Difference between revisions of "Team:Wageningen UR/Design"

Line 10: Line 10:
 
<comic>
 
<comic>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/2c/T--Wageningen_UR--comic.png">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/2c/T--Wageningen_UR--comic.png">
−
<figcaption>Beekeepers love their work. They love their bees and understand that Varroa is a problem they need to combat. They explained us what problems they were facing.</figcaption>
+
<figcaption>Our introductory comic summarizes BeeT's final design. This design was not something we thought of right away, but a fluid concept that changed with every interaction.</figcaption>
 
</comic>
 
</comic>
 
<comic>
 
<comic>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/4/40/T--Wageningen_UR--triforce.jpg">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/4/40/T--Wageningen_UR--triforce.jpg">
−
<figcaption>We would need to have something that is better than current pesticides. It needed to suit the beekeeper's schedule and methods, as beekeeping relies on highly conserved and reliable practices. Additionally, it needed to overcome their resistance to GMO's; to do that, we believed it was vital for us to ensure it could not get into honey.</figcaption>
+
<figcaption>This is BeeT's triforce: it visualizes the three most important requirements. Firstly, we would need to have something that is better than current pesticides. Secondly, it needed to suit the beekeeper's schedule and methods, as beekeeping relies on highly conserved and reliable practices. Finally, it needed to overcome their resistance to GMO's; to do that, we believed it was vital for us to ensure it could not get into honey.</figcaption>
 
</comic>
 
</comic>
  
 
<comic>
 
<comic>
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d4/T--Wageningen_UR--description.jpg">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/d/d4/T--Wageningen_UR--description.jpg">
−
<figcaption>We decided to focus on three key aspects: specificity, regulation and biocontainment.</figcaption>
+
<figcaption>Based on these requirements, we decided to focus on three key aspects: specificity, regulation and biocontainment.</figcaption>
 
</comic>
 
</comic>
  

Revision as of 15:26, 18 October 2016

MENU ▤
Wageningen UR iGEM 2016

 

 

 

Helping honeybees and beekeepers with BeeT

How would BeeT work? Who would use it and how would they use it? To explore these questions, we sought out experts, users and designers. They helped us integrate BeeT into society. On this page, we use BeeT's illustrated story to show you how it was changed by these inputs.

Our introductory comic summarizes BeeT's final design. This design was not something we thought of right away, but a fluid concept that changed with every interaction.
This is BeeT's triforce: it visualizes the three most important requirements. Firstly, we would need to have something that is better than current pesticides. Secondly, it needed to suit the beekeeper's schedule and methods, as beekeeping relies on highly conserved and reliable practices. Finally, it needed to overcome their resistance to GMO's; to do that, we believed it was vital for us to ensure it could not get into honey.
Based on these requirements, we decided to focus on three key aspects: specificity, regulation and biocontainment.
There are many chemicals that can be used to kill mites, but most are also harmful to honeybees to some extent. Therefore, our approaches aimed for a toxin that would truly be a better alternative.
Our regulation focused on two things: minimizing toxin presence in the beehive and ensuring that misapplication of BeeT would not result in damage to beehives or beekeepers. Initially, we intended for our toxin to be present in the beehive at all times. If it was not harmful to bees or humans, what would it matter? It could be used as a preventative measure. However, beekeepers voiced their dislike of GMO's and especially the presence of the toxin, so we soon realized we would have to minimize the beehive's exposure to BeeT. Therefore, we included two genetic circuits in BeeT for this purpose.
From the very start of our project, we were aware of the potential dangers of using synthetic biology in a system as volatile as a beehive. Additionally, we realized that beekeepers would never use BeeT if they were not convinced that BeeT, as a living machine, could not escape their control. With this in mind, we tried to implement two complementary biocontainment systems.
We explored the ethical and societal issues together with Synenergene, RIVM and students from the Design Academy Eindhoven.
BeeT design and product description by Thieu Custers, Design Academy Eindhoven. Thieu helped us put BeeT together in a way that is transparent to the user. To promote public debate on synthetic biology, it is essential that its usage is as visible as possible.