Overview

A new form of green energy, based on our production of conductive nanowires from harnessing an endogenous amyloid export system in E.Coli, will soon be paving the way towards renewable energy sources in commercial products and residences.

From the very beginning we have engaged politicians and professionals in the science community towards our research, in order to develop a wider understanding of how they conceive the use of our product in the real world and its success. As you browse through our policy and practices, you will come across the interviews we conducted with these professionals and the conclusions we were able to come to.

Our continuous efforts to reach out to the public were rewarded when the University of Kent invited us to present our findings at the Stacey Symposium, a public event where we were able to reach a large audience of esteemed lecturers, investors and alumni and explain to them the importance of our work within synthetic biology and the community. This led to us hosting a public workshop, where we were able to demonstrate our work and provide AFM demos to further engage the public.

From educating and engaging the public to interviewing politicians, our human practices and outreach work was fundamental to developing our research. With this said, you can find out more below.

Interviewing Politicians

Summary

Procedure and Rationales in contacting members of Parliament (MPs)

We started by finding a list of Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from the UK and selecting the ones that deal with energy, conservation, environment or industry. Our rationale in deploying such a strategy was because we felt that they are dealing with issues that are similar to the ones we are trying to solve with our iGEM project. We have also targeted MPs and MEPs of different parties, to see if their outlook on subjects like renewable energy sources differed. The list of MEPs to target is mentioned below.

We then drafted a letter containing 10 questions we wanted to ask them. Some of the questions were specifically about our project and others were more general, to gauge their views on synthetic biology. The letters along with the questions were sent to MEPs both by post and via email.

Besides targeting UK MPs and MEPs, we were also interested in gathering feedback from international politicians. Doing so will allow us to gauge the opinions and the different policies supported by Politicians in different countries.

While we have been successful in interviewing Franco Panizza (an Italian Senator, the same was not true with UK MPs or MEPs. We then learnt about the website WriteToThem.com to contact politicians from our local area. Local politicians are more concerned about what happens in their constituency and are more experienced with handling public complaints instead of dealing with policy planning. Nevertheless, we realized that it was still worthwhile in engaging local politicians in order to start a dialogue with them, to update them on what is happening in our lab/university and to probe whether they have ever handled any public complaints that were concerned about the energy issue. To this end, we managed to interview Terry Westgate (a local councilor of Canterbury).

One incident which could support our rationale was the recent rejection of the solar farm construction in Chailey, UK, where Maria Caulfield (a UK MP) has successfully campaigned against the solar farm due to the objection raised by her local constituents. It is interesting to point out that, the locals are not against renewable energy per se, but they are concerned about the location of the solar farm claiming that it will affect the view of their area.

We have encountered the issue of lack of responses from the MPs, with three of them replying that due to strict Parliamentary protocol, they could only reply to people living in their constituent (i.e. those with postcodes of the area where the MP is in charge). The advantage of using WriteTothem.com was that it allowed us to enter a postcode and the local MPs in charge of the area will be shown. We also bypassed the issue of how to address a local MP in the letter as the template is already pre-set by the website and all we had to do was write the content of the letter. As there are eleven of us in the team, it meant that we could collect different postcodes from everyone in order to contact politicians from few different constituencies.

Another problem that we have encountered was two of them replied that they do not possess the authority or knowledge to answer our questions. This is because only a very small percentage of politicians have science-related degrees or qualifications.

One would think this would make them more inclined to converse more with scientists, in an attempt to bridge the knowledge gap. Of course academics and other scientists don’t tend to associate with politicians a great deal either, so the divide is from both sides. In spite of the many “Sorry, I am unable to help” messages we received, we were able to get an interview with a local councilor only two weeks after contacting him. He answered some of our questions and also came to see the team at work in the lab.

How to get in contact with MPs

Our experience taught us to start contacting MPs early on. Many of the MPs have a busy schedule, therefore, the sooner you get in contact with them, the more time you allow them to prepare the answers when replying to you. In our experience, it can take up to three weeks for them to reply. Moreover, make your letter short and your questions shorter. As mentioned before, MPs lead a busy lifestyle; therefore, they are less inclined to answer if the letter is long. Keep your questions simple and short, if you would like to hear back from an MP.

Use WriteToThem.com if you want to bypass the problem of how to address MP, or to save time on researching who are your local MPs. The website also has the email addresses of the MPs so that you don’t have to go to the MPs’ personal website to scour for their contact details.

