Difference between revisions of "Team:Newcastle/Description/Medal-Criteria-Explanation"

 
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Newcastle}}
 
{{Newcastle}}
 
<html>
 
<html>
−
<div class="column full_size" >
 
 
<table>
 
<table>
 
<thead>
 
<thead>
Line 12: Line 11:
 
</thead>
 
</thead>
 
<tbody>
 
<tbody>
−
<tr class="even">
+
<tr class="odd">
 
<td><strong>Bronze</strong></td>
 
<td><strong>Bronze</strong></td>
 
<td><strong>All Criteria must be met</strong></td>
 
<td><strong>All Criteria must be met</strong></td>
Line 20: Line 19:
 
<td>Register and attend</td>
 
<td>Register and attend</td>
 
<td>Register for iGEM, have a great summer, and attend the Giant Jamboree.</td>
 
<td>Register for iGEM, have a great summer, and attend the Giant Jamboree.</td>
−
<td>
+
<td><ol style="list-style-type: decimal">
−
<p>Registration is already open.</p>
+
<p>ALL DONE!</p>
−
<p>Having a great summer.</p>
+
<li><blockquote>
 +
<p>Registration is done.</p>
 +
</blockquote></li>
 +
<li><blockquote>
 +
<p>Had a great summer.</p>
 +
</blockquote></li>
 +
<li><blockquote>
 
<p>Flights and hotels are booked.</p>
 
<p>Flights and hotels are booked.</p>
−
</td>
+
</blockquote></li>
 +
</ol></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="odd">
 
<tr class="odd">
Line 61: Line 67:
 
<td>Attribution</td>
 
<td>Attribution</td>
 
<td>Create a page on your team wiki with clear attribution of each aspect of your project. This page must clearly attribute work done by the students and distinguish it from work done by others, including host labs, advisors, instructors, sponsors, professional website designers, artists, and commercial services.</td>
 
<td>Create a page on your team wiki with clear attribution of each aspect of your project. This page must clearly attribute work done by the students and distinguish it from work done by others, including host labs, advisors, instructors, sponsors, professional website designers, artists, and commercial services.</td>
−
<td>Ollie - in progress</td>
+
<td>In progress</td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="odd">
 
<tr class="odd">
Line 67: Line 73:
 
<td>Part / Contribution</td>
 
<td>Part / Contribution</td>
 
<td>Document at least one new standard BioBrick Part or Device central to your project and submit this part to the iGEM Registry (submissions must adhere to the iGEM Registry guidelines). You may also document a new application of a BioBrick part from a previous iGEM year, adding that documentation to the part main page.</td>
 
<td>Document at least one new standard BioBrick Part or Device central to your project and submit this part to the iGEM Registry (submissions must adhere to the iGEM Registry guidelines). You may also document a new application of a BioBrick part from a previous iGEM year, adding that documentation to the part main page.</td>
−
<td>rpoH RBS can be included into the registry - not done yet.</td>
+
<td><p>Bacterial “light bulb”</p>
 +
<p>rpoH</p>
 +
<p>Time delay device</p>
 +
<p>Red light sensitive “LDR”</p>
 +
<p>Blue light sensitive “LDR”</p>
 +
<p>SmtA metallothionein and LVA tag</p>
 +
<p>Arabinose controlled “resistor”</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="even">
 
<tr class="even">
Line 77: Line 89:
 
<td>Validated Part / Validated Contribution</td>
 
<td>Validated Part / Validated Contribution</td>
 
<td>Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick Part or Device of your own design and construction works as expected. Document the characterization of this part in the Main Page section of that Part’s/Device’s Registry entry. Submit this new part to the iGEM Parts Registry. <strong>This working part must be different from the part documented in bronze medal criterion #4.</strong></td>
 
<td>Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick Part or Device of your own design and construction works as expected. Document the characterization of this part in the Main Page section of that Part’s/Device’s Registry entry. Submit this new part to the iGEM Parts Registry. <strong>This working part must be different from the part documented in bronze medal criterion #4.</strong></td>
−
<td> Conduct experiments with heat and current when the light bulb construct arrives.</td>
+
<td><p>  Conducting experiments with heat and current with the light bulb and other constructs. In the write up we need to define what is expected of the part and then validate that. For example, if the light glows when current is run through which is what we expected, it is a validation.</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="even">
 
