Video Interviews

In order to consider what the potential ethical implications of CRISPR, we narrowed our focus to human gene editing in the healthcare system. To implement this technology into mainstream healthcare use is a huge feat with many ethical roadblocks. We quickly realized that the only way to fully consider these issues was to hear from those with experience both in the area and with the community. Essentially, we wanted to work with professionals who have significant ties to the community, the science or both. In doing this we chose to format our research through filmed interviews. We identified key experts that could provide insightful commentary on the current state of science and public opinion. In the end, we interviewed nine professionals with different backgrounds ranging from medicine, engineering, Religion and Advocacy. Each of these areas had a specific relevancy to the questions we would pose and as such we felt it was incredibly important to speak with them.

Medicine

For the field of medicine we had the opportunity to interview Dr. Ronald Cohn, the chief of pediatrics at Sickkids hospital. This was an important interview as he was able to give the perspective of a medical professional in the face of new and extensive technologies.

Engineering

Interviewing engineers Dr. Hai-Ling Cheng, Dr. Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalez and Dr. Laura Prochazka was integral to considering the technical issues of our design. We incorporated their understanding of CRISPR-Cas9 into the technical aspect of our project. To further understand the considerations needed for Human Gene Editing we benefited from their insights on the subject.

Religion

We chose to include religious perspectives because religion can play an influential role in individual lives especially where important personal decisions will be made. This is a factor that cannot be ignored especially when trying to address the extremely personal nature of this type of healthcare. We went in wondering how major religions view gene editing and how this may influence individuals who follow those religions. We were lucky enough to have extensive conversations with Dr. Christopher Brittain, the Dean of Divinity at the University of Toronto and Rabbi Michael Stroh and Rabbi Aaron Greenberg, two Rabbis active in Toronto.

Advocacy

Interviewing representatives of advocacy groups was one of the most important aspects of our video series. Capturing some of the prevailing thoughts in the disability rights community was essential to addressing some of the major concerns with gene editing. In conversing with well known disability rights advocates Alice Wong and Anita Cameron they helped us to see a different side of things. Often talk of gene editing can get muddied with technicalities and what seems to be the ‘right thing to do’. This however is not always clear when we think about how it affects the disabled community; which is full of people who take pride in their disabilities and have no desire to change anything. It was through these interviews that we truly got a sense of what it means to live in this world with a disability and how hard people must fight for their right to be included in debates.

Of the questions we asked we hoped to gather a clear perspective of how the community currently feels towards gene editing. In gathering these responses we have created a framework which may be referred to and considered when before gene editing begins. While we could not solve such problems on our own the process of acknowledging where the public is at is incredibly important. The only way to create a secure regulatory framework for gene editing is to ensure the major ethical concerns have been thoroughly discussed, acknowledged and problem solving has been initiated. By doing this we only then can we move towards implementing the huge possibilities of CRISPR to a healthcare system.

Our community outreach consisted of three major projects over the course of the summer.

Podcast

Our first project was a six-episode podcast on synthetic biology targeted towards an audience with little knowledge of the field. We tied each episode to a discipline that is intertwined with synthetic biology to help understand how the discipline works within a wider context. These episodes were focused on the arts, business, engineering and ethics, with a collaboration episode with other iGEM teams, and an interview with Dr. Petri Lahtvee from the Tartu University. The episodes were created in a manner by which they could be easily understood by someone with almost no knowledge of the area. Each episode features definitions of key terms and comprehensive discussion. The purpose of creating the episode in this way to widen the scope of what most would think to discuss in relation to synthetic biology. Those who participated in the podcasts are knowledgeable in their fields and have a significant understanding of their field and how it may relate to key issues in synthetic biology.

Icon-a-thon

The second project was our Icon-a-thon event, which aimed to bring together artists and scientists in the general community. The purpose of the event was to create a larger repository of icons for synthetic biology. Recognizing the lack of clear and engaging icons we reached out to artists and scientists for an afternoon of drawing and discussion.

Another important aspect of the event was the actual working of artists and scientists together. We hoped to build a bridge between two fields that are generally considered at odds. In closing this gap more progress can be made in the future. We recognized the important contributions arts can make to sciences and vice versa, these contributions were evident during the event. Those who came discussed ideas and concepts, drafted icons had general discussions about the importance of collaboration in science. After the event our team voted on the three best icons and those winners received prizes for their contributions. The winning icons were Central Dogma, ATP Synthase and Quorum Sensing.

Bioinformatics Workshop

Our third project was a synthetic biology workshop aimed at high school students and first year university students with little to no knowledge of coding or synthetic biology. The event was held from nine am to five pm with the first half of the day focused extensively on the basics of coding, with an emphasis towards applications in bioinformatics. Those who participated were able to increase their skills in coding led by one of our team leads; who has extensive experience in the area.

The second half of the day we devoted to testing the student’s skills in a series of games and lessons in smaller groups. We had bioinformatics games, a genetic circuit design game and discussions on the ethics of gene editing and gene drives. The students learned about our 2017 project while improving their discussion and analysis skills of key important issues at the forefront of gene editing. At the end of the rotations the group who excelled the best in the games received a 3D printed iGEM plaque.

References

1. Canadian Biosafety Standards and Guidelines - https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/canadian-biosafety-standards-guidelines.html
2. Biosafety Team in the Office of Environmental Health and Safety - https://ehs.utoronto.ca/our-services/biosafety/
3. NIH Guidelines - https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/laboratory-biosafety-biosecurity/pathogen-safety-data-sheets-risk-assessment.html
4. iGEM Risk Groups - https://2017.igem.org/Safety/Risk_Groups