Difference between revisions of "Team:Groningen/Collaborations"

Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Groningen}}
 
{{Groningen}}
 
<html>
 
<html>
−
Science is rarely a one (wo)man job and usually requires people with different backgrounds to work together to solve the challenges encountered. iGEM is no different. To encompass this spirit the iGEM 2017 Groningen team strives to work together with multiple teams on different aspect of our project and hopefully further strengthen connections and collaborations within the iGEM community. To encompass this we joint forces with other teams on multiple aspects of our project:
+
 
−
</div>
+
<style>
 +
#single-col{width: 800px; padding-left: 2px; padding-right: 2px; margin:0 auto;}
 +
#place-holder{width: 100px; height:100px; background-color:white;}
 +
 
 +
</style>
 +
 
 +
<body>
 +
 
 +
<div id="single-col">
 +
 
 +
<h1 style="text-align:center;">Collaborations</h1>
 +
 
 +
<p class="left">
 +
Science is rarely a one man/woman job and usually requires people with different backgrounds to work together to solve the challenges encountered. iGEM is no different. To encompass this spirit the IGEM 2017 Groningen team strives to work together with multiple team on different aspect of our project and hopefully further strengthen connection.
 +
</p>
 +
 
 
Scientific collaborations:
 
Scientific collaborations:
−
1. To further develop & establish Lactococcus lactis as a chassis in iGEM we collaborated with the iGEM team of Sao Paulo. We sent them protocols since we have a lot of in house experience with working on lactis. This helped us  
+
 
−
2. To help the Nottingham team we tested their E.coli RFP fluorescence in our lab to provide an independent control measurement. The results as well as the protocol can be found here: link
+
<ol>
−
3. NAWI-Graz: Our friends from Austria are developing a bioelectronic interface controlled by bacterial GFP-expression. They have developed a software to validate part of their experiments. iGEM Groningen has worked together with them to design mazes and therefore improve the functionality and identify flaws in the design.  
+
<li>
 +
To further develop & establish Lactococcus lactis as a chassis in IGEM we collaborated with the IGEM team of Sao Paulo sending them protocols since we have a lot of in house experience with working on lactis. This helped us.
 +
</li>
 +
<li>
 +
To help the Nottingham team we tested their E.coi RFP fluorescence in our lab to provide an external control.
 +
</li>
 +
<li>
 +
NAWI-Graz: Our friends from Austria are developing a bioelectronic interface controlled by bacterial GFP-expression. They have developed a software to validate part of their experiments. iGEM Groningen has worked together with them to design mazes and therefore improve the functionality and identify flaws in the design.
 +
</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 
 +
 
  
 
Human practices:
 
Human practices:
−
1. Virtual meet up Vilnius-Lithuania, Abu Dhabi (with follow up discussion)
 
−
We presented our project designs to each other and critically debated their feasibility as well as implementation of the final product. This helped us gain insight into possible experimental flaws. Abu Dhabi is also working on designing a cartridge, so their engineering input was much valued in improving our cartridge. We held a follow up discussion to update on the progress achieved and get advice on the challenges met. We had a few issues with cloning and got some input that helped us get our construct from Vilnius. We hoped our input also improved on their design.
 
−
2. Virtual meet up – ethics, Oslo, Graz, Zurich, lund, upsalla
 
−
Team Uppsala moderated a discussion together with Oslo, Graz, Zurich and Lund about the ethical implications of our projects. We tried to answer the following questions
 
−
    a) Uncontrolled Release. Can we anticipate how our Genetically Engineered Machine (GEM) would behave if released? What would be ideal conditions to grow and could they
 
−
        potentially be met? Can we anticipate any interactions with any form of wildlife? What would be ideal conditions to grow and could they potentially be met?
 
−
    b) Misuse. Can we think some steps ahead and imagine a potentially harmful usage with our open-source GEM?
 
−
        The whole conversation was live streamed and can be found (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOuFtJZxDf0 here- hyperlink)
 
−
3. BENELUX meetup
 
−
    a) The BENELUX teams were invited to meet and present their ideas and receive critical feedback from other teams, experts in the field and an iGEM HQ representative. Teams also
 
−
        participated in workshops to immerse ourselves in the shareholders perspectives and debate safety issues. The meeting was hosted by the Wageningen team.
 