<tr class="even">
Line 83: Line 95:
 
<td>Collaboration</td>
 
<td>Collaboration</td>
 
<td>Convince the judges you have helped any registered iGEM team from high school, a different track, another university, or another institution in a significant way by, for example, mentoring a new team, characterizing a part, debugging a construct, modeling/simulating their system or helping validate a software/hardware solution to a synbio problem.</td>
 
<td>Convince the judges you have helped any registered iGEM team from high school, a different track, another university, or another institution in a significant way by, for example, mentoring a new team, characterizing a part, debugging a construct, modeling/simulating their system or helping validate a software/hardware solution to a synbio problem.</td>
−
<td><p>Possible collaborations with Edinburgh, Macquarie or Evry (production of 3D plastic)</p>
+
<td>
−
<p>Leicester needs help with Wiki design.</p>
+
<p>Strongest collaboration with Edinburgh - use their Babbled device in our breadboard and testing their part.</p>
−
<p>Edinburgh suggested collaboration between them, us and Leiden.</p></td>
+
<p>Exeter measured thermal conductivity of the broth for us.</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="odd">
 
<tr class="odd">
Line 91: Line 103:
 
<td>Human Practices</td>
 
<td>Human Practices</td>
 
<td>iGEM projects involve important questions beyond the lab bench, for example relating to (but not limited to) ethics, sustainability, social justice, safety, security, and intellectual property rights. Demonstrate how your team has identified, investigated, and addressed one or more of these issues in the context of your project. Your activity could center around education, public engagement, public policy issues, public perception, or other activities (see the human practices hub for more information and examples of previous teams' exemplary work).</td>
 
<td>iGEM projects involve important questions beyond the lab bench, for example relating to (but not limited to) ethics, sustainability, social justice, safety, security, and intellectual property rights. Demonstrate how your team has identified, investigated, and addressed one or more of these issues in the context of your project. Your activity could center around education, public engagement, public policy issues, public perception, or other activities (see the human practices hub for more information and examples of previous teams' exemplary work).</td>
−
<td><p>Schools Taster (16 and 17 year olds):</p>
+
<td><p>2 Schools Tasters (16 and 17 year olds)</p>
−
<p>Wednesday 20th July 2-4pm</p>
+
<p>Prof. A. Gatehouse</p>
−
<p>Thursday 21st July 11am-1pm Location: RIDLEY 2 Room 1.55</p></td>
+
<p>Edinburgh meet up</p>
 +
<p>Space industry professional - need to contact NASA specialist </p>
 +
<p>Prof. M. Hanczyc</p>
 +
<p>Human Practices Simulator</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="even">
 
<tr class="even">
Line 103: Line 118:
 
<td>Integrated Human Practices</td>
 
<td>Integrated Human Practices</td>
 
<td>Expand on your silver medal activity by demonstrating how you have integrated the investigated issues into the design and/or execution of your project.</td>
 
<td>Expand on your silver medal activity by demonstrating how you have integrated the investigated issues into the design and/or execution of your project.</td>
−
<td>
+
<td><p>Identify how human practices changed the way we did our project</p>
−
<p>Improving breadboard design based on school taster feedback.</p>
+
<p>1. We were advised not to use luciferase for our light bulb and decided to keep using GFP</p></td>
−
<p>Changing GFP to luminescent component.</p>
+
−
</td>
+
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="even">
 
<tr class="even">
Line 112: Line 125:
 
<td><strong>Improve a previous part or project</strong></td>
 
<td><strong>Improve a previous part or project</strong></td>
 
<td>Improve the function OR characterization of an existing BioBrick Part or Device and enter this information in the Registry. Please see the Registry help page on how to document a contribution to an existing part. This part must NOT be from your 2016 part number range.</td>
 
