Difference between revisions of "Team:Uppsala/Human Practices"

m
m
Line 359: Line 359:
 
         </tbody>
 
         </tbody>
 
         </table>
 
         </table>
                 <p> <strong> Table 1: </strong> The table show the translational versions of the survey, sent in the market analysis, with highest amount of answers. </p>
+
                 <p> <strong> Table 1: </strong> The table shows the translated versions of the survey with highest amount of answers. </p>
 
             <div class="content-card pic-next-to-text">
 
             <div class="content-card pic-next-to-text">
 
                 <div class="side-text" style="margin: 0 auto">
 
                 <div class="side-text" style="margin: 0 auto">
Line 400: Line 400:
 
             <div class="card-holder">
 
             <div class="card-holder">
 
                 <h1> Ethics </h1>
 
                 <h1> Ethics </h1>
                 <p> The purpose of our project was to combat the systematic overuse of anthelmintics [1] and thus also address the growing resistance against such compounds. Resistance may arise from multiple factors, like that of mass treatment, underdosing and not varying the drugs used [2] which is not unlike how resistance against antibiotics arise [3]. The resistance against anthelmintics might also be a problem for humans in the future [4] which increases motivation for a new diagnosis and-/or treatment approach. This is “good” news since the organism used in our project, namely the <i>E. coli</i> are inherent to the microbiome of humans and horses alike. We believe that a new, specific and potentially eco-friendly method of diagnosis or treatment would have a positive outcome on society as a whole. Lowering the degree of stress and potential suffering for animals that get infected as well as for their human owners. </p>
+
                 <p> The purpose of our project was to combat the systematic overuse of anthelmintics [1] and thus also address the growing resistance against such compounds. Resistance may arise from multiple factors, like that of mass treatment, under-dosing and not varying the drugs used [2].  These factors may sound familiar, because this is not unlike how resistance against antibiotics arise in bacteria [3]. The resistance against anthelmintics might also be a problem for humans in the future [4] which increases motivation for a new diagnosis and/or treatment approach. This is “good” news since the organism used in our project (namely <i>E. coli</i>) are inherent to the microbiome of humans and horses alike. We believe that a new, specific and potentially eco-friendly method of diagnosis or treatment would have a positive outcome on society as a whole. This could lower the degree of stress and potential suffering for animals that get infected as well as for their human owners. </p>
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
  
                 <p> There’s however some concerns in public about <i>E. coli</i> as being pathogenic or a transmitter of disease. It’s often the incidence when <i>E. coli</i> contaminated meat for consumption gets coverage in e.g. news media. It’s thus a challenge when conveying a complex topic to the public which demands some scientific knowledge, especially in biology and is something our Human Practise group has been challenged with throughout the project. The risks using <i>E. coli</i> and its given traits for this project are discussed further throughout the text. </p>
+
                 <p> There are however some concerns in public about <i>E. coli</i> being pathogenic or a transmitter of disease. It’s often the incidence when <i>E. coli</i> contaminated meat for consumption gets coverage in news media. It is thus a challenge when conveying a complex topic to the public which demands some scientific knowledge, especially in biology and is something our Human Practise group has been challenged with throughout the project. The risks using <i>E. coli</i> and its given traits for this project are discussed further throughout the text. </p>
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
Line 414: Line 414:
  
 
                 <h2> Environmental Impact and Risk </h2>
 
                 <h2> Environmental Impact and Risk </h2>
                 <p> As new biomolecular technologies are presented, having a higher degree of specific interaction against targets and thus a lower ecological impact they may shift public opinion on synthetic biology and allow for other solutions to surface. This would possibly also bring interest back to the natural sciences and thus probably increase solutions that stem from e.g. synthetic biology. </p>
+
                 <p> As new biomedical technologies are emerging, having a higher degree of specific interaction against targets and thus a lower ecological impact they may shift public opinion on synthetic biology and allow for other solutions to surface. This would possibly also bring interest back to the natural sciences and thus probably increase solutions that stem from e.g. synthetic biology. </p>
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
Line 422: Line 422:
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
  
                 <p> The <i>E. coli</i> (BL-21, DH5-alpha) that was used in the lab has a biosafety level of 1, which is the lowest possible on a scale of 4 [7]. That means e.g. that <i>E. coli</i> requires a minimum of safety precautions other than those provided by Uppsala university [8]. </p>
+
                 <p> The <i>E. coli</i> (BL-21, DH5-alpha) that was used in the lab has a biosafety level of 1, which is the lowest possible on a scale of 4 [7]. This means that <i>E. coli</i> is safe to work with in the school laboratories we were provided with by Uppsala University [8]. </p>
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>

Revision as of 14:20, 17 October 2018