Difference between revisions of "Team:Sheffield/episode9"

(proofread)
 
(8 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">
−
<h2>Introducing Our Device to the Market</h2>
+
  
−
<p>Here we discuss further work that future iGEM teams could carry out if they wish to expand on our work, specifically how the device could be introduced to the market. </p>
+
<h2>Introducing our device to the market</h2>
  
−
<p>Both misusing antibiotics and producing a device incur costs. The costs of the mass production of the device should be modelled to see if it is less than the costs of misusing antibiotics. If so, it provides a case for investing in the device. To model this, data on the cost of materials is needs to be collected.</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>If devices used in real world applications contain genetically modified live bacteria, they would require approval from regulatory authorities such as NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) and ISO. The design of the device should be made in accordance to the regulations set out by these authorities.</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, public and private healthcare providers, such as the NHS(National Health Service) and Bupa should be consulted to understand their demand for our device. Business plans should be prepared when meeting with them. This would allow us to forecast how commonly used the device would be.</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>
−
 
+
−
<p>Lastly, in order to understand the needs of stakeholders, a higher quantity of each stakeholder should be consulted to get more representative opinions.</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.