http://2009.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Ranya&feed=atom&limit=50&target=Ranya&year=&month=2009.igem.org - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T11:53:34ZFrom 2009.igem.orgMediaWiki 1.16.5http://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/TeamTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Team2010-04-21T15:07:01Z<p>Ranya: /* Team */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss7.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
A team is defined by two criteria: its members and the way it articulates itself. Come discover the characteristics of our team…<br><br />
<br />
== Team Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Several elements are crucial for the development of an innovative project: <br> <br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
- the concept, <br><br />
- the theoretical development that enables the building of a prototype, <br><br />
- the experimental development that enables the validation of the prototype, <br><br />
- the providing of technical and material needs, <br><br />
- the foreseeing of ethical and social problems brought by the project, <br><br />
</div><br />
In this aim, we have structured our team as follows: <br><br />
A management team, with experience in the development of innovative projects and a full vision on how to deal with them. <br><br />
A R&D team to validate the theoretical and experimental concept. <br><br />
A communication team to meet the internal and external needs of the project. <br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Team ==<br />
<br />
Here is the story of our team throughout iGEM 2009: <br><br />
<br />
[[Image:Équipe.png|center|650px]]<br />
<u>Top row, from left to right :</u> Nassrine Lablack, David Charoy, Aurélie Négrel, Thierry Leclerc and Timothée Kirkhus.<br><br />
<u>Bottom row, from left to right :</u> Ranya Jamali, Enguerrand Habran, Damien Parrello, Gaella Azzi, Cyprien Verseux and Emma Valette.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Enguerrand HABRAN''', 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, managed a team of 11 students during this adventure and brought the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] project to a successful conclusion. Throughout his professional experience, he has acquired multiple competences in the realm of entrepreneurial and management skills, in particular by being project leader several times. <br><br />
Passionate about science, he has conceived all through his curriculum an innovative concept based on a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#drapeau|vectorization]] principle. Convinced of its feasibility, he has chosen to pursue his research in order to create a prototype. To reach his goal, he has studied feverishly publications and has turned towards the grand names of the field. Once he had the sufficient theoretical knowledge, he developed his experimental competences in the laboratory of Professor COUVREUR, working on an anti-cancer nano-particle. <br><br />
Combining theory and experimentation, he brought to light the underlying problems of vectorisation and elaborated with the rest of the team a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|double vectorisation system (DVS)]] to provide an answer. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
After that, he selected, for the [https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] adventure, the students of the team according to their competences related to the project. <br><br />
<br />
Enguerrand decided to take the lead of the R&D team and entrusted the communication team to '''Gaëlla AZZI'''. <br><br />
Due to their common and complementary experiences in the creation and development of projects, Enguerrand was convinced of the asset of having Gaëlla in the iGEM project. Being a 5th year student specialized in Commercial Marketing in biotechnologies, she has obtained her competences throughout various professional experiences. <br><br />
All along the iGEM adventure, she has managed a team of 3 students with whom she prospected the market for [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#spo|sponsors]]. She has been brought to negotiate and oversee the orders of laboratory material suppliers so as to satisfy the internal needs of the R&D team. <br><br />
She then turned her attention to the external problems of the project, particularly the ethics and social questions that were brought up by our concept. She thus supervised the creation of an [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|ethics conference]] focused on synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:Photo3.png|frameless|caption|right|150px]] '''Eve Ranya JAMALI''' and '''Emma VALETTE''', 4th year students, as well as '''Yolène MONEDERO''', a 5th year student specialised in Commercial Marketing in biotechnologies, have accomplished several different missions during the adventure. They prospected for [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#spo|sponsors]] and worked on the elaboration of different communication medias. <br><br />
It is especially their double competence in the scientific and communication fields that have rendered them interesting for this adventure. <br><br />
A good visualisation of the concept and understanding of the ethical and societal questions brought up by it, aided by the numerous experiences in this field, have enabled Ranya to organize, and lead as best as possible the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|ethical conference]] and Emma to answer questions based on [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau|Safety]].<br><br />
<br />
<br />
The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|concept]] had already been defined when the iGEM adventure started out. We knew the characteristics of our vector and target cell, yet many questions remained unanswered. <br><br />
<br />
'''Damien PARELLO''', a 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, was assigned the task of studying our target cell and its mutations. He studied its membrane proteins in order to determine THE protein that would be specific of our target cell. <br><br />
Thus, he established that the protein c-kit is solely found on the membrane of our target cell. He then identified the target protein of this receptor and designed its [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau|BioBrick]]. One of the proteins of our phage is now adorned with this BioBrick, enabling him to target our interest cells. <br><br />
He then determined the most common mutations in the cancerous cells so as to decide which genes to add to our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]]. <br><br />
He thus studied then chose the genes containing the mutations before conducting thorough [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Antitumor_action#drapeau|studies]] on them in a laboratory. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Once the target molecule and its mutations were defined, we had to build our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|cell vector]]. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:Photo2.png|frameless|caption|left|100px]] To begin, '''David CHARROY''', a 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, and '''Cyprien VERSEUX''', 1st year student in biotechnologies, prepared a résumé of the current situation of phages so as to understand its operating system.<br><br />
They then decided to “BioBrick” it entirely so as to render it adjustable. <br><br />
Knowing the phage thoroughly, they chose the optimal location for the target protein identified by Damien. Yet, a problem remained: can the naturally non-infectious [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau| cell vector]] for eukaryote cells manage to enter the target cell? <br><br />
David then had the idea of adding a second target protein on our vector: a protein from an adenovirus to help escape the endosome. He then turned it into a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau|“BioBrick”]] and added it to our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|vector]]. <br><br />
For our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Antitumor_action#drapeau|studies in a laboratory]], the phage was studied by David, '''Nassrine LABLACK''' and '''Aurélie NEGREL''', both 5th year students specialized in R&D in biotechnologies. All three of them have hands on experience in various laboratories. David and Aurélie both followed a technical training before joining Sup’Biotech. Nassrine, in addition to her curriculum at Sup’Biotech, works in a biology laboratory. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
A protein to be modified, a cellular vector; we just had to find our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]]. <br><br />
<br />
'''Thierry LECLERC''', a 4th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, prepared a résumé on the current situation of Mycobacterium, our candidate for the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]]. He had two principle objectives: the capacity of resisting the immune system and the lung tropism. Once he had gathered sufficient information about the bacteria, he validated the theoretical concept, proving that Mycobacterium would perfectly fill in its role, by using scientific literature. <br><br />
In the aim of a technical validation, he elaborated a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Tissue_targeting #drapeau|follow-up study]] of Mycobacterium in a murin organism. To do this, he created close ties with Mycobacterium specialists, and has made analogies with various ''in vivo'' studies that have been conducted. After that, he applied the previous study in a laboratory.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, for the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Treatement_modeling#drapeau|modelisation part]], '''Timothée KIRKHUS''', a 4th year student specialised in Production in biotechnologies, modelised the effects of our treatment of a lung tumor, so as to determine the injection kinetics of different [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] system. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The complementarity of each student has enabled the team to fulfil all the obligations of the project. Thanks to research, analysis and interpretation, all have contributed their knowledge and understanding to solve as accurately as possible all underlying questions to attain our objective: fulfilling the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] project. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Typical iGEMer Day ==<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="640" height="530"><br />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><br />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><br />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Project_Management#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EquipeTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Equipe2010-04-21T15:06:06Z<p>Ranya: /* L’équipe */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss7.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisFr}}<br />
<br />
Une équipe se définit en deux points : ses membres et sa stratégie de fonctionnement.<br />
Découvrez donc les caractéristiques de notre équipe…<br><br />
<br />
== Stratégie d’équipe ==<br />
<br />
Pour le développement d’un projet innovant, plusieurs éléments sont essentiels : <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
- le concept,<br><br />
- le développement théorique permettant une concrétisation d’un prototype,<br><br />
- le développement expérimental pour valider le prototype,<br><br />
- l’apport des besoins techniques et matériels,<br><br />
- l’évaluation des problématiques éthiques et sociétales soulevées par le projet,<br><br />
</div><br />
Dans cette optique, nous avons structuré notre équipe de la manière suivante :<br><br />
Une équipe managériale, ayant l’expérience dans le développement de projets innovants et une vision complète dans la gestion de ceux-ci.<br><br />
Une équipe R&D pour valider le concept d’un point de vue théorique et expérimental.<br><br />
Une équipe communication pour subvenir aux besoins internes et externes du projet.<br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Equipe#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== L’équipe ==<br />
<br />
Voici l’histoire de notre équipe pour l’aventure iGEM 2009 : <br><br />
<br />
[[Image:Équipe.png|center|650px]]<br />
<u>Ligne du haut, de gauche à droite:</u> Nassrine Lablack, David Charoy, Aurélie Négrel, Thierry Leclerc et Timothée Kirkhus.<br><br />
<u>Ligne du bas, de gauche à droite:</u> Ranya Jamali, Enguerrand Habran, Damien Parrello, Gaella Azzi, Cyprien Verseux et Emma Valette.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Enguerrand HABRAN''', étudiant en 5ème année spécialisé en R&D en biotechnologie, a créé et managé une équipe de 11 étudiants durant l’aventure pour mener à bien le projet [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#DVS|DVS]]. A travers ses expériences professionnelles, il a acquis de nombreuses compétences dans les domaines entrepreneurial et managérial, en étant notamment chef de projet à plusieurs reprises.<br><br />
Passionné de science, il a conçu durant son cursus un concept innovant basé sur le principe de [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|vectorisation]]. Convaincu de sa faisabilité, il a choisi de poursuivre ses recherches afin d’en réaliser le prototype. Pour arriver à ses fins, il a étudié avec entrain les publications et s’est tourné vers les grands noms du domaine. Une fois ses connaissances théoriques suffisantes, il a développé ses compétences expérimentales au sein du laboratoire du Professeur COUVREUR, sur la réalisation d’une nanoparticule anticancer.<br><br />
Alliant la théorie à l’expérimentation, il a pris conscience des problématiques sous-jacentes de la vectorisation et a élaboré avec le reste de l'équipe le [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#DVS|système de double vectorisation]] (DVS) pour y répondre.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Par la suite, il a sélectionné, pour l’aventure [https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM], les étudiants de l’équipe via leurs compétences inhérentes au projet.<br><br />
<br />
Enguerrand a décidé de prendre en charge l’équipe R&D et a confié l’équipe Communication à '''Gaëlla AZZI'''.<br><br />
Grâce à leurs expériences communes et complémentaires dans la création et le développement de projet, Enguerrand était convaincu de l’intérêt de la présence de Gaella au sein du projet iGEM.<br />
Etudiante en 5ème année spécialisée Marketing Commercial en biotechnologie, elle a forgé ses compétences à travers ses différentes expériences professionnelles.<br><br />
Durant l’aventure iGEM, elle a managé une équipe de 3 étudiants avec lesquels elle s’est chargée de prospecter des [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Remerciement#spo|sponsors]]. Elle a été amenée à négocier et suivre les commandes avec les fournisseurs de matériels de laboratoire pour subvenir aux besoins internes de l’équipe R&D.<br><br />
Elle s’est ensuite penchée sur les problématiques externes au projet notamment les questions éthiques et sociétales que génère notre concept, elle a ainsi supervisé l’organisation de la [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biologie Synthetique#drapeau|conférence éthique]] sur le thème de la biologie synthétique.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:Photo3.png|frameless|caption|right|150px]]'''Eve Ranya JAMALI''' et '''Emma VALETTE''', étudiantes en 4eme année, ainsi que '''Yolène MONEDERO''', étudiante en 5eme année spécialisée en Marketing Commercial en biotechnologie, ont eu plusieurs missions durant l’aventure. Elles ont prospecté les [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Remerciement#spo|sponsors]], et travaillé à la réalisation des divers supports de communication.<br><br />
C’est surtout leur double compétence dans les domaines scientifique et communication, qui ont fait d’elles des personnes intéressantes pour l’aventure.<br><br />
Une bonne vue du concept et une appréhension des questions éthiques et sociétales que soulèvent ce dernier, aidée de plusieurs expériences dans le domaine, a permis à Ranya d’orchestrer au mieux la [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biologie Synthetique#drapeau|conférence éthique]] et à Emma de répondre aux questions de [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Sûreté#drapeau|Sûreté]].<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Au début de l’aventure, le [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|concept]] était déjà défini. Nous connaissions les propriétés de notre vecteur et notre cellule cible, mais de nombreuses questions restaient en suspens.<br><br />
<br />
'''Damien PARRELLO''', étudiant en 5ème année spécialisé en R&D en biotechnologie, a eu pour mission d’étudier notre cellule cible et ses mutations. Il a étudié les protéines membranaires de cette dernière, afin de déterminer LA protéine qui serait spécifique à notre cellule d’intérêt.<br><br />
C’est ainsi, qu’il a établi que seule notre cellule cible possède sur sa membrane une protéine c-kit. Il a ensuite identifié la protéine cible de ce récepteur et designé sa [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BiobricksFr#drapeau|BioBrick]]. Celle-ci orne maintenant l’une des protéines de notre phage, permettant à ce dernier de cibler nos cellules d’intérêt.<br><br />
Il a ensuite déterminé les mutations les plus courantes dans les cellules cancéreuses afin de savoir quels gènes apporter dans notre [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3Fr#drapeau|plasmide thérapeutique]].<br><br />
Il a ainsi étudié puis désigné les gènes comportant des mutations avant de mener l'[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ciblage_Cellulaire#drapeau|étude]] de l’un d’eux en laboratoire.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Une fois la molécule de ciblage et les mutations définies, il a fallu construire notre [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2Fr#drapeau|vecteur cellulaire]].<br><br />
<br />
[[image:Photo2.png|frameless|caption|left|100px]]'''David CHAROY''', étudiant en 5ème année spécialisé en R&D en biotechnologie et '''Cyprien VERSEUX''', étudiant en 1ère année ont, dans un premier temps, fait un état de l’art du phage afin d’en comprendre son fonctionnement.<br><br />
Ils ont ensuite décidé de le « BioBricker » entièrement afin de le rendre modulable.<br><br />
Connaissant parfaitement le phage, ils ont choisi l’emplacement optimal pour la protéine de ciblage identifiée par Damien. Cependant un problème subsistait, le [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2Fr#drapeau|vecteur cellulaire]] naturellement non infectieux pour les cellules eucaryotes, pourrait-il pénétrer notre cible ?<br><br />
David eut alors l’idée d’ajouter une seconde protéine de ciblage à notre vecteur. Une protéine issue de l’adénovirus, servant à l’échappement de l’endosome. Il l’a ainsi [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BiobricksFr#drapeau|BioBrickée]] et ajoutée à notre [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2Fr#drapeau|vecteur]].<br><br />
Pour son [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ciblage Cellulaire#drapeau|étude en laboratoire]], le phage a été étudié par David, '''Nassrine LABLACK''' et '''Aurélie NEGREL''', toutes deux étudiantes en 5ème année spécialisées en R&D en biotechnologie. Ces dernières ainsi que David ont une forte expérience en laboratoire. David et Aurélie ont suivi une formation technique avant d’intégrer Sup’Biotech. Nassrine, en plus de son cursus à Sup’Biotech, travaille en laboratoire en biologie.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Une protéine à modifier, un vecteur cellulaire, il ne manquait plus que notre [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1Fr#drapeau|vecteur tissulaire]].<br><br />
<br />
'''Thierry LECLERC''', étudiant en 4ème année spécialisé en R&D en biotechnologie, a fait un état de l’art sur Mycobacterium, notre candidat au [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1Fr#drapeau|vecteur tissulaire]]. Ce dernier a eu deux objectifs principaux : la résistance au système immunitaire et le tropisme pulmonaire. Une fois ses connaissances sur la bactérie suffisantes, il a validé théoriquement le concept en démontrant par la littérature scientifique que Mycobacterium remplirait parfaitement son rôle.<br><br />
Dans l’optique d’une validation technique, il a élaboré une [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ciblage Tissulaire#drapeau|étude de suivi]] de cette dernière dans un organisme murin. Pour ce faire, il a su se rapprocher des spécialistes de Mycobacterium, et a fait des analogies avec diverses études menées In Vivo. Par la suite, il a pratiqué l’étude designée en laboratoire.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Enfin, pour la partie [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Modeling_du_traitement#drapeau|modélisation]], '''Timothée KIRKHUS''', étudiant en 4ème année spécialisé en Production en biotechnologie, a modélisé les effets de notre traitement sur une tumeur pulmonaire, afin de déterminer les cinétiques d'injection des différents systèmes du DVS.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
La complémentarité de chacun a permis de répondre aux exigences de notre projet. Par un travail de recherche, d’analyse et d’interprétation, tous avons su mettre à contribution notre savoir faire afin de répondre au mieux à notre objectif commun : concrétiser le projet [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#DVS|DVS]]. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Equipe#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Journée iGEMeur ==<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="640" height="530"><br />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><br />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><br />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Equipe#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Gestion_de_projet#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="On passe à la page suivante !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/HomeEnTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/HomeEn2009-11-06T22:32:07Z<p>Ranya: /* What is iGEM? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss1.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
= What is iGEM? =<br />
<br />
International Genetically Engineered Machines ([https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM]) is an international Synthetic Biology competition, organized by the [http://web.mit.edu/aboutmit Massachusetts Institute of Technology] (MIT), where over hundred students from the greatest universities in the world compete.<br><br />
<br />
[https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] is based on the simple concept of gene standardization, [http://partsregistry.org/Main_Page Biobricks]. Thus, each gene becomes simple to use and simple to arrange in order to make the engineering of living matter systematic.<br><br />
The main objectives are to promote the development of open-source tools for biological engineering and thus contribute to the development of a society that uses biotechnologies.<br><br />
<br />
For us, [https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] is above all a tremendous professional and human experience. Students have to conceive a R&D project, organize and lead an interdisciplinary program, work as a team, communicate and promote our work internationally.<br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/HomeEn#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
= Why are we participating? =<br />
<br />
[https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] is a Synthetic Biology competition, in which each team has to create an innovative project and develop it in a laboratory. This project is interdisciplinary, it demands rigor and organizational skills when working. This envelops all the key points of our curriculum:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
- Innovation,<br><br />
- Multidisciplinarity,<br><br />
- Project management,<br><br />
- Autonomy in our work,<br><br />
- Scientific communication,<br><br />
- And fun!<br><br />
</div><br />
[https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] is also the opportunity to share our common interest with young scientists from around the world, meet our future partners and take part all together in the development of our discipline.<br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/HomeEn#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
= The "DVS" Project =<br />
<br />
Within the framework of the [https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] competition, we have chosen to develop a project focused on health. Today, even though therapeutic products are becoming more and more efficient, they are becoming equally more and more fragile.<br><br />
<br><br />
With this in mind, we have decided to develop a process enabling the protection of biological active ingredients, mainly nucleotide types. This process exists already; it’s what we call a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#drapeau|vector]]. It can be biological, such as viruses, or chemical, such as polymeric nanoparticles. Whatever the nature of the vector, they raise many problems: stability, targeting, membrane passing, and immune reactions.<br><br />
<br><br />
This is why we have tried to create the ideal vector: the best stability, the best targeting, capable of penetrating easily its target and especially capable of eluding the immune system. We have thus created a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|"double vectorization system"]] (DVS) that uses jointly a bacteria and a phage. The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|first vector]], of bacterial type, is used to target the tissue and resist the immune system, whilst the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|second vector]], of phage type, is used to target the cell type and to penetrate the membranes. The combination of both systems offers an improvement of the intrinsic capacities of vectors, as well as new application possibilities.<br><br />
<br><br />
Bearing in mind the public health problems of the world, we deemed interesting to apply our concept to lung cancer, which opens a new realm of therapeutic strategies to fight this physiopathology.<br><br />
Through this WIKI, discover the construction of our project: from its conception to its realization.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/HomeEn#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T03:27:05Z<p>Ranya: /* Survey */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and Ranya Jamali: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow in order to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it puts at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imagine that instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. <i>Mycobacterium avium</i> is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but we have to be aware of these risks causes, and the finality of taking them. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some people do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the instrument. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how it will respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. However, how can we adapt these regulations? <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T03:20:59Z<p>Ranya: /* Bioterrorists drifts */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and Ranya Jamali: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow in order to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it puts at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imagine that instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. <i>Mycobacterium avium</i> is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but we have to be aware of these risks causes, and the finality of taking them. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the instrument. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T03:20:06Z<p>Ranya: /* Bioterrorists drifts */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and Ranya Jamali: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow in order to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it puts at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imagine that instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. <i>Mycobacterium avium</i> is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but we have to be aware of these risks causes, and the finality of taking them. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the instrument. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/TeamTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Team2009-10-22T03:15:53Z<p>Ranya: /* Team */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss7.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
A team is defined by two criteria: its members and the way it articulates itself. Come discover the characteristics of our team…<br><br />
<br />
== Team Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Several elements are crucial for the development of an innovative project: <br> <br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
- the concept, <br><br />
- the theoretical development that enables the building of a prototype, <br><br />
- the experimental development that enables the validation of the prototype, <br><br />
- the providing of technical and material needs, <br><br />
- the foreseeing of ethical and social problems brought by the project, <br><br />
</div><br />
In this aim, we have structured our team as follows: <br><br />
A management team, with experience in the development of innovative projects and a full vision on how to deal with them. <br><br />
A R&D team to validate the theoretical and experimental concept. <br><br />
A communication team to meet the internal and external needs of the project. <br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Team ==<br />
<br />
Here is the story of our team throughout iGEM 2009: <br><br />
<br />
[[Image:Équipe.png|center|650px]]<br />
<u>Top row, from left to right :</u> Nassrine Lablack, David Charoy, Aurélie Négrel, Thierry Leclerc and Timothée Kirkhus.<br><br />
<u>Bottom row, from left to right :</u> Ranya Jamali, Enguerrand Habran, Damien Parrello, Gaella Azzi, Cyprien Verseux and Emma Valette.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Enguerrand HABRAN''', 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, managed a team of 11 students during this adventure and brought the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] project to a successful conclusion. Throughout his professional experience, he has acquired multiple competences in the realm of entrepreneurial and management skills, in particular by being project leader several times. <br><br />
Passionate about science, he has conceived all through his curriculum an innovative concept based on a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#drapeau|vectorization]] principle. Convinced of its feasibility, he has chosen to pursue his research in order to create a prototype. To reach his goal, he has studied feverishly publications and has turned towards the grand names of the field. Once he had the sufficient theoretical knowledge, he developed his experimental competences in the laboratory of Professor COUVREUR, working on an anti-cancer nano-particle. <br><br />
Combining theory and experimentation, he brought to light the underlying problems of vectorisation and elaborated with the rest of the team a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|double vectorisation system (DVS)]] to provide an answer. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
After that, he selected, for the [https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] adventure, the students of the team according to their competences related to the project. <br><br />
<br />
Enguerrand decided to take the lead of the R&D team and entrusted the communication team to '''Gaëlla AZZI'''. <br><br />
Due to their common and complementary experiences in the creation and development of projects, Enguerrand was convinced of the asset of having Gaëlla in the iGEM project. Being a 5th year student specialized in Commercial Marketing in biotechnologies, she has obtained her competences throughout various professional experiences. <br><br />
All along the iGEM adventure, she has managed a team of 3 students with whom she prospected the market for [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#spo|sponsors]]. She has been brought to negotiate and oversee the orders of laboratory material suppliers so as to satisfy the internal needs of the R&D team. <br><br />
She then turned her attention to the external problems of the project, particularly the ethics and social questions that were brought up by our concept. She thus supervised the creation of an [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|ethics conference]] focused on synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:Photo3.png|frameless|caption|right|150px]] '''Ranya JAMALI''' and '''Emma VALETTE''', 4th year students, as well as '''Yolène MONEDERO''', a 5th year student specialised in Commercial Marketing in biotechnologies, have accomplished several different missions during the adventure. They prospected for [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#spo|sponsors]] and worked on the elaboration of different communication medias. <br><br />
It is especially their double competence in the scientific and communication fields that have rendered them interesting for this adventure. <br><br />
A good visualisation of the concept and understanding of the ethical and societal questions brought up by it, aided by the numerous experiences in this field, have enabled Ranya to organize, and lead as best as possible the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|ethical conference]] and Emma to answer questions based on [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau|Safety]].<br><br />
<br />
<br />
The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|concept]] had already been defined when the iGEM adventure started out. We knew the characteristics of our vector and target cell, yet many questions remained unanswered. <br><br />
<br />
'''Damien PARELLO''', a 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, was assigned the task of studying our target cell and its mutations. He studied its membrane proteins in order to determine THE protein that would be specific of our target cell. <br><br />
Thus, he established that the protein c-kit is solely found on the membrane of our target cell. He then identified the target protein of this receptor and designed its [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau|BioBrick]]. One of the proteins of our phage is now adorned with this BioBrick, enabling him to target our interest cells. <br><br />
He then determined the most common mutations in the cancerous cells so as to decide which genes to add to our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]]. <br><br />
He thus studied then chose the genes containing the mutations before conducting thorough [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Antitumor_action#drapeau|studies]] on them in a laboratory. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Once the target molecule and its mutations were defined, we had to build our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|cell vector]]. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:Photo2.png|frameless|caption|left|100px]] To begin, '''David CHARROY''', a 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, and '''Cyprien VERSEUX''', 1st year student in biotechnologies, prepared a résumé of the current situation of phages so as to understand its operating system.<br><br />
They then decided to “BioBrick” it entirely so as to render it adjustable. <br><br />
Knowing the phage thoroughly, they chose the optimal location for the target protein identified by Damien. Yet, a problem remained: can the naturally non-infectious [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau| cell vector]] for eukaryote cells manage to enter the target cell? <br><br />
David then had the idea of adding a second target protein on our vector: a protein from an adenovirus to help escape the endosome. He then turned it into a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau|“BioBrick”]] and added it to our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|vector]]. <br><br />
For our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Antitumor_action#drapeau|studies in a laboratory]], the phage was studied by David, '''Nassrine LABLACK''' and '''Aurélie NEGREL''', both 5th year students specialized in R&D in biotechnologies. All three of them have hands on experience in various laboratories. David and Aurélie both followed a technical training before joining Sup’Biotech. Nassrine, in addition to her curriculum at Sup’Biotech, works in a biology laboratory. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
A protein to be modified, a cellular vector; we just had to find our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]]. <br><br />
<br />
'''Thierry LECLERC''', a 4th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, prepared a résumé on the current situation of Mycobacterium, our candidate for the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]]. He had two principle objectives: the capacity of resisting the immune system and the lung tropism. Once he had gathered sufficient information about the bacteria, he validated the theoretical concept, proving that Mycobacterium would perfectly fill in its role, by using scientific literature. <br><br />
In the aim of a technical validation, he elaborated a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Tissue_targeting #drapeau|follow-up study]] of Mycobacterium in a murin organism. To do this, he created close ties with Mycobacterium specialists, and has made analogies with various ''in vivo'' studies that have been conducted. After that, he applied the previous study in a laboratory.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, for the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Treatement_modeling#drapeau|modelisation part]], '''Timothée KIRKHUS''', a 4th year student specialised in Production in biotechnologies, modelised the effects of our treatment of a lung tumor, so as to determine the injection kinetics of different [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] system. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The complementarity of each student has enabled the team to fulfil all the obligations of the project. Thanks to research, analysis and interpretation, all have contributed their knowledge and understanding to solve as accurately as possible all underlying questions to attain our objective: fulfilling the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] project. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Typical iGEMer Day ==<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="640" height="530"><br />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><br />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><br />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Project_Management#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/TeamTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Team2009-10-22T03:10:22Z<p>Ranya: /* Team Strategy */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss7.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
A team is defined by two criteria: its members and the way it articulates itself. Come discover the characteristics of our team…<br><br />
<br />
== Team Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Several elements are crucial for the development of an innovative project: <br> <br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
- the concept, <br><br />
- the theoretical development that enables the building of a prototype, <br><br />
- the experimental development that enables the validation of the prototype, <br><br />
- the providing of technical and material needs, <br><br />
- the foreseeing of ethical and social problems brought by the project, <br><br />
</div><br />
In this aim, we have structured our team as follows: <br><br />
A management team, with experience in the development of innovative projects and a full vision on how to deal with them. <br><br />
A R&D team to validate the theoretical and experimental concept. <br><br />
A communication team to meet the internal and external needs of the project. <br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Team ==<br />
<br />
Here is the story of our team throughout iGEM 2009: <br><br />
<br />
[[Image:Équipe.png|center|650px]]<br />
<u>Top row, from left to right :</u> Nassrine Lablack, David Charoy, Aurélie Négrel, Thierry Leclerc and Timothée Kirkhus.<br><br />
<u>Bottom row, from left to right :</u> Ranya Jamali, Enguerrand Habran, Damien Parrello, Gaella Azzi, Cyprien Verseux and Emma Valette.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Enguerrand HABRAN''', 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, managed a team of 11 students during this adventure and brought the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] project to a successful conclusion. Throughout his professional experience, he has acquired multiple competences in the realm of entrepreneurial and management skills, in particular by being project leader several times. <br><br />
Passionate about science, he has conceived all through his curriculum an innovative concept based on a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#drapeau|vectorization]] principle. Convinced of its feasibility, he has chosen to pursue his research in order to create a prototype. To reach his goal, he has studied feverishly publications and has turned towards the grand names of the field. Once he had the sufficient theoretical knowledge, he developed his experimental competences in the laboratory of Professor COUVREUR, working on an anti-cancer nano-particle. <br><br />
Combining theory and experimentation, he brought to light the underlying problems of vectorisation and elaborated with the rest of the team a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|double vectorisation system (DVS)]] to provide an answer. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
After that, he selected, for the [https://2009.igem.org/Main_Page iGEM] adventure, the students of the team according to their competences related to the project. <br><br />
<br />
Enguerrand decided to take the lead of the R&D team and entrusted the communication team to '''Gaëlla AZZI'''. <br><br />
Due to their common and complementary experiences in the creation and development of projects, Enguerrand was convinced of the asset of having Gaëlla in the iGEM project. Being a 5th year student specialized in Commercial Marketing in biotechnologies, she has obtained her competences throughout various professional experiences. <br><br />
All along the iGEM adventure, she has managed a team of 3 students with whom she prospected the market for [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#spo|sponsors]]. She has been brought to negotiate and oversee the orders of laboratory material suppliers so as to satisfy the internal needs of the R&D team. <br><br />
She then turned her attention to the external problems of the project, particularly the ethics and social questions that were brought up by our concept. She thus supervised the creation of an [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|ethics conference]] focused on synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:Photo3.png|frameless|caption|right|150px]] '''Ranya JAMALI''' and '''Emma VALETTE''', 4th year students, as well as '''Yolène MONEDERO''', a 5th year student specialised in Commercial Marketing in biotechnologies, have accomplished several different missions during the adventure. They prospected for [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#spo|sponsors]] and worked on the elaboration of different communication medias. <br><br />
It is especially their double competence in the scientific and communication fields that have rendered them interesting for this adventure. <br><br />
A good visualisation of the concept and understanding of the ethical and societal questions brought up by it, aided by the numerous experiences in this field, have enabled Ranya to organize, and lead as best as possible the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|ethical conference]] and Emma to answer questions based on [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau|Safety]].<br><br />
<br />
<br />
The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|concept]] had already been defined when the iGEM adventure started out. We knew the characteristics of our vector and target cell, yet many questions remained unanswered. <br><br />
<br />
'''Damien PARELLO''', a 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, was assigned the task of studying our target cell and its mutations. He studied its membrane proteins in order to determine THE protein that would be specific of our target cell. <br><br />
Thus, he established that the protein c-kit is solely found on the membrane of our target cell. He then identified the target protein of this receptor and designed its [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau|BioBrick]]. One of the proteins of our phage is now adorned with this BioBrick, enabling him to target our interest cells. <br><br />
He then determined the most common mutations in the cancerous cells so as to decide which genes to add to our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]]. <br><br />
He thus studied then chose the genes containing the mutations before conducting thorough [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Antitumor_action#drapeau|studies]] on them in a laboratory. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Once the target molecule and its mutations were defined, we had to build our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|cell vector]]. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:Photo2.png|frameless|caption|left|100px]] To begin, '''David CHARROY''', a 5th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, and '''Cyprien VERSEUX''', 1st year student in biotechnologies, prepared a résumé of the current situation of phages so as to understand its operating system.<br><br />
They then decided to “BioBrick” it entirely so as to render it adjustable. <br><br />
Knowing the phage thoroughly, they chose the optimal location for the target protein identified by Damien. Yet, a problem remained: can the naturally non-infectious [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau| cell vector]] for eukaryote cells manage to enter the target cell? <br><br />
David then had the idea of adding a second target protein on our vector: a protein from an adenovirus to help escape the endosome. He then turned it into a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau|“BioBrick”]] and added it to our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|vector]]. <br><br />
For our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Antitumor_action#drapeau|studies in a laboratory]], the phage was studied by David, '''Nassrine LABLACK''' and '''Aurélie NEGREL''', both 5th year students specialized in R&D in biotechnologies. All three of them have hands on experience in various laboratories. David and Aurélie both followed a technical training before joining Sup’Biotech. Nassrine, in addition to her curriculum at Sup’Biotech, works in a biology laboratory. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
A protein to be modified, a cellular vector; we just had to find our [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]]. <br><br />
<br />
'''Thierry LECLERC''', a 4th year student specialized in R&D in biotechnologies, prepared a résumé on the current situation of Mycobacterium, our candidate for the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]]. He had two principle objectives: the capacity of resisting the immune system and the lung tropism. Once he had gathered sufficient information about the bacteria, he validated the theoretical concept, proving that Mycobacterium would perfectly fill in its role, by using scientific literature. <br><br />
In the aim of a technical validation, he elaborated a [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Tissue_targeting #drapeau|follow-up study]] of Mycobacterium in a murin organism. To do so, he managed to create close ties with Mycobacterium specialists, and has made analogies with various in vivo studies that have been conducted. After that, he applied the previous study in a laboratory.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, for the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Treatement_modeling#drapeau|modelisation part]], '''Timothée KIRKHUS''', a 4th year student specialised in Production in biotechnologies, modelised the effects of our treatment of a lung tumor, so as to determine the injection kinetics of different [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] system. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The complementarity of each student has enabled the team to fulfil all the obligations of the project. Thanks to research, analysis and interpretation, all have contributed their knowledge and understanding to solve as accurately as possible all underlying questions to attain our objective: fulfilling the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept#DVS|DVS]] project. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Typical iGEMer Day ==<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="640" height="530"><br />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><br />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><br />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8EfTj4hQlcg&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Team#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Project_Management#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T03:05:22Z<p>Ranya: /* Students */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir: For his hospitality and confidence given to us as soon as we came, for his availability and the following of our work<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aircanada.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Air Canada" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e0/Logo_AirCanada.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.fr/l/fr/fr/index.jsp" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
<br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructors ==<br />
<br />
:* Pierre Ougen<br />
:* Gavin Browne<br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for taking some photos of the team to illustrate this site.<br />
<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achieving the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T03:05:06Z<p>Ranya: /* Students */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir: For his hospitality and confidence given to us as soon as we came, for his availability and the following of our work<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aircanada.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Air Canada" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e0/Logo_AirCanada.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.fr/l/fr/fr/index.jsp" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
<br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructors ==<br />
<br />
:* Pierre Ougen<br />
:* Gavin Browne<br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for taking some photos of the team to illustrate this site.<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achieving the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T03:04:13Z<p>Ranya: /* Instructors */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir: For his hospitality and confidence given to us as soon as we came, for his availability and the following of our work<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aircanada.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Air Canada" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e0/Logo_AirCanada.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.fr/l/fr/fr/index.jsp" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
<br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructors ==<br />
<br />
:* Pierre Ougen<br />
:* Gavin Browne<br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for taking some photos of the team to illustrate this site.<br />
<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achieving the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T03:03:12Z<p>Ranya: /* UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir: For his hospitality and confidence given to us as soon as we came, for his availability and the following of our work<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aircanada.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Air Canada" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e0/Logo_AirCanada.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.fr/l/fr/fr/index.jsp" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
<br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructors ==<br />
<br />
:* Pierre Ougen<br />
:* Gavin Brown<br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for taking some photos of the team to illustrate this site.<br />
<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achieving the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T03:01:57Z<p>Ranya: /* UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir: For for his hospitality and confidence given to us as soon as we came, for his availability and the following of our work<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aircanada.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Air Canada" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e0/Logo_AirCanada.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.fr/l/fr/fr/index.jsp" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
<br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
== Instructors ==<br />
<br />
:* Pierre Ougen<br />
:* Gavin Brown<br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for taking some photos of the team to illustrate this site.<br />
<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achieving the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Conclusion3Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Conclusion32009-10-22T02:58:03Z<p>Ranya: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss17.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
<br />
<br />
Non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, is an aggressive cancer. It grows in the lumen of the organ at high speed. This localization is highly correlated to the localization of factors launching the tumorgenesis (contained in the tobacco smoke for example). Tumor cells lose their apoptotic capacity after the functional loss of different tumor suppressors playing a role in the apoptotic pathway. The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] application in the fight against cancer is based on the fact to reactivate these apoptotic pathway by bringing into tumor cells a wild-type version of genes coding for an healthy version of a non-functional tumor suppressor gene. The [http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/cosmic/ COSMIC project] of [http://www.sanger.ac.uk/ Sanger institute] allows us to inventory genes the most likely to be mutated in the case of lung cancer. So, we had to determine the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]] composition applied to this physiopathology. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Several studies showed that lung is one of the <i>Mycobactérium avium</i> natural tropism in mouse and Human. After an intravenous injection of <i>M. avium</i>, the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]] gets to the lung and can grow inside it. So, the first [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] concept, for these application, is validated. For the second one, literature shows that the creation of a recombined phage with an adenovirus [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#PB| penton base]], a protein which allows to pass through membranes by endocytosis, is possible. The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau| cell vector]] creation, which has for objective to integer the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]] into eukaryotic tumor cells, is feasible. It is proved that we can modulate the efficiency of the interaction of the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#PB|penton base]] with integrins of eukaryotic cells by using the whole protein or only its RGD sequence alone. In the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] project context it is the entire structure of the protein that we placed on the Lambda phage capsid. Possessing a lower affinity for cell than if we used the RGD motif alone, [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|cell vectors]] could more scatter and consequently, touch a higher number of cells.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>In vivo</i> studies on human proved that to bring a wild-type version of a tumor suppressor gene into tumor cell for which the gene is mutated allow the launching of the apoptosis process and the inhibition of the tumor growth. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
By taking up all these data, it appears obvious that the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] application in the anticancer fight against non small cell lung cancer represent a straight alternative to existing treatments, the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]] targeting the organ of interest and the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau| cell vector]] could deliver the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]] which apoptotic activity is confirmed. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Conclusion3#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Conclusion3Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Conclusion32009-10-22T02:57:33Z<p>Ranya: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss17.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<br />
= Conclusion =<br />
<br />
<br />
Non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, is an aggressive cancer. It grows in the lumen of the organ at high speed. This localization is highly correlated to the localization of factors launching the tumorgenesis (contained in the tobacco smoke for example). Tumor cells lose their apoptotic capacity after the functional loss of different tumor suppressors playing a role in the apoptotic pathway. The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] application in the fight against cancer is based on the fact to reactivate these apoptotic pathway by bringing into tumor cells a wild-type version of genes coding for an healthy version of a non-functional tumor suppressor gene. The [http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/cosmic/ COSMIC project] of [http://www.sanger.ac.uk/ Sanger institute] allow us to inventory genes the most likely to be mutated in the case of lung cancer. So, we had to determine the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]] composition applied to these physiopathology. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Several studies showed that lung is one of the <i>Mycobactérium avium</i> natural tropism in mouse and Human. After an intravenous injection of <i>M. avium</i>, the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]] gets to the lung and can grow inside it. So, the first [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] concept, for these application, is validated. For the second one, literature shows that the creation of a recombined phage with an adenovirus [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#PB| penton base]], a protein which allows to pass through membranes by endocytosis, is possible. The [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau| cell vector]] creation, which has for objective to integer the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]] into eukaryotic tumor cells, is feasible. It is proved that we can modulate the efficiency of the interaction of the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#PB|penton base]] with integrins of eukaryotic cells by using the whole protein or only its RGD sequence alone. In the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] project context it is the entire structure of the protein that we placed on the Lambda phage capsid. Possessing a lower affinity for cell than if we used the RGD motif alone, [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau|cell vectors]] could more scatter and consequently, touch a higher number of cells.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>In vivo</i> studies on human proved that to bring a wild-type version of a tumor suppressor gene into tumor cell for which the gene is mutated allow the launching of the apoptosis process and the inhibition of the tumor growth. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
By taking up all these data, it appears obvious that the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1#DVS|DVS]] application in the anticancer fight against non small cell lung cancer represent a straight alternative to existing treatments, the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1#drapeau|tissue vector]] targeting the organ of interest and the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept2#drapeau| cell vector]] could deliver the [[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept3#drapeau| therapeutic plasmid]] which apoptotic activity is confirmed. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Conclusion3#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biobricks#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material_%26_MethodTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method2009-10-22T02:53:21Z<p>Ranya: /* Materials */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss12.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Electrophoresis ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA Template<br><br />
<li>Loading buffer<br><br />
<li>Molecular size marker<br><br />
<li>TAE 1X Buffer<br><br />
<li>Ethidium Bromide (BET) <br><br />
<li>Agarose<br><br />
<li>Detection and migration materials for an agarose gel electrophoresis<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Agarose gel preparation: <br><br />
<ul><br />
<li>For BioBricks: <br><br />
Prepare a 2% agarose gel (1.5 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
<li>To isolate DNA from a lambda phage: <br><br />
Prepare a 0.7% agarose gel (0.4 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
</ul><br />
<li>Heat agarose in a microwave 5 to 10 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the electrophoresis plate. <br><br />
Ensure water tightness of the plate. <br><br />
<li>Add the TAE 1X buffer until the agarose gel is covered. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the samples: <br><br />
Mix 5µL of loading buffer for 15µL of DNA sample. <br><br />
Prepare the molecular size marker if needed: <br><br />
High range: 0.5µL of DNA + 1µL of loading buffer of the marker + 4.5µL of bi distilled H2O. <br><br />
<li>Vortex the sample then centrifuge it for 2 seconds. <br><br />
<li>Deposit delicately the samples and the molecular size marker. <br><br />
Do not use the wells located on the edges of the gel. <br><br />
Deposit the molecular size marker in the center of the gel so as to ease the size analysis of the samples. <br><br />
An 8 well plate has a capacity of about 45µL of sample. <br><br />
An15 well plate can hold 15µL of sample. <br><br />
<li>Place the electrodes in the electrophoresis tank in order for the DNA to migrate from the anode to the cathode. <br><br />
<li>Activate the migration of the gel from 85 volts to 130 volts during 45 to 80 minutes. <br><br />
Check for the appearance of bubbles due to the electric current and that the DNA is migrating the right way. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Extraction of DNA from an agarose gel (Nucleospin Clontech) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>30mL of NT buffer<br><br />
<li>14mL of NT3 buffer<br><br />
<li>15mL of NE buffer<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin Extract II columns<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin collector tubes (2mL) <br><br />
<li>Sterile scalpel<br><br />
<li>Scales<br><br />
<li>Vortex<br><br />
<li>Incubator (50°C/122°F) <br><br />
<li>A centrifuge (11000g) <br><br />
<li>Sterile 1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Excise the fragment of agarose gel that contains the DNA fragment, with a scalpel, whilst being careful to remove as little gel as possible. <br><br />
<li>Determine the weight of the slice of gel and place it in a sterile tube. <br><br />
<li>For every 100mg of agarose gel add 200μL of NT buffer. <br><br />
For gels containing more than 2% of agarose, double the volume of NT buffer. <br><br />
The maximum weight for a slice of gel, produced by NucleoSpin® Extract II, is 400mg or 200mg for high percentage gels (>2%), in this case, 2 steps are necessary (DNA linking steps: 6 and 7). <br><br />
<li>Place the samples at 50°C (122°F) in the incubator until the gel has dissolved (5-10min). <br><br />
<li>Vortex briefly the sample every 2 to 3 min until the gel has completely dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Place a NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a 2mL NucleoSpin collector tube and insert the sample, then centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 600μL of NT3 buffer and centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge for 2 min at 11000g to get rid of all the NT3 buffer. <br><br />
Make sure that the NucleoSpin® Extract II column is not in contact with the eluted solution during centrifugation (in the NucleoSpin collector tube). <br><br />
The next reactions are inhibited by the residual ethanol from the NT3 buffer, so it must be entirely removed at this step. In addition to the centrifugation, placing the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in an incubator at 70°C (158°F) for 2-5 min before elution will ensure total retrieval of the ethanol. <br><br />
<li>Place the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a fresh 1.5mL tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 15-50μL of NE elution buffer, then incubate at room temperature for 1 min to enhance the yield of the eluted DNA. <br><br />
<br />
<li>Centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
The yield of the large fragments (>5-10 kb) can be enhanced by using pre-heated elution buffer (70°C/158°F): for the elution, add the pre-heated elution buffers and incubate at room temperature for 1 min before collecting the elute by centrifugation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500µL of E.Coli culture in an LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>60mL of glycerol at 10%<br><br />
<li>Ethanol<br><br />
<li>Incubator with rotor<br><br />
<li>Tank of ice<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>50mL Falcon tubes<br><br />
<li>300mL tubes for the centrifuge<br><br />
<li>A refrigerated centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F) <br><br />
</ul> <br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Prepare a pre-culture of E.Coli in 5mL of LB culture medium (all night long at 37°C/39.2°F with rotation). <br><br />
Prepare the centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Place the pre-culture of E.Coli in 450mL of LB culture medium and incubate with agitation for 3 hours at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Place 225mL of the solution in 2 centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Place both tubes in the ice for 15 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 25mL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
You may also transfer the solution into a 50mL Falcon tube. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 1500g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and add 500µL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
<li>Re-suspend the cells in a total volume of 1mL. <br><br />
<li>Aliquote 50µL per tube (tubes already in the ice). <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid LB medium<br><br />
<li>Solid LB medium (LB culture medium + agarose + specific antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent Escherichia coli bacteria (40µL in an eppendorf tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basin (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 200 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the electroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid LB medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500μL of Mycobacterium culture at -80°C (-112°F) <br><br />
<li>Glycerol 10%<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>Centrifuge<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. All the mediums and the whole manipulation are done at room temperature. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the cells from your frozen sample into the centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge the cells at 3600 rpm for 10 min, then throw away the supernatant. <br><br />
<li>Wash the cells with ½ a volume (25mL) of sterile 10% glycerol by pipetting slowly until the cell mass has been dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ¼ vol (12.5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅛ vol (6.75mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟10 vol (5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟25 vol (2mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Aliquot 100µL of cells into the 1.5mL tubes. <br><br />
<li>Leave to cool quickly in an ice tank. <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F) or use immediately (the effectiveness of the electro-transfer is improved). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid Loewenstein medium<br><br />
<li>Solid Loewenstein medium (congealed Loewenstein culture medium + adapted antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent mycobacterium (40µL in a tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basins (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 1000 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the eclectroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid Loewenstein medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Restriction ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>10µL of DNA (1µL for 0.5g of DNA) <br><br />
<li>3µL of restriction buffer (1X of the total volume) <br><br />
<li>1µL of restriction enzyme<br><br />
<li>3µL of BSA (1X the total volume) <br><br />
<li>15µL of sterile distilled water<br><br />
<li>Total volume 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a sterile eppendorf tube place 3µL of buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add DNA. <br><br />
<li>Add 3µL of BSA. <br><br />
<li>Then add 1µL of restriction enzyme. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile distilled water. <br><br />
TOTAL VOLUME = 30µL<br><br />
<li>Set the thermocycler according to the following parameters and place the tube inside: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
a. 1-2 hours at 37°C (98.6°F) <br><br />
b. 20 min at 80°C to inactivate the enzymes<br><br />
c. leave at 4°C until opening of the thermocycler. <br><br />
</div><br />
NOTE: if you can leave the tube in the incubator for more than 6 hours for the restriction, leave it longer to obtain a better quality restriction! <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Linearization ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>1µL of alkaline phosphatase<br><br />
<li>3µL of alkaline phosphatase buffer<br><br />
<li>Pure water for a total volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>A hotplate<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Prepare a hot tub at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Add the alkaline phosphatase concentration 1X buffer in the DNA template, meaning 3µL of buffer for a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of alkaline phosphatase. <br><br />
<li>Incubate for 1 hour at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Deactivate the alkaline phosphatase by heating for 5 minutes at 65°C (149°F). <br><br />
Proceed to the ligation just after the linearization. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ligation ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>3µL of 10X ligation buffer<br><br />
<li>1µL of T4 DNA Ligase<br><br />
<li>100 to 1000µg of DNA insert solution<br><br />
<li>1µL of 0.05g/L DNA vector<br><br />
<li>Sterile water to obtain à final volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a 1.5mL tube, place 2µL of ligation buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add the DNA insert as well as 1µL of vector. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of T4 DNA Ligase. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile water to obtain a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Let the reaction take place for 35 minutes at 22.5°C (72.5°F). <br><br />
<li>Denaturize the T4 DNA Ligase at 65°C (149°F) for 10 minutes. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== PCR (Promega Kit) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>5’ to 3’ Primer<br><br />
<li>3’ to 5’ Primer<br><br />
<li>GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix (Promega) <br><br />
<li>Thermocycler<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
1. Place the GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix kit at room temperature, vortex then centrifuge it briefly to concentrate the mix at the bottom of the tube. <br><br />
<br />
2. Prepare the following PCR mix:<br><br />
<br />
<br />
a. For 25µL:<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR25 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
b. For 50µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR50 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
c. For 100µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR100 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
3. Add the components in the order listed in the table. <br><br />
<br />
Be careful to insert the volume of primers and of DNA template correctly on the edge of the tube so as to visualize all the volumes that have been deposited. <br><br />
<br />
4. Vortex the total volume. <br><br />
<br />
5. « Start-Stop » Centrifuge (2 to 5 seconds).<br><br />
<br />
If the thermocycler does not have a heating top, add 1 to 2 drops of sterile mineral oil. <br><br />
<br />
6. Insert the preparation into the thermocycler, then launch the cycles: <br><br />
<br />
Cycles:<br><br />
[[Image:PCRcycle eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
7. Check your PCR products by electrophoresis. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Primers ===<br />
<br />
==== D protein: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-ACG-AGC-AAA-GAA-ACC-TT <br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-C <br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGA-CGA-GCA-AAG-AAA-CCT-TTA-CCC<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-CCG-C<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Reverse: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-AAA-AAA-TCC-CGT-AAA-AAA-AGC<br><br />
<br />
==== COS sequences: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-TGG-CCT-CCA-CGC-ACG-TTG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-TC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GGA-TAT-GTA-GAT-GAT-AAT-CAT-TAT-C<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-T<br><br />
<br />
==== CI repressor: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-AAT-TCA-ATC-CAT-TTA-CTA-TGT-TAT-GT<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GAA-TTC-AAT-CCA-TTT-ACT-ATG-TTA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CCA-TTA-A<br><br />
<br />
<br />
==== Adenovirus penton based: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-CGG-CGC-GCG-GCG-ATG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-GAC-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TGT-A<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-G<br><br />
<br />
==== BioBrick ====<br />
<br />
To amplify BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Prefix for sequences which begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AG<br><br />
Prefix for sequences which not begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-G<br><br />
Suffix: <br><br />
5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA<br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material_%26_MethodTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method2009-10-22T02:53:01Z<p>Ranya: /* Materials */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss12.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Electrophoresis ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA Template<br><br />
<li>Loading buffer<br><br />
<li>Molecular size marker<br><br />
<li>TAE 1X Buffer<br><br />
<li>Ethidium Bromide (BET) <br><br />
<li>Agarose<br><br />
<li>Detection and migration materials for an agarose gel electrophoresis<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Agarose gel preparation: <br><br />
<ul><br />
<li>For BioBricks: <br><br />
Prepare a 2% agarose gel (1.5 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
<li>To isolate DNA from a lambda phage: <br><br />
Prepare a 0.7% agarose gel (0.4 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
</ul><br />
<li>Heat agarose in a microwave 5 to 10 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the electrophoresis plate. <br><br />
Ensure water tightness of the plate. <br><br />
<li>Add the TAE 1X buffer until the agarose gel is covered. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the samples: <br><br />
Mix 5µL of loading buffer for 15µL of DNA sample. <br><br />
Prepare the molecular size marker if needed: <br><br />
High range: 0.5µL of DNA + 1µL of loading buffer of the marker + 4.5µL of bi distilled H2O. <br><br />
<li>Vortex the sample then centrifuge it for 2 seconds. <br><br />
<li>Deposit delicately the samples and the molecular size marker. <br><br />
Do not use the wells located on the edges of the gel. <br><br />
Deposit the molecular size marker in the center of the gel so as to ease the size analysis of the samples. <br><br />
An 8 well plate has a capacity of about 45µL of sample. <br><br />
An15 well plate can hold 15µL of sample. <br><br />
<li>Place the electrodes in the electrophoresis tank in order for the DNA to migrate from the anode to the cathode. <br><br />
<li>Activate the migration of the gel from 85 volts to 130 volts during 45 to 80 minutes. <br><br />
Check for the appearance of bubbles due to the electric current and that the DNA is migrating the right way. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Extraction of DNA from an agarose gel (Nucleospin Clontech) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>30mL of NT buffer<br><br />
<li>14mL of NT3 buffer<br><br />
<li>15mL of NE buffer<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin Extract II columns<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin collector tubes (2mL) <br><br />
<li>Sterile scalpel<br><br />
<li>Scales<br><br />
<li>Vortex<br><br />
<li>Incubator (50°C/122°F) <br><br />
<li>A centrifuge (11000g) <br><br />
<li>Sterile 1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Excise the fragment of agarose gel that contains the DNA fragment, with a scalpel, whilst being careful to remove as little gel as possible. <br><br />
<li>Determine the weight of the slice of gel and place it in a sterile tube. <br><br />
<li>For every 100mg of agarose gel add 200μL of NT buffer. <br><br />
For gels containing more than 2% of agarose, double the volume of NT buffer. <br><br />
The maximum weight for a slice of gel, produced by NucleoSpin® Extract II, is 400mg or 200mg for high percentage gels (>2%), in this case, 2 steps are necessary (DNA linking steps: 6 and 7). <br><br />
<li>Place the samples at 50°C (122°F) in the incubator until the gel has dissolved (5-10min). <br><br />
<li>Vortex briefly the sample every 2 to 3 min until the gel has completely dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Place a NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a 2mL NucleoSpin collector tube and insert the sample, then centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 600μL of NT3 buffer and centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge for 2 min at 11000g to get rid of all the NT3 buffer. <br><br />
Make sure that the NucleoSpin® Extract II column is not in contact with the eluted solution during centrifugation (in the NucleoSpin collector tube). <br><br />
The next reactions are inhibited by the residual ethanol from the NT3 buffer, so it must be entirely removed at this step. In addition to the centrifugation, placing the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in an incubator at 70°C (158°F) for 2-5 min before elution will ensure total retrieval of the ethanol. <br><br />
<li>Place the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a fresh 1.5mL tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 15-50μL of NE elution buffer, then incubate at room temperature for 1 min to enhance the yield of the eluted DNA. <br><br />
<br />
<li>Centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
The yield of the large fragments (>5-10 kb) can be enhanced by using pre-heated elution buffer (70°C/158°F): for the elution, add the pre-heated elution buffers and incubate at room temperature for 1 min before collecting the elute by centrifugation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500µL of E.Coli culture in an LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>60mL of glycerol at 10%<br><br />
<li>Ethanol<br><br />
<li>Incubator with rotor<br><br />
<li>Tank of ice<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>50mL Falcon tubes<br><br />
<li>300mL tubes for the centrifuge<br><br />
<li>A refrigerated centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F) <br><br />
</ul> <br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Prepare a pre-culture of E.Coli in 5mL of LB culture medium (all night long at 37°C/39.2°F with rotation). <br><br />
Prepare the centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Place the pre-culture of E.Coli in 450mL of LB culture medium and incubate with agitation for 3 hours at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Place 225mL of the solution in 2 centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Place both tubes in the ice for 15 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 25mL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
You may also transfer the solution into a 50mL Falcon tube. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 1500g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and add 500µL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
<li>Re-suspend the cells in a total volume of 1mL. <br><br />
<li>Aliquote 50µL per tube (tubes already in the ice). <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid LB medium<br><br />
<li>Solid LB medium (LB culture medium + agarose + specific antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent Escherichia coli bacteria (40µL in an eppendorf tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basin (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 200 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the electroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid LB medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500μL of Mycobacterium culture at -80°C (-112°F) <br><br />
<li>Glycerol 10%<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>Centrifuge<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. All the mediums and the whole manipulation are done at room temperature. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the cells from your frozen sample into the centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge the cells at 3600 rpm for 10 min, then throw away the supernatant. <br><br />
<li>Wash the cells with ½ a volume (25mL) of sterile 10% glycerol by pipetting slowly until the cell mass has been dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ¼ vol (12.5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅛ vol (6.75mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟10 vol (5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟25 vol (2mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Aliquot 100µL of cells into the 1.5mL tubes. <br><br />
<li>Leave to cool quickly in an ice tank. <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F) or use immediately (the effectiveness of the electro-transfer is improved). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Materials ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid Loewenstein medium<br><br />
<li>Solid Loewenstein medium (congealed Loewenstein culture medium + adapted antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent mycobacterium (40µL in a tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basins (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 1000 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the eclectroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid Loewenstein medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Restriction ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>10µL of DNA (1µL for 0.5g of DNA) <br><br />
<li>3µL of restriction buffer (1X of the total volume) <br><br />
<li>1µL of restriction enzyme<br><br />
<li>3µL of BSA (1X the total volume) <br><br />
<li>15µL of sterile distilled water<br><br />
<li>Total volume 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a sterile eppendorf tube place 3µL of buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add DNA. <br><br />
<li>Add 3µL of BSA. <br><br />
<li>Then add 1µL of restriction enzyme. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile distilled water. <br><br />
TOTAL VOLUME = 30µL<br><br />
<li>Set the thermocycler according to the following parameters and place the tube inside: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
a. 1-2 hours at 37°C (98.6°F) <br><br />
b. 20 min at 80°C to inactivate the enzymes<br><br />
c. leave at 4°C until opening of the thermocycler. <br><br />
</div><br />
NOTE: if you can leave the tube in the incubator for more than 6 hours for the restriction, leave it longer to obtain a better quality restriction! <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Linearization ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>1µL of alkaline phosphatase<br><br />
<li>3µL of alkaline phosphatase buffer<br><br />
<li>Pure water for a total volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>A hotplate<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Prepare a hot tub at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Add the alkaline phosphatase concentration 1X buffer in the DNA template, meaning 3µL of buffer for a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of alkaline phosphatase. <br><br />
<li>Incubate for 1 hour at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Deactivate the alkaline phosphatase by heating for 5 minutes at 65°C (149°F). <br><br />
Proceed to the ligation just after the linearization. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ligation ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>3µL of 10X ligation buffer<br><br />
<li>1µL of T4 DNA Ligase<br><br />
<li>100 to 1000µg of DNA insert solution<br><br />
<li>1µL of 0.05g/L DNA vector<br><br />
<li>Sterile water to obtain à final volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a 1.5mL tube, place 2µL of ligation buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add the DNA insert as well as 1µL of vector. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of T4 DNA Ligase. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile water to obtain a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Let the reaction take place for 35 minutes at 22.5°C (72.5°F). <br><br />
<li>Denaturize the T4 DNA Ligase at 65°C (149°F) for 10 minutes. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== PCR (Promega Kit) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>5’ to 3’ Primer<br><br />
<li>3’ to 5’ Primer<br><br />
<li>GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix (Promega) <br><br />
<li>Thermocycler<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
1. Place the GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix kit at room temperature, vortex then centrifuge it briefly to concentrate the mix at the bottom of the tube. <br><br />
<br />
2. Prepare the following PCR mix:<br><br />
<br />
<br />
a. For 25µL:<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR25 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
b. For 50µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR50 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
c. For 100µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR100 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
3. Add the components in the order listed in the table. <br><br />
<br />
Be careful to insert the volume of primers and of DNA template correctly on the edge of the tube so as to visualize all the volumes that have been deposited. <br><br />
<br />
4. Vortex the total volume. <br><br />
<br />
5. « Start-Stop » Centrifuge (2 to 5 seconds).<br><br />
<br />
If the thermocycler does not have a heating top, add 1 to 2 drops of sterile mineral oil. <br><br />
<br />
6. Insert the preparation into the thermocycler, then launch the cycles: <br><br />
<br />
Cycles:<br><br />
[[Image:PCRcycle eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
7. Check your PCR products by electrophoresis. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Primers ===<br />
<br />
==== D protein: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-ACG-AGC-AAA-GAA-ACC-TT <br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-C <br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGA-CGA-GCA-AAG-AAA-CCT-TTA-CCC<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-CCG-C<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Reverse: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-AAA-AAA-TCC-CGT-AAA-AAA-AGC<br><br />
<br />
==== COS sequences: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-TGG-CCT-CCA-CGC-ACG-TTG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-TC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GGA-TAT-GTA-GAT-GAT-AAT-CAT-TAT-C<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-T<br><br />
<br />
==== CI repressor: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-AAT-TCA-ATC-CAT-TTA-CTA-TGT-TAT-GT<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GAA-TTC-AAT-CCA-TTT-ACT-ATG-TTA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CCA-TTA-A<br><br />
<br />
<br />
==== Adenovirus penton based: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-CGG-CGC-GCG-GCG-ATG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-GAC-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TGT-A<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-G<br><br />
<br />
==== BioBrick ====<br />
<br />
To amplify BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Prefix for sequences which begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AG<br><br />
Prefix for sequences which not begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-G<br><br />
Suffix: <br><br />
5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA<br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material_%26_MethodTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method2009-10-22T02:52:34Z<p>Ranya: /* Materials */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss12.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Electrophoresis ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA Template<br><br />
<li>Loading buffer<br><br />
<li>Molecular size marker<br><br />
<li>TAE 1X Buffer<br><br />
<li>Ethidium Bromide (BET) <br><br />
<li>Agarose<br><br />
<li>Detection and migration materials for an agarose gel electrophoresis<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Agarose gel preparation: <br><br />
<ul><br />
<li>For BioBricks: <br><br />
Prepare a 2% agarose gel (1.5 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
<li>To isolate DNA from a lambda phage: <br><br />
Prepare a 0.7% agarose gel (0.4 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
</ul><br />
<li>Heat agarose in a microwave 5 to 10 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the electrophoresis plate. <br><br />
Ensure water tightness of the plate. <br><br />
<li>Add the TAE 1X buffer until the agarose gel is covered. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the samples: <br><br />
Mix 5µL of loading buffer for 15µL of DNA sample. <br><br />
Prepare the molecular size marker if needed: <br><br />
High range: 0.5µL of DNA + 1µL of loading buffer of the marker + 4.5µL of bi distilled H2O. <br><br />
<li>Vortex the sample then centrifuge it for 2 seconds. <br><br />
<li>Deposit delicately the samples and the molecular size marker. <br><br />
Do not use the wells located on the edges of the gel. <br><br />
Deposit the molecular size marker in the center of the gel so as to ease the size analysis of the samples. <br><br />
An 8 well plate has a capacity of about 45µL of sample. <br><br />
An15 well plate can hold 15µL of sample. <br><br />
<li>Place the electrodes in the electrophoresis tank in order for the DNA to migrate from the anode to the cathode. <br><br />
<li>Activate the migration of the gel from 85 volts to 130 volts during 45 to 80 minutes. <br><br />
Check for the appearance of bubbles due to the electric current and that the DNA is migrating the right way. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Extraction of DNA from an agarose gel (Nucleospin Clontech) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>30mL of NT buffer<br><br />
<li>14mL of NT3 buffer<br><br />
<li>15mL of NE buffer<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin Extract II columns<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin collector tubes (2mL) <br><br />
<li>Sterile scalpel<br><br />
<li>Scales<br><br />
<li>Vortex<br><br />
<li>Incubator (50°C/122°F) <br><br />
<li>A centrifuge (11000g) <br><br />
<li>Sterile 1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Excise the fragment of agarose gel that contains the DNA fragment, with a scalpel, whilst being careful to remove as little gel as possible. <br><br />
<li>Determine the weight of the slice of gel and place it in a sterile tube. <br><br />
<li>For every 100mg of agarose gel add 200μL of NT buffer. <br><br />
For gels containing more than 2% of agarose, double the volume of NT buffer. <br><br />
The maximum weight for a slice of gel, produced by NucleoSpin® Extract II, is 400mg or 200mg for high percentage gels (>2%), in this case, 2 steps are necessary (DNA linking steps: 6 and 7). <br><br />
<li>Place the samples at 50°C (122°F) in the incubator until the gel has dissolved (5-10min). <br><br />
<li>Vortex briefly the sample every 2 to 3 min until the gel has completely dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Place a NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a 2mL NucleoSpin collector tube and insert the sample, then centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 600μL of NT3 buffer and centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge for 2 min at 11000g to get rid of all the NT3 buffer. <br><br />
Make sure that the NucleoSpin® Extract II column is not in contact with the eluted solution during centrifugation (in the NucleoSpin collector tube). <br><br />
The next reactions are inhibited by the residual ethanol from the NT3 buffer, so it must be entirely removed at this step. In addition to the centrifugation, placing the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in an incubator at 70°C (158°F) for 2-5 min before elution will ensure total retrieval of the ethanol. <br><br />
<li>Place the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a fresh 1.5mL tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 15-50μL of NE elution buffer, then incubate at room temperature for 1 min to enhance the yield of the eluted DNA. <br><br />
<br />
<li>Centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
The yield of the large fragments (>5-10 kb) can be enhanced by using pre-heated elution buffer (70°C/158°F): for the elution, add the pre-heated elution buffers and incubate at room temperature for 1 min before collecting the elute by centrifugation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500µL of E.Coli culture in an LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>60mL of glycerol at 10%<br><br />
<li>Ethanol<br><br />
<li>Incubator with rotor<br><br />
<li>Tank of ice<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>50mL Falcon tubes<br><br />
<li>300mL tubes for the centrifuge<br><br />
<li>A refrigerated centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F) <br><br />
</ul> <br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Prepare a pre-culture of E.Coli in 5mL of LB culture medium (all night long at 37°C/39.2°F with rotation). <br><br />
Prepare the centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Place the pre-culture of E.Coli in 450mL of LB culture medium and incubate with agitation for 3 hours at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Place 225mL of the solution in 2 centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Place both tubes in the ice for 15 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 25mL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
You may also transfer the solution into a 50mL Falcon tube. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 1500g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and add 500µL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
<li>Re-suspend the cells in a total volume of 1mL. <br><br />
<li>Aliquote 50µL per tube (tubes already in the ice). <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Materials ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid LB medium<br><br />
<li>Solid LB medium (LB culture medium + agarose + specific antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent Escherichia coli bacteria (40µL in an eppendorf tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basin (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 200 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the electroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid LB medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500μL of Mycobacterium culture at -80°C (-112°F) <br><br />
<li>Glycerol 10%<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>Centrifuge<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. All the mediums and the whole manipulation are done at room temperature. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the cells from your frozen sample into the centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge the cells at 3600 rpm for 10 min, then throw away the supernatant. <br><br />
<li>Wash the cells with ½ a volume (25mL) of sterile 10% glycerol by pipetting slowly until the cell mass has been dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ¼ vol (12.5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅛ vol (6.75mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟10 vol (5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟25 vol (2mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Aliquot 100µL of cells into the 1.5mL tubes. <br><br />
<li>Leave to cool quickly in an ice tank. <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F) or use immediately (the effectiveness of the electro-transfer is improved). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Materials ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid Loewenstein medium<br><br />
<li>Solid Loewenstein medium (congealed Loewenstein culture medium + adapted antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent mycobacterium (40µL in a tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basins (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 1000 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the eclectroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid Loewenstein medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Restriction ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>10µL of DNA (1µL for 0.5g of DNA) <br><br />
<li>3µL of restriction buffer (1X of the total volume) <br><br />
<li>1µL of restriction enzyme<br><br />
<li>3µL of BSA (1X the total volume) <br><br />
<li>15µL of sterile distilled water<br><br />
<li>Total volume 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a sterile eppendorf tube place 3µL of buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add DNA. <br><br />
<li>Add 3µL of BSA. <br><br />
<li>Then add 1µL of restriction enzyme. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile distilled water. <br><br />
TOTAL VOLUME = 30µL<br><br />
<li>Set the thermocycler according to the following parameters and place the tube inside: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
a. 1-2 hours at 37°C (98.6°F) <br><br />
b. 20 min at 80°C to inactivate the enzymes<br><br />
c. leave at 4°C until opening of the thermocycler. <br><br />
</div><br />
NOTE: if you can leave the tube in the incubator for more than 6 hours for the restriction, leave it longer to obtain a better quality restriction! <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Linearization ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>1µL of alkaline phosphatase<br><br />
<li>3µL of alkaline phosphatase buffer<br><br />
<li>Pure water for a total volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>A hotplate<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Prepare a hot tub at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Add the alkaline phosphatase concentration 1X buffer in the DNA template, meaning 3µL of buffer for a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of alkaline phosphatase. <br><br />
<li>Incubate for 1 hour at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Deactivate the alkaline phosphatase by heating for 5 minutes at 65°C (149°F). <br><br />
Proceed to the ligation just after the linearization. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ligation ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>3µL of 10X ligation buffer<br><br />
<li>1µL of T4 DNA Ligase<br><br />
<li>100 to 1000µg of DNA insert solution<br><br />
<li>1µL of 0.05g/L DNA vector<br><br />
<li>Sterile water to obtain à final volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a 1.5mL tube, place 2µL of ligation buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add the DNA insert as well as 1µL of vector. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of T4 DNA Ligase. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile water to obtain a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Let the reaction take place for 35 minutes at 22.5°C (72.5°F). <br><br />
<li>Denaturize the T4 DNA Ligase at 65°C (149°F) for 10 minutes. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== PCR (Promega Kit) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>5’ to 3’ Primer<br><br />
<li>3’ to 5’ Primer<br><br />
<li>GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix (Promega) <br><br />
<li>Thermocycler<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
1. Place the GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix kit at room temperature, vortex then centrifuge it briefly to concentrate the mix at the bottom of the tube. <br><br />
<br />
2. Prepare the following PCR mix:<br><br />
<br />
<br />
a. For 25µL:<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR25 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
b. For 50µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR50 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
c. For 100µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR100 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
3. Add the components in the order listed in the table. <br><br />
<br />
Be careful to insert the volume of primers and of DNA template correctly on the edge of the tube so as to visualize all the volumes that have been deposited. <br><br />
<br />
4. Vortex the total volume. <br><br />
<br />
5. « Start-Stop » Centrifuge (2 to 5 seconds).<br><br />
<br />
If the thermocycler does not have a heating top, add 1 to 2 drops of sterile mineral oil. <br><br />
<br />
6. Insert the preparation into the thermocycler, then launch the cycles: <br><br />
<br />
Cycles:<br><br />
[[Image:PCRcycle eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
7. Check your PCR products by electrophoresis. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Primers ===<br />
<br />
==== D protein: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-ACG-AGC-AAA-GAA-ACC-TT <br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-C <br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGA-CGA-GCA-AAG-AAA-CCT-TTA-CCC<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-CCG-C<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Reverse: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-AAA-AAA-TCC-CGT-AAA-AAA-AGC<br><br />
<br />
==== COS sequences: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-TGG-CCT-CCA-CGC-ACG-TTG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-TC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GGA-TAT-GTA-GAT-GAT-AAT-CAT-TAT-C<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-T<br><br />
<br />
==== CI repressor: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-AAT-TCA-ATC-CAT-TTA-CTA-TGT-TAT-GT<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GAA-TTC-AAT-CCA-TTT-ACT-ATG-TTA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CCA-TTA-A<br><br />
<br />
<br />
==== Adenovirus penton based: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-CGG-CGC-GCG-GCG-ATG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-GAC-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TGT-A<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-G<br><br />
<br />
==== BioBrick ====<br />
<br />
To amplify BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Prefix for sequences which begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AG<br><br />
Prefix for sequences which not begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-G<br><br />
Suffix: <br><br />
5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA<br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material_%26_MethodTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method2009-10-22T02:52:00Z<p>Ranya: /* Extraction of DNA from an agarose gel (Nucleospin Clontech) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss12.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Electrophoresis ==<br />
=== Materials ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA Template<br><br />
<li>Loading buffer<br><br />
<li>Molecular size marker<br><br />
<li>TAE 1X Buffer<br><br />
<li>Ethidium Bromide (BET) <br><br />
<li>Agarose<br><br />
<li>Detection and migration materials for an agarose gel electrophoresis<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Agarose gel preparation: <br><br />
<ul><br />
<li>For BioBricks: <br><br />
Prepare a 2% agarose gel (1.5 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
<li>To isolate DNA from a lambda phage: <br><br />
Prepare a 0.7% agarose gel (0.4 grams of agarose in 100mL of bi distilled H2O + 15µL of BET). <br><br />
</ul><br />
<li>Heat agarose in a microwave 5 to 10 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the electrophoresis plate. <br><br />
Ensure water tightness of the plate. <br><br />
<li>Add the TAE 1X buffer until the agarose gel is covered. <br><br />
<li>Prepare the samples: <br><br />
Mix 5µL of loading buffer for 15µL of DNA sample. <br><br />
Prepare the molecular size marker if needed: <br><br />
High range: 0.5µL of DNA + 1µL of loading buffer of the marker + 4.5µL of bi distilled H2O. <br><br />
<li>Vortex the sample then centrifuge it for 2 seconds. <br><br />
<li>Deposit delicately the samples and the molecular size marker. <br><br />
Do not use the wells located on the edges of the gel. <br><br />
Deposit the molecular size marker in the center of the gel so as to ease the size analysis of the samples. <br><br />
An 8 well plate has a capacity of about 45µL of sample. <br><br />
An15 well plate can hold 15µL of sample. <br><br />
<li>Place the electrodes in the electrophoresis tank in order for the DNA to migrate from the anode to the cathode. <br><br />
<li>Activate the migration of the gel from 85 volts to 130 volts during 45 to 80 minutes. <br><br />
Check for the appearance of bubbles due to the electric current and that the DNA is migrating the right way. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Extraction of DNA from an agarose gel (Nucleospin Clontech) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>30mL of NT buffer<br><br />
<li>14mL of NT3 buffer<br><br />
<li>15mL of NE buffer<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin Extract II columns<br><br />
<li>50 Nucleospin collector tubes (2mL) <br><br />
<li>Sterile scalpel<br><br />
<li>Scales<br><br />
<li>Vortex<br><br />
<li>Incubator (50°C/122°F) <br><br />
<li>A centrifuge (11000g) <br><br />
<li>Sterile 1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Excise the fragment of agarose gel that contains the DNA fragment, with a scalpel, whilst being careful to remove as little gel as possible. <br><br />
<li>Determine the weight of the slice of gel and place it in a sterile tube. <br><br />
<li>For every 100mg of agarose gel add 200μL of NT buffer. <br><br />
For gels containing more than 2% of agarose, double the volume of NT buffer. <br><br />
The maximum weight for a slice of gel, produced by NucleoSpin® Extract II, is 400mg or 200mg for high percentage gels (>2%), in this case, 2 steps are necessary (DNA linking steps: 6 and 7). <br><br />
<li>Place the samples at 50°C (122°F) in the incubator until the gel has dissolved (5-10min). <br><br />
<li>Vortex briefly the sample every 2 to 3 min until the gel has completely dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Place a NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a 2mL NucleoSpin collector tube and insert the sample, then centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 600μL of NT3 buffer and centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
<li>Throw away the solution contained in the NucleoSpin collector tube and replace the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in the same NucleoSpin collector tube. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge for 2 min at 11000g to get rid of all the NT3 buffer. <br><br />
Make sure that the NucleoSpin® Extract II column is not in contact with the eluted solution during centrifugation (in the NucleoSpin collector tube). <br><br />
The next reactions are inhibited by the residual ethanol from the NT3 buffer, so it must be entirely removed at this step. In addition to the centrifugation, placing the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in an incubator at 70°C (158°F) for 2-5 min before elution will ensure total retrieval of the ethanol. <br><br />
<li>Place the NucleoSpin® Extract II column in a fresh 1.5mL tube. <br><br />
<li>Add 15-50μL of NE elution buffer, then incubate at room temperature for 1 min to enhance the yield of the eluted DNA. <br><br />
<br />
<li>Centrifuge for 1 min at 11000g. <br><br />
The yield of the large fragments (>5-10 kb) can be enhanced by using pre-heated elution buffer (70°C/158°F): for the elution, add the pre-heated elution buffers and incubate at room temperature for 1 min before collecting the elute by centrifugation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500µL of E.Coli culture in an LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>LB culture medium<br><br />
<li>60mL of glycerol at 10%<br><br />
<li>Ethanol<br><br />
<li>Incubator with rotor<br><br />
<li>Tank of ice<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>50mL Falcon tubes<br><br />
<li>300mL tubes for the centrifuge<br><br />
<li>A refrigerated centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F) <br><br />
</ul> <br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Prepare a pre-culture of E.Coli in 5mL of LB culture medium (all night long at 37°C/39.2°F with rotation). <br><br />
Prepare the centrifuge at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Place the pre-culture of E.Coli in 450mL of LB culture medium and incubate with agitation for 3 hours at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Place 225mL of the solution in 2 centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Place both tubes in the ice for 15 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 10 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 200mL of cold sterile water.<br />
Firstly add 10 to 20mL of cold sterile water and re-suspend by pipeting, and then add the other 200mL. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 2000g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and re-suspend delicately the pellet with 25mL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
You may also transfer the solution into a 50mL Falcon tube. <br><br />
<li>Place the tubes in the ice for 30 minutes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge at 1500g for 15 minutes at 4°C (39.2°F). <br><br />
<li>Throw away the supernatant and add 500µL of glycerol at 10%.<br><br />
<li>Re-suspend the cells in a total volume of 1mL. <br><br />
<li>Aliquote 50µL per tube (tubes already in the ice). <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Escherichia coli ==<br />
=== Materials ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid LB medium<br><br />
<li>Solid LB medium (LB culture medium + agarose + specific antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent Escherichia coli bacteria (40µL in an eppendorf tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basin (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 200 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the electroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid LB medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Preparation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>500μL of Mycobacterium culture at -80°C (-112°F) <br><br />
<li>Glycerol 10%<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
<li>Centrifuge<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. All the mediums and the whole manipulation are done at room temperature. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the cells from your frozen sample into the centrifuge tubes. <br><br />
<li>Centrifuge the cells at 3600 rpm for 10 min, then throw away the supernatant. <br><br />
<li>Wash the cells with ½ a volume (25mL) of sterile 10% glycerol by pipetting slowly until the cell mass has been dissolved. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ¼ vol (12.5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅛ vol (6.75mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟10 vol (5mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Wash and precipitate the cells as done in steps 2 and 3; with ⅟25 vol (2mL) of sterile 10% glycerol. <br><br />
<li>Aliquot 100µL of cells into the 1.5mL tubes. <br><br />
<li>Leave to cool quickly in an ice tank. <br><br />
<li>Store at -80°C (-112°F) or use immediately (the effectiveness of the electro-transfer is improved). <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Electroporation of electrocompetent Mycobacterium ==<br />
=== Materials ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Liquid Loewenstein medium<br><br />
<li>Solid Loewenstein medium (congealed Loewenstein culture medium + adapted antibiotics) <br><br />
<li>Frozen electro competent mycobacterium (40µL in a tube) <br><br />
DNA<br><br />
<li>Tank full of ice<br><br />
<li>Electroporation basins (2mm) <br><br />
<li>Electroporator<br><br />
<li>Incubator with agitation incorporated<br><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Place the electroporation basin in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Leave the tube containing the bacteria (about 40µL) at room temperature, so as to unfreeze the medium. Then place it in the ice. <br><br />
<li>Set the eclectroporator according to the following parameters: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
Voltage 2500 V<br><br />
Capacitance 25 µF<br><br />
Resistance 1000 Ω<br><br />
Basin 2 mm<br><br />
</div><br />
<li>Add 1µL of DNA solution in the tube containing the bacteria. <br><br />
<li>Place the tube in the ice for 1 minute. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the tube into the electroporation basin. <br><br />
<li>Dry the outside of the basin with paper towel. Place it in the specific compartment of the eclectroporator. <br><br />
<li>Start the pulse. <br><br />
<li>Add immediately 1mL of culture medium in the basin. <br><br />
Beware: a 3 minute delay reduces by 90% the effectiveness of the transformation. <br><br />
<li>Transfer the contents of the basin into a tube. Incubate the tube at 37°C (98.6°F) with agitation for an hour. <br><br />
Soak the basins in bleach for a few minutes. Rinse them out thoroughly with tap water, then with bi distilled water and 70% ethanol (no acetone), before letting them dry. Thus they can be re-used. <br><br />
<li>Place the bacteria on a solid Loewenstein medium for cultivation. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Restriction ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>10µL of DNA (1µL for 0.5g of DNA) <br><br />
<li>3µL of restriction buffer (1X of the total volume) <br><br />
<li>1µL of restriction enzyme<br><br />
<li>3µL of BSA (1X the total volume) <br><br />
<li>15µL of sterile distilled water<br><br />
<li>Total volume 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a sterile eppendorf tube place 3µL of buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add DNA. <br><br />
<li>Add 3µL of BSA. <br><br />
<li>Then add 1µL of restriction enzyme. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile distilled water. <br><br />
TOTAL VOLUME = 30µL<br><br />
<li>Set the thermocycler according to the following parameters and place the tube inside: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
a. 1-2 hours at 37°C (98.6°F) <br><br />
b. 20 min at 80°C to inactivate the enzymes<br><br />
c. leave at 4°C until opening of the thermocycler. <br><br />
</div><br />
NOTE: if you can leave the tube in the incubator for more than 6 hours for the restriction, leave it longer to obtain a better quality restriction! <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Linearization ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>1µL of alkaline phosphatase<br><br />
<li>3µL of alkaline phosphatase buffer<br><br />
<li>Pure water for a total volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>A hotplate<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
0. Prepare a hot tub at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Add the alkaline phosphatase concentration 1X buffer in the DNA template, meaning 3µL of buffer for a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of alkaline phosphatase. <br><br />
<li>Incubate for 1 hour at 37°C (98.6°F). <br><br />
<li>Deactivate the alkaline phosphatase by heating for 5 minutes at 65°C (149°F). <br><br />
Proceed to the ligation just after the linearization. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ligation ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>3µL of 10X ligation buffer<br><br />
<li>1µL of T4 DNA Ligase<br><br />
<li>100 to 1000µg of DNA insert solution<br><br />
<li>1µL of 0.05g/L DNA vector<br><br />
<li>Sterile water to obtain à final volume of 30µL<br><br />
<li>1.5mL tubes<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
<ol><br />
<li>In a 1.5mL tube, place 2µL of ligation buffer. <br><br />
<li>Add the DNA insert as well as 1µL of vector. <br><br />
<li>Add 1µL of T4 DNA Ligase. <br><br />
<li>Complete with sterile water to obtain a final volume of 30µL. <br><br />
<li>Let the reaction take place for 35 minutes at 22.5°C (72.5°F). <br><br />
<li>Denaturize the T4 DNA Ligase at 65°C (149°F) for 10 minutes. <br><br />
</ol><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== PCR (Promega Kit) ==<br />
=== Material ===<br />
<ul><br />
<li>DNA template<br><br />
<li>5’ to 3’ Primer<br><br />
<li>3’ to 5’ Primer<br><br />
<li>GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix (Promega) <br><br />
<li>Thermocycler<br><br />
</ul><br />
=== Method ===<br />
1. Place the GoTaq Hot Start Green Mix kit at room temperature, vortex then centrifuge it briefly to concentrate the mix at the bottom of the tube. <br><br />
<br />
2. Prepare the following PCR mix:<br><br />
<br />
<br />
a. For 25µL:<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR25 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
b. For 50µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR50 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
c. For 100µL :<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:PCR100 eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
3. Add the components in the order listed in the table. <br><br />
<br />
Be careful to insert the volume of primers and of DNA template correctly on the edge of the tube so as to visualize all the volumes that have been deposited. <br><br />
<br />
4. Vortex the total volume. <br><br />
<br />
5. « Start-Stop » Centrifuge (2 to 5 seconds).<br><br />
<br />
If the thermocycler does not have a heating top, add 1 to 2 drops of sterile mineral oil. <br><br />
<br />
6. Insert the preparation into the thermocycler, then launch the cycles: <br><br />
<br />
Cycles:<br><br />
[[Image:PCRcycle eng.jpg]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
7. Check your PCR products by electrophoresis. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Material & Method#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Primers ===<br />
<br />
==== D protein: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-ACG-AGC-AAA-GAA-ACC-TT <br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-C <br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGA-CGA-GCA-AAG-AAA-CCT-TTA-CCC<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AAA-AAA-ATC-CCG-TAA-AAA-AAG-CCG-C<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Reverse: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-AAA-AAA-TCC-CGT-AAA-AAA-AGC<br><br />
<br />
==== COS sequences: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-TGG-CCT-CCA-CGC-ACG-TTG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-TC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GGA-TAT-GTA-GAT-GAT-AAT-CAT-TAT-C<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-AGA-GGC-CAA-AAA-GCC-TCG-CTT-T<br><br />
<br />
==== CI repressor: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-AAT-TCA-ATC-CAT-TTA-CTA-TGT-TAT-GT<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CC<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-GAA-TTC-AAT-CCA-TTT-ACT-ATG-TTA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-ATG-AGC-ACA-AAA-AAG-AAA-CCA-TTA-A<br><br />
<br />
<br />
==== Adenovirus penton based: ====<br />
<br />
To extract the sequences from the full genome of the Lambda phage: <br><br />
Forward : 5'-ATG-CGG-CGC-GCG-GCG-ATG<br><br />
Reverse : 5'-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-GAC-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TGT-A<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-GCT-CGA-TAG-G<br><br />
<br />
To add BalI sequence: <br><br />
Forward: 5'-AAT-GGC-CAA-TGC-GGC-GCG-CGG-CGA-TG<br><br />
Reverse: 5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA-TCA-AAA-AGT-GCG-G<br><br />
<br />
==== BioBrick ====<br />
<br />
To amplify BioBrick prefix and suffix: <br><br />
Prefix for sequences which begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AG<br><br />
Prefix for sequences which not begin by ATG <br><br />
5'-GAA-TTC-GCG-GCC-GCT-TCT-AGA-G<br><br />
Suffix: <br><br />
5'-CTG-CAG-CGG-CCG-CTA-CTA-GTA<br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/User:DavidC/9_October_2009User:DavidC/9 October 20092009-10-22T02:45:47Z<p>Ranya: /* Programme */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss6.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<div style="color: black; margin-bottom: 30px; width: 500px;"><br />
{|align="center"<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=08}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=09}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=10}}<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Ethic debate]]===<br />
<br />
===Issues of synthetic biology : state of art, state of mind===<br />
<br />
====Programme====<br />
<br />
5:30 pm: Reception of the participants <br />
<br />
6:00 pm: :Introduction of :<br />
:*Synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br />
:*The Double vectorisation system (DVS) project developed by the team<br />
<br />
6:15 pm: Round-table leaded by Thierry Magnin and Ranya Jamali:<br />
<br />
:*Synthetic Biology / DVS Project – Posing of the risks and benefits: what are the risks, can you avoid them, what are the effects on man, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where does science stops and where does creation starts? Fears of populations...<br />
<br />
:*Regulations, Access and law: to what extent must knowledge be protected, emphasizing the concept of "non-patentability" as well as regulations…<br />
<br />
9 :00 pm: Cocktail party<br />
<br />
==Experiments==<br />
<br />
==== DNA extraction ====<br />
<br />
Plasmid extraction by using minipreps (promega) on: <br><br />
BBa_P1001 + BBaB0014; <br><br />
BBa_P1003 + BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030 + BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014, <br><br />
BBa_R0040; <br><br />
BBa_C0040; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_P1001. <br><br />
<br />
=== Restriction digest ===<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0014 by PstI and XbaI (95bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer M (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
Xba I (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_P1001 by PstI and SpeI (5746bp):<br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030: ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0030 by PstI and SpeI (2094bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 by XbaI and PstI (1223bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
XbaI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== DNA electrophoresis ====<br />
<br />
85 Volt, 15 minutes. <br><br />
105 Volt, 40 minutes. <br><br />
Ladder fermentas 1 Kb. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_P1001, BBa_B0014, BBa_C0040. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910.png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_R0040, BBa_B0030, BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910(2).png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
==== DNA purification ====<br />
<br />
Kit Qiagen “gel extraction kit”, final volume = 50µL. <br><br />
<br />
=== Cell culture ===<br />
<br />
Growth of <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha into 5mL of LB medium with 5µL of the correct antibiotic (kanamycin = 50mg/mL, ampicillin = 50mg/mL and tetracycline = 12,5mg/mL) <br><br><br />
<br />
Samples: <br><br />
p 53 (3 times); <br><br />
BBa_R0010; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_E0240; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation ====<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 1µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 0,5µL <br><br />
Solution A = 5,5µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 1µL <br><br />
Solution A = 6µL <br><br />
Solution B = 1µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Electroporation ====<br />
<br />
Electroporation cuvettes = 2mm ; inoculums of electrocompetent <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha= 40µL; pulse = 2,5KVolt ; 1h of incubation. <br><br />
<br />
Spread 1mL of inoculums into a petri dish with LB + ampicillin (50mg/mL) (20/0,02mL). <br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/User:DavidC/9_October_2009User:DavidC/9 October 20092009-10-22T02:45:04Z<p>Ranya: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss6.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<div style="color: black; margin-bottom: 30px; width: 500px;"><br />
{|align="center"<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=08}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=09}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=10}}<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Ethic debate]]===<br />
<br />
===Issues of synthetic biology : state of art, state of mind===<br />
<br />
===Programme===<br />
<br />
5:30 pm: Reception of the participants <br />
<br />
6:00 pm: :Introduction of :<br />
:*Synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br />
:*The Double vectorisation system (DVS) project developed by the team<br />
<br />
6:15 pm: Round-table leaded by Thierry Magnin and Ranya Jamali:<br />
<br />
:*Synthetic Biology / DVS Project – Posing of the risks and benefits: what are the risks, can you avoid them, what are the effects on man, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where does science stops and where does creation starts? Fears of populations...<br />
<br />
:*Regulations, Access and law: to what extent must knowledge be protected, emphasizing the concept of "non-patentability" as well as regulations…<br />
<br />
9 :00 pm: Cocktail party<br />
<br />
==Experiments==<br />
<br />
==== DNA extraction ====<br />
<br />
Plasmid extraction by using minipreps (promega) on: <br><br />
BBa_P1001 + BBaB0014; <br><br />
BBa_P1003 + BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030 + BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014, <br><br />
BBa_R0040; <br><br />
BBa_C0040; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_P1001. <br><br />
<br />
=== Restriction digest ===<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0014 by PstI and XbaI (95bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer M (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
Xba I (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_P1001 by PstI and SpeI (5746bp):<br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030: ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0030 by PstI and SpeI (2094bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 by XbaI and PstI (1223bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
XbaI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== DNA electrophoresis ====<br />
<br />
85 Volt, 15 minutes. <br><br />
105 Volt, 40 minutes. <br><br />
Ladder fermentas 1 Kb. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_P1001, BBa_B0014, BBa_C0040. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910.png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_R0040, BBa_B0030, BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910(2).png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
==== DNA purification ====<br />
<br />
Kit Qiagen “gel extraction kit”, final volume = 50µL. <br><br />
<br />
=== Cell culture ===<br />
<br />
Growth of <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha into 5mL of LB medium with 5µL of the correct antibiotic (kanamycin = 50mg/mL, ampicillin = 50mg/mL and tetracycline = 12,5mg/mL) <br><br><br />
<br />
Samples: <br><br />
p 53 (3 times); <br><br />
BBa_R0010; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_E0240; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation ====<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 1µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 0,5µL <br><br />
Solution A = 5,5µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 1µL <br><br />
Solution A = 6µL <br><br />
Solution B = 1µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Electroporation ====<br />
<br />
Electroporation cuvettes = 2mm ; inoculums of electrocompetent <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha= 40µL; pulse = 2,5KVolt ; 1h of incubation. <br><br />
<br />
Spread 1mL of inoculums into a petri dish with LB + ampicillin (50mg/mL) (20/0,02mL). <br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/User:DavidC/9_October_2009User:DavidC/9 October 20092009-10-22T02:44:02Z<p>Ranya: /* Programme */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss6.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<div style="color: black; margin-bottom: 30px; width: 500px;"><br />
{|align="center"<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=08}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=09}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=10}}<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Friday the 9th ===<br />
<br />
===[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Ethic debate]]===<br />
<br />
===Issues of synthetic biology : state of art, state of mind===<br />
<br />
===Programme===<br />
<br />
5:30 pm: Reception of the participants <br />
<br />
6:00 pm: :Introduction of :<br />
:*Synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br />
:*The Double vectorisation system (DVS) project developed by the team<br />
<br />
6:15 pm: Round-table leaded by Thierry Magnin and Ranya Jamali:<br />
<br />
:*Synthetic Biology / DVS Project – Posing of the risks and benefits: what are the risks, can you avoid them, what are the effects on man, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where does science stops and where does creation starts? Fears of populations...<br />
<br />
:*Regulations, Access and law: to what extent must knowledge be protected, emphasizing the concept of "non-patentability" as well as regulations…<br />
<br />
9 :00 pm: Cocktail party<br />
<br />
==Experiments==<br />
<br />
==== DNA extraction ====<br />
<br />
Plasmid extraction by using minipreps (promega) on: <br><br />
BBa_P1001 + BBaB0014; <br><br />
BBa_P1003 + BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030 + BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014, <br><br />
BBa_R0040; <br><br />
BBa_C0040; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_P1001. <br><br />
<br />
=== Restriction digest ===<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0014 by PstI and XbaI (95bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer M (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
Xba I (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_P1001 by PstI and SpeI (5746bp):<br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030: ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0030 by PstI and SpeI (2094bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 by XbaI and PstI (1223bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
XbaI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== DNA electrophoresis ====<br />
<br />
85 Volt, 15 minutes. <br><br />
105 Volt, 40 minutes. <br><br />
Ladder fermentas 1 Kb. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_P1001, BBa_B0014, BBa_C0040. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910.png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_R0040, BBa_B0030, BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910(2).png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
==== DNA purification ====<br />
<br />
Kit Qiagen “gel extraction kit”, final volume = 50µL. <br><br />
<br />
=== Cell culture ===<br />
<br />
Growth of <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha into 5mL of LB medium with 5µL of the correct antibiotic (kanamycin = 50mg/mL, ampicillin = 50mg/mL and tetracycline = 12,5mg/mL) <br><br><br />
<br />
Samples: <br><br />
p 53 (3 times); <br><br />
BBa_R0010; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_E0240; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation ====<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 1µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 0,5µL <br><br />
Solution A = 5,5µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 1µL <br><br />
Solution A = 6µL <br><br />
Solution B = 1µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Electroporation ====<br />
<br />
Electroporation cuvettes = 2mm ; inoculums of electrocompetent <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha= 40µL; pulse = 2,5KVolt ; 1h of incubation. <br><br />
<br />
Spread 1mL of inoculums into a petri dish with LB + ampicillin (50mg/mL) (20/0,02mL). <br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/User:DavidC/9_October_2009User:DavidC/9 October 20092009-10-22T02:43:43Z<p>Ranya: /* Programme */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss6.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<div style="color: black; margin-bottom: 30px; width: 500px;"><br />
