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

Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Paris_Saclay}}
 
{{Paris_Saclay}}
−
 
−
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!
 
  
 
= Integration of Human Practices into the project : building an intellectual scheme for a more rational and societal process=  
 
= Integration of Human Practices into the project : building an intellectual scheme for a more rational and societal process=  

Revision as of 07:17, 11 October 2016

Integration of Human Practices into the project : building an intellectual scheme for a more rational and societal process

While working on our Human Practices we saw CRISPR/Cas9 was a complex subject, and that we should have a really responsible use of it. This research lead us to build a test which worked as a feed-back to build a more rational and societal process during lab work.

Indeed, 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 : its goal was to bring innovation and societal needs closer. 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 built an intellectual scheme that helped us to lead our researches in a more responsible way. As iGEM Imperial acknowledged, it changed our decision making into a more rational and societal process.


And finally, 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. »