Integrated Human Practice
Discussion with Cell Product Purification Experts
Meeting with Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer, General Manager of BIBITEC GmbH
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/d/d6/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--YKE_Meeting_with_Luetkemeyer.jpeg)
Figure 1: Meeting with Prof. Dr. Lütkemeyer.
Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer (BIBITEC GmbH) and team member Yannic during a meeting at the Center for Biotechnology. A detailed discussion provided us with useful advices and opinions about our elution technique and purification column.
To be decided
Investigation of Public Reception of Synthetic Biology
1. Attitudes towards synthetic biology The participant’s attitude towards synthetic biology was assessed with 10 questions (e.g. “The risks synthetic biology harbors are uncontrollable”) using a 6-point Likert-scale [1] ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely” with an “I don’t know” option.
2. Perceived dangers of synthetic biology The perceived dangers of synthetic biology in comparison to possible dangers rooting from other sources were assessed with eight scenarios on a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from “very unsafe” to “very safe” with an “I don’t know” option. Four of those scenarios involved synthetic biology (e.g. “Incorporation of non-natural components into the DNA of a bacterium”), the other four were unrelated (e.g. “A several hours-long commercial flight overseas”).
4. Previous experiences with synthetic biology The participants’ previous experiences were directly assessed by asking whether or not they have gotten in contact with this topic. If that was the case, they were asked to state the origin of their experiences (e.g. “profession”, “volunteer work”, “politics”).
5. Definition of life The participants’ definition of “life” was assessed by asking them to choose one out of four different possible definitions of “life”, which were coded philosophical, scientific, religious, or judicial. Afterwards, participants were asked on a five-point scale to what extent the chosen definition fits their personal definition. If the definition did not or did hardly fit, participants were asked to write down their own definition of “life”.
6. Attitudes towards artificial life The participant’s attitude towards artificial life was assessed with six questions using a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely” with an “I don’t know” option (e.g. “life is life – it does not matter whether its origin is artificial or natural”)
7. Evaluation whether certain forms of life are natural or synthetic Participants’ opinion on what is natural and what is synthetic life was assessed by six scenarios (e.g. “a bacterium engineered in the lab”) with the options “natural life” “artificial life”, “no life at all” and “I don’t know”.
8. General attitudes towards our project After a two-sentence description of our iGEM-project, participants were asked in three questions whether our project was safe, meaningful, and whether or not – if the participant had the opportunity to decide – it could proceed. Options were “yes”, “no”, and “I don’t know”.
9. Demographics Lastly, participants’ age, gender, education, and profession were assessed to further contextualize results.