Why Accessibility Matters
Our project is centered on making mammalian synthetic biology more accessible for future iGEM teams, undergraduate researchers, and other groups that may not currently have the resources to pursue this type of research. From the beginning, the idea of making mammalian synthetic biology more accessible by producing protocols, well-characterized and open-access parts, and developing measurement strategies seemed like a noble goal. After all, making anything more accessible is always good right? Making things more accessible often means that individuals and groups that are marginalized by those in power can work around institutional barriers that may prevent them from succeeding. Furthermore, making things more accessible often means that more people have the ability to innovate and produce helpful and valuable technologies. Accessibility means that everyone can participate no matter their gender identity, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, appearance, or health status. Working towards a future that makes mammalian synthetic biology--and synthetic biology as a whole--more accessible is certainly important, but both the positive and negative consequences of building such a future must be analyzed first.
We must first define what we mean by “accessible”. The word has a generally positive connotation associated with it, but we must ignore the connotation behind the word to define what exactly “making mammalian synthetic biology more accessible” means. We define the process of making mammalian synthetic biology more accessible as the process of removing barriers that make mammalian research more difficult for those who are not already established in this field. For example, the following are ways that mammalian synthetic biology could be made more accessible:
- Developing protocols for mammalian culturing, transfection, and making measurements necessary for analyzing mammalian systems.
- Characterizing mammalian parts and developing methods for the rapid characterization of parts in the future.
- Determining what equipment is necessary and what equipment can be replaced with cheaper options resulting in similar results.
Is Accessibility Always Good?
Now we must answer the following question: is making mammalian synthetic biology more accessible always good? The benefits of making mammalian synthetic biology more accessible are obvious: the incorporation of previously marginalized groups into the field, increasing the diversity of thought in the field, and potentially increasing the rate of technological advance being just a few benefits of increasing the accessibility of the field.
However, we must also consider the potential drawbacks of increasing accessibility. Not all those who might gain access to mammalian synthetic biology will follow current scientific ethical standards and norms. Individuals might use open-access parts and protocols to pursue agendas informed by regressive attitudes or hatred of groups of people. Individuals might also fail to deliberate on the ethical outcomes of their actions, resulting in harm to people, the environment, or the economy. If damage is done to people, the environment, or property because of ill-advised scientific work, the public will increasingly become distrustful of the scientific community, becoming more likely to reject scientific findings. Science has a history of harming people because the full-consequences of certain experiments and studies were not extensively analyzed; we must not trade increasing accessibility for allowing more people to make ill-advised decisions that have to potential to harm people or the environment.
For most scientists in modern times, they conduct their research in the context of a greater community. The scientist likely went through multiple years of schooling and mentoring, receiving formal, informal, and hidden ethical education along with technical training. Thus, by the time a scientist is allowed to make decisions about the type of research to pursue and how to pursue it, the scientist has been influenced by the community in which they were trained. Additionally, the scientist would have to convince grants or investors that their research is worth pursuing and does not violate ethical principles. Many institutions also have checks on human subjects research and research that modifies living organisms, requiring the scientist to obtain institutional approval for their research. All of these institutional checks can prevent an individual from completing unethical and dangerous research. If we make it easier to conduct research outside of the control of such institutions, then we lose a layer of ethical regulation on synthetic biology.
We have established that increasing the accessibility of mammalian synthetic biology is a good idea in principle; however, more thought must be put into how best to achieve a more open field. We want to allow more people to pursue mammalian projects while also encouraging the continued expansion of ethical thought throughout science. The following analysis of how physical research materials are transferred between parties will be used as an example of how to both increase the accessibility of research and encourage ethical development.
Overview
Mammalian Synthetic biology is a powerful new field with many applications in production of biopharmaceuticals, bioengineering, and research. These applications are why our team has chosen to work to make mammalian synthetic biology more accessible to future iGEM teams, however accessibility can create challenges for intellectual property and ethics. When research generates knowledge or parts scientists must ask themselves: who should have access to this information, and how will I regulate this? The question of who has access is a central concept in both Intellectual Property (IP) and the field of bioethics. Bioethicists must weigh the cost of information used maliciously against the benefit of information to society, while Intellectual Property Officers aim to protect the commercial rights associated with the products of research. Bioethics and IP have come to different solutions to the question of who can access information. IP has determined access through Material Transfer Agreements. Bioethicists are concerned with the value that research will bring to society and the potential harm associated.