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

m
Line 328: Line 328:
  
 
     </div>
 
     </div>
 
<p> <strong> Table 1: </strong> The table shows the translated versions of the survey with highest amount of answers. </p>
 
 
             <div class="card-holder">  
 
             <div class="card-holder">  
 
          
 
          
Line 361: Line 359:
 
         </tbody>
 
         </tbody>
 
         </table>
 
         </table>
                  
+
                 <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 416: Line 414:
  
 
                 <h2> Environmental Impact and Risk </h2>
 
                 <h2> Environmental Impact and Risk </h2>
                 <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>
+
  
                <p> As with most techniques or processes used, whether there be some exercise regimen for increasing athletic performance or treating crops with pesticides to ensure a certain yield, they most often have some sort of risk factor associated with them. No exception is made when organisms are taken from the environment undergoing genetically engineering which may modulate or even add capabilities. Risks associated with engineered organisms may be proliferation in the environment, organism being pathogenic, spreading of capabilities such as antibiotic resistance, synthesis of molecules that might be toxic or harmful to name a few. However, most nations have guidelines and laws regulating which entities operating in their domain must adhere to, whether they are companies, universities or individuals. As for members of the european union there are also an overlaying legislation which its members must follow [5, 6]. </p>
+
             
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
Line 428: Line 424:
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
  
                 <p> Nothing that is considered toxic or harmful was genetically introduced (UnaG, amilGFP) for expression in our E.coli. However, for cultivation and selection purposes used in common synthetic biology practical work, antibiotic resistance was also introduced, which presents a risk in the potential spread of antibiotic resistance (Chloramphenicol, Ampicillin, Tetracycline) if these mechanisms were to spread into the environment. This was avoided to a large degree by following standard lab protocol with specific guidelines regarding waste disposal of GMOs as well as toxic chemicals, antibiotics and their likes. </p>
+
                 <p> Nothing that is considered toxic or harmful was genetically introduced (UnaG, amilGFP) into our E.coli. However, for cultivation and selection purposes used in common synthetic biology practical work, antibiotic resistance was also introduced which presents a risk in the potential spread of antibiotic resistance (Chloramphenicol, Ampicillin, Tetracycline) if these plasmids were to spread into the environment. This was avoided to a large degree by following standard lab protocol with specific guidelines regarding waste disposal of GMOs.   </p>
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
  
                 <p> The ability for proliferation of GMOs and organisms in general is determined by their fitness. As a rule of thumb regarding spread of GMOs in the environment, fitness is greatly reduced for most lab strains of microorganisms (model organisms) because they have been modified in numerous ways to make them easy to work with. This is not an adaptation that is suitable for their natural environment from which they originated. Add to this the metabolically expensive process in expressing proteins (UnaG, amilGFP) which can only be deemed as a negative fitness contribution [9]. Regarding risks associated with nematodes see separate <a href="https://2018.igem.org/Safety/Final_Safety_Form">safety form</a> and select Uppsala from the meny. </p>
+
                 <p> The ability for proliferation of GMOs and organisms in general is determined by their fitness. As a rule of thumb regarding the spread of GMOs in the environment, fitness is greatly reduced for most lab strains of microorganisms because they have been modified in numerous ways to make them easy to work with. These are not adaptations that are suitable for their natural environment, giving them a negative fitness contribution [9]. Regarding the risks associated with nematodes, you can look at the separate <a href="https://2018.igem.org/Safety/Final_Safety_Form">safety form</a> and select Uppsala from the menu. </p>
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
  
                 <p> Noting that this was the first time one sought to see if this is a applicable solution to treat parasitic infections caused by nematodes in ungulates, it thus is a long way from a potentially finalized product. If in the future a product would surface, further risk assessments must be evaluated to see if an engineered product would be deemed safe to be orally ingested by a living host. Since enterio-diagnosis-systems based on bacteria is a novel approach there is little to be found in the litterature about its applied effects. However, this sort of assessment is out of the scope of our project and could not be, as well as, was never intended to be experimentally verifiable and only mention to give context and reasoning to future research if implementation of such product is to be realized. In addition to internal reviews, it is common for an external part (like governments) to perform reviews on the product, especially if the product is GMO classified. This is necessary to ensure that the product is safe before letting it hit the market. </p>
+
                 <p> This was the first time a team tried to see if this is an applicable solution to diagnose parasitic infections caused by nematodes in ungulates; it thus is a long way from a potentially finalized product. If a product would surface in the future, further risk assessments must be evaluated to see if an engineered product would be deemed safe to be orally ingested by a living host. Since an enteric diagnostic system based on bacteria is a novel approach there is little to be found in the literature about its applied effects. In addition to internal reviews, it is common for an external entity (like a government) to perform reviews on the product, especially if the product is classified as a GMO. This is necessary to ensure that the product is safe before letting it hit the market.</p>
  
 
                 <br>
 
                 <br>
  
                <p> Technologies can be used for good and bad. This well reversed statement implies that it’s not the technology itself that is either good or bad, rather its the use and implementation of technology that determines its consequences. Implying that its the use and the intentions of the user that sets the outcome, the user (including companies) should thus be held accountable for any unethical use. Bearing this in mind, that the operators behind a technology must be held responsible for his or her actions, saying no to upcoming technologies or research (such as those of enterio-diagnostic systems) would imply that people are not able to make the right decisions, with the emphasis on a hypothetical misconduct by a few. If this was the case we would have stopped before tied sharpened pieces of rock to a wooden shaft. We should instead treat people as responsible human beings and the development of a new technology as a bridge between an initial state and potential end state, whatever that end state might represent. </p>
+
             
 
+
                <br>
+
  
 +
         
 
                 <h2> Disrupting Commerce </h2>
 
                 <h2> Disrupting Commerce </h2>
 
                 <p> Just as we’ve seen unprecedented advancements in technology in the recent years or in the last century there is no reason to think the future holds a different promise. Research is done both by academia and in the private sector. Their approach and funding often differs in the sense that a company have to make a profit from a product in order to be able to reinvest and stay competitive whilst academia are more self-sustainable in the means of grants and-/or other tax funded solutions as well as donations from various contributors. It might be that a new product developed through iGEM would put a business in a disadvantage, this is of course possible, but we feel this shouldn’t interfere with or discourage teams in their pursuit of new innovative solutions. </p>
 
                 <p> Just as we’ve seen unprecedented advancements in technology in the recent years or in the last century there is no reason to think the future holds a different promise. Research is done both by academia and in the private sector. Their approach and funding often differs in the sense that a company have to make a profit from a product in order to be able to reinvest and stay competitive whilst academia are more self-sustainable in the means of grants and-/or other tax funded solutions as well as donations from various contributors. It might be that a new product developed through iGEM would put a business in a disadvantage, this is of course possible, but we feel this shouldn’t interfere with or discourage teams in their pursuit of new innovative solutions. </p>

Revision as of 15:01, 17 October 2018