Contributed by: Alan Pacheco, Aiswarya Prasad, Carlos Gustavo da Silva, Ediner Fuentes, Janina Lüders, Justin Vigar, Nina Jerala, Pablo Vargas, Ronit Langer, Saylee Jangam, Tessa Alexanian, Chris Isaac, Hassnain Q. Bokhari, Marissa Sumathipala, Nannan Jiang, and Ana Sifuentes

In 2016, iGEM Foundation started the After iGEM* Delegate Program (now under iGEM Foundation’s Respect and Responsibility program), for iGEMers to engage in the international policy dialogue on synthetic biology, experience the setting, and learn about treaties and protocols which influence how scientists conduct, share, access, and support research.

Through this program, iGEM Foundation has participated in three United Nations events: the 2016 and 2018 Conventions on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the 2017 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), with each event attended by about five iGEMers.

We reconnected with the iGEM Delegates for this special issue of iGEM Digest to hear about their journey in science policy, lessons learned for future iGEMers, and how the Delegate Program impacted them.

Getting Started

The Delegates came from all aspects of iGEM, from high school iGEMers, to undergraduates, to fully-fledged principal investigators. Nina Jerala and Chris Isaac became involved in iGEM as early as high school, while Carlos Gustavo was a principal investigator in Brazil looking for opportunities to get his students involved in a genetic engineering competition when he discovered iGEM and “fell in love with the approach.” Isaac says he was drawn to iGEM for its “opportunities to explore, learn skills, and do.”

Indeed, a distinguishing characteristic of iGEM is that it empowers scientists to grapple with the larger picture, engaging with the implications of their work outside the lab. For most of the Delegates, the Delegate Program was their first foray into science policy. Jerala discovered her interest in how research intersects with policy during a tropical medicine summer program in Indonesia, where she realized “the way we tackle these diseases is very much affected by the policy.” Ronit Langer competed in Model United Nations in high school, but it was only after joining MIT iGEM and working on a CRISPR project that she started to think about how her two interests in policy and genetics might intersect in issues such as genetic sequence ownership.

When we sat down with the Delegates to discuss their experience, a common theme quickly emerged: the stark underrepresentation of scientists at the conventions. In many of the breakout rooms, the only scientists there were the iGEM Delegates, according to Alan Pacheco. At the Convention on Biological Diversity, Aiswarya Prasad says there was little representation from the scientific community, despite synthetic biology being an item on the agenda. She says “the strongest representation at CBD was non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who were working for the causes of local communities, and conservation-based organizations, and organizations who were pushing very hard for entirely natural solutions who wanted to ban scientific solutions.” Representation from local community members was a surprising, but important aspect of the convention. Jerala was moved by the words of a Philipino farmer, which she described as a “rare opportunity to see somebody who works not in research but is directly affected by the product of that research.”

A diversity of voices in policy discussion informs the way countries move forward on issues. “Engagement brings fresh energy to old issues and really highlights that these are causes that still matter. The worst thing is to stand by and allow these hard-won treaties to fall into disrepair and decay, losing their normative power,” says Isaac.

Consensus across NGOs, community stakeholders, lawmakers, and scientists is a constant challenge. “We need to share our data, we need to share our skills and our knowledge...we need to prepare policies with some flexibility in mind,” says Jerala. “I think it is very important for scientists to get involved in policy making, because who is going to listen to us if we are not there talking?” says Janina Lüders.

According to Saylee Jangam, science policy “will drive your research,” and shapes how governments prioritize research. Taking a deep dive into science policy “highlights how important that research or science is for the overall benefit of the country”. Policy carries clear funding implications, and “having that realization is extremely important early on in your career as a scientist,” Jangam advises. Ultimately, Langer reminds us: “you need to understand science to make good policy.”

After iGEM Delegates at the 2017 Biological Weapons Convention — iGEM Community Delegates at the 2017 Biological Weapons Convention

Post-Delegate Program

The lessons learned about bridging the gap between science and policy impacted the Delegates far beyond the two or three day conference, influencing their perspectives on policy and their careers.

Isaac says his experience at the 2017 Biological Weapons Convention, “altered the entire course of my academic and professional life.” His work at a non-profit now focuses on “reducing risks associated with biological weapons and emerging technologies.” Langer immersed herself in biosecurity following the convention, taking policy classes and even organizing an After iGEM biosecurity conference.

She was invited by the Geneva Disarmament Platform for a panel, representing the youth perspective on the issue. Today, she’s a recipient of the renowned Scoville Fellowship working at the Carnegie Endowment, spearheading dialogues at the intersection of biosecurity and cybersecurity. Aiswarya Prasad, Tessa Alexanian, and Pablo Vargas realized that there are opportunities for students like them in the policy world.

