"
Team:NYMU-Taipei/human-practices
From 2011.igem.org
(→Synthetic biology -- Human Practice) |
(→Synthetic biology -- Human Practice) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<font size=4><center>Schedule Design for our Human Practice!</center></font> | <font size=4><center>Schedule Design for our Human Practice!</center></font> | ||
<center>[[File:Schedule.jpg]]</center> | <center>[[File:Schedule.jpg]]</center> | ||
| + | |||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
What is it? How does it operate? Where should it be applied? | What is it? How does it operate? Where should it be applied? | ||
| - | <font size=3> | + | |
| + | <font size=3>The second part of our human practice is the night event in Sep 16th. This “Human Practice Night” was held for project-oriented discussion. We target population of freshman who study in the department of Medicine, Biomedical Engineering, Life Science, Dentistry, and Medical Engineering in our school and aim for acquiring the teenage population reflection about our project. After brief introduction has been given on what iGEM is and how synthetic biology works, special focus has been given on neuro-ethics and mind-control issues which highly associated with our project. | ||
| + | |||
Revision as of 18:38, 5 October 2011
Contents |
Synthetic biology -- Human Practice
Human practice in Yang Ming University involves two different practices. The first part was operated well before “Human Practice Night” which is held in Sep 16th evening. It involves individual interview with professors from different fields including oncology, biomedicine, biochemistry, neuron, protein-engineering, and bioinformatics. Specific viewpoints from different perspectives into synthetic biology are sought by our team. Under these series of interview we aim for gathering insights from different backgrounds of professors to redefine synthetic biology— What is it? How does it operate? Where should it be applied?
The second part of our human practice is the night event in Sep 16th. This “Human Practice Night” was held for project-oriented discussion. We target population of freshman who study in the department of Medicine, Biomedical Engineering, Life Science, Dentistry, and Medical Engineering in our school and aim for acquiring the teenage population reflection about our project. After brief introduction has been given on what iGEM is and how synthetic biology works, special focus has been given on neuro-ethics and mind-control issues which highly associated with our project.
By combining both practices we aim for building a thorough networks which wrap up every aspects of our project as well as its key role in synthetic biology.
Introduction
The Very Initial Image
When you 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!
Social 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-oriented discussion
Background
When we send signals to one human brain and make him do things whatever we like, does it mean that his mind is under our control, or is this just merely behavior-control, leaving the soul independent and solid? This is not only a medical problem, but also a philosophical one……
Opening Survey
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,
Discussion
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.
Ending survey
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.
