Team:UCL London/HumanPractices/Experts

After our discussion event, we decided to hold a series of in-depth interviews on several of the topics raised with people who hold a vested interest in science. These range from science correspondents to academics to funding advisers, and set out to gather a range of perspectives on iGEM and synthetic biology.

Geoff Carr, Science Editor of The Economist, explained what he thought were the reasons for interest in the field of synthetic biology. He described synthetic biology as a stimulus for philosophical discussion, likening the change it brings to the move away from vitalism in the nineteenth century.

Despite this interest, Geoff expressed the opinion that it was not the responsibility of journalists to force education about synthetic biology. He instead prioritises the field when it provides something socially significant to analyse. He also considered which movement of synthetic biology is going to be the most useful in the long run, elaborating that MIT’s programme has yet to produce anything of significance. He was sceptical about the future viability of the field, comparing its lack of progress to the huge growth continually experienced in other fields such as computing.

When discussing our project, Geoff explained that publicising the functional details of DNA vaccines and our improvements is unnecessary. He said that most people, including scientists in other fields, don’t know, or need to know, how they work to understand their importance.

Geoff was critical of common conceptions of synthetic biology and ‘human practices’, and this highlighted the importance of maintaining a degree of detachment from the competition to conduct an effective analysis of iGEM.

Ian Sample and Alok Jha, Science Correspondents for The Guardian, had strong opinions about the value of iGEM and the potential of synthetic biology. We asked how they thought news media shaped perceptions of the field, and Ian explained that the diverse range of UK media outlets present science topics from a variety of angles, both positive and negative. In this way, readers choose coverage in line with their personal beliefs. This suggests that no more attention must be paid to coverage of synthetic biology than any other science.

Alok was more optimistic about MIT’s form of synthetic biology, explaining that it was only a matter of time before it produced viable industrial applications. He also explained that iGEM’s primary purpose is in training future scientists for industry, comparing the competition to a self-funded summer internship. He suggested that since industry was the eventual benefactor of the competition, it would not matter if the BioBrick Registry was privatised or superseded by a commercial database.

Jane Gregory, Senior Lecturer in Science and Technology Studies at UCL, is optimistic about the future of synthetic biology, explaining that important lessons have been learnt about public consultation from past controversies such as that around genetically modified food in the UK. Jane also argued that the open principles involved in iGEM towards access to information and the library of parts paves the way for fairer regulatory decisions around synthetic biology.

In this way, iGEM presents a positive image of synthetic biology to those involved in the competition, but there is little evidence that from our research that this reaches beyond the confines of the competition.

Jack Stilgoe, Senior Research Fellow in Responsible Innovation at the University of Exeter, sees a different side to the open ethos of the competition, asserting that it could be seen as a method of distancing from other synthetic biology movements such as that initiated by Craig Venter, where there has been a focus on establishing private patents. Jack explains that transparency in science can be used to ward off future criticism of political aims, beyond its stated aim of fostering a collaborative community.

Jack also highlighted the importance of considering the issues arising both today and in the future. He explained that current research is in processes rather than products, so although you cannot ‘buy’ synthetic biology now, it still raises important issues. At the same time, the future possibilities of synthetic biology are being discussed, on the scale of a new industrial revolution.

Transparency within MIT’s vision of synthetic biology allows the creation of a distinct sociological image as well as a scientific one. This indicates a new appreciation of modern science communication and engagement methods, where openness and collaboration are highly regarded. perhaps iGEM is a powerful marketing tool for synthetic biology, and perpetuates its image as a field on the bleeding edge of productive research.

Melissa Lewis and Meher Antia, Science Portfolio Advisers for the Wellcome Trust, described how they allocate iGEM stipend funding in their annual application process. They explained that they allocate funding to teams who prioritise the educational experience for their students. We asked why iGEM is a worthy cause for funding, and they explained that the competition is an opportunity for scientists to broaden their experience. UK synthetic biology research lags behind that of our US counterparts, and the focus of the Wellcome trust is to build capacity for future high-level research. Meher explained that exaggeration of the potential of synthetic biology has made it difficult to decide which research is worth funding, and also made news media wary of covering developments. We asked what Melissa and Meher thought about the Human Practices element of iGEM, and they said that next year’s funding call would take engagement projects into consideration if they were well integrated with the science taking place.

Emma Frow, Research Fellow ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum University of Edinburgh told us about her experience as a iGEM judge in the 2010 competition. We asked her about what ‘human practices’ is and how it fits within iGEM as a competition. She explained that the area of ‘human practices’ within iGEM is expansive with social, ethical, legal and philosophical inquiry all falling under the same umbrella. She added that in 2010 teams had consistently neglected a central theme in science and technology studies - understanding the relationship between science and society. She felt that the enthusiasm for synthetic biology seen within the competition had left little scope to ask delving and critical questions that might lead to fruitful human practice investigation. Our conversation with Emma has allowed us to focus attention on the analytical quality of our sociological investigation into the iGEM competition.

Team | Data | Safety | Attributions | Partners | Bibliography | Protocols | Registry of Parts | UCL Biochemical Engineering