Prasad states, “the Delegate Program was pivotal in opening that door for her, so that she could understand how global policy works.” That in part motivated her to engage with local science policy experts in India to understand more about science policy issues and how they are being managed. Alexanian, in addition to joining the iGEM Safety and Security Committee, started “a meetup with some friends where [they’d] do readings and give talks to learn more about biosecurity.”

According to Vargas, who still has the physical pamphlet from the 2016 Convention on Biological Diversity, the iGEM Delegate Program “sparked my interest in [a] more international view of policy.” This newly discovered perspective helped him attend the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) conference in Bern, Switzerland, as a delegate.

As for Ediner Fuentes, his experience of being a part of the Zamorano 2014 iGEM Team coupled with his Delegate Program, prepared him to contribute towards policy and practices in biological risk assessment, both locally and in the region. He was a Delegate of the Ministry of Environment of Panama which he represented at the next Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP14) (CP / MOP9) (NP / MOP3) in Egypt, coordinating the areas of Genomic Editing, Digital Sequence Information, Synthetic Biology, Gene Editing, Gene Drive, GMO Risk Assessment, Socioeconomic Considerations, among others related to Biotechnology.

Delegates at the 2018 Convention on Biological Diversity

Advice for iGEMers

The Delegates shared insightful and actionable advice for iGEMers to encourage more engagement in science policy:

“There is no reason not to engage with things that you find interesting,” Isaac recommends. Jangam reminds us that “having an awareness of everything that feeds into science is just as important as the science itself.”

Alexanian suggests “thinking seriously about the implications of your scientific work is asking whether, at some point, you will need to reach out to the policy community.” She stresses the need for scientists to “make themselves available to provide context for policy-makers.”

Vargas agrees, saying “I think it’s our responsibility also as scientists to put ourselves as a service to serve the people who are making policy.” Vargas advises that scientists shouldn’t “stay hidden in our labs,” since “we [] have been privileged with so much knowledge, we cannot keep for ourselves.” Isaac cautions that “there are real issues to grapple with in order to make sure that all of the gains that we’ve made [in synthetic biology] aren’t swept away by reckless behavior.”

Prior to diving into the world of science policy, Jerala recommends we “take full advantage of the training and discussions beforehand, because the issues are complex and multifaceted.” It “can be a little paralyzing to see how much everyone and everything is affected by the discussions that happen in those rooms,” she says. Without scientists in science policy, “we are passive actors of history,” says Vargas.

Jangam shares additional personal gains, saying an experience in science policy will “open your eyes [to] a field that you may not have had exposure to in the past,” and “make you a more well-rounded scientist.” Vargas says that science policy is closely tied to science communication skills, because “if you want to make sure you really understand a topic, you need to be able to explain it in the simplest terms.”

What can iGEMers do? In a world where issues can be plagued with stagnation, Langer recommends that an iGEMer’s simple willingness to talk “can be inspiring for people who have been doing this for a long time.” From her experiences in biosecurity following the Delegate Program, she realized she could “bring this youthful energy to people who have lost that enthusiasm somewhere along the way.” With time, Langer learned the importance of writing and became able to put her ideas on paper, saying, “even if they weren’t revolutionary, they started conversations.”

Delegates at the 2016 Convention on Biological Diversity posing with their country’s flag

Closing Remarks

International policy is a living document. It is created through dialogue and is a testament of what cooperation between countries can achieve. Policymakers, delegates, government officials, and stakeholders work together to create global guidelines and regulations with the input of non-profit organizations, academics, and scientists. All share a common goal of properly regulating the use of new technologies without limiting research. This type of regulation makes it possible for the global community to share the benefits of synthetic biology to create a better world.

The iGEM Foundation strives for the same goal as the United Nations, having a positive impact in the world. Both of these organizations also share similar values: integrity, respect, honesty, and cooperation. The iGEM Delegates are selected to represent the iGEM Community and exemplify the values of the Foundation. They are essential to iGEM’s successful participation in these events and their dedication and commitment have allowed iGEM to have a positive voice in the global conversation.

Being the Coordinator for the Delegate Program has been a privilege, working together with Delegates has been one of the most impactful projects of my career. Not only on a professional level but in a general sense of understanding that everyone involved in policy had an essential thing in common, being human. At the end of the day, we all needed to communicate in order to find common ground and we all wanted to create a better tomorrow.

To close, I would like to share the main lesson that I have obtained from this program: through dialogue and exchange we enrich both our experience and our understanding and in turn become better scientists and better people.

*The After iGEM program now has been renamed to iGEM Community. Find more information about the opportunities available for you at iGEM Community on our website.