Abstract:A large survey of visitors at a science museum about the perception of biotechnology shows that names matter and that gender has an influence on people's attitude towards new technologies.
“…In this context, terms such as synthetic , modified , manipulated , unnatural , or even gene or genetically are received very negatively during scientific talks addressed to general audiences. Nonetheless, it must be stressed that overstatements by scientists (or their institutional press offices) and the use of misleading metaphors or headlines in the media might also have a negative effect on the general acceptance of some terms (Porcar and Peretó, ; Porcar et al ). In short, the question that arises from this discussion is whether an ‘inappropriate’ scientific name represents a disadvantage in the growth of a discipline or, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name ‘would smell as sweet’.…”
Summary
The largest survey on the perception of synthetic biology‐related disciplines (Porcar et al., 2019,EMBO Rep 20) recently revealed that the Spanish society does not have a very positive perception of the term synthetic biology. On the other hand, the terms biotechnology and even genetic engineering received relatively higher scores. The issue of nomenclature and perception is a classical one in science perception studies. Synthetic biologists have been debating their neologism (Synthetic Biology, from now on SB) for years. Even in a 2006 blog, Rob Carlson discussed the various labels for the new field, such as intentional biology, constructive biology, natural engineering, synthetic genomics and biological engineering. This diversity of names, along with the above mentioned negative public perception of the term synthetic biology, raises the question on whether the term itself is suitable or whether it could, in an extreme scenario, be replaced by another combining scientific consensus with public acceptance.
“…In this context, terms such as synthetic , modified , manipulated , unnatural , or even gene or genetically are received very negatively during scientific talks addressed to general audiences. Nonetheless, it must be stressed that overstatements by scientists (or their institutional press offices) and the use of misleading metaphors or headlines in the media might also have a negative effect on the general acceptance of some terms (Porcar and Peretó, ; Porcar et al ). In short, the question that arises from this discussion is whether an ‘inappropriate’ scientific name represents a disadvantage in the growth of a discipline or, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name ‘would smell as sweet’.…”
Summary
The largest survey on the perception of synthetic biology‐related disciplines (Porcar et al., 2019,EMBO Rep 20) recently revealed that the Spanish society does not have a very positive perception of the term synthetic biology. On the other hand, the terms biotechnology and even genetic engineering received relatively higher scores. The issue of nomenclature and perception is a classical one in science perception studies. Synthetic biologists have been debating their neologism (Synthetic Biology, from now on SB) for years. Even in a 2006 blog, Rob Carlson discussed the various labels for the new field, such as intentional biology, constructive biology, natural engineering, synthetic genomics and biological engineering. This diversity of names, along with the above mentioned negative public perception of the term synthetic biology, raises the question on whether the term itself is suitable or whether it could, in an extreme scenario, be replaced by another combining scientific consensus with public acceptance.
The last two decades have seen vigorous activity in synthetic biology research and ever-increasing applications of its technologies. However, pedagogical research pertaining to teaching synthetic biology is scarce, especially when compared to other science and engineering disciplines. Within Canada there are only three universities that offer synthetic biology programs; two of which are at the undergraduate level. Rather than take place in formal academic settings, many Canadian undergraduate students are introduced to synthetic biology through participation in the annual International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition. Although the iGEM competition has had a transformative impact on synthetic biology training in other nations, the impact in Canada has been relatively modest. Consequently, the iGEM competition is still a major setting for synthetic biology education in Canada. To promote further development of synthetic biology education, we surveyed undergraduate students from the Canadian iGEM design teams of 2019. We extracted insights from these data using qualitative analysis to provide recommendations for best teaching practices in synthetic biology undergraduate education, which we describe through our proposed Framework for Transdisciplinary Synthetic Biology Education (FTSBE).
Women account for 70% of healthcare workers, so their role has been – and still is – fundamental in addressing and managing the current pandemic event caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Far from being an opportunity to highlight the importance of women in the field, the healthcare crisis, together with lockdown policies and care responsibilities, have contributed to increase the gender gap. To study the depiction of women healthcare professionals, this paper analyses 401 cartoons on the COVID-19 pandemic that depict healthcare workers. Most represent doctors as men and nurses as women, in roles subordinate to men. The representation of women is also impacted by stereotypes that do not contribute to better reflect the roles and professional skills of women in the healthcare field today.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.