Design

We contacted the Design Academy Eindhoven (DAE) to help us in designing an applicable format for BeeT. After mutual visits, a design student from the DAE – Thieu Custers - proposed a product that incorporated the daily practices of beekeepers and BeeT: A box bag like product that beekeepers apply in the sugar water just before the start of the winter.

"I am interested in combining disciplines to discuss ideas and come to new solutions. By using science and art together I aim to tell stories about what could be our future. I want to take existing conflicts or themes and envision what could be their consequences or solutions, to broaden our understanding of the present.

BeeT is a innovative approach to solving a man-made problem. Implementing a genetically engineered bacterium into the agricultural sector is something that should be done carefully. It opens up a dialogue about the use of altered organisms in daily life. Communicating both the risks and the merits of such a precise tool is the most important to me. Genetic engineering is a new technology that is met with a lot of fear, but by completely and openly showing the inner workings, it can be assessed honestly.

With BeeT specifically, the challenge is going to be to gain acceptance in the world of beekeeping. The design of the BeeT container is meant to be clear in use, and will show which hive is currently being treated with the bacteria. The marking label is still connected to the container of the bacteria, ensuring no mix up of labelling."

BeeT will, via the sugar water, end up in the brood food and transported to cells where bee larvae grow and where the mite is present. Inside the cell it will ‘sense’ and kill the mite. This will result in healthy winter worker bees who live longer than their summer counterparts, strongly increasing the chance of survival of the colony. The timing of Bee-T makes sure it will not interfere with the honey. In comparison, existing technologies use for example Thymol which is a pure toxin.Thymol is not only toxic for mites but for beekeepers and bees as well. It has to be applied three times a year and does interfere with honey and beewax: making it taste like mouthwash . Interestingly the ‘do not change the consumer principle’ turned out to be an important input point. Rather than requiring that beekeepers would have to change the sugar baskets that they use (since some of them are not completely dark) we decided to do light measurements and adapt the system in such a way that the system would not be killed by the light of the sugar basket. A box like product is the most ideal form since it can be applied to all sugar-water-basket systems.

BeeT will only produce the toxin if there are enough bacteria and only if the mite is present in the hive. Reducing the chance of developing resistance and thus taking into account the hobbyist character of beekeeping. Next, a mite specific toxin is used rather than a toxin that affects humans and bees as well. The timing of Bee-T makes sure it will not interfere with the honey. The system has two safety mechanisms: a light killswitch that destroys the bacteria as soon as it is exposed to light for a longer time. And a synthetic amino acid dependence that we have build in the system.

In comparison, existing technologies use for example Thymol which is a pure toxin. Pure toxins are prone to inducing resistance if beekeepers do not use the right amount or if the timing is wrong. Thymol is not only toxic for mites but for beekeepers and bees as well. It has to be applied three times a year and does interfere with honey and beewax: making it taste like mouthwash .

Interestingly the ‘do not change the consumer principle’ turned out to be an important input point. Rather than requiring that beekeepers would have to change the sugar baskets that they use (since some of them are not completely dark) we decided to do light measurements and adapt the system in such a way that the system would not be killed by the light of the sugar basket. A tea-bag like product is the most ideal form since it can be applied to all sugar-water-basket systems. The synthetic amino acid should be applied to the sugar water. The initial idea was to use an synthetic amino acid spray. Beekeepers however are not always able to confine themselves to a strict time schedule.

Conferences

Throughout the year we have visited a lot of conferences with several goals: to inform different stakeholders about our project and to collect input on the BeeT system through different stages of the project, to network with companies and explore sponsor possibilities and to have fun and learn some things ourselves.

Synenergene forum

In search for the right conditions for responsible research and innovation, this conference was organized by the Rathenau institute (hyperlink) for all relevant stakeholders when it comes to the future of synthetic biology. Scientists, business people, policymakers and civil society organizations attended, but it was also open for the general public. The promises and pitfalls of synthetic biology were considered from a societal perspective during pitches, presentations, workshops and debates. We attended a workshop about connecting synthetic biology with culture and religion, a link we had not thought about before. During small information rounds, we had the opportunity to talk to experts in the field. We also joined a plenary discussion about freedom and security in an age of synthetic biology. We enjoyed hearing so many different opinions and having the opportunity to talk to experts from all over the world..

