Difference between revisions of "Team:UNebraska-Lincoln/Integrated Practices 7"

Line 225: Line 225:
  
 
<h2 class="major">Conclusion</h2>
 
<h2 class="major">Conclusion</h2>
−
<p><font color="white">Since the inception of the project, we aimed to provide a scientifically feasible and practically safe solution to managing the nitrogen cycle. One that can be applied to the natural environment. We designed and installed a novel kill-switch that leads to the death of our machine once the concentration of nitrate is reduced below the safety level. Over the summer, we met with scientists from local biotech companies and fellow iGEMers to discuss both the scientific and safety aspects our project design.  Based on the feedback, we became more mindful of safety and began to integrate an interdisciplinary tool to our project. We developed safety cases, a method that is currently used to gauge the safety of critical software systems to simulate the end-results of releasing our engineered microorganisms into the environment. </p></font>
+
−
<p><font color="white"></p></font>
+
<p><font color="white"><strong><strong>&nbsp;</strong></strong></p>
−
<p><font color="white"></p></font>
+
<h3><font color="white"><strong>Future work:</strong></h3>
−
<p><font color="white"></p></font>
+
<br>
−
<p><font color="white">
+
<p><font color="white"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Members of our team aim to further advocate for increasing the role of safety in the iGEM competition and the integration of safety cases. Dr. Myra Cohen, one of our iGEM advisors, will be writing a proposal to have a software tool written to convert textual based safety cases directly into a diagram format. The idea of SafetyBricks and the feasibility of a SafetyBrick repository will be further developed. We also hope to collaborate with our faculty advisors on their next publication regarding safety cases applied to the biological domain.</span></p>
−
These aspects of our project served the dual benefit of improving our design by forcing us to think critically about the mechanisms and environment of our project and allowing us to connect with and respond to the public in order to educate them and respond to their concerns.</font></p>
+
<br>
 +
<br>
 +
<h3><font color="white"><strong>Conclusion</strong></h3>
 +
<br>
 +
<p><font color="white"><span style="font-weight: 400;">As discussed, biosafety is a restraining factor for the growth of synthetic biology. Two other restraining factors for SB are biosecurity and bioethics. The idea of safety cases is not perfect as it does not directly take into account these two factors. Having confidence in the safety of engineered organisms&nbsp;could help to relieve pressure from both the biosecurity and the bioethics of SB. </span></p>
 +
<p><font color="white"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Safety cases seem like a natural way to help mind the gap between the iGEM competition and real-world implementation of the system. &nbsp;We believe the development of safety cases could establish a pathway that could very well lead to the certification and regulation of SEBO&rsquo;s. Through the large-scale integration of safety cases into the field of SB, biosafety concerns could become less restraining on the field&rsquo;s growth.</span></p>
 +
<p><font color="white"><strong>Note: Information regarding software safety cases presented on this Wiki is based on information from Carnegie Mellon University&rsquo;s Software Engineering Institute</strong></p>
 +
 
 +
<h4><font color="white"><strong>Works Cited</strong></4>
 +
<p><font color="white"><strong><span style="font-weight: 400;">M. B. Cohen, J. Firestone, M. Pierobon, The Assurance Timeline: Building Assurance Cases for Synthetic Biology, </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">International Workshop on Assurance Cases for Software-intensive Systems (ASSURE), to appear, September, pp. 75-86, 2016.</span></em></strong></p>
 +
 
 
</section>
 
</section>
  

Revision as of 06:13, 19 October 2016

<!DOCTYPE HTML> Elements - Solid State by HTML5 UP

image

Conclusion

 

Future work:


Members of our team aim to further advocate for increasing the role of safety in the iGEM competition and the integration of safety cases. Dr. Myra Cohen, one of our iGEM advisors, will be writing a proposal to have a software tool written to convert textual based safety cases directly into a diagram format. The idea of SafetyBricks and the feasibility of a SafetyBrick repository will be further developed. We also hope to collaborate with our faculty advisors on their next publication regarding safety cases applied to the biological domain.



Conclusion


As discussed, biosafety is a restraining factor for the growth of synthetic biology. Two other restraining factors for SB are biosecurity and bioethics. The idea of safety cases is not perfect as it does not directly take into account these two factors. Having confidence in the safety of engineered organisms could help to relieve pressure from both the biosecurity and the bioethics of SB.

Safety cases seem like a natural way to help mind the gap between the iGEM competition and real-world implementation of the system.  We believe the development of safety cases could establish a pathway that could very well lead to the certification and regulation of SEBO’s. Through the large-scale integration of safety cases into the field of SB, biosafety concerns could become less restraining on the field’s growth.

Note: Information regarding software safety cases presented on this Wiki is based on information from Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute

Works Cited

M. B. Cohen, J. Firestone, M. Pierobon, The Assurance Timeline: Building Assurance Cases for Synthetic Biology, International Workshop on Assurance Cases for Software-intensive Systems (ASSURE), to appear, September, pp. 75-86, 2016.