{|align="center"<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=08}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=09}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=10}}<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Friday the 9th ===<br />
<br />
===[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Ethic debate]]===<br />
<br />
===Issues of synthetic biology : state of art, state of mind===<br />
<br />
==Programme==<br />
<br />
5:30 pm: Reception of the participants <br />
<br />
6:00 pm: :Introduction of :<br />
:*Synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br />
:*The Double vectorisation system (DVS) project developed by the team<br />
<br />
6:15 pm: Round-table leaded by Thierry Magnin and Ranya Jamali:<br />
<br />
:*Synthetic Biology / DVS Project – Posing of the risks and benefits: what are the risks, can you avoid them, what are the effects on man, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where does science stops and where does creation starts? Fears of populations...<br />
<br />
:*Regulations, Access and law: to what extent must knowledge be protected, emphasizing the concept of "non-patentability" as well as regulations…<br />
<br />
9 :00 pm: Cocktail party<br />
<br />
==Experiments==<br />
<br />
==== DNA extraction ====<br />
<br />
Plasmid extraction by using minipreps (promega) on: <br><br />
BBa_P1001 + BBaB0014; <br><br />
BBa_P1003 + BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030 + BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014, <br><br />
BBa_R0040; <br><br />
BBa_C0040; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_P1001. <br><br />
<br />
=== Restriction digest ===<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0014 by PstI and XbaI (95bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer M (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
Xba I (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_P1001 by PstI and SpeI (5746bp):<br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030: ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0030 by PstI and SpeI (2094bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 by XbaI and PstI (1223bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
XbaI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== DNA electrophoresis ====<br />
<br />
85 Volt, 15 minutes. <br><br />
105 Volt, 40 minutes. <br><br />
Ladder fermentas 1 Kb. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_P1001, BBa_B0014, BBa_C0040. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910.png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_R0040, BBa_B0030, BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910(2).png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
==== DNA purification ====<br />
<br />
Kit Qiagen “gel extraction kit”, final volume = 50µL. <br><br />
<br />
=== Cell culture ===<br />
<br />
Growth of <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha into 5mL of LB medium with 5µL of the correct antibiotic (kanamycin = 50mg/mL, ampicillin = 50mg/mL and tetracycline = 12,5mg/mL) <br><br><br />
<br />
Samples: <br><br />
p 53 (3 times); <br><br />
BBa_R0010; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_E0240; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation ====<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 1µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 0,5µL <br><br />
Solution A = 5,5µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 1µL <br><br />
Solution A = 6µL <br><br />
Solution B = 1µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Electroporation ====<br />
<br />
Electroporation cuvettes = 2mm ; inoculums of electrocompetent <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha= 40µL; pulse = 2,5KVolt ; 1h of incubation. <br><br />
<br />
Spread 1mL of inoculums into a petri dish with LB + ampicillin (50mg/mL) (20/0,02mL). <br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/User:DavidC/9_October_2009User:DavidC/9 October 20092009-10-22T02:43:17Z<p>Ranya: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss6.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<div style="color: black; margin-bottom: 30px; width: 500px;"><br />
{|align="center"<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=08}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=09}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=10}}<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Friday the 9th ===<br />
<br />
===[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Ethic debate]]===<br />
<br />
===Issues of synthetic biology : state of art, state of mind===<br />
<br />
==Programme==<br />
<br />
5:30 pm: Reception of the participants <br />
<br />
6:00 pm: :Introduction of :<br />
:*Synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br />
:*The Double vectorisation system (DVS) project developed by the team<br />
<br />
6:15 pm: Round-table leaded by Thierry Magnin and Ranya Jamali:<br />
<br />
:*Synthetic Biology / DVS Project – Posing of the risks and benefits: what are the risks, can you avoid them, what are the effects on man, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where does science stops and where does creation starts? Fears of populations...<br />
<br />
:*Regulations, Access and law: to what extent must knowledge be protected, emphasizing the concept of "non-patentability" as well as regulations…<br />
<br />
9 :00 pm: Cocktail party<br />
<br />
===Experiments===<br />
<br />
==== DNA extraction ====<br />
<br />
Plasmid extraction by using minipreps (promega) on: <br><br />
BBa_P1001 + BBaB0014; <br><br />
BBa_P1003 + BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030 + BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014, <br><br />
BBa_R0040; <br><br />
BBa_C0040; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_P1001. <br><br />
<br />
=== Restriction digest ===<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0014 by PstI and XbaI (95bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer M (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
Xba I (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_P1001 by PstI and SpeI (5746bp):<br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030: ====<br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_B0030 by PstI and SpeI (2094bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
SpeI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br><br />
<br />
Restriction digest of BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 by XbaI and PstI (1223bp): <br><br />
<br />
DNA (miniprep) = 30µL <br><br />
Buffer H (TAKARA) = 4µL <br><br />
H20 = 4µL <br><br />
PstI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
XbaI (TAKARA) = 1µL <br><br />
1 hour of incubation at 37°C. <br><br />
<br />
==== DNA electrophoresis ====<br />
<br />
85 Volt, 15 minutes. <br><br />
105 Volt, 40 minutes. <br><br />
Ladder fermentas 1 Kb. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_P1001, BBa_B0014, BBa_C0040. <br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910.png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
Samples: BBa_R0040, BBa_B0030, BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[image:F0910(2).png|center]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
==== DNA purification ====<br />
<br />
Kit Qiagen “gel extraction kit”, final volume = 50µL. <br><br />
<br />
=== Cell culture ===<br />
<br />
Growth of <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha into 5mL of LB medium with 5µL of the correct antibiotic (kanamycin = 50mg/mL, ampicillin = 50mg/mL and tetracycline = 12,5mg/mL) <br><br><br />
<br />
Samples: <br><br />
p 53 (3 times); <br><br />
BBa_R0010; <br><br />
BBa_B0030; <br><br />
BBa_E0240; <br><br />
BBa_B0014; <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation ====<br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_P1001 and BBa_B0014 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (P1001) = 1µL <br><br />
Insert (B0014) = 6µL <br><br />
Solution A = 3µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Ligation between BBa_C0012 + BBa_B0014 and BBa_B0030 ====<br />
<br />
First report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 0,5µL <br><br />
Solution A = 5,5µL <br><br />
Solution B = 2µL <br><br><br />
<br />
Second report: <br><br />
Plasmid (B0030) = 2µL <br><br />
Insert (C0012 + B0014) = 1µL <br><br />
Solution A = 6µL <br><br />
Solution B = 1µL <br><br />
<br />
==== Electroporation ====<br />
<br />
Electroporation cuvettes = 2mm ; inoculums of electrocompetent <i>E.coli</i> DH5alpha= 40µL; pulse = 2,5KVolt ; 1h of incubation. <br><br />
<br />
Spread 1mL of inoculums into a petri dish with LB + ampicillin (50mg/mL) (20/0,02mL). <br></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Project_ManagementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Project Management2009-10-22T02:41:44Z<p>Ranya: /* Project Management */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss6.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
= Project Management =<br />
<br />
To organize our project as efficiently as possible was our first objective.<br />
Defining the schedule of the tasks to accomplish was necessary to elaborate efficiently our project in the shortest time span and at the best cost whilst bearing in mind the constraints imposed by the competition.<br><br />
This is why we had to:<br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
'''Plan:''' to determine the different operations to be done, the corresponding dates, and the material and human needs that have to be appointed.<br><br />
'''Execute:''' by implementing the different operations defined in the planned phase.<br><br />
'''Control:''' by carrying out a comparison between dates and accomplishments on the level of planning and execution. <br><br />
</div><br />
In order to do this, each manager has warranted and controlled the coordination of the actors and tasks in a concern of efficiency and yield according to the time limits, thanks to the elaboration of Gantt plannings (that you can find below).<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Planning of experiments: [[Image: GanttR&D.png|center|340px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<div style="color: black; margin-bottom: 30px; width: 500px;"><br />
{|align="center"<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=08}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=09}}<br />
||{{#calendar: title=User:DavidC |year=2009 | month=10}}<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Current_therapies#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T02:38:29Z<p>Ranya: /* Students */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aircanada.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Air Canada" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e0/Logo_AirCanada.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.fr/l/fr/fr/index.jsp" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
<br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for taking some photos of the team to illustrate this site.<br />
<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achieving the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:36:34Z<p>Ranya: /* Survey */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and Ranya Jamali: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow in order to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but we have to be aware of these risks causes, and the finality of taking them. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the instrument. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:35:02Z<p>Ranya: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and Ranya Jamali: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow in order to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but we have to be aware of these risks causes, and the finality of taking them. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:32:18Z<p>Ranya: /* Summarization of reflections */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and Ranya Jamali: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow in order to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:30:25Z<p>Ranya: /* The debate program */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and Ranya Jamali: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:26:38Z<p>Ranya: /* Survey */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<br />
==Conclusion of the survey==<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/b/b5/Bibsette2.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:23:57Z<p>Ranya: /* Survey */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
*Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:22:55Z<p>Ranya: /* The debate program */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program (You can download the document if you click on the image): <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Current_therapiesTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Current therapies2009-10-22T02:15:59Z<p>Ranya: /* The genetic pharmacology interest [1,2] */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss11.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
= Current therapies =<br />
<br />
== Current medicines [1]==<br />
<br />
Medicines are chemical or biological entities containing at least one active principle and act on a target tissue to treat it.<br><br />
In the common language, a medicine is a substance delivered to correct, modify or restore a function in the organism. <br><br />
In a chemical point of view, a medicine is a molecule that interacts with a molecular target. The binding modifies target properties, which give rise to a cell response. That is responsible for the benefits and side effects of a medicine. <br><br />
<br />
Most current medicines target a protein. Proteins are necessary for organism survival and their dysfunction conduct to a lot of diseases. Nowadays, several proteins can be engineered to be used to treat a large number of diseases due to weak protein. <br><br />
<br />
For cancer treatment, medicines act as inhibitors of mitosis. The toxicity selectivity of cytotoxic medicines is based on the higher mitosis activity of cancerous cells, which make them a preferential target. Selectivity is an important notion to evaluate a medicine. In fact, any medicine is really specific. Therefore, normal tissues with rapid renewal are also often damaged: epitheliums, bone marrow, and gonad.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
It is essential to well-define a medicine. Among other properties, we have to study bioavaibility and resorption speed of a medicine. Bioavaibility may be incomplete due to different phenomenons as physico-chemistry characteristics or the intestine, hepatic or lung bypass. <br><br />
<br />
The speed at which the drug is eliminated is also an important parameter for all administration routes without the intravenous route. The delay before the observation of the first (therapeutic or unwanted) effects of the drug also depends on this speed. Moreover, the existence of a biological rhythm is often neglected in the evaluation of their elimination. But, pharmacological medicine properties are closely linked to the phenomenon of temporality of the medicinal product. Several complementary and important concepts should be considered: systemic absorption speed and toxicity threshold.<br> <br />
<br />
<br />
Major problems facing these therapies are inter-patients variability in reactions to medications which become a substantial difficulty for the pharmaceutical research and medical considerations.<br> <br />
With the concern of improving the effectiveness of therapies, a new Pharmacology with genomic DNA or RNA for targets, has been developed: genetic pharmacology.<br> <br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Current therapies#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== The genetic pharmacology interest [1,2]== <br />
<br />
The gene therapy challenge is to achieve correction of deficient cells (via genome modifications) which induce a disease. Unlike protein therapy, gene therapy is not only reducing symptoms but goes well below: it aims to the total deletion of the disease.<br> <br />
<br />
Even when an exogenous protein can be used, gene therapy has major advantages: <br><br />
<div style="margin-left: 100px;"><br />
- Protein produced from the transgene is subjected to post-transcriptional host change processes. Glycosylation profile is therefore strictly like the patient’s one, it provides thus a better biocompatibility.<br> <br />
-It allows to pass the administration issue of complex proteins within the cell, in fact the transgene is expressed directly through the cell machinery.<br> <br />
-It allows local expression of the transgene, avoiding any risk linked to the systemic presence of protein.<br><br />
</div> <br />
<br />
Gene therapy has the advantage to present a better pharmacokinetic avoiding repeated administration of treatment and toxicity linked. It also allows a prolonged expression of the gene-medicine because the biological activity of transgenic protein appears to be greater than recombinant protein. In addition, deletion of injection peak helps to prevent a receptor desensitization.<br> <br />
<br />
[[Image: PKgenik eng.png|center]] <br />
<br />
Finally, a last point, which can seems less crucial but that certainly has its importance: the patients comfort. In fact, single administration (or repeated at very low frequency) is better tolerated by the patient as a day-to-day administration, as it is currently the case for insulin in the diabetes treatment. Moreover, the financial aspect is not negligible since the administration of chemical or biological drugs occurs in ambulatory or hospital and, thus, still slow down their generalization. Similarly, a recombinant protein extraction and purification cost is higher than the synthesis of an oligonucleotide.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Current therapies#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Conclusion == <br />
<br />
Instability of proteins, their difficulties to be produced, are responsible for a large number of diseases. It thus highlights the interest of the drug-gene.<br> <br />
Few treatments have actually proved their effectiveness, without making a high toxicity. For this reason, '''gene therapy''' appears to be a very promising approach. Transforming the gene into a drug appears as a seductive strategy.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Current therapies#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Gene_therapies#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:12:56Z<p>Ranya: /* Ethics */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathers each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/d3/Programme_du_debat_ethique-iGEM_SupBiotech_Paris_francais.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:09:51Z<p>Ranya: /* Ethics */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathering each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/d3/Programme_du_debat_ethique-iGEM_SupBiotech_Paris_francais.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:05:21Z<p>Ranya: /* Summarization of reflections */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathering each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/d3/Programme_du_debat_ethique-iGEM_SupBiotech_Paris_francais.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethics indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives as new energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:03:22Z<p>Ranya: /* Modification of the living representation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathering each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/d3/Programme_du_debat_ethique-iGEM_SupBiotech_Paris_francais.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethic indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives like clean energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « The things with I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organisms without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T02:00:50Z<p>Ranya: /* Modification of the living representation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathering each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/d3/Programme_du_debat_ethique-iGEM_SupBiotech_Paris_francais.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethic indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives like clean energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « Those with what I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organism without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T01:59:36Z<p>Ranya: /* Modification of the living representation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathering each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/d3/Programme_du_debat_ethique-iGEM_SupBiotech_Paris_francais.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethic indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives like clean energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a game aspect, which can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « Those with what I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organism without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T01:58:28Z<p>Ranya: /* Summarization of reflections */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathering each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/d3/Programme_du_debat_ethique-iGEM_SupBiotech_Paris_francais.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
The objective of this debate was to achieve a state of art on the ethics questions raised by synthetic biology, and our project. Thus, we were convinced that our different stakeholders could provide pertinent questions on the differents issues related to the subject. We wanted to present to the scientist community this ethics debate.<br><br />
Unfortunately, a technical failure does not allow us to add english subtitles to the first part of the video! This part will be added as soon as possible on youtube. However, a report has been achieved on the stakeholders talks and can be found after the videos.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethics is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethic indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives like clean energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a play aspect, and this aspect can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « Those with what I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organism without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biologie_SynthetiqueTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Biologie Synthetique2009-10-22T01:56:49Z<p>Ranya: /* Découvrez les vidéos du débat ! */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisFr2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethique =<br />
<br />
[[Image:bibsy.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
La compétition internationale iGEM regroupant chaque année de plus en plus d’équipes (110 équipes pour la session 2009) additionnée à 18 programmes européens, 70 entreprises, 10000 laboratoires dans le monde ont tous comme objectif commun : la construction des systèmes vivants, suivant le principe d’assemblage des modules fonctionnels. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
L’émergence et le développement rapide de cette discipline nécessite la réflexion, afin de mettre en place un système de règlementation prêt dans les 5 à 10 ans pour des pratiques sûres. <br><br />
Ainsi à l’occasion du concours iGEM, nous avons réalisé ce débat afin de réfléchir aux enjeux éthiques liés à la biologie synthétique. <br><br />
<br />
== Au programme de ce débat ==<br />
<br />
Au programme de ce débat : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction à la biologie synthétique, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction au projet Double vectorisation system (DVS) développé par l’équipe<br><br />
#Table ronde animée par Thierry Magnin, et l’équipe Sup’Biotech Paris: <br><br />
#*Biologie synthétique/Projet DVS - Formulation des risques et bénéfices : quels sont les risques, peut on les contourner, quels sont les effets sur l’homme, l’animal et l’environnement, les avantages de cette discipline, ou s'arrête la science et ou commence la création? Les craintes des populations... <br><br />
#*Réglementation, Accès et droit : à quel point le savoir doit-il être protégé, mettre en avant le concept de "non brevetabilité" ainsi que des réglementations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2009/10/21/189s5wx" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Consultez le programme de la soirée..." style="width: 100px;" src="http://img156.imageshack.us/i/miniatureconfrenceethiq.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
== Découvrez les vidéos du débat ! ==<br />
<br />
Ce débat avait pour objectif de faire un état des lieux sur les questions éthiques soulevées par la biologie synthétique, et notre projet. Ainsi, nous étions convaincus que nos différents intervenants sauront apporter des réflexions pertinentes quant aux différentes problématiques relatives au sujet. Nous avons également voulu présenter à la communauté scientifique ce débat éthique.<br><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biologie_Synthetique#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Synthèse des réflexions ==<br />
<br />
« ''L’éthique c’est le mouvement même de la Liberté qui cherche une vie bonne, dans la sollicitude envers autrui et dans un juste usage des institutions sociales'' » ; citation de Paul Ricoeur philosophe du 20e siècle. En d’autres termes, l’éthique représente la branche de la philosophie regroupant les valeurs morales qui définissent la façon dont nous devons nous comporter. <br><br />
<br><br />
Appliquée à la biologie synthétique, l’éthique indique le chemin qu'il faut suivre pour permettre le développement de cette discipline en évitant ses dérives. En effet, bien qu’elle laisse rêver à de grandes perspectives telles que des sources propres d’énergie, des thérapies accessibles à tous ou des méthodes de remédiation biologique, manipuler le vivant soulève régulièrement un certain nombre de questions d’ordre éthique. François Le Fèvre évoque « c’est la première fois que l’homme est confronté à la possibilité de créer de nouvelles formes de vie ». <br><br />
<br><br />
Il nous a paru important de nous intéresser à ces points, en plus de l’aspect technique de l’ingénierie biologique. Dans cette optique, nous avons organisé un débat éthique reposant sur le thème de la biologie synthétique, auquel différentes personnalités expertes dans le domaine ont été convié. Lors de ce débat, différentes problématiques ont été soulevé. Comme l’a souligné Thierry Magnin, certaines d’entre elles sont d’ordre métaphysique, et concernent notamment ce que « cela nous donne comme représentation du vivant, de la vie » ; d’autres concernent directement les applications et leurs aspects techniques qui pourraient nous pousser à les limiter. A l’occasion de ce débat, nous avons présenté notre projet à nos invités afin d’en faire ressortir les questions éthiques.<br><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Concept1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problématiques métaphysiques ===<br />
<br />
==== Finalités de la biologie synthétique ====<br />
Il convient tout d’abord de s’intéresser aux finalités de cette science. Que cherche-t-on à faire ? Cherchons-nous à atteindre un état de perfection ? Lorsque l’on travaille à l’amélioration d’un organisme vivant, outre les difficultés techniques, il faut se demander si ce que l’on fait est souhaitable. Hormis les dérives égocentriques que l’on peut aisément imaginer, on pourrait chercher à corriger nos faiblesses, nos handicaps, nos maladies. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys met en avant que le contexte peut changer une « tare » en atout : « il y a des maladies qui vous confèrent aussi certains avantages. Donc pour reprendre ce titre du livre d’Alain Gras sur la fragilité de la puissance, on pourrait parler de puissance de la fragilité ». <br><br />
<br><br />
Cependant, les avantages potentiels semblent parfois négligeables par rapport au handicap : c’est par exemple le cas lorsque l’on est affecté par le VIH. Et la maladie qu’il engendre ne sera pas contrôlée, d’après Willy Rozenbaum, « si on n’utilise pas la biologie synthétique ». Plus généralement, ce dernier n’imagine pas « comment on pourrait s’en passer si on veut aller vers une amélioration de la condition humaine ». Le mythe de la perfection ne semble pas l’inquiéter, puisqu’il affirme que nous sommes encore très vulnérables et loin d’être parfaits. <br><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification de la représentation du vivant ====<br />
<br />
Chercher à synthétiser et à modifier fondamentalement des organismes pousse à s’interroger sur la définition même du vivant. Craig Venter affirme qu’ « on passe de la capacité de lire notre code génétique à la capacité de l’écrire ». Mais comprendre et générer les mécanismes de la vie peut la démystifier ; et le fait de créer des machines vivantes, dans un but précis, risque de nous donner une vision déterministe du vivant. Thierry Magnin s’interroge « dans un contexte où la vie s’assemble avec des briques, qu’est-ce qui, fait vraiment la différence entre la machine végétale, la machine animale et la machine humaine ? ». On peut après tout envisager que la différence entre les trois ne vient que des interactions entre les « briques » qui les composent. « Comment puis-je reconnaître une certaine dignité du Vivant si tout est fabriqué par blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
La biologie synthétique peut révéler un aspect ludique, et cet aspect pourrait altérer le respect que l’on porte aux êtres vivants : pour citer une nouvelle fois Thierry Magnin, « ce avec quoi j’ai l’habitude de jouer, j’ai souvent un peu de mal à le respecter ». On peut créer des « pièces » d’êtres vivants en-dehors de leur contexte, les stocker, les reproduire, les transmettre, les assembler. Si l’on crée des systèmes biologiques comme l’on assemble des legos, ne risque-t-on pas de considérer tous les êtres vivants, dont les humains, comme de simples assemblages de ces pièces ? Et dans ce cas, le respect que l’on considère leur devoir pourrait en être altéré. Certes, on peut considérer que nos créations ne sont que des engins biologiques, des machines synthétiques bien distinctes des formes de vie « naturelles ». <br><br />
<br><br />
Mais où se situe la limite entre celles-ci et la vie artificielle? La façon dont l’une et l’autre ont été créées change-t-elle leurs natures ? Il faut cependant nuancer l’impact que la synthèse biologique pourrait avoir sur la façon avec laquelle on considère la vie : comme l’a rappelé François Le Fèvre, lorsque « l’on a synthétisé l’urée, première molécule organique synthétique, il y avait tout un débat pour savoir si on avait créé de la vie ou pas »; et, comme l’a souligné Lluis Mir, on aurait pu se poser les mêmes questions aux débuts de la chimie. Deux cents ans plus tard, cela peut faire sourire. <br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problématiques liées aux applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Contrôle de l’évolution des produits de la biologie synthétique ====<br />
La biologie synthétique mène à la création d’êtres vivants qui n’auraient sans doute pas existé sans intervention humaine et ne sont pas le fruit d’une évolution naturelle. Sera-t-on capable de les contrôler ? On ne maîtrise pas les mécanismes de stockage de l’information dans le monde vivant, et on est encore loin d’être capables de prévoir comment se comportera un ensemble à partir des ses éléments séparés. On crée des parties, mais saura-t-ton prévoir les propriétés émergeant de leur assemblage ? De plus les organismes synthétiques, puisqu’ils sont vivants, évoluent ; sera-t-on, a demandé Thierry Magnin, « en mesure de maîtriser la propagation de ces engins animés que l’on construit ?» Du fait de leur capacité à évoluer, ne risquent-ils pas d’échapper à notre contrôle ? Willy Rozenbaum a fait remarquer que la pression responsable de l’évolution existera même pour les organismes qui ne lui sont pas dus a cette pression; et que « c’est le plus performant et le moins nocif qui va finalement sortir de cela ; parce que cette pression-là va rester ». <br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Dérives bioterroristes ====<br />
<br />
La perte de contrôle de systèmes vivants crées synthétiquement pourrait être intentionnelle. La biologie synthétique et la diffusion des connaissances qu’elle apporte met à disposition d’un large public des génomes, notamment des pathogènes pouvant être modifié à un coût relativement bas. Dans le cas de notre projet DVS, quelques changements pourraient transformer notre vecteur en arme biologique comme l’a mentionné François le Fèvre: « on peut imaginer qu’au lieu de cibler un cancer, on cible des neurones pour envoyer des drogues qui permettent d’affaiblir la personne ». Dès 2003, un rapport de la CIA a évoqué les risques liés au développement des sciences du vivant et la difficulté de limiter le développement du bioterrorisme. Faut-il limiter l’accès aux données sous peine de ralentir la progression des connaissances en biologie synthétique ? <br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Rapport bénéfices/risques ====<br />
Pour évaluer les risques et les bénéfices d’une science, il faut se demander à quoi elle est destinée, et si les risques sont pris par les bénéficiaires. Dans le cas de la biologie synthétique, les risques sont pris par la Société dans son ensemble ; il doit en être de même pour les bénéfices. Les intérêts financiers d’une communauté restreinte ne doit pas nuire à la majorité. Actuellement la biologie synthétique est gérée par la communauté scientifique ; mais certaines applications, pour peu qu’elles puissent permettre de générer des revenus importants, risqueraient d’être développées malgré les nuisances qu’elles causeraient. Il faut donc, comme l’a dit Lluis Mir, « que cela reste la vision des scientifiques et de la société, et pas des marchés ». Il est également important que les chercheurs impliqués gardent leur esprit critique et continuent à communiquer les avancées de leurs connaissances même s’ils travaillent dans un contexte industriel ou commercial. <br><br />
