(→Conference about The Societal Issues of CRISPR Cas9) |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<html><style>header{background-image: url("https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d4/T--Paris_Saclay--OverviewBanner.jpg");}</style></html> | <html><style>header{background-image: url("https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d4/T--Paris_Saclay--OverviewBanner.jpg");}</style></html> | ||
− | Because we were working on CRISPR/Cas9 it seemed important to us to | + | Because we were working on the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, it seemed important to us to know more about it. We wanted to lead a responsible project, but we realized we did not know much about CRISPR/Cas9 and its huge consequences. So we decided to investigate the societal issues of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology. |
− | This research on the societal issues of CRISPR/Cas9 was for us a public engagement. We built a strong outreach by meeting public through survey, vox pop and exhibitions in order to explain synthetic biology and CRISPR/Cas9 and gather their opinion about it. Then we met a lot of stakeholders in order to know more about those societal issues. It was highly important for us to meet stakeholders from different fields. So we met scientists, politics, and patent attorneys, all working with or about CRISPR/Cas9. At last, we connected our research on the societal issues and our outreach by organizing a conference on the societal issues of CRISPR/Cas9. | + | This research on the societal issues of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology was for us a public engagement. We built a strong outreach by meeting public through survey, vox pop and exhibitions in order to explain synthetic biology and CRISPR/Cas9 and gather their opinion about it. Then we met a lot of stakeholders in order to know more about those societal issues. It was highly important for us to meet stakeholders from different fields. So we met scientists, politics, and patent attorneys, all working with or about CRISPR/Cas9. At last, we connected our research on the societal issues and our outreach by organizing a conference on the societal issues of CRISPR/Cas9. |
=Outreach= | =Outreach= | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
In a first step, in order to build a better outreach, we wanted to know how much people knew about synthetic biology. We made a survey and spread it as much as possible. | In a first step, in order to build a better outreach, we wanted to know how much people knew about synthetic biology. We made a survey and spread it as much as possible. | ||
− | We know | + | We know surveys are not always the best reflection of the reality. In a vision of righteousness and honesty, we looked for the weaknesses of our results in order to have the best interpretation of it. Here are some rules we should keep in mind about this results: |
* We tried to have answer of both scientists and non-scientists in reasonable proportion, in order to have a truest vision of the reality. If we didn’t pay attention we knew most of the people who would have answered would be people close to us, and most of them are scientists. | * We tried to have answer of both scientists and non-scientists in reasonable proportion, in order to have a truest vision of the reality. If we didn’t pay attention we knew most of the people who would have answered would be people close to us, and most of them are scientists. | ||
− | * This survey | + | * This survey was spread on social networks. Most of the people who answered to it are French young people (79% of the people are between 20 and 30 years old). |
− | Some questions interested us. We knew from previous experiences that synthetic biology is not well-known among public. A lot of medias talked about CRISPR | + | Some questions interested us. We knew from previous experiences that synthetic biology is not well-known among public. A lot of medias talked about the CRISPR/Cas9 technology. We wanted to know if people without scientific background knew more CRISPR-Cas9 than synthetic biology. We imagine that we could see the influence of medias on scientific knowledge. |
The survey showed us clearly that the influence of the media was not so important: only 10% of the people had heard about CRISPR-Cas9 without knowing synthetic biology. | The survey showed us clearly that the influence of the media was not so important: only 10% of the people had heard about CRISPR-Cas9 without knowing synthetic biology. | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
− | The main factor of knowledge of synthetic biology and | + | The main factor of knowledge of synthetic biology and the CRISPR/Cas9 technology seems to be the scientific educational background. |
− | Ethics: We also wanted to know how a scientific formation could impact the perception of CRISPR | + | Ethics: We also wanted to know how a scientific formation could impact the perception of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology. We thought people without scientific background would probably have more fears than people which have a scientific formation. Here again, our expectations have been challenged: 3% of the people without scientific background strongly fear CRISPR-Cas9, while 9% of people with scientific background strongly fear it… 66% of the people without scientific background and 60% of people with scientific background think CRISPR-Cas9 could lead to new treatments. |
The results are very low and quite similar: the perception of CRISPR-Cas9 does not evolve that much, if you have a scientific background or not. People fear CRISPR-Cas9 but as they know it could be beneficial for society they are in favor of it. Nonetheless, the bulk of the people we asked (76%) think editing genome is good but should respect strict laws. | The results are very low and quite similar: the perception of CRISPR-Cas9 does not evolve that much, if you have a scientific background or not. People fear CRISPR-Cas9 but as they know it could be beneficial for society they are in favor of it. Nonetheless, the bulk of the people we asked (76%) think editing genome is good but should respect strict laws. | ||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
