Scope of iGEM Canada

[Andre Masella]

[Moved from other thread]
What, precisely, should be the scope of iGEM Canada? Is it means to be
a society for synthetic biologists in Canada or is it a way for teams
to pool resources? Consider:

- Do we have the resources for such an undertaking?
- How will creating a larger organisation affect our goals (short term
or long term)?
- Will delaying creation of such an organisation negatively impact a
synbio society or can we safely wait {number} years an re-evaluate?
- Other than iGEM teams, who else would be ready to support such an
organisation (academic, government, or industry)?
- Is this what you initially envisioned for “iGEM Canada”?
- Are there any conflicting goals between such an organisation and the
welfare of iGEM teams?
- Are there any direct benefits to iGEM teams that could not be
realised if iGEM Canada is a “federation of teams”.

If these are two separate organisations, this does not preclude
cooperation, overlap, or incestuous operations.

==Switching from moderator hat to personal opinion hat...

While I think a Canadian synbio society should exist, I don't think
that creating now with the resources we have is a worthwhile use of
those resources. It makes more sense to have iGEM Canada focus on
involving more students and profs, including creating new teams, until
some critical mass where such an organisation forms spontaneously.

[Andre Masella]

[Moved. Originally by Graham Cromar]
I'd also like to address the concept of a "Federation of iGEM teams"
because there is a tendency, I think, for people to forget that we're
thinking bigger than iGEM here. Declaring an "iGEM Canada" or "cGEM"
or "ehGEM" fosters this misinterpretation. A federation of iGEM teams
does not need a job board, is not concerned with training beyond what
it takes to accomplish an iGEM project, is only concerned about
funding in so far as each team wants a piece of a collective pie, is
not a coherent voice of authority on synthetic biology, and doesn't
really care how synthetic biology programs and industry partners in
biotechnology will affect the economy. They just want to do iGEM
better (that's a great thing in itself). A national synthetic biology
organization which incorporates interested individuals at all levels
of participation does care about these things. That means supporting
and fostering iGEM teams *and doing a whole lot more.
-- gc

[Andre Masella]

[Moved. Originally by Danielle Nash]

Personally, I have the same long-term vision for a Canadian synthetic
biology community that Graham has described, particularly because of
the benefits there would be to past and present (and future) members
of our iGEM teams, and I look forward to working towards those goals.
But I think the most productive thing we as iGEMers can do right now
to drive synbio growth in Canada is to organize ourselves and help
each other succeed in the competition: the work being done by our
teams is constitutes a *major* component of the truly "synthetic
biology" research currently being done in Canada. And while some PIs
(and companies funding/performing R&D) are excited about the prospects
of synbio, there's still a general reluctance to push out into that
area, and strong performance and concrete results from iGEM teams
stand to do a lot to change that.

That aside, there are specific tasks that even a handful of us
together can start working on immediately, such as the online resource
Eric has described. Like Graham said, some of us on the Waterloo team
have been exploring implementation options for building something like
this on iGEM.ca (a test site for one possibility is already up for
viewing/playing with -- we're eager for everyone else's opinions/
contributions, but let's keep discussion of that to the website
thread). These kinds of things will directly benefit our teams in the
short term, hopefully facilitating stronger outcomes for next year's
cohort of iGEMers.

Indulging in optimism for a moment, the way I envision the
relationship between all of these things is this:

If we work together to make it easier to start and to run an iGEM
team, not only will the existing teams be more successful, but more
schools will be able to start and maintain their own teams. At
Waterloo, the enthusiasm and activities of our iGEM team has had a
tremendous influence on the views of several faculty members regarding
synbio, and as a result there's already been movement toward starting
new research in the area and even developing undergraduate and
graduate programs in synbio. And I think there are already a couple of
synbio courses at at least one of the Albertan schools (corrections?).
If we can get this happening at more schools, this would be amazing.
More strong teams means more successful iGEMers and iGEM alumni, and
in turn more people to get excited about the possibilities of synbio
and work toward building a vibrant national synthetic biology
community that won't fizzle out if a few people get too busy. And I
think this is a real possibility for even just a year or two down the
line, but I'd be cautious of casting too large a net too early, when
we haven't yet built a strong foundation beneath us.
-- Danielle Nash

[gc]

In response to Andre's comments, I suggest we concentrate on building
some resources we can all use. I think you will find that some of
them (e.g. a list of graduate supervisors doing syn bio) is a lot less
trouble to put together and makes more sense to host at a national
level than some undertakings being considered at the level of iGEM
team support (e.g. establishment of best practices, integrated wiki
with moderator). So I don't see a problem going ahead to develop
these resources. Let's look at the low hanging fruit at all levels
first, then evaluate our resources and where to allocate them for the
items that take more work. People will want to work on the issues
they think will be most useful to them and feel passionate about and
that will also factor into what gets done be that at the national
'umbrella' or iGEM-specific level. No, I do not think that a
federation of iGEM teams represents all the opinions and resources
needed to drive synthetic biology forward in this country, important
though they may be. You only have to look at the afterthought that
iGEM represented in the recent OGI symposium to confirm this. Nor do
I think that an iGEM student necessarily has the scope to develop
curricula, write grant proposals, make high-level industry and
government contacts and maintain them while trying to do iGEM and
their undergraduate degree at the same time - I'd much rather see them
working on the syn-bio itself and leave these issues in the hands of
those that do have the scope (I don't necessarily mean myself). For
this reason, there is a role for non-iGEMers including professors,
industry partners and government to play. Trying to put development
at the national level on hold while iGEM participants concentrate on
getting their act in gear is like trying to close the barn door after
the horse has left. It's just not going to work that way. Rather,
development will be simultaneous (if intermittent) at all levels.

G.

<snip>