Integrated Human Practice
Discussion with Cell Product Purification Experts
Meeting with Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer, General Manager of BIBITEC GmbH
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/d/d6/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--YKE_Meeting_with_Luetkemeyer.jpeg)
Figure 1: Meeting with Prof. Dr. Lütkemeyer.
Prof. Dr. Dirk Lütkemeyer (BIBITEC GmbH) and team member Yannic during a meeting at the Center for Biotechnology. A detailed discussion provided us with useful advices and opinions about our elution technique and purification column.
Meeting with Dr. Benjamin Müller, CEO of Biofidus AG
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/d/d0/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--YKE_meeting_with_benjamin_biofidus.jpg)
Figure 2: Meeting with Dr. Benjamin Müller
Meeting of Yannic Kerkhoff with Dr. Benjamin Müller at his office on the 6th September to discuss the light-induced elution technique.
Meeting with Prof. Dr. Thomas Noll and Ole Weigelt
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/parts/2/20/T--Bielefeld-CeBiTec--YKE_meeting_with_noll_weigelt.jpg)
Figure 3: Meeting with Prof. Dr. Thomas Noll and Ole Weigelt
Group picture after a fruitful meeting about possible marketing and commercialization strategies for our EluX technology.From left to right: Yannic Kerkhoff (), Prof. Thomas Noll (co-founder of Xell AG), Ole Weigelt (co-founder of Xell AG, lawyer and tax consultant) and Christopher Whitford.
Both experts pointed out how multifaceted our concept is, as it includes basic molecular biology, cell development, photometry, linker design, cleavage kinetics and media optimization. Eventually, Mr. Weigelt and Prof. Noll advised us in testing the range of wave lengths and light intensities suitable for the cleavage of the target protein without harming either the target protein or the affinity tag. We thus started some investigations into how the UV-light could potentially harm our proteins.
To be decided
Investigation of Public Reception of Synthetic Biology
1. Attitudes towards synthetic biology The participant’s attitude towards synthetic biology was assessed with 10 questions (e.g. “The risks synthetic biology harbors are uncontrollable”) using a 6-point Likert-scale [1] ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely” with an “I don’t know” option.
2. Perceived dangers of synthetic biology The perceived dangers of synthetic biology in comparison to possible dangers rooting from other sources were assessed with eight scenarios on a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from “very unsafe” to “very safe” with an “I don’t know” option. Four of those scenarios involved synthetic biology (e.g. “Incorporation of non-natural components into the DNA of a bacterium”), the other four were unrelated (e.g. “A several hours-long commercial flight overseas”).
4. Previous experiences with synthetic biology The participants’ previous experiences were directly assessed by asking whether or not they have gotten in contact with this topic. If that was the case, they were asked to state the origin of their experiences (e.g. “profession”, “volunteer work”, “politics”).
5. Definition of life The participants’ definition of “life” was assessed by asking them to choose one out of four different possible definitions of “life”, which were coded philosophical, scientific, religious, or judicial. Afterwards, participants were asked on a five-point scale to what extent the chosen definition fits their personal definition. If the definition did not or did hardly fit, participants were asked to write down their own definition of “life”.
6. Attitudes towards artificial life The participant’s attitude towards artificial life was assessed with six questions using a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely” with an “I don’t know” option (e.g. “life is life – it does not matter whether its origin is artificial or natural”)
7. Evaluation whether certain forms of life are natural or synthetic Participants’ opinion on what is natural and what is synthetic life was assessed by six scenarios (e.g. “a bacterium engineered in the lab”) with the options “natural life” “artificial life”, “no life at all” and “I don’t know”.
8. General attitudes towards our project After a two-sentence description of our iGEM-project, participants were asked in three questions whether our project was safe, meaningful, and whether or not – if the participant had the opportunity to decide – it could proceed. Options were “yes”, “no”, and “I don’t know”.
9. Demographics Lastly, participants’ age, gender, education, and profession were assessed to further contextualize results.
Nagoya-Protocol
The “Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity” entered into force on October 12th, 2014 in Nagoya. It is an international environmental agreement to implement the objectives of the 1993 UN Convention on biological diversity: “the fair and equitable sharing of benefit arising out of the utilization of genetic resources” [2]. Especially developing countries which often have a manifold biodiversity are affected by bio piracy. The Nagoya Protocol intends to ensure that these countries at least profit financially or non-financially by the resulting research and products of their genetic resources. In addition to access to genetic resources, it covers traditional knowledge concerning these resources. Contracting countries are bound to take action to guarantee informed consent prior to any course of action as well as impartial benefit-sharing, respecting local laws as well as customary use and exchange.
Today, 100 countries signed the Nagoya Protocol [3]. To succeed, every partner nation should establish ABS National Focal Points, competent national authorities, legislative administrative, national databases and checkpoints for information.
Germany signed the Nagoya protocol on July 20th, 2016. Our donor of the isoG-metabolism-pathway is Croton tiglium, which is a herb in traditional Asian medicine. Its original occurrence is in the Asian region. To make sure we do not infringe the Nagoya Protocol regulations, we clarified the origin of our plant as we got it from the botanical garden of the Phillips University Marburg. Croton tiglium is originally from an undocumented old stock of the botanical garden Giessen. In 1986, the botanical garden Marburg received seeds from this stock. The date on which the EU regulation entered into force was October 2014. All resources collected before this date are not subject to reporting requirements of the Nagoya Protocol in Germany. Thomas Greiber (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Head of Division Div I 1.4 “Competent National Authority for the Nagoya Protocol”) confirmed “[..]Therefore, the respective areas of application are not touched by this EU-regulation, and the mentioned regulations are not relevant.”
Therefore, we are allowed to work with the plant and publish information and results about gene sequences and metabolism pathways without violating applicable law.