"
Team:NYMU-Taipei/human-practices
From 2011.igem.org
(→Initial Image) |
(→Project Ethics) |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| - | Before human practice ends, oral survey has been given on attending colleagues toward “whether mind-control’s net profit on society would be more positive or negative” 21％ vote positive versus 69％ vote negative. Public might not be well-prepared for mind-control in current state. | + | '''Before human practice ends, oral survey has been given on attending colleagues toward “whether mind-control’s net profit on society would be more positive or negative” 21％ vote positive versus 69％ vote negative. Public might not be well-prepared for mind-control in current state.''' |
Revision as of 14:17, 30 September 2011
Contents |
Synthetic biology -- Human Practice
Initial Image
When think of synthetic biology, the very initial image is,
- 1. One branch of genetic engineering
- 2. Agriculture or vaccine industry using bio-manufacturing techniques
- 3. Industrial chips that work on organisms which can be manufactured
- 4. Combination of different fields of biology to solve problems
- 5. usage of new, non-biological, industrial materials to make cell
Ex: making artificial membrane
6. creating artificial life that do not exist
- Special point: Traditional biology was to find a natural phenomenon and explain it, but synthetic biology, on the contrary, reverse the concept by making circuits based on known theory and test whether it works!
Synthetic Biology--Society Impacts
The overall impacts of synthetic biology on general public may include but not limited to,
- 1. the problem of artificial life, specifically human
- 2. the enlarging wealth gap resulting from the capability differences between upper class and lower class to utilize the field to harvest for their interest
- 3. the accompanying social risks of crime as well as terrorism that would seek new opportunity for their intention
Project Ethics
With regard to the neuro-ethics part which highly concerns our 2011 project, high interests and attention are given by the attending colleagues, with 71％ of members express high interest. Below are different perspectives toward mind-control’s ethic issue,
1. legislation＆obligation: when mind-control system has developed to a state that human application
is possible, the field and its application on human should be totally forbidden in law to prevent arousal
of further ethic issue or crime.
2. Government: should prompt the development of this field for the purpose of strengthening national force or encouraging scientific breakthrough.
3. Evolutionist: If mind-controlling beings were put into war and one day cause human beings to die
out, it’s still a natural phenomenon of evolution. We cannot blame the initial technology!
4. Taxonomy worker: Mind-controlling organisms may resemble robots, but it still own characteristics of life and cannot be regarded merely as machines. Thus, new species may exist for this category and cause problems for naming.
5. Educator: mind-controlling technique should be applied to education for it can help strengthen memory as well as speed up learning. Traditional learning methods will be changed forever! More “Einstein” would exist.
6. Police: we can control behaviors of some criminals committing serial murder or sexual assault to prevent their further commitment. Though new crimes associating with mind-control may also exist.
Before human practice ends, oral survey has been given on attending colleagues toward “whether mind-control’s net profit on society would be more positive or negative” 21％ vote positive versus 69％ vote negative. Public might not be well-prepared for mind-control in current state.
