iGEM High School Team 2012 from the Life Science Lab of the German Cancer Research Center
  • Pitfalls of Decision by Stefan Dewald, telecommunications engineer and member of the Secular Humanists Rhein Neckar
  • Public Perception of Synthetic Biology by Reinhard Heil from the Institute for Technology Assessment and System Analysis at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
  • Is Artificial Life an Invention of Mankind? – Hints to Resolve a Contradiction by Rolf Kickuth, science journalist and publisher of “Chemistry in Lab Biotechnology”
  • Synthetic Biology meets Poetry by Isabel Marleen Pötzsch, high school student, emerging author and member of the Life Science Lab of the German Cancer Research Center
  • Our guests, non-scientists like students from local high-schools, parents and grandparents as well as scientists-to-be participated lively in controversial discussions with the lecturers, either by directly asking questions or by filling in the prepared question cards, which were then read out by our moderator Alexandra Moosmann from genius science & communication. To get an overview about the audience's opinion of snythetic biology, everyone was asked to fill in a short questionnaire. See our survey to find out what our guests think of synthetik biology! Following the talks, we invited the lecturers and our audience to engage in further discussion over snacks and refreshments.


    In summary, the field of synthetic biology was agreed to capture great potential, yet, the fact that we are unable to foresee possible risks of this new technology was often considered to be dangerous. One of the major demands of lecturer's and the audience was to promote the dialogue between science and society, by public talk evenings and panel discussions just like ours to allow direct and personal communication. Another aspect was the more philosophical question on whether we actually want to realize everything that might be possible to achieve researching synthetic biology. This led to the important issue how to regulate research and who is in the position to do so. Of course, national and international politics set boundaries to every scientific action, but is this sufficient to avoid misuse? In agreement to this result an international survey shows that the general public has a very heterogeneous perception of synthetic biology. According to the Eurobarometer 2010, only 18% of the people have heard of synthetic biology. Germans are the most skeptical of all European countries: only 27% support synthetic biology, 20% of society strongly disagree and 31% disagree with exceptions. In the public perception, synthetic biology is mainly associated with biotechnology, human enhancement, cloning of human and green biotechnology.

    As a first step to improve the public perception of synthetic biology, we wanted to establish a common understanding between science and society. Together with last years high school iGEM Team from Heidelberg, we held three open 1 hour presentations on synthetic biology and our iGEM projects followed by a question and answer session with the audience. More than 100 people from different backgrounds attended these interactive events. To get more specific we handed out questionnaires with three different questions, which were answered by the audience in two parts. Before the main part of our talk, our guests were asked to answer only part 1, either the question “What is the definition of synthetic biology?” or “Do you have an idea of what synthetic biology could mean?” – each individual could decide which one accounts better to his or her knowledge on synthetic biology. In our talk, we first gave a brief introduction into synthetic biology, explained the concepts of iGEM and elaborated further on our project “The Philosopher’s Stone”, before last years high school iGEM Team from Heidelberg presented their project iGEMs - Unveil the Invisible. Finally, we gave our personal outlook for a future with synthetic biology. Before offering time for questions, we ended our presentation with the second part of our questionaire. The latter two questions were: “What do you associate with synthetic biology?” and “Which questions remained to be answered?”. Here, we wanted to know, in which way our presentation had influenced their opinion on synthetic biology. 

After our talk, many questions were addressed, concerning both the principles of synthetic biology in general and NRPS in particular. However, the vast majority of questions dealt not with understanding the biology behind “The Philosopher’s Stone”, but rather with the potentials of synthetic biology.

    Many of our guests pointed out their concerns regarding missing safety regulations of synthetic biology. They strongly insisted for more transparency and communication by scientists and industry. The discussions following the presentations revealed that the skepticism to synthetic biology is mainly based on a lack of communication and the difficulty to acquire trustworthy knowledge.

 When analyzing our questionnaire, the most positive and striking result was that people who had stated that they did not have any idea of synthetic biology prior to our talk, found the discussion highly stimulating and informative. In conclusion, we believe that organizing such an interactive evening should be obligatory to following iGEM generations. It not only informs the public about ongoing research but also helps the teams to formulate their ideas in an understandable and comprehensive way. And last but not least it is a perfect opportunity to enlarge the number of friends for synthetic biology.



    Furthermore, we were invited to the Secular Humanists Rhein Neckar, a group of critical minds with a broad range of interests, such as ethics, philosophy, politics, natural sciences etc. who meet and discuss current issues. Their main focus is ethics, as many of them are philosophers, however, there are natural scientists, economists and linguists as well. This mix of characters, their way of thinking and expertise made it both challenging to present the project appropriately (i.e. on a suitable level of abstraction). After an 1-hour long talk, often interrupted by critical questions, we engaged in another 2 hours of discussion with the entire audience. The range of questions was, as indicated earlier, quite broad, ranging from “What exactly is the sense of your project?” to “Is synthetic biology at all controllable? If something has economic value, people won’t be able to control it, right?”. 

We also conducted our questionnaire among the secular humanists, with a particular philosopher-appropriate feedback. We got questions like: “Is there anyone (or any institution) who has the authority to set legal boarders? And when is going further 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 thrilled about the lively discussion and new food for thoughts for our project.



    With Mrs. Van Aaken, who not only is a pedagogue for environmental education, but also member of the BUND (a German NGO for preservation of the environment), 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, 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 theory behind science in general, 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 were doing and thus, we thank Mrs. Van Aaken for broadening our horizon during this enlightening afternoon!

    Thanks to