Dear friends, freaks, researchers, members of scientific committees, …
I will definitely give feedback on the content of the “preliminary opinion” after reading the whole 60 (!) pages, but I already have some general questions and want to share/discuss them with all of you. @Markus: Please take some time to clarify. As Andreas already pointed out, it is not really clear what you/they want: Part of the title: “Risk assessment methodologies and safety aspects” Page 13 and 42: “Outside the scope of the current mandate are the social, governance, ethical, and security implications of SynBio.” Page 42: “Question 4: What are the implications for human and non-human animal health and the environment of likely developments in SynBio […]” —> please explain the difference between “safety aspects” and “security implications” —> if we should not give feedback “related to policy or risk management aspects”, what else do you want? Page 43: “the probability of unintentional harm might increase because DIYbio is more popular.” —> DIYbio is more popular than conventional research!!?! Yeaa! That’s good news!! ;) Page 46: “Contributions to built-in safety locks from the DIY (molecular) biologists community are not expected, because the development of these locks are beyond the current capabilities of this community” —> really? not even in 10 years? “The SCs have confined the scope of its analysis to the foreseeable future (up to 10 years), acknowledging that its findings should be reviewed and updated again in another decade.” MINORITY OPINION None —>21 People were working on one opinion in such a controversial field and you really reached a consensus??? Greetings, Julian Am 13.01.2015 um 10:39 schrieb Julian Chollet <[email protected]>: > @Luc: EPFL rocks!! ;) > <Science Editorial 09.01.2015 - Judging synthetic biology risks .pdf> > > > Am 13.01.2015 um 10:12 schrieb Luc Henry <[email protected]>: > >> Cathal: My ex-institution cancelled its subscription to Science. >> >> Very interesting move.. >> >> Here's the press release: >> >> 05/12/2014 - Further to new unacceptable contractual conditions, the EPFL >> decided not to renew its subscription to Science Online. Hence online access >> could be cut from December 13, 2014 on. However, back files will remain >> accessible, as well as the printed issues. >> >> THE RATIONAL BEHIND THE DECISION TO END ACCESS TO SCIENCE JOURNALS >> >> Science AAAS publisher, is taking advantage of its dominant position and >> trying to impose not only an unjustified price increase, but also new >> contract terms, which are very restrictive and as a result unacceptable for >> us (more details on http://library2.epfl.ch/en/scienceonline) >> >> The EPFL has therefore decided not to renew its subscriptions under the >> present conditions. >> >> >> On 13 January 2015 at 09:33, Andreas Stuermer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Haven't had any time yet to read them. Though " a submission will not be >> considered if it is: -> is related to policy or risk management aspects, >> which is outside the scope of Scientific Committees’ activities." So what do >> they want? >> >> Gotta dig into it, because it directly affects me though. >> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Cathal (Phone) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Anyone have a pdf of that Science ed? >> >> >> On 12 January 2015 22:45:13 GMT+00:00, Markus Schmidt >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dear all. >> >> Following the Science Editorial >> (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/107.summary) about the EC >> opinion on synbio and safety, the Guardian has picked up the topic in its >> recent podcast also discussing DIYBio. >> http://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2015/jan/12/risks-diy-synthetic-biology-safety >> >> The heart of the matter, the SCENIHR EC opinion on synbio, biosafety and >> risk assessment includes a proper section on DIYBio and is currently open >> for public consultation if you feel like commenting >> http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consultations/public_consultations/scenihr_consultation_26_en.htm >> >> Since these EC opinions are known to carry some weight/be influential in >> different types of policy and agenda setting, I can easily imagine the EC >> and the authors of the opinion (I am one of them) to be happy to get some >> sincere feedback from the DIYBio community! Deadline for feedback is 3 >> February 2015. >> >> Best regards, Markus >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------- >> http://diyspartanbiotech.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/genetic-engineering-and-synbio-for-beginners-v1.pdf >> >
