Team:Uppsala-Sweden/Biosafety

Biosafety - iGEM 2011 security key questions

1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of researcher safety, public safety or environmental safety?

Our system is designed to regulate gene expression in our host organism Escherichia coli by light. E. coli is probably the most studied and widely used prokaryote in the lab, and the modifications we do to our strain will cause a significant fitness loss, making the bacteria less likely to be competitive enough to survive outside the lab.

The laboratory we’re using is of Biosafety level 2 and meets the requirements of our experiments. Prior to the experiments, a safety regulation lecture was held. Afterwards, everybody signed a paper that they are aware of the safety regulations in the lab, such as what to do if a fire starts and where to put disposal waste.

After careful consideration we have decided not to use gloves in the lab unless necessary. First of all, gloves are not sterile. When wearing gloves you might touch something without realizing, which could then be spread in the lab unnoticed. Instead, we use disinfectant agents and wash hands regularly. Exceptions are made at times, such as when handling DNA loading dye and using strong acid and bases. Not using gloves is something we can do only because we know that our project is safe. Lab coats are always used. Furthermore, we make sure an instructor is always present in the lab to supervise us at all times.

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?

None of the BioBricks we use seemed to be dangerous when we looked them up in the [http://partsregistry.org/Main_Page Parts registry]. We didn’t find any indication that Acropora millepora, the coral from which we got our green (amilGFP) and blue (amilCP) output proteins, produces anything toxic, and these types of fluorescent proteins or chromoproteins have been widely used without showing any significant toxicity.

We have also reviewed the different methods and protocols used in our project, to see if there are any risks associated with any of them. We avoid using ethidium bromide in gel electrophoresis and use SYBR® Safe DNA gel stain instead. SYBR® Safe is more expensive but has been proven to show little or no toxicity.

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? If no, which specific biosafety rules or guidelines do you have to consider in your country?

There is no biosafety review board at Uppsala Univeristy. There is a group however, the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics (CBR), dedicated to ethical questions in the field of nature science. We had an appointment with Stefan Eriksson, a senior lecture of Research Ethics at CBR and one of the authors of [http://www.codex.vr.se/en/index.shtml CODEX], to discuss bioethical questions and whether our iGEM project raised any issues. Stefan Eriksson couldn’t see any ethical dilemmas with our project, but he advised us to contact the [http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?l=en&d=13210 Biosafety Committee] at Karolinska Institutet or [http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/in-english/ Smittskyddsinstitutet] (Swedish Institute for Communicable Disease Control) to get a certified review. The biggest threats in synthetic biology, according to Stefan Eriksson, are (1) dual usage, (2) Unintended consequences and (3) fear among the public.

We have contacted KI and SMI, still waiting for an answer.

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?

Team Uppsala-Sweden thinks that the most efficient way to improve safety would be raising awareness of threats, codes and dual use among researchers.