Difference between revisions of "Team:TU Darmstadt/Human Practices"
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
<div class="page"> | <div class="page"> | ||
<div class="abstract"> | <div class="abstract"> | ||
| − | <p><b> | + | <p><b>THE THESIS</b></p> |
| − | <p><b> | + | <p><b>The idea of the human practices part, which is part of iGEM competition, is to look beyond daily lab work and reflect upon our project and taking it tot he outside world. <br> |
| + | Often, one wants to observe how ones project is perceived by the society to evaluate the success potential. <br> | ||
| + | Especially in dialogue with society, it is of great interest to get a broad range of views with detailed information to evaluate current situations and possible strategies. Unfortunately, this kind of research comes with huge effort and expenses concerning preparations, execution and analysis. Additionally, the number of people surveyed has to be high enough for the results tob e significant, which is not executionable for a student team. <br> | ||
| + | To still be able to evaluate our project idea we decided to interview politicians as representatives of people in the general public. As decision-makers for laws, regulations and fundings in their respective state they play an important role for the future of synthetic biology. They also carry important topics into the general public and thus influence them and know about the general opinion of their voters concerning certain topics. | ||
| + | </b></p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="content"> | <div class="content"> | ||
| − | <p></p> | + | <p><h5>The procedure</h5></p> |
| + | <p>The core idea was to depict the politicians opinions concerning synthetic biology. Getting to know their attitude towards the topic and introducing our project and aims should help us assess if our idea is implementable on a political level. To also survey the opinion of the voters we used the proximity of the politicians to their respective electorates. The question is, if the politicians would introduce our project to their voters as a good example of sufficient safety measures in the field of synthetic biology. To gather the maximum amount of information, the interviews were held in a way that the interviewees could answer as freely as possible. <br> | ||
| + | To ensure that our approach is scientifically correct in the field of sociology the questionaire had to be as standardized as possible and the interviewers had to be specifically trained to hold then interviews in the same manner, so every interview could be held under comparable conditions. To ensure we did it correctly we went to Dr. Klees, an expert in poll-taking, for help and also got permanent support from a student of the social studies. <br> | ||
| + | As a tool for standardization, our questionaire contains a detailed introduction with sufficient comments on how to behave for the interviewer. These ensure that the interviewer doesn't forget to list all the important information or influences the interviewee due to lack of experience or nervousness. <br> | ||
| + | After the introduction in which iGEM is explained briefly, we proceeded to questions which are seperated into 4 areas: general questions about genetic engineering, specific questions concerning the different kinds of genetic engineering, the introduction of our project in particular and aksing the interviewees opinion on it. <br> | ||
| + | In the conclusionary part we extended our questions to find out about the politicians voters opinion and asked if projects like ours could have a positive effect on their electorate and cause them to be more open-minded about synthetic biology. <br> | ||
| + | In our case, every area of questions contains openly and closed posed questions. This approach is rather unusual for such a low number of interviewees. This procedure was executed so that other teams could ideally re-use our questionaire and interview under the same conditions as we did,or just slightly change it to survey whole groups of population. <br> | ||
| + | The interviews have all been held in the premises of the interviewee and were fully recorded. The resulting transcripts are in our possession, but will not be published due to privacy rights. The data can be assessed on demand in our lab on site, though. <br> | ||
| + | The questionaire itself has been published and is assesible and reusable for everyone <br> | ||
| + | For better understanding of our preparations and making it easier to use our questionaire for your own needs we are providing the questionaire and a flowchart of our preparations. <br> </p> | ||
| + | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 11:01, 8 October 2016
HUMAN PRACTICES
THE THESIS
The idea of the human practices part, which is part of iGEM competition, is to look beyond daily lab work and reflect upon our project and taking it tot he outside world.
Often, one wants to observe how ones project is perceived by the society to evaluate the success potential.
Especially in dialogue with society, it is of great interest to get a broad range of views with detailed information to evaluate current situations and possible strategies. Unfortunately, this kind of research comes with huge effort and expenses concerning preparations, execution and analysis. Additionally, the number of people surveyed has to be high enough for the results tob e significant, which is not executionable for a student team.
To still be able to evaluate our project idea we decided to interview politicians as representatives of people in the general public. As decision-makers for laws, regulations and fundings in their respective state they play an important role for the future of synthetic biology. They also carry important topics into the general public and thus influence them and know about the general opinion of their voters concerning certain topics.
The procedure
The core idea was to depict the politicians opinions concerning synthetic biology. Getting to know their attitude towards the topic and introducing our project and aims should help us assess if our idea is implementable on a political level. To also survey the opinion of the voters we used the proximity of the politicians to their respective electorates. The question is, if the politicians would introduce our project to their voters as a good example of sufficient safety measures in the field of synthetic biology. To gather the maximum amount of information, the interviews were held in a way that the interviewees could answer as freely as possible.
To ensure that our approach is scientifically correct in the field of sociology the questionaire had to be as standardized as possible and the interviewers had to be specifically trained to hold then interviews in the same manner, so every interview could be held under comparable conditions. To ensure we did it correctly we went to Dr. Klees, an expert in poll-taking, for help and also got permanent support from a student of the social studies.
As a tool for standardization, our questionaire contains a detailed introduction with sufficient comments on how to behave for the interviewer. These ensure that the interviewer doesn't forget to list all the important information or influences the interviewee due to lack of experience or nervousness.
After the introduction in which iGEM is explained briefly, we proceeded to questions which are seperated into 4 areas: general questions about genetic engineering, specific questions concerning the different kinds of genetic engineering, the introduction of our project in particular and aksing the interviewees opinion on it.
In the conclusionary part we extended our questions to find out about the politicians voters opinion and asked if projects like ours could have a positive effect on their electorate and cause them to be more open-minded about synthetic biology.
In our case, every area of questions contains openly and closed posed questions. This approach is rather unusual for such a low number of interviewees. This procedure was executed so that other teams could ideally re-use our questionaire and interview under the same conditions as we did,or just slightly change it to survey whole groups of population.
The interviews have all been held in the premises of the interviewee and were fully recorded. The resulting transcripts are in our possession, but will not be published due to privacy rights. The data can be assessed on demand in our lab on site, though.
The questionaire itself has been published and is assesible and reusable for everyone
For better understanding of our preparations and making it easier to use our questionaire for your own needs we are providing the questionaire and a flowchart of our preparations.
