Dear Julian, Aandreas et al. I will try to clarify clarify these points:
@Andreas: 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? The wording might be a bit confusing for someone not workin in the field of risk assessment/management, but the terms risk assessment and risk management describe different procedures. Risk assessment is more narrow as it only deals with the identification, and evalaution (e.g. Probability, hazard) of a risk, while risk management also deals with how organizations, governments etc deal and manage those risks. Management always includes values and priorities and are thus more political, while the assessment is more of a pure science activitiy (taken with a grain of salt). For more details on the distinction between Risk assessment and Risk Managemet see e.g. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management @ Julian 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? According to the WHO (World Health Organization. 2004. Laboratory Biosafety Manual, Third Edition, Geneva.) biosafety is the prevention of unintentional exposure to pathogens and toxins, or their accidental release, whereas biosecurity is the prevention of loss, theft, misuse, diversion or intentional release of pathogens and toxins. So bioERROR vs. bioTerror. While the effects of both safety and security could be similar, the assessment (and furhter down the line also the counter-meassures) are different. Please note that the Opinion answers a set of questions that where given to SCENIHR by the EC (http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/docs/synthetic_biology_man date_en.pdf) and in that mandate the questions only deal with risk assessment and and safety, not security. This doesn’t mean that security or risk management are not important , it means that SCENIHR is seen as the right group to science based answers to these questions. 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!! ;) The comparator „Conventional research“ is not in the original text but was introduced by you. What is meant is that DIYBio more popular than before, like in the old days of genetic engineering. 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.” Yes, not expected. Based on what is going on now there is hardly any indication that this will come from the DIYBIo community. But hey, you have 10 years to prove SCENIHR wrong! Go ahead and surprise the world! ;-) MINORITY OPINION None —>21 People were working on one opinion in such a controversial field and you really reached a consensus??? In fact even more people were involved because SCENIHR (the 20 people) is only one of 3 comittees that need to agree on the text, the SCENIHR wrote the text but also the other two had to agree: SCHER and SCCS (http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/requests/index_en .htm) This is not necessarily surprising, the groups spent a lot of time debating the issues and in this case a minority opinion was not formulated. The risk assessment and safety opinioon is the second of 3 opinions. In the first one on defintion (http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consultations/public_consu ltations/scenihr_consultation_21_en.htm) we did had a minority opinion in the draft opinion (that was also open to public consultation). But for the final opinion the scientific commitee was able to reach consensus. Best wishes, Markus 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-b >>>>> iology-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_cons >>>>> ultations/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 >> >