Collect postcodes from team members if you are hoping to target a large number of MPs as some politicians are subjected to strict Parliamentary protocol to reply only to their constituents (those living in the postcode of the area they are in charge of).

Last but not least, many MPs will feel that do not have the knowledge or the authorization to answer your questions. During the interview, assure them that it is a two-way relationship. While they might think they need an in-depth knowledge to answer questions related to a science project, remind them that we are learning about the policy makers’ point of view too, and that their opinions matter as they will guide scientists in experiment design or execution in the future.

What we could have done better

One thing we learned from this experience is that we should have aimed to contact the MPs early on in the process. We didn’t take into account the time frame that it would take for them to reply to us, and some said they will have a reply for us soon but for us it would have been too late as it is after the deadline. This was the case with Anneliese Dodd, MEP, however, we received her reply on the day of the deadline. We learnt that when it comes to face-to-face interviews, the MPs are more willing to share information as well as their contacts in order to provide us with more help. We were able to have more of a discussion than an interview and even go out of script and learn more. We were even able to show him around the lab and show him our work. This was exemplified by interview
with Terry Westgate, a local councilor of Canterbury.

When it comes to a written interview, as in the case for the Italian Senator, he was able to provide us with detailed answers. When we contacted him, he was given more time to prepare, as he only needed to answer the questions we sent him. The downside to this method was that we had to keep the number of questions short, as he would have been less willing to help us due to his busy schedule. The same applies for Anneliese Dodd.

Engaging with MPs is not difficult, if you approach it right. The most important lesson we learnt was that we should have contacted them earlier. Our approach was to contact as many MPs from different political parties in order to compare the different opinions we receive. However, those with who have not been involved within science were less persuaded to answer us. But that doesn’t mean that some weren’t willing to try. But overall, the interviews we were able to conduct taught us more about our research and approach, and provided us with enough information to improve upon our work.

Franco Panizza - Italian Senator

Profile
Franco Panizza is an Italian Senator and the leader of the PATT ( Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party). He graduated from the University of Padua with a degree in Forestal Sciences. For many years he was part of the government of the Trentino Province, which is autonomously governed since 1946, being an area of dispute between Italy and Austria before then. Senator Panizza’s values and political activities aim at the development in the Province while maintaing a strong bond to Trentino’s rich historical heritage. While in the Senate, he has been a member of a wide variety of Commisions, such as the Agriculture and Food Production Commission and the Land and Environment Commission.

Anneliese Dodds - MEP

Profile
The South East's Voice in Europe. She now sits on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and is a member of the Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect. She is also Chair of the Delegation to Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee.

Questions (Franco's interview has been translated from the original in Italian)

1) What role do you believe Synthetic Biology will play in the next 10 years?

Franco: In Italy, the role of Synthetic Biology in the next 10 years will strongly depend on its ethical implications. Personally, I am not very knowledgeable in the field of synthetic biology as I lack a full picture on the topic. In our Country, there is a strong feeling of the so-called “Frankenstein Syndrome”, which is the fear that scientific innovation could get out of hand or that scientists without ethics will bring chaos to the relationship between nature and humans. A lot will depend on this.

Anneliese: I think that synthetic biology could play a considerable role in the next 10 years. It is interdisciplinary, and could therefore have a great potential to change areas such as medicine and energy.

2) What are the implications and ethical dilemmas faced by synthetic biology- related technologies being introduced into the society? If generally negative, how can we overcome this? If generally positive, where is the room for improvement?

Franco: The public needs to be engaged. The debate needs to go beyond all the emotional bias, unlike how it too often happens in Italy when talking about themes such as synthetic biology. Everything needs to be put on the field, including risks, opportunities, possible developments and implications. Too often this has not been the case in Italy, because the scientific community here starts from the assumption that the technical concepts are too complicated for the majority of the population to understand.

Anneliese: I believe that there has been limited research into the ethical implications of synthetic biology, and I would want to see greater investigation into this area before synthetic biology related technologies were introduced into wider society. I would assume that many of the ethical implications would be similar to those around the area of GM. I think it’s also important to consider the safety implications of synthetic biology, especially the accidental or deliberate release of a harmful organism into the environment.

3) A large percentage of the current electronics are not renewable and contribute to growing volumes of e-waste. One of the components is copper and other non-renewable metals used in circuit boards. Our technology would replace these and allow for old circuits to be revamped. How much of an impact do you think this will have on the global e-waste production?

