Team:UCL London/HumanPractices/Debate

To help guide our exploration of the social issues around iGEM we held an evening of discussion and debate. We invited people from a wide range of backgrounds: biochemical engineers, social scientists, philosophers, artists, historians, religious representatives, humanists, fellow students and anyone else with an interest in the topic.

We started by explaining briefly what synthetic biology was and how it came about, describing iGEM, our project, and our consideration of social issues so far. Then the evening got interesting; we were hit by a barrage of questions about the role of synthetic biology in society. Here are a few issues that were unearthed during the debate.

Can we draw parallels between synthetic biology and other technological developments to help us understand the current processes and anticipate future issues?

A comparison has been made between synthetic biology and computing; Paul Freemont of Imperial College London [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/audio/2009/jul/20/science-weekly-podcast-synthetic-biology explained to The Guardian in 2009] that a comparable stage would be the development of early, noisy, transistors and their fine-tuning by engineers.

Modern computing networks are relied upon for vital public services, and faults can cause loss of life when these fail. Synthetic biology also has the potential to cause illness if things go wrong, and an important consideration is the expansion of its availability to those without training in handling dangerous materials. Controversies such as that surrounding GM foods and MMR vaccines show that research must be publicised early to gather external opinion to help shape regulation and drive research toward acceptable and valuable goals.

How extensive is the garage biology ‘movement’, and should we embrace it?

This was a point of great contention between attendees, with some arguing that the technology is in place for the establishment of at-home laboratories, and others skeptical of the current availability of the required equipment. Most agreed that it would have a democratising effect for science in the future.

What was agreed, however, was the shortening timeframe before the equipment and knowledge is available outside the laboratory. This sparked questions about the safety of so-called ‘garage biologists’ developing genetic creations that could potentially cause a health hazard. With the proper containment, it was explained, synthetic biology can be taken as safe. Outside the laboratory, it is impossible to predict the dangers that could arise from at-home experiments. iGEM and MIT have fostered a ‘hacking’ culture around synthetic biology, similar to the development of open-source software, and this has most likely contributed to the enthusiasm of hobby geneticists.

Is regulation around synthetic biology moving quickly enough?

A few of the attendees were fearful of the lack of regulation around synthetic biology outside the laboratory, explaining that it is easy to transport dangerous bacteria such as E. coli. One audience member argued that iGEM has an important role in publicising synthetic biology, making it clear that even undergraduate students can manipulate sequences of DNA. He explained that the competition allows people outside the laboratory to react and initiate further discussion about safety and regulation.

What is the purpose of iGEM?

Aside from the competition’s stated aims of expanding the BioBrick library for open-source use, attendees were curious about the workings of the competition, and whether it was a positive force in the field.

It was suggested that iGEM is primarily a exercise in innovation management.

A few attendees criticized the competitive element of iGEM; surely co-operative projects would be more in the spirit of open-source? The competition introduces an incentive for secrecy, and discourages inter-team collaboration. Another attendee explained that competitions are one of the most cost-effective methods of producing innovation, giving the example of the X-Prize for space travel. A comparison was made with the garage biology movement, where participants are motivated by the satisfaction of solving problems for the gain of the community. Ultimately the competition criteria compels teams to form well rounded business models.

It was also suggested that iGEM is simply a public relations stunt, attempting to pre-empt widespread fears about synthetic biology by presenting it as a field so safe that undergraduates can participate.

Have the benefits of synthetic biology been exaggerated?

Some attendees explained that exaggeration of these benefits has been and will be detrimental to the field. One attendee argued that excess hype has raised expectations among funding bodies and scientists and has lead to a wariness of the field in the UK. We discussed this in further detail with science portfolio advisers from the Wellcome Trust here.

To end the debate we presented to the audience the Freiburg oath. Attendees raised the point that historically oaths or conventions have acted as no more than ‘gentlemen's agreements’ where there is no real obligation to abide, particularly in times of war or unrest. One attendee mentioned that the sharing clauses are contrary to the competitive element of iGEM. Another attendee questioned the motivation for publicising such an oath.

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