"
Team:UEA-JIC Norwich/Human practices/Interviewthree
From 2011.igem.org
Interview Three
Interviewer:
‘’The first question is; do you actually know what synthetic biology is?’’
Interviewee:
‘’Sort of, I wouldn’t be able to define it. I don’t really work within synthetic biology. I do know what it is but I wouldn’t be able to give you a one sentence definition. ‘’
Interviewer:
‘’Thats okey, but you know what it’s about?’’
Interviewee:
‘’Yeah’’
Interviewer:
‘’How do you generally feel about synthetic biology? Is it a good thing?’’
Interviewee:
‘’Yeah I think it’s important because it’s all about finding new ways of solving life’s problems so you know, you can go the conventional way, but you know, trying to find new ways that are initiative, you might be able to solve problems that you couldn’t solve with normal methods. Yeah, so I think it is.’’
Interviewer:
‘’Have you seen anything on the media which influenced your opinion on it at all?’’
Interviewee:
‘’No not really, the media tend to, because of the whole GM thing people tend to...that causes a lot of debate and synthetic biology is sort of along a similar line so I think people you know, I don’t think it’s been publicised, maybe it has been publicised, I haven’t noticed much of it, maybe it hasn’t been publicised in the way of it saying its synthetic biology because people probably kind of you know, some people will be alright with it but some people will be kind of weary of it, thinking its unnatural and kind of medalling with things. ‘’
Interviewer:
‘’Do you know the differences specifically, the lying boundary between that and genetic modification? ‘’
Interviewee:
‘’Probably won’t be able to define it to you, you can tell me if you want.’’
Interviewer:
‘’Its more just, i think genetic modification is more like single circuit, where synthetic biology generally involves the entire organism.
How do you feel about genetic modification? Do you feel differently towards it than synthetic biology?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I would feel, being a scientist, i would feel it’s kind of in the same kind of light. You’re sort of trying to do similar things with GM and synthetic biology, maybe synthetic biology is on a larger scale. I think as long as it’s going to be, you know, useful to actually solve a problem or something like that, you know, it’s useful. But just doing it for the sake of, you know, trying to engineer something just to see whether it can be done or not. I’ve got nothing again it, I just don’t see benefit if it’s not going to be used for anything.’’
Interviewer:
‘’Would you say the media has influenced your opinion on that?’’
Interviewee:
‘’I’d probably say no because I know I’ve got more of a background. I think if I were just a normal member of the public then I’d probably feel quite, well maybe not negative but sort of have my reservations about it. But being a scientist i can appreciate the benefits. I know it’s not medalling with nature, you know, not going to create some sort of super organisms that are going to take over the world which you know, in the media it tends to get misrepresented about what it is if you don’t understand what it is. Most journalists are not scientists and i think it gets blown out of proportion. I’m not negatively affected by it.’’
Interviewer:
‘’Do you think any of these two approaches will further help the world one day or do you think it will go down the line of it being more harmful?’’
Interviewee:
‘’No i think, well GM is already known to the world so i think, as long as, I mean you’re always going to get the researchers that are going to do something dangerous in a, can it be done kind of thing. But you get that with anything, whether it’s GM or not so. Yeah, I think once you understand the applications and you can develop it, yeah, you can solve problems you couldn’t solve, doing methods which exist naturally. If you could, most of the problems would have probably already been solved. ‘’