−
        https://www.facebook.com/pg/iGEMWageningen/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1418519451527561
 
−
4. EUROPEAN meetup (pic)
 
−
5. Sweaty Photo Challenge – Alto-Helsinki (pic)
 
−
6. Tolerance Photo Challenge – Technion – Israel (pic)
 
−
  To highlight the diversity and tolerance in our team we participated in the Tolerance photo challenge in conjunction with Technion, Isreal (photo)
 
−
7. Little snazzy man (Flat Stanly) – Caroll High school
 
−
  Caroll High school got inspired for their collaboration by the book “Flat Stanley by Jeff Brown. A bulletin board falls on Stanley, he survives but is now flat. His altered form
 
−
  comes with some perks though, such as being able to slip under doors or being mailed to California to meet his friends. Caroll HS also made a flat Stanley and mailed it to us,
 
−
  this time being a microbe. We welcomed it to our lab and made it an honorary team member.
 
−
8. Online meet up over fermentation factories – SCUT-FSE- China
 
  
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>
 +
Virtual meet up Vilnius-Lithuania, Abu Dhabi (with follow up discussion)
 +
We presented our project designs to each other and critically debated their feasibility as well as implementation of the final product. This helped us gain insight into possible experimental flaws. Abu Dhabi is also working on designing a cartridge, so their engineering advice was appreciated and contributed to improving our cartridge. We held a follow up discussion to update on the progress achieved and get advice on the challenges met. We had a few issues with cloning and got some help that enabled us to get our construct from team Vilnius. We hoped our input also improved on their design.
 +
</li>
 +
<li>
 +
Virtual meet up – ethics, Oslo, Graz, Zurich, lund, upsalla. Team Uppsala moderated a discussion together with Oslo, Graz, Zurich and Lund about the ethical implications of our projects. We tried to respond to the following questions:
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>
 +
Uncontrolled Release. Can we anticipate how our Genetically Engineered Machine (GEM) would behave if released? What would be ideal conditions to grow and could they potentially be met? Can we anticipate any interactions with any form of wildlife? What would be ideal conditions to grow and could they potentially be met?
 +
</li>
 +
<li>
 +
Misuse. Can we think some steps ahead and imagine a potentially harmful usage with our open-source GEM?
 +
</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</li>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li></li>
 +
</ol>
  
 +
 +
</div>
 +
</body>
 
</html>
 
</html>

Revision as of 18:03, 14 October 2017


Collaborations

Science is rarely a one man/woman job and usually requires people with different backgrounds to work together to solve the challenges encountered. iGEM is no different. To encompass this spirit the IGEM 2017 Groningen team strives to work together with multiple team on different aspect of our project and hopefully further strengthen connection.

Scientific collaborations:
  1. To further develop & establish Lactococcus lactis as a chassis in IGEM we collaborated with the IGEM team of Sao Paulo sending them protocols since we have a lot of in house experience with working on lactis. This helped us.
  2. To help the Nottingham team we tested their E.coi RFP fluorescence in our lab to provide an external control.
  3. NAWI-Graz: Our friends from Austria are developing a bioelectronic interface controlled by bacterial GFP-expression. They have developed a software to validate part of their experiments. iGEM Groningen has worked together with them to design mazes and therefore improve the functionality and identify flaws in the design.
Human practices:
  1. Virtual meet up Vilnius-Lithuania, Abu Dhabi (with follow up discussion) We presented our project designs to each other and critically debated their feasibility as well as implementation of the final product. This helped us gain insight into possible experimental flaws. Abu Dhabi is also working on designing a cartridge, so their engineering advice was appreciated and contributed to improving our cartridge. We held a follow up discussion to update on the progress achieved and get advice on the challenges met. We had a few issues with cloning and got some help that enabled us to get our construct from team Vilnius. We hoped our input also improved on their design.
  2. Virtual meet up – ethics, Oslo, Graz, Zurich, lund, upsalla. Team Uppsala moderated a discussion together with Oslo, Graz, Zurich and Lund about the ethical implications of our projects. We tried to respond to the following questions:
    1. Uncontrolled Release. Can we anticipate how our Genetically Engineered Machine (GEM) would behave if released? What would be ideal conditions to grow and could they potentially be met? Can we anticipate any interactions with any form of wildlife? What would be ideal conditions to grow and could they potentially be met?
    2. Misuse. Can we think some steps ahead and imagine a potentially harmful usage with our open-source GEM?