"
Team:Tokyo Tech/Safety
From 2012.igem.org
(→Safety) |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
A1. No, our project ideas do not raise any safety issue in terms of researcher safety, | A1. No, our project ideas do not raise any safety issue in terms of researcher safety, | ||
public safety or environmental safety. All the experiments are carried out in the lab, | public safety or environmental safety. All the experiments are carried out in the lab, | ||
| - | they are safe for the researcher and the environment, and they do not have any | + | they are safe for the researcher and the environment, and they do not have any hazard |
outside the lab. | outside the lab. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
| - | A2.No, none of | + | A2.No, none of our BioBricks parts (or devices) created this year raises any safety issue, which are all BL1 and BL2. </p> |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| Line 52: | Line 50: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
A3. Yes there is. The biosafety committee of our organization accepted part of our applications. | A3. Yes there is. The biosafety committee of our organization accepted part of our applications. | ||
| - | The other part of the applications is going to be evaluated. After all of our applications | + | The other part of the applications is going to be evaluated. After all of our applications being accepted, |
we will start wet experiments. | we will start wet experiments. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
| Line 65: | Line 63: | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
| - | A4. We think | + | A4. We think it'll be a good idea to use review sheets to record information of the parts. These review sheets can be made in collaboration with the local biosafety group. |
</p> | </p> | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
=Safety= | =Safety= | ||
Use this page to answer the questions on the [[Safety | safety page]]. | Use this page to answer the questions on the [[Safety | safety page]]. | ||
Revision as of 12:59, 30 August 2012
Safety
For iGEM 2012 teams are asked to detail how they approached any issues of biological safety associated with their projects. Specifically, teams should consider the following questions:
Q1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of researcher safety, public safety or environmental safety ?
A1. No, our project ideas do not raise any safety issue in terms of researcher safety,
public safety or environmental safety. All the experiments are carried out in the lab,
they are safe for the researcher and the environment, and they do not have any hazard
outside the lab.
Q2. 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?
A2.No, none of our BioBricks parts (or devices) created this year raises any safety issue, which are all BL1 and BL2.
Q3. 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?
A3. Yes there is. The biosafety committee of our organization accepted part of our applications. The other part of the applications is going to be evaluated. After all of our applications being accepted, we will start wet experiments.
Q4. 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?
A4. We think it'll be a good idea to use review sheets to record information of the parts. These review sheets can be made in collaboration with the local biosafety group.
