> But hey, you have 10 years to prove SCENIHR wrong! Go ahead and surprise the > world!
that’s a really nice challenge for DIYbio… forget the low hanging fruits!! Who is in?? Thank you for the elaborate explanations, Markus!! Am 13.01.2015 um 13:20 schrieb Markus Schmidt <[email protected]>: > 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_mandate_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_consultations/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-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 >>> >> >