Franco: If all the ethical aspects have been cleared, meaning if there are no controversial implications, it is undeniable that your technology could have an important role. In the past few years in Italy, great focus has been brought on environmental sustainability. The planet should not consume more than nature can produce. If I remember, it is called environmental footprint.

Anneliese: I think that if this technology managed to reduce the amount of non-renewable materials involved, and could therefore reduce the amount of waste produced by this industry, it would have a positive impact.

4) The charging stations that we proposed would contain bacteria to produce the energy. What are your views on the matter?

Franco: At a first glance it is quite unsettling to think about. However, if the public would become knowledgeable about this idea, it could have a lot of potential.

Anneliese: I think this is a very exciting and innovative way of producing energy, which could, if developed, have the potential to reduce our over-reliance on non-renewable sources of energy.

5) What do you think will make this new technology, in terms of live bacteria producing energy, attractive to the general public?

Franco: To make the public accept this technology it is necessary that all the ethical implications are laid out, that it is proven to be safe and that if follows a principle of sustainable development.

Anneliese: If this technology could reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, in an affordable and reliable way, it could become popular and attractive to the general public.

6) Based on our research there are 8 potential nuclear power plant sites, of which only 5 are currently in development. We are planning to use one of the three available sites to cut down costs of establishing a new infrastructure. What are the main concerns, in your opinion, if we are planning to use this nuclear reactor site as a pilot plant for our project?

Franco: The main concerns are definitely safety and the public’s approval. In a Country such as Italy it will be remarkably hard to help the idea come across, mostly because of the lack of faith towards the government and public institutions in general. For example, consider for a moment the current debate on the return of nuclear power in Italy, or even the controversy surrounding the high-speed train in Piedmont. Any kind of complex public work will generate a great sense of fear. The population in Italy doesn’t trust in the ability of the government to manage these works, and at the same time there is also a lack of faith towards regulating the private sector.

Anneliese: I think it’s a good idea to try and save money, time and energy by not building a new infrastructure from scratch. However, I would have concerns about this technology essentially taking away the potential to develop a different form of power on that site, and I think there would have to be strong guarantees that the pilot project could generate a significant amount of energy.

7) In the upcoming Climate Change conference happening in Paris this December, what are the possible agendas that your political party will advocate for?

Franco: My party will advocate for anything that will promote sustainable developement. It appears that there is a growing awareness on this topics. For example, in July I lead a diplomatic mission in China and the authorities in Beijing reiterated their engagement. If this could head somewhere, it would definitely result in a historial change.

Anneliese: I am a member of the Labour Party, which is not currently in government in the UK. However, this does not stop us from calling on the Conservative government to push for tougher climate change targets in the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. We are concerned that the current plans will not be able to stop a 2 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures, and if we cannot stop the impact could be devastating. We will push for a net goal of zero net global emissions in the second half of this century, and for more ambitious European targets on reducing climate change.

8) Since funding for solar and wind energy is being reduced, is there a chance that funding could be allocated to the development of our technology given its potentials?

Franco: By always keeping track of any ethical implications, your technology could become a great opportunity for developement. However, to succeed, it will certainly need the cooperation from the public.

Anneliese: Decisions about this type of funding are made by the UK government, not MEPs, so I’m afraid I couldn’t tell you.

9) If our iGEM team's technology will be successfully applied in the society, what are the possible regulations that will be imposed in the energy industry?

Franco: For now it is difficult to predict. There are too many variables involved.

Anneliese: Once again, these regulations are likely to be decided by the UK government, not me. I also think that this technology is probably at too early a stage for it to be possible to see what regulations would be necessary to ensure the safety of the industry.

Terry Westgate - Canterbury City Councillor

Profile
Terry Westgate has been involved in politics and the Conservative party since 2006, and was elected as Canterbury City councillor for St. Stephens Ward in 2011. His many achievements include being Vice Chairman and Treasurer of the St Michaels’s Road Area, as well as being Chairman of the Friends of Westgate Parks and a member of the Student Community Working Group.


Questions

Raneem: My name is Raneem AlJaghoub and I just wanted to talk to you about synthetic biology, what our product is and about renewable energy and projects going on around the UK. First of all, I just wanted to ask you what projects you are involved in, as part of your work?

Terry: I’m a Canterbury city Councillor, and I represent St. Stephens ward in Canterbury, which is very close to the university, at the bottom of the Eliot footpath, do you know that area at all?

