(→Responsiveness) |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
=Bring innovation and societal needs closer= | =Bring innovation and societal needs closer= | ||
− | We chose to work on human practices directly linked with our project: because we were working with CRISPR-Cas9, we tried to know more about it and to learn how to use it in a responsible way. We wanted this research to have a direct effect on our project. Innovation often try to answer a societal need. However this societal need is not always reached, because the innovation is not fit for the users, because it has deep negative impacts that have not been seen, because the project was not well defined in a first time...Sometimes the project missed its goals, because the desire to meet it was not followed by strong principles. We tried to have the strongest connection between innovation and societal need. In other words, we tried to bring innovation and societal need closer. | + | We chose to work on human practices directly linked with our project: because we were working with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, we tried to know more about it and to learn how to use it in a responsible way. We wanted this research to have a direct effect on our project. Innovation often try to answer a societal need. However this societal need is not always reached, because the innovation is not fit for the users, because it has deep negative impacts that have not been seen, because the project was not well defined in a first time...Sometimes the project missed its goals, because the desire to meet it was not followed by strong principles. We tried to have the strongest connection between innovation and societal need. In other words, we tried to bring innovation and societal need closer. |
− | Our work to bring them closer was possible thanks to Responsible Research and Innovation principles. Responsible Research and Innovation is a nascent governance concept that aims to guide research towards societal goals. Those principles have been developed by the European Commission. Responsible Research and Innovation works as soft law: it is not meant to substitute to written law (hard law) but to complete it. Soft law like RRI has the advantage of quick adaptability, when written law is often late because it can't change as fast as science. Thus, we believe RRI is a good framework for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in our research, because written law did not already ruled on this brand new technology. | + | Our work to bring them closer was possible thanks to Responsible Research and Innovation principles. Responsible Research and Innovation is a nascent governance concept that aims to guide research towards societal goals. Those principles have been developed by the European Commission. Responsible Research and Innovation works as soft law: it is not meant to substitute to written law (hard law) but to complete it. Soft law like RRI has the advantage of quick adaptability, when written law is often late because it can't change as fast as science. Thus, we believe RRI is a good framework for the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 technology in our research, because written law did not already ruled on this brand new technology. |
While working on the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation we had the idea to create a RRI Test, which works as a feed-back for the projects. The principles of Responsible Research and Innovation guided our research, and the RRI test helped us to reshape it to build a more responsible project. | While working on the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation we had the idea to create a RRI Test, which works as a feed-back for the projects. The principles of Responsible Research and Innovation guided our research, and the RRI test helped us to reshape it to build a more responsible project. | ||
− | We thus integrated all our human practices on CRISPR-Cas9 by the bias of responsibility: the RRI worked as a tool to integrate our human practices in our project. Indeed, this tool helped us to have a better decision making, more rational and guided towards societal needs. To see the RRI test, [[Media:T--Paris_Saclay--RRITest8.pdf|click here]]. | + | We thus integrated all our human practices on the CRISPR-Cas9 technology by the bias of responsibility: the RRI worked as a tool to integrate our human practices in our project. Indeed, this tool helped us to have a better decision making, more rational and guided towards societal needs. To see the RRI test, [[Media:T--Paris_Saclay--RRITest8.pdf|click here]]. |
While we were already working on our project and RRI, we discovered we followed the same idea as the European Union, which launched their RRI Toolkit this year, after two years working on it. This RRI Toolkit helps researchers to lead a responsible research by a wide variety of tools. RRI is a strong idea European Union tries to spread for 2020 for european researchers. Our test follows the same path for iGEM, an iGEM sized test. | While we were already working on our project and RRI, we discovered we followed the same idea as the European Union, which launched their RRI Toolkit this year, after two years working on it. This RRI Toolkit helps researchers to lead a responsible research by a wide variety of tools. RRI is a strong idea European Union tries to spread for 2020 for european researchers. Our test follows the same path for iGEM, an iGEM sized test. | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
The impacts of our project were difficult to define, because it was a project of fundamental biology: even if we defined the potential applications of our project, other scientists or industrials can invent new ways to use our tool. We can't guess what would be the use of this new ways. But the impacts of a responsible project can’t be only transferred to the user and his use in a environnemental or health context; science itself must be responsible. | The impacts of our project were difficult to define, because it was a project of fundamental biology: even if we defined the potential applications of our project, other scientists or industrials can invent new ways to use our tool. We can't guess what would be the use of this new ways. But the impacts of a responsible project can’t be only transferred to the user and his use in a environnemental or health context; science itself must be responsible. | ||