<br><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
==== Propriété intellectuelle ====<br />
Réfléchir à propos de la propriété intellectuelle de notre projet. Nous voulions en effet que notre traitement puisse être accessible et au plus bas prix. Dans cette optique, nous nous sommes interrogé sur la mise en open source ou en breveter au moins une partie ? La première option permettrait à n’importe quel société de le développer et de l’améliorer, mais une entreprise privée pourrait alors en breveter une version plus aboutie et imposer les prix qui lui profitent le plus. Par ailleurs, Willy Rozenbaum nous a confirmé que le développement clinique serait alors très difficile à financer : « si vous arrivez à convaincre un industriel de passer au préclinique, il faudra déjà avoir protégé votre modèle puisque sinon, vous ne trouverez pas d’industriel qui fera le développement ». Ce dernier point serait moins problématique avec la seconde option puisque les fonds générés par un brevet aideraient à convaincre des industriels ; mais l’accès aux données serait alors bien plus limité.<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problématiques liées au projet DVS ===<br />
<br />
L’un des objectifs de cette rencontre était de débattre sur certains points relatifs à notre projet DVS. Les points généraux ont été évoqués précédemment, puisqu’ils s’appliquent à la biologie synthétique dans son ensemble. Plus précisément, nous nous sommes interrogés par rapport aux risques sous-jacents à l’introduction d’agents potentiellement pathogène dans l’organisme. <br><br />
<br><br />
Intéressons-nous tout d’abord à l’importance de ce risque. Mycobacterium avium est parfois responsable de graves infections chez l’homme. Mais, comme l’a rappelé Willy Rozenbaum, « c’est une bactérie très ubiquitaire, on la trouve dans l’eau du robinet ; on est presque tous contaminés » ; or cette contamination n’a que très rarement d’effets conséquents. Les cas reportés concernent des patients au système immunitaire très affaibli, par le VIH par exemple. Nous avons par ailleurs prévu d’analyser les effets de l’infection sur des phénotypes tumoraux. Quoi qu’il en soit, Willy Rozenbaum estime que « tout ça n’est pas très embêtant ». Outre les nombreux tests et modélisations qui seront menés avant l’utilisation de notre traitement, cette affirmation est justifiée par le fait que les bactéries sont lysées lorsqu’elles libèrent le phage ; elles ne persistent donc pas dans l’organisme. <br><br />
François Le Fèvre s’est légitimement interrogé quant au risque que le phage n’infecte d’autres bactéries déjà présentes dans l’organisme. Nous lui avons donc expliqué que notre vecteur cellulaire n’encapsidait que le plasmide d’intérêt, et non son génome. S’il infectait une bactérie résidente (ce qui peut être empêché par la modification des protéines d’internalisation), celle-ci ne recevrait que le plasmide d’intérêt enveloppé de protéines. Le phage serait donc incapable de s’y multiplier.On pourrait également s’inquiéter des dérives au niveau de l’intégration du transgène, comme les risques de recombinaison homologue ou d’intégration hasardeuse. Lluis Mir a appuyé notre idée à ce sujet, qui est que le problème est limité par le fait que l’hôte et le phage n’appartiennent pas au même monde : « il n’y a pas d’intégration possible. Plus les séquences bactériennes qui vont interférer avec tous les processus de méthylation et déméthylation, qui font que cet élément génétique transposé sera moins stable. C’est un peu l’intérêt d’être à la croisée entre l’eucaryote et le procaryote ». <br><br />
<br><br />
Par ailleurs, Willy Rozenbaum a rappelé que « sur ce type de sujet, c’est très bien balisé aujourd’hui en termes de sécurité » : le produit ne serait évidemment pas mis sur le marché avant d’avoir subi de nombreux tests visant à vérifier son innocuité. Des organisations comme l’Afssaps, les modélisations les essais cliniques////Si on considère que le risque est non-négligeable, il faut se demander s’il vaut la peine d’être pris en compte. Thierry Magnin a donné une traduction du principe de responsabilité formulé par Hans Jonas : « ayant essayé d’estimer les risques, je vais essayer de travailler au maximum sur le risque le plus grave ». La maladie à laquelle on s’attaque le justifie-t-elle ? D’après Bernard Baertschi, « le cancer est une maladie extrêmement grave, pour laquelle on accepte de prendre des risques déjà maintenant ». Et François Le Fèvre a reconnu en souriant : « de toute façon, si j’ai le cancer du poumon, je pense que je prendrais votre médicament… ». Pour conclure ce paragraphe, citons une nouvelle fois Bernard Baertschi : « on peut prendre un risque si la personne donne son consentement et s’il y a un bénéfice attendu ». <br><br />
<br><br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Introduction1Fr#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
La biologie synthétique peut donc devenir un outil très puissant si elle reste maîtrisée. Les risques existent, certes ; mais certaines causes pour lesquelles elle est un atout justifient qu’on les prenne. C’est sans doute à la communauté scientifique de faire accepter cette idée par la communauté, en transmettant ses connaissances. Certains problèmes, différentes pathologies par exemple, ne semblent par ailleurs pouvoir être résolues que par son biais. Mais les intérêts recherchés doivent être ceux de la Société entière, et non de groupes particuliers. Il serait peut-être bénéfique qu’une règlementation soit rapidement mise en place afin d’éviter les dérives, sans pour autant limiter le développement de cette science si prometteuse ?<br><br />
<br />
== Sondage ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Aujourd’hui tout est breveté ou brevetable, et pire encore il est possible de breveter dans certains pays de simples concepts qui n’ont pas été appliqués. Ainsi le rachat, l’échange, le dépôt et la gestion de la banque de brevets d’une entreprise est une activité commerciale à part entière et elle peut rapporter gros. Breveter une réelle invention, un concept ou une marque a-t-il de réelles conséquences sur le progrès au quotidien ? C’est ce à quoi nous avons invités les étudiants de Sup’Biotech à répondre. <br />
<br />
*32 % pensent que les brevets constitueraient un frein à l’innovation, tandis que 43 % pensent le contraire. L’avis semble assez partagé, ce qui est assez surprenant étant donné qu’en théorie le brevet est un outil d’incitation à l’innovation. En effet, le monopole temporaire permet de financer les investissements en R&D. Cependant, dans la pratique le brevet apparaît comme un outil secondaire, certains même n’en n’ont que peu confiance ; d’autres n’hésitent pas à prendre exemple de la fragmentation des droit lorsque les innovations sont cumulatives et/ou complémentaire, comme en informatique, biotechnologies, ou encore l’électronique.<br />
<center>'''Pensez-vous que les brevets ralentissent l'innovation ?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende fr.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Dans le cadre d’une application thérapeutique, on peut se demander si l’on peut breveter quelque chose de vivant, lui conférant de ce fait, une valeur marchande ? C’est à cette question qu’est confrontée la biologie synthétique.<br />
<center>'''Pensez-vous qu'un organisme créé synthétiquement doit être brevetable ?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende fr.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
À l’instar d’autres technologies, la biologie synthétique nous ferait entrer, dans une nouvelle ère, celle de la « biolithique »1, où le vivant devient l’outil. Un outil qui pourrait être grandement prometteur pour guérir de nombreuses maladies. Mais est ce que son objectif thérapeutique légifère t-elle son utilisation ? La biologie synthétique interpelle donc notre conception du vivant. Où se situe la frontière entre le naturel et l’artificiel ? Peut-on se permettre de tout créer à partir du vivant ? Risque-ton de faire « diverger » l’évolution ?<br />
<br />
<br />
50 % des étudiants ont tendance à rejeter cette éventualité d’une instrumentalisation libre sous prétexte thérapeutique, néanmoins, 31 % pourrait l’envisager et 19% des étudiants se posent la question. Quant à une dérive de l’évolution, 50 % des étudiants restent assez convaincus que l’évolution ne peut être compromise par la biologie synthétique, cependant 31 % des étudiants sont pensent le contraire.<br />
<br />
<center>'''Dans le cadre d'une application thérapeutique, peut-on se permettre de tout créer à partir du vivant ?</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende fr.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Risque t-on de faire diverger l'évolution ?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende fr.png|center|]]<br />
«Les chercheurs doivent se poser ces questions et prendre garde aux utilisations non éthiques qui peuvent êtres faites de ces technologies, même dans un but de guérir les maladies », cette crainte d’un étudiant en dit long sur les interrogations que soulèvent l’instrumentalisation du vivant auquelle fait face la biologie synthétique. <br />
<br />
En effet, chaque avancée de la recherche biologique contient son lot de questionnement sur les implications sanitaires, environnementales, sociales et éthiques des applications possibles de ces découvertes. Est-on capable de contrôler le vivant ? Sommes-nous en mesure de maîtriser la propagation des systèmes que l’on construit ? <br />
Alors qu’ils sont une majorité à penser que les chercheurs sont capables de maîtriser le vivant, on reste sceptique face au contrôle de sa propagation. <br />
<br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Pensez-vous que l'on soit en mesure de maîtriser la propagation des systèmes que l'on construit ?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende fr.png|center|]]<br />
Face à ces questionnements, la question qui se pose alors est de savoir comment la société va se positionner et comment respecter les règles d'éthique. Du fait de la maîtrise du vivant, l'opinion publique est confrontée à une maîtrise par le monde de la recherche tout en ayant l'impression d'être dépossédée des résultats de la recherche. Comment la société va-t-elle pouvoir exprimer ses souhaits sur ces questions ? <br />
<br />
Au vu de l’importance des enjeux, la réflexion doit être pluraliste et collective, il s’agit de savoir qui va contrôler et comment ? Faut-il de nouvelles régulations, alors que celles existantes pour les OGM sont déjà loin d’être parfaites et encore moins acceptées ? Peut-on aspirer à une gouvernance mondiale ? A cette question, 46 % des étudiants pensent qu’une telle gouvernance est envisageable, alors que 31 % sont d’avis contraire.<br />
<center>'''Dans le contexte de la biologie synthétique, pensez-vous qu'une gouvernance mondiale soit envisageable ?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende fr.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Ce sondage attire l’attention des politiques, chercheurs et des juristes, en leur rappelant que l’argument de l’innovation et de l’objectif thérapeutique est trop souvent utilisé à tord par les partisans d’un monde où tout se protège et se dépose. Un débat collectif doit avoir lieu<br />
pour décider ensemble comment maximiser les applications favorables de ces technologies tout en minimisant les risques de dérives.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biologie Synthetique#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/S%C3%BBret%C3%A9#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="On passe à la page suivante !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BibliographieTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie2009-10-22T01:55:14Z<p>Ranya: /* Sûreté */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss8.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisFr}}<br />
<br />
== Thérapies ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Thérapie actuelle<br />
|[1]<br />
|Lechat P.<br />
|Pharmacology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Thérapie actuelle<br />
|[2]<br />
|Bruguerolle B.<br />
|Biological rhythms and medications: a source of variability often neglected in pharmacology<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Thérapie genique<br />
|[1]<br />
|Kevin J. Scanlon and al.<br />
|Cancer Gene Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Thérapie genique<br />
|[2]<br />
|Gouze JN and al.<br />
|A comparative study of the inhibitory effects of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist following administration as a recombinant protein or by gene transfer<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Thérapie génique<br />
|[3]<br />
|Centre for Genetics Education<br />
|http://www.genetics.com.au/index.asp<br />
|XXXX<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vectorisation ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[1]<br />
|Couvreur P.<br />
|L'encapsulation de médicament<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[2]<br />
|Andrieux K. and al.<br />
|Nanotechnology and new drug<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[3]<br />
|Torchilin V.P.<br />
|Recent Approaches to Intracellular Delivery of Drugs and DNA and Organelle Targeting<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[4]<br />
|Davis M.E. and al. <br />
|Nanoparticle therapeutics: an emerging treatment modality for cancer<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[5]<br />
|Seow Y. and al.<br />
|Biological Gene Delivery Vehicles: Beyond Viral Vectors<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[6]<br />
|Decroly E.<br />
|Vectorology<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[7]<br />
|Robbins P.D. and al.<br />
|Viral Vectors for Gene Therapy<br />
|1998<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[8]<br />
|Wei M.Q. and al.<br />
|Bacterial targeted tumour therapy-dawn of a new era<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[9]<br />
|Ryan R.M. and al.<br />
|Use of bacteria in anti-cancer therapies<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[10]<br />
|Mehnert<br />
|Solid lipid nanoparticles: Production, characterization and applications<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[11]<br />
|Lasic D.D.<br />
|Liposomes in gene therapy<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[12]<br />
|Lutten J. and al.<br />
|Biodegradable polymers as non-viral carriers for plasmid DNA delivery<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[13]<br />
|Jiskoot W. and al.<br />
|Immunological Risk of Injectable Drug Delivery Systems<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[14]<br />
|Head M. and al.<br />
|Mechanism and computer simulation of immune complex formation, opsonization, and clearance<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[15]<br />
|Koide H. and al.<br />
|Particle size-dependent triggering of accelerated blood clearance phenomenon<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[16]<br />
|Ishida T. and al.<br />
|Accelerated blood clearance of PEGylated liposomes following preceding liposome injection: Effects of lipid dose and PEG surface-density and chain length of the first-dose liposomes<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[17]<br />
|Wang XY and al.<br />
|Anti-PEG IgM elicited by injection of liposomes is involved in the enhanced blood clearance of a subsequent dose of PEGylated liposomes<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[18]<br />
|Tosi M.F. and al.<br />
|Innate immune responses to infection<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorisation<br />
|[19]<br />
|Linkov I and al.<br />
|Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions<br />
|2008<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vecteur Tissulaire ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Tissulaire<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ronald S. and al.<br />
|Antimicrobial mechanisms of phagocytes and bacterial evasion strategies<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Tissulaire<br />
|[2]<br />
|Clark B. Inderlied and al. <br />
|The Mycobacterium avium Complex<br />
|1993<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Tissulaire<br />
|[3]<br />
|Nisheeth Agarwal and al. <br />
|Cyclic AMP intoxication of macrophages by a Mycobacterium tuberculosis adenylate cyclase<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Tissulaire<br />
|[4]<br />
|Hunter R.L. and al.<br />
|Pathology of postprimary tuberculosis in humans and mice: contradiction of long-held beliefs<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Tissulaire<br />
|[5]<br />
|Axelrod S and al.<br />
|Delay of phagosome maturation by a mycobacterial lipid is reversed by nitric oxide<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Tissulaire<br />
|[6]<br />
|Nicole N van der Wel and al.<br />
|Subcellular localization of mycobacteria in tissues and detection of lipid antigens in organelles using cryo-techniques for light and electron microscopy<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
<div id="revulung"></div><br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Tissulaire<br />
|[7]<br />
|Claudia Nobrega and al.<br />
|The thymus as a target for mycobacterial infections<br />
|2007<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vecteur Cellulaire ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[1]<br />
|Harrison Echols and al.<br />
|Genetic Map of Bacteriophage Lambda<br />
|1978<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[4]<br />
|Ortega ME and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage Lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF Proteins Cooperatively Bind and Bend Viral DNA: Implications for the Assembly of a Genome-Packaging Motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[5]<br />
|Feiss M. and al. <br />
|Bactériophage Lambda Terminase and the Mechanism of Viral DNA Packaging<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[6]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[7]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[8]<br />
|Hochschild A and al. <br />
|The bactériophage lambda cI protein finds an asymmetric solution<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vecteur Cellulaire<br />
|[9]<br />
|Phoebe L.Stewart1 and al.<br />
|Cryo-EM visualization of an exposed RGD epitope on adenovirus that escapes antibody neutralization<br />
|1997<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Plasmide Thérapeutique ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Plasmide thérapeutique<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ortega ME et al. <br />
|Bacteriophage lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF proteins cooperatively bind and bend viral DNA: implications for the assembly of a genome-packaging motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Plasmide thérapeutique<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Plasmide thérapeutique<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Plasmide thérapeutique<br />
|[4]<br />
|Feiss M. and al.<br />
|Viral Genome Packaging Machines: Genetics, Structure and Mechanism<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Plasmide thérapeutique<br />
|[5]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Plasmide thérapeutique<br />
|[6]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Plasmide thérapeutique<br />
|[7]<br />
|Young et al.<br />
|Effect of a DNA nuclear targeting sequence on gene transfer and expression of plasmids in the intact vasculature<br />
|2003<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Action antitumorale ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[1]<br />
|Chunlin Yang et al<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated Wild-Type p53 Expression Induces Apoptosis and Suppresses Tumorigenesis of Prostatic Tumor Cells<br />
|1995<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[2]<br />
|Corrado Cirielli et al.<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 expression induces apoptosis and suppresses tumorigenesis of experimental intracranial human malignant glioma<br />
|1999<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[3]<br />
|Su-Ping Ren et al. <br />
|Adenoviral-mediated transfer of human wild-type p53, GM-CSF and B7-1 genes results in growth suppression and autologous anti-tumor cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in vitro<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[4]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al <br />
|Growth suppression and immunogenicity enhancement of Hep-2 or primary laryngeal cancer cells by adenovirus-mediated co-transfer of human wild-type p53, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and B7-1 genes<br />
|2002<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[5]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al. <br />
|Co-transfer of human wild-type p53 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor genes via recombinant adenovirus induces apoptosis and enhances immunogenicity in laryngeal cancer cells<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[6]<br />
|Markus Reiser et al. <br />
|Induction of cell proliferation arrest and apoptosis in hepatoma cells through adenoviral-mediated transfer of p53 gene<br />
|2000<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[7]<br />
|Louis L. Pisters et al. <br />
|Evidence That Transfer of Functional p53 Protein Results in Increased Apoptosis in Prostate Cancer<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[8]<br />
|Susan C. Modesitt et al. <br />
|In Vitro and in Vivo Adenovirus-mediated p53 and p16 Tumor Suppressor Therapy in Ovarian Cancer<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Action antitumorale<br />
|[9]<br />
|Yong-song GUAN et al. <br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer in combination with bronchial arterial infusion for treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, one year follow-up<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ethique ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethique<br />
|[1]<br />
|Joël Rosnay<br />
|Biologie de synthèse: Enjeux et défis pour l’humanité<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethique<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethique<br />
|[3]<br />
|Bernadette Bensaude Vincent, Dorothée Benoit-Browaeys<br />
|Petite typologie de la biologie synthétique et enjeux éthiques<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethique<br />
|[4]<br />
|Anna Deplazes Æ Markus Huppenbauer<br />
|Synthetic organisms and living machines<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethique<br />
|[5]<br />
|Schmidt M, Ganguli-Mitra A,and al.<br />
|A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethique<br />
|[6]<br />
|Parens E, Johnston J, Moses J.<br />
|Ethics. Do we need "synthetic bioethics"?<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
== Sûreté ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Sûreté<br />
|[1]<br />
|Jonathan B. Tucker and al.<br />
|The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Sûreté<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Sûreté<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Sûreté<br />
|[4]<br />
|New Atlantis<br />
|http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-from-scratch<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliographie#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Biologie_Synthetique#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="On passe à la page suivante !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BibliographyTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography2009-10-22T01:53:09Z<p>Ranya: /* Ethics */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss8.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -92px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 75px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Therapies ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Lechat P.<br />
|Pharmacology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Bruguerolle B.<br />
|Biological rhythms and medications: a source of variability often neglected in pharmacology<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Kevin J. Scanlon and al.<br />
|Cancer Gene Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Gouze JN and al.<br />
|A comparative study of the inhibitory effects of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist following administration as a recombinant protein or by gene transfer<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[3]<br />
|Centre for Genetics Education<br />
|http://www.genetics.com.au/index.asp<br />
|XXXX<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vectorization ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[1]<br />
|Couvreur P.<br />
|L'encapsulation de médicament<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[2]<br />
|Andrieux K. and al.<br />
|Nanotechnology and new drug<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[3]<br />
|Torchilin V.P.<br />
|Recent Approaches to Intracellular Delivery of Drugs and DNA and Organelle Targeting<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[4]<br />
|Davis M.E. and al. <br />
|Nanoparticle therapeutics: an emerging treatment modality for cancer<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[5]<br />
|Seow Y. and al.<br />
|Biological Gene Delivery Vehicles: Beyond Viral Vectors<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[6]<br />
|Decroly E.<br />
|Vectorology<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[7]<br />
|Robbins P.D. and al.<br />
|Viral Vectors for Gene Therapy<br />
|1998<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[8]<br />
|Wei M.Q. and al.<br />
|Bacterial targeted tumour therapy-dawn of a new era<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[9]<br />
|Ryan R.M. and al.<br />
|Use of bacteria in anti-cancer therapies<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[10]<br />
|Mehnert<br />
|Solid lipid nanoparticles: Production, characterization and applications<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[11]<br />
|Lasic D.D.<br />
|Liposomes in gene therapy<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[12]<br />
|Lutten J. and al.<br />
|Biodegradable polymers as non-viral carriers for plasmid DNA delivery<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[13]<br />
|Jiskoot W. and al.<br />
|Immunological Risk of Injectable Drug Delivery Systems<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[14]<br />
|Head M. and al.<br />
|Mechanism and computer simulation of immune complex formation, opsonization, and clearance<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[15]<br />
|Koide H. and al.<br />
|Particle size-dependent triggering of accelerated blood clearance phenomenon<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[16]<br />
|Ishida T. and al.<br />
|Accelerated blood clearance of PEGylated liposomes following preceding liposome injection: Effects of lipid dose and PEG surface-density and chain length of the first-dose liposomes<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[17]<br />
|Wang XY and al.<br />
|Anti-PEG IgM elicited by injection of liposomes is involved in the enhanced blood clearance of a subsequent dose of PEGylated liposomes<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[18]<br />
|Tosi M.F. and al.<br />
|Innate immune responses to infection<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[19]<br />
|Linkov I and al.<br />
|Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions<br />
|2008<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Tissue Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ronald S. and al.<br />
|Antimicrobial mechanisms of phagocytes and bacterial evasion strategies<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Clark B. Inderlied and al. <br />
|The Mycobacterium avium Complex<br />
|1993<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Nisheeth Agarwal and al. <br />
|Cyclic AMP intoxication of macrophages by a Mycobacterium tuberculosis adenylate cyclase<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Hunter R.L. and al.<br />
|Pathology of postprimary tuberculosis in humans and mice: contradiction of long-held beliefs<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Axelrod S and al.<br />
|Delay of phagosome maturation by a mycobacterial lipid is reversed by nitric oxide<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Nicole N van der Wel and al.<br />
|Subcellular localization of mycobacteria in tissues and detection of lipid antigens in organelles using cryo-techniques for light and electron microscopy<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
<div id="revulung"></div><br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Claudia Nobrega and al.<br />
|The thymus as a target for mycobacterial infections<br />
|2007<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Cell Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Harrison Echols and al.<br />
|Genetic Map of Bacteriophage Lambda<br />
|1978<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Ortega ME and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage Lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF Proteins Cooperatively Bind and Bend Viral DNA: Implications for the Assembly of a Genome-Packaging Motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Feiss M. and al. <br />
|Bactériophage Lambda Terminase and the Mechanism of Viral DNA Packaging<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[8]<br />
|Hochschild A and al. <br />
|The bactériophage lambda cI protein finds an asymmetric solution<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[9]<br />
|Phoebe L.Stewart1 and al.<br />
|Cryo-EM visualization of an exposed RGD epitope on adenovirus that escapes antibody neutralization<br />
|1997<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Therapeutic Plasmide ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ortega ME et al. <br />
|Bacteriophage lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF proteins cooperatively bind and bend viral DNA: implications for the assembly of a genome-packaging motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[4]<br />
|Feiss M. and al.<br />
|Viral Genome Packaging Machines: Genetics, Structure and Mechanism<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[5]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[6]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[7]<br />
|Young et al.<br />
|Effect of a DNA nuclear targeting sequence on gene transfer and expression of plasmids in the intact vasculature<br />
|2003<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Antitumor action ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[1]<br />
|Chunlin Yang et al<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated Wild-Type p53 Expression Induces Apoptosis and Suppresses Tumorigenesis of Prostatic Tumor Cells<br />
|1995<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[2]<br />
|Corrado Cirielli et al.<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 expression induces apoptosis and suppresses tumorigenesis of experimental intracranial human malignant glioma<br />
|1999<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[3]<br />
|Su-Ping Ren et al. <br />
|Adenoviral-mediated transfer of human wild-type p53, GM-CSF and B7-1 genes results in growth suppression and autologous anti-tumor cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in vitro<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[4]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al <br />
|Growth suppression and immunogenicity enhancement of Hep-2 or primary laryngeal cancer cells by adenovirus-mediated co-transfer of human wild-type p53, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and B7-1 genes<br />
|2002<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[5]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al. <br />
|Co-transfer of human wild-type p53 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor genes via recombinant adenovirus induces apoptosis and enhances immunogenicity in laryngeal cancer cells<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[6]<br />
|Markus Reiser et al. <br />
|Induction of cell proliferation arrest and apoptosis in hepatoma cells through adenoviral-mediated transfer of p53 gene<br />
|2000<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[7]<br />
|Louis L. Pisters et al. <br />
|Evidence That Transfer of Functional p53 Protein Results in Increased Apoptosis in Prostate Cancer<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[8]<br />
|Susan C. Modesitt et al. <br />
|In Vitro and in Vivo Adenovirus-mediated p53 and p16 Tumor Suppressor Therapy in Ovarian Cancer<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[9]<br />
|Yong-song GUAN et al. <br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer in combination with bronchial arterial infusion for treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, one year follow-up<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ethics ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[1]<br />
|Joël Rosnay<br />
|Biologie de synthèse: Enjeux et défis pour l’humanité<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[3]<br />
|Bernadette Bensaude Vincent, Dorothée Benoit-Browaeys<br />
|Petite typologie de la biologie synthétique et enjeux éthiques<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[4]<br />
|Anna Deplazes Æ Markus Huppenbauer<br />
|Synthetic organisms and living machines<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[5]<br />
|Schmidt M, Ganguli-Mitra A,and al.<br />
|A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[6]<br />
|Parens E, Johnston J, Moses J.<br />
|Ethics. Do we need "synthetic bioethics"?<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[1]<br />
|Jonathan B. Tucker and al.<br />
|The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[4]<br />
|New Atlantis<br />
