Team:Kyoto/Safety

Some of the biological reagents and experiments necessary for the project needed safety measures. They were; Ethidium Bromide (EtBr), phenol, chloroform, 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid, gas burner,polyacrylamide,2-mercaptoethanol and ultra violet LED. To make sure they were correctly used, the safe way of conducting the experiments were taught to the person who was going to deal with these possibly hazardous substances beforehand. The equipments and reagents mentioned above were handled with care.

   EtBr　(Ethidium bromide):　EtBr is regarded as a mutagen, carcinogen or teratogen[1]. Lab members were briefed on the possible effects of EtBr. During the experiments, we wore gloves. After usage, the gloves and gel were separately disposed. 

   Phenol and 3,5-Dinitrosalicylic Acid: Phenol and its vapors are corrosive to the eyes, the skin, and the respiratory tract　[2]. 3,5-Dinitrosalicylic acid can cause serious irritation to the eyes[3]. These were handled under the draft chamber. 

   Chloroform: Chloroform is a possible carcinogen. To avoid unnecessary exposure, this was also handled under the draft chamber. 

   Gas Burner: We used gas burners and heat the air around the workspace to cause it to rise, thereby reducing contamination. Although the gas burner is a common combustion apparatus we are all familiar with, it can cause a massive disaster if used improperly. We made all-out efforts to keep all the flammable items away from the flame and not to pass behind a person who is using a gas burner. 

　　　　polyacrylamide,2-mercaptoethanol：We used these reagents for Western Blotting. They are Toxic even though they are necessary to check the expression of target proteins so that we ask advise how we store them and obeyed the rules of Kyoto University.

   Ultra Violet LED: Ultra violet (UVB) is harmful to eyes. Hence, the LEDs were lit only inside the cardboard box and we only look at it to check if it is properly lighted to avoid long-time exposure. 

2. Safety of the General Public and Environment

Not only do we focus on the "safety in the lab", we also had to take care to make sure that the hazardous materials were safely kept inside the lab. We stayed in the lab on a rotating basis to keep out outsiders and thieves, and the door was locked and held by the person in charge.

Even when good security is maintained, we should always be careful of misrelease of the bacteria or others(this time: fruit fly). As our experiments were only allowed in the BSL1, all bacteria we cultured were categorized in the BSL1 and of minimal safety risks in itself. In the second stage of the brainstorming for our project, we consulted our advisors on environmental risks. The genes we transferred would not be pathogenic, infectious or toxic even if they are misused for malicious purpose. We autoclaved all tips and pipettes which came into contact with the GMOs. Flies we bred would not disrupt the environment because they are the common strain in Japan. Considering these things we concluded there is little risk of environmental disturbance. 3. Regulations

We submitted the experiment plan (the form is at [4] only available to the insiders of the univ.) to the Environment, Safety, and Health Organization, Kyoto Univ. [5] and were allowed to operate genetic modification of the bacteria under the Biosafety level 1. Experiments were planned following the safety guideline of the university [6]. These guidelines are based on national laws and this includes several regulations on GMOs [7]. We carried out our experiments at the students-laboratory at the Graduate School of Science / Faculty of Science, Kyoto Univ, which has its own department for safety and environment. All of the lab members received training for PCR, culture of cells, miniprep and etc., the minimal genetical operations and usage of autoclave. They were separated into 3 groups each supported by one graduate student. 4. Idea

Every team had to check if there were any parts or materials that might raise safety issues. It was, however, really difficult for all the lab members to be aware of it. Our safety motto is "Safety is of primary importance. Discuss with other members everything related to your project". If something like this is written on the Registration page, we believe more people will be aware of the importance of safety. Some might think this is over-protection but like we were thought since we were young "better safe than sorry". This idea can be used for other checkpoints such as human practice.

Questions

   Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of

   Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? If yes,
       did you document these issues in the Registry?
       how did you manage to handle the safety issue?
       How could other teams learn from your experience?
   Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
       If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project?
       If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?
   Do you have any other ideas how to deal with safety issues that could be useful for future iGEM competitions? How could parts, devices and systems be made even safer through biosafety engineering?