Safety

1. Safe lab work

Lab Training and Adherence to Safety Rules:

Each member of the Aalto-Helsinki team has successfully completed safety training, consisting of two comprehensive theoretical courses and one practical in-person laboratory safety course. This prerequisite is strictly enforced by both Aalto University's School of Chemical Engineering and the University of Helsinki's Viikki Campus lab. Adherence to these regulations is obligatory for all individuals seeking access to the respective buildings.

Throughout the project, safety was our top priority, and our training covered essential topics such as

• Emergency Procedures: We were well-versed in emergency protocols, equipping us to respond quickly and effectively to any unexpected situation.
• Waste Management: Our team was committed to recycling waste and responsibly disposing of biological waste and lab consumables by following the established guidelines of both universities.
• Chemical, Fire, and Electrical Safety: Strict adherence to safety measures in handling chemicals, fire prevention, and electrical safety ensured a safe working environment.
• Biosafety Levels: We learned the differences between biosafety levels, enabling us to adapt our practices to the appropriate safety standards.
• Biosafety Equipment: Knowledge and proper use of biosafety equipment contributed to our efforts to maintain a safe lab environment.
• Lab Rules and Personal Protection: We strictly followed lab rules, and wore protective gear during laboratory work.
• Responsible Individuals and Equipment Access: We were aware of the designated responsible individuals, such as lab technicians, and had access to a comprehensive list of lab equipment instructors.

Personal Protective Equipment

According to Aalto and Helsinki Universities regulations, lab workers must wear personal protective clothing, including lab coats, goggles, and nitrile gloves for low safety-concern projects.

Lab Facilities

During the project, our team conducted laboratory experiments at two distinct facilities: the GMO Biosafety Level 1 lab of the Chemical Engineering Department lab at Aalto University, and the Viikki Campus Biosafety 2 lab of the University of Helsinki. This strategic division of work allowed us to ensure compliance with appropriate safety levels throughout the research.

At the University of Helsinki, our research was centered around the cultivation of strains of Rhodococcus opacus and Pseudomonas putida for the production of biomass. In this controlled environment, we used open benches, biosafety cabinets, and chemical fume hoods to facilitate our research. The utilization of these well-equipped and appropriate laboratories allowed us to carry out our research accurately and to the highest safety standards.

2. Regulatory Compliance and Considerations for Plastic Recycling and GMOs in Finland

As a Finland-based team, we uphold the highest standards of regulatory compliance when it comes to plastic recycling for food production. Our practices align with the EU regulations, including Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, which ensures the general safety requirements for food contact materials, including recycled plastics.

The Gene Technology Act (377/1995) in Finland regulates the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with a focus on promoting safe and ethical gene technology development. It aims to protect human and animal health as well as the environment during the contained use or deliberate release of GMOs. The Act is based on EU Directives 2001/18/EC and 2009/41/EC.

According to the Gene Technology Act, our project is classified as either Class 1 or Class 2 under Contained Use of Genetically Modified Organisms. Class 1 activities have little to no risk and require Level 1 containment, and Class 2 has a low risk and requires Level 2 containment. We follow the appropriate safety measures to handle genetically modified organisms responsibly and safely during our research.

3. Specific Risks

In our project, we work mostly with BSL1 organisms such as Rhodococcus opacus and Escherichia coli, but we have also Pseudomonas putida, which is classified as a BSL2 organism in Finnish culture collections. These microbes are internationally listed as low-risk organisms, and we strictly avoid any specific risks involving animal use, gene drive, or human experimentation. Our primary focus centers on plastic recycling and producing protein biomass within the laboratory setting, a process thoroughly verified computationally.

Throughout our project, we have maintained strict protocols to ensure that the produced protein biomass is never released into the environment or subjected to consumption by humans or animals. We are committed to safety and ethical considerations, and we remain dedicated to promoting sustainable practices while upholding high standards of safety and responsible scientific conduct.

4. Communicating about safety aspects

During the project, we engaged in thoughtful discussions with a bioethicist, where we discussed critical issues related to the use of synthetic biology for plastic waste management and alternative protein production. The following key questions were discussed:

1. Exploring Potential Risks and Benefits

We wanted to understand the potential risks and benefits associated with using synthetic biology for these specific purposes. A thorough examination of these aspects was essential to making informed decisions and guiding our research responsibly.

2. Ensuring Safety and Quality

The discussion encompassed how the safety and quality of synthetic biology products can be effectively ensured and regulated. Our aim was to establish robust measures that safeguard both human health and the environment.

3. Minimizing and Monitoring Environmental Impacts

We explored methodologies to minimize the environmental impacts of the production processes utilizing synthetic biology. This was attempted by modeling the carbon flux and metabolic pathways.

4. Enhancing Social Acceptance and Consumer Trust

Addressing the question of how social acceptance and consumer trust in synthetic biology products can be enhanced and maintained, we recognized the significance of earning public confidence in this field.

5. Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Ethical Responsibilities

Our discussions also touched on the importance of respecting and protecting intellectual property rights and ethical responsibilities concerning developers and users in the realm of synthetic biology.

6. Improving Public Engagement and Education

As we recognized the importance of public acceptance, we wanted to find ways to improve public engagement and education on synthetic biology. Fostering a deeper understanding among stakeholders is an essential part of informed decision-making.

These extensive conversations culminated in the development of a comprehensive bioethics guideline. These guidelines emphasize the ethical implications of our research and applications, ensuring that synthetic biology is approached with responsibility and sustainability. By incorporating bioethical principles, such as stakeholder engagement, risk assessment, transparency, and public education, we harnessed the enormous potential of synthetic biology to address challenges while minimizing adverse effects and maximizing societal and environmental benefits for present and future generations. You can find the guideline here.