Team:Queens Canada/Safety/FAQs
From 2011.igem.org
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
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. | ||
</regulartext> | </regulartext> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div id="goright"> | ||
+ | <span class="classgreen"><a href="https://2011.igem.org/Team:Queens_Canada/Intro/Team#top">back to top</a><span> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 06:12, 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?