Team:Lyon-INSA-ENS/Safety/Suggestions

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(15 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{INSA-Lyon/styletestaurelie}}
{{INSA-Lyon/styletestaurelie}}
{{Lyon-INSA-ENS/menuhorizontalSafety}}
{{Lyon-INSA-ENS/menuhorizontalSafety}}
-
{{Lyon-INSA-ENS/menuSafetySGE}}
+
<!--{{Lyon-INSA-ENS/menuSafetySGE}}-->
 +
{{Lyon-INSA-ENS/menuSafetyVertical|SaferGeneticEngineering = actif}}
<html>
<html>
 +
 +
<div style="float : left; margin-top : -10px; margin-left : -200px">
 +
  <a href="https://2011.igem.org/Main_Page" >
 +
      <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/6/67/Team_INSA-Lyon_IGEM_Home.png" title="iGEM's main page" />
 +
  </a>
 +
</div>
 +
 +
<div style="float : left; margin-top : -10px">
 +
<a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/3/38/Cobalt_BusterSAFETY.pdf"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2011/6/64/Fileicon-pdf.png" style="width:25px";/> Download the complete version of our Safety part</a><br>
 +
</div>
<div id="language";>
<div id="language";>
Line 17: Line 28:
     <br/>
     <br/>
     <br/>
     <br/>
-
    <br/>
+
 
-
    <br/>
+
-
    <br/>
+
       <p> <font color="green" size="6">
       <p> <font color="green" size="6">
-
               Suggestions for a Safer Genetic Engineering <br><HR>
+
               For a Safer Genetic Engineering ? <br><HR>
           </font>
           </font>
       </p>
       </p>
Line 29: Line 38:
   <p style="line-height:1.5em ;">
   <p style="line-height:1.5em ;">
-
The debate <B>“Nuclear technology and Genetically Modified Organisms : Can scientists keep control?” </B> we organised aroused several safety issues and suggestions that have been proposed to tackle with them.
+
From the debate <B>“Nuclear technology and Genetically Modified Organisms : Can scientists keep control?” </B> we organized, several safety issues were risen and suggestions have been proposed to tackle them.
   </p><br/>
   </p><br/>
Line 39: Line 48:
      
      
   <p style="line-height:1.5em">
   <p style="line-height:1.5em">
-
First, <b>the standardisation of parts</b> makes it simpler to <b>use and share for researchers</b>, but also <b>for malign or careless uses</b>. All the informations related to the iGEM projects are freely available on the net <b>without any access control</b>. It has been evoked that, with these informations, anyone with basic microbiology knowledge could try to build <b>his own bio-weapon</b> (like people nowadays can find the recipe to create their own bomb on the net) or, on a safety point of view, could <b>misuse a part and accidentally harm people or environment</b>.  
+
First, <b>the standardisation of parts</b> makes it simpler to <b>use and share for researchers</b>, but also <b>for malign or careless uses</b>. All the informations related to the iGEM projects are freely available on the Internet <b>without any access control</b>. It has been evoked that, with these informations, anyone with basic microbiology knowledge could try to build <b>his own bio-weapon</b> (like people nowadays can find the recipe to create their own bomb on the Internet) or, on a safety point of view, could <b>misuse a part and accidentally harm people or environment</b>.  
<i>Yet, would it be a better solution to restrict access to iGEM members ?</i> <br>
<i>Yet, would it be a better solution to restrict access to iGEM members ?</i> <br>
-
It would mean to give up on the valuable “open source” model, where everyone’s experience contributes to enhancing our knowledge, including the knowledge about the safety of the parts (what should and should not be done with a part, what precautions you must take, what unexpected behaviour has been observed...). Concealing the information would not prevent people from accessing it illegally, as shown by the numerous web security breaches that are regularly reported. This means that synthetic biology should be careful about safety issues and discussions or reflections concerning the “open source” should not be overlooked.
+
It would mean to give up on the valuable “open source” model, where everyone's experience contributes to enhancing our knowledge, including the knowledge about the safety of the parts (what should and should not be done with a part, what precautions you must take, what unexpected behavior has been observed...). Concealing the information would not prevent people from accessing it illegally, as shown by the numerous web security breaches that are regularly reported. This means that synthetic biology should be careful about safety issues, and discussions or reflections concerning the “open source” should not be overlooked.
   </p><br/>
   </p><br/>
   <p style="line-height:1.5em">   
   <p style="line-height:1.5em">   
-
<b>General safety issues about GMOs</b> have also been mentionned, and the reasons why the general public considers them unsafe. The quick development of plant GMOs was, in the eyes of the general public, a search for immediate profit with few concerns about safety and ethics and moreover very few efforts of communication have been made, which has created a fear about them. We noticed that generally, <b>GM bacteria</b> are widely used in <b>medicine and food industry</b>, but are less known by the public who is less scared about them. Synthetic biology should avoid such a mistake, by communicating to the public before releasing new devices, and ensuring that they will be accepted by a distrust public.
+
<b>General safety issues about GMOs</b> have also been mentioned, and the reasons why the general public considers them unsafe. The quick development of plant GMOs was, in the eyes of the general public, a search for immediate profit with few concerns about safety and ethics. And moreover very few efforts of communication have been made, which has created a prejudice about GMOs. We noticed that generally, <b>GM bacteria</b> are widely used in <b>medicine and food industry</b>, but are less known by the public who is less scared about them. Synthetic biology should avoid such a mistake, by communicating to the public before releasing new devices, and ensuring that they will be accepted by a distrust public.
   </p>
   </p>
-
 