− | With this reflexion came the main question the RRI test asked us: how RRI could apply to fundamental research, such as our project on CRISPR-Cas9? The societal goal doesn’t seem to exist. However, building a responsible research is in itself a societal goal: having a more responsible science is undoubtedly a benefit for the society. The stakeholders of a fundamental project are the ones whose voices are interesting and necessary on science. In other words, the stakeholders are less identified. On our focus on CRISPR/Cas9 we felt necessary to gather stakeholders and tried to draw with them the future of a responsible use on this technology. | + | With this reflexion came the main question the RRI test asked us: how RRI could apply to fundamental research, such as our project on the CRISPR-Cas9 technology? The societal goal doesn’t seem to exist. However, building a responsible research is in itself a societal goal: having a more responsible science is undoubtedly a benefit for the society. The stakeholders of a fundamental project are the ones whose voices are interesting and necessary on science. In other words, the stakeholders are less identified. On our focus on the CRISPR/Cas9 technology we felt necessary to gather stakeholders and tried to draw with them the future of a responsible use on this technology. |
==Anticipation== | ==Anticipation== | ||
− | The more we knew about CRISPR-Cas9, the more we realized we didn’t know much on this technology and its impacts. The difficult anticipation in the scientific field transferred our questions on the human practice, and we try to learn from stakeholders what the burning issues can be on CRISPR/Cas9, and tried to get people know more about it. | + | The more we knew about the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, the more we realized we didn’t know much on this technology and its impacts. The difficult anticipation in the scientific field transferred our questions on the human practice, and we try to learn from stakeholders what the burning issues can be on the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, and tried to get people know more about it. |
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
==Inclusiveness and Deliberation== | ==Inclusiveness and Deliberation== | ||
− | As our project was in the field of synthetic biology, we had a strong concern about inclusiveness. We met a lot of stakeholders and public. In our case of fundamental research we defined the stakeholders as scientists using CRISPR-Cas9 and counselors in industrial property. | + | As our project was in the field of synthetic biology, we had a strong concern about inclusiveness. We met a lot of stakeholders and public. In our case of fundamental research we defined the stakeholders as scientists using the CRISPR-Cas9 technology and counselors in industrial property. |
===Popular Science: A Key Concern=== | ===Popular Science: A Key Concern=== | ||
− | As we believe popular science is a key concern in synthetic biology and especially for CRISPR-Cas9, we lead several activities in this field. | + | As we believe popular science is a key concern in synthetic biology and especially for the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, we lead several activities in this field. |
− | During a vox pop we saw that people were mostly unaware of synthetic biology itself. We thus tried to meet public, to discuss with us of synthetic biology, CRISPR and our project. | + | During a vox pop we saw that people were mostly unaware of synthetic biology itself. We thus tried to meet public, to discuss with us of synthetic biology, the CRISPR technology and our project. |
We met students during an exposition in the Nanterre University, but also during the Festival Vivant, opened to everyone and an exposition at the Pays de Limours. | We met students during an exposition in the Nanterre University, but also during the Festival Vivant, opened to everyone and an exposition at the Pays de Limours. | ||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
===Conference: The Societal Issues of CRISPR-Cas9=== | ===Conference: The Societal Issues of CRISPR-Cas9=== | ||
− | Because we had a strong concern both on vulgarisation and meeting stakeholders, we hold a conference in our university, in front of students, with two researchers, Jean Denis Faure, a researcher and professor using CRISPR-Cas9 on plants, and Pierre Walrafen a scientific with a cellular biochemistry and patent engineer. | + | Because we had a strong concern both on vulgarisation and meeting stakeholders, we hold a conference in our university, in front of students, with two researchers, Jean Denis Faure, a researcher and professor using the CRISPR-Cas9 technology on plants, and Pierre Walrafen a scientific with a cellular biochemistry and patent engineer. |
− | We tried with our guests to think about the societal issues of CRISPR-Cas9, for the ethics, the law and the economy. The ethical problems CRISPR-Cas9 is bringing are huge, and for most of them, unknown. The ethical problems comes with what is done with the technology: therapeutical applications ex vivo or for genetical diseases, or applications on embryos and germ cells. The ethical problems comes along with the question of transhumanism. The issues are rising because of the simplicity of CRISPR-Cas9, authorizing a wider scientific audience to edit the genome. | + | We tried with our guests to think about the societal issues of the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, for the ethics, the law and the economy. The ethical problems the CRISPR-Cas9 technology is bringing are huge, and for most of them, unknown. The ethical problems comes with what is done with the technology: therapeutical applications ex vivo or for genetical diseases, or applications on embryos and germ cells. The ethical problems comes along with the question of transhumanism. The issues are rising because of the simplicity of the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, authorizing a wider scientific audience to edit the genome. |
About the legal framework, our speakers made a comparison between the European legal framework, the process based evaluation, and the product based evaluation, and how the patentability was in Europe restrained by a principle of public order. | About the legal framework, our speakers made a comparison between the European legal framework, the process based evaluation, and the product based evaluation, and how the patentability was in Europe restrained by a principle of public order. | ||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Because we think meeting stakeholders is really important to build our project we met several of them. | Because we think meeting stakeholders is really important to build our project we met several of them. | ||
