From 2010.igem.org

Revision as of 13:41, 14 October 2010

The implications of our research

Combining the efforts of our wet lab and modelling sections, we've managed to create a fully funcitoning prototype for a soil nutrient indicator. We recognise a resopnsibility to consider the implications of what we've done: what we have created, how it could be used or misused and how people might react.

We've done radio interviews and visited a school to present to get feedback on what we've achieved. Along with analysing the wealth of information that has been collected by iGEM teams on public perception, we've built up a picture of some of the issues involved with public information and perception.

Our novel response to this information is our method of presentation. By designed a marketing campaign - of which a product information leaflet has taken precedence - we aim to make synthetic biology accessible. We've produced a leaflet that addresses the concerns we've identified, to educate and inform by presenting our prototype as a functioning and marketable product. By presenting the potential uses for our research, we hope to engage people more than by using abstract descriptions of our research.

From early on in next year's competition, there is scope for a wide collaboration - to produce many such leaflets or trade posters to advertise the motivations and applications of many iGEM projects. By making our research tangible and explaining how it might directly affect peoples' lives, we hope to engage the public in the debate and encourage them to be scientifically informed.

Summary

Our advertising campaign is specifically designed for the hypothetical product that could result from more research and investment into our project. It ties in with our wet lab, learning directly from achievements to date, and modelling work, informing estimates for our product.

The purpose is to address some of the issues surrounding informing the public: to produce material that is balanced and accessible, carefully worded and constructed not to be misleading or frightening. By putting together this material, it has given us a framework to identify and address ways in which synthetic biology and similar fields are currently portrayed and explore the possible reasons for public perception.

Our public information leaflet initiative could be expanded further as a catalyst to public debate and education. Collaboration between many teams could result in a library of leaflets detailing each of their projects and potential uses. These could be used to raise public awareness of the possibilities of synthetic biology without being affiliated to a marketing campaign or company. Rather than posting them through doors, as would be the intension with a real product, distribution could be investigated into scientific fairs and events. By demonstrating the wide variety of research and its potential whilst also providing useful sources of further information, it would provide a scientifically sound introduction to the field without relying solely on journalism to spark an informed debate.