Multi-stakeholder dialogue: the role of synthetic biology in energy transition

To broaden our horizon and understanding of the possibilities of synthetic biology, we joined a multi-stakeholder dialogue that was organized to discuss the role of synthetic biology in energy transition, by the Athena institute and the Rathenau institute. There is a general belief that something needs to change about the current dutch energy supply, and during this dialogue we brainstormed about how synthetic biology could be of help achieving this. In a guided way, we generated ideas about applications of synthetic biology for energy supply, starting from future society-scenario’s created the day before. The nice thing about this approach was that we learned about the perspectives of people with different backgrounds, ranging from scientists to business people. It felt like we all started on the same page. The ideas that were most appealing were later worked out in different groups. Lisa and I worked on a scenario, “the green human”, where humans would evolve together with plants to be able to rely on photosynthesis for energy. Of course this scenario is very futuristic, but in our opinion it exposes a very important aspect of both energy transition and synthetic biology: that the public should be involved, to be more conscious about energy use and more engaged with technological advances in the field of synthetic biology.

Collaboration

DAE

We initiated contact with students from the Design Academy Eindhoven to enhance the interdisciplinarity of our project. We met up several times and discussed about both art and science, but also where those two topics overlap. Their views on our project helped a lot in designing our project and adapting it to real life demands (Design). For a concrete collaboration, we asked one of the students – Thieu – to design our end product, BeeT, in a way it could be presented to future users. Our collaboration with the DAE did not only lead to us having a positively received final product design, but also led to our project influencing the design students’ projects.

Synenergene

Synenergene is a four year program to promote the dialogue about the future of synthetic biology between relevant stakeholders, contributing to responsible research and innovation. Synenergene partners, including the Rathenau institute, are in close collaboration with several iGEM teams from all over the world.

Our collaboration with Synenergene consisted of two assessments: an application scenario and a techno-moral vignette. The assessments were intended to help us evaluate the viability as well as the societal impact of our envisioned product. We chose to combine both in a “Resource from the future”. “Resource” is the magazine and news website of students and employees of Wageningen UR, and by writing a Resource from the year 2030 (link to magazine), when BeeT will be available on the market, we aimed to bring up ethical issues around synthetic biology in a way that is fun and accessible for the public. At the same time, the magazine served to spread the word in Wageningen about our iGEM project.

RIVM

In the Netherlands, the RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu) is a governmental institute that is concerned with public health and a safe living environment. They investigate the impact of synthetic biology on these aspects of our society, and aim to bring existing knowledge on the topic together. Part of their work is encouraging discussions about the development of synthetic biology from a policymaker’s perspective, which includes a collaboration with all Dutch iGEM teams since 2014.

For this collaboration, the teams were asked to depict their thoughts and concepts about safe by design in a video, podcast or other representation. We decided to make a movie (hyperlink) (it is in dutch) that shows how safe by design is implemented in our project.
In contrast to many other synthetic biology applications, BeeT is intended to be used outside the lab, in beehives, which is in close contact with nature. To get a better idea of the viability of our idea, and what it is like to request permission to use an engineered microorganism outside of the lab, we looked at the questions that are asked in such a request (link to website of RIVM) and discuss some that peaked our interest in the movie. Some interesting questions we had not thought about, such as “how can a genetically modified microorganism be recognized among natural relatives?”. Some other things we did not understand completely. For example, there are a number of questions about how the genetic modification was established. We would expect these questions when talking about the ethics of genetically modified microorganisms, and not necessarily when determining the risks of using it.
Another interesting aspect of the application of synthetic biology is responsibility: if our engineered bacterium would be commercialized, who would be responsible for any adverse effects? In our opinion, scientists are responsible for thoroughly and objectively investigating and reporting possible risks. Companies in turn should monitor whether the technology is sufficiently researched. Companies should also make sure that user manuals are correct and clear to understand, even to people with little experience with comparable technology. Users of the product, the beekeepers in our case, are responsible for using the product in the intended way only and following the user manual provided with the product.
Our movie ends with some open questions regarding safe by design, both in general and within our project. Examples are “what should be done to actually realize the insights that are gained by safe by design?” and “should there be more focus on the positive aspects of using a genetically modified microorganism when judging a permission request?”. We don’t know the answer to these questions, but think they are important nevertheless.

