Team:Paris/Ethics ethicalreport

Protocols Freezer NoteBook Bibliography Parts WetLab DryLab

Team Collaborations Contacts Acknowledgements Links

Contents 1 Ethical Report 2 TITRE 2.1 Preface 2.2 Methods

Ethical Report

Main - Preface - Methods

TITRE

Preface

• Why wonder about ethics in a biological engineering competition?

The International Genetically Engineered Machine competition (IGEM) is an undergraduate competition begun at the MIT in 2004. In four years the competition grew up exponentially from 5 teams in 2004 to 110 teams in 2009. Within the context of its participation in IGEM 09 competition, the Paris team proposes a reflexion about ethical stakes in synthetic biology, in order to exercise our critical reflexion. Our “disciplinary” motivations to lead that ethical reflexion will be developed in a more formal introduction. We propose to wonder, in that preface, about the several “causes” of the necessity of that reflexion, mainly by wondering about the way interdisciplinarity encourages reflexivity. We wish to establish the fact that ethical reflexion is necessarily linked to a critical perspective, a point will be enlighten in the introduction.

Synthetic biology can be read as an encouragement to interdisciplinarity, as a disciplinary challenge by bringing together, in a unique life science, perspectives from engineering and practices from molecular biology. That interdisciplinarity stimulates researchers the necessity to change from their initial “disciplinary standpoint” in order to come up to synthetic biology specifications, requiring them to change position, to become alternatively insider and outsider towards their own science formation. That change sometimes permits the development of a critical perception, or, at least, makes it more attainable. That critical perspective permitted by reflexivity is one of the ways to get to ethical reflexion.

Among the large field of synthetic biology, the IGEM competition invites young scientists, future researchers to interdisciplinary experimentation. Heterogeneous teams, focus on freedom, innovation and motivation can lead teams to perform that disciplinary “insider/outsider” team standing. The specifications of the competition encourage to this reflexive position. In other word, the point is how exploration and experimentation in the way to build up an IGEM project can lead teams to that critical reflexion. Freedom and experimentation, encouraged by the structure of the competition, make the ethical reflexion both relevant and accessible to the teams' mind.

If we go ahead with our inquiry, crossing several institutional or disciplinary structures which promote a critical standpoint and ethical reflexion, we have to examine our own structure of participation in the competition : our team. We can find two “original” explanations to that reflexivity of the team. The Parisian team is build by volunteers to the “IGEM call” made by the Center for Research and Interdisciplinary [http://www.cri-paris.org/index.php?lang=en] not only because of the student's membership of a certain university. Therefore, the team is hybrid both socially and disciplinarily. Students come from high school or undergraduated programs, and differences in disciplines and specializations are large and various. At first, we had to make an effort to understand each other's different backgrounds. In the course of the project development, that “different regard” of the members was transformed, becoming a “shared regard” by building up our project and knowledge, in the process of building a team.

These differences between members, understood as a wealth, were already in the mind of the researchers of the Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity. The Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity (CRI) was founded in 2005 at the Medical University of Paris Descartes and defines itself as a convivial place at the crossroad between Life Sciences and exact, natural, cognitive and social sciences. New ways of teaching and learning are daily practices at the CRI, for graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and researchers. The originality of the collaborative, non-hierarchical interactions between students and teachers can be found in the autonomy of the student (they collectively choose the content of the classes) but also in the main research's themes and perspectives. The CRI “call for participation” to IGEM has to be understood in that perspective of giving to students critical tools, understood as a wealth in the scientific approach.

