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

Line 43: Line 43:
 
<div class="column full_size">
 
<div class="column full_size">
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
−
<h2> Human Practices ‘Thought Experiment’</h2>
+
<h2> Integrated Human Practices </h2>
−
<p>Over the course of the summer, we have invested a lot of time into finding novel uses for synthetic biology. Throughout this process, we have been motivated by the exciting applications for our technology outside of the lab, ranging from self-healing circuitry to new methods of computation. With these in mind throughout our project, we have been trying to understand the societal context for our work. The knowledge we gained from this process has shaped the ultimate design of our system.</p>
+
<p> Human practices have played a very important role throughout the evolution of our experiment. Initially, for the creation of the microbial fuel cell we were planning on using Redding Yeast Cells instead of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli). </P
−
 
+
<p> After a conversation with Dr.Simon Woods, Co-Director of PEALS (Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences), we came to the realization that there were ethical implications behind using yeast cells. Throughout the evolution of science we have constantly, with incremental steps, been pushing the boundaries of science with the use of technology. Depending on who you ask, people have different attitudes towards what is considered to be “right” and “wrong” with regards to how we treat living organisms. </p>
−
<p>In our early discussions with stakeholders, such as our sixth form experience day, it became apparent that there were a lot of ethical and moral implications of our technology that caused people to feel uncomfortable about using it. For instance, concerns were raised over the environmental impact of taking our engineered bacteria out of the lab as we had originally envisaged. Since one of our aims is to ‘kick start’ a whole new research direction in synthetic biology we also talked to researchers in the field. They highlighted to us the clear tension between our educational goals, facilitating open access to data and new science, etc. and our ideas for the commercial implications of this technology.</p>
+
<p> The main conclusion we reached after our conversation was that people are more uncomfortable with the use of humans and animals in experiments mostly due to their reproducibility. This is immediately correlated with concerns regarding the complexity of the life-form and unforeseen complications from experimentation. </p>
−
 
+
<p> Moving down the “imaginary line of experimental specimens”, we have humans – animals – yeast cells – bacteria. Yeast cells have a eukaryotic structure and are therefore similar to human cells but grow and reproduce at a much faster rate; approximately every 2 hours <a href ="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9917/></a>.There are many different species and strains of yeast which also introduces areas for contamination. Certain strains cause skin irritation and some other strains can be fatal if they are ingested or inhaled. All that is required is for a form of a gene mutation to have occurred. The area of concern regarding yeast though is that it is of such easy access the public. People are conducting syn-bio experiments in the comfort of their own house. Take for example brewers, who brew beer in their garage. What is to happen if there was a mutation in the specific strain of yeast they used? Imagine that we weren’t in a garage anymore but are now in a factory? What would happen if the yeast accidentally got spilled or this yeast somehow got transferred into Baker’s Yeast which was then used in peoples’ houses to bake bread? What are the potential adverse side effects that could arise from this? The main problem with the use of yeast is that: a) It is such a commonly used organism that we sometimes surpass the potential implications that could occur if something was to go wrong and b) the complexity of the life-form. </p>
−
<p>It became apparent from these discussions alone that we needed some way of exploring these issues, be they social, economic, ethical or otherwise to their logical conclusion. When we discussed this challenge with staff from the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences (PEALS) Research Centre at our university, we were introduced to the notion of a thought experiment and our human practices ‘simulator’ was born.</p>
+
<p> Yeast cells are so similar to human cells and therefore we need to take into account the effect of its fast reproducibility and how prone offspring are to inherit any present mutations through a germline-like modification. The effects would affect not only the “offspring” of the yeast but also all succeeding generations.</p>
−
 
+
<p>In contrast to yeast cells, bacterial cells are further down this line of experimental specimens. Bacterial cells are prokaryotes and are simpler compared to Yeast cells. Bacteria also replicate faster than yeast cells (every 20-60 min) <a href ="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9917/"></a>. All cells from bacteria develop from a single cell of origin and are therefore essentially clones of the original cell. Also the molecular control of the bacterial cell cycles is well regulated.</p>
−
<p>Our simulator is a game designed to stimulate discussion on the consequences of using our technology, the interfacing of bacteria and electronics, in real world scenarios. As an educational tool, the simulator aims to guide the user to consider some uses of our technology and to think through the effects of its use. Rather than constrain our stakeholders through the use of surveys, where we question them on what we believe is important. We hope to establish a dialogue between our users and us so that together we can fully explore the implications of our work, adapt our designs appropriately, and thereby meet the iGEM aim of ‘building a safe and sustainable project that serves the public interest’.</p>
+
<p> In addition to the fore-mentioned, if we look at a timeline of organisms that we considered to be ethically, we are moving backwards. We have been using animals since the 1800s, but started using humans around the 1960s. In 2005 however NYC announced that they are no longer using humans in their experiments. In 2014 there was an uproar from PETA with the use of animals in experimentation. Consequently, if we are moving backwards in this line, bacteria are still the most ethical organisms to use for experiments.</p>
−
 
