Team:Imperial College/Integrated Practices
What are you doing?
This year, the Imperial College London 2016 iGEM team created two original pieces of integrated human practices work. The first, is a new approach to employing sociological term “reflexivity” in an iGEM project. The second is a researched and critiqued visual strategy for communication about foundational technologies and basic research, that most importantly impacted two visualisation pieces we presented at the first ever New Scientist Live event.
First of all, integrated human practices are defined as the consideration of the ethical, legal, or environmental issues, among others, surrounding one’s project and having them influence the execution of it. Teams participating in the foundational track of the iGEM competition are limited to talking to other scientists about their work because of the degree of technicality and apparent lack of applicability of their projects to the “real world.” That is not to say that foundational teams do not need to consider wider implications of their work. Decisions made on a day-to-day basis in the lab can have significant consequences inside as well as outside of the lab. Reflecting on those decisions, can uncover broader societal concerns which would otherwise go unconsidered in the development of a project. This process has been termed by social scientists as “reflexivity.” Therefore, our team decided to build on our knowledge of reflexivity, formalise our approach, and implement a customised version of the Socio-Technical Integration Research protocol (S.T.I.R.).
How are you doing reflexivity?
Reflexivity is a difficult concept to grasp, and even more difficult to employ without a formalised approach to it. S.T.I.R. is supposed to take the form of a structured, cyclic discussion which is supposed to take place with members of a lab about decisions made over the course of a research project. The discussions are organized as follows:
- One is presented with an opportunity, or something that requires a decision be made.
- Its scope is further considered through background research and the shared experiences of the group’s members.
- Alternatives to the opportunity are proposed.
- Next, a decision is made and acted upon.
- Finally, the group goes back and reconsiders that outcome.
