"
Team:Heidelberg/Human Practice/Project Overview
From 2008.igem.org
(→Human Practice - Science Communication) |
|||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
=== Human Practice - Science Communication === | === Human Practice - Science Communication === | ||
| - | Synthetic Biology is a very youg and dynamic scientific field. And as most modern scientific fields, synthetic biology offers many chances in solving actual problems. But on the other hand- and we want to communicate that quite clearly here- | + | Synthetic Biology is a very youg and dynamic scientific field. And as most modern scientific fields, synthetic biology offers many chances in solving actual problems. But on the other hand- and we want to communicate that quite clearly here- synthetic biology also comprises risks. The same risks as every modern science entains. <br/> <br/> |
The hypophesis on which our human practices project is based is the follwing: <br/> <br/> | The hypophesis on which our human practices project is based is the follwing: <br/> <br/> | ||
| - | '''Science can only be successful and develop useful applications if it is based on a high level of acceptance in the society.'''<br/> | + | '''''Science can only be successful and develop useful applications if it is based on a high level of acceptance in the society.'''''<br/> <br/> |
| - | From the past we learn, that modern bioscience is not always accepted and fully integrated in the common public interest. A good examle is the public view on green biotechnolgy in Germany and Europe. Many people in Germany are afraid of eating genetically manipulated food although they do not even know the difference between genetically manipulated food and ''normal'' food. | + | From the past we learn, that modern bioscience is not always accepted and fully integrated in the common public interest. A good examle is the public view on green biotechnolgy in Germany and Europe. Many people in Germany are afraid of eating genetically manipulated food although they do not even know the difference between genetically manipulated food and ''normal'' food. Food is a product getting into direct contact to the commen public- and thus the human being, as a creature of habit, becomes sceptical towards this new product. So far- so good. But a real problem arises when the scepsis is in addition linked to unknowingness about the scientific backround of a certain, new product. The combination of unknowingness and scepsis is the sward of Damocles of any new, upcoming scientific field, such as green biotec once was, because this combination in most cases lead to fear and by that to non-acceptance. And that is what the green biotechnology has to battle with every single day. |
| + | <br/> | ||
| + | Synthetic biology is up to now to young and far too away of undergoing the same problematic change of acceptance that genetic engineering and green biotec underwent in many european countries. And this leads to the second hypotheses of our human practices project: <br/> <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''''There is the risk that the common public might here of something like artificial dna or biological robots and become again sceptical towards the uprising star in the fields of lifesciences. And that could lead to unsubstantiated prejudices and by that to non-accepatance of the moder synthetic biology research area.''''' <br/> <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of caurse that would lead to retarding in this scientific field and possible to the non-development of many useful inventions.- | ||
| + | The aim of our project was now to analyze this hypothises and to give proposals and possible solutions on how to prevent an upcoming scepticism and unknowingness in the common public. As a proof of principle we wanted to practicise a way of science communication based the folling three bases: <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Information''', '''Honesty''' and '''direct Contact with the common public'''. | ||
Revision as of 23:38, 25 October 2008
Human Practice - Science Communication
Synthetic Biology is a very youg and dynamic scientific field. And as most modern scientific fields, synthetic biology offers many chances in solving actual problems. But on the other hand- and we want to communicate that quite clearly here- synthetic biology also comprises risks. The same risks as every modern science entains.
The hypophesis on which our human practices project is based is the follwing:
Science can only be successful and develop useful applications if it is based on a high level of acceptance in the society.
From the past we learn, that modern bioscience is not always accepted and fully integrated in the common public interest. A good examle is the public view on green biotechnolgy in Germany and Europe. Many people in Germany are afraid of eating genetically manipulated food although they do not even know the difference between genetically manipulated food and normal food. Food is a product getting into direct contact to the commen public- and thus the human being, as a creature of habit, becomes sceptical towards this new product. So far- so good. But a real problem arises when the scepsis is in addition linked to unknowingness about the scientific backround of a certain, new product. The combination of unknowingness and scepsis is the sward of Damocles of any new, upcoming scientific field, such as green biotec once was, because this combination in most cases lead to fear and by that to non-acceptance. And that is what the green biotechnology has to battle with every single day.
Synthetic biology is up to now to young and far too away of undergoing the same problematic change of acceptance that genetic engineering and green biotec underwent in many european countries. And this leads to the second hypotheses of our human practices project:
There is the risk that the common public might here of something like artificial dna or biological robots and become again sceptical towards the uprising star in the fields of lifesciences. And that could lead to unsubstantiated prejudices and by that to non-accepatance of the moder synthetic biology research area.
Of caurse that would lead to retarding in this scientific field and possible to the non-development of many useful inventions.-
The aim of our project was now to analyze this hypothises and to give proposals and possible solutions on how to prevent an upcoming scepticism and unknowingness in the common public. As a proof of principle we wanted to practicise a way of science communication based the folling three bases:
Information, Honesty and direct Contact with the common public.
