Difference between revisions of "Team:Cooper Union/Practices"

Line 56: Line 56:
  
  
−
<h3>Summer STEM Outreach
+
<h3>Summer STEM Outreach</h3>
  
 
<p> Every year, the Cooper Union hosts a summer STEM program for high school students.  Recently, this program started including a bioengineering section of high school students.  Since they were working only a few rooms over from us, we saw this as an opportunity to share our project and findings with the community.  So, we prepared a presentation for the high schoolers and allowed them to give us feedback and discuss our project.  This was a valuable experience for both the STEM students and for our igem team.</p>
 
<p> Every year, the Cooper Union hosts a summer STEM program for high school students.  Recently, this program started including a bioengineering section of high school students.  Since they were working only a few rooms over from us, we saw this as an opportunity to share our project and findings with the community.  So, we prepared a presentation for the high schoolers and allowed them to give us feedback and discuss our project.  This was a valuable experience for both the STEM students and for our igem team.</p>
Line 65: Line 65:
  
 
<h3>Bioethics Team Discussion</h3>
 
<h3>Bioethics Team Discussion</h3>
 +
<h2>Cooper Union 2015 iGEM Discussion the De Novo DNA synthesizer: Biosafety, Biosecurity, Copyright and Market Needs.<br />
 +
In Attendance: Keith Joseph, Ben Ma, Chris Lastihenos, Tushar Nichakawade, Susung Choi, John Song, Jean Lam<br />
 +
Moderator: Oliver Medvedik (instructor)<br />
 +
Background and topics for discussion: <br />
 +
</h2>
 +
Our focus this year was to continue working on and optimizing an enzyme based personal DNA synthesizer that would permit the fast, cheap and reliable de novo synthesis of DNA by end users. We decided to transcribe our many thoughts throughout the summer months into a more formal document that would be available to all. Specifically, we had three broad categories of questions that we wished to address, and if possible, implement into our device. We first dealt with getting the device to market and what, based on our personal experiences, was the “pain point” for the consumer that our device would address. The second question had to do with biosecurity and biosafety, namely, what, if any, safeguards should be in place in a device that would essentially be radically lowering the barrier to entry to synthetic biology. The last category touched briefly on intellectual property issues and having a device that can essentially synthesize any bit of DNA that you wanted.<br />
  
 +
<h2>Meeting Minutes:</h2>
 +
<u><h1>Market Needs</h1></u><br />
 +
<u>Oliver</u>: DNA synthesizers have been around for over 30 years, but they are relatively difficult to use and the reagents involved are noxious. We are making something that’s smaller, cheaper, and simpler to use. In what settings do we envision the device being used? Given these proposed settings, what advantages must the device possess in order to compete with present day DNA synthesis? If this device was ready to ship, who will purchase it and why?<br /><br />
  
 +
<u>Jean</u>: I anticipate that High schools would be one of our expected purchasers. Since they tend to have smaller budgets, a DNA synthesizer would fit their budget. More and more schools are getting into synthetic biology and synthesizing your own DNA, cheaply, would definitely be a cost savings. Also, small labs in general that need to generate a lot of DNA, such as start up companies.<br /><br />
  
 +
<u>Oliver</u>: The cost of G-blocks from Idtdna start from $89.99 for 125bp and up to $329.00 for 2000bp. Plus, you’d have to wait about a week. So would the suggestion be that our device could either a) cost about the same to synthesize DNA, but with faster obtained products, i.e. 24 hour turn around vs. 10 days or b) be significantly cheaper to synthesize DNA but with similar turnaround and still meet consumer needs. Ideally, of course, having DNA produced both more cheaply and quickly would be the eventual target.<br /><br />
  
 +
<u>Chris</u>: In the STEM 2015 program in Synthetic Biology that we taught this summer as part of our iGEM Outreach, we had students waiting over a week to get their DNA synthesized, thus significantly delaying their projects. Time was truly critical as the entire program only ran for 6 weeks. So a faster turnaround in time, even if the cost is not appreciably lowered, would still convert into a massive advantage.<br /><br />
  
 +
<u>Chris</u>: Thinking of price, we spent about a few hundred dollars on the hardware to build our initial prototype. Thus, the actual DNA-synthesizing device will probably cost as much as large DNA sequence that is synthesized commercially. It could pay for itself relatively quickly.<br /><br />
  
 +
<u>Oliver:  We should also consider that there are two halves to the hardware. The electronics and mechanical components, and the glass slides that house the reaction chamber. Currently, the glass slides are disposable. Either the slides would have to be reusable, or if disposable ones are made, we have to factor in their cost as DNA is being synthesized.<br /><br />
  
 +
<u>Tushar</u>: The cost is important when thinking about how we purchase primers and G-blocks. The concentrations that we obtain means that for us we have enough to last us for months. So on one hand, you can save money be having pre synthesized DNA for your class, but you are now limited with what you already have. By synthesizing DNA faster and more cheaply, the lab experience for students would be more meaningful as they would be able to design and implement their own sequences.<br /><br />
  
−
 
+
<u>Oliver</u>: Our first proof of concept is that everything is in one reaction chamber or well and then is subsequently amplified. Right now we have one well per slide, but if we scale it all down significantly we can have a slide, potentially, that has an array of hundreds or thousands of wells where different sequences can occur. This would be a factor of driving down cost.
 +
This device is open-source. We hinge on the reversible protecting groups. These nucleotides have to be purchased.<br />
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</html>
 
</html>

Revision as of 22:29, 18 September 2015

Cooper Union 2015 iGEM



Human Practices

Summer STEM Outreach

Every year, the Cooper Union hosts a summer STEM program for high school students. Recently, this program started including a bioengineering section of high school students. Since they were working only a few rooms over from us, we saw this as an opportunity to share our project and findings with the community. So, we prepared a presentation for the high schoolers and allowed them to give us feedback and discuss our project. This was a valuable experience for both the STEM students and for our igem team.

