Difference between revisions of "Team:Bordeaux/Engagement"

Revision as of 22:44, 12 October 2016

Sleep with EpiC elegans

The meeting between People, Science and Food!

"Apéro Science" which means Science Aperitif in French is a series of events organized by our team in collaboration with M. Marc CHEVALIER, assignment manager of Talence innovation Sud Développement. The first event was held on May, 26th at the Forum des Arts et de la Culture in Talence and the second one was held on October, 6th at the Bordeaux University. For an hour, professionals made a presentation about a chosen topic in order to explain it to a large public (60 persons for the first, 100 for the second). After their presentation, the audience could have a discussion with them in order to make their questions. Following the debate, everyone was invited to an aperitif prepared by the team!

These events were organized with the intention of familiarizing more and more people with the scientific popularization. The team worked hard in order to invite students and people from non-scientific fields and professionals of the concerning fields. We found it extremely interesting discussing with all these people and sharing with them our knowledge in order to open their minds but also open a little bit more ours!

This year, we focused on two insteresting topics which are:

Change your mind on GMOs!

Most of the time, when we talk about GMOs what comes to people's minds are the modified plants used by the food industry. Associating them uniquely to this use, many people think that GMOs are a great danger for the society. However, GMOs may also save lives when we use them to find new therapies for diseases.
Our first Apéro Science had as a goal to explain to our audience what GMOs are and which existing GMOs are used in the different fields. Our objective wasn't to convince them to be for or against GMOs but to inform them on this topic and make them consider more this complex question.

Science and Media

In the industry and research fields, researchers have to be conscious of the latest scientific innovations and discoveries. Thanks to the scientific media, they may know about the advances of their colleagues in the whole world. But outside these areas, information is often obscured or sometimes distorted or false. How do the general media see and explain the Science?
For our second Apéro Science, we organized round tables with different professionals (journalists, researchers, scientific mediators, and others ...) in order to have our questions answered.

Click on the pictures to discover the summary of our two "Apéro Science" !

two teacher-researchers spoke:<\/p>";

"; $\"Denis$ ";

Mr Denis DUPUY<\/b>, our iGEM team advisor, researcher
at the European Institute of Chemistry and Biology<\/i> (EICB)<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";

"; $\"José$ ";
Mr José-Eduardo GOMES<\/b>, researcher
at the Biochemistry and Cellular Genetics Institute (BCGI)<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
After a short video introducing the general opinion about GMOs<\/b>, M DUPUY inaugurated the meeting by establishing some basic notions<\/b>: genetic, genome and genes, evolution, genetic engineering, natural selection and human selection<\/i>. Indeed, experts are at ease with all these notions and their subtleties, but common people must pay attention and not amalgate them in order to fully understand scientific advances in this field.
"; Thereafter, M GOMES took part in the debate giving several applications of GMOs<\/b> such as the use of Green Fluorescent Proteins (GFP)<\/i>, the production of recombinant insulin<\/i> in type II diabetes treatments, gene therapy tests<\/i> or even “golden rice”<\/i> production.<\/p>";
"; $\"Questions$ ";
Following these presentations,
the audience had the opportunity to ask questions.<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
"; $\"Clémence$ ";
Then, two members of the iGEM Bordeaux team went on stage to present
our “Sleep with EpiC elegans”<\/b> project and the iGEM competition<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";

