AndrewWild (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 492: | Line 492: | ||
event.stopPropagation(); | event.stopPropagation(); | ||
}); | }); | ||
| − | $('.div_m. | + | $('.div_m.humanpractices').mouseleave(function () { |
$('.div_overlay.humanpractices').fadeOut( "fast", "linear" ); | $('.div_overlay.humanpractices').fadeOut( "fast", "linear" ); | ||
event.stopPropagation(); | event.stopPropagation(); | ||
Biosafety is an important issue facing synthetic biology. Concerns surrounding synthetic organisms escaping into the environment has prompted the development of novel methods of bio-containment. Despite this, kill switches - inducible genetic devices that cause cell death - are poorly categorised in the standard registry of genetic parts. There is a distinct lack of quantitative data which prevents them being used with confidence.
Many iGEM projects that focus on bioremediation or require an organism to be released from the lab use kill switches to address concerns about the effect of GMOs on the environment. Our project seeks to investigate the effectiveness of different types of kill switch.We want to quantify their robustness after several generations and compare the stability of these devices when integrated into the genome or carried on a plasmid. We are testing three types of kill switch: a chemical kill switch using the fluorescent proteins KillerOrange and KillerRed, an enzymatic kill switch that lyses the cell on production and a DNAse kill switch that targets DNA disruption.
Our Human Practices is centred around improving public engagement and tackling the lack of education of synthetic biology in the UK and overseas. In particular we are targeting education at a secondary school and university level, focusing on the interdisciplinary nature of the subject and assessing diversity. We want to highlight the benefits and potential applications of this new scientific field, as well as trying to uncover the reasons why synthetic biology doesn’t get as much positive attention as it should have.
