"
Team:Paris/Brainstorm ideafirstweek
From 2009.igem.org
Introduction and reflexion about pro/am in science
- 08/18 : Introduction : why ethical reflexion in science? life science? synthetic biology?
Today, the main aim was to introduce ethical questions in science in a general way. We start by asking ourselves that question : « What are the condition I have to accept to get a new knowledge? », in other worlds and in a “what acceptable means to our end” process, what do we have to consider first and fundamentally : our quest of knowledge or the possible consequences of that knowledge, by his existence itself or in its applications.
We wonder about the tension between the fact that ethical interesting are necessary but implies also a certain slowing down of the research and innovation process. That led us to the precautionary principle, starting with the fact that it seems impossible to get the effect of a certain discovery without experiment it. Under that light, the precautionary principle appears as a limitation of the research process, even worst, something which incite ourselves to inaction.
All that questions and arguments went with a lot of concrete examples : treatment of nuclear waste, stem cells cases in France and in the US, psychology experiment with animals in the 50's and 60's and many other. Then, I propose to examine who had to take the final decisions in science, regarding that ethical problems. The position of the team is quite homogeneous : the scientific has to take the decision, because the one who hold knowledge has to be the responsible for. The way of doing it should be as a council or anything which represent the scientific community. Soufiane, who propose a more social and democratic solution : if everyone, every citizen is concerned by scientific productions, everyone has to decide. Everyone admits that, anyway, nowdays, the legislator is the one who, at least, take the decision.
At the end of that first one hour talk, some proposal and analysis were expressed : Knowledge is amoral, and the ethical problems relies on applications. what about a “note of a good use” written by scientist?
To conclude very briefly that first post, we can notice that, from the first question to the final point, all that ethical questions, analysis and recommendation are specifically express from the scientific standpoint. The main issue here is to deal with the will of getting knowledge and how this will has to be acceptable. That kind of reflexions should be very different in a different community. The ethical questions, deeply pragmatic, are included and performed in that “how to” concern. That “how to” venture is, then, framed and state as a “how to get and, at the same time, manage knowledge and his application”.
- 08/19 : Team brainstorming about synthetic biology definition
Today the aim of our talk was to discuss, to confront personal opinions and to challenge defining collectively synthetic biology.
I submit that exercise to the team because, by reading the literature and regarding the main concept called up to define that new disciplinary approach of biology I realize the diversity of slanted definition. We generally find the engineering method and the design of the parts as the main and common stand to build a definition of synthetic biology. Some refers to the bottom up and top down methods of manipulating life, others gets to design to characterize synthetic biology (put forward to description or understanding of “natural biology”). Utility, artificiality, function, component, living devices and systems, assembling and disassembling are the different concepts, methods and materials which lead scientist, sociologist and others researcher to their particular definition, performing through their use a certain regard on it.
We round the table to estimate the degree of diversity in definition of our own team. The main term used by the team was the idea of “giving new function to an organism”, mostly enriched by the idea of utility. In their own world : “creating”, “re creating”, “engineering”, “using”, “knowing and being able to divide” the living. The diversity already seen in the literature was express in the aim of that approaches : Charlotte proposed the idea of “controlled evolution” (to give an organism some characteristics it wouldn't develop “naturally”). Guillaume, Vicard, Pierre and Christophe was concerned about the idea of what new and defined function we can get from that organism. Romain propose a quite different approach, putting knowledge as the heart, saying that knowing each functions precisely, being able to divide and to synthesize it as a prove of our knowledge on the living.
In that brief sketch, we find that “evolutionary approach”, which lead synthetic biology in a larger paradigm of life science, but, reversing the usual trend by putting biological practices and goals as a new cause of change, a new way for the organism to gets new characteristic. Clause to the agronomic perspective, the evolution of organisms in synthetic biology is now manage, decided and operate by man, and not anymore by the own organism needs.
Then, we gets to the pragmatical perspective of “making an organism doing something we decide”. At least, we find that kind of theoretical inventory of biological knowledges perform across molecular biology methods.
