|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| − | <h1>Once we determined the areas in which we needed to consult experts, we setup meetings and incorporated feedback as we iterated our design. Below you can find specific design or direction changes we made based on our meetings.</h1> | + | <h1>HUMAN PRACTICES</h1> |
| − | <div>
| + | <p>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.</p> |
| − | <h2>Sustainability</h2>
| + | <h2>Should we use synthetic biology to solve the problem of excess phosphorus in wastewater?</h2> |
| − | <h5>EPA DR. JAY GARLAND</h5>
| + | <p>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.</p> |
| − | <p>After discussions with scientists and businessman at DAS, we decided to talk to policy experts in the government. We talked to one of our advisors who recommended we speak to Dr. Jay Garland at the EPA. We set up a conference call in which we discussed our early ideas for a phosphorus accumulating <i>E. coli</i> that could be used on agricultural fields. He encouraged us to focus on the larger context of our potential solution; focus on the mass balance of the system, energy usage, environmental impacts, and the entirety of the water cycle. He also encouraged us look into the phosphorus cycle and see where our Implementation could have the largest impact. He left us with one directive: to link innovative technology with sound ecological principles. From this discussion, we widened our focus to the entire phosphorus cycle, started looking at mass balance systems for phosphorus, and set up meetings with people involved in various stages of water cleanup like the USDA lab on campus, the Lily Nature Center, and the West Lafayette Waste Water Treatment Facility. More importantly, we started to look into possible ways to ensure safety in using <i>E. coli</i> to clean up water. </p> | + | <h2>How can we approach the public with a synthetic biology solution?</h2> |
| − | <h5>DR. KEVIN KING</h5> | + | <p>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.</p> |
| − | <p>We attended a seminar on phosphorus given by Dr. Kevin King in which he talked about the “stickiness” of phosphates. He explained that phosphates can bind to soil, and so fields are often phosphorus rich before fertilizer is even added. He explained that this contributes to a buildup of phosphates in the system that doesn’t happen with nitrogen. This prompted us to return to the USDA to talk about the specifics of phosphorus application and the sustainability of current farming practices. </p>
| + | <h2>How can we make our solution a sustainable process?</h2> |
| − | <h2>Safety</h2>
| + | <p>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.</p> |
| − | <h5>Advisor Meetings</h5>
| + | <h2>How can we make our solution marketable?</h2> |
| − | <p>We met with our advisors after our discussion with Dr. Jay Garland to discuss biocontainment and safety concerns. We thought we might want to design a bioreactor that could house our modified <i>E. coli</i>. We asked about immobilization of <i>E. coli</i> and were told about sol gel technology with TMOS. We decided we could form xerogel beads using this method that would contain our organism and make our potential prototype very safe.</p> | + | <p>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.</p> |
| − | <h5>SYNENERGENE + Todd Kuiken</h5>
| + | <h2>How can we make our solution useful beyond the scope of this problem (modular)?</h2> |
| − | | + | <p>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 .</p> |
| − | <h2>Patent & Business plan</h2> | + | <h2>How can we make our system safe to use?</h2> |
| − | <h4>Large Scale:</h4>
| + | <p>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 <i>E. coli</i> 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.</p> |
| − | <h5>DAS</h5>
| + | |
| − | <p>Our first visit was to Dow AgroSciences (DAS) where we presented our still rough project idea. Coming away from this meeting we began to focus more on design criteria (how much phosphorus we needed to retrieve, began looking at products that already existed, and broadened our scope of potential application.They gave us feedback and information we would need to provide them in order to pitch our product on an industrial scale.</p> | + | |
| − | <h4>Small Scale:</h4>
| + | |
| − | <h5>Foundry</h5>
| + | |
| − | <p>After the Midwest Clean Energy Forum we were approached by members of the Foundry and set up a meeting with them to discuss our product, our goals, and the potential for a patent and business plan. We discussed the parts of our project that would actually be patentable, and what steps we would need to take in customer discovery. This meeting especially made us consider our end-users and to consider our prototype as a potentially marketable product. This made us reconsider home application scenarios and products that people could readily buy.
