"
Team:Yale/Safety
From 2011.igem.org
(→Safety) |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
==Safety== | ==Safety== | ||
| - | + | Biosafety: | |
| + | |||
| + | 1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Researcher Safety: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Our laboratory is certified for Biosafety Level 1 work and Biosafety Level 2 work. Our work fell within the BSL-1 domain, as indicated per Center of Disease Control guidelines. All students working in the laboratory were required to complete the following set of training tutorials, including passing a test at the end. | ||
| + | |||
| + | http://www.yale.edu/ehs/onlinetraining/BiosafetyPart1/BiosafetyPart1.htm | ||
| + | http://www.yale.edu/ehs/onlinetraining/BiosafetyPart2/BiosafetyPart2.htm | ||
| + | http://info.med.yale.edu/chemsafe/ | ||
| + | www.yale.edu/ehs/onlinetraining/hazwaste/chemicalwaste.htm | ||
| + | |||
| + | All materials were used in accordance with local, national, and Yale's Biosafety requriements. Standard lab practices were followed, including secondary containment of chemicals, proper storage of volatiles and flammables, and separation fo acids and bases. Nitrile gloves were worn at all times within the lab. Double nitrile gloving was used when handling ethidium bromide, a toxic chemical and suspected mutagen. A pipet was kept exclusively for ethidium bromide use. We obtained SYBR Safe to stain DNA in August, which is safer than ethidium bromide. Fume hoods were used when handling volatile compounds, concentrated acids and bases, and other reagents. Inhalation and skin contact was avoided. Chemical agents were properly disposed of in designated biohazard waste bins. When UV light was used to visualize gels or GFP, a UV-blocking shield was used. Absolutely no food was allowed in the lab. | ||
| + | |||
| + | E. coli and C. elegan strains used in our experiments were not pathogenic. E. coli were decontaminated with a dilute chlorox bleach solution. Anti-freeze proteins are non toxic, and are even found in some commercial ice-creams! All biological waste was stored in autoclave bags and were autoclaved prior to disposal. Sharps and broken glassware were disposed of according to institutional guidelines. Hazardous liquid waste was clearly labeled, and stored in secondary containment for disposal by the institution. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Public Safety: | ||
| + | |||
| + | We do not anticipate threat to public safety. Organisms that we worked with are all non-pathogenic. They are likely unable to survive outside of the lab environment. Biomaterials were disinfected with chlorox and autoclaved after use. We did not use gloves to touch doors outside of the laboratory to avoid others coming into contact with our chemical and biological agents. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Environment: | ||
| + | |||
| + | The risks of environmental harm were mitigated by following the above protocols. Hands were washed before and after leaving the laboratory. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Our new biobricks consist of novel and previously well characterized anti-freeze proteins. These are non-toxic proteins, and some antifreeze proteins are even used in food additives. Bacterial strains are non pathogenic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Our project was overseen by the Yale Biological Safety Committee and the Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS), as well as the Yale Animal Resource Center. Our project has been approved as consistent with Yale's safety regulations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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? | ||
Revision as of 00:51, 3 September 2011
1. Based on our experimental design, our project can be categorized as fairly low-risk. With highly experienced graduate and faculty advisors guiding us, the probability of significant safety issues or random error was largely diminished. In addition, our iGEM project did not involve working with any infectious host organisms or chemicals. We also carefully engineered our systems, so that if one or several bioparts changed their function or stop working as intended, then consequences would be minimized. Thus, with low hazard and low probability, our project overall had low safety risks.
2. Our BioBrick submissions do not pose any sort of significant safety issues.
3. Yale University has its own institutional review board, and our project underwent rigorous scrutinization from a range of faculty members in the Molecular Biochemistry and Biophysics Department. We received approval from all overseeing groups.
4. In terms of general safety issues, our team believes that the best case practice is comprehensive documentation. With more detailed and better characterized parts, synthetic biology can be an extremely controlled and safe experience, even for young undergraduate researchers!
| You can write a background of your team here. Give us a background of your team, the members, etc. Or tell us more about something of your choosing. | File:Yale logo.png 200px |
|
Tell us more about your project. Give us background. Use this is the abstract of your project. Be descriptive but concise (1-2 paragraphs) |  Your team picture |
| Team Example |
| Home | Team | Official Team Profile | Project | Parts Submitted to the Registry | Modeling | Notebook | Safety | Attributions |
|---|
Safety
Biosafety:
1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
Researcher Safety:
Our laboratory is certified for Biosafety Level 1 work and Biosafety Level 2 work. Our work fell within the BSL-1 domain, as indicated per Center of Disease Control guidelines. All students working in the laboratory were required to complete the following set of training tutorials, including passing a test at the end.
http://www.yale.edu/ehs/onlinetraining/BiosafetyPart1/BiosafetyPart1.htm http://www.yale.edu/ehs/onlinetraining/BiosafetyPart2/BiosafetyPart2.htm http://info.med.yale.edu/chemsafe/ www.yale.edu/ehs/onlinetraining/hazwaste/chemicalwaste.htm
All materials were used in accordance with local, national, and Yale's Biosafety requriements. Standard lab practices were followed, including secondary containment of chemicals, proper storage of volatiles and flammables, and separation fo acids and bases. Nitrile gloves were worn at all times within the lab. Double nitrile gloving was used when handling ethidium bromide, a toxic chemical and suspected mutagen. A pipet was kept exclusively for ethidium bromide use. We obtained SYBR Safe to stain DNA in August, which is safer than ethidium bromide. Fume hoods were used when handling volatile compounds, concentrated acids and bases, and other reagents. Inhalation and skin contact was avoided. Chemical agents were properly disposed of in designated biohazard waste bins. When UV light was used to visualize gels or GFP, a UV-blocking shield was used. Absolutely no food was allowed in the lab.
E. coli and C. elegan strains used in our experiments were not pathogenic. E. coli were decontaminated with a dilute chlorox bleach solution. Anti-freeze proteins are non toxic, and are even found in some commercial ice-creams! All biological waste was stored in autoclave bags and were autoclaved prior to disposal. Sharps and broken glassware were disposed of according to institutional guidelines. Hazardous liquid waste was clearly labeled, and stored in secondary containment for disposal by the institution.
Public Safety:
We do not anticipate threat to public safety. Organisms that we worked with are all non-pathogenic. They are likely unable to survive outside of the lab environment. Biomaterials were disinfected with chlorox and autoclaved after use. We did not use gloves to touch doors outside of the laboratory to avoid others coming into contact with our chemical and biological agents.
Environment:
The risks of environmental harm were mitigated by following the above protocols. Hands were washed before and after leaving the laboratory.
2. Do any of the new BioBrick parts (or devices) that you made this year raise any safety issues?
Our new biobricks consist of novel and previously well characterized anti-freeze proteins. These are non-toxic proteins, and some antifreeze proteins are even used in food additives. Bacterial strains are non pathogenic.
3. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution? If yes, what does your local biosafety group think about your project?
Our project was overseen by the Yale Biological Safety Committee and the Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS), as well as the Yale Animal Resource Center. Our project has been approved as consistent with Yale's safety regulations.
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?
