Difference between revisions of "Team:Waterloo/Integrated Practices"

 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
<body>
 
<body>
 
   <div class="header" ng-include="'../HomePage/Waterloo_Header.html'"></div>
 
   <div class="header" ng-include="'../HomePage/Waterloo_Header.html'"></div>
 +
 +
  <div class="container-fluid">
 +
  <div class="justmakeitlightorange">
 +
    <div class="header-image" style="background-image: url(https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/b3/T--Waterloo--iGEM_plate.jpg);">
 +
      <h3 class="header-text"><span style="background-color: #FFFFFF;opacity: 0.8;">Integrated Practice</span></h3>
 +
    </div>
 +
  </div>
 +
  </div>
  
 
   <div class="wcontent-box">
 
   <div class="wcontent-box">
Line 21: Line 29:
  
 
<p>
 
<p>
−
<a href="/OpenScience">Read it here!</a>
+
<a href="/Team:Waterloo/Integrated_Practices/OpenScience">Read it here!</a>
 +
<p>
 +
<i>Incidentally, while exploring this, we were inspired to pursue more specific investigation of iGEM's knowledge infrastructure through our collaboration network project.</i>
 
       </p>
 
       </p>
 
     </div>
 
     </div>
Line 46: Line 56:
 
     </div>
 
     </div>
 
     <div class="wcontent">
 
     <div class="wcontent">
 +
<p>
 +
In conducting a network analysis of iGEM collaborations and laying the groundwork for future study of this phenomenon, Waterloo iGEM appreciated the value of consulting the knowledge of, distributing the labour among, and reciprocating aid with colleagues outside of our immediate in-group.  Not only did we participate in inter-iGEM team collaborations, but we also deliberately promoted intra-iGEM team collaborations between our three subteams (Lab and Design, Math Modelling, and Policy and Practices).  We documented our work in a dataset codebook, network analysis paper, and strategic plan for future work in this area, as well as will signal subteam collaborations throughout our wiki.  We hope, after providing further evidence of this practice’s significance and intricacies, decisions can be better made to improve interactions within the synbio community.  As resources are shared and trust is built among actors, we expect to see net global increase of quality in iGEM work.
 +
</p>
 
     <div class="row">
 
     <div class="row">
 
<div align="center"><div class=col-md-4><div class="policyIntegratedPracticesCircles"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Waterloo/Integrated_Practices/Networks#Codebook">Dataset Codebook</a></div></div></div>
 
<div align="center"><div class=col-md-4><div class="policyIntegratedPracticesCircles"><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Waterloo/Integrated_Practices/Networks#Codebook">Dataset Codebook</a></div></div></div>
Line 73: Line 86:
  
 
</html>
 
</html>
 +
 +
{{Template:Waterloo/Footer}}

Latest revision as of 01:36, 20 October 2016

Waterloo iGEM

Integrated Practice

Open Science

Research relies on the collection and analysis of data to develop explanations about the phenomena it seeks to represent (Borgman, 2015). Currently, many research disciplines are developing new data sharing and data use practices. One of these disciplines is biology, where novel ideas and practices around data are being established. This paper focuses on data and science within synthetic biology, and specifically on the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM), a leading synthetic biology competition. It begins with a review of open-science as a social and technical movement, then we introduce synthetic biology and the iGEM competition specifically, to show how open-data concepts are being encouraged and meeting resistance in this forum.

Read it here!

Incidentally, while exploring this, we were inspired to pursue more specific investigation of iGEM's knowledge infrastructure through our collaboration network project.

Networks

In conducting a network analysis of iGEM collaborations and laying the groundwork for future study of this phenomenon, Waterloo iGEM appreciated the value of consulting the knowledge of, distributing the labour among, and reciprocating aid with colleagues outside of our immediate in-group. Not only did we participate in inter-iGEM team collaborations, but we also deliberately promoted intra-iGEM team collaborations between our three subteams (Lab and Design, Math Modelling, and Policy and Practices). We documented our work in a dataset codebook, network analysis paper, and strategic plan for future work in this area, as well as will signal subteam collaborations throughout our wiki. We hope, after providing further evidence of this practice’s significance and intricacies, decisions can be better made to improve interactions within the synbio community. As resources are shared and trust is built among actors, we expect to see net global increase of quality in iGEM work.

A codebook was created in order to explicitly state the definitions and methods used in collecting, organizing, and analyzing collaboration data from the 2015 iGEM competition.
The data collected on iGEM teams in 2015 was analyzed in order to determine the effect of collaboration on team success.
Reviewing our conclusions to the network analysis, recommendations were made for further investigation and specific improvements on our analysis on iGEM collaboration data.
References
  1. Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The