| Line 340: | Line 340: | ||
</article> | </article> | ||
<article> | <article> | ||
| − | + | ||
<div class="division"> | <div class="division"> | ||
<div class="half"> | <div class="half"> | ||
| + | <h2> <span style="color:#39B54A"> Discuss of the impact of producing PLA </span> </h2> | ||
<p>In order to evaluate those impacts, the positive and negatives ones, we met with Claudia Mac Lean, in charge of the Sustainability Office of the Faculty. She let us to present our project to her pupils in the context of a Sustainable Project Workshop they have to do and she gave us some advice, like do a Life Cycle Assessment our ask us about the functionality of our plastic; will be use it to all things? What consequences could have this? This was useful to wonder us different question, for example:<br> </p> | <p>In order to evaluate those impacts, the positive and negatives ones, we met with Claudia Mac Lean, in charge of the Sustainability Office of the Faculty. She let us to present our project to her pupils in the context of a Sustainable Project Workshop they have to do and she gave us some advice, like do a Life Cycle Assessment our ask us about the functionality of our plastic; will be use it to all things? What consequences could have this? This was useful to wonder us different question, for example:<br> </p> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/62/UChile_Openbio_pag15_cycle.png"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/62/UChile_Openbio_pag15_cycle.png"> | ||
In Chile, little is known about Synthetic Biology. There is only one Chilean start’up (web page) really related to this area, and universities only began to participate iGEM since in 2012 Team UC_Chile.
To answer these questions, we developed a diffusion plan of this
methodology based on three activities:
Synthetic Biology is still little known in Chile but its numerous applications and its rapid development at international scale make it relevant to teach in educational institutions. Moreover, pupils are the future professionals of the country, so it is necessary to broaden young minds introducing Synthetic Biology, how it works and its collaborative vision. This would help forming responsible citizens.
Since this kind of activity was new for the high schools the team worked with, teachers helped with internal diffusion and they also invited other teachers and authorities of the institution.
To make sure all these concepts had been understood, the team organized a game in which the pupils had to find the word corresponfing to the projected picture and some sweets were given to the winners!
Right after this game the pupils were asked what they thought about the genetic modification of living beings...and the conversation reached the topic of Super Heroes and improved human beings!
The practical activity was based on analogies between the genetic parts of biological systems and the different standardized parts of the game, as it is shown in the picture below.
Pupils had to assemble promotors, RBS, coding sequences and terminators, represented by pieces of different colours and lengths, and make the modules interact between them with pieces of wool. This way, they could represent events like activation or inhibition of a promotor and production of a protein. Activation, inhibition and production were symbolized by green, red and white threads, respectively.
The goal was to make the pupils collaboratively find solutions to the exposed problems, which difficulty grade increased as the workshop progressed. The workshop can be downloaded here. The team also elaborated an electronic glossary to make sure that the concepts wouldn’t be forgotten after the activity.
As it was the first time that such an activity was implemented, the team asked for students and teachers feedback, in order to improve the pedagogical material for the next collaboration with an educational institution.
If you are interested in knowing more about how the activity was received, here you can read some comments and see a video recorded at the end of the last activity. If you want to see more photos, please visit our gallery.
We want to thank the two high schools we worked with, for the coordination of the activity and the opportunity they gave us to make the pupils discover this new method: Synthetic Biology. We particularly thank the diffusion of the activity on the website of the high schools. Here you can see the article written on the websites of Colegio Mariano de Schoenstatt, and Colegio La Maisonnette.
We also particularly want to thank the Chilean National Commission of Cooperation with UNESCO, which provided us its support to realize this activity through a letter (download here)
Last year, for the first time, was implemented an optional course of Synthetic Biology in the Engineering Faculty, that everyone from the different Departments could take. As it was planned to open the course this year too, two members of the iGEM team decided to be part of the teaching staff, to re-design and improve the first version of the course, taking advantage of the experience gained with iGEM and including the open source philosophy.
To do that, we used all the social networks we had and the institution diffusion channels, designing a poster and several short posts that showed the connection that synthetic biology has with Engineering. Moreover, the team organized an activity opened to the entire Faculty, in which the teacher could talk about the course and answer the questions pupils had. The team made an introduction to Synthetic Biology with an activity very similar to the workshop realized in high schools. Even so, very few people registered the course. Twelve people came to the activity realized in the Faculty and 5 registered the course. However we felt we were giving birth to something that could impact the Faculty, so the motivation to design the course is still intact.
Considering the different projects of OpenBio-UChile, it appeared they would have more impact if they came from an organization bigger than a Faculty Organized Group. That’s why we joined an initiative launched by a professor from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Fernán Federici aiming to gather people from different Chilean Universities and related to Synthetic Biology into a global organization which could be a Foundation or NGO.
At the date, the organization is composed of members from three universities, the majority coming from the University of Chile since many students are part of OpenBio-UChile. This initiative was born in March, 2015 and the members met every month to define what would be the objective of the organization, its activities and the ways we could diffuse them.