<td>Improve the function OR characterization of an existing BioBrick Part or Device and enter this information in the Registry. Please see the Registry help page on how to document a contribution to an existing part. This part must NOT be from your 2016 part number range.</td>
−
<p><strong>htpG Promoter has been improved i.e. improve a part.</strong></p>
+
<td>
−
<p><strong>Maybe we can also change the sigma factor.</strong></p>
+
<p>1. htpG Promoter has been improved by correcting mistake in a submitted sequence from <a href="http://web.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Caballero.pdf">this</a> paper .</p>
−
</td>
+
<p>2. Improvement microbial fuel cell by letting the bacteria grow and then activating the construct that enables bacteria to produce electricity, i.e. improved following suggestion by <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Bielefeld-Germany/Project/MFC">Team Bielefield 2013</a></p>
 +
<p>3. Our arabinose controlled variable resistor could be able to bind to multiple ions including zinc, cadmium and copper, i.e. <a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:Tokyo-NoKoGen/metallothionein">Tokyo-NokoGen 2011</a></p>
 +
</ol></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="odd">
 
<tr class="odd">
 
<td>3</td>
 
<td>3</td>
−
<td>Proof of concept</td>
+
<td><strong>Proof of concept</strong></td>
 
<td>Demonstrate a functional proof of concept of your project. Your proof of concept must consist of a BioBrick device; a single BioBrick part cannot constitute a proof of concept.<strong>(biological materials may not be taken outside the lab)</strong>.</td>
 
<td>Demonstrate a functional proof of concept of your project. Your proof of concept must consist of a BioBrick device; a single BioBrick part cannot constitute a proof of concept.<strong>(biological materials may not be taken outside the lab)</strong>.</td>
−
<td> </td>
+
<td>
 +
<p>Demonstrate that a light bulb, battery, etc. works well separately, i.e. run electricity through each part and show that it works</p>
 +
<p>NB: The device should work under simplified “test tube” conditions.</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr class="even">
 
<tr class="even">
 
<td>4</td>
 
<td>4</td>
−
<td><strong>Demonstrate your work</strong></td>
+
<td>Demonstrate your work</td>
 
<td>Show your project working under real-world conditions. To achieve this criterion, you should demonstrate your whole system, or a functional proof of concept working under simulated conditions in the lab <strong>(biological materials may not be taken outside the lab)</strong>.</td>
 
<td>Show your project working under real-world conditions. To achieve this criterion, you should demonstrate your whole system, or a functional proof of concept working under simulated conditions in the lab <strong>(biological materials may not be taken outside the lab)</strong>.</td>
−
<td><span id="h.gjdgxs" class="anchor"></span> <strong>Make a short movie demonstrating how our breadboard works and take it to the Jamboree.</strong></td>
+
<td><p><span id="h.u2q1xdvydz13" class="anchor"></span> Make a short movie demonstrating how our breadboard works and take it to the Jamboree. In our case proof of concept and demonstration is almost the same.</p>
 +
<p><span id="h.22rkn4caw3qg" class="anchor"></span></p>
 +
<p><span id="h.gjdgxs" class="anchor"></span>NB: the device should work under real life conditions.</p></td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
</tbody>
 
</tbody>
 
</table>
 
</table>
−
<body>
 
−
<h1>Judging Guide</h1>
 
−
<h2>Introduction</h2>
 
−
<p>"When evaluating a team, ask yourself if the team has convinced you that they have met the criteria. If you feel the team has merely “checked a box” stating they have met one of the criteria, but you feel they have not achieved enough to warrant the medal, you can choose not to award them for it"</p>
 
−
<p>"An easy trap to fall into is to think that the only iGEM projects of value are the ones with scientific novelty. This assumption is not correct, as the first team to make a project actually work and have an impact may not be the first team to have the original idea."</p>
 
−
<p>"We also care about how well the team describes what they did vs. what was done by others"</p>
 
−
<p>The Engineering Design Cycle, this framework is a great way for teams to think about how to progress their projects over the summer:<p>
 
−
<ol>
 
−
    <li>Specification</li>
 
−
    <li>Design </li>
 
−
    <li>Modelling </li>
 
−
    <li>Implementation </li>
 
−
    <li>Testing/Validation </li>
 
−
    <li>Return to 1 </li>
 
−
</ol>
 
−
<h2>Medals</h2>
 
−
<p>"Judges should also look for content hosted on external sites as teams who do this are ineligible for the wiki award and may be ineligible for any medal"</p>
 