Raneem: Yeah, I think so

Terry: So, natural involvement in this type of project, or renewable energy or anything like that, I’m not very involved in that. I mainly deal with problems in my constituent, you know, deal with issues – what people have. But I ‘m very keen to be involved in things. For instance, there was a part I was reading, what you put in your letter, and you talk about introducing parts where people can charge their electronic equipment. I am involved with something with ‘Friends of Westgate’ parks, where I am chairman of Friends of Westgate parks, and sort of involved with parks and open spaces, which gets used very well by the public. So I can see the connection.

Raneem: That’s really good

Terry: As I said, I read a little bit, but I haven’t had much time to do much research on it.

Raneem: That’s ok. I’m an electronics engineer, so I wasn’t very familiar with the biological parts of this. This is just an unbiased opinion that we are looking for.

Terry: I did see something when I was reading, about E-Coli. One of my questions was going to be how safe is it?

Raneem: We’re using a non-pathogenic strain of E-coli, so basically its harmless.

Terry: So it is harmless.

Raneem: Yes. There’s no worry with that. I just wanted to ask you what is your outlook towards renewable energy?

Terry: Well, it’s the way to go. We’re exhaust of a lot of the fuel energies, coal and that sort of stuff. It used be coal at one time, but now you’ve got renewable energy with the wind farms, with some people for it and some against.

Raneem: Are you personally for or against?

Terry: I don’t know how effective they are. A lot of people say they are not really that effective. They are high maintenance and sometimes they are a block on the landscape. I haven’t made up my decision about whether I am one way or the other around that. Regarding panels on roofs, I think that’s a good one. Again, it doesn’t always look very nice sometimes.

Raneem: It’s not very visually appealing

Terry: No, they can spoil the look of a property and the state. And also, these fields they put them in with all these panels. And sometimes they graze sheep underneath them. I think that’s a good one.

Raneem: There are a lot of new renewable energy sources being developed and I think they are improving

Terry: I am not one for supporting fracking.

Raneem: Yeah there are a lot of mixed opinions about renewable energy. There is never a set answer.

Terry: That’s something I will not support, most probably fracking. It’s just a personal thing. I don’t think it’s doing any good to the Earth actually. I think one day it will go too far.

Raneem: The next question is about synthetic biology, which is just a standardization of biological parts and I was just wondering what roles do you think synthetic biology will be playing, within the UK, within the upcoming 10 years?

Terry: That’s something I never thought about before. I know we’re exploring different ways of doing things and it’s a good thing this research is going on. We wouldn’t be where we are today if we didn’t continue to research and move in different directions all the time. I would say there is a need to explore more and come up with new ideas.

Raneem: I know you don’t have much knowledge within synthetic biology, I was wondering what ethical dilemmas you think they introduce within the society?

Terry: I don’t think they’re particularly negative. Sometimes you have to explore these avenues, but overall I’m not a scientist; I know very little about this side of things. So it is interesting to find out what is being done. Everyone’s future is at stake and future generations will benefit from things you do. Sorry I can’t be more specific.

Raneem: it’s your opinion and everything, so it’s fine. Like I said there is no right or wrong answer here. You said you read about our project but I would like to summarise it. So we’re basically producing conductive nanowires that can be used in everyday products such as replacing metals used in conventional circuit boards. So we’re looking into going down that path with our product. One of them was using a portable charger powered by the bacteria. Would you be comfortable with that?

Terry: As long as its safe.

Raneem: Do you believe that there are any risks associated?

Terry: Well you just assured me about the e-coli

Raneem: So that was your main concern?

Terry: Yeah. I know there are issues sometimes like these chargers and that, there’s been problems with them overheating and causing fires. There is an element of risk. Also, the other thing is about people making copies and trying to copy. There again that causes a lot of problems. They cut cost. So whatever you do someone’s going to try and copy. S many things these days with all these branded items and the fakes out there. It’s a massive problem in the world.

Raneem: how do you think we should approach the public with our product? When we approach them we’re going to say our product is harmless. Do you think they will be acceptable?

Terry: I think that’s something that will need a lot of consultation.

Raneem: Like you said not many people are for renewable energy and some are for. Just the general publics opinion, how do you think we should approach with our product?

Terry: How do you see costs? Will it be more expensive or cheaper?

Raneem: We did research on that and we had a survey and asked people whether they would be willing to pay more or less. A lot of people said they would be willing to pay more if it was renewable energy. At the moment it might be more, cost wise.