| + | |
| − | Ultimately, these meetings gave us a more business oriented approach to discussions and considerations of our project, and greatly influence our SYNENERGENE <a href=“https://2016.igem.org/Team:Purdue/Synergene/applicationscenario”>Application Scenario</a></p>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <h2>Public Engagement</h2> | + | |
| − | <h5>West Lafayette Wabash River Fest</h5>
| + | |
| − | <p>From the outset of our project, we understood that we would receive pushback regarding the use of <i>E. coli</i> in water. Because of this we talked with professors on campus about strategies we could employ to communicate our science. Based on advice we received, we made posters to explain our project and set up a booth at the Wabash River Festival in West Lafayette to discuss the phosphorus problem, our solution, and what it means with people at the festival. We also set up a station for children to pipette water with food coloring into eppendorf tubes to simulate lab experiments. Candy DNA was also provided (that the kids could build). We used this opportunity to explain to both the children and adults how we do genetic recombination. This started a dialogue with the public on our design and gave us valuable feedback for further presentations.</p> | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <h2>Product Design</h2> | + | |
| − | <h5>USDA PART 1</h5>
| + | |
| − | <p>Our next stop in our discovery was the USDA National Soil Erosion Research Lab. The lab conducts extensive research in phosphorus runoff and is currently researching limestone and steel slag as methods of phosphorus clean-up. However, we learned that limestone is ineffective as it leeches phosphorus after sometime. Steel slag is good at retaining phosphorus, but it is much more difficult to remove the phosphorus once it is there. We resolved to design our system in such a way that the phosphorus was tightly held but also easily removable. Additionally, they discussed tile drains as a potential area for application of our system and encouraged us to attend Andi Hodaj’s thesis defense. </p> | + | |
| − | <h5>Andi Hodaj Thesis Defense</h5>
| + | |
| − | <p>Andi Hodaj discussed tile drains in depth and gave us good information on how we could implement a phosphorus reclamation module within one. Additionally, Andi provided us with information on 2 stage ditches as both an alternative method of phosphorus reclamation and as a potential area for application of our method in conjunction with the ditches. This information again broadened our thoughts on potential application and gave us enough information of tile drains to begin brainstorming a potential prototype.</p>
| + | |
| − | <h5>DR SORS</h5> | + | |
| − | <p>We met with the Chief Science Liason of Bindley Biosicence Center, Dr. Thomas Sors, who was very helpful throughout our project. He encouraged us to simplify our approach, and do some things very well instead many things decently. He also talked to us about his work with phosphorus, which gave us insight into our design. Most importantly, he talked to us about system modularity, which led to us designing our system so that many different projects could utilize it.</p> | + | |
| − | <h5>Midwest Clean Energy Forum</h5> | + | |
| − | <p>We were lucky in our discovery process to stumble upon the 2016 Midwest Clean Energy Forum that was held on campus. There were several speakers and forums that we participated in. From these discussions, we came away with ideas of important end-user considerations: cost effectiveness, ease of integration into existing practices, and approachability/ease of use. As Purdue President Mitch Daniels said, “It’s only innovation when it is useful to someone.”</p> | + | |
| − | <h5>USDA Parts Two and Three</h5>
| + | |
| − | <p>At this meeting with the USDA we narrowed down design criteria for a prototype phosphorus reclaim module. We outlined our thoughts on end-user needs and received feedback on our packed-bed filter idea. We then held a design meeting in whoch we iterated to find a design that the USDA would develop for us. You can find more information on the <a href=“https://2016.igem.org/Team:Purdue/Hardware”> Hardware</a> page.</p>
| + | |
| | | | |
| | </div> | | </div> |
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.