|http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-from-scratch<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BibliographyTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography2009-10-22T01:43:51Z<p>Ranya: /* Ethics */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss8.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -92px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 75px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Therapies ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Lechat P.<br />
|Pharmacology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Bruguerolle B.<br />
|Biological rhythms and medications: a source of variability often neglected in pharmacology<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Kevin J. Scanlon and al.<br />
|Cancer Gene Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Gouze JN and al.<br />
|A comparative study of the inhibitory effects of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist following administration as a recombinant protein or by gene transfer<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[3]<br />
|Centre for Genetics Education<br />
|http://www.genetics.com.au/index.asp<br />
|XXXX<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vectorization ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[1]<br />
|Couvreur P.<br />
|L'encapsulation de médicament<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[2]<br />
|Andrieux K. and al.<br />
|Nanotechnology and new drug<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[3]<br />
|Torchilin V.P.<br />
|Recent Approaches to Intracellular Delivery of Drugs and DNA and Organelle Targeting<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[4]<br />
|Davis M.E. and al. <br />
|Nanoparticle therapeutics: an emerging treatment modality for cancer<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[5]<br />
|Seow Y. and al.<br />
|Biological Gene Delivery Vehicles: Beyond Viral Vectors<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[6]<br />
|Decroly E.<br />
|Vectorology<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[7]<br />
|Robbins P.D. and al.<br />
|Viral Vectors for Gene Therapy<br />
|1998<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[8]<br />
|Wei M.Q. and al.<br />
|Bacterial targeted tumour therapy-dawn of a new era<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[9]<br />
|Ryan R.M. and al.<br />
|Use of bacteria in anti-cancer therapies<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[10]<br />
|Mehnert<br />
|Solid lipid nanoparticles: Production, characterization and applications<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[11]<br />
|Lasic D.D.<br />
|Liposomes in gene therapy<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[12]<br />
|Lutten J. and al.<br />
|Biodegradable polymers as non-viral carriers for plasmid DNA delivery<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[13]<br />
|Jiskoot W. and al.<br />
|Immunological Risk of Injectable Drug Delivery Systems<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[14]<br />
|Head M. and al.<br />
|Mechanism and computer simulation of immune complex formation, opsonization, and clearance<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[15]<br />
|Koide H. and al.<br />
|Particle size-dependent triggering of accelerated blood clearance phenomenon<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[16]<br />
|Ishida T. and al.<br />
|Accelerated blood clearance of PEGylated liposomes following preceding liposome injection: Effects of lipid dose and PEG surface-density and chain length of the first-dose liposomes<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[17]<br />
|Wang XY and al.<br />
|Anti-PEG IgM elicited by injection of liposomes is involved in the enhanced blood clearance of a subsequent dose of PEGylated liposomes<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[18]<br />
|Tosi M.F. and al.<br />
|Innate immune responses to infection<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[19]<br />
|Linkov I and al.<br />
|Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions<br />
|2008<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Tissue Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ronald S. and al.<br />
|Antimicrobial mechanisms of phagocytes and bacterial evasion strategies<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Clark B. Inderlied and al. <br />
|The Mycobacterium avium Complex<br />
|1993<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Nisheeth Agarwal and al. <br />
|Cyclic AMP intoxication of macrophages by a Mycobacterium tuberculosis adenylate cyclase<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Hunter R.L. and al.<br />
|Pathology of postprimary tuberculosis in humans and mice: contradiction of long-held beliefs<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Axelrod S and al.<br />
|Delay of phagosome maturation by a mycobacterial lipid is reversed by nitric oxide<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Nicole N van der Wel and al.<br />
|Subcellular localization of mycobacteria in tissues and detection of lipid antigens in organelles using cryo-techniques for light and electron microscopy<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
<div id="revulung"></div><br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Claudia Nobrega and al.<br />
|The thymus as a target for mycobacterial infections<br />
|2007<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Cell Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Harrison Echols and al.<br />
|Genetic Map of Bacteriophage Lambda<br />
|1978<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Ortega ME and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage Lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF Proteins Cooperatively Bind and Bend Viral DNA: Implications for the Assembly of a Genome-Packaging Motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Feiss M. and al. <br />
|Bactériophage Lambda Terminase and the Mechanism of Viral DNA Packaging<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[8]<br />
|Hochschild A and al. <br />
|The bactériophage lambda cI protein finds an asymmetric solution<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[9]<br />
|Phoebe L.Stewart1 and al.<br />
|Cryo-EM visualization of an exposed RGD epitope on adenovirus that escapes antibody neutralization<br />
|1997<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Therapeutic Plasmide ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ortega ME et al. <br />
|Bacteriophage lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF proteins cooperatively bind and bend viral DNA: implications for the assembly of a genome-packaging motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[4]<br />
|Feiss M. and al.<br />
|Viral Genome Packaging Machines: Genetics, Structure and Mechanism<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[5]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[6]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[7]<br />
|Young et al.<br />
|Effect of a DNA nuclear targeting sequence on gene transfer and expression of plasmids in the intact vasculature<br />
|2003<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Antitumor action ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[1]<br />
|Chunlin Yang et al<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated Wild-Type p53 Expression Induces Apoptosis and Suppresses Tumorigenesis of Prostatic Tumor Cells<br />
|1995<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[2]<br />
|Corrado Cirielli et al.<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 expression induces apoptosis and suppresses tumorigenesis of experimental intracranial human malignant glioma<br />
|1999<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[3]<br />
|Su-Ping Ren et al. <br />
|Adenoviral-mediated transfer of human wild-type p53, GM-CSF and B7-1 genes results in growth suppression and autologous anti-tumor cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in vitro<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[4]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al <br />
|Growth suppression and immunogenicity enhancement of Hep-2 or primary laryngeal cancer cells by adenovirus-mediated co-transfer of human wild-type p53, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and B7-1 genes<br />
|2002<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[5]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al. <br />
|Co-transfer of human wild-type p53 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor genes via recombinant adenovirus induces apoptosis and enhances immunogenicity in laryngeal cancer cells<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[6]<br />
|Markus Reiser et al. <br />
|Induction of cell proliferation arrest and apoptosis in hepatoma cells through adenoviral-mediated transfer of p53 gene<br />
|2000<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[7]<br />
|Louis L. Pisters et al. <br />
|Evidence That Transfer of Functional p53 Protein Results in Increased Apoptosis in Prostate Cancer<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[8]<br />
|Susan C. Modesitt et al. <br />
|In Vitro and in Vivo Adenovirus-mediated p53 and p16 Tumor Suppressor Therapy in Ovarian Cancer<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[9]<br />
|Yong-song GUAN et al. <br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer in combination with bronchial arterial infusion for treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, one year follow-up<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ethics ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[1]<br />
|Joël Rosnay<br />
|Biologie de synthèse: Enjeux et défis pour l’humanité<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[3]<br />
|Bernadette Bensaude Vincent, Dorothée Benoit-Browaeys<br />
|Petite typologie de la biologie synthétique et enjeux éthiques<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[4]<br />
|Anna Deplazes Æ Markus Huppenbauer<br />
|Synthetic organisms and living machines<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[1]<br />
|Jonathan B. Tucker and al.<br />
|The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[4]<br />
|New Atlantis<br />
|http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-from-scratch<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BibliographyTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography2009-10-22T01:42:46Z<p>Ranya: /* Ethics */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss8.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -92px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 75px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Therapies ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Lechat P.<br />
|Pharmacology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Bruguerolle B.<br />
|Biological rhythms and medications: a source of variability often neglected in pharmacology<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Kevin J. Scanlon and al.<br />
|Cancer Gene Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Gouze JN and al.<br />
|A comparative study of the inhibitory effects of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist following administration as a recombinant protein or by gene transfer<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[3]<br />
|Centre for Genetics Education<br />
|http://www.genetics.com.au/index.asp<br />
|XXXX<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vectorization ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[1]<br />
|Couvreur P.<br />
|L'encapsulation de médicament<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[2]<br />
|Andrieux K. and al.<br />
|Nanotechnology and new drug<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[3]<br />
|Torchilin V.P.<br />
|Recent Approaches to Intracellular Delivery of Drugs and DNA and Organelle Targeting<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[4]<br />
|Davis M.E. and al. <br />
|Nanoparticle therapeutics: an emerging treatment modality for cancer<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[5]<br />
|Seow Y. and al.<br />
|Biological Gene Delivery Vehicles: Beyond Viral Vectors<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[6]<br />
|Decroly E.<br />
|Vectorology<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[7]<br />
|Robbins P.D. and al.<br />
|Viral Vectors for Gene Therapy<br />
|1998<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[8]<br />
|Wei M.Q. and al.<br />
|Bacterial targeted tumour therapy-dawn of a new era<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[9]<br />
|Ryan R.M. and al.<br />
|Use of bacteria in anti-cancer therapies<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[10]<br />
|Mehnert<br />
|Solid lipid nanoparticles: Production, characterization and applications<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[11]<br />
|Lasic D.D.<br />
|Liposomes in gene therapy<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[12]<br />
|Lutten J. and al.<br />
|Biodegradable polymers as non-viral carriers for plasmid DNA delivery<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[13]<br />
|Jiskoot W. and al.<br />
|Immunological Risk of Injectable Drug Delivery Systems<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[14]<br />
|Head M. and al.<br />
|Mechanism and computer simulation of immune complex formation, opsonization, and clearance<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[15]<br />
|Koide H. and al.<br />
|Particle size-dependent triggering of accelerated blood clearance phenomenon<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[16]<br />
|Ishida T. and al.<br />
|Accelerated blood clearance of PEGylated liposomes following preceding liposome injection: Effects of lipid dose and PEG surface-density and chain length of the first-dose liposomes<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[17]<br />
|Wang XY and al.<br />
|Anti-PEG IgM elicited by injection of liposomes is involved in the enhanced blood clearance of a subsequent dose of PEGylated liposomes<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[18]<br />
|Tosi M.F. and al.<br />
|Innate immune responses to infection<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[19]<br />
|Linkov I and al.<br />
|Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions<br />
|2008<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Tissue Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ronald S. and al.<br />
|Antimicrobial mechanisms of phagocytes and bacterial evasion strategies<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Clark B. Inderlied and al. <br />
|The Mycobacterium avium Complex<br />
|1993<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Nisheeth Agarwal and al. <br />
|Cyclic AMP intoxication of macrophages by a Mycobacterium tuberculosis adenylate cyclase<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Hunter R.L. and al.<br />
|Pathology of postprimary tuberculosis in humans and mice: contradiction of long-held beliefs<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Axelrod S and al.<br />
|Delay of phagosome maturation by a mycobacterial lipid is reversed by nitric oxide<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Nicole N van der Wel and al.<br />
|Subcellular localization of mycobacteria in tissues and detection of lipid antigens in organelles using cryo-techniques for light and electron microscopy<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
<div id="revulung"></div><br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Claudia Nobrega and al.<br />
|The thymus as a target for mycobacterial infections<br />
|2007<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Cell Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Harrison Echols and al.<br />
|Genetic Map of Bacteriophage Lambda<br />
|1978<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Ortega ME and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage Lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF Proteins Cooperatively Bind and Bend Viral DNA: Implications for the Assembly of a Genome-Packaging Motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Feiss M. and al. <br />
|Bactériophage Lambda Terminase and the Mechanism of Viral DNA Packaging<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[8]<br />
|Hochschild A and al. <br />
|The bactériophage lambda cI protein finds an asymmetric solution<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[9]<br />
|Phoebe L.Stewart1 and al.<br />
|Cryo-EM visualization of an exposed RGD epitope on adenovirus that escapes antibody neutralization<br />
|1997<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Therapeutic Plasmide ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ortega ME et al. <br />
|Bacteriophage lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF proteins cooperatively bind and bend viral DNA: implications for the assembly of a genome-packaging motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[4]<br />
|Feiss M. and al.<br />
|Viral Genome Packaging Machines: Genetics, Structure and Mechanism<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[5]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[6]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[7]<br />
|Young et al.<br />
|Effect of a DNA nuclear targeting sequence on gene transfer and expression of plasmids in the intact vasculature<br />
|2003<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Antitumor action ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[1]<br />
|Chunlin Yang et al<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated Wild-Type p53 Expression Induces Apoptosis and Suppresses Tumorigenesis of Prostatic Tumor Cells<br />
|1995<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[2]<br />
|Corrado Cirielli et al.<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 expression induces apoptosis and suppresses tumorigenesis of experimental intracranial human malignant glioma<br />
|1999<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[3]<br />
|Su-Ping Ren et al. <br />
|Adenoviral-mediated transfer of human wild-type p53, GM-CSF and B7-1 genes results in growth suppression and autologous anti-tumor cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in vitro<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[4]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al <br />
|Growth suppression and immunogenicity enhancement of Hep-2 or primary laryngeal cancer cells by adenovirus-mediated co-transfer of human wild-type p53, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and B7-1 genes<br />
|2002<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[5]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al. <br />
|Co-transfer of human wild-type p53 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor genes via recombinant adenovirus induces apoptosis and enhances immunogenicity in laryngeal cancer cells<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[6]<br />
|Markus Reiser et al. <br />
|Induction of cell proliferation arrest and apoptosis in hepatoma cells through adenoviral-mediated transfer of p53 gene<br />
|2000<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[7]<br />
|Louis L. Pisters et al. <br />
|Evidence That Transfer of Functional p53 Protein Results in Increased Apoptosis in Prostate Cancer<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[8]<br />
|Susan C. Modesitt et al. <br />
|In Vitro and in Vivo Adenovirus-mediated p53 and p16 Tumor Suppressor Therapy in Ovarian Cancer<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[9]<br />
|Yong-song GUAN et al. <br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer in combination with bronchial arterial infusion for treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, one year follow-up<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ethics ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[1]<br />
|Joël Rosnay<br />
|Biologie de synthèse: Enjeux et défis pour l’humanité<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[3]<br />
|Bernadette Bensaude Vincent , Dorothée Benoit-Browaeys<br />
|Petite typologie de la biologie synthétique et enjeux éthiques<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[4]<br />
|Anna Deplazes Æ Markus Huppenbauer<br />
|Synthetic organisms and living machines<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[5]<br />
|Schmidt M, Ganguli-Mitra A, Torgersen H, Kelle A, Deplazes A, Biller-Andorno N<br />
|A priority paper for the societal and ethical aspects of synthetic biology<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[1]<br />
|Jonathan B. Tucker and al.<br />
|The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[4]<br />
|New Atlantis<br />
|http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-from-scratch<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BibliographyTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography2009-10-22T01:37:57Z<p>Ranya: /* Ethics */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss8.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -92px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 75px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Therapies ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Lechat P.<br />
|Pharmacology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Bruguerolle B.<br />
|Biological rhythms and medications: a source of variability often neglected in pharmacology<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Kevin J. Scanlon and al.<br />
|Cancer Gene Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Gouze JN and al.<br />
|A comparative study of the inhibitory effects of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist following administration as a recombinant protein or by gene transfer<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[3]<br />
|Centre for Genetics Education<br />
|http://www.genetics.com.au/index.asp<br />
|XXXX<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vectorization ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[1]<br />
|Couvreur P.<br />
|L'encapsulation de médicament<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[2]<br />
|Andrieux K. and al.<br />
|Nanotechnology and new drug<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[3]<br />
|Torchilin V.P.<br />
|Recent Approaches to Intracellular Delivery of Drugs and DNA and Organelle Targeting<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[4]<br />
|Davis M.E. and al. <br />
|Nanoparticle therapeutics: an emerging treatment modality for cancer<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[5]<br />
|Seow Y. and al.<br />
|Biological Gene Delivery Vehicles: Beyond Viral Vectors<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[6]<br />
|Decroly E.<br />
|Vectorology<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[7]<br />
|Robbins P.D. and al.<br />
|Viral Vectors for Gene Therapy<br />
|1998<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[8]<br />
|Wei M.Q. and al.<br />
|Bacterial targeted tumour therapy-dawn of a new era<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[9]<br />
|Ryan R.M. and al.<br />
|Use of bacteria in anti-cancer therapies<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[10]<br />
|Mehnert<br />
|Solid lipid nanoparticles: Production, characterization and applications<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[11]<br />
|Lasic D.D.<br />
|Liposomes in gene therapy<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[12]<br />
|Lutten J. and al.<br />
|Biodegradable polymers as non-viral carriers for plasmid DNA delivery<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[13]<br />
|Jiskoot W. and al.<br />
|Immunological Risk of Injectable Drug Delivery Systems<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[14]<br />
|Head M. and al.<br />
|Mechanism and computer simulation of immune complex formation, opsonization, and clearance<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[15]<br />
|Koide H. and al.<br />
|Particle size-dependent triggering of accelerated blood clearance phenomenon<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[16]<br />
|Ishida T. and al.<br />
|Accelerated blood clearance of PEGylated liposomes following preceding liposome injection: Effects of lipid dose and PEG surface-density and chain length of the first-dose liposomes<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[17]<br />
|Wang XY and al.<br />
|Anti-PEG IgM elicited by injection of liposomes is involved in the enhanced blood clearance of a subsequent dose of PEGylated liposomes<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[18]<br />
|Tosi M.F. and al.<br />
|Innate immune responses to infection<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[19]<br />
|Linkov I and al.<br />
|Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions<br />
|2008<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Tissue Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ronald S. and al.<br />
|Antimicrobial mechanisms of phagocytes and bacterial evasion strategies<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Clark B. Inderlied and al. <br />
|The Mycobacterium avium Complex<br />
|1993<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Nisheeth Agarwal and al. <br />
|Cyclic AMP intoxication of macrophages by a Mycobacterium tuberculosis adenylate cyclase<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Hunter R.L. and al.<br />
|Pathology of postprimary tuberculosis in humans and mice: contradiction of long-held beliefs<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Axelrod S and al.<br />
|Delay of phagosome maturation by a mycobacterial lipid is reversed by nitric oxide<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Nicole N van der Wel and al.<br />
|Subcellular localization of mycobacteria in tissues and detection of lipid antigens in organelles using cryo-techniques for light and electron microscopy<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
<div id="revulung"></div><br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Claudia Nobrega and al.<br />
|The thymus as a target for mycobacterial infections<br />
|2007<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Cell Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Harrison Echols and al.<br />
|Genetic Map of Bacteriophage Lambda<br />
|1978<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Ortega ME and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage Lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF Proteins Cooperatively Bind and Bend Viral DNA: Implications for the Assembly of a Genome-Packaging Motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Feiss M. and al. <br />
|Bactériophage Lambda Terminase and the Mechanism of Viral DNA Packaging<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[8]<br />
|Hochschild A and al. <br />
|The bactériophage lambda cI protein finds an asymmetric solution<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[9]<br />
|Phoebe L.Stewart1 and al.<br />
|Cryo-EM visualization of an exposed RGD epitope on adenovirus that escapes antibody neutralization<br />
|1997<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Therapeutic Plasmide ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ortega ME et al. <br />
|Bacteriophage lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF proteins cooperatively bind and bend viral DNA: implications for the assembly of a genome-packaging motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[4]<br />
|Feiss M. and al.<br />
|Viral Genome Packaging Machines: Genetics, Structure and Mechanism<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[5]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[6]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[7]<br />
|Young et al.<br />
|Effect of a DNA nuclear targeting sequence on gene transfer and expression of plasmids in the intact vasculature<br />
|2003<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Antitumor action ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[1]<br />
|Chunlin Yang et al<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated Wild-Type p53 Expression Induces Apoptosis and Suppresses Tumorigenesis of Prostatic Tumor Cells<br />
|1995<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[2]<br />
|Corrado Cirielli et al.<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 expression induces apoptosis and suppresses tumorigenesis of experimental intracranial human malignant glioma<br />
|1999<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[3]<br />
|Su-Ping Ren et al. <br />
|Adenoviral-mediated transfer of human wild-type p53, GM-CSF and B7-1 genes results in growth suppression and autologous anti-tumor cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in vitro<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[4]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al <br />
|Growth suppression and immunogenicity enhancement of Hep-2 or primary laryngeal cancer cells by adenovirus-mediated co-transfer of human wild-type p53, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and B7-1 genes<br />
|2002<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[5]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al. <br />
|Co-transfer of human wild-type p53 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor genes via recombinant adenovirus induces apoptosis and enhances immunogenicity in laryngeal cancer cells<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[6]<br />
|Markus Reiser et al. <br />
|Induction of cell proliferation arrest and apoptosis in hepatoma cells through adenoviral-mediated transfer of p53 gene<br />
|2000<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[7]<br />
|Louis L. Pisters et al. <br />
|Evidence That Transfer of Functional p53 Protein Results in Increased Apoptosis in Prostate Cancer<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[8]<br />
|Susan C. Modesitt et al. <br />
|In Vitro and in Vivo Adenovirus-mediated p53 and p16 Tumor Suppressor Therapy in Ovarian Cancer<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[9]<br />
|Yong-song GUAN et al. <br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer in combination with bronchial arterial infusion for treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, one year follow-up<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Ethics ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[1]<br />
|Joël Rosnay<br />
|Biologie de synthèse: Enjeux et défis pour l’humanité<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Ethics<br />
|[4]<br />
|Anna Deplazes Æ Markus Huppenbauer<br />
|Synthetic organisms and living machines<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[1]<br />
|Jonathan B. Tucker and al.<br />
|The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[4]<br />
|New Atlantis<br />
|http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-from-scratch<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/BibliographyTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography2009-10-22T01:28:14Z<p>Ranya: /* Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss8.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -92px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 75px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
== Therapies ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Lechat P.<br />
|Pharmacology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Bruguerolle B.<br />
|Biological rhythms and medications: a source of variability often neglected in pharmacology<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Current Therapies<br />
|[1]<br />
|Kevin J. Scanlon and al.<br />
|Cancer Gene Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[2]<br />
|Gouze JN and al.<br />
|A comparative study of the inhibitory effects of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist following administration as a recombinant protein or by gene transfer<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Gene Therapies<br />
|[3]<br />
|Centre for Genetics Education<br />
|http://www.genetics.com.au/index.asp<br />
|XXXX<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Vectorization ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[1]<br />
|Couvreur P.<br />
|L'encapsulation de médicament<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[2]<br />
|Andrieux K. and al.<br />
|Nanotechnology and new drug<br />
|2003<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[3]<br />
|Torchilin V.P.<br />
|Recent Approaches to Intracellular Delivery of Drugs and DNA and Organelle Targeting<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[4]<br />
|Davis M.E. and al. <br />
|Nanoparticle therapeutics: an emerging treatment modality for cancer<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[5]<br />
|Seow Y. and al.<br />
|Biological Gene Delivery Vehicles: Beyond Viral Vectors<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[6]<br />
|Decroly E.<br />
|Vectorology<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[7]<br />
|Robbins P.D. and al.<br />
|Viral Vectors for Gene Therapy<br />
|1998<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[8]<br />
|Wei M.Q. and al.<br />
|Bacterial targeted tumour therapy-dawn of a new era<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[9]<br />
|Ryan R.M. and al.<br />
|Use of bacteria in anti-cancer therapies<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[10]<br />
|Mehnert<br />
|Solid lipid nanoparticles: Production, characterization and applications<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[11]<br />
|Lasic D.D.<br />
|Liposomes in gene therapy<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[12]<br />
|Lutten J. and al.<br />
|Biodegradable polymers as non-viral carriers for plasmid DNA delivery<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[13]<br />
|Jiskoot W. and al.<br />
|Immunological Risk of Injectable Drug Delivery Systems<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[14]<br />
|Head M. and al.<br />
|Mechanism and computer simulation of immune complex formation, opsonization, and clearance<br />
|1996<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[15]<br />
|Koide H. and al.<br />
|Particle size-dependent triggering of accelerated blood clearance phenomenon<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[16]<br />
|Ishida T. and al.<br />