+
<p> After this conversation therefore we decided that using bacterial cells instead of yeast cells would be our best option. </p>
−
<p>We suggest that you read through the rest of this page, which outlines the background to using thought experiments for this purpose before <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Newcastle/Software/Hosted/Thought-Experiment">giving the simulator a try for yourself</a>.</p>
+
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
<h2>What is a thought experiment anyway?</h2>
+
−
 
+
−
<p>Thought experiments are <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/">‘devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things’</a> (Brown and Fehige, 2016) and can be found throughout the sciences. Some, like Schrödinger's cat, have become famous in their own right, but they can be found in many fields related to iGEM: The infinite monkey theorem (mathematics), Levinthal’s paradox (biology) and the two Generals’ problem (computer science) to name but a few. You’ll see from considering the experiments above, that a thought experiment is set apart from any other type of research due to the impracticability, even impossibility, of performing a physical experiment to explore the same hypothesis. As we are a long way from beginning to see the potential technologies resulting from our project, thought experiments serve as an excellent medium for exploring them ‘before their time’. This sentiment was a major reason as to why we chose to pursue this approach in our human practices. We must also differentiate the thought experiment from simply logically reasoning about our hypothesised technologies. It is said that ‘something is experienced in a thought experiment’ (Brown and Fehige, 2016). Indeed from a philosophical standpoint, it is reasoned that we can use thought experiments to gain new knowledge about our world because of ‘instinctive knowledge’ (Sorensen, 1992). That is to say, that we must draw on the experience of our participants in constructing the experiment. We are only guides, the results their own.</p>
+
−
 
+
−
<p>It is precisely this ability of a thought experiment to allow participants to come to their own conclusions; that makes the thought experiment a useful tool for fully exploring the issues surrounding our project. Thus, extreme care was required during the experimental design phase to ensure that we allow participants to reach their own conclusions, and not merely guide them to what we think the answer should be. To do this, we set out to explore what makes a good thought experiment as well as existing interactive experiences that facilitate them.</p>
+
−
 
+
−
<h3>References</h3>
+
−
<p>Brown, James Robert and Fehige, Yiftach, "Thought Experiments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</p>
+
−
<p>Sorensen, Roy A., 1992, Thought Experiments, Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p>
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
 
+
</html>
  
 
</body>
 
</body>
 
</html>
 
</html>

Revision as of 20:02, 15 October 2016

Integrated Human Practices

Human practices have played a very important role throughout the evolution of our experiment. Initially, for the creation of the microbial fuel cell we were planning on using Redding Yeast Cells instead of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli).

After a conversation with Dr.Simon Woods, Co-Director of PEALS (Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences), we came to the realization that there were ethical implications behind using yeast cells. Throughout the evolution of science we have constantly, with incremental steps, been pushing the boundaries of science with the use of technology. Depending on who you ask, people have different attitudes towards what is considered to be “right” and “wrong” with regards to how we treat living organisms.

The main conclusion we reached after our conversation was that people are more uncomfortable with the use of humans and animals in experiments mostly due to their reproducibility. This is immediately correlated with concerns regarding the complexity of the life-form and unforeseen complications from experimentation.

Moving down the “imaginary line of experimental specimens”, we have humans – animals – yeast cells – bacteria. Yeast cells have a eukaryotic structure and are therefore similar to human cells but grow and reproduce at a much faster rate; approximately every 2 hours . All cells from bacteria develop from a single cell of origin and are therefore essentially clones of the original cell. Also the molecular control of the bacterial cell cycles is well regulated.

In addition to the fore-mentioned, if we look at a timeline of organisms that we considered to be ethically, we are moving backwards. We have been using animals since the 1800s, but started using humans around the 1960s. In 2005 however NYC announced that they are no longer using humans in their experiments. In 2014 there was an uproar from PETA with the use of animals in experimentation. Consequently, if we are moving backwards in this line, bacteria are still the most ethical organisms to use for experiments.

After this conversation therefore we decided that using bacterial cells instead of yeast cells would be our best option.

</body> </html>