Team:Edinburgh/HumanPractices/Culture
This year the team decided to reflect on different themes related to biology and society to understand how our actions and beliefs have a cultural impact on how science is made. In doing so we carried different research activities and initiatives
INTERAL SURVEYS
The first of the research activities consisted of internal surveys to evaluate how much importance each team member was placed on specific thematic areas that were closely related to science and society. The surveys were conducted before the selection of the project's idea to understand if there was a correlation between the perceived importance of the team, the ethnographic data and the project's final idea. The first survey consisted in a seven linker scale survey with 58 themes to rank from “Very irrelevant” to “Very important” while the second survey was composed of 20 questions that were close-ended, open-ended or a combination of the two that were related to iGEM and the iGEM competition. Even if the internal survey were not critical in the design of the project the surveys' insights resulted useful in understanding the knowledge base of the group and plan more robust Human Practices
All data collection was carried out under the conditions of fully informed consent. Before collecting the surveys formal consent in written form was asked from the participants
MANIFESTO
Alongside the internal surveys we decided to gather and represent the opinions, ideas and beliefs of the students that were doing study programmes on synthetic biology or closely related to it at our own University by asking them:
"What do you think the biotech of the future should look like?"
"What values, ideas and themes bio-related professionals should adopt of following by the year 2030?"
After collecting the opinions beliefs and ideas on themes of 16 MSc students we compiled the information on a single document in the form of a Manifesto: "Bioprofessional manifesto 2030 V 0.1"
And while the Manifesto is not representative of all students or all biologists of our University we hope that you could find interesting points to reflect upon.
All data collection was carried out under the conditions of fully informed consent. Before collecting anonymity was guaranteed to all the participants
META-ANALYSIS
We conducted a broad and wide analysis on the role of communities of practice (i.e.the iGEM community) to produce innovative artefacts, the work resulted in the Dissertation project of one of our team members
Specifically, multiple themes such as Openness, Open innovation, R&D, Game Theory, knowledge accumulation etc. were explored to understand the importance of valorisation practices in bridging basic and applied research in knowledge-intensive industries like biotech
(van Drooge and de Jong, 2016)
The Analysis heavy relied on the use of field notes collected by ethnographic participant observation, Open-Ended Interviews with individuals that had first-hand and prolonged experience with iGEM teams, the iGEM Foundation and the iGEM community and a survey composed by 24 close-ended and open-ended questions related to specific iGEM related phenomena.
The survey was presented to 93 representatives of iGEM teams (mostly European and North American teams) competing in the year 2020. At the moment of writing 14 team representative completed the survey.
All data collection was carried out under the conditions of fully informed consent. Formal consent in written form was asked from the participants and anonymity was guaranteed to all the prticipants
de Jong, S. P. L., Smit, J. and van Drooge, L. (2016) ‘Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox’, Science & public policy. Oxford University Press (OUP), 43(1), pp. 102–114. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scv023.
INTERVIEWS WITH OPINOIN LEADERS AND EXPERTS
During the project we conducted interviews with opinion leaders to make our project more robust and if the project and the prospected applications of the project were satisfying different criteria such as affordability, inclusiveness, sustainability, usefulness and safety
And while the main purpose of such interviews was to verify potential flaws in the design of the biosensor, the interviewees often expressed their personal point of view
All data collection was carried out under the conditions of fully informed consent. Formal consent in written form was asked from the participants and anonymity was guaranteed to all the prticipants
WHITE AND GREY LITERATURE STUDY ON: Commercialisation of sceince and entrereneurship
INDIVIDUAL/PERSONAL LEVEL
We also reflected on the commercialisation of science and what means to a scientist to be an entrepreneur given that when starting a business, the interests of the company should always come first while personal and academic interests should come second.
Peer recognition and the intrinsic satisfaction of discoveries and scientific advancements are still critical in the life of a scientist and for his/her pursuit of happiness, but the assumption that researchers and scientists are not driven by the reward of commercial application/exploitation of science is misleading. Financial rewards are also shaping scientists’ decisions and lives thus it is always possible for them to choose the corporate or the entrepreneurial world to satisfy their desires/motivations. For the few that choose the entrepreneurial path, a rare and interesting phenomenon takes place, namely the deep “hybridization” of a scientist. When scientists and researches leave their habitat and get involved in the commercialization of research or the creation of a business venture they make a transition that will not only change their skills-set but also their internal norms and value orientations. Such transition is most probably the most pivotal aspect in a brand-new biotech company since good science is almost important as talented people and early decisions are the foundation of a successful company or its death sentence.
ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL
We also investigated the role of biotech companies in our society to understand how and why a biotech company could be aligned or against societal needs .
If a company doesn’t operate it has no value rather than the value generated by the trading of its components, consequently a company “has to be used” and is evaluated for its ability to generate value . As a company could be compared to the same theoretical level to any other tool in the world, it is important to ask who is going to use the tool/device and for what for.
In analysing a company as a tool/black box used to generate value by satisfying the different needs of different actors, it is possible to expose the simple interactions of both internal and external customers 21 as follows: • Employees interact with the company providing labour and human capital in return the company confers them value; directly by satisfying the needs of belonging, esteem, and self-actualization 22,23 in the workplace and indirectly through needs satisfied outside the workplace by the monetary compensation. • Owners of the company provide capital and expecting that company to generate positive financial results, thus, monetary compensation and capital accumulation. While in most cases money is the main form of value that owners seek; others could also gain value satisfying their needs of belonging, esteem, and self-actualization by knowing that their capital will be used to improve society. • Customers interact with the company providing money and receiving value, instantly like in the case of services like entertainment or through the instrumental value of durable products
If a a pharmaceutical company is “used” to generate additional health (value), targeting diseases in developing countries, less money would be generated for the shareholders, at the same time, if a pharmaceutical company is “used” to generate additional money (value) only the most cost-effective opportunities will be chosen, and less health for society as a whole would be generated.
One approach that I think could be possible would be promoting consciousness over money. A company could satisfy the higher psychological needs like the sense of belonging, esteem, and self-actualization of its shareholders and managers by operating in a conscious manner towards a higher purpose. At first, this the strategy could seem complex and infeasible but if collective and individual efforts are put to good use, by the means of social pressure, education, and regulations; values and needs could change through time. In support of this approach, we should remember that today more and more companies are becoming environmentally friendly or socially aware as a result of countless initiatives over many years .
Another approach could be promoting “entertainment” over money; this approach could be considered lacking solid ground and evidence, nevertheless, any new idea is worth trying in solving a wicked problem . Entertainment is any form of activity that gives pleasure and delight to an audience and when the interest generated reaches strong levels people start to change their lifestyles . In fact, not only in our society we pay to satisfy our need for entertainment, but we find pleasure in demonstrating our involvement and devoting tangible and intangible resources to the object of our attention
STAKEHOLDER LEVEL
Lastly we investigated social and cultural factor of actors that are outside biotech companies and academia. We identified the importance of the public perception derived by the wider public, the role of nations in having a technological competitive advantage over other nations, the relationship between regulators and opinion leaders and the difficulties to get funding from private and public investors
it is safe to state that reaching a specific and exhaustive technological knowhow does not translate into successful commercial ventures or product sales (Kaur et al, 2014). First and foremost, the technology needs to gain a positive reputation in governance advocacy-markets triangle (Abbot, 2009), more specifically, it should be accepted by the industry and it should satisfy the necessary, but not sufficient, a prerequisite of safety for the public, lastly, regarding the institutions, their faith in the potential national competitiveness of the technology could be highly beneficial and pivotal in the overall technological development and adoption.