Concluding our collaboration with the RIVM, some members of our team, as well as the other dutch iGEM teams attended a meeting organized by the RIVM and the Rathenau institute, with the theme: “veilig verder met synthetische biologie”, or “making safe progress in synthetic biology”. During this meeting, researchers, policymakers and policy advisors brainstormed, discussed and presented their ideas about how synthetic biology should be handled in the future. We gave a short presentation about the topic of our project and how we integrated “safe by design” through toxin specificity, controlled expression of the toxin and confinement of our product to the beehive. During a short information market, we got to talk more in depth with people who were interested, presented the movie we made for the RIVM and the Resource from the future that was made in collaboration with Synenergene. There were short “break-out sessions” where safety of previous iGEM projects was discussed in small groups, and at the same time two artists made a huge and beautiful drawing of everything that was discussed during the day. We learned a lot from the interesting talks about further handling safety in synthetic biology both from a political and a societal point of view. An interesting point that comes to mind was made by Sabine Roeser (professor of Ethics, TU Delft), about how feelings of the public concerning synthetic biology can be a useful source of questions on the ethical aspects of our work. She also mentioned how art can be used to connect people to synthetic biology. In our project, we tried to achieve this through collaborating with the Design Academy Eindhoven (hyperlink). Besides, it was nice to get to know more about how the other dutch iGEM teams handled the RIVM assignment. We thank the RIVM and the Rathenau institute for inviting us, it was an inspiring day!

In short, we learned a lot from collaborating both with the RIVM and the Rathenau institute/Synenergene. When starting iGEM, safety and containment of our engineered bacterium were just “things that need to be considered in order to perform well in the iGEM competition”. The RIVM and Synenergene assignments helped us to think more in depth about different safety aspects, how safety by design can be achieved and our own opinions about it. Eventually, biosafety of BeeT became a major part of our project, with over half of the team members working on some safety aspect.

National Meetup

On 21/05/2016 we organised the meet-up of all interested Dutch iGEM teams. Four teams took part: Groningen, Leiden, Eindhoven, and us. The meeting was divided in two parts. The first part consisted of every team presenting their project ideas with a brief discussion afterwards. After lunch the brainstorm session started. We divided the group in 4 random subgroups. The groups got to know eachother a bit, and then brainstormed on whatever iGEM related topic they liked. Some groups decided to talk about what team could collaborate with what other team, some teams decided to think about ways to connect in a better way, and some teams thought about how to make iGEM more popular in the Netherlands. After some small presentations of the brainstorm sessions’ results, we discussed several ideas. The outcome of the discussions was:
• a list with contact details and team roles of every Dutch team member has been obtained
• the notion of several collaboration possibilities
• ideas about shared sponsoring and funding
When the discussions were over, the official part came to an end, but some teams ended up ordering pizza and playing board games together. All in all, we feel the day was a success not only for the progress of our projects, but also for getting to know and connecting with our fellow Dutch iGEM teams.

Project Presentation

On October the 3rd, we organized a lunch lecture at the university to present our project to researchers, beekeepers, students and other interested people. Quite some people were attending and a lot of questions were asked. We are happy about getting to practice our presentation in front of an audience, as well al learning what parts of our story where still unclear. Furthermore, we hope we enthused other students who might participate in next year’s iGEM team!

Media

We have contacted various newspaper and magazines to inform the public about our project. Not only did we tried to reach out to the Wageningen community but also to alumni, beekeepers, scientist from outside Wageningen and people who are interested in synthetic biology. Partly to receive input about or project and partly because we are just very proud about how our project turned out. We also proactively kept people updated with the help of a Social Media campaign.

Resource and Wageningen World

The resource is the magazine for students and employees of Wageningen University. They have dedicated several articles to our work. They focussed on the content of our project but also about our reach out to the public to raise money with a crowdfunding platform.

• June: General article about our project.
• July: article about our crowdfunding.
• July: Blog inspired by our project.
• August: article announcing that we will go to Boston with our project.
• August: article directed at alumni of Wageningen UR with a request to help with crowdfunding.

Bionieuws

Two times has bionieuws, a Dutch magazine for Biologists, written about BeeT. First a general article about the project and what we, as students like about iGEM. Second, an article exploring all the Dutch iGEM teams.

C2W