Team:INSA-Lyon/Safety/Ethics/Medias

From 2010.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 32: Line 32:
<h3>Medias and Public speak about  <em/>Synbio</em> </h3> <br/>
<h3>Medias and Public speak about  <em/>Synbio</em> </h3> <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
<p>In the way to see how much people know about <em/>Synbio</em>, Eleonore Pauwels, research scholar working in the foresight and governance project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C., has made a public investigation for the “Ethical Aspects of Synthetic Biology” table-round, organized by the European Union in 2009. It appears that <em/>Synbio</em> just begin to be an integrative process. <br/>
+
<p>In the way to see how much people know about <em/>Synbio</em>, Eleonore Pauwels, research scholar working in the foresight and governance project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C., has made a public investigation for the “Ethical Aspects of Synthetic Biology” roundtable, organized by the European Union in 2009. It appears that <em/>Synbio</em> just begin to be an integrative process. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
The first way to introduce <em><Synbio</em> to people is the newspapers. During the last few years, the number of articles published in American or European press has been increasing. And Europe is more concerned than the United States: more than 100 articles published in European press in five years, whereas about 50 in the USA. In Europe, France and United Kingdom are the leaders. <br/>
+
The first way to introduce <em><Synbio</em> to society is the newspapers. During the last few years, the number of articles published in American or European press has been increasing. Especially in Europe: more than 100 articles has been published in five years, whereas about 50 in the USA. In Europe, France and United Kingdom are the leaders. <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
However, they have a different approach to <em/>Synbio</em>. The US articles refer more about benefits of <em/>Synbio</em>, and the topics are focused on Energy and Health. The European vision is more prudent: they prefer focusing on the ratio benefits/risks, in environment and energetic domains. And these differences get higher when they evoke the type of risks. American Medias just focus on the biosecurity, while European ones write about biosafety, biosecurity and ethics.<br/>
+
However, they have a different approach to <em/>Synbio</em>. The US articles refer more about benefits of <em/>Synbio</em>, and the topics are focused on Energy and Health. The European vision is more cautious: they focus on the ratio benefits/risks, in the environment and energetic domains. And these differences get bigger when they evoke the type of risks. American Medias just focus on the biosecurity, while European ones write about biosafety, biosecurity and ethics.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
Despite the facts that newspapers are trying to make <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> a popular knowledge, focusing on people’s preoccupations, this subject doesn’t seem to be attractive. In an investigation realized in the US, more than 70% of the interrogated persons had never heard about <em><em/>Synbio</em></em>. Ignorance is one of the big problems of <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> because when people don’t know about something, they’re scared and cautious about it. And their principal preoccupation is the ratio benefits/risks.  . Moreover, people can give importance to a fact they hear in medias for example, and that is a prejudice for <em/>Synbio</em> and genetic modification. People have been informed of some scientific failures and as they know the limits and the safety of <em/>Synbio</em>, they stay very cautious. Currently, nobody really knows if <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> is safe and can have limits… <br/>
+
Even if newspapers are trying to make <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> popular, focusing on potential applications closed to people's preoccupations, this subject doesn’t seem to interest them. According to an investigation realized in the US, more than 70% of the interrogated people had never heard about <em><em/>Synbio</em></em>. Ignorance is one of the main problems of <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> because the ignorance scared people and make them cautious about the subject. Their principal concern is the ratio benefits/risks . Moreover, media does not always emphasize the entire reality and they focus on anecdotal stories. This can be prejudicial for <em/>Synbio</em> and genetic modifications. People have been informed of some scientific failures and as they know about the limits and the safety of <em/>Synbio</em>, they remain very cautious. Currently, nobody can tell if <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> is safe and have limits… <br/>
-
In our opinion, people are afraid about scientific progress. Because it’s complicated, and it appears to have some catastrophic consequences, people don’t trust very much in the scientists, in spite of the communication in the newspapers or the conferences.<br/>
+
In our opinion, people are badly informed and that makes them reluctant to scientific progress.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
-
Reading people interview, <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> appears like the new madness of the scientists, who want to play God and don’t care about ethics and people. Man likes controlling everything, and be able to control life is certainly the most powerful capacity. And we know how much Man loves power… Not only scientists by the way, since <em/>Synbio</em> and its consequences imply everybody, from Politicians to citizens.
+
Reading people interviews, <em><em/>Synbio</em></em> appears like the new crazyness of the scientists, who want to play God and don’t care about ethics and people. Man always wanted to control life which is a great power. And we know how much Man loves power… Not only scientists by the way, since <em/>Synbio</em> and its consequences imply everybody, from Politicians to citizens.
-
That’s why ethical framework is important to reassure people and give back some trust in science, and especially biology. All the polemics about GM should be avoided if some ethical works had been realized. But now it’s time to have a new start, and make <em/>Synbio</em> a way to develop an integrative science, with the help of the political community.<br/>
+
That’s why ethical framework is important to surround scientific researchs and to help the dialog in beetween society and scientific community in order to consolidate trust in science, and especially biology. All the polemics about GMO should be avoided if some ethical works had been realized. But now it’s time to have a new start, and make <em/>Synbio</em> a way to develop an integrative science, with the help of the political community.<br/>
</p>
</p>

Revision as of 22:45, 22 October 2010




Medias and Public speak about Synbio



In the way to see how much people know about Synbio, Eleonore Pauwels, research scholar working in the foresight and governance project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C., has made a public investigation for the “Ethical Aspects of Synthetic Biology” roundtable, organized by the European Union in 2009. It appears that Synbio just begin to be an integrative process.

The first way to introduce to society is the newspapers. During the last few years, the number of articles published in American or European press has been increasing. Especially in Europe: more than 100 articles has been published in five years, whereas about 50 in the USA. In Europe, France and United Kingdom are the leaders.

However, they have a different approach to Synbio. The US articles refer more about benefits of Synbio, and the topics are focused on Energy and Health. The European vision is more cautious: they focus on the ratio benefits/risks, in the environment and energetic domains. And these differences get bigger when they evoke the type of risks. American Medias just focus on the biosecurity, while European ones write about biosafety, biosecurity and ethics.

Even if newspapers are trying to make Synbio popular, focusing on potential applications closed to people's preoccupations, this subject doesn’t seem to interest them. According to an investigation realized in the US, more than 70% of the interrogated people had never heard about Synbio. Ignorance is one of the main problems of Synbio because the ignorance scared people and make them cautious about the subject. Their principal concern is the ratio benefits/risks . Moreover, media does not always emphasize the entire reality and they focus on anecdotal stories. This can be prejudicial for Synbio and genetic modifications. People have been informed of some scientific failures and as they know about the limits and the safety of Synbio, they remain very cautious. Currently, nobody can tell if Synbio is safe and have limits…
In our opinion, people are badly informed and that makes them reluctant to scientific progress.

Reading people interviews, Synbio appears like the new crazyness of the scientists, who want to play God and don’t care about ethics and people. Man always wanted to control life which is a great power. And we know how much Man loves power… Not only scientists by the way, since Synbio and its consequences imply everybody, from Politicians to citizens. That’s why ethical framework is important to surround scientific researchs and to help the dialog in beetween society and scientific community in order to consolidate trust in science, and especially biology. All the polemics about GMO should be avoided if some ethical works had been realized. But now it’s time to have a new start, and make Synbio a way to develop an integrative science, with the help of the political community.

Retrieved from "http://2010.igem.org/Team:INSA-Lyon/Safety/Ethics/Medias"