Expanding on the concept of national competitiveness, States are competing against each other in a global race to be the leaders at the next “big things” commissioning and supporting riskiest technologies when the private sector is too risk-averse. That being so, some economists believe that States are not solely granting faith but are also actively supporting technology in the role of investor, innovator and employer (Mazzucato, 2015).
it is often the case, that those within the the scientific field generally lack business acumen whilst other actors such as investors lack the patience and technical expertise required to fully comprehend the technology. Therefore, a transdisciplinary approach with the involvement of a multitude of professionals with different skillsets and backgrounds (technical, commercial, economic, institutional, social etc.) is needed to establish a common platform to translate scientific research towards commercialisation (Kaur et al, 2014). The establishment of such a platform could be also the key to overcome structural constraints like inadequate regulation.
Abbott, Kenneth. (2009). The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State. In Whose Benefit? Explaining Regulatory Change in Global Politics (Walter Mattli & Ngaire Woods, eds.).
Mazzucato, Mariana (2015). The Entrepreneurial State. Anthem Press. pp. 16–20. ISBN 9781783085200. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
Kaur, Indu Pal, Vandita Kakkar, Parneet Kaur Deol, Monika Yadav, Mandeep Singh, and Ikksheta Sharma. "Issues and Concerns in Nanotech Product Development and Its Commercialization." Journal of Controlled Release 193, no. C (2014): 51-62.
WHITE AND GREY LITERATURE STUDY ON: Safety, regulations and risk governance
We also analysed how culture could influence how risk is perceived and managed
“Biosecurity is a strategic and integrated approach that encompasses the policy and regulatory
frameworks (including instruments and activities) for analysing and managing relevant risks to
human, animal and plant life and health, and associated risks to the environment.”
(FAO , 2007)
It is interesting to note that before the infamous “Interleukin-4 poxvirus” study (Church, 2004); most researchers had believed that modification would make viruses less dangerous, not the other way around (Orendt, 2009). This new concern about the a potential “dual use” of scientific discoveries has and will have serious and ranging implications, in the years to come, from commercial and military use to ethical and safety concerns (Colussi, 2015) in the synbio community.
most developed countries fear that their defensive capabilities are lacking against mass bioterrorist’s attacks. “Prevention alone will never be enough to secure America against these 21st century threats.” (WMD, 2011) That being so, a different perspective to SynBio/Biosecurity has been proposed in “What Rough Beast? Synthetic Biology, Uncertainty, and the Future of Biosecurity” (Mukunda et al, 2009), where restrictive and slow pacing precautionary approaches could be considered “fruitless and counterproductive”. The argument supporting this view, is based on the concept of “the valley of shadow of death” (Brent, 2005) that describes how scientific research can improve offensive applications of SynBio on the short term whilst enhancing defensive applications enough to eliminate any offensive threats in the long term. “the only - effective way to deal with this problem is to advance research in biotechnology as quickly as possible in the hope of moving through the Valley before a major attack occurs” (Brent, 2005) As a matter of fact, SynBio has the potential to create more efficient means of research and production of vaccines and diagnostics (Colussi, 2015). Specifically, assembling and mutating DNA sequences so rapidly; outpacing natural mutations of viruses and pathogens.
To tackle biosecurity, a substantial body or different norms, regulations and procedures both at the international and domestic regimes already exist [FIGURE1], but under high uncertainty of SynBio these will be ultimately result partially or totally flawed (Mukunda et al, 2009). Therefore, to properly address this problem, having ongoing and periodically revised assessment of biosecurity risks is fundamental (Colussi, 2015). These assessments should be conducted involving all the actors dispersed between different levels of governance and the rest of stakeholder associated in the biosecurity debate (Colussi, 2015). The process should be inclusive but flexible enough to avoid the “paralysis by analysis” deadlock (Bunting et al, 2008) in the deliberation process as well accounting all the different dimensions of biosecurity (scientific, economic, social, political, etc. ), if possible (Colussi, 2015). Ideally the measures presented should be presented as a mixed model of hard and soft law, more simply a combination of mandatory controls, voluntary-based responses and public-private partnerships, whereas the deliberation process and the enforcement and control follow “top down” and “bottom up” approaches (Colussi, 2015).
