Why did we reach out to him?
Pauli Kallio is our PI and official advisor. He has worked with cyanobacteria for a long time and understands the way the scientific community operates. Besides him being our PI we reached out to understand about cyanobacteria, circular economy and the challenges the scientific community has faced.

What did we learn from this?
He has given us professional view in our ideas when needed and helped us create a reasonable scientific project. We have had many meetings with him in which we have discussed our concerns about the project. We of course have given him updates about our project progress in general too.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
He helped us understand that our project needs to be well-thought as a whole and taught us about the circular economy concept. With his help we could plan our project in a responsible way. In addition he has always been there to support us when things have felt hard and when we did not know how to proceed.

Why did we reach out to him?
Juha Kurkela works at the Molecular Plant Biology Department at University of Turku – the same department where our laboratories are at. He helped us get started with the laboratory work by going through our plans with us and recommending some techniques to use in our laboratory work. He was happy to help us whenever needed, we did not always have a booked meeting.

What did we learn from this?
Juha has done a lot of similar lab work as we did in our project and we learned that we need to stay persistent. Sometimes things just do not work out and there is no specific reason for that, trial and error is how you learn in genetic engineering.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
Juha has been a huge support for us through our project. Thanks to him and our Principal Investigator Pauli Kallio we have been able to develop our techniques in the right way and achieve success in our lab work.

Why did we reach out to her?
Celine Arzel works at the University of Turku. She has done research in wetland ecology which is highly related to our project. We wanted to hear her thoughts about our project and know if she has any new information for us.

What did we learn from this?
We had prepared some questions about mercury concentrations and its effects on nature. We got a lot of information about mercury’s harmful effects and some tips where to seek answers for our concentration questions.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
Expert’s knowledge about mercury and its effects in bodies of water was needed for us to continue our project. With this knowledge we were able to understand who our stakeholders are and see the big picture of our project.

Why did we reach out to her?
Arja Alikoivisto works at Silva ry as a secretary. Silva ry is a Finnish association for the continuous growth of the forest. We decided to reach out to her as we realized that perhaps the harmful effects of mercury do not only concern the wetlands but the forests as well.

What did we learn from this?
We learned that many forest owners in Finland do not even know about such issues as mercury or its harmful effects on nature. Also the forests are an important livelihood in Finland and many people would be ready to protect their forests if it would profit them. She also gave us excellent other contacts that could help us bring forth our project.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
We realized that we need to include more landowners to our project in order to really make a change. Landowners are one group of people who need to take action in a fight against mercury pollution and they may not even know about such a problem as mercury.

Why did we reach out to him?
Since Antti Kaseva is an expert in water technology, we thought that we could get some new views on our project.

What did we learn from this?
We learned a lot about process waters and got inspiration for a new possible implementation for our project. What if this is something we could use in wastewater treatment? Closed pools would guarantee the safe use of GM bacteria.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
We got a few excellent development ideas to make your solution more reliable and versatile. With the knowledge gained from this meeting, we understood that our solution could be utilized in the purification of process waters in addition to natural waters.

Why did we reach out to her?
Riikka Vainio has studied ecology at the University of Turku and now works at the Turku University of Applied Sciences. Her thesis was about mercury and its effects in different food chains. Since we had desperately tried to find more studies regarding mercury, we were eager to have a meeting with her.

What did we learn from this?
One important point was that even if the mercury concentration is not at a dangerous level, it still has toxic effects when combined with other harmful compounds in water. We also learned about the regional effects of mercury. It is maybe an even bigger problem in developing countries since there is no legislation about mercury emissions. Also GMO legislation in the EU is really strict, so we need to plan our implementation carefully.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
This got us considering our project idea outside the Finland borders too but we still eventually decided that we need to focus mainly on Finland’s nature since the time is limited.

Why did we reach out to her?
Elisa Männistö is a post-doc researcher at the University of Eastern Finland. She does research on swamp ecology regarding the methane and other harmful gaseous compounds, the swamp fauna and its effect on carbon releases.

What did we learn from this?
Heavy metals are not really a problem in natural swamps but they might be at drained and restored ones. We learned that there is not much conversation about heavy metals when talking about restoration and Elisa said that this is something that should be studied more.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
We need to figure out what are the differences in mercury levels on drained and restored marshlands. She also assured us that the restoration of marshlands is important in the combat against climate change and new restoration techniques are needed.

Why did we reach out to her?
Laura Höijer has worked for five years at the Baltic Sea Action Group organization. We contacted her to learn more about what BSAG organization does and what to consider when being a part of environmental projects. She has extensive background in the environmental sector.

What did we learn from this?
Mercury and other harmful compounds have not been main priorities in the Baltic Sea protection for a while. Nutrient emissions to the sea have been more relevant recently. She says that funding is a vital part of these types of projects and usually determines if the project can have a long-standing effect. She suggested we should consider the economical endurance of our project. Also we learned that sometimes there is much work needed in order to shake the rooted opinions of others and approaching the topic from their point of view helps the conversation get somewhere.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
Laura impacted the way we look at environmental projects. She helped us understand that bringing different stakeholders to the same table helps the wanted change to be broad and continuous. These conversations with stakeholders can have social effects such as finding confidence and motivation to choose the more sustainable solution. Shame and guilt can discourage people from making responsible choices. Meeting with Laura changed the way we spread information about our project, how we approached our stakeholders and inspired us to focus more on the financial side. As a result we made a clear plan about our end users and even SWOT and PESTLE analyses.

Why did we reach out to fishers?
Fishers are the first ones to experience the impact of our project. We wanted to talk with them to understand their insights and opinions.

What did we learn from this?
We learned that mercury and the dangers it poses are a known subject in the fisher community. Ari Savikko from Suomen Kalakirjasto (The Fishlibrary of Finland) told us that mercury was a big talking point around the 70’s and the 80’s when artificial lakes were built in Finland. Although mercury is not such a hot topic nowadays, every fisher we talked with said that we should still do something about it and information about harmful compounds should be spread. Jaakko Ikonen said that it is frustrating to stress about mercury and other harmful compounds fish may contain. We discussed the various threats fish are facing: climate change, eutrophication, the lack of management fishing and also overfishing. Although there are many threats, all of the fishers agree that fishing is valuable. Fishing means a lot for them: it is their lifeline, a way of connecting with nature, a way to relax