Finally, our listeners were invited to the “apéro” food stand<\/b> with delicious treats prepared by the iGEM team. This friendly gather-up gave the participants an opportunity to further debate on the delicate issues about GMOs<\/b> or address more questions to the attending GMO specialists<\/b>. Furthermore, they could answer our survey about \"Sleep and synthetic biology\"<\/p>";
"; $\"Aperitif$ ";
Finally, it is time to eat!<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
"; $\"Some$ ";
Some people from the audience talking about GMOs and what they learned during our event<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
";
";
Event Assessment<\/h3>";
By means of this intervention, we noticed the existence of real fear in our society about GMOs in food<\/b>. Indeed, this subject led to important debates in France. Economic and political issues are involved, making GMO issues hard to solve. However, the audience seemed to accept the use of GMOs<\/b> as long as it occurs in a context of fundamental research<\/b> or for therapeutic applications<\/b>.<\/p>";
People against the use of GMOs often claim their opposition to a particular kind of GMOs but not to all of GMOs in general.<\/h4>";
Therefore, our role is to help people understanding better the principles and the uses of GMOs<\/b> through the scientific popularization<\/b>. Afterwards, the GMO subject would be more easily accepted.
"; It was also interesting to observe that the audience was waiting for further research on the potential consequences of the use of GMOs<\/b>. These studies are uncommon and we hope for a better communication between scientific communities and us, common people, or at least a simplified access to information.<\/p>";
In conclusion<\/h3>";
This first Science Apero was very successful. More than sixty people<\/b> were present at to our conference and stayed to discuss GMO issues. We mainly welcomed students studying biology<\/b>, of course, but also students studying computer sciences<\/b>, economy and management<\/b>, as well as middle aged people<\/b> willing to learn more about the topic of the day.<\/p>";
We trust this event either refreshed our audience's memory or helped spread factual knowledge on GMOs.<\/h4>"; <\/div>"; html +="

"; $\"Our$ ";
Time to rest and take a picture!<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
Some returns of the event : <\/h3>";
";
";
“I really liked the conference. I had a mixed opinion about GMOs, but I've learnt that not all of them are harmful. I think this initiative from iGEM Bordeaux is a good way to make us more receptive to this subject.”

"; Liliane BLONDEL<\/b>
Student in Economy and Management at Bordeaux University<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
";
“I think that your scientific popularization goal was reached with success. The presentations were clear and enlightening, in particular the one that José-Edouardo Gomes carried out. However, I would have preferred a longer introduction before the debate.
"; html+= "Otherwise, the event was very well managed by the team. The members of IGEM Bordeaux were all cheerful and the buffet very well filled. In this way, people could talk easily around drinks at the end of the debate.
"; html += "I would like to thank the team for this very enjoyable evening !””

"; Mathis DELMONTAIL-GIRERD<\/b>
Student in Mathematics and Computer Science at Bordeaux University<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>"; <\/div>";
";
";
“I think this Apéro was constructive and necessary. It is obvious scientific communities lack openness towards the general public. This leads to unexpected and especially inappropriate reactions from in people lacking knowledge on the GMO subject. Science popularization seems essential. So, in my opinion, Science Apéro is a good way to tackle this problem.
"; Regarding the contents, I found both talks very interesting, (…) the simplification process of the subject was nicely done, and I consider that even people without GMO knowledge were able to understand it. The subject was broached according to different points of view going beyond the agri-food field\/subject. This was beneficial for people with political opinion on GMOs, but who lack the necessary biological knowledge in order to understand all aspects of this subject. \"Don’t confuse biology with politics or even economy\" was the message clearly depicted throughout this event.”

"; Sapho AUPETIT<\/b>
Student in Bioinformatics at Bordeaux University<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>"; element.innerHTML = html; var element = document.getElementById("AP");
Media and Science<\/h1>";
For this second event, several people spoke during 10 minutes on several aspects concerning Media and Science :<\/p><\/div>";
";
Denis Dupuy<\/b> spoke about the differences between the title of non scientific media publications and the real one which appears on the initial publication. He explained that mainstream media often have to simplify scientific research, findings, and conclusions in order to appeal to the public.
"; Therefore, they have to render these articles attractive and make their content both motivating and simple. This leads to the media making huge leaps or shortcuts that often lead to false statements. The spreading of information often starts with a single article or a single study, of which data that is not always verified. Moreover, there is an article selection where only articles that seem \"revolutionary\" (even after simplification) are published, which usually discredits science.<\/p>"; html += "

"; $\"Why$ ";
Mrs Estelle Dumas-Mallet<\/b>, talked about “Why most of biomedical discoveries reported by the press are false?”<\/i><\/p>"; html += "