Terry: As you progress I suppose you could reduce costs.

Raneem: Possibly yes.

Terry: The cost is always up when something new comes out, and then gradually as you develop it, it becomes cheaper and more people use it. It’s a case of making the public aware with good campaigning, advertising, consultations and public meetings.

Raneem: Another question about your opinion on our project, what do you think is appealing about it and what is unappealing?

Terry: Will it be less waste? I think there was an issue with a lot of these circuit boards disposing of them. If it were less waste it would be a very good thing. I don’t know what is exactly involved so it’s difficult to give an opinion sometimes. But when I look around the lab, I can get some ideas

Raneem: You will get to meet some of our biologists. They will be able to explain it better than me – I’m just the engineer. We were thinking if we were to build a bioreactor in Kent to meet the green house gas emission target would you personally approve of such an idea?

Terry: Is waste included? You know when you read about using waste vegetation?

Lee: Basically it’s a bioreactor where we grow these bacteria. We have to stress this bacteria is genetically modified, we have to insert this DNA for them to produce this nanowire. Would you have a concern? These bacteria can feed of waste product such as molasses waste product. If we were to build one in Kent what is your main concern?

Terry: Position and impact on the environment. I think there has been a lot of object to these ones, which use food waste. I don’t sit on planning committees. If there is another way of renewable energy that is worth exploring and doesn’t have too great an impact on the environment I think we may support it. If there is a great impact then it may not be worth the problems.

Raneem: I don’t know if you know about this but the government has also decided not to proceed with regulations to ensure households and new homes would be zero-carbon. Why is that?

Terry: I haven’t got a clue. I’m not involved with national and local policies. These decisions are made by people higher than me. I think we should look at carbon footprint and do what we can do. A lot of houses are built with solar panels and insulation to start with to save energy. I support that.

Raneem: My final question is what projects has the local council of Canterbury been involved in that involve renewable energy? Right now, there is the unibus which uses biofuel going around. What other projects are there? Or that you know of?

Terry: I know they monitor pollution on the roads

Raneem: How do they do that? Do you know?

Terry: Yes, they have monitors in certain parts of the city

Raneem: and they just collect the data

Terry: Yes, they have done quite a lot of monitoring. They have done a trial traffic scheme. Through the Westgate towers, which was a big issue, they stopped all the buses from going through the towers. Changed the traffic routes and people were against it. It improved some things and made some things worse than others. It didn’t work. And in the end the whole scheme had to be scrapped. They got a lot of data about pollution. It got better in some areas when they changed the routes and other areas got worse.

Raneem: There was no balance

Terry: No, but I do agree with the biofuel buses. I think they might increase their fleet later. That’s good.

Raneem: Do you know within the UK of projects going on?

Terry: From the top of my head, No. Too much of my time has taken up by local issues.

Lee: Has there been a lot of local complaints regarding renewable energy area or energy efficiency?

Terry: personally I don’t get complaints. I know a lot more people are getting solar panels. I think they have become more popular. The government did have a scheme at one time were they were encouraging people to insulate their houses more and offered an incentive to people.

Lee: Have you been following the UN Climate change conference that is about to happen?

Terry: No

Lee: Know of anyone who is going?

Terry: No

Raneem: We would like to thank you for taking your time and helping us out

Terry: I would be interested to be kept involved

Raneem: we have our wiki page, which we will keep updating. You can always follow us on our Instagram, Facebook and Twitter pages, which we keep constantly updating with information and what we are doing.

Watch Terry Westgate's Interview

Influencing Parliamentary Decision - POSTnote

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is Parliament's in-house source of independent accessible analysis of public policy issues related to science and technology. This provides overviews of research from across the biological, physical and social sciences, and engineering and technology. The best known format for these briefings are ‘POSTnotes’: summaries of public policy issues based on reviews of the research literature and they are peer reviewed by external experts. POSTnotes are often produced proactively, so that parliamentarians have advance knowledge of key issues before they reach the top of the political agenda.
The development of biological systems addressing global issues is breaking ground; this is a critical time to incorporate the presence of synthetic biology within the political framework. Our aim for writing this POSTnote is to get parliament to notice and recognize the impact synthetic biology can have on society. The document focuses on:

Climate change and the impact renewable energy can have on this issue

The potential of Synthetic Biology as a renewable solution in electronic manufacturing and in energy production.

The isolation between science and politics which is hindering factor in the growth of projects like the one we are proposing.

