Team:Queens Canada/Safety/FAQs
From 2011.igem.org
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
<a name="1d"> </a> | <a name="1d"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1>d. Risks to security through malicious misuse by individuals, groups or states?</h3green1> <br> |
<regulartext> | <regulartext> | ||
C. elegans is a low risk organism for malicious genetic manipulation for a variety of reasons. First, C. elegans is significantly more difficult to work with than a standard E. coli chassis. While E. coli can be engineered with a simple heat shock procedure, C. elegans requires expensive micro-injection equipment and highly trained injectors. Furthermore, C. elegans has never been known to pathogenic to humans, and would be more difficult to modify for such a purpose than a chassis like E. coli. which has well known pathogenic strains. That being said, the novel nature of the C. elegans chassis does carry some risks. C. elegans has been known to exist symbiotically with some bacteria. C. Elegans’ known harmlessness could be a bioterrorism advantage, with the worm acting as a carrier to deliver pathogens past biological detection systems. The worm is also more advanced than E.coli, and is able to access a significant genetic arsenal (via splicing, RNAi, etc.) that is barred from lower organisms. As an eukaryotic organism, the worm is also more robust than its bacterial counterparts. It is insensitive to antibiotics because reproductive nature gives it a greater genetic diversity than most bacteria. A pathogenic C. elegans would be significantly harder to kill than bacteria yielding the same genetic weapons. Regardless, we still think C. elegans is a low risk chassis. While its novel nature does confer some unique options for harmful purposes, a simple chassis like E. coli offers significantly more potential for such purposes . E. coli propagates more quickly, is simpler, and thus more easily manipulated than C. elegans. | C. elegans is a low risk organism for malicious genetic manipulation for a variety of reasons. First, C. elegans is significantly more difficult to work with than a standard E. coli chassis. While E. coli can be engineered with a simple heat shock procedure, C. elegans requires expensive micro-injection equipment and highly trained injectors. Furthermore, C. elegans has never been known to pathogenic to humans, and would be more difficult to modify for such a purpose than a chassis like E. coli. which has well known pathogenic strains. That being said, the novel nature of the C. elegans chassis does carry some risks. C. elegans has been known to exist symbiotically with some bacteria. C. Elegans’ known harmlessness could be a bioterrorism advantage, with the worm acting as a carrier to deliver pathogens past biological detection systems. The worm is also more advanced than E.coli, and is able to access a significant genetic arsenal (via splicing, RNAi, etc.) that is barred from lower organisms. As an eukaryotic organism, the worm is also more robust than its bacterial counterparts. It is insensitive to antibiotics because reproductive nature gives it a greater genetic diversity than most bacteria. A pathogenic C. elegans would be significantly harder to kill than bacteria yielding the same genetic weapons. Regardless, we still think C. elegans is a low risk chassis. While its novel nature does confer some unique options for harmful purposes, a simple chassis like E. coli offers significantly more potential for such purposes . E. coli propagates more quickly, is simpler, and thus more easily manipulated than C. elegans. | ||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
<div id="rightcontenttext"> <p><p> | <div id="rightcontenttext"> <p><p> | ||
<a name="2a"> </a> | <a name="2a"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1> <b>Specifically, are there any parts or devices in your project associated with:</b></h3green1> <p> |
- | < | + | <h3green1>a. Pathogenicity, infectivity, or toxicity?</h3green1> <br> |
<regulartext> No. </regulartext> <p> | <regulartext> No. </regulartext> <p> | ||
<a name="2b"> </a> | <a name="2b"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1>b. Threats to environmental quality? </h3green1> <br> |
<regulartext> No. </regulartext> <p> | <regulartext> No. </regulartext> <p> | ||
<a name="2c"> </a> | <a name="2c"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1>c. Security concerns?</h3green1> <br> |
<regulartext> No. </regulartext> <p> | <regulartext> No. </regulartext> <p> | ||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
<div id="rightcontenttext"> <p><p> | <div id="rightcontenttext"> <p><p> | ||
<a name="3a"> </a> | <a name="3a"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1><b>Under what bio-safety provisions will/do you operate:</b></h3green1> <p> |
- | < | + | <h3green1>a. Does your institution have its own biosafety rules and if so what are they? |
- | </ | + | </h3green1> <br> |
- | <regulartext> Queen's University has a very stringent set of bio-safety policies and rules. They are outlined <span class=" | + | <regulartext> Queen's University has a very stringent set of bio-safety policies and rules. They are outlined <span class="clasgreent"><a href="http://www.safety.queensu.ca/pol.htm#biopol">here</a><span>. <p> |
<a name="3b"> </a> | <a name="3b"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1><b>b. Does your institution have an Institutional Biosafety Committee or equivalent group? If yes, have you discussed your project with them? Describe any concerns or changes that were made based on this review. |
- | + | </h3green1> <br> | |
+ | <regulartext>One one of our Faculty Advisors, Dr. Kenton Ko, chairs the Queen's University Biohazards Committee while Dr. Chin-Sang is the Biology representative. </regulartext> <br> | ||
+ | <regulartext> When discussing the possibility of using the organism <i> Pseudomonas putida </i> in the lab because of it's unique abilities related to biodegradation, were informed by members of the Committee that this organism is a pathogen and a bio-safety level 2. As our labs are only cleared for bio-safety level 1, we took an alternative route and sought enzymes used by this bacteria. </regulartext> | ||
<a name="3c"> </a> | <a name="3c"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1>c. Will / did you receive any biosafety and/or lab training before beginning your project? </h3green1> <br> |
<regulartext> | <regulartext> | ||
- | We undertook WHMIS and Radiation training as part of our commitment to team safety. This training consisted of a variety of different readings on laboratory safety punctuated by tests to ensure we fully grasped the measures involved. </regulartext> <p> | + | We undertook WHMIS and Radiation training as part of our commitment to team safety. In addition, no member was allowed into the wet lab until a training session with the lab technician. This training consisted of a variety of different readings on laboratory safety punctuated by tests to ensure we fully grasped the measures involved. </regulartext> <p> |
<a name="3d"> </a> | <a name="3d"> </a> | ||
- | < | + | <h3green1>d. Does your country have national biosafety regulations or guidelines?</h3green1> <br> |
<regulartext> | <regulartext> | ||
- | Canada does have national biosafety regulations. They can be found <span class=" | + | Canada does have national biosafety regulations. They can be found <span class="classgreent"><a href="http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/blk-acb/lbg-ldmbl-eng.php">here</a><span>. <p> |
</regulartext> | </regulartext> | ||
<div id="goright"> | <div id="goright"> |
Revision as of 12:53, 28 September 2011
a. Risks to the safety and health of team members or others in the lab?
b. Risks to the safety and health of the general public if released by
design or accident?
c. Risks to environmental quality if released by design or accident?
d. Risks to security through malicious misuse by individuals, groups or states?
a. Pathogenicity, infectivity, or toxicity?
b. Threats to environmental quality?
c. Security concerns?
a. Does your institution have its own bio-safety rules and if so what are they?
b. Does your institution have an Institutional Biosafety Committee or
equivalent group? If yes, have you discussed your project with them?
c. Will / did you receive any biosafety and/or lab training before
beginning your project? If so, describe this training.
d. Does your country have national biosafety regulations or
guidelines?
a. How could parts, devices and systems be made even safer through biosafety engineering?