Team:Purdue/Safety
From 2012.igem.org
(4 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
- | <b> 1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of | + | <b> 1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of researcher safety, public safety, or, environmental safety? |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
</b> | </b> | ||
<n> | <n> | ||
Line 44: | Line 41: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<b>2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? | <b>2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? | ||
- | < | + | <ul> Did you document this issues in the Registry? </ul> |
- | < | + | <ul> How did you manage to handle the safety issue? </ul> |
- | < | + | <ul> How could other teams learn from your experience? </ul> |
- | </ | + | </b> |
<n> Because the constructed parts do not contain or produce silica or silica derivatives, are hosted in non-pathogenic strains, and contain no expected selective advantage, they individually pose no potential threat. The parts up-regulate natural expression of the adhesion protein Curli and attach a membrane-spanning protein to the silica-polymerizing enzyme silicatein–alpha. Out of context of biofilm attachment for water purification, the parts pose no threat to the researcher, the public or the environment. Accordingly, no safety concerns were indicated in the parts registry, although future teams may wish to further characterize the silica matrix formation in terms of detachment in water flow in respect to health effects. | <n> Because the constructed parts do not contain or produce silica or silica derivatives, are hosted in non-pathogenic strains, and contain no expected selective advantage, they individually pose no potential threat. The parts up-regulate natural expression of the adhesion protein Curli and attach a membrane-spanning protein to the silica-polymerizing enzyme silicatein–alpha. Out of context of biofilm attachment for water purification, the parts pose no threat to the researcher, the public or the environment. Accordingly, no safety concerns were indicated in the parts registry, although future teams may wish to further characterize the silica matrix formation in terms of detachment in water flow in respect to health effects. | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<b> 3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? | <b> 3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? | ||
- | < | + | <ul> If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project? </ul> |
- | < | + | <ul> If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country? </ul> </b> |
<n> | <n> | ||
Purdue University Institutional Biosafety Committee oversees the laboratories working with recombinant DNA technologies under the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, the Centers for Disease Control, and Purdue’s BioSafety Manual. Purdue’s iGEM Team functions under a Biosafety Level I designation, with all biological agents meeting the definition of Risk Group 1 and ‘unknown or minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment’. The Purdue IBC regulates the Team and its project as such. | Purdue University Institutional Biosafety Committee oversees the laboratories working with recombinant DNA technologies under the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, the Centers for Disease Control, and Purdue’s BioSafety Manual. Purdue’s iGEM Team functions under a Biosafety Level I designation, with all biological agents meeting the definition of Risk Group 1 and ‘unknown or minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment’. The Purdue IBC regulates the Team and its project as such. | ||
Line 59: | Line 56: | ||
<n> | <n> | ||
To ensure biological safety in future iGEM competitions, a program screening sequences of DNA constructs against toxicity databases to alert the presence of a known hazardous element should be developed. This would be an easy and automated ‘first-defense’ for constructed devices. | To ensure biological safety in future iGEM competitions, a program screening sequences of DNA constructs against toxicity databases to alert the presence of a known hazardous element should be developed. This would be an easy and automated ‘first-defense’ for constructed devices. | ||
- | + | </n> | |
+ | <p> | ||
+ | <b> References and More Information </b> | ||
+ | <li> <a href = "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809081/"> Aluminum and silica in drinking water and the risk of Alzheimer's disease or coort"gnitive decline: findings from 15-year follow-up of the PAQUID > </a>, Virginie Rondeau, Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda, Daniel Commenges, Catherine Helmer, and Jean-François Dartigues | ||
+ | <li> <a href= "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027869159190205L" > Subchronic inhalation toxicity of amorphous silicas and quartz dust in rats </a>, P.G.J. Reuzel, J.P. Bruijntjes, V.J. Feron, R.A. Woutersen, | ||
+ | <li> <a href = "http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/guidelines/nih_guidelines.htm" > National Institutes of Health Guildelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules </a> | ||
+ | <li> <a href= "http://www.purdue.edu/research/vpr/rschadmin/rschoversight/rdna/index.php" > Purdue University Institutional Biosafety Committee</a> | ||
+ | </li> | ||
- | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
+ | |||
</body> | </body> | ||
</html> | </html> |
Latest revision as of 17:09, 26 October 2012
1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of researcher safety, public safety, or, environmental safety?
2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues?
3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
4. 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?
References and More Information
Did you document this issues in the Registry?
How did you manage to handle the safety issue?
How could other teams learn from your experience?
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?