Volume 22, Issue 4 (Iranian South Medical Journal 2019)
Iran South Med J 2019, 22(4): 236-247 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Vahdat K, Ashrafppour A, Tamadon A, Bolkheir A, Mahmoodpour M, Nabipour I. Researcher’s Attitudes Toward Synthetic Biolo-gy in Bushehr University. Iran South Med J 2019; 22 (4) :236-247
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-1146-en.html
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-1146-en.html
Katayon Vahdat * 
1, Ali Ashrafppour2 , Amin Tamadon3 , Amirreza Bolkheir4 , Mehdi Mahmoodpour5 , Iraj Nabipour6
1, Ali Ashrafppour2 , Amin Tamadon3 , Amirreza Bolkheir4 , Mehdi Mahmoodpour5 , Iraj Nabipour6
1- The Persian Gulf Tropical Medicine Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran , k.vahdat@bpums.ac.ir
2- Student Research Committee, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
3- The Persian Gulf Marine Biotechnology Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
4- Otolaryngology Research Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
5- The Persian Gulf Tropical Medicine Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
6- The Persian Gulf Marine Biotechnology Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
Future Studies Group, The Academy of Medical Sciences of the I.R.Iran
2- Student Research Committee, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
3- The Persian Gulf Marine Biotechnology Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
4- Otolaryngology Research Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
5- The Persian Gulf Tropical Medicine Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
6- The Persian Gulf Marine Biotechnology Research Center, The Persian Gulf Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
Future Studies Group, The Academy of Medical Sciences of the I.R.Iran
Abstract: (3779 Views)
Background: Synthetic biology is an interdisciplinary branch of biology and engineering. As synthetic biology develops into a promising science and engineering field, we need to clarify the purpose and nature of this science in terms of security, ethics and the recognition of the benefits of potential risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the researchers’ attitudes toward synthetic biology in Bushehr University of Medical Science.
Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted on 80 faculty members of Bushehr University of Medical Sciences who have the research experience. To collect information a researcher-made questionnaire consisted of 19 questions in fields of benefits and risks of synthetic biology, compliance with religious beliefs, uncertainty about the boundaries between man and God, the necessity of policy making in this science and the speed of progress of this science were used. Demographics characteristics of subjects were also assessed through the questionnaire.
Results: In this study, 22 women and 58 men with the average age of 43.87±7.35 years of 20.79±14.56 (range 31 to 60 years) with mean history of research of 12.43±6.2 years were enrolled. The results showed that 85.65% of study subjects had a positive approach to the benefits of this science, 72.46% expressed concern about the serious risks of synthetic biology and 72.33% had positive attitude towards policy making in this field. There was an intersectional and boundary relationship between conflicts with religious beliefs and trust the policymakers and scientists (P=0.052). Also, there was no significant relationship between age, sex, and research history with any of the questionnaire items (P-value>0.05).
Conclusion: The academic society was aware from the benefits and risks of synthetic biology. They did not express a conflict between this branch of science and their religious beliefs and trusts. They also considered an interdisciplinary approach and training of a skillful human resource among the fundamental strategic policies in the field of synthetic biology.
Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted on 80 faculty members of Bushehr University of Medical Sciences who have the research experience. To collect information a researcher-made questionnaire consisted of 19 questions in fields of benefits and risks of synthetic biology, compliance with religious beliefs, uncertainty about the boundaries between man and God, the necessity of policy making in this science and the speed of progress of this science were used. Demographics characteristics of subjects were also assessed through the questionnaire.
Results: In this study, 22 women and 58 men with the average age of 43.87±7.35 years of 20.79±14.56 (range 31 to 60 years) with mean history of research of 12.43±6.2 years were enrolled. The results showed that 85.65% of study subjects had a positive approach to the benefits of this science, 72.46% expressed concern about the serious risks of synthetic biology and 72.33% had positive attitude towards policy making in this field. There was an intersectional and boundary relationship between conflicts with religious beliefs and trust the policymakers and scientists (P=0.052). Also, there was no significant relationship between age, sex, and research history with any of the questionnaire items (P-value>0.05).
Conclusion: The academic society was aware from the benefits and risks of synthetic biology. They did not express a conflict between this branch of science and their religious beliefs and trusts. They also considered an interdisciplinary approach and training of a skillful human resource among the fundamental strategic policies in the field of synthetic biology.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
History of Medicine. Medical Miscellany
Received: 2019/03/18 | Accepted: 2019/04/8 | Published: 2019/09/25
Received: 2019/03/18 | Accepted: 2019/04/8 | Published: 2019/09/25
References
1. Nabipour I. Philosophy, Ethics and Politics in Synthetic Biology. First edition. Bushehr: Bushehr University of Medical Sciences & Health Services, 2018, 168. (Persian)
