"
Team:UEA-JIC Norwich/Human practices/Interviewten
From 2011.igem.org
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Banner}} | {{Banner}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | http://www.4shared.com/audio/qvp99wQJ/VN870017.html | ||
<html> | <html> | ||
Revision as of 15:11, 20 September 2011
http://www.4shared.com/audio/qvp99wQJ/VN870017.html
Interview Ten
Interviewer:
‘’The first question is basically, do you know what synthetic biology is?’’
Interviewee:
‘’Yes’’
Interview:
‘’Can you just give us a definition?’’
Interviewee:
‘’Synthetic biology is taking sections of DNA and putting them into plasmids, recombining with chromosomes or keeping in plasmids and getting organisms to replicate that new DNA in their cellular systems.’’
Interview:
‘’How do you personally feel about synthetic biology?’’
Interviewee:
‘’Well, synthetic biology is a new term for something’s that been round quite a while, because recombinant DNA technology by its very nature is synthetic biology, so it’s been around for a while. It’s just a new name for something that has really come up through people like Craig Venter, who has done synthetic genomes. ‘’
Interview:
‘’Yeah, we’ve heard his name mentioned quite a lot actually.
Has the media influenced your opinion in any way of synthetic biology? I’m not sure if you’re aware but they had the protests at the John Innes Centre?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I think there are issues with any kind of recombinant DNA technologies, and there always has been. And it is very much dependent upon how the public view the need for this type of technology. The protest at the John Innes was very much to do with the genetically modified foods, in particular the potato trials. But that’s been an issue that’s been around for a long time. I think that people will probably see synthetic biology...the public will see synthetic biology somewhat divorced from genetic modification. There not. But I think that’s probably how they tend to see it. I think synthetic biology probably has better press in terms of it’s, perhaps its more medically orientated coverage that it gets in the media. In terms of my own personal view of influence, I think my influence is not through media. It’s generally through scientific research. ‘’
Interview:
‘’So do you know what genetic modification is? Could you elaborate a specific different between that and synthetic biology?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I don’t know, do you have an accurate definition of synthetic biology? In my view, there’s no difference. I think that everything that is artificially modified in some way is deemed to be synthetic biology, and that can be deletions of genetic material, as well as additions of genetic material.’’
Interview:
‘’I think sometimes they see genetic modification as a bit more of a simplistic view of perhaps synthetic biology. Where you just taking a gene from an organism and putting it in another one. Where synthetic biology you have more complicated circuits. ‘’
Interviewee:
‘’Oh possibly. I suspect that is maybe how it could be portrayed in popular science writing. I don’t see it like that, I see any kind of change, a genetic modification change as being something which is artificial, and therefore synthetic.’’
Interview:
‘’So you don’t see a difference?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I see no difference between the two technologies, no. ‘’
Interview:
‘’So how do you feel about genetic modification? Do you have the same opinion as synthetic biology?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I think there are ethical considerations to be taken into account. I think there are public concerns to be taken into account. I don’t think it’s something which can be done lightly. I do believe the public have the right to have influence over what genetic technologies they wish to get involve with, the stake holders for example, in terms of genetically modified food i think the technology is very powerful, I think it has a lot of potential. We’re yet to see real potential of genetically modified crops for example in terms of better crops for draught conditions. Or disease resistance crops. I think that the problem with genetic modification of crops is that it’s very much tied up with large chemical companies for example, Monsanto who have tied it into its pesticide production. So I think that they are probably very different aims of that technology. I think that it can become very confusing to a low person to try to disentangle the paths that genetic modification can take. ‘’
Interview:
‘’Yeah, i read that Monsanto have a bit of a bad reputation. ‘’
Interviewee:
‘’It has quite a bad reputation, and quite deservedly so. ‘’
Interview:
‘’Would you say throughout your career has the media ever influenced your opinion of genetic modification?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I worked in genetic modification in a time where it was very...companies wanted to be seen to be doing it. I worked as a post doctoral research assistant over at the Institute of Food Research, and carried out commercial research for a company that wanted to be genetic modification. That was in the late 1990’s, when it was seen as something new, initiative, exciting. However after the build of to the GM problems, in the late 1990’s the company decided it wanted to pull out of its genetic modification. That left a lot of people, scientists like myself in that position without jobs. Without funding. That was a tough time. I think that I could probably be accused at that time myself, of not necessarily paying a great deal of attention to what it was I was actually doing. I was quite a young post doc. So I think it’s difficult to give those sorts of, as my opinion changed through those...because when you’re in it, doing it yourself, you have a very different prospectus. And I know there are scientists at the John Innes Centre who are just astonished at the throughrar that there was. How the public perceive it because they didn’t perceive it to be that themselves. They thought this technology was something for the good of everybody. It was a shock when people backed away from it. It’s taken a long long time to get back to any sort of trust, situation back again in terms of those hence, what we see today still campaigning as they still don’t like the concept. I think it’s more, it’s banged up with food, food issues are very very difficult to up pick in the public eye because we care a lot about the quality of our food. And I think we are far less worried about genetic modification and .. Vaccines for example. ‘’
