"
Team:UCL London/HumanPractices/Background
From 2011.igem.org
Synthetic biology, as an emerging field, raises issues of particular sociological importance. Education, regulation, interdisciplinarity and reasons for participation emerged from our initial brainstorming as interesting themes, and we have examined each of them below with a view to shaping our ‘human practices’.
Education - Science Question Time
The iGEM website explains that the competition is an effective teaching method, but how does it facilitate education? We attended a discussion with experts in science education policy, organised by the Biochemical Society, the Campaign for Science and Engeering and Imperial College London, to find out current policy issues that affect iGEM’s educational potential.
During the Science Question Time, several concerns were raised that are relevant to the competition. First, what are the barriers to participation? In the UK, with educational budgets squeezed as a result of conservative policies, it is becoming more difficult to afford college and university education. Participation in iGEM is expensive, with travel, accommodation, and summer living costs required. With gaining external sponsorship becoming more difficult due to the economic climate, this expense means that many students are excluded from taking part in the competition. We asked funding advisers from the Wellcome Trust, a UK iGEM team sponsor, what they thought about this cost here.
The second prominent issue raised was the question of how to encourage young people to choose a career in scientific research. There are several campaigns such as Future Morph aimed at persuading students to choose science education. To find out what makes iGEM appealing to students choosing a science career, we asked UK iGEM teams why they decided to take part here, and talked to Guardian Science correspondents about the educational-monetary value of iGEM here.
In the UK, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology provides impartial analysis to government of science and technology related public policy issues. This information is used to inform regulatory decisions, and since iGEM constitutes a significant part of the emerging field of synthetic biology, we decided to explore how POST presents the field and relevant social issues. Our team member Louis undertook an internship in the office, and explored the processes by which scientific and social research is condensed for consumption by parliamentarians.
Louis discovered that the UK’s government has highlighted a preference for international agreement on synthetic biology policy, to improve competitiveness and maximise economic benefit from the technology. European initiatives such as Emergence and SynBioSafe commend the open discussion of relevant social issues, and attempts to standardise aspects of research. iGEM is therefore seen as a positive force for driving standardisation and ethical consideration. It is likely that the UK’s government will continue to support the ethos of the competition as the field develops.
Arts CatalystTraditional ideas about the ‘two cultures’ of science and art are being challenged by modern interdisciplinary collaborations that use synthetic biology as inspiration. We attended the Arts Catalyst event We Need To Talk About Synthia to investigate the potential of art as a tool for increasing accessibility to cutting-edge research. These events commission art to enable audiences to critically engage with science, and several pieces were showcased that illustrated innovative approaches. We were inspired to devise an event that displays existing artworks in a more reflective way. Our event exposes the effective merging of the two cultures, allowing us to discuss the implications of MIT’s ‘hacking’ ethos for the garage biology movement. There’s more on our Art Collaboration here.
Norwich Interviews To further explore the purpose of iGEM, we interviewed several participants from different UK teams. The majority of interviewees explained that the competition was primarily an opportunity to improve their career prospects, and it was compared several times to a summer internship. This suggests that for many students, the competition is less about the pursuit of actual science and more about developing skills in project marketing. We discussed this topic in our debate event here.