The reply showed that there is a quota on how many POST notes relating to Synthetic Biology can be published in a period. There is clearly a gap in understanding of Synthetic Biology between scientists and policymakers and the general public. And realizing this, the iGEM team Kent has proactively made effort to write to POST about this hoping that more public dialogues will be stimulated. Therefore, the question as to what is the best way to improve the public dialogue remains elusive and more efforts should still be done in this respect. And lastly, this incident also gives a realistic insight of the position of Synthetic Biology within the political agenda.

Looking at the responses, we can conclude that the question as to how best to engage the society on SynBio still remains elusive. However this gives an insight as to what is the position of SynBio within the political agenda.

Click here for the POSTnote

Public Workshop

In order to demonstrate our project to the general public of all ages, we ran a workshop showcasing our efforts. To make the session more interactive we had an AFM model, some pink plates and Congo red plates to show the growth of amyloid fibres due to the redness of the cells. Kids could play around with the AFM model we built. This was done a way that they could also appreciate the way the equipment worked to show our AFM images. During this workshop, we got a chance to further discuss safety measures that would be taken when using E.coli and reassure people that with the use of "kill switches" in our project would make it safe for everyday use.

Stacey Symposium

In September, the Biosciences department hosted the Stacey Symposium, a public event where we were given the opportunity to present our project to esteemed lecturers, investors, alumni and their families. During the event we were able to present our research to a wide range of audience and explain to them the importance of our work within synthetic biology. After the presentation, we had the chance to socialise with the attendees, and even receive constructive criticism towards our presentation as well as our research. This criticism was put into good use as we had the Westminster London Meetup the next day. We were able to improve our presentation based on the comments we were given and this prepared us for the questions we were asked after our Westminster presentations.

Survey

Our project focuses on producing conductive nanowires that can be used in everyday products, such as replacing the metals used in conventional circuit boards. So we designed and conducted an online survey to evaluate people’s opinion on renewable energy and our project. We aimed to ask questions which covered the economics aspect of renewable energy, as well as questions about the environment. To receive an unbiased range of answers, we published the survey on our different social media accounts, including Facebook, Twitter and on our Reddit account. We were also able to hand out copies of the survey during the Birkbeck London Meetup, the Stacey Symposium and the Public Workshop.

The following are the results from the survey. Although most of our participants were in a bioscience related field, we were also able to collect responses from people in an engineering related field, computer science and art. We split our survey into four categories.

Conductive nanowires

There are two questions relating to our project. The first question is based on applications for our project. From the results, the majority (30%) of the participants said they think charging stations in public places would be a successful, with 13% suggesting other including medical related applications.

The second question looked more specifically on using portable chargers powered by bacteria, with 83% of the participants saying they would be comfortable with using one.

Energy

There are five energy related questions that also focus on renewable energy. It was important to gauge people’s reaction towards renewable energy sources, as our conductive nanowires will provide an alternative source of energy. 81% of the participants said they were for renewable energy, with 78% saying it has a positive impact on the climate.

We also wanted to know which energy sources the participants deemed to be the worst and the best in terms of being environmentally friendly. The most popular energy source with 47% was solar energy for being the most environmentally friendly. The worst source of energy on the environment with 68% is fossil energy.

The last question looked into the production of energy. We asked the participants whether it was something they found themselves concerned with. 85% of the response was yes.

Economical Value

We asked only one question concerning the economical value for our product in comparison to other energy resources. This question is important in terms of allowing us to see where we place in the market. The majority vote of 27% said that our product should be cheaper on the basis of being a renewable energy source.
















Environment

The final two questions were based on the idea of scaling up our project. We asked the participants if they think our bacteria could be grown in a bioreactor to provide households with electricity, of which 78% said yes. 66% of the participants also believe building a bioreactor could have a positive impact on the town if it was placed in a non-populated area.















































What we achieved

The survey helped us evaluate many different aspects of the project. Based on the answers we received, we learnt that people would be in favour of using bacteria in products and believe if we were to scale up our technology it would provide a positive impact on the town. Moreover, when we handed out the surveys we received many remarks about the risks the participants associated with our project, of which included containment. Using this feedback, we were able to further research the use of a kill switch for the bacteria within our project.

Social Media

To engage the public and discover other iGEM teams to collaborate with, we created different accounts on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Reddit. We kept everything updated with our latest developments throughout the competition.

Below is a world map showing all the different iGEM teams we are contacted with through our social media accounts.