Difference between revisions of "Team:Oxford/HP/Silver"

Line 2: Line 2:
  
  
−
<div class="column full_size">
+
<html>
−
 
+
<style>
−
<h1>Silver Medal Human Practices</h1>
+
hr {
−
<p>iGEM teams are leading in the area of Human Practices because they conduct their projects within a social/environmental context, to better understand issues that might influence the design and use of their technologies.</p>
+
    display: block;
−
<p>Teams work with students and advisors from the humanities and social sciences to explore topics concerning ethical, legal, social, economic, safety or security issues related to their work. Consideration of these Human Practices is crucial for building safe and sustainable projects that serve the public interest. </p>
+
    height: 1px;
−
<p>For more information, please see the <a href="https://2017.igem.org/Competition/Human_Practices">Human Practices page</a>.</p>
+
    border: 0;
 +
    border-top: 1px solid black;
 +
    margin: 1em 0;
 +
    padding: 0;
 +
}
 +
</style>
 +
<body>
 +
<div class="container">
 +
<h1 class="text-center">Overview</h1>
 +
<h2>Choosing a diagnostic track</h2>
 +
<p>Attending a Royal Society conference (Synthetic Biology: Does industry get it?) at the start of our project highlighted the diversity of synthetic biology applications, however we were particularly excited by the medical applications. We reviewed the conference for our general university newspaper to explain synthetic biology through examples to a non-science specialist readership. You can read the article here. Understanding of the current medical application of synthetic biology, combined with the results of our initial survey of the public, where more than half of the 200 surveyed wanted a synthetic biology solution for disease diagnosis, guided our initial diagnostics track choice.</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
 
+
<div class="container">
−
<div class="clear"></div>
+
<div class="row">
−
 
+
<div class="col-sm-3">
−
<div class="column half_size">
+
−
<h3>Silver Medal Criterion #3</h3>
+
−
<p>Convince the judges you have thought carefully and creatively about whether your work is safe, responsible and good for the world. You could accomplish this through engaging with your local, national and/or international communities or other approaches. Please note that standard surveys will not fulfill this criteria.</p>
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
 
+
<div class="col-sm-9">
−
<div class="column half_size">
+
<img class="img-responsive" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e6/T--oxford--hp_silver--img8.png"></img>
−
<h5>Some Human Practices topic areas </h5>
+
<h6>Image 1: The team at the Royal Society conference in London</h6>
−
<ul>
+
−
<li>Philosophy</li>
+
−
<li>Public Engagement / Dialogue</li>
+
−
<li>Education</li>
+
−
<li>Product Design</li>
+
−
<li>Scale-Up and Deployment Issues</li>
+
−
<li>Environmental Impact</li>
+
−
<li>Ethics</li>
+
−
<li>Safety</li>
+
−
<li>Security</li>
+
−
<li>Public Policy</li>
+
−
<li>Law and Regulation</li>
+
−
<li>Risk Assessment</li>
+
−
</ul>
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
 
−
 
−
<div class="column half_size">
 
−
<h5>What should we write about on this page?</h5>
 
−
<p>On this page, you should write about the Human Practices topics you considered in your project, and document any special activities you did (such as visiting experts, talking to lawmakers, or doing public engagement). This should include all of the work done for the Silver Medal Criterion #3. Details for your Gold medal work and/or work for the two Human Practices special prizes should be put on those specified pages.</p>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
−
 
−
 
−
<div class="column half_size">
 
−
<h5>Inspiration</h5>
 
−
<p>Read what other teams have done:</p>
 
−
<ul>
 
−
<li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:Dundee/policypractice/experts">2014 Dundee </a></li>
 
−
<li><a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:UC_Davis/Policy_Practices_Overview">2014 UC Davis </a></li>
 
−
<li><a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Manchester/HumanPractices">2013 Manchester </a></li>
 
−
<li><a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Cornell/outreach">2013 Cornell </a></li>
 
−
</ul>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
<div class="container">
 +
<h2>Dialogue with experts, stakeholders and industry informed our decision to focus on acute congenital Chagas disease</h2>
 +
<p>Further research focused us on neglected tropical diseases (NTD) because this is where we felt our diagnostic would have most impact (FINDdx, 2015). Chagas disease was chosen after identification of the cruzipain protease as a potential unexplored disease biomarker. Many other parasitic diseases use specific proteases in their infection mechanism giving scope for the development of an adaptable modular diagnostic device with common input and output modules by variable cleavage sequence.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>However, literature search and communication with experts researching the use of cruzipain as a drug target exposed the difficulty of quantifying a cruzipain blood concentration due to variable parasite concentration (Emilio Malchiodi, personal communication) making it difficult to ascertain our expected output through modelling. In response to this we designed a split protease based amplification system to increase sensitivity of our detector circuitry. </p>
 +
<p>A PLOS analysis (Albert Picado, 2017) identified a point of care test for congenital Chagas disease as the number one need in Latin America and priority for the world health organisation and ministry of health, despite being lower priority for researchers, therefore we decided to tailor our design to a congenital diagnostic to meet this unmet need (Table 1). Currently there is a 10 month wait for children born to infected mothers for diagnosis, missing the critical window for detection when parasite concentrations are highest a few weeks after birth due to the unsuitability of antibody based rapid diagnostic tests and lack of medical infrastructure (PATH, 2016).</p>
 +
<table class="table table-hover">
 +
<thead>
 +
<tr>
 +
<th>Problem</th>
 +
<th>Our Solution</th>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tbody>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>Lack of medical infrastructure in the worst affected areas compromising follow up and results distribution</td>
 +
<td>A rapid point of care test optimised through modelling</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>Antibody based tests cannot be used due to presence of maternal antibodies</td>
 +
<td>A non-antibody based test</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>Blood smear analysis requires training, and PCR tests specialised equipment</td>
 +
<td>A simple test that does not require specialised equipment or medical training using blood clotting as a visible output</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</tbody>
 +
</table>
 +
<h6>Table 1: Evaluation of key problems producing demand for a congenital diagnostic and how our kit seeks to solve these</h6>
 +
<h2>Surveys to Latin American Teams</h2>
 +
<p>3 Latin America teams (AQA_Unesp, Amazonas, and TEC CEM ) kindly translated and distributed surveys to help us understand public perception and acceptance of our diagnostic kit design. 441 people were surveyed in total, and these results informed our decisions to develop a test to be carried out in a medical facility rather than a home test (<b>Figure 1</b>). 28% and 14% of those surveyed were uncomfortable with use of bacteria living in and being used in production of our device, therefore synthetic biology is an acceptable approach.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="container">
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-sm-2">
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-sm-10">
 +
<img class="img-responsive" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/3/31/T--oxford--hp_silver--img9.png"></img>
 +
<h6>Figure 1: Selected results from our surveys to Latin America teams</h6>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
 +
  
−
 
+
</body>
−
 
+
 
</html>
 
</html>

Revision as of 11:15, 29 October 2017


Overview

Choosing a diagnostic track

Attending a Royal Society conference (Synthetic Biology: Does industry get it?) at the start of our project highlighted the diversity of synthetic biology applications, however we were particularly excited by the medical applications. We reviewed the conference for our general university newspaper to explain synthetic biology through examples to a non-science specialist readership. You can read the article here. Understanding of the current medical application of synthetic biology, combined with the results of our initial survey of the public, where more than half of the 200 surveyed wanted a synthetic biology solution for disease diagnosis, guided our initial diagnostics track choice.

Image 1: The team at the Royal Society conference in London

Dialogue with experts, stakeholders and industry informed our decision to focus on acute congenital Chagas disease

Further research focused us on neglected tropical diseases (NTD) because this is where we felt our diagnostic would have most impact (FINDdx, 2015). Chagas disease was chosen after identification of the cruzipain protease as a potential unexplored disease biomarker. Many other parasitic diseases use specific proteases in their infection mechanism giving scope for the development of an adaptable modular diagnostic device with common input and output modules by variable cleavage sequence.

However, literature search and communication with experts researching the use of cruzipain as a drug target exposed the difficulty of quantifying a cruzipain blood concentration due to variable parasite concentration (Emilio Malchiodi, personal communication) making it difficult to ascertain our expected output through modelling. In response to this we designed a split protease based amplification system to increase sensitivity of our detector circuitry.

A PLOS analysis (Albert Picado, 2017) identified a point of care test for congenital Chagas disease as the number one need in Latin America and priority for the world health organisation and ministry of health, despite being lower priority for researchers, therefore we decided to tailor our design to a congenital diagnostic to meet this unmet need (Table 1). Currently there is a 10 month wait for children born to infected mothers for diagnosis, missing the critical window for detection when parasite concentrations are highest a few weeks after birth due to the unsuitability of antibody based rapid diagnostic tests and lack of medical infrastructure (PATH, 2016).

Problem Our Solution
Lack of medical infrastructure in the worst affected areas compromising follow up and results distribution A rapid point of care test optimised through modelling
Antibody based tests cannot be used due to presence of maternal antibodies A non-antibody based test
Blood smear analysis requires training, and PCR tests specialised equipment A simple test that does not require specialised equipment or medical training using blood clotting as a visible output
Table 1: Evaluation of key problems producing demand for a congenital diagnostic and how our kit seeks to solve these

Surveys to Latin American Teams

3 Latin America teams (AQA_Unesp, Amazonas, and TEC CEM ) kindly translated and distributed surveys to help us understand public perception and acceptance of our diagnostic kit design. 441 people were surveyed in total, and these results informed our decisions to develop a test to be carried out in a medical facility rather than a home test (Figure 1). 28% and 14% of those surveyed were uncomfortable with use of bacteria living in and being used in production of our device, therefore synthetic biology is an acceptable approach.

Figure 1: Selected results from our surveys to Latin America teams