−
<p>"When a team is competing for an award, note that it is not sufficient for them to simply fulfil the award criteria. You should be convinced that a team has satisfactorily fulfilled the criteria"</p>
 
−
<p>Show project working under real world conditions - "Sometimes real-world conditions are difficult to achieve: e.g., you might not have access to patients’ blood samples; in this case, you can “simulate” in the lab the real-world conditions, for instance by buying blood serum from a supplier and adding your target molecule, if necessary. Sometimes your device is composed of many parts that eventually would need to work together."</p>
 
−
<h2>Excellence in iGEM</h2>
 
−
<p>"A successful iGEM project includes the following components: a wiki, a poster, a presentation at the Jamboree, and, depending on the track, some sort of deliverable to be used by the community
 
−
Although great teams demonstrate excellence in all of these components, the very best teams go above and beyond, not only presenting a clear and powerful story, but also connecting their projects to the wider world through careful consideration of their project’s consequences.
 
−
Finally, it is important to note that iGEM is about education; projects should be motivated, researched, and carried out primarily by students. Effective use of available resources is important, but careful attention should be paid to attribution of each part of the project."</p>
 
−
<p>Main Determent for choosing finalists:</p>
 
−
<ol>
 
−
    <li>How impressive is this project?</li>
 
−
    <li>How creative is the team’s project?</li>
 
−
    <li>Did the project work?</li>
 
−
    <li>How much did the team accomplish?</li>
 
−
    <li>Is the project likely to have an impact?</li>
 
−
    <li>How well are engineering principles used?</li>
 
−
    <li>How thoughtful and thorough was the team’s consideration of human practices? </li>
 
−
    <li>How much of the work did the team do themselves and how much was done by others? </li>
 
−
    <li>Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology and standard parts? </li>
 
−
    <li>Are the functions and behaviours of the parts well-documented in the Registry? </li>
 
−
</ol>
 
−
<h2>Posters</h2>
 
−
<p>"In iGEM, the purpose of the poster is to communicate the project to others in a very concise, yet engaging manner. In the past, posters have been too “busy” and “unbalanced” in regards to text, figures, and space."</p>
 
−
<p>"Judges should take a first pass at evaluating posters during free sessions while the team is not present. Judging during a free session allows you to ascertain if a poster can stand on its own as a clear communication of the project. Presenters should not approach the judges during this time."</p>
 
−
<h2>Presentations</h2>
 
−
<ol>
 
−
    <li>Did the presentation flow well? </li>
 
−
    <li>How professional is the graphic design in terms of layout and composition?</li>
 
−
    <li>Did you find the presentation engaging? </li>
 
−
    <li>How competent were the team members at answering questions?</li>
 
−
</ol>
 
−
<h2>Wiki</h2>
 
−
<p>The wiki is the very first thing a judge sees when assessing one of his or her assigned teams, as the wiki evaluation occurs before the Jamboree begins. Characteristics like whether or not a wiki is informational, easy to navigate, or visually appealing can make a big impact on a team’s critical first impression to the judging body. In the current rubric, there are five aspects for wiki assessment that we should keep in mind as we explore the team’s wiki.</p>
 
−
<ol>
 
−
    <li>Do I understand what the team accomplished? </li>
 
−
    <li>Is the wiki attractive and easy to navigate?</li>
 
−
    <li>Does the team provide convincing evidence to support their conclusions? </li>
 
−
    <li>How well does the team describe what they did and what was done by others?</li>
 
−
    <li>Will the wiki be a compelling record of the team’s project for future teams?</li>
 
−
</ol>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</body>
 
 
</html>
 
</html>

Latest revision as of 21:42, 4 September 2016

Medal Explanation Criteria for Standard Tracks Progress
Bronze All Criteria must be met
1 Register and attend Register for iGEM, have a great summer, and attend the Giant Jamboree.

    ALL DONE!

