Team:Harvard/Safety

From 2011.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 17:00, 13 July 2011 (view source) WClerx (Talk | contribs) (→Key Questions) ← Older edit		Revision as of 17:03, 13 July 2011 (view source) WClerx (Talk | contribs) (→Key Questions) Newer edit →
Line 2:		Line 2:
	=Biosafety=		=Biosafety=
	==Key Questions==		==Key Questions==
-	For iGEM 2011 teams are asked to detail how they approached any issues of biological safety associated with their projects. Specifically, teams should consider the following questions:
	#Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:		#Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
	#*researcher safety,		#*researcher safety,

---

Revision as of 17:03, 13 July 2011

Biosafety

Key Questions

1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
   • researcher safety,
     • The only significant source of concern for researcher safety raised by our project is the use of ethidium bromide (EtBr), a known toxin and mutagen, in our gels. This being noted, however, direct contact with EtBr can be avoided by proper observance of safety precautions by all. In order to minimize accidental contact with ethidium bromide, we have designated a specific bench where ethidium bromide can be handled.
     • The laboratory strain of E. coli used is non-pathogenic and therefore not a threat to researcher safety. We have conferred antibiotic resistance to our E. coli, but because these strains are unlikely to survive in human intestines, this resistance is unlikely to become problematic.
   • public safety, or
     • Our project harbors no significant public safety concerns.
   • environmental safety?
     • No environmental safety concerns.
   • Note: We are conducting our project in a Biosafety Level 1 (BL1) envrionment
2. 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?
     • At this time we have not currently finalized plans for our BioBricks. At this point, our projected BioBricks do not pose any notable safety concerns. However, we reserve the right to add/edit our BioBricks until iGEM final deadlines restrict this process, so please check in at a later date for the most up-to-date information!
3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
   • Why yes, there is!
   • If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project?
     • They love it! Just kidding- actually, we are currently waiting to talk to them regarding this
   • If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?
     • N/A
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?
   • In response to questions posed on the 2011 iGEM Safety Page, synthetic biology often seems to be perceived in the public eye as a double-edged sword. While advancements in synthetic biology hold many potential benefits, the risks—real or imagined—posed by many synthetic biology-based technologies can, and have, scared people away from investment in or application of such methods. Take for instance, gene therapy. While one school of thought holds that gene therapy is the foundation of a new wave of personalized pharmaceuticals that will revolutionize modern medicine, the same technologies employed in medical gene alterations raise new ethical questions: for instance, where do we draw the line between personalized medicine and personalized life? The potential to "customize" the genome, far-fetched or far-off as it may seem, opens another door in the already-complex realm of modern bioethics.
   • ###

Biosafety @ Harvard

http://www.uos.harvard.edu/ehs/biosafety/