Difference between revisions of "Team:Paris Saclay/Integrated Practices"

(Prototype team page)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Paris_Saclay}}
 
{{Paris_Saclay}}
−
<html>
 
  
 +
Best integrated human practices criterion : Are you interested in how your project affects society and society influences the direction of your project? Will conversations with stakeholders affect the experiemtns you conduct in the lab? Are you planning to integrate feedback into the workflow of your work all through the iGEM competition? Document how your project evolved based on the information acquired from these activities and compete for this award!
  
−
<div class="column full_size judges-will-not-evaluate">
+
Studying how our project affects society and how society affects our project was at the very heart of our project. We interested in a first time what were the societal issues of CRISPR-Cas9. We lead several actions, meet stakeholders and popularised science for public. We tried to see how CRISPR/Cas9 affects law, economics, ethics and politics matters.
−
<h3>★  ALERT! </h3>
+
−
<p>This page is used by the judges to evaluate your team for the <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Judging/Awards#SpecialPrizes">Best Integrated Human Practices award</a>. </p>
+
  
 +
See here to learn more about our work on the societal issues of CRISPR/Cas9. (INSEREZ UN LIEN VERS LA PAGE)
  
−
<p> Delete this box in order to be evaluated for this medal. See more information at <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Judging/Pages_for_Awards/Instructions"> Instructions for Pages for awards</a>.</p>
+
Our conversations with stakeholders directly affected the experiments we had in the lab. We met in a first time a lot of scientists to shape our foundational project. As an example, we met the professor Olivier Espéli or the researcher David Bikard which helped us a lot to define our project and what we have to do in lab work.
−
</div>
+
  
 +
We integrated feedback into the workflow of our work all through the iGEM competition. In order to have the best feed-back on our work we even build a tool, “the Responsible Research and Innovation”. This test helped us to see if our project really meets the societal needs we wanted to reach. This test was divided in four parts, reflexivity, anticipation, inclusiveness and responsiveness. Each of this part had an impact on the project, especially the responsiveness part, where we tried to shape the project with what we learn with reflexivity, anticipation and inclusiveness. We also gave this test to several iGEM teams in order to see how well this test worked.
 +
See this test, our answers, and the iGEM teams answers here (INSEREZ LIEN VERS LA PAGE)
  
 +
Thus, the contribution of Human Practices to lab work was not solely material : we build an intellectual scheme that helped us to lead our researches in a more responsible way. It changed our decision making into a more rational and societal process. As IGEM Taïwan said in our test : « Reflexivity makes you a good start; inclusiveness makes  you a good connection; anticipation makes you a good hope. »
  
−
<div class="column full_size">
 
−
 
−
<p>Do you want to be considered for the <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Judging/Awards#SpecialPrizes">Best Integrated Human Practices award</a>? Help the judges consider your team for this award by describing your work on this page.</p>
 
  
  

Revision as of 09:47, 8 October 2016

Best integrated human practices criterion : Are you interested in how your project affects society and society influences the direction of your project? Will conversations with stakeholders affect the experiemtns you conduct in the lab? Are you planning to integrate feedback into the workflow of your work all through the iGEM competition? Document how your project evolved based on the information acquired from these activities and compete for this award!

Studying how our project affects society and how society affects our project was at the very heart of our project. We interested in a first time what were the societal issues of CRISPR-Cas9. We lead several actions, meet stakeholders and popularised science for public. We tried to see how CRISPR/Cas9 affects law, economics, ethics and politics matters.

See here to learn more about our work on the societal issues of CRISPR/Cas9. (INSEREZ UN LIEN VERS LA PAGE)

Our conversations with stakeholders directly affected the experiments we had in the lab. We met in a first time a lot of scientists to shape our foundational project. As an example, we met the professor Olivier Espéli or the researcher David Bikard which helped us a lot to define our project and what we have to do in lab work.

We integrated feedback into the workflow of our work all through the iGEM competition. In order to have the best feed-back on our work we even build a tool, “the Responsible Research and Innovation”. This test helped us to see if our project really meets the societal needs we wanted to reach. This test was divided in four parts, reflexivity, anticipation, inclusiveness and responsiveness. Each of this part had an impact on the project, especially the responsiveness part, where we tried to shape the project with what we learn with reflexivity, anticipation and inclusiveness. We also gave this test to several iGEM teams in order to see how well this test worked. See this test, our answers, and the iGEM teams answers here (INSEREZ LIEN VERS LA PAGE)

Thus, the contribution of Human Practices to lab work was not solely material : we build an intellectual scheme that helped us to lead our researches in a more responsible way. It changed our decision making into a more rational and societal process. As IGEM Taïwan said in our test : « Reflexivity makes you a good start; inclusiveness makes you a good connection; anticipation makes you a good hope. »


Here are two examples of excellent Integrated Human Practices work from 2015:

</div>




</html>