Difference between revisions of "Team:Harvard/Collaborations"

 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Harvard/NavBar}}
 
{{Harvard/NavBar}}
−
 
−
{{Harvard}}
 
 
<html>
 
<html>
  
  
 
<div class="clear"></div>
 
<div class="clear"></div>
−
 
  
 
<div class="column full_size">
 
<div class="column full_size">
−
<h1>Collaborations</h1>
+
<h1 style="text-align:center;"><font face = "open sans" size = "+7">
 +
<br/>
 +
Collaboration</h1>
 +
<hr>
  
−
<p>
+
<br/>
−
Sharing and collaboration are core values of iGEM. We encourage you to reach out and work with other teams on difficult problems that you can more easily solve together.
+
−
</p>
+
  
−
<h3>Silver Medal Criterion #2</h3>
 
−
<p>
 
−
Document your collaboration(s) clearly on this page to compete for the silver medal criterion #2 on collaboration. Please see the <a href="https://2019.igem.org/Judging/Medals">2019 Medals Page</a> for more information.
 
−
</p>
 
−
</div>
 
  
−
<div class="column two_thirds_size">
+
<p style="text-align:center;"><font face = "open sans" size = "+1.5">
 +
This year, HiGEM attended New England GEM (NEGEM), which was graciously hosted by MIT on their campus. The iGEM programs of Laval University, Stony Brook University, the University of Connecticut, and Stanford-Brown-RISD were all also in attendance. The agenda included a keynote address, opportunities for each team to present to and receive feedback from the other teams attending and a panel of four guest judges, and even an (immensely appreciated) ice cream social in the middle to keep us well-fed through it all!
 +
<br/>
 +
<br />
 +
<br>
  
−
<h4> Which other teams can we work with? </h4>
 
−
<p>
 
−
You can work with any other team in the competition, including standard, software, open, and high school track teams. You can also work with non-iGEM research groups, but they do not count towards the iGEM team collaboration silver medal criterion.
 
−
</p>
 
  
−
<p>
 
−
In order to meet the silver medal criteria on helping another team, you must complete this page and detail the nature of your collaboration with another iGEM team.
 
−
</p>
 
  
−
</div>
+
For us, this was our first-ever opportunity to publicly share our project and preliminary results. The act of putting together our presentation was a good psychological checkpoint and reminded us both of how much we’d already accomplished, as well as how much more work we had left in front of us. It was also encouraging to hear that, even though our project had been thus far plagued by cloning troubles, everyone else was scrambling up the same syn-bio learning curve.
 +
<br/>
 +
<br />
 +
<br/>
 +
<p/>
  
  
  
−
<div class="column third_size">
+
<center>
−
<p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2019/f/f5/T--Harvard--NEGEMgroup.png" style="width:624px;height:286px;">
−
Here are some suggestions for projects you could work on with other teams:
+
</center>
 +
 
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
 
 +
<p style="text-align:center;"><font face = "open sans" size = "+1.5">
 +
 
 +
We found that answering judges’ and other teams’ questions was one of the best ways to formalize our understanding of our own research and goals. The toughest questions we faced definitely came from MIT’s mentor (also serving as a judge), Dr. Deepak Mishra, who demanded a more rigorous explanation of shear mechanosensing and our team’s human practices plans than we were originally expecting. Other teams and judges critiqued everything from our experimental design to our presentation formatting, and we tried over the following weeks to incorporate our feedback. We are very grateful for the experience.
 +
<br/>
 +
<br/>
 +
<br/>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p style="text-align:center;"><font face = "open sans" size = "+1.5">
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Additionally, we came into some correspondence with Dr. Deepak Mishra after NEGEM, who had prior experience working with the TANGO assay and offered to help us troubleshoot some of our cloning difficulties. He taught us the method of using Golden Gate Assembly, and explained to us the pros and cons associated with this method and with the method of Gibson Assembly, which helped us in our troubleshooting process. For this help, as well as all of the other feedback, support, and connections we gained at NEGEM, we are immensely grateful to MIT’s team and everyone else in attendance that day.
 +
<br/>
 +
<br/>
 +
<br/>
 +
<br/>
 +
 
 
</p>
 
</p>
  
−
<ul>
 
−
<li> Improve the function of another team's BioBrick Part or Device</li>
 
−
<li> Characterize another team's part </li>
 
−
<li> Debug a construct </li>
 
−
<li> Model or simulate another team's system </li>
 
−
<li> Test another team's software</li>
 
−
<li> Help build and test another team's hardware project</li>
 
−
<li> Mentor a high-school team</li>
 
−
</ul>
 
−
</div>
 
  
  
 +
</div>
 
</html>
 
</html>
 +
 +
 +
{{Harvard/Footer}}

Latest revision as of 03:16, 14 December 2019


Collaboration


This year, HiGEM attended New England GEM (NEGEM), which was graciously hosted by MIT on their campus. The iGEM programs of Laval University, Stony Brook University, the University of Connecticut, and Stanford-Brown-RISD were all also in attendance. The agenda included a keynote address, opportunities for each team to present to and receive feedback from the other teams attending and a panel of four guest judges, and even an (immensely appreciated) ice cream social in the middle to keep us well-fed through it all!


For us, this was our first-ever opportunity to publicly share our project and preliminary results. The act of putting together our presentation was a good psychological checkpoint and reminded us both of how much we’d already accomplished, as well as how much more work we had left in front of us. It was also encouraging to hear that, even though our project had been thus far plagued by cloning troubles, everyone else was scrambling up the same syn-bio learning curve.




We found that answering judges’ and other teams’ questions was one of the best ways to formalize our understanding of our own research and goals. The toughest questions we faced definitely came from MIT’s mentor (also serving as a judge), Dr. Deepak Mishra, who demanded a more rigorous explanation of shear mechanosensing and our team’s human practices plans than we were originally expecting. Other teams and judges critiqued everything from our experimental design to our presentation formatting, and we tried over the following weeks to incorporate our feedback. We are very grateful for the experience.


Additionally, we came into some correspondence with Dr. Deepak Mishra after NEGEM, who had prior experience working with the TANGO assay and offered to help us troubleshoot some of our cloning difficulties. He taught us the method of using Golden Gate Assembly, and explained to us the pros and cons associated with this method and with the method of Gibson Assembly, which helped us in our troubleshooting process. For this help, as well as all of the other feedback, support, and connections we gained at NEGEM, we are immensely grateful to MIT’s team and everyone else in attendance that day.




Email: higem2019@gmail.com