We are a non-lucrative, collaborative and open source organization, pioneer in promoting Synthetic Biology development in Chile to establish a continuous diffusion and education and generate tools about this technic. Centralizing information about Synthetic Biology and diffusing it through a Web platform will enable us to reach a large spectrum of Chilean society.
To convert into the most relevant organization for the Open Access to knowledge about Synthetic Biology in Chile.
This will be the first organization of that type in Chile which could centralize information about Synthetic Biology and constantly diffusing it through a Web platform in an open data way. Also, it is consisted of members of different universities and disciplines, where each one has diverse skills which can complementary, permitting sharing, collaborating and technological development faster. Also, we think creating a perdurable organization in the time would have a bigger impact, in long term, compared to different activities performed by iGEM Teams year to year.
Since the idea of our project had born talking with the Fab Lab of the University of Chile, as mentioned in the atritubution section, on conception idea. We presented our project to the director of the Fab Lab, who wrote us a letter of inquiry.
We also went to talk with Andres Briceño, co-founder of the Santiago Fab Lab, to make our project cross the frontier of the University and see if there was a real need or interest for biological PLA. There, we discovered other ways to use PLA, since in this Fab Lab they combine PLA with other biodegradable materials such as wood to make composite materials and help the technology to reach the market. Indeed, if PLA is quite used to build prototypes, product designers don’t like working with it because plastic products are not as attractive as wood products, for instance. So the idea of mixing PLA with a more “esthetical” material such as wood allows a friendly design for many objects, which makes composite PLA a good candidate for new 3D-printed products. Moreover, composite PLA can have better mechanical properties than PLA according to the material it is mixed with, and can last more than 2 years without losing its biodegradable properties, which allows a wider range of uses.
When we presented our project, Andres Briceño agreed that although costs can vary a lot according to the country of origin, it is expensive to buy PLA. He added that if we could demonstrate our fabrication process is cheaper than the current ones, the project would turn very attractive for many digital fabrication laboratories, for he gave us his support at the end of the visit, signing us another letter of inquiry.
We reached the Government through the Ministry of the Environment, which manifested its interest through a letter of inquiry, in which it recognizes the importance of “the fabrication of biodegradable materials which implies fewer possible impacts on the environment.
In order to evaluate those impacts, the positive and negatives ones, we met with Claudia Mac Lean, in charge of the Sustainability Office of the Faculty. She let us to present our project to her pupils in the context of a Sustainable Project Workshop they have to do and she gave us some advice, like do a Life Cycle Assessment our ask us about the functionality of our plastic; will be use it to all things? What consequences could have this? This was useful to wonder us different question, for example:
After analyse and discuss this question our principal discussions and conclusions were: A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) would bring us a lot quantitative information about our project, because could us to know the specific impact in term of equivalent CO2 (carbon dioxide) generation . Nevertheless, we knew LCA late in the project so we didn’t have the necessary time to do this quantitative analyse because we should look for all input and output of CO2 of each stage of our system which is complex.
We infer PLA can degrade to lactate that could enter into metabolic cycle of anaerobic bacteria, generating CH4 (methane) and/or CO2 . This condition with no oxygen could be found it at typical landfills so in a hypothetical situation where PLA would be established in our society (it means we would use PLA instead of fossil plastic) huge amount of PLA could aggravate the global warming (due to greenhouse gases) . Nevertheless, a controlling degradation of PLA would permit take advantage of CH4 gene- ration to produce energy if it is combusted and would help reduce the effects of climate change. If we implemented our project in long term we would promote cultivation of macroalgae which could contribute to economic development of Chile. Also, macroalgae don’t require arable land, fertilizer or fresh water resources and is a renewable resource , so it is a better alternative than corn cultivation. Nevertheless, a Chilean regulation of macroalgae uses should be constantly checked to avoid overexploitation and imbalance of natural ecosystem where macroalgae live.
We think one advantage of using macroalgae it we could make a close-cycle; it means macroalgae would consume environmental CO2 generated in the PLA production process, allowing global reduction of CO2. In the case of fossils plastic this wouldn’t occur due to fossils plastic are made of fossil combustible which positively contribute to global CO2 amount if they are partially degraded or combusted .
On the other hand, the big problem of fossil plastic is it accumulation . For example, if we suppose a constantly production of the same amount of PLA and PET (a fossil plastic), after 5 years, it would expect find a higher amount of PET than PLA due to a percentage of PLA should be degraded in the first two years . But if PLA had a short degradation time, we guess people maybe would replace it more frequently, so higher amount of PLA product could be thrown away and maybe accumulation rate could be higher than degradation rate. We think this kind of trade off should need further analysis to evaluate the real impact of uses of PLA. According to functionality of PLA, we recommend it to products which will have a short life-time (<2 years), for example plastic glasses or bags. Contrarily, to products that need a long life-time, for examples piping, big structures, it would be appropriate to remain using fossils plastic. On the particular case of medical use, we think PLA should be used like suture, because sutures need to be degraded in a short time [ref suture].
