"
Team:Grenoble/Human Practice/BSS
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
| + | </section> | ||
| + | <section> | ||
| + | <h2>A project linked with other iGEM Teams: collaboration</h2> | ||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | Thanks to the partnership with iGEM Paris Bettencourt team, we had more information about the point of view of another iGEM Team. Moreover we discovered that our idea is complementary to their work. While they are trying to design tools to improve the safety and work on a way to quantify the biological risk, we are dealing with the information required to assess the risk. Our project is the base of the risk analysis. | ||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | The structuring of the information would be great for their project because by designing tools, it is also important to know if they would be relevant. Thus our project is in accordance with what is currently done. | ||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | </br> | ||
| + | Their feedbacks finally lead to a whole <b>collaboration with Paris Bettencourt</b>. Indeed, once the first skype session organized, we kept contact and could give them feedbacks about their own project. We also had the opportunity to move to Paris on Sunday the 16th and participate to the debate they organized about a possible regulation of GMOs use. <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Paris_Bettencourt/Human_Practice/Debate">Click here</a> if you want more details about the event. | ||
</section> | </section> | ||
<section> | <section> | ||
| Line 86: | Line 97: | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
For all these reasons, it is time to rationalize way to assess the risk. And in this purpose the first thing to do is to store the useful information in the clearest way. Our idea is then to link the BSS with the Registry of Standard Biological Parts. | For all these reasons, it is time to rationalize way to assess the risk. And in this purpose the first thing to do is to store the useful information in the clearest way. Our idea is then to link the BSS with the Registry of Standard Biological Parts. | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
</section> | </section> | ||
<section> | <section> | ||
Revision as of 20:16, 26 September 2012
BioBrick Safety Sheet (BSS)
Design of the Biobrick Safety Sheet
Synthetic biology is a new and emerging discipline with a lot of potential but also with an important part of risk. But unlike other disciplines such as chemistry there is no standard and reliable way of assessing risk! Where does every component of our Biobrick come from? What was its initial function in nature? Should we fear a particular interaction with another component? Has a particular mutation been observed? These are the question that each biologist has asked himself at least once but couldn’t find an answer because it’s too complicated and exhausting! To release your pain the Grenoble Team proposed to include safety informations in the registry part. Thus every team and every biologist would be able to have access to these information and even add his own observations and experimental results to enlarge the database. To sum up, the Biobrick Safety Sheet includes mainly two sections:
- A section where we specify the biobrick, the origin and the initial function of each component in nature (promoter, rbs, coding sequence…), the intrinsic safety of each component and the other components it could interact with.
- A section that lists: the random interactions we observed during the construction, the results of at least one experiment that considers the environment in which the biobrick will evolve and other experiments we think it’s important to consider in order to assess the biobrick risk level.
Other teams opinion about BSS
As we wanted the BSS structure to be clear and concise. We early contacted as many iGEM teams as possible in order to have feedbacks about the idea and possible improvements. For this purpose we used matchmaker by posting a request. We have also sent an e-mail to all the European teams. You can find below the list of the teams that gave answers.
We've already had feedbacks about the BSS from Virginia, Edinburgh, Groningen and Paris iGEM Teams A project linked with other iGEM Teams: collaboration
Thanks to the partnership with iGEM Paris Bettencourt team, we had more information about the point of view of another iGEM Team. Moreover we discovered that our idea is complementary to their work. While they are trying to design tools to improve the safety and work on a way to quantify the biological risk, we are dealing with the information required to assess the risk. Our project is the base of the risk analysis. The structuring of the information would be great for their project because by designing tools, it is also important to know if they would be relevant. Thus our project is in accordance with what is currently done. Their feedbacks finally lead to a whole collaboration with Paris Bettencourt. Indeed, once the first skype session organized, we kept contact and could give them feedbacks about their own project. We also had the opportunity to move to Paris on Sunday the 16th and participate to the debate they organized about a possible regulation of GMOs use. Click here if you want more details about the event.Why is this important ?
This approach is important because a lot of projects intend to use microorganisms outside laboratories. it is essential to make research on protection means. But it is even more necessary to know which hazards we should expect. Therefore having information on what would happen makes protections more efficient. Add to this, if we take a look at the number of iGEM teams that have competed since 2006, we notice that it is increasing steadilyand if the raise keeps the same we should have almost 350 teams in 2018.