− | As we said before, we met the professor Olivier Espéli, who helped us to shape our project. We also met Mr. David BIKARD, a reseacher at the Institut Pasteur in Paris and an expert on CRISPR-Cas9 utilization. He helped us choosing which orthologous dCas9s to use for our project, in order to maintain the sgRNA/dCas9 recognition specificity. | + | As we said before, we met the professor Olivier Espéli, who helped us to shape our project. We also met Mr. David BIKARD, a reseacher at the Institut Pasteur in Paris and an expert on the CRISPR-Cas9 technology utilization. He helped us choosing which orthologous dCas9s to use for our project, in order to maintain the sgRNA/dCas9 recognition specificity. |
On our Human Practices research, we met different stakeholders to think on this field. | On our Human Practices research, we met different stakeholders to think on this field. | ||
We met Agnès Ricroch is a professor at AgroParisTech school working on plants and their regulations, the professor Marc Fellous, Emeritus Professor at Paris Diderot University and Medical Doctor, Eric Enderlin a French and European Patent Attorney at Novagraaf, Geneviève Fioraso, french deputy and former minister of Higher Education and research, and Catherine Procaccia, French Senator working on a report on the economical and environnemental issues of new biotechnologies. | We met Agnès Ricroch is a professor at AgroParisTech school working on plants and their regulations, the professor Marc Fellous, Emeritus Professor at Paris Diderot University and Medical Doctor, Eric Enderlin a French and European Patent Attorney at Novagraaf, Geneviève Fioraso, french deputy and former minister of Higher Education and research, and Catherine Procaccia, French Senator working on a report on the economical and environnemental issues of new biotechnologies. | ||
− | Those meetings helped us to define and shape our project, but also to think about the tool we were working on. We tried to meet stakeholders from the different fields involved (scientific, legal, politics), in order to have the broader view on CRISPR-Cas9. | + | Those meetings helped us to define and shape our project, but also to think about the tool we were working on. We tried to meet stakeholders from the different fields involved (scientific, legal, politics), in order to have the broader view on the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. |
===iGEM Meet-Ups=== | ===iGEM Meet-Ups=== | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
We attend to two iGEM meet-ups, an European one, and an other, gathering the Parisian teams. We were part of the organisation of the Parisian meet-up. | We attend to two iGEM meet-ups, an European one, and an other, gathering the Parisian teams. We were part of the organisation of the Parisian meet-up. | ||
− | This meet-ups helps us in two ways. First it was a great opportunity to have a feed-back from our peers. Then, we met there other teams working with CRISPR-Cas9, and lead collaborations with them. | + | This meet-ups helps us in two ways. First it was a great opportunity to have a feed-back from our peers. Then, we met there other teams working with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, and lead collaborations with them. |
==Responsiveness== | ==Responsiveness== | ||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
On ethics: | On ethics: | ||
− | Leading a project on fundamental biology involves to work a lot with stakeholders. In a RRI vision, a fundamental project is an opportunity to think about the responsability of science, in our case CRISPR-Cas9. We learned we should follow the principles of RRI to have the strongest connection between innovation and the societal needs. | + | Leading a project on fundamental biology involves to work a lot with stakeholders. In a RRI vision, a fundamental project is an opportunity to think about the responsability of science, in our case the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. We learned we should follow the principles of RRI to have the strongest connection between innovation and the societal needs. |
− | The we saw that the potentiality of CRISPR-Cas9 was huge. This leads to two things: | + | The we saw that the potentiality of the CRISPR-Cas9 technology was huge. This leads to two things: |
# It’s very difficult to define precisely what could be the impacts, thus a harder work must be furnished on the subject; | # It’s very difficult to define precisely what could be the impacts, thus a harder work must be furnished on the subject; | ||
# Vulgarisation for the public is a key issue. | # Vulgarisation for the public is a key issue. | ||
− | CRISPR-Cas9 is easy to use, even by students and has big consequences. We should define the purposes with more rigor and strengthen the safety part. | + | The CRISPR-Cas9 technology is easy to use, even by students and has big consequences. We should define the purposes with more rigor and strengthen the safety part. |
− | Using CRISPR-Cas9 requires to know about the gene before we can mutate its functions. This requires to work on genes we already know about or to have a strong research on the gene. | + | Using the CRISPR-Cas9 technology requires to know about the gene before we can mutate its functions. This requires to work on genes we already know about or to have a strong research on the gene. |
In the ethical field we should always balance the advantages and the disadvantage. Even if it seems obvious, it is fundamental to do this and to present the balance to the public opinion. | In the ethical field we should always balance the advantages and the disadvantage. Even if it seems obvious, it is fundamental to do this and to present the balance to the public opinion. | ||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
On law: | On law: | ||
− | About the law on ethics CRISPR/Cas9 challenges the traditional process-based law and results-based, because when you see the final results you cannot always say if it comes from a natural mutation or from an action of genome editing. | + | About the law on ethics the CRISPR/Cas9 technology challenges the traditional process-based law and results-based, because when you see the final results you cannot always say if it comes from a natural mutation or from an action of genome editing. |
About intellectual property we understood that to ways to think about patentability exists and are are strongly opposite. We have either to make a choice about how we see innovation or try to bring those two positions closer. | About intellectual property we understood that to ways to think about patentability exists and are are strongly opposite. We have either to make a choice about how we see innovation or try to bring those two positions closer. | ||
Revision as of 20:57, 18 October 2016