A “command and control” regulation system has its own benefits, but its efficacy is at stake when the target and scope are broad or not clear, moreover, influencing the bioscience community through the enforcement of regulations has been proven difficult (Colussi, 2015). On the contrary voluntary standards like deontological rules, codes of conduct and ethical obligations can be easily implemented and accepted but self-governance experiments like Asilomar will never stop bioterrorists in exploiting scientific research (Garfinkel et al, 2007). “governance systems that rely on voluntary standards or institutional practices cannot, alone, guarantee the prevention of bioterrorism or protect against malignant uses of biology. But international treaties or national top-down regulation cannot, on their own, deliver such promises either” (Colussi, 2015) Scientific Community The involvement of scientist is and will be pivotal as “guardians of science against biological weapons and bioterrorism” be at the end of the governance process but rather having active role in drafting useful guidelines . Accordingly, the scientific community aspects, some of which are, awareness/education (courses and training), safety/security (procedures and requirements) and accountability/oversight (reporting abuses and supervision) (Colussi, 2015). Journals Scientific journals play an important role in the scientific research. In the biosecurity debate the theme of censorship and freedom of scientific research is highly debated and is evident as the issue of the dual use or “double Janus face” is difficult to discern. Specifically, the discussion revolves around “sensitive information” that malicious people can gather from publications; but decide what is sensitive information, the parameters to judge if the information is sensitive and for whom the information could be sensitive remains difficult. As today, journals could always opt for proportionate and reasonable self-censorship in the form of stricter guidelines for papers whereas biosecurity risks outweigh the overall benefits (Colussi, 2015). Industry It is interesting to note that in in the private sector, more than often, risk creators facing the same risk they produced, tend to self-regulate; using best practices such as self-restriction, industry standards or “gentleman’s agreements” to avoid and reduce the risk. This practice can result in faster and better solutions given the more resources and superior knowledge and expertise of the industry (Bunting et al, 2008). In that sense, private standards can probably the most powerful practices to overcome politics stalls and the most adopted practices to a global stage due to coexistence with market needs.
Church GM. A Synthetic Biohazard Non-proliferation Proposal. (2004). Available from: http://arep.med.harvard.edu/SBP/Church_Biohazard04c.htm
Wendy Orendt, "A most dangerous game," Natural History: FindArticles.com (2004).
Colussi, Ilaria Anna. "Synthetic Biology as a New Threat to Biosecurity. Is There a Road to Suitable Governance?" Synthetic Biology as a New Threat to Biosecurity. Is There a Road to Suitable Governance? In C. M., Romeo CasabonaBioterrorismo Y Bioseguridad (pp. 65-110). Bilbao, SpainEd. Cátedra Interuniversitaria De Derecho Y Genoma Humano, Fundacion BBV – Diputacion Foral De Bizkaia. (2015). 2015.
WMD Commission. World at Risk: The Report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. New York: Vintage Books (2008).
Mukunda, Gautam, Oye, Kenneth A., and Mohr, Scott C. "What Rough Beast? Synthetic Biology, Uncertainty, and the Future of Biosecurity.(Author Abstract)(Report)." Politics and the Life Sciences 28, no. 2 (2009): 2-26.
Brent, Roger. In the Valley of the Shadow of Death (Berkeley, CA: National Academy of Sciences, 2005). Accessed November 17, 2009, dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/ handle/1 72 1 . 1/349
Garfinkel, Michele S., Endy, Drew, Epstein, Gerald L., and Friedman, Robert M. "Synthetic Genomics: Options for Governance.(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)(Report)." Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 5, no. 4 (2007): 359-35962
Bunting, Christopher, Renn, Ortwin, and Walker, Katherine D. Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework. Vol. 1. International Risk Governance Council Bookseries. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2008.