=Festival Vivant= | =Festival Vivant= | ||
− | The “Festival Vivant” | + | The “Festival Vivant” was a three days festival, to debate and share views about living organisms and the way we use them. During these three days one could find conferences, workshops and meetings. The iGEM Paris Saclay’s team was there to present the field of synthetic biology and our iJ’AIME project. This festival presented different insights about living organisms to professionals, students and general audience. This festival gave us an other opportunity to do popular science. On this occasion we worked on popularising science: we modeled our project, and presented posters about it. |
[[File:T--Paris_Saclay--FestivalVivant2.jpg|500px|center]] | [[File:T--Paris_Saclay--FestivalVivant2.jpg|500px|center]] | ||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
− | What did we learn | + | What did we learn from all these experiments ? Most of the people we met trust scientists to be responsible in their use of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, and do not feel legitimate to bring a critic on a subject they do not master. |
[[File:T--Paris_Saclay--voxpopbacteria.jpg|350px|center]] | [[File:T--Paris_Saclay--voxpopbacteria.jpg|350px|center]] | ||
− | To the question about using animal in synthetic biology, the persons who were against changing a bacteria's genome were also against it for animal. However, some of them for | + | To the question about using animal in synthetic biology, the persons who were against changing a bacteria's genome were also against it for animal. However, some of them for whom changing a bacteria's genome was conceivable, were against modifying an animal's genome because of the mistreatment of animals. |
[[File:T--Paris_Saclay--voxpopanimal.jpg|350px|center]] | [[File:T--Paris_Saclay--voxpopanimal.jpg|350px|center]] | ||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
=Meeting stakeholders= | =Meeting stakeholders= | ||
− | In order to know more about the societal issues of CRISPR | + | In order to know more about the societal issues of the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, we went to meet stakeholders from different fields around science and law. |
===Agnes Ricroch=== | ===Agnes Ricroch=== | ||
'''''Agnès Ricroch, Professor at AgroParisTech School working on plants and their regulations''''' | '''''Agnès Ricroch, Professor at AgroParisTech School working on plants and their regulations''''' | ||
− | She brought an interesting opinion: CRISPR/Cas9 is not a revolution, but a continuity. In fact, everything CRISPR/Cas9 is able to do already existed (like cutting the genome). CRISPR/Cas9 is neither easier to use: we still need to do a transgenesis in order to use it, and not everybody has the tools to use it. | + | She brought an interesting opinion: CRISPR/Cas9 is not a revolution, but a continuity. In fact, everything the CRISPR/Cas9 technology is able to do already existed (like cutting the genome). CRISPR/Cas9 is neither easier to use: we still need to do a transgenesis in order to use it, and not everybody has the tools to use it. |
− | On regulations | + | On regulations Pr Ricroch casted a light on the non-coherence of the system. A lot of different regulations coexist, for GMO’s or plants for instance. However, sometimes, those different regulations apply to the same object: how can we guess if an organism underwent genetic mutations ? Often, those mutations cannot be seen on the final results. The law needs to be updated on the technologies, to be able to seize all of the evolutions.To learn more about GMO regulation, [https://2016.igem.org/Team:Paris_Saclay/Human_Practices/GMO_Regulation click here]. |
− | When we talk about CRISPR/Cas9, we immediately think about ethics and abuses. Mrs Ricroch had a strong concern on putting first the great challenges facing humanity. Among these challenges, some of them can be solved by science. She told us we had to weigh the pros and the cons. But we should always remember first the issues we would be able to solve with science. | + | When we talk about the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, we immediately think about ethics and abuses. Mrs Ricroch had a strong concern on putting first the great challenges facing humanity. Among these challenges, some of them can be solved by science. She told us we had to weigh the pros and the cons. But we should always remember first the issues we would be able to solve with science. |
For full interview [[Media:T--Paris_Saclay--Ricrochtranslation1.pdf| click here]]. | For full interview [[Media:T--Paris_Saclay--Ricrochtranslation1.pdf| click here]]. | ||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
'''''Marc Fellous, Emeritus Professor at Paris Diderot University and Medical Doctor''''' | '''''Marc Fellous, Emeritus Professor at Paris Diderot University and Medical Doctor''''' | ||
− | + | Pr Fellous told us that the CRISPR/Cas9 technique is a revolution because it eases genome editing, which obviously raised new issues. It is, thus, necessary to established rules. Today, the CRISPR/Cas9 technology has a wide range of applications: plants, animals, insects. CRISPR is interesting today in the struggle with Zika virus transmitted by mosquitoes. Some researchers look at the question by modifying genetically female to render them sterile thereby erasing any progeny. | |
When it comes to the question: Does this technique should be applied to humans? Well, there is a general consensus among the scientific community, the answer is no, not if it affects the human progeny. | When it comes to the question: Does this technique should be applied to humans? Well, there is a general consensus among the scientific community, the answer is no, not if it affects the human progeny. | ||
To sum up, CRISPR is a more precise gene editing technique which ease the process and reduce the risk of “off-target”. | To sum up, CRISPR is a more precise gene editing technique which ease the process and reduce the risk of “off-target”. |
Revision as of 09:57, 17 October 2016