Several effects and new questions will rise of that interdisciplinarity, reflexivity and critical perspectives. What are the effects of that institutional and disciplinary causes of the ethical questions? Why and how can we enlighten what is “new” in biological engineering and in the IGEM competition through ethical reflexion? As we will analyze it in the introduction, we will have to consider the ethical reflexion as necessary, once we have admitted the social responsibilities of science and scientists regarding the social effects of their theoretical and material production. Our work will be lead by an other imperative of the ethical reflexion, in order to make it concrete and not to give up to that intellectual temptation to go through concepts and methods without actually “doing something” about it. That imperative is making that ethical reflexion “practical” and so, to see who, where and when the decision process is made and how we can operate on it. Beside our aim, a rapid check on the institutional literature about synthetic biology (see "Institutional text and researches" here [1]) make us consider the fact that reflexion is shared between different kinds of actors of that scientific field, especially States, international organizations and national agencies. The ethical questions about synthetic biology are also and mainly about questioning the governance of the field. How, as a first step, will we manage the debate? Then, how will we supply the decision making? In other words, who is going to decide? Who, after putting stakes into light, will deal and manage the tensions linked to that stakes? That tension is inherent to what could be the definition of “scientific ethics” : the coexistence, the “harmony” between a free scientific research, both in theories and practices, and the social responsibilities of those scientific theories and practices. The necessity of the ethical question can now be seen as “viral”, once accepted, it leads us necessarily to the question of the governance, of the decision making, of the action and regulation, from now, each seen as something necessary too.

Methods

The theoretical approach in this report can be regarded as quite “singular”, and that singularity has to be explained. I am student in Science and Technology Studies in the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales of Paris and my thesis focus on practices in the field of synthetic biology. Before participating in IGEM, I worked on collaborative projects with the Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity which sponsored the creation of the inter-institute Paris IGEM team, I wanted to be part of the Paris IGEM team in order to observe the team in the 2009 competition and to see how the team engineered biology and how they dealt with and interpreted the ethical aspects of synthetic biology. This participation was a very good way for me to enlighten knowledge and productions process of a team of student in synthetic biology and for the other students to reflect on ethical issues, which we were able to build on together.

With this perspective, and I am to avoid the conceit “sociological” in my observation, nevertheless this report has to be understood from the perspective “science and technology studies”, with references and concepts that are situated in that academic context. My primary goal in precisely situating my point of view is to be precise what it is not : this report is not the reflexion of a scientist about his/her own practices, but the look of a student of science and technology studies about what students of science are saying about their work.

In my daily work with the IGEM team, some important methodological questions had to be answered : I decided to use a qualitative and participant-based approach, preferring collective experience of reflexion of ethical reflexion to data. This report won't have any graphics with team-members-answers to pre-set questionnaires, instead our meetings and talks were dynamic and I decided not to constrain the scope of the discussion by my up stream reflexions. That process also permitted discussions were coexisted sociological and scientific stakes, when everyone of us were trying to find answers to our own research programs. That was, for me, the greatest benefit to my privileged access to a scientific field, having the opportunity to discussed these questions with the team.

My discussions with the team started with a series of individual conversations with almost all students of the team. Depending on student, these discussions were all very different and at the end of the first round of conversation, I sought to bring together all the different stakes and questions brought by the individual team members in a collective and dynamic reflexion process. We decided to schedule collective talks, each about one hour long and focusing an pre decided themes, in order to delimit stakes. For certain discussions, I had to make a presentation, to put into light the history of a concept, to share with the team my reading on the subject or to highlight what seemed important to me, as a sociologist. That way, I shared with the team my own system of references, they were able to know through what “regard” I appreciated their words and reflexions.

After that talks, and in keeping with the IGEM' spirit, I decided to fill the ethical part of our wiki with an abstract of the discussion blended with my analysis on them. These posts had the form of blog's posts, as a individual, local and situated analysis. This report is more formal, but I propose it to be read in parallel with those informal posts. Both of these types of writing were important to the process of creating a dynamic reflexion of the ethics of synthetic biology. While formal essays are still valuable as a way to express our analysis of any topic, social studies sometimes miss the advantages of informal reflexion (fluidity, experimentation in the writing process, different kind of discourses, vocabulary or lexicon). Both styles were a good exercise, permitting me to scour, to search different ways to explore and uncover the stakes of synthetic biology.