Difference between revisions of "Team:Purdue/Human Practices"

Line 3: Line 3:
 
   
 
   
  
<div class="button_click"  onClick=" parent.location= 'https://2016.igem.org/Team:Purdue/Safety '" style="bottom:0;right:200; position:fixed;">   
+
<div class="button_click"  onClick=" parent.location= 'https://2016.igem.org/Team:Purdue/Safety '" style="bottom:0;left:0; position:fixed;">   
 
Previous Page
 
Previous Page
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 00:13, 20 October 2016

Purdue Biomakers

Twitter

Facebook

Website

Previous Page
Next Page

HUMAN PRACTICES

Throughout our project, we were conscious of important human practices considerations. As our ideas developed, we kept the following questions in mind and continued to iterate our design based on answers we received.

Should we use synthetic biology to solve the problem of excess phosphorus in wastewater?

To answer this question, we sought out experts that deal with phosphorus reclamation and talked to them about methods they use. We looked at these methods and discussed with the experts how we might design a system that was more effective.

How can we approach the public with a synthetic biology solution?

Some team members are iGEM veterans, and remember all to well being asked: “How will the public react to this genetically engineered organism?” We kept this in mid throughout the project and engaged with the public in person and through surveys to gage their reaction. Additionally, we were conscious of communication, and talked to communication experts on campus about how we could best communicate the science behind our project to lay people.

How can we make our solution a sustainable process?

Another important factor we wanted to consider was sustainability. How could we design our project to last, to be low maintenance, and to be cheap. We discussed these design concerns with agricultural experts at the USDA NSERL, businessmen at Purdue Foundry, and with industry experts to design a sustainable prototype.

How can we make our solution marketable?

On top of sustainability, we new our end product should be marketable. This idea influenced design criteria such as maintenance time, flow rates, phosphorus uptake efficiency, and prototype costs. We talked with many of the same experts that influenced our sustainability designs to arrive at target values that would result in a marketable prototype.

How can we make our solution useful beyond the scope of this problem (modular)?

This question was perhaps the easiest to answer, as most iGEM systems are modular by the nature of biobrick standards. To us, though, this meant .

How can we make our system safe to use?

This was the most important question we asked throughout our process, even though we answered it early on. We knew that if we were to suggest using E. coli in water in any form we would need to minimize the possibility of escape. We looked into immobilization and talked with experts on campus about how we could encase our organism in silica. This proved to be one of the biggest parts of our prototype and project.

iGEM Database

In an attempt to improve the iGEM experience for future teams, we identified a problem central to the iGEM community: the lack of a comprehensive project database. An easy way to search and explore all previous projects performed by our community is necessary. This is particularly useful in the case of building off of the work of others. As science is an iterative process in which all research is built on the backs of other research, a way to navigate previous work is highly useful. Many of us can agree that the wiki system has its benefits; however, few people agree that the information they contain is easily searchable. In an attempt to solve this problem we formed the idea of a database where the most important information of each project could be condensed down into a digestible format. The information we included in each database entry is listed below. You can find our database at www.igem.tech

Each team wiki was cataloged with the following data points:

  • Project Title
  • Team Name
  • Year
  • Team Type
  • Team Size
  • Project Summary
  • Keywords
  • Chassis
  • Track
  • Link to Wiki
  • Medals earned
  • Awards
  • Benchmark meet
  • Finished Parts
  • Killswitch

We hope that a comprehensive and indexable iGEM wiki database will make it easier for teams to build off of the works of others so that we are not reinventing the wheel every year.

Note

You must fill out this page in order to be considered for all awards for Human Practices:

  • Human Practices silver medal criterion
  • Human Practices gold medal criterion
  • Best Integrated Human Practices award
  • Best Education and Public Engagement award
Some Human Practices topic areas
  • Philosophy
  • Public Engagement / Dialogue
  • Education
  • Product Design
  • Scale-Up and Deployment Issues
  • Environmental Impact
  • Ethics
  • Safety
  • Security
  • Public Policy
  • Law and Regulation
  • Risk Assessment
What should we write about on this page?

On this page, you should write about the Human Practices topics you considered in your project, and document any special activities you did (such as visiting experts, talking to lawmakers, or doing public engagement).

Inspiration

Read what other teams have done: