Team:UCL/amandeep/Human Practices/Law and Regulation

MENU ▤

UCL iGEM x David Kurten (London Assembly)

We wanted to understand where our project fits in with public policy and are trying to gain a well-rounded view. To do this we met with David Kurten, a UKIP member of the London Assembly. After explaining our project we went onto discuss what priorities the elderly population has, the public perception of GM and the effect of Brexit on science research. Here is what we discovered:

  1. Science is ahead of politicians knowledge, similarly, legislation is slower than the rate of research. There is the potential therefore for research to accelerate without real consideration of the ethics. 

OUR SOLUTION: thoroughly discuss and explore the ethics of our project.
  2. Gene therapy Introducing something unnatural- genetically modifying human DNA. Again, sciences races ahead of legislation. Requires the Government of the day to be behind it for it to become law.

OUR SOLUTION: Talk with an MP about the process of legislation with regards to GM, synthetic biology and science research.
  3. Consent: this is important with regards to who will be affected.

OUR SOLUTION: Talk to lots of people to see if they would like to take a therapy/get in contact with those who already have.
  4. Vested interests: political and green and companies, research funding bodies.
Knowledge and transparency of information important.

OUR SOLUTION: Present our research with no bias and be transparent with results.
  5. What can we do to change public opinion? 
Existing propaganda has influenced the opinions of the public. There is a need of transparency. e.g. of labelling food.
  6. Semantics of GM vs synthetic biology ‘advancing progressing, doing science’ vs biotechnology, again has positive connotations.
  7. UKIP policy: look into what the science says. Allow research to happen on an objective basis as well as to ensure that large data sets are used.
  8. Loss of faith in scientists due to medias portrayal - faking data news story. Suggested that raw data directly to public to let them make own decisions. (we are aware this is ridiculous).
There is a need however for communicating the information without a bias. Media- sensationalism sells. Deeper level of understanding is needed. Currently a dumbing down of culture rather than this uplifting of culture.
  9. On Brexit. 20 billion to EU, 10 billion back, net fee of around 10 billion. A lot of EU funding is British money. Not going to effect the UK for funding (just missing out). Collaboration will continue- not dependent on EU dependent upon innovators and scientists regardless of EU. People that are involved. Long term- cutting out a layer of bureucracy- more efficient and less
  10. Medical without ethics, looks great. Changed DNA structure - lots of discussion is needed. Is this natural or not. Personal view- cautious, case by case basis. Not a fan of changing DNA, it’s evolved over time to how it is now. Short term benefits- what about the long term implications- they are unknown. Should we be doing this? ‘perfect super human race’ personally- should not be playing around of DNA. Taking ethics, morality and faith out of the question, we should do it. But adding these I think we shouldn’t.
  11. Ageing: unintended consequences of action. population increase/policy change- working longer, pension system would collapse. Increasing retirement age- public wouldn’t like it. political suicide. demographics of voters- older people vote more.

Keir Starmer