This presentation was useful for the STEM students because it gave them an idea of the type of work that is currently going on in biology research labs. It also showed them that the basic lab techniques they were learning could be applied to more advanced project ideas. We hope that this presentation sparked their interest and encouraged them to continue to pursue research projects in genetic engineering and biology.

This outreach also proved to be beneficial to us. Preparing a presentation on our project helped us organize the various parts of the project and improve our public speaking skills. After the presentation, we had a bioethics discussion with the students. Their feedback helped point out possible misuses of our device and what this could mean if it became readily available to the public. We followed up some of the issues they raised in our team ethics discussion. The discussion and presentation helped us improve our overall presentation while creating a memorable experience for both ourselves and the high school students.

Bioethics Team Discussion

Cooper Union 2015 iGEM Discussion the De Novo DNA synthesizer: Biosafety, Biosecurity, Copyright and Market Needs.
In Attendance: Keith Joseph, Ben Ma, Chris Lastihenos, Tushar Nichakawade, Susung Choi, John Song, Jean Lam
Moderator: Oliver Medvedik (instructor)
Background and topics for discussion:

Our focus this year was to continue working on and optimizing an enzyme based personal DNA synthesizer that would permit the fast, cheap and reliable de novo synthesis of DNA by end users. We decided to transcribe our many thoughts throughout the summer months into a more formal document that would be available to all. Specifically, we had three broad categories of questions that we wished to address, and if possible, implement into our device. We first dealt with getting the device to market and what, based on our personal experiences, was the “pain point” for the consumer that our device would address. The second question had to do with biosecurity and biosafety, namely, what, if any, safeguards should be in place in a device that would essentially be radically lowering the barrier to entry to synthetic biology. The last category touched briefly on intellectual property issues and having a device that can essentially synthesize any bit of DNA that you wanted.

Meeting Minutes:

Market Needs


Oliver: DNA synthesizers have been around for over 30 years, but they are relatively difficult to use and the reagents involved are noxious. We are making something that’s smaller, cheaper, and simpler to use. In what settings do we envision the device being used? Given these proposed settings, what advantages must the device possess in order to compete with present day DNA synthesis? If this device was ready to ship, who will purchase it and why?

Jean: I anticipate that High schools would be one of our expected purchasers. Since they tend to have smaller budgets, a DNA synthesizer would fit their budget. More and more schools are getting into synthetic biology and synthesizing your own DNA, cheaply, would definitely be a cost savings. Also, small labs in general that need to generate a lot of DNA, such as start up companies.

Oliver: The cost of G-blocks from Idtdna start from $89.99 for 125bp and up to $329.00 for 2000bp. Plus, you’d have to wait about a week. So would the suggestion be that our device could either a) cost about the same to synthesize DNA, but with faster obtained products, i.e. 24 hour turn around vs. 10 days or b) be significantly cheaper to synthesize DNA but with similar turnaround and still meet consumer needs. Ideally, of course, having DNA produced both more cheaply and quickly would be the eventual target.

Chris: In the STEM 2015 program in Synthetic Biology that we taught this summer as part of our iGEM Outreach, we had students waiting over a week to get their DNA synthesized, thus significantly delaying their projects. Time was truly critical as the entire program only ran for 6 weeks. So a faster turnaround in time, even if the cost is not appreciably lowered, would still convert into a massive advantage.

Chris: Thinking of price, we spent about a few hundred dollars on the hardware to build our initial prototype. Thus, the actual DNA-synthesizing device will probably cost as much as large DNA sequence that is synthesized commercially. It could pay for itself relatively quickly.

Oliver: We should also consider that there are two halves to the hardware. The electronics and mechanical components, and the glass slides that house the reaction chamber. Currently, the glass slides are disposable. Either the slides would have to be reusable, or if disposable ones are made, we have to factor in their cost as DNA is being synthesized.

Tushar: The cost is important when thinking about how we purchase primers and G-blocks. The concentrations that we obtain means that for us we have enough to last us for months. So on one hand, you can save money be having pre synthesized DNA for your class, but you are now limited with what you already have. By synthesizing DNA faster and more cheaply, the lab experience for students would be more meaningful as they would be able to design and implement their own sequences.

Oliver: Our first proof of concept is that everything is in one reaction chamber or well and then is subsequently amplified. Right now we have one well per slide, but if we scale it all down significantly we can have a slide, potentially, that has an array of hundreds or thousands of wells where different sequences can occur. This would be a factor of driving down cost. This device is open-source. We hinge on the reversible protecting groups. These nucleotides have to be purchased.