2. Issues U. S. P. C. F. T. S. O. B. New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2010 May.
3. Newson AJ. Synthetic Biology: Ethics, Exceptionalism and Expectations. Macquarie L J 2015; 15: 45.
4. Leduc S. Théorie Physico-Chimique De La Vie et Générations Spontanées. Paris: Poinat, 1910, 202. [DOI:10.5962/bhl.title.32591]
5. Leduc S. La Biologie Synthétique, étude de Biophysique. Paris: Point, 1912, 217.
6. Elowitz MB, Leibler S. A Synthetic Oscillatory Network of Transcriptional Regulators. Nature 2000; 403(6767): 335-8. [DOI:10.1038/35002125]
7. Gardner TS, Cantor CR, Collins JJ. Construction of a Genetic Toggle Switch in Escherichia Coli. Nature 2000; 403(6767): 339-42. [DOI:10.1038/35002131]
8. Cachat E, Davies JA. Application of Synthetic Biology to Regenerative Medicine. J Bioeng Biomed Sci 2011; S2:003. [DOI:10.4172/2155-9538.S2-003]
9. Singh V. Recent Advances and Opportunities in Synthetic Logic Gates Engineering in Living Cells. Syst Synth Biol 2014; 8(4): 271-82. [DOI:10.1007/s11693-014-9154-6]
10. Weinberg BH, Pham NT, Caraballo LD, et al. Large-Scale Design of Robust Genetic Circuits With Multiple Inputs and Outputs for Mammalian Cells. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35(5): 453-62. [DOI:10.1038/nbt.3805]
11. Close DM, Xu T, Sayler GS, et al. In Vivo Bioluminescent Imaging (BLI): Noninvasive Visualization and Interrogation of Biological Processes in Living Animals. Sensors 2011; 11(1): 180-206. [DOI:10.3390/s110100180]
12. Koder RL, Anderson JL, Solomon LA, et al. Design and Engineering of An O(2) Transport Protein. Nature 2009; 458(7236): 305-9. [DOI:10.1038/nature07841]
13. Verseux CN, Paulino-Lima IG, Baqué M, et al. Synthetic Biology for Space Exploration: Promises and Societal Implications. Ambivalences of Creating Life 2015; 73-100. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_4]
14. Chugh A, Bhatia P, Jain A. Synthetic Biology for the Development of Biodrugs and Designer Crops and the Emerging Governance Issues. In Systems and Synthetic Biology. Dordrecht: Springer, 2015, 299-325. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-9514-2_16]
15. Douglas T, Savulescu J. Synthetic Biology and the Ethics of Knowledge. J Med Ethics 2010; 36(11): 687-93. [DOI:10.1136/jme.2010.038232]
16. Stemerding D, Rerimassie V, Srinivas R, et al. Ethics Debates on Synthetic Biology in Three Regions. Global Ethics in Science and Technology. 2014, 1-49.
17. Nielson L. Ethics of Synthetic Biology. Ethics of Synthetic Biology by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. Opinion No 25, European Commission, 2010, 1-109.
18. Akin H, Rose KM, Scheuffle DA, et al. Mapping the Landscape of Public Attitudes on Synthetic Biology. BioScience 2017; 67(3): 290-300. [DOI:10.1093/biosci/biw171]
19. Pauwels E. Public Understanding of Synthetic Biology. BioScience 2013; 63(2): 79-89. [DOI:10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.4]
20. Pei L, Gaisser S, Schmidt M. Synthetic Biology in the View of European Public Funding Organisations. Public Underst Sci 2012; 21(2): 149-62. [DOI:10.1177/0963662510393624]
21. Katherine X. Synthetic Biology's New Menagerie. Harvard Magazine, 2014 Sep-Oct.
22. Yojana SH. NGOs Call for International Regulation of Synthetic Biology. Scidev net, 2012 Mar 15.
23. Sobradillo P, Pozo F, Agusti A. P4 Medicine:the Future Around the Corner. Arch Bronconeumol 2011; 47(1): 35-40. [DOI:10.1016/j.arbres.2010.09.009]
24. Mandel GN, Braman D, Kahan DM. Cultural Cognition and Synthetic Biology Risk Perceptions: A Preliminary Analysis. Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School ; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 446; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 446; Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-78; Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 364. SSRN 2009. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1264804
25. Kurup R, Kurup PA. Climate Change and Human Synthetic Biology by Symbiotic Evolution. LAP-LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2018, 204.
26. Kim J, Yeo SK, Brossard D, et al. Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/ Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public. Risk Anal 2014; 34(5): 965-80. [DOI:10.1111/risa.12141]
27. Verseux C, Paulino-lima I, Baque M, et al. Synthetic Biology for Space Exploration: Promises and Societal Implications. Ambivalences of Creating Life. Societal and philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic Biology, Publisher: Springer-Verlag. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment 2016; 45: 73-100. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-21088-9_4]
28. Newson AJ. Synthetic Biology: Ethics, Exceptionalism and Expectations. Macquarie L J 2015; 15: 45
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