+
<br/><p style="line-height:1.5em"> 
 +
We are not alone to think about all these considerations. A great debate will occur at the occasion of the European Jamboree in Amsterdam in the aim to define an <b>Oath for Life Scientists</b>.
 +
</p>
   <br/><br/><br/>
   <br/><br/><br/>
-
 
+
    <p style = "text-align : center";>
 +
              <a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:Lyon-INSA-ENS/Safety/BiosafetyGuidelines"/><font color="grey"><b>Biosafety Guidelines</b></font></a>
 +
              <br/>
 +
    </p>
 +
          <br/><br/>
</div>
</div>
-
 
</html>
</html>
{{Lyon-INSA-ENS/footer}}
{{Lyon-INSA-ENS/footer}}

Latest revision as of 13:24, 21 September 2011



Download the complete version of our Safety part




For a Safer Genetic Engineering ?



From the debate “Nuclear technology and Genetically Modified Organisms : Can scientists keep control?” we organized, several safety issues were risen and suggestions have been proposed to tackle them.



First, the standardisation of parts makes it simpler to use and share for researchers, but also for malign or careless uses. All the informations related to the iGEM projects are freely available on the Internet without any access control. It has been evoked that, with these informations, anyone with basic microbiology knowledge could try to build his own bio-weapon (like people nowadays can find the recipe to create their own bomb on the Internet) or, on a safety point of view, could misuse a part and accidentally harm people or environment. Yet, would it be a better solution to restrict access to iGEM members ?
It would mean to give up on the valuable “open source” model, where everyone's experience contributes to enhancing our knowledge, including the knowledge about the safety of the parts (what should and should not be done with a part, what precautions you must take, what unexpected behavior has been observed...). Concealing the information would not prevent people from accessing it illegally, as shown by the numerous web security breaches that are regularly reported. This means that synthetic biology should be careful about safety issues, and discussions or reflections concerning the “open source” should not be overlooked.


General safety issues about GMOs have also been mentioned, and the reasons why the general public considers them unsafe. The quick development of plant GMOs was, in the eyes of the general public, a search for immediate profit with few concerns about safety and ethics. And moreover very few efforts of communication have been made, which has created a prejudice about GMOs. We noticed that generally, GM bacteria are widely used in medicine and food industry, but are less known by the public who is less scared about them. Synthetic biology should avoid such a mistake, by communicating to the public before releasing new devices, and ensuring that they will be accepted by a distrust public.


We are not alone to think about all these considerations. A great debate will occur at the occasion of the European Jamboree in Amsterdam in the aim to define an Oath for Life Scientists.




Biosafety Guidelines






ENS assystem Biomérieux INSA INSA