Difference between revisions of "Team:NUS Singapore/Human Practices"

Line 403: Line 403:
 
   position:absolute;
 
   position:absolute;
 
   z-index: 2;
 
   z-index: 2;
   left: 10vw;
+
   left: 14.2vw;
   top: 20vw;
+
   top: 18vw;
 
}
 
}
  

Revision as of 20:24, 20 October 2019

NUS iGEM 2019


overview
A scientific project can never develop in isolation; it has to be continuously shaped by a variety of individuals in order to be truly impactful on society. Our Human Practices methodology consisted of multiple frameworks which allowed us to effectively interview experts, users and regulatory agencies.

This enabled us to gain insights into the different aspects of our project like:
  • a) Idea Formulation
  • b) Intended Applications
  • c) Ethical Assessment
  • d) Communication
The findings of our Human Practices work have been documented with the aim of answering two main questions:
  • a) “What did we learn from them?”
  • b) “How did we act on their feedback?”
Our HP work also helped inform every stage of our DBTL cycle and served as an integral part of our overall project. Refer to our description page to know more about how our engineered bacteria can make an impact in the field of Synthetic Biology.
HUMAN PRACTICES METHODOLOGY

The aim of our project is to advance the field of Synthetic Biology by answering questions that are ingrained in its foundation. In order to develop a well-rounded project that makes a true contribution to mankind, we recognised the need to involve people from different segments of society. We established our three main objectives and formulated specialised methodologies to fulfill each one:

  • a) Idea Formulation
  • b) Intended Applications
  • c) Ethics and Safety

For idea formulation, in addition to reviewing literature, we consulted experts from around the world to seek their views on the technical feasibility of our Growth Switch and Growth Knob systems. To understand how our platform technology will impact current applications, we interviewed stakeholders in healthcare, biolighting, biosensors and bio-manufacturing. Their feedback not only shed light on potential areas with high demand but also pivoted us away from applications that our technology might not be suited for. In order to develop a truly impactful technology, it was important for us to consider the safety and ethicality of our work. We interviewed individuals from advisory committees to understand our responsibility of adhering to ethical norms and how we could fulfill it. Consequently, we identified the need for a biocontainment system for our long living bacteria. Through our HP work, we were able to explore critical aspects of our project and this ultimately spearheaded into Integrated Human Practices.

Click on the buttons to read our human practices methodologies!

Idea Formulation

Expert interviews allowed us to draw on a vast amount of specialised knowledge in the most efficient manner.

Who did we interview?

Subject matter experts in the field of synthetic biology

Why did we choose to interview them specifically?

They authored papers that we read during the process of literature review.

What did we want from the interview?

1. To understand the feasibility of our idea (from a technical standpoint)

2. To check the validity of the assumptions we may have made

3. To fill gaps in our technical knowledge

Intended Applications

User interviews helped us to understand the needs and motivations of our potential stakeholders.

Who did we interview?

Clinicians, Companies, Laypeople

Why did we choose to interview them specifically?

We recognised them as potential stakeholders who may be interested in our technology.

What did we want from the interview?

1. To gather insights on the perception of our technology in each application

2. To understand the needs and motivations of our stakeholders

3. To understanding how our technology can better serve our stakeholders for each application

Ethical Assessment

Ethics Flow Charting allowed us to understand the ethical implications of our work by helping us visualise the consequences of each decision.

Who did we interview?

Regulatory authorities, Safety and Bioethics committee members

Why did we choose to interview them specifically?

They have extensive knowledge of existing guidelines and are well-informed about analysing such issues.

What did we want from the interview?

1. To understand the ethical and social implications of our work

2. To create a well-informed ethics flowchart pertaining to our work by filling in the ethical considerations and measures to be taken



INTEGRATED HUMAN PRACTICES

The interviews we conducted over the course of the project have been documented in the interactive timelines below. They contain information about how different people have impacted or shaped our project. For the respective individuals, we have included:


  • i) The context of the interview;
  • ii) The insights that we have gained;
  • iii) And how their feedback influenced our project

Click on the buttons and dots to find out more about each interview!

em; margin-bottom:20px">Senior Consultant in the Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre

                 </br></br>Specialised in:  Cardiology</div>
               </div>
             </div>
               Context: We shared our project vision with healthcare professionals in Singapore and proposed the idea of cell-based continuous glucose monitor (CGM) which could potentially have a longer shelf life compared to cell-free CGM. This would be especially useful due to the prevalence of diabetes in Singapore.</br>
               </br>What we learnt</br>
  • Existing cell-free CGM concepts contain microneedles, which need to be constantly replaced to ensure sterility. It would be helpful if cell-based CGMs can last longer to reduce the number of times patients have to change the sensor patch.
  • It would be highly attractive if cell-based CGMs can be less bulky and invasive, while also having the ability to be a ‘sense and respond’. This would help to detect blood glucose levels and release insulin accordingly.
               </br>How we acted upon the feedback</br>
  • We included cell-based CGMs as a potential application which can benefit from our platform technology.
  • Since it is not possible for bacteria cells to produce functional insulin on their own, we spun out a therapeutic use case where bacteria could otherwise “sense and respond”, for example in a pain relief patch.
               </br>Quote: </br>
  • “It is an impactful idea if the cells can sense and respond accordingly, in the context of therapeutics.”
           </div>
         </div>
       </div>