SBPWG:Meetings/July 27 2011
Meeting Notes: July 27th 2011
Wednesday July 27th 6:30-8:30pm
Stanford Y2E2 Building, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA - Room 299 (Red Atrium, 2nd Floor) map
Guest Speaker
Title: Practical Perspectives on Programming the Practice of Synthetic Biology
Speaker: Drew Endy
Overview: Work and dreaming under the broad label "synthetic biology" stimulates and sustains many conversations regarding known or imagined outcomes. Rarely these conversations coalesce into an implicit or explicit (re)shaping of tools that prescribe or bias what is expected of individual or group actions. I'll use examples (e.g., DNA synthesis screening guidelines, RAC guidelines update, and property rights puzzles) to examine (i) what actors, relationships, and conditions shape the shaping of synthetic biology practice, (ii) how long it can take to make incremental progress in such work, and (iii) imagine what next steps might happen.
Agenda
0. Welcome, Introductions, News
1. Gap Minding Update
2. Guest Speaker: Drew Endy
3. Discussion
4. Follow Up
Attendees
- Megan Palmer
- Ryan Ritterson
- Joseph Shih
- Jay Vowles
- Sara Aguiton
- Josh Wolf
- Kevin Costa
- Andy Chang
- Monica Ortiz
- Jon Rodriguez
- Paul Jashe
- Adwoa Boakye
- Joseph Jackson
- Reid Williams
- Ton Subsoontorn
- Stephanie Galanie
- Drew Endy (Guest Speaker)
- Chris Anderson (could not call in)
Notes
0. Welcome, Introductions, News
Megan gave an overview of the history of the group
Everyone introduced themselves: who are you, where are you from, why are you here?
- Megan, Postdoc at Stanford, interested in how we understand and actualize ‘responsibily’ in sci and tech development
- Joseph Shiu, assistant professor from Silver lab (Harvard) just arriving at Stanford, wants to be part of these types of discussions; how SB should be related to society
- Jon Rodriguez, Computer scientist, AI and Gen Engineering need good decisions.
- Adwoa Boakye from Ohio studying at MIT, NASA this summer (MUST scholar), interested in when people meet like this, understanding what is the effect of their work
- Andy Chang, Smolke's Lab, interested in the relation between science and the perception of the public.
- Ryan Ritterson, UCSF, not gonna stay at the bench, interested in policy and law, if we don't organize, SB might elicit the same controversies, stagnation as stemcell research
- Josh Wolf, Smolke's lab, how people view our work in the society.
- Jay Vowles, Caltech – now at Stanford, science and public perception of science.
- Stephanie Galanie, Smolke lab, chemistry working in BioEngineering. Sustainable chemistry to do pharmaceutical product. How to use bio not by "using" the earth.
- Ton, Drew's lab, came because Megan told me to come.
- Paul, Drew's lab, just want to see what it's all about
- Monica, Drew's lab, here because interested in science and policy - look for ways to join both
- Sara A, Paris, interested in how scientists approach these areas
- Kevin, SynBERC, interested in SB & society generally
- Reid Williams, UCSF, see more dimensions in SB than the one we see everyday in our research – would like to see the larger context
1. Gap Minding Update
Megan gave out copies of the revised gap list as well as links to the Wilson center's version of the gap list. See here
2. Guest Speaker: Drew Endy
Key Take-Aways
1) Patience is a virtue (frustrating).
- Every idea you can have on the bench could be not at all understood by other, you might know that
2) More people will be involved than you expect.
- You can expect some people to act, and you won't see them, but other, and you'll be surprise by how many invisible people can work on what you have in mind.
3) Both process and product will be unsatisfying.
4) External driver and reality matter.
- External driver: the issue-pusher can really change the way things happen.
- Reality matters: A problem (opposed to an opportunity) is placed upon a never-ending list of problems. If your problem is not at the head of the queue, you should bring a solution and not expect the government to deal with your problem, because they are so many problem.
5) Intrinsic bias towards enabling research.
- People from the government (and not people from civil society) are looking for future economic-competitiveness but also strong wariness about screwing this up.
Looking Forward
1) Work on the thing you care about
2) Actions trumps inaction
3) You as/are expert
- If you actually do something, you become that person. You will become a resource, a leader, etc. It's no difference about any other research. You are the expert, you actually are. Most people who craft policy don't practice. You have a big advantage here: you know reality, you practice. Don't hide that advantage from your work.
3. Discussion
The group posed several questions throughout and after Drew's talk. Here is one question that was particularly relevant for this group:
Megan: What was the best/worst thing about syn bio working groups in the past? What lessons can this group learn from?
Drew: I don't want to depress you, because this [gap] list is definitely better than nothing. The explicit end of this talk is motivating, you really should do it.
The best thing about the MIT SBWG was to define a base for community. Community matters: it's a home for reflection, for challenges, for food.
So, the best thing about the working group is that it provided a home. Community is precious.
The thing I wish we've done differently: we were too "US versus Them". We were too isolated, it was a forest, public forest, political forest, technical - scientific forest, you have friends and "antis" everywhere.
4. Follow Up & Plans for the Next Meeting
The day after the meeting, Megan sent the following email request to working group participants in order to determine how best to align the group's future activities with their interests.
Thank you to everyone that attended the working group meeting last night. I hope you took away a better understanding of the reality of positively shaping synthetic biology practices/policy, and the importance of (i) honing in on your personal motivations/interests, (ii) realizing your expertise, (iii) cultivating sustaining relationships, and (iv) taking action.
To ensure this group’s activities evolve in a way aligned with these criteria, I’m hoping that you might respond to the questions below over the next few days. Some answers may already have surfaced in part through earlier conversations individually and collectively, but I appreciate you reiterating them here. Be as brief or lengthy as you would like.
1. What are the questions, issues or topics that motivate your interest and involvement in Practices? How do you see these relating to your current or anticipated future work?
2. What types of activities, projects, resources, or people do you see helping advance (y)our knowledge, capacity and desire to address these interests?
3. What level of engagement do you ideally envision with this group, and what determines this engagement? For instance, would you like to attend programs (seminars, workshops etc), (co-)lead programs, (co-)write papers, coordinate across activities? Are there other constraints or commitments that might shape this?
4. What other feedback/suggestions do you have for making this group meaningful and aligned with your interests and motivations? Have we missed opportunities?
5. Can I share your responses (on the wiki, with others)?
Responses can be found here. Please check them out!
