Looking for interviewees for bioethics research project

[Alex]

Hello--

My name is Alex, and I'm a high school senior in Ohio. I'm doing fieldwork for a yearlong capstone research project on bioethics and regulation-- more specifically, the way governments and regulatory bodies should approach oversight in the accelerating field of biotechnology, especially in non-traditional research groups and environments (like DIYBio), where unified oversight is more difficult by nature. The general goal of regulations like these, I believe, should be to protect public interests while also maximizing the ability of scientists to conduct research that impacts humanity positively, especially considering the massive positive impact biotechnology has had and will continue to have on human society. I'd be willing to bet that these very nebulous values are held by members of the community, but approaching more concrete values and standards for oversight is very important. I'd like to create a final product that is akin to a living document or a policy brief with developed ethical standards for less-officially-regulated labs, with an additional hope to inform policymakers as the capabilities of biotechnology advance.

I hope to insight from those who work in this domain through interviews. My aim is to understand the potential impacts unregulated biological research could have in realms like the environment, ethics, and public health, acknowledge limitations in current oversight structures and develop overarching goals that should be achieved through future structures of regulation. These interviews could be done with any means of communication, really, but I'd assume email or video call is the most convenient option for most people.

I know this may be vague, but if anyone would be interested in being interviewed, recommends anyone in this field, or would like any more information, please let me know through my email:

alexa...@gmail.com

Thank you for your consideration! Your help is incredibly valuable.

Alex

[Dan Kolis]

You intrinsic assumption is more regulation makes the outcomes better. For instance, the only use of Anthrax as a bio agent against people was a USA Fed:

 https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/amerithrax-or-anthrax-investigation

Of course, the deep hunt for some 'ethnic type' stopped when it led to an insider.

Regulation, for instance of BSL-X labs is basically a comical witch hunt executed recreationally by amazingly un-knowledgeable people. The biggest risk of biotech against humans is: governments making weapons systems.

 Nothing can possibly touch the scope and resources that always begin: "We have no choice but to spend and do, the enemy is already doing X, we need to defend against it". Yet inevitably, to figure out a technology means to learn to use it. The definition of a defensive system is based on which side of the things you are standing, not what it does. 

The difference is between a teenager ( nothing personal ),  who makes a big bottle rocket and starts a grass fire ... and a H-Bomb.

Sorry. 5000 H-Bombs.

"Regulation" will work as well as intervention of recreational drugs over borders, that is, be entirely ineffective selectively, only stopping what doesn't matter. 

Go ahead and make a fat document. Seeking answers to problems that are insolvable is a good path to income and pseudo-authority...