";
Arthur Rafié<\/b>, presented Youtube and its involvement in scientific popularization. In order to understand science, articles have to set solid, scientific foundations, and thus be able to distinguish truth from exaggeration or forged information delivered by the media. These foundations require scientific background acquired through academic courses that everyone does not have. Nowadays, there are alternative ways to college studies in order to develop basis in one or more scientific field.
"; An example is collaborative online platforms. For example, on YouTube, a platform destined to share videos, anyone can post videos, presentations, and talks on more or less sophisticated subjects. This gives everyone the possibility to access free knowledge in multiple fields. A collective gathering was even created in order to bring together youtubers implicated in science popularization. Of course, this gives way to debates on the positive and negative aspects of these new knowledge platforms and makes us wonder if a limit to information dissemination should exist: what about the veracity of the information provided?<\/p>"; <\/div>";
"; $\"Introduction$ ";
Mr Denis Dupuy<\/b>, our team advisor introduce the links between science and media<\/i><\/p>";
Upon in-depth analysis of which scientific articles are published in some of the main public media references (ex. Nature journal), one notices only preliminary articles appear. These are usually the most “sensational” ones, which can lead to exaggerated and\/or imaginary revolutionary perspectives. The works of Estelle Dumas-Mallet<\/b>’s team shows that articles following a groundbreaking one are often not published, even if it confirms or invalidates the conclusions of the first article. This skews information.
"; A link is made between the truthfulness and honesty of the content of a press release and the title resulting from the published report in the media. A researcher wanting to attract fame on himself is prone to exaggerate their results and influence their choice of words. These words will later be used by the media, who will exaggerate them as well, resulting in a double distorsion of original findings. The media therefore reflect a statement’s veracity: honest content of the initial article or honest comments will appear as such in a press release. If the content is inaccurate or fake from the start, the media has no way of verifying this information and will spread wrong information. According to Mrs Estelle Mallet-DUMAS, this problem is due to a lack of ethic of communication between journalists and researchers. <\/p>"; $\"Youtube$ ";
Mr Arthur Rafie<\/b>, head of the association Ca cogite<\/b><\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
"; $\"The$ ";
Mr Dominique Rolin and Alain Girard<\/b>beginning the discussion with the audience<\/i><\/p>";
After this last presentation, Dominique Rolin<\/b>, head of the functional Genomics Center of Bordeaux and Alain Girard<\/b>, in charge of the communication in the National Institute of Research in Agronomy gave their personal opinions on how science can be indeed distorted by the media because of different reasons. Mr Rolin asked everyone present what medium they use to inform themselves about science and what their opinion is on them. Different students participated in the discussion and one student suggested the idea of having a class about this subject added to the University curriculum. When the discussion came to the reliability of public science on YouTube, many students agreed on the opinion that as long as we have the possibility to read the sources the youtubers use and contact them or publish any false information they may have spread, it rests a very useful medium for spreading and discussing science.

"; Finally, the public was invited to our lovely buffet prepared by some members of our team. This allowed everyone to further discuss on the subject of the conference while making new friends. And they can answer to our second survey concerning Sleep disorders, their causes and the potential therapies.<\/p>"; <\/div>";
"; $\"Time$ ";
Our amazing buffet<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
"; $\"Time$ ";
Time for our guests to eat<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>";
";
";
Event Assessment<\/h3>";
The « Apero Science » event was quite enjoyed by the guests. They all find the subject very attractive and appreciated the availability of the professionals. They were not listening to a lesson but actually participating in a debate between people with very different professional and personal experience. Even without any scientific background, people were able to easily understand the presentations and enjoy the “open-mindedness” of the debate.

"; We asked people if they came there with their own opinion or without any ulterior motive. For some of them, the three presentations make them listen several opinions in order to construct their own. For others who had already one on this question, they were conforted by knowing that they were not alone to share the same ideas. To summarize this conference, people understand that explaining science is a real dilemma. We have to choose between telling all the truth which could be very complex and simplifying the terms and forget the details in order to present science for all, but it may have some misunderstandings. <\/p>";
People enjoyed our event and hope to assist to another one as soon as possible! They all left the debate with a full belly and some food for the thought.<\/h4>";
In conclusion<\/h3>";
All in all, this event was another success as we were happy to receive more than 50 attendees. We hope that everyone appreciated the chance to know more about the relationship between the science and the media as presented by professionals involved in this subject in their everyday life. As for us, the iGEM team members, we were able to discover another facet of public science, the risks that come with it. <\/p>";
Even so… public science still rocks!<\/h4>"; <\/div>";
Some returns of the event:<\/h3><\/div>";
";
";
\"The \"Apero science\" was a very good time. Presentations were very interesting. I've liked a lot the one about the meta-analyses, that i didn't know before. To compare science articles and regular newpapers articles was a nice idea to make us understand why the subject is worth a talk.
"; The students were free to debate the subjects after the presentations and during the buffet. The food was very good and even vegans were happy!\"