Interview:
‘’Yeah i think people definitely we’ve talked to commented more on genetic modification, they see it more serious to do with food rather than a bit more medically related. ‘’
Interviewee:
‘’Absolutely. Food is a staple item that we need and people care about where their food comes from. Al ot of the public are very confused over, for example the terms organic and the term genetically modified. People confuse the two. So there’s a lot of misinformation about modification and there’s also a lot of...it’s not a simple issue. It’s not a simple issue from scientists prospective either. Because you can’t just go out to the public and say, this is the technology, this is what people do, isn’t it fabulous, you know about it now so everybody come on broad. Its not like that. People care too deeply about these issues of that to ever work as a concept to do with transfer of information from scientists to the public. You also have a problem that of course you have newspapers that have a very pro stance or have a very negative stance. The guardian being one that has a very negative stance. And very very rarely does a week go past where the guardian hasn’t had some kind of GM technology story, a negative one. ‘’
Interview:
‘’Do you think either the approaches, synthetic biology or GM could further help the world as time goes on. Or do you think any of the approaches would prove to be more harmful one day?’’
Interviewee:
‘’That’s a very interesting question. I think that there’s ..again, with the BT and symbolic butterfly reduction population..there was a lot of reporting of that in America and that caused a lot of consummation but when later the data was looked at it was determined that statistically there was no significant difference between the hatching of the larvae where were exposed to genetically modified tissue. So i think more research needs to be done on these issues. Clearly there are examples of genes which appear to have escaped into the wild populations in our cereal crops. I think that society is split into camps where your trying to generate a very commercial product and perhaps the research that goes on at the institutes and universities which is perhaps perceived as being more beneficial, new technologies like that can’t come to light unless there’s some commercial benefit at the end of the day. It doesn’t make financial sense. So I think what worries me is there is less research that goes on into better crop tolerance to environmental conditions. It’s very difficult, its multi-factorial, there’s not a single gene you put into something which makes it more draught resistant. Disease resistance, possibly yes. You very much reply on those conventional breeding techniques. There becoming better, I think that there needs to be more lateral thinking in terms of using genetic information of genomes, of crops, and use wild relatives to set up sensible cross breeding programmes to get to your desired target more quickly through more conventional breeding programmes. I think that is the way to go and I also think that I do dislike the way that companies will not remove their antibiotic resistance marker from crops, the technology exists to remove them. But it’s an expensive step in the process. I do think that has to be done, not only in terms of public acceptance, but for other reasons of transferral of resistance genes to bacterial populations. ‘’
Interviewer:
‘’Would you say you’d possibly feel any different about either of the approaches if more information was more readily available? For to public? Do you think they do enough for schools to make people fully aware?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I think scientists are very scared about going out and sticking their heads above the power pit with these sorts of issues. Yes its hard, i see what professor Jonathan Jones does for the John Innes Centre, when their potato trail came out and he went on TV and he tried to explain the science but he became exasperated and at the end of the interview he said to the public ‘just get over it’. And I just don’t think you can say that to the public, because they won’t just get over it. I think there has to be a different approach. And do that question, there needs to be a better champion for genetic modification. I don’t think that scientists should necessarily be those champions. We need someone like Jimmy Doherty's, Jimmy’s Farm. He did a very very good program about genetic modification not so long ago. It was very good, we need someone more like him who will champion the cause of genetically modified food. But i guess that goes against his whole business model, which is organic. ‘’
Interviewer:
‘’Yeah, because I think they’re doing that at the moment, a documentary on the BBC. We got asked, so hopefully synthetic biology will be put in quite a good light.’’
Interviewee:
‘’Yeah, it will be good. Would be nice if that was the case. As soon as you put in genetic – modification, those icon images of the grim reaper, of Frankenstein it will come through because there’s people who are very wedded to their opinions in that sense. So it’s hard to shift framing perceptions which the public have of certain issues. It’s really hard to shift people’s minds because that’s what they immediately think of and that’s what I immediately think of. Because I do a lot of work in this kind of area anyway and if you see how images it’s hard for people to shift from it, really hard. ‘’
