Difference between revisions of "Team:Manchester/HP/Silver"
Junyangong (Talk | contribs) |
Junyangong (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
<div class="read-more-target"><p>Throughout our discussion, we agreed that we would need to approach companies in the water industry to establish the feasibility of our project. In addition, discussion with Robert brought up the idea between innovation vs. cost for water treatment companies which we will have to consider if we are selling the technology to them. One interesting point that Andy brought up was to think about our project in a broader scale outside of iGEM and to think about product design. This challenges us to think about the project’s feasibility and how it will be implemented in a real world/business scenario.</p> | <div class="read-more-target"><p>Throughout our discussion, we agreed that we would need to approach companies in the water industry to establish the feasibility of our project. In addition, discussion with Robert brought up the idea between innovation vs. cost for water treatment companies which we will have to consider if we are selling the technology to them. One interesting point that Andy brought up was to think about our project in a broader scale outside of iGEM and to think about product design. This challenges us to think about the project’s feasibility and how it will be implemented in a real world/business scenario.</p> | ||
| − | <p>We also agreed on asking environmental agencies about regulations for genetically modified organisms and whether our solution would be ideal and viable to tackle eutrophication. Robert brought up the idea of creating a GMO legislation framework that future iGEM teams can contribute and use.</p> | + | <p>We also agreed on asking environmental agencies about regulations for genetically modified organisms and whether our solution would be ideal and viable to tackle eutrophication. Robert brought up the idea of creating a GMO legislation framework that future iGEM teams can contribute and use.</p></div> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 11:36, 1 August 2017
Exploring Human Practices 08/06/2017 & 20/06/2017
To start off with human practices, we talked with Dr. Robert Meckin and Dr. Andrew (Andy) Balmer to discuss and learn about Human Practices and the social implications of synthetic biology. From the start, we wanted to explore the possible areas where our project can be implemented which is in water treatment plants and also environmental agencies to tackle eutrophication.
Throughout our discussion, we agreed that we would need to approach companies in the water industry to establish the feasibility of our project. In addition, discussion with Robert brought up the idea between innovation vs. cost for water treatment companies which we will have to consider if we are selling the technology to them. One interesting point that Andy brought up was to think about our project in a broader scale outside of iGEM and to think about product design. This challenges us to think about the project’s feasibility and how it will be implemented in a real world/business scenario.
We also agreed on asking environmental agencies about regulations for genetically modified organisms and whether our solution would be ideal and viable to tackle eutrophication. Robert brought up the idea of creating a GMO legislation framework that future iGEM teams can contribute and use.
Interviewing an Expert - Water Innovation (Dr. Duncan Thomas) 05/07/2017
We wanted to understand the water industry further especially after Robert brought up an interesting point regarding innovation. We set out to interview Dr. Duncan Thomas from the Manchester Institute of Innovation that researches in water technology and innovation policies. From our interview, we learned a few important key points about the water industry:
1. The UK’s water companies are heavily privatized. Each company in the water industry is very different and thus, our technology will have to fit theirs on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in order to see the feasibility of our project, an analysis would need to be done on a case-by-case basis for each company.
2. Innovation in the water industry is quite hard, not always because of the costs but because of the way that companies prioritize things. For example, water companies will definitely prioritize in reaching the standard qualifications set by the government or other national authority. Therefore, a completely new innovation may not be appealing to them because it requires a huge investment of money and a restructure of their existing process. Rather, an innovation that increases the efficiency or solves the problem of an already existing technology within the company may be more attractive for them.
3. However, the reasons above may only apply to the UK, because the industry in the UK is more mature (have better technology/infrastructure already). Therefore, it would probably be better to pitch the idea in another country, where they will appreciate the arrival of new technology to meet their regulation standards.
4. The government’s role in water treatment is only in establishing standard regulations, but not necessarily in deciding the way to treat water.
5. Brexit is a huge uncertainty that may put off water companies from adopting new innovations. The current regulations for the water industry is the Water Framework Directive which is created by the EU. It is uncertain whether the new UK law will adopt the same regulations or create a new one. If they adopt the same existing regulation, not much will change. However, there is a possibility of higher standard regulations that will have to be prioritized and addressed before adopting any new technology.
In addition to these findings, Dr. Thomas also challenges us to think beyond the water industry and to come up with other business plans, such as selling our technology directly to the customers. These customers may be farmers that may appreciate our technology to take up phosphate from the rivers for fertilizers or other companies (chemical, agricultural) that treats their own waste water to save money (avoid “penalties” for untreated heavily polluted waste water).
Third Thing
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem!Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem! Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem!Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem! Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem!Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem! Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem!Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem! Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem!Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem! Libero fuga facilis vel consectetur quos sapiente deleniti eveniet dolores tempore eos deserunt officia quis ab? Excepturi vero tempore minus beatae voluptatem!
