Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
<h3><font color="white"><strong>How are Safety Cases Applicable to Synthetic Biology?</strong></h3> | <h3><font color="white"><strong>How are Safety Cases Applicable to Synthetic Biology?</strong></h3> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | <p><font color="white"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Limited regard has been given to develop systematic techniques to validate engineered biological systems in general. Recently, two of the 2016 UNL iGEM advisors, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Pierobon | + | <p><font color="white"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Limited regard has been given to develop systematic techniques to validate engineered biological systems in general. Recently, two of the 2016 UNL iGEM advisors, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Pierobon have published a paper introducing the idea of applying the aforementioned safety cases to the biological domain. There are clear parallels between software systems and synthetically engineered biological organisms (SEBO’s). </span></p> |
<br> | <br> | ||
<h3><font color="white"><strong>Parallels between software systems and synthetically engineered organisms</strong></h3> | <h3><font color="white"><strong>Parallels between software systems and synthetically engineered organisms</strong></h3> | ||
Line 221: | Line 221: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | <p><font color="white"><span style="font-weight: 400;">One more interesting parallel to draw on is that the environment of many software systems, especially those in transportation or avionics is always changing. Both SEBO’s and software systems must be dynamic and be able to adapt to their environments. SEBO’s do however, have an added level of complexity. The engineered genetic code itself in engineered microorganisms is dynamic due to mutations, whereas the code in software is constant. Cohen and Pierobon | + | <p><font color="white"><span style="font-weight: 400;">One more interesting parallel to draw on is that the environment of many software systems, especially those in transportation or avionics is always changing. Both SEBO’s and software systems must be dynamic and be able to adapt to their environments. SEBO’s do however, have an added level of complexity. The engineered genetic code itself in engineered microorganisms is dynamic due to mutations, whereas the code in software is constant. Cohen and Pierobon suggest the development of the evolution envelope, a method to account for the mutations in safety cases. Safety timelines could potentially be used to compliment safety cases. When safety cases are designed for SB projects, potential evolution patterns can be predicted and mechanisms to mitigate their consequences can be integrated into their design.</span></p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="image"> | <div class="image"> |
Revision as of 02:03, 20 October 2016
![image](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/0/0f/T--UNebraska-Lincoln--IHPBanner.png)
Safety Cases and Synthetic Biology
How are Safety Cases Applicable to Synthetic Biology?
Limited regard has been given to develop systematic techniques to validate engineered biological systems in general. Recently, two of the 2016 UNL iGEM advisors, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Pierobon have published a paper introducing the idea of applying the aforementioned safety cases to the biological domain. There are clear parallels between software systems and synthetically engineered biological organisms (SEBO’s).
Parallels between software systems and synthetically engineered organisms
- Engineering the DNA of a microorganism is similar to designing software programs
- DNA genetic code has precise biological function
- SEBO’s perform information processing
- SEBO’s have logical control capabilities
- When engineered microorganisms are introduced into an environment outside of the lab, they become safety critical devices
- There is a need for predictability in both SEBO’s and Software Systems
- Software systems are composed of subsystems and can be built into other systems creating systems of systems. In a very similar sense, an SEBO is a systems of systems. They are made up of BioBricks (subsystems) and are introduced into environmental systems.
One more interesting parallel to draw on is that the environment of many software systems, especially those in transportation or avionics is always changing. Both SEBO’s and software systems must be dynamic and be able to adapt to their environments. SEBO’s do however, have an added level of complexity. The engineered genetic code itself in engineered microorganisms is dynamic due to mutations, whereas the code in software is constant. Cohen and Pierobon suggest the development of the evolution envelope, a method to account for the mutations in safety cases. Safety timelines could potentially be used to compliment safety cases. When safety cases are designed for SB projects, potential evolution patterns can be predicted and mechanisms to mitigate their consequences can be integrated into their design.