Our opinion about Biosafety

We think that in biosafety activities it has critical importance to enlighten researchers on microbiological techniques. There are many physical types of equipment to prevent biological hazard (biohazard) but it is researchers who make use of them. We should keep in mind that heavy dependence on physical equipments causes us to forget essence of safety. Of course we don’t deny necessity of physical equipments. Needless to say, Technique, Equipment, Facility are the indispensable three elements in practice of biosafety.

What we’ve done on biosafety issues

Safety Key Questions

1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
   1. researcher safety,
      • Roughly speaking, our project tries to create E.coli moving quickly, searching for enemies and destroying them. We think one and only one potential threat in our project is that we use a killer gene, holin-endolysin, for destroying. But the killer gene has an effect only on bacteria. So we think researchers handling it are safe.
   2. public safety,
      • As described above, E.coli with which we are working hardly causes any human health problems. In addition, our experiments are done carefully to minimize probability of any release of engineered E.coli.
   3. or environmental safety?
      • Although we are trying to minimize the risk, it is obvious that “zero” is impossible. But engineered E.coli hardly survives outside of culture fluid. Moreover, there is a measure to dealing with release of our E.coli. We think aTc (anhydrotetracycline) is a candidate for stopping power for it because aTc kills it by exploiting the killer gene. So we think that the risk of release of it is small enough.
        
        
2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? If yes,
   1. did you document these issues in the Registry?
   2. how did you manage to handle the safety issue?
   3. How could other teams learn from your experience?
      • No. We use BioBrick parts already managed. We merely combine them in desired combination which will have no hazardous functions caused by accidents (e.g. through mutation).
        
        
3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
   1. If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project?
   2. If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?
      • Yes. Our project is permitted by the head of Department of Biological Sciences of Tokyo Metropolitan University.
        Masami Sugamata, a committee member of Biomedical Science Association (BMSA) which is NPO aiming in particular to promote activities related to preventive medicine in Japan, gives us technical advices if necessary.
        
        BMSA http://www.npo-bmsa.org/eindex.html
        
        
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?

   • Eliminating a man-made disaster
     
     In genetic engineering, including iGEM activities, there is essential “unpredictability”. It means “not under control completely”. This is the reason why all iGEM teams have to think seriously about biosafety and risk assessment (clearly, things not in under control are not safe).
     
     Now it is noteworthy that Human activity is one of the most unpredictability things. At this point of view, it is not exaggeration to say that the most dangerous factor is researchers in laboratory! Moreover it is often overlooked that even researchers sometimes lack knowledge about biosafety and risk assessment.
     
     So we believe that it is worth opening a brief workshop in which each iGEM members can get basic knowledge about baiosafety and risk assessment.