"; Ninon DE MECQUENEM<\/b>
"; Student in Bioinformatics at Bordeaux University<\/i><\/p>"; <\/div>"; <\/div>";
";
";
\"When it comes to “Science and the media”, few keywords come to my mind : “journalists”, “newspapers”, “researches”, “cancer”, “cure” and way more. Mr. Denis Dupuy pointed out one thing that I have never really noticed until then. The question mark at the end of an article's title dealing with science most certainly is a mean to put some distance between the media and science itself. This was seriously informative. Yet, nobody applauded.
"; Then, Ms Estelle Dumas-Mallet ended her clear presentation about how reporters and journalists exploit and misinterpret the results of researches. As the lecture room was applauding, I could hear somebody saying : “I don't understand why we applause now but didn't for the first presentation”. I was thinking the same thing.
"; Following up, Mr. Arthur Rafié presented “Youtube and Science” and since when and how science has been popularized there and by whom. He raised some questions that were later discussed during the debate : “who really can talk about science on YouTube ?” and “is it good for science?”. I feel like these will never be answered.
"; Yet, as an outsider to both the science field and the media backstage, I could easily understand the issues that were presented at this conference.\"

"; Houchia Lyfoung<\/b>
"; Student in Political Science at Bordeaux Montaigne University<\/i><\/p>"; element.innerHTML = html;

How to find us ?

Feel free to email us to provide some feedback on our project, have some information on the team and our work, or to just say hello !

Facebook Twitter Wordpress

Mail: igembdx@gmail.com

Copyright © iGEM Bordeaux 2016

@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
                  html += "           <p align=\"justify\"><b>Denis Dupuy<\/b> spoke about the differences between the title of non scientific media publications and the real one which appears on the initial publication. He explained that mainstream media often have to simplify scientific research, findings, and conclusions in order to appeal to the public. <br>";
                  html += "           Therefore, they have to render these articles attractive and make their content both motivating and simple. This leads to the media making huge leaps or shortcuts that often lead to false statements. The spreading of information often starts with a single article or a single study, of which data that is not always verified. Moreover, there is an article selection where only articles that seem \"revolutionary\" (even after simplification) are published, which usually discredits science.<\/p>";
-                 html += "<br><br><br><br><br><br>";
+                 html += "<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>";
                  html += "          <img src=\"http:\/\/2016.igem.org\/wiki\/images\/2\/21\/T--Bordeaux--AP2_Estelle.jpeg\" ";
                  html += "            style=\"display:block ; margin-left: auto ; margin-right: auto ; width:75% ; height:auto\" ";
                  html += "            id=\"Mallet\" title=\"Why most of biomedical discoveries reported by the press are false?\">";
                  html += "            <p style=\"text-align:center\"><i>Mrs <b>Estelle Dumas-Mallet<\/b>, talked about “Why most of biomedical discoveries reported by the press are false?”<\/i><\/p>";
-                 html += "";
+                 html += "<br><br><br><br><br><br>";
                  html += "          <p align=\"justify\"><b>Arthur Rafié<\/b>, presented Youtube and its involvement in scientific popularization. In order to understand science, articles have to set solid, scientific foundations, and thus be able to distinguish truth from exaggeration or forged information delivered by the media. These foundations require scientific background acquired through academic courses that everyone does not have. Nowadays, there are alternative ways to college studies in order to develop basis in one or more scientific field. <br>";
                  html += "          An example is collaborative online platforms. For example, on YouTube, a platform destined to share videos, anyone can post videos, presentations, and talks on more or less sophisticated subjects. This gives everyone the possibility to access free knowledge in multiple fields. A collective gathering was even created in order to bring together youtubers implicated in science popularization. Of course, this gives way to debates on the positive and negative aspects of these new knowledge platforms and makes us wonder if a limit to information dissemination should exist: what about the veracity of the information provided?<\/p>";