|Accelerated blood clearance of PEGylated liposomes following preceding liposome injection: Effects of lipid dose and PEG surface-density and chain length of the first-dose liposomes<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[17]<br />
|Wang XY and al.<br />
|Anti-PEG IgM elicited by injection of liposomes is involved in the enhanced blood clearance of a subsequent dose of PEGylated liposomes<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[18]<br />
|Tosi M.F. and al.<br />
|Innate immune responses to infection<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Vectorization<br />
|[19]<br />
|Linkov I and al.<br />
|Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions<br />
|2008<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Tissue Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ronald S. and al.<br />
|Antimicrobial mechanisms of phagocytes and bacterial evasion strategies<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Clark B. Inderlied and al. <br />
|The Mycobacterium avium Complex<br />
|1993<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Nisheeth Agarwal and al. <br />
|Cyclic AMP intoxication of macrophages by a Mycobacterium tuberculosis adenylate cyclase<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Hunter R.L. and al.<br />
|Pathology of postprimary tuberculosis in humans and mice: contradiction of long-held beliefs<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Axelrod S and al.<br />
|Delay of phagosome maturation by a mycobacterial lipid is reversed by nitric oxide<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Nicole N van der Wel and al.<br />
|Subcellular localization of mycobacteria in tissues and detection of lipid antigens in organelles using cryo-techniques for light and electron microscopy<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
<div id="revulung"></div><br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Tissue Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Claudia Nobrega and al.<br />
|The thymus as a target for mycobacterial infections<br />
|2007<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Cell Vector ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[1]<br />
|Harrison Echols and al.<br />
|Genetic Map of Bacteriophage Lambda<br />
|1978<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[4]<br />
|Ortega ME and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage Lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF Proteins Cooperatively Bind and Bend Viral DNA: Implications for the Assembly of a Genome-Packaging Motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[5]<br />
|Feiss M. and al. <br />
|Bactériophage Lambda Terminase and the Mechanism of Viral DNA Packaging<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[6]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[7]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[8]<br />
|Hochschild A and al. <br />
|The bactériophage lambda cI protein finds an asymmetric solution<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Cell Vector<br />
|[9]<br />
|Phoebe L.Stewart1 and al.<br />
|Cryo-EM visualization of an exposed RGD epitope on adenovirus that escapes antibody neutralization<br />
|1997<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Therapeutic Plasmide ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[1]<br />
|Ortega ME et al. <br />
|Bacteriophage lambda gpNu1 and Escherichia coli IHF proteins cooperatively bind and bend viral DNA: implications for the assembly of a genome-packaging motor<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[2]<br />
|Joseph Sambrook and al.<br />
|Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Third Edition)<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[3]<br />
|Court DL and al.<br />
|A New Look at Bacteriophage lambda Genetic Networks<br />
|2007<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[4]<br />
|Feiss M. and al.<br />
|Viral Genome Packaging Machines: Genetics, Structure and Mechanism<br />
|2005<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[5]<br />
|Hang JQ and al.<br />
|The Functional Asymmetry of cosN, the Nicking Site for Bacteriophage λ DNA Packaging, Is Dependent on the Terminase Binding Site, cosB<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[6]<br />
|Becker A and al.<br />
|Bacteriophage lambda DNA : The begginning of the End<br />
|1990<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Therapeutic Plasmide<br />
|[7]<br />
|Young et al.<br />
|Effect of a DNA nuclear targeting sequence on gene transfer and expression of plasmids in the intact vasculature<br />
|2003<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Antitumor action ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapitre<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Auteurs<br />
|width=560px|Titre<br />
|width=70px|Année<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[1]<br />
|Chunlin Yang et al<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated Wild-Type p53 Expression Induces Apoptosis and Suppresses Tumorigenesis of Prostatic Tumor Cells<br />
|1995<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[2]<br />
|Corrado Cirielli et al.<br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 expression induces apoptosis and suppresses tumorigenesis of experimental intracranial human malignant glioma<br />
|1999<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[3]<br />
|Su-Ping Ren et al. <br />
|Adenoviral-mediated transfer of human wild-type p53, GM-CSF and B7-1 genes results in growth suppression and autologous anti-tumor cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in vitro<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[4]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al <br />
|Growth suppression and immunogenicity enhancement of Hep-2 or primary laryngeal cancer cells by adenovirus-mediated co-transfer of human wild-type p53, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and B7-1 genes<br />
|2002<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[5]<br />
|Zhao-hua Qiu et al. <br />
|Co-transfer of human wild-type p53 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor genes via recombinant adenovirus induces apoptosis and enhances immunogenicity in laryngeal cancer cells<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[6]<br />
|Markus Reiser et al. <br />
|Induction of cell proliferation arrest and apoptosis in hepatoma cells through adenoviral-mediated transfer of p53 gene<br />
|2000<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[7]<br />
|Louis L. Pisters et al. <br />
|Evidence That Transfer of Functional p53 Protein Results in Increased Apoptosis in Prostate Cancer<br />
|2004<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[8]<br />
|Susan C. Modesitt et al. <br />
|In Vitro and in Vivo Adenovirus-mediated p53 and p16 Tumor Suppressor Therapy in Ovarian Cancer<br />
|2001<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Antitumor action<br />
|[9]<br />
|Yong-song GUAN et al. <br />
|Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer in combination with bronchial arterial infusion for treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, one year follow-up<br />
|2009<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[1]<br />
|Jonathan B. Tucker and al.<br />
|The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[4]<br />
|New Atlantis<br />
|http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-from-scratch<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
<br />
== Safety ==<br />
{|<br />
|- style="background: grey; color:white; text-align: center; font-weight:bold; "<br />
|width=120px height=40px|Chapter<br />
|width=40px|Ref.<br />
|width=120px|Authors<br />
|width=560px|Title<br />
|width=70px|Year<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[1]<br />
|Jonathan B. Tucker and al.<br />
|The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology<br />
|2006<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[2]<br />
|Synbiosafe<br />
|http://www.synbiosafe.eu/forum/<br />
|2008<br />
<br />
|- style="background: white; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[3]<br />
|Vivagora<br />
|http://www.vivagora.org/IMG/pdf/CR-biosynth011009.pdf<br />
|2009<br />
<br />
|- style="background: #C0C0C0; text-align: center;"<br />
|height=40px|Safety<br />
|[4]<br />
|New Atlantis<br />
|http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/life-from-scratch<br />
|2004<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Bibliography#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T01:23:02Z<p>Ranya: /* Students */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aircanada.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Air Canada" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e0/Logo_AirCanada.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.fr/l/fr/fr/index.jsp" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
<br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for photos to illustrate this site.<br />
<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achieving the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/AcknowledgementTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement2009-10-22T01:13:38Z<p>Ranya: /* Students */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss4.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn}}<br />
<br />
== Scientists ==<br />
<br />
=== UMR CNRS 8121 from Gustave Roussy Institute ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Lluis M. Mir<br />
:* Dr. Karim Benihoud<br />
:* Dr. Bassim Al-Sakere<br />
:* Dr. Franck Grisceli<br />
:* PhD worker Christian Bressy<br />
:* PhD worker Aude Silve<br />
<br />
=== INSERM U872 ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Srinivas Kaveri<br />
<br />
=== AnyGenes ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Benyoussef Naimi<br />
<br />
=== National Reference Center for Mycobacteria and the Resistance of Mycobacteria to Antituberculosis from CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Nicolas Veziris<br />
<br />
=== Imperial College ===<br />
<br />
:* Dr. Brian D Robertson<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Stakeholders of Ethics Debate ==<br />
<br />
:* Pr. Willy Rozenbaum<br />
:* Dr. Bernard Baertschi<br />
:* Pr. Thierry Magnin<br />
:* Dr. François Le Fevre<br />
:* Dr. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys <br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="spo"></div><br />
== Our Sponsors ==<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://fr.ambafrance-us.org/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Embassy of France in Washington" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f8/AmbassadedefranceaWash.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.takarabioeurope.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Takara" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/5/53/Logo_Takara.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clontech.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Clontech" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/d/de/Clontech_new.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://www.promega.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Promega" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/7/77/Logo_promega_300dpi_grand.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www1.qiagen.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Qiagen" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/9/92/QLogo_30mm_4c.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.sanofi-aventis.com" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sanofi Aventis" style="width: 150px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/f/f2/Sanofi.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<br><br />
<a href="http://http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Sigma-Aldrich" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/6/67/SA_Logo.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.eurogentec.com/" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Eurogentec" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/a2/Logo-EGT-fond-blanc.jpg";><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
<div id="col"></div><br />
== iGEM Team 2009 ==<br />
<br />
:* Valencia Team [[Image:V_SupBiotechParis.JPG|200px]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Acknowledgement#drapeau|Haut de page]]</span><br />
<br />
== Students ==<br />
<br />
:* Noémi Combes and Emmanuelle Chevrier, for their help in the prospection for sponsors.<br />
<br />
:* Laurent Ponce and Masaya Oshima for photos to illustrate this site.<br />
<br />
:* Benoit Chevrier from IEJ Journalist School.<br />
<br />
:* Vincent Widloecher for his help in achievement of the animations and schemes, in collaboration with the team.<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -100px;"><br />
<a href="http://www.supbiotech.fr/international-edito.html" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="It's finish !" style="width: 170px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/4/48/BibFIN.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html><br />
[[Image:Équipe2.png|600px|float|left]]</div>Ranyahttp://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/EthicTeam:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic2009-10-22T00:58:32Z<p>Ranya: /* The debate program */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Supbiotechcss14.css}}<br />
{{Template:SupbiotechparisEn2}}<br />
<br />
= Ethics =<br />
<br />
The international competition iGEM gathering each year together more and more teams (110 teams for the 2009 session) added to 18 Europeans programs, 70 industries, 10000 laboratories in the world which have all the same common objective: the construction of living systems, following the assembly principle of functional modules. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
The emergence and the fast development of this discipline require reflection, to put a regulation system in place ready in the next 5 to 10 years for safe practices. <br><br />
Thus at the occasion of the iGEM concourse, we realized this debate to think about ethic stake linked to synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
== The debate program ==<br />
<br />
Debate program : <br><br />
<br />
#Introduction to synthetic biology, François Le Fèvre<br><br />
#Introduction to the Double Vectorization System (DVS) project developed by the team<br><br />
#Round table leaded by Thierry Magnin, and the Sup’Biotech Paris team: <br><br />
#* Synthetic biology / DVS Project - Formulation of risks and benefits: what are the risks, can we get round them, what are the effects on Human, animal and environment, the advantages of this discipline, where stop science and where start creation? The populations fears... <br><br />
#*Regulation, Access and right : at which point the knowledge should be protected, put in advance the « non patent » concept as well as regulations... <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<center><br />
<div style=""><br />
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/1/1d/Programme_of_ethic_debate1.pdf" target="_blank"><br />
<img title="Programme of Ethics Debate" style="width: 250px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/a/ae/Miniature_conf%C3%A9rence_ethique_en.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</center><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Discover the videos of the debate ! ==<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPVe1pruUQA&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<html><br />
<right><br />
<p align="center"><br />
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-OdjR2Z9Sfs&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
</p><br />
</html><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
== Summarization of reflections ==<br />
<br />
« Ethic is the movement of the Liberty which searches a well life, in the solicitude toward others is in just use of social institutions »; Paul Ricoeur quotation, philosopher of the 20th century. In other terms, ethic represents the philosophical field gathering moral values which define the way we have to behave. <br><br />
<br><br />
Applied to synthetic biology, ethic indicates the way to follow to allow this discipline development by avoiding its drifts. Indeed, even if it lets dream to large perspectives like clean energy sources, accessible therapies to all or biological remediation methods, to manipulate the living rises regularly to a certain number of ethic questions. François Le Fèvre mentions « it is the first time that human is confronted to the possibility to create new forms of life ». <br><br />
<br><br />
It seemed important to us to interest to these points, beside the biologic engineering technic aspect. In this way, we organized an ethic debate based on the topic of the synthetic biology, in which some different expert key figures of the domain were invited. During this debate, different problematics were raised. Like emphasized Thierry Magnin, some of them are of metaphysical order, and concern notably what «this gives us as the living representation, as life »; some others concern direct applications and their technical aspects which can push us to imitate them. At the occasion of this debate, we presented our project to our guests in order to take out ethic questions.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Metaphysic problematics ===<br />
<br />
==== Aim of the synthetic biology ====<br />
<br />
It convinces first to interest in finality of this science. What are we trying to do? Are we looking to reach a perfection state? When we are working for the improvement of a living organism, in addition to technical difficulties, we have to ask if what are we doing is desirable. Without the egocentric drifts we can easily imagine, we could try to correct our weaknesses, handicap, diseases. Dorothée Benoit Browaeys put in advance that the context can change a « tare » in asset: « there are diseases which give you certain advantages. So to take up the titer of Alain Gras’ book on the fragility of the power, we could speak of the power of fragility ». <br><br />
<br><br />
However, potentials advantages seem sometimes negligible compared to the handicap: it is for example the case when we are affected by the HIV. And the engendered disease will not be controled, in Willy Rozenbaum opinion, « if we are not using synthetic biology ». More generally, this last one does not imagine « how we could do without it if we want to go towards an improvement of the human condition». The perfection myth seems not to worry him, because he affirms that we are still very vulnerable and far to be perfect. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Modification of the living representation ====<br />
<br />
Searching to synthesize and modify fundamentally organisms push to wonder about the definition itself of the living. Craig Venter affirms that « we pass from the capacity to read our genetic code to the capacity to write it». But understanding and generating life mechanism can demistify it; and the fact to create living machines, in a precise goal, risk to give us a determinist vision of the living. Thierry Magnin wonders « in a context where life is assemble with bricks, what is doing the real difference between vegetal machinery, animal machinery and human machinery? ». After all, we can consider the difference between the three does not come from interactions between « bricks » which compose them. « How can I recognize a certain dignity of Living if all is built by blocs » ? <br><br />
<br><br />
Synthetic biology can reveal a play aspect, and this aspect can alter the respect that we carry to living organism : to quote one more time Thierry Magnin, « Those with what I am used to play, I often have difficulties to respect it». We can create « pieces » of living organism without of their context, stock, reproduce, transmit and assemble them. If we create biologic systems like we assemble “legos”, do not we risk considering living organisms, whose human, like simple assembling of pieces? And in this case, the respect that we consider to have face to them can be altered. Of course, we can consider that our creations are only biologic engines, synthetic distinctive machines of « natural » life forms. <br><br />
<br><br />
But where is the limit between these ones and the artificial life? The way of one and the other were created change their natures? It is however necessary to qualify the impact what biological synthesis could have on the way we consider life: how reminded François Le Fèvre, when «we synthesized urea, the first organic synthetic molecule, it has an entire debate to know if we created life or not»; and, how emphases Lluis Mir, we could ask same questions at the beginning of of chemistry. Two hundred years later, it can make smile. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematic linked to applications ===<br />
<br />
==== Control of the evolution of synthetic biology products ====<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology leads to the creation of living organisms which should not have exist without the human intervention and are not the fruit of a natural evolution. Will be able to control it? We are not controlling mechanism of the information storage in the living world, and we are far to be able to predict how will behave a group from its separate elements. We create parts, but will be able to predict emergent properties of their assembling? Furthermore, synthetics organisms, because they are living, evolve; will we be, asked Thierry Magnin, « in measure to control propagation of these lively engines that we construct? » Thanks to their capacity to evolve, do they risk to escape to our control? Willy Rozenbaum observe that the pression responsible of the evolution will exist even for organisms which are not due to this pression; and that « it is more performant and less nocive that will go out of this; because these presion will stay ».<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Bioterrorists drifts ====<br />
<br />
The loss of control of living systems syntheticaly created could be intentional. The synthetic biology and the diffusion of knowledge that it put at disposal of a large public of genomes, notably pathogenes can be modified at low cost. In the case of our DVS project,some changes could transform our vector in biologic weapon like mentionned François le Fèvre: « we can imaginethat instead of target a cancer, we target neurons to send drogues that permit to weaken someone ». From 2003, a CIA report mentionned risks linked to live science development and the difficulty to limit the bioterrorism developement. It is necessary to limit access to data at the risk of slowing down progress of the knowledge in synthetic biology? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== The benefits/risks ratio ====<br />
<br />
To assess the risks and benefits of a science, we have to wonder for what it is intended, and if the risks are taken by beneficiaries. In the case of synthetic biology, risks are taken by the society and it must be the same for benefits. The financial interest of a small community does not have to harm the majority. Currently, the scientific community manages synthetic biology, but some applications, provided to generate significant revenues, might be developed despite the nuisance they cause. Therefore, as stated by Lluis Mir, "it remains the vision of science and society, and not markets." It is also important that involved researchers retain their critical thinking and continue to communicate the progress of their knowledge even if they work in an industrial or commercial context. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
==== Intellectual properties ====<br />
<br />
Thinking about the intellectual property of our project. We wanted that our treatment could be available at the lowest price. In this context, we asked about the open source development or patenting at least a part? The first option would allow any company to develop and improve it, but a private company could then patent a more rounded version of it, and impose prices that benefit the most. Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum confirmed us that the clinical development would be very difficult to finance, "if you can convince a manufacturer to begin the preclinical tests, you will already have protected your model because otherwise you will not find manufacturers to develop it. " This last point would be less problematic with the second option as the funds generated by a patent would help persuading manufacturers, but access to data would be much more limited.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Problematics related to the DVS project ===<br />
<br />
One of the objective of this meeting was to discuss some issues related to our project DVS. The general points have been mentioned above, since these point apply to the whole synthetic biology. Specifically, we examined relative risks underlying the introduction of potentially pathogenic agents in the organism. <br><br />
<br><br />
Let’s begin with the importance of this risk. Mycobacterium avium is sometimes responsible for serious infections in humans. But, as noted by Willy Rozenbaum, "it is a bacterium that is ubiquitous, it is found in tap water, we are almost all contaminated" but this contamination has rarely consequential effects. The cases reported involved immunodepressed patients, for example. We also planned to analyze the effects of infection on tumors. Anyway, Willy Rozenbaum believes that "all that is not very annoying”. In addition to numerous tests and simulations that have to be conducted before the use of our treatment, this statement is justified by the fact that bacteria are lysed when there is a release of the phage, it does not persist in the body. <br><br />
Francois Le Fevre has legitimately questioned about the possibility that the phage infect other bacteria already present in the organism. We have therefore explained to him that our cell vector encapsidate only the therapeutic plasmid, not its genome. If it infects bacteria of the commensal flora of the organism (which may be limited by changes in protein internalization), the bacteria will receive just the therapeutic plasmid, and the phage will not be able to multiply We can also worry about the drifts, and abuses of the transgene integration, as the risk of homologous recombination or risky integration. Lluis M. Mir supported us about this idea, that our phage is a prokaryote, but cells of human body are eukaryotes. It can therefore be no risk of homologous recombination or integration between its genome and our cells genome, as they do not belong to the same "world": "there is no possible integration. That's the real advantage of being at the crossroads between eukaryotic and prokaryotic. <br><br />
<br><br />
Furthermore, Willy Rozenbaum reminded "this type of subject is very well controlled today in terms of security": the product would obviously not be marketed until being subjected to numerous tests to check its innocuousness. Organizations as Afssaps, in France manage the safety of health products. If we consider that the risk is not negligible, we must ask whether it is worthwhile to be taken into account. Thierry Magnin gave a translation of the principle of responsibility made by Hans Jonas: "Before trying to estimate the risk, I'll try to work up on the most serious risk." Does the targeted disease justify it? According to Bernard Baertschi, "Cancer is an extremely serious disease, for which we accept to take risks even now." Francois Le Fevre acknowledged: "Anyway, if I have lungs cancer, I think I should take your medicine...” To conclude this section, we can quote Bernard Baertschi again: "We can take a risk if the person consents and if there is an expected benefit. <br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
=== Conclusion ===<br />
<br />
Synthetic biology can become a very powerful tool if it remains under control. Risks exist, of course, but some causes for which it is an asset that justifies the taking. It is without doubt the scientific community to make the community accept this idea, by transmitting the knowledge. Some problems, such as various diseases, seem also to be resolved through it. But the sought interests are those of the entire society, and not particular groups. It might be beneficial to put quickly in place a regulation to avoid abuses, without limiting the development of this promising science<br><br />
<br />
== Survey ==<br />
<br />
Today everything is patented or patentable, and worse it is possible to patent in simple concepts that have not been applied. Thus the purchase, exchange, submission and management of the patents bank of a company is a real business activity and it can be really profitable. Patent an invention, a concept or a brand is there real consequences on the daily progress? That is what we asked Sup'Biotech students and non scientists to respond.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*32% believe that patents represent a barrier to innovation, while 43% disagreed. The opinion seems pretty divided, which is quite surprising because in theory the patent is a tool for encouraging innovation. Indeed, the temporary monopoly allows to finance investment in R & D. However, in practice the patent appears as a secondary tool, some do not even have little confidence, while others do not hesitate to follow the example of the law fragmentation when innovations are cumulative and / or complementary as computing, biotechnology or electronics.<br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think that patents slow innovation?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage breve = ralentissement innovation.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
*As part of a therapeutic application, we may wonder if we can patent a living thing, giving it a value? This is the question that is facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''Do you think an organism created by synthetic biology should be patented?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage brevetabilité d'un OGS.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br />
<br />
Like other technologies, synthetic biology would show us a new era, of "Biolithic", where the living is becoming the tool. A tool that could be greatly promising to cure many diseases. But what is the therapeutic goal legislates she use? Synthetic biology thus challenges our life conception. Where is the boundary between natural and artificial? Can we afford to create everything from the living? Evolution can be "diverged"? <br><br />
<br />
<br />
*50% people tend to reject this possibility of free manipulation with therapy pretext, however, 31% would consider it and 19% of persons are wondering. As for a drift of evolution, 50% of persons are quite convinced that evolution cannot be compromised by synthetic biology, however, 31% people disagreed. <br><br />
<br />
<center>'''As part of a therapeutic application, can we afford to create everything from the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage application thérapeutique.png|sondage application thérapeutique.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do we risk diverging the evolution?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|sondage divergence de l'évolution.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Researchers must ask themselves these questions and be aware of unethical uses that could be made of such technologies, even for the purpose of curing diseases; this fear of a student speaks to the questions raised by the living instrumentalization facing synthetic biology. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
*Indeed, each advanced biological research contains a lot of questions on the health implications, environmental, social and ethical implications of possible applications of these discoveries. Are we able to control the living? Are we able to control the spread of systems that we built? While they are a majority think that researchers are capable of manipulating life, we remain skeptical with control its spread.<br><br />
<center>'''Can we control the living?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|sondage peut-on contrôler le vivant.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
*<center>'''Do you think we should be able to control the spread of systems that we built?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|sondage maitriser la propagation des systèmes construits.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
Faced with theses questions, how the company will position itself and how to respect the ethics rules. Because of the life control, the public is faced with a control by research area while having the feeling of being dispossessed of research results. How the company is going to express their wishes on these issues? <br><br />
<br />
*Given the stakes, the debate should be pluralist and collective, we have to know who will control and how? Do we need new regulations, while those for existing GMOs are already far from perfection and unaccepted? Can we aspire to global governance? 46% of persons believe that such governance is possible, while 31% think otherwise. <br><br />
<center>'''In the context of synthetic biology, is global governance feasible?'''</center><br />
[[Image:sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|sondage gouvernance mondiale.png|center|200px]]<br />
[[Image:légende en.png|center|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The survey draws the attention of politicians, researchers and lawyers, reminding them that the innovation and therapeutic goal arguments are often wrongly used by supporters of a world where everything is protected and patented. A public debate is necessary to decide together how to maximize the positive applications of these technologies while minimizing the abusive risks.<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="float: right">[[Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Ethic#drapeau|Back to top]]</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<html><br />
<div style="float: right; margin-right: -85px;"><br />
<a href="https://2009.igem.org/Team:SupBiotech-Paris/Safety#drapeau" target="_self"><br />
<img title="Let's go to the next page !" style="width: 100px;" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2009/e/e9/Suivant.png";><br />
</a></div><br />
</html></div>Ranya