Difference between revisions of "Team:Oxford/Engagement"

Line 47: Line 47:
 
     <div id="collapse1" class="panel-collapse collapse in">
 
     <div id="collapse1" class="panel-collapse collapse in">
 
       <div class="panel-body">
 
       <div class="panel-body">
<h3>Aims</h3></br>
+
<p><h3>Aims</h3></br>
<p><ul><li>Understand how the genetic toggle switch works as an example of a synthetic biology system</li><li>Interpret a model of the circuit for the toggle switch built in iBioSim</li><li>Understand the importance of modelling in the context of the design test build cycle</li></br>
+
<ul><li>Understand how the genetic toggle switch works as an example of a synthetic biology system</li><li>Interpret a model of the circuit for the toggle switch built in iBioSim</li><li>Understand the importance of modelling in the context of the design test build cycle</li></br>
  
 
<h3>Resources</h3>
 
<h3>Resources</h3>
 
<p>xxxxxxxx</p></br>
 
<p>xxxxxxxx</p></br>
  
<h3>Activities>
+
<h3>Activities</h3>
 
<p>Before starting the simulation explain the toggle switch mechanism (Figure​ ​1​) to students e.g. A toggle switch is a circuit that allows switching of 2 stable states, much like turning on and off a computer. The switch is on when cells produce green fluorescent protein output, and is flipped between states by adding different on and off chemicals. The green fluorescence output is maintained even after the on and off chemicals are removed creating genetic memory.</p></br>
 
<p>Before starting the simulation explain the toggle switch mechanism (Figure​ ​1​) to students e.g. A toggle switch is a circuit that allows switching of 2 stable states, much like turning on and off a computer. The switch is on when cells produce green fluorescent protein output, and is flipped between states by adding different on and off chemicals. The green fluorescence output is maintained even after the on and off chemicals are removed creating genetic memory.</p></br>
  
 +
<center><img class="img-responsive" src="IMAGE 1" />
 +
<h6>Figure​ ​1:​ DNA circuit for genetic toggle switch</h6></center></br>
 +
<p>Run the model in stochastic and deterministic modes, and vary the GFP degradation rate and promoter strength to alter GFP output (Figures 2a – d).</p></br>
 +
<center><img class="img-responsive" src="IMAGE 2" />
 +
<h6>Figure​ ​2:​ Expected graphs a) Deterministic simulation b) Stochastic simulation c) Decreased GFP degradation rate d) Increased promoter strength</h6></center></br>
 +
<P>
 +
<B>Ask students the following questions:</B></br>
 +
Look at the graph a, can you see identify when the system is on and off? What happens
 +
when you add more on chemical when the system is on?</br>
 +
<i>Peaks. No change.</i></br>
 +
Compare the deterministic and stochastic models in graphs a and b? Which is better?</br>
 +
<i>The deterministic model is a simplification to ignore output fluctuations due to random
 +
collisions of molecules in the cell. The deterministic model is easier to identify trends but
 +
the stochastic is more realistic of the noise in a cell.</i></br>
 +
How could you modify the circuit to get greater output (greater fluorescence)?</br>
 +
<i>Increase promoter strength or decrease degradation rate of GFP modelled by graphs c
 +
and d.</i></br>
 +
Which of these introduces the most time lag?</br>
 +
<i>Decreasing degradation rate.</i></br>
 +
</p>
  
  

Revision as of 10:35, 1 November 2017


Education and Public Engagement

Introduction

Designing educational activities around synthetic biology is difficult because the field is new and interdisciplinary. Consequently there is a lack of standard principles and definitions, creating an enlarging division of knowledge between the general public and the synthetic biology community; this may foster generalisations and misconceptions. Bidirectional public engagement is necessary to help bridge this gap, and it was therefore a key focus of our summer.

Summer School Engagement

A major reason for the gap between the general public and the scientific community is a lack of exposure to synthetic biology in modern education. To accurately tackle this problem we based our activities on the learning objectives for MIT undergraduates training in synthetic biology (Figure 1). Importantly, we had to ensure that our activities were:

  1. Not generalised
  2. True to core synthetic biology
  3. Encouraging scientific thinking


Although there are some excellent secondary education tools available (e.g. Biobuilder), we found that many of these require extensive access to lab equipment and expensive resources, creating a barrier to use in teaching. Therefore, our designed activities are low cost, require minimal materials and do not assume lab access.


Figure 1: Main outcomes of synthetic biology education and activities we designed to fulfil these

Our Activities

We carried out workshops at 3 different summer schools in Oxford: Northwest Science (students aged 17-18 yrs interested a broad range of sciences), Oriel College summer school (students aged 13-14 yrs interested in medicine) and UNIQ (academically selected state school students aged 17-18 yrs from state schools interested in biochemistry).

To meet these outcomes we designed a variety of activities including: a genetic memory computer lab, a bacterial photography system worksheet, an ethical washing line activity, and a 'Design your own biosensor' activity. These activities have been formatted into lesson plans and printable resources, made publicly available for use by future iGEM teams. Each activity has a set of aims to ensure a directed learning approach.

Aims


  • Understand how the genetic toggle switch works as an example of a synthetic biology system
  • Interpret a model of the circuit for the toggle switch built in iBioSim
  • Understand the importance of modelling in the context of the design test build cycle

  • Resources

    xxxxxxxx


    Activities

    Before starting the simulation explain the toggle switch mechanism (Figure​ ​1​) to students e.g. A toggle switch is a circuit that allows switching of 2 stable states, much like turning on and off a computer. The switch is on when cells produce green fluorescent protein output, and is flipped between states by adding different on and off chemicals. The green fluorescence output is maintained even after the on and off chemicals are removed creating genetic memory.


    Figure​ ​1:​ DNA circuit for genetic toggle switch

    Run the model in stochastic and deterministic modes, and vary the GFP degradation rate and promoter strength to alter GFP output (Figures 2a – d).


    Figure​ ​2:​ Expected graphs a) Deterministic simulation b) Stochastic simulation c) Decreased GFP degradation rate d) Increased promoter strength

    Ask students the following questions:
    Look at the graph a, can you see identify when the system is on and off? What happens when you add more on chemical when the system is on?
    Peaks. No change.
    Compare the deterministic and stochastic models in graphs a and b? Which is better?
    The deterministic model is a simplification to ignore output fluctuations due to random collisions of molecules in the cell. The deterministic model is easier to identify trends but the stochastic is more realistic of the noise in a cell.
    How could you modify the circuit to get greater output (greater fluorescence)?
    Increase promoter strength or decrease degradation rate of GFP modelled by graphs c and d.
    Which of these introduces the most time lag?
    Decreasing degradation rate.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Image 1: Zoë C and John giving a presentation at the Northwest Science school at Corpus Christi College
Image 2: Chun, Jei, Alissa, Helen and Sumaera at the UNIQ summer school

Improvement through Feedback

Student feedback allowed us to refine our activities after each summer school session (Table 1). For example, we converted the TinkerCell computer based bacterial photography system activity into a paper based game so computer access was no longer needed, and we also developed a formalised ethical washing line workshop after finding students disengaged by an unstructured ethical discussion. In addition to workshops, Zoe F gave a university style lecture about synthetic biology and our project to students at the Northwest Science school.

School Positives Problems Modifications
Northwest School
  • One group had high engagement in the toggle switch lab, despite not choosing A level biology
  • One student chose to use the tinkercell computer aided design for their school extended project
  • The biosensor design was presented as an extension discussion and was very well received with some interesting designs including a bacterial geiger counter
  • The logistics of using the tinkercell program was difficult as laptops were limited, therefore students could not work independently
  • Due to lack of computer resources we had to create a paper based bacterial tinkercell circuit, which was just as well received in the other sessions
  • Originally the ethical discussion was left as an open discussion at the end of the session, however this was not well received and discussion were very general. As a consequence we decided to create a structured ethical washing line using real synthetic biology applications as case studies
  • Developed the biosensor design into a structured worksheet after the success of the extension activity
Oriel
  • The students creatively engaged with the biosensor design worksheet
  • Groups worked at different rates
  • Students struggled to conceptualise the toggle switch
  • Suggested discussion points on the worksheet so demonstrators could extend the activities if they had a particularly quick group
UNIQ
  • The students were highly engaged and discussed beyond the activities
  • Many students described the workshop as the highlight of the week
  • In the general question and answer session students had many general questions about synthetic biology
  • Timing was an issue with groups not completing all tasks within the set 2 hour time frame
  • Added timings of activities to the lesson plans

Curiosity Carnival

The Curiosity Carnival is an Oxford wide festival for researchers to share their research in innovative ways, as a part of the European Researchers' Night (NIGHT). The Oxford team were thrilled to be accepted in having an activities stand at this event. Our stand was in the centre of the city and attracted a diverse audience of more than 4500 members of the public, from young children to other researchers.

Image 3: Kushal, Angela, Sumera and Zoe C at the Curiosity Carnival

Our stand involved:

  • Poster display outlining facts about Chagas disease and our diagnostic solution
  • ‘Find-cruzi’ game to highlight the difficulty of identifying the parasite by microscopy of a blood smear
  • ‘E. coli pong’ game to explain transformation
  • Competition to design a biosensor from magnets on a white board
  • Voting on ethical scenarios
Image 4: Sumaera demonstrating our ‘E. coli - pong’ activity

iGEM UK Meet-ups

Engaging with other teams to share ideas and techniques is a vital component of iGEM: we were grateful to be able to attend the UK meet up jointly organised by the University of Westminster, UCL, and Warwick during which we gave Jamboree style poster and powerpoint presentation to other teams, providing invaluable preparation for Boston. The event was lots of fun and we appreciated the opportunity to meet, network and form collaborations with other UK teams.

Image 5: Our excellent speakers (Arthur and John) pose with Tom cruzi (complete with his own little tie) before they go in to give our presentation at the Shard
Image 6: UCL held a fantastic set of debates about synthetic biology, and our team members were very successful - here's Zoe F with their winning team, who argued in favour of using genetically modified organs
Image 6: At Westminster, Arthur talks through our poster with members of the UCL team

Social Media

We have worked hard to develop a solid and consistent social media presence across three platforms during our project. Our Instagram account has included regular updates on what the team was getting up to inside and outside of the lab, helping to promote a more well-rounded image of scientists, and also participating in tags such as #femalesinstem to display the gender diversity in our team. We have a high level of engagement for our Instagram posts, regularly reaching a variety of accounts including Oxford colleges, scientific institutions, and the general public. Our Twitter account keeps abreast of the important instagram and facebook posts, and is also key to engaging with other iGEM teams. The Oxford iGEM Facebook page has the biggest following of all our accounts, with over 1000 followers, and displays a range of posts from ‘Meet the Team’ to information about our outreach events and human practices. We have made sure to advertise any outreach we have been involved in across all platforms, such as the Curiosity Carnival and the UNIQ summer schools.

References

Kuldell, N. [Authentic teaching and learning through synthetic biology.], ''Journal of Biological Engineering.'', (2007)