"
Team:Heidelberg/Human Practice/Project Overview
From 2008.igem.org
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 that every modern science entains.
The hypophesis on which our human practices project is based is the follwing:
Science can only work successful and develop useful inventions 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 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 most do not even know the difference between genetically manipulated food and normal food. Food is a product getting into direct contact to the human being and to its health. And this human being, as a creature of habit, becomes sceptical towards this new product and the possible risks it could comprise. So far- so good. But a real problem arises when scepsis is in addition linked to nescience about the scientific backround of a certain new product. The combination of nescience and scepsis is the sward of Damocles of every new, upcoming scientific field, such as green biotec once was, because this combination leads in many cases to fear and by that to non-acceptance in the society. And that is what green biotechnology has to battle every single day.
Synthetic biology is up to now too young and far away from undergoing the same problematic change of acceptance that genetic engineering and green biotec underwent in many european countries.
But:
There is the risk that the public hears something about artificial cells or biological robots, without any further explanation and become sceptical towards the uprising star in the fields of lifesciences. And that could lead to unsubstantial prejudices and by that to non-accepatance of the modern synthetic biology research area.
Of course, this would lead to a retarding of the advance of synthetic biology and possible to the non-development of many useful inventions.-
The aim of our project is to analyze this hypothises and to give proposals and possible solutions on how to prevent an upcoming scepticism in the public. Generally, one can sum our our solution in one sentence: We need to communicate!
Thus we worked on three different levels:
The Essay
At first we developed a concept, how we wanted to enable a good, non-frightening, but honest and informing way of science communication.
Surveys
Second we made a servey to determine the oppinion of scienctists and non-scientists on science communication and synthetic biology- so that we would know where the weaknesses in science communication are. For that we surveyed about 100 people from different intelectual and cultural backround in the heidelberg pedestrian street and about 80 scientist (PhD students, post docs and professors) of the BioQuant and the German Cancer Research Center. That gave us the starting point of our practical work.
You can find the evaluation of the common public survey here and the evaltuation of the scientist- survey here.
At least we had the great chance to interview Prof. zur Hausen, winner of the Nobel prize in Medicine this year to get to know his point of view on science communication. You find the interview as well as a short introduction on Prof. zur Hausen here
Practiacal part- Information, Honesty and close Contact to the common public
Third, and that was the most important part of the project, we wanted to practicise a way of science communication based on our antecedent research and theoretical work, which would at the end lead to a close contact and a close commutation between our scientific work on the iGEM project and the common public. The three bases of science communication are in our opinon:
Information, Honesty and close Contact to the common public.
Thus we tried different communication approaches to get a broad contact and to reach people from different intelectual and age-related backround. To realise that we had a close collaboration with one of the most well-known newspapers in Germany: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). In addition we had close contact to the TV stations Campus-TV Heidelberg and Prometheus TV as well as good contact to the DKFZ institute press. Furthermore the radio station --------- and the DKFZ, BioQuant and University Press-Devisions wrote articles concerning synthetic biology, our iGEM Team and the ongoing project work. You can find a choice of press articles and tv reports here (german).
Besides the contact to the press we tried to get into direct contact with people by performing the public survey and by that informing on synthetic biology in a very personal and direct way.
In Addition we made organized an Open Day where we invited pubils from different schools and introduced them theoretically and practically in the world of biobricks and synthetic biology. You can find an instruction for an open day as well as a report on our open day here.
Last but not least we constructed a portal on the wiki called Phips the Phage where we present our project and synthetic biology in general to young, interested people without a large biological backround-knowledge. The idea of this portal is to develop a virtual guide (Phips) who guides the public through our Project and adds relevant information every time when necessary- so even pupils should be able to understand what we did during the summer. We already tested the portal on the opening day and got very postive feed-back from the pupils. You can follow-up the Phips the Phage guiding tour here