  1. Registration is done.

  2. Had a great summer.

  3. Flights and hotels are booked.
2 Deliverables Meet all deliverables on the Requirements page (section 3).

  1. Poster

  2. Wiki

  3. Presentation

  4. Project Attribution

  5. Registry Part Submission

  6. Sample submission

  7. Safety forms -3/4 submitted

  8. Judging forms
3 Attribution Create a page on your team wiki with clear attribution of each aspect of your project. This page must clearly attribute work done by the students and distinguish it from work done by others, including host labs, advisors, instructors, sponsors, professional website designers, artists, and commercial services. In progress
4 Part / Contribution Document at least one new standard BioBrick Part or Device central to your project and submit this part to the iGEM Registry (submissions must adhere to the iGEM Registry guidelines). You may also document a new application of a BioBrick part from a previous iGEM year, adding that documentation to the part main page.

Bacterial “light bulb”

rpoH

Time delay device

Red light sensitive “LDR”

Blue light sensitive “LDR”

SmtA metallothionein and LVA tag

Arabinose controlled “resistor”
Silver All Criteria must be met
1 Validated Part / Validated Contribution Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick Part or Device of your own design and construction works as expected. Document the characterization of this part in the Main Page section of that Part’s/Device’s Registry entry. Submit this new part to the iGEM Parts Registry. This working part must be different from the part documented in bronze medal criterion #4.

  Conducting experiments with heat and current with the light bulb and other constructs. In the write up we need to define what is expected of the part and then validate that. For example, if the light glows when current is run through which is what we expected, it is a validation.
2 Collaboration Convince the judges you have helped any registered iGEM team from high school, a different track, another university, or another institution in a significant way by, for example, mentoring a new team, characterizing a part, debugging a construct, modeling/simulating their system or helping validate a software/hardware solution to a synbio problem.

Strongest collaboration with Edinburgh - use their Babbled device in our breadboard and testing their part.

Exeter measured thermal conductivity of the broth for us.
3 Human Practices iGEM projects involve important questions beyond the lab bench, for example relating to (but not limited to) ethics, sustainability, social justice, safety, security, and intellectual property rights. Demonstrate how your team has identified, investigated, and addressed one or more of these issues in the context of your project. Your activity could center around education, public engagement, public policy issues, public perception, or other activities (see the human practices hub for more information and examples of previous teams' exemplary work).

2 Schools Tasters (16 and 17 year olds)

Prof. A. Gatehouse

Edinburgh meet up

Space industry professional - need to contact NASA specialist

Prof. M. Hanczyc

Human Practices Simulator
Gold At least two (2) criteria must be met
1 Integrated Human Practices Expand on your silver medal activity by demonstrating how you have integrated the investigated issues into the design and/or execution of your project.

Identify how human practices changed the way we did our project

1. We were advised not to use luciferase for our light bulb and decided to keep using GFP
2 Improve a previous part or project Improve the function OR characterization of an existing BioBrick Part or Device and enter this information in the Registry. Please see the Registry help page on how to document a contribution to an existing part. This part must NOT be from your 2016 part number range.

1. htpG Promoter has been improved by correcting mistake in a submitted sequence from this paper .

2. Improvement microbial fuel cell by letting the bacteria grow and then activating the construct that enables bacteria to produce electricity, i.e. improved following suggestion by Team Bielefield 2013

3. Our arabinose controlled variable resistor could be able to bind to multiple ions including zinc, cadmium and copper, i.e. Tokyo-NokoGen 2011
3 Proof of concept Demonstrate a functional proof of concept of your project. Your proof of concept must consist of a BioBrick device; a single BioBrick part cannot constitute a proof of concept.(biological materials may not be taken outside the lab).

Demonstrate that a light bulb, battery, etc. works well separately, i.e. run electricity through each part and show that it works

NB: The device should work under simplified “test tube” conditions.
4 Demonstrate your work Show your project working under real-world conditions. To achieve this criterion, you should demonstrate your whole system, or a functional proof of concept working under simulated conditions in the lab (biological materials may not be taken outside the lab).

 Make a short movie demonstrating how our breadboard works and take it to the Jamboree. In our case proof of concept and demonstration is almost the same.

NB: the device should work under real life conditions.