Difference between revisions of "Team:Sheffield/episode9"

 
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
                   src="https://2016.igem.org/Template:Sheffield/scripts/backtotopbutton?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>
 
                   src="https://2016.igem.org/Template:Sheffield/scripts/backtotopbutton?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>
 
                 <script  
 
                 <script  
−
                   src="https://2016.igem.org/Template:Sheffield/scripts/jquery-ui?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>
+
                   src="https://2016.igem.org/Template:Sheffield/scripts/jquery-ui?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>
 +
                <script
 +
                  src="https://2016.igem.org/Template:Sheffield/scripts/popover?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"> </script>
 
<style type="text/css">
 
<style type="text/css">
 
     #top_title, #sideMenu{
 
     #top_title, #sideMenu{
Line 272: Line 274:
 
 
 
<div class = "jumbotron">
 
<div class = "jumbotron">
−
<p><span>STUDYING INTRODUCTION TO THE MARKET </span </p>
+
  
−
<p>Here we discuss further work that future iGEM teams could carry out if they wish to expand on our work, more specifically on how the device would be introduced to the market. </p>
+
<h2>Introducing our device to the market</h2>
  
−
<p>Misusing antibiotics and producing a device, both require costs. The cost of a device in mass production should hence be modeled. If manufacturing in a large quantity would be more cost-saving than misusing antibiotics, it provides a case for investing. Data on the cost of materials should be collected to enable such calculation.</p>
+
<p>Misusing antibiotics and manufacturing a device incur costs. The costs of mass producing a device should be less than the costs involved in misusing antibiotics, for the device to have commercial viability in the real world. This could be modelled by taking into account the cost of materials and distribution of a device, and comparing this to the effect antibiotic resistance and misprescription has on a system such as the <button class="btn btn-lg btn-danger" data-placement="top" data-toggle="popover" title="National Health Service" data-content="The free health institutional service in Britain">NHS</button>.</p>
  
−
<p>Devices containing GM live bacteria likely require reviews and approval from authorities, such as NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) and ISO, if they were used in real life applications. Design decisions should be made accordingly.</p>
+
<p>If our device were to become a widespread diagnostic tool, it would require approval from regulatory authorities such as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). Further, we would need to wait for rulings from UK and EU government commissions concerning whether <button class="btn btn-lg btn-danger" data-placement="top" data-toggle="popover" title="Genetically Modified" data-content="containing genetic material that has been artificially altered so as to produce a desired characteristic.">GM</button> live bacteria could be safely distributed within a healthcare setting.</p>
  
−
<p>In addition to safety, managements of public and private providers should be consulted, for example, the NHS(National Health Service) and Bupa, to understand their demand. This would allow forecasting how commonly the device would be used.  Business plans should be prepared when meeting with them. </p>
+
<p>Public and private healthcare providers such as the National Health Service (NHS) and British United Provident Association (Bupa) should be consulted as these would be the end-users. We could further improve the device by conducting widespread trials in partnership with our end-users.</p>
  
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 21:18, 19 October 2016

A template page

THE FUTURE

Introducing our device to the market

Misusing antibiotics and manufacturing a device incur costs. The costs of mass producing a device should be less than the costs involved in misusing antibiotics, for the device to have commercial viability in the real world. This could be modelled by taking into account the cost of materials and distribution of a device, and comparing this to the effect antibiotic resistance and misprescription has on a system such as the .

If our device were to become a widespread diagnostic tool, it would require approval from regulatory authorities such as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). Further, we would need to wait for rulings from UK and EU government commissions concerning whether live bacteria could be safely distributed within a healthcare setting.

Public and private healthcare providers such as the National Health Service (NHS) and British United Provident Association (Bupa) should be consulted as these would be the end-users. We could further improve the device by conducting widespread trials in partnership with our end-users.