(→Integration of Responsibility into the project: building an intellectual scheme for a more rational and societal process) |
Naianerios (Talk | contribs) (→Integration of Responsibility into the project: building an intellectual scheme for a more rational and societal process) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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 had to do in lab work. | 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 had to do in lab work. | ||
− | Then, we integrated feedback into the workflow of our work all through the iGEM competition. In order to have the best feed-back on responsibility in our work we build a tool, “[[Team:Paris_Saclay/HP/Gold|The Responsible Research and Innovation Test]]". This test [[Team:Paris_Saclay/HP/Gold#What_did_we_learn_on_our_project.3F|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 | + | Then, we integrated feedback into the workflow of our work all through the iGEM competition. In order to have the best feed-back on responsibility in our work we build a tool, “[[Team:Paris_Saclay/HP/Gold|The Responsible Research and Innovation Test]]". This test [[Team:Paris_Saclay/HP/Gold#What_did_we_learn_on_our_project.3F|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 these parts 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 [[Team:Paris_Saclay/HP/Gold#RRI_Test:_the_answers_of_the_iGEM_teams|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 [[Team:Paris_Saclay/HP/Gold|here]]. | See this test, our answers, and the iGEM teams answers [[Team:Paris_Saclay/HP/Gold|here]]. | ||
− | 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. | + | 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. |
Revision as of 14:20, 19 October 2016