CHE.496/2008/Responses/a7

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: __NOTOC__ {{Template:CHE.496/2008}} <div style="padding: 10px; width: 750px; border: 5px solid #B3CD4E;"> ==Social implications== *Discussion leader: Eyad Lababidi [[CHE.496/2008/Schedul...)
(Social implications)
Line 7: Line 7:
*Discussion leader: Eyad Lababidi [[CHE.496/2008/Schedule/Social implications| (Discussion guide)]]
*Discussion leader: Eyad Lababidi [[CHE.496/2008/Schedule/Social implications| (Discussion guide)]]
<br />
<br />
 +
===Kevin Hershey's Response===
 +
*The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology
 +
**The purpose of the article by Tucker and Zilinskas is to provide information regarding the potential rewards and dangers of this emerging field. The first part of the paper introduces synthetic biology, an issue already covered in this course. After the introduction, they bring up three potential risks. They are 1) organisms escape laboratory and proliferate, 2) after being deliberately released in environment, the organism may have unwanted dangerous side effects, and 3) terrorist organizations may use the organisms for their own purpose. With these three risks are not new to the field of genetic engineering. In fact, there are very tight laws on the selling of engineered animals, because people are already aware of the risk to an extent. However, even though these are not new issues, they are still important to consider and examine when performing synthetic biology research. This paper has several solutions to this problem, they are screening of oligonucleotide sequences (for dangers such as smallpox DNA), ecological modeling (so the organisms effect on nature can be better understood), oversight of research (for more control so dangerous research can be halted), and public outreach and education (to educate the public and raise awareness). They finish by saying that synthetic biology should take a lesson from Asilomar in 1975, where recombinant DNA has been used for, in general, good since its discovery.
 +
 +
*DNA Synthesis and Biological Securtiy
 +
**This brief article discusses some of the potential solutions to the problems of a new technology, DNA synthesis. The paper points out that with DNA synthesis becoming easier and easier to do, there needs to be some intervention so people do not create dangerous organisms, such as the black plague, 1918 flu, or smallpox. They suggest government and legal oversight, and several solutions. The best system seems like using computer programs to screen dangerous sequences. This allows a range of people to use this new technology, while at the same time keeping people safe. It is a very useful article to consider before performing research in this new field.
 +
*'''[[User:KPHershey|KPHershey]] 14:23, 5 February 2008 (CST)'''

Revision as of 16:23, 5 February 2008

CHE.496: Biological Systems Design Seminar

Home        People        Schedule        Assignments        Responses        Projects        Links        Help       

Social implications


Kevin Hershey's Response

  • The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology
    • The purpose of the article by Tucker and Zilinskas is to provide information regarding the potential rewards and dangers of this emerging field. The first part of the paper introduces synthetic biology, an issue already covered in this course. After the introduction, they bring up three potential risks. They are 1) organisms escape laboratory and proliferate, 2) after being deliberately released in environment, the organism may have unwanted dangerous side effects, and 3) terrorist organizations may use the organisms for their own purpose. With these three risks are not new to the field of genetic engineering. In fact, there are very tight laws on the selling of engineered animals, because people are already aware of the risk to an extent. However, even though these are not new issues, they are still important to consider and examine when performing synthetic biology research. This paper has several solutions to this problem, they are screening of oligonucleotide sequences (for dangers such as smallpox DNA), ecological modeling (so the organisms effect on nature can be better understood), oversight of research (for more control so dangerous research can be halted), and public outreach and education (to educate the public and raise awareness). They finish by saying that synthetic biology should take a lesson from Asilomar in 1975, where recombinant DNA has been used for, in general, good since its discovery.
  • DNA Synthesis and Biological Securtiy
    • This brief article discusses some of the potential solutions to the problems of a new technology, DNA synthesis. The paper points out that with DNA synthesis becoming easier and easier to do, there needs to be some intervention so people do not create dangerous organisms, such as the black plague, 1918 flu, or smallpox. They suggest government and legal oversight, and several solutions. The best system seems like using computer programs to screen dangerous sequences. This allows a range of people to use this new technology, while at the same time keeping people safe. It is a very useful article to consider before performing research in this new field.
  • KPHershey 14:23, 5 February 2008 (CST)
Personal tools