IGEM is a competition that tries to address the question: “Can simple biological systems be built from standard, interchangeable parts and operated in living cells? Or is biology simply too complicated to be engineered in this way?” Its broader goals include:

• enabling the systematic engineering of biology;
• promoting the open and transparent development of tools for engineering biology; and
• helping to construct a society that can productively apply biological technology.

I  covered  iGEM in  a 2007 column. It continous to grow rapidly.

As it states on the iGEM webpage” iGEM began in January of 2003 with a month-long course during MIT's Independent Activities Period. Students designed biological systems to make cells blink. This design course grew to a summer competition with five teams in 2004, 13 in 2005 (the first year that the competition grew internationally), 32 in 2006, and 54 in 2007. The 2008 competition just finished with 84 teams from 21 countries. The award page can be found here, and Wikis that describe the projects here.

If one reads the details of projects showcased at the iGEM competitions over the years, it is evident iGEM is well underway in addressing the question is has sought to address and achieving its goals. Indeed, the biochemist side of me finds exiting ideas in many of the proposed projects. However my science and technology governance side notes that the evaluation of ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social impacts lags behind the synbio conferences (see my columns on synbio 3.0 and  synbio 4.0).

This might be due to the fact that the academic and industrial world of synbio has for some time now been targeted by NGOs (see my synbio 2.0 column) which forced them to address these concerns. To date, iGEM has not been targeted by NGOs. Knowledge and dialogues around E3LS issues are of particular importance for iGEM, since the students performing iGEM engineering tasks for the most part have no knowledge of E3LS issues.

When I was asked if I would consider convening a team covering synthetic biology E3LS issues, I was more than happy to bring together a group of undergraduate students that could generate E3LS knowledge for the iGEM culture. The students  were excited, as they felt they would contribute to the flourishing of iGEM by addressing E3LS issues in a proactive way. The content of what they produced can be found on their Wiki).

The students produced two surveys and an online course, and collaborated with various groups on a number of topics (one being the collaboration with Laura Dress, a University of Maryland student who presented the poster “Forward-Engineering a Regulatory Framework for Synthetic Biology: How Existing Regulatory Architecture Could Lend to the Creation of Our Own” at Synbio 4.0 and won the "Best Social Issue in Synthetic Biology" award).

They were the first undergraduate student team presenting a project at iGEM that focused exclusively on E3LS issues attached to synthetic biology. Two of them began this project at the end of their first year in Health and Society in the Bachelor of Health Sciences at the University of Calgary, and one had just finished the second year in biomedical science in the same degree.

Returning from iGEM 2008, I would say they provided an essential component that has so far been missing in the  iGEM culture. When I looked at the 2008 posters and Wikis and listened to the presentations, my biochemistry side found a lot of exciting and interesting ideas. However -- with the exception of the TU Delf, UC Berkeley (human practices section) and KU Leuven (ethics section) teams, and the Heidelberg team (human practices section and winner of the human services award), which covered E3LS issues as part of their synthetic biology wetlab project -- there was a nearly total lack of E3LS content in the other projects.My team was the only one that focused its whole project around human practices. They also collaborated with Guelph’s iGEM team to generate the E3LS content for their project. In the end, the underrepresentation of E3LS considerations was confirmed by the finding of my students in their surveys that iGEMers did not perceive E3LS issues as important – economic issues being the exception. This neglect is also reflected in post-iGEM coverage here, here and here.

The Choice  is Yours
 
In 2007 I wrote that “iGEM is another indicator that the field of synthetic biology is thriving and global and that it deserves much more publicity than it actually has.”

I would now say that it’s time for iGEM to start integrating E3LS evaluations into every team’s write-up in a serious way. It is no longer adequate to conclude that there are no issues to consider, or that a project does not generate any new E3LS issues that have not already been dealt with in the biotech debate, or that everything is fine. My students felt that without dealing with the E3LS concerns others may have, the field cannot flourish. Their work did not appear to receive much interest when they were at the meeting.  If the reader wants to comment on the topic and their Wiki, feedback is welcome.

It will be interesting to see what iGEM 2009 will look like, whether there will be more human services/human practices E3LS teams, and how many iGEM teams will include an E3LS section in their Wiki.    

Gregor Wolbring is an ability governance, science and technology governance, disability studies and health policy scholar. He is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health Sciences, Program in Disability Studies and Community Rehabilitation. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Adjunct Faculty, Critical Disability Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the Review Board for the journal Review in Disability Studies; Member of the International Editorial Advisory Board for the journal Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications and is a regular contributor to the What Sorts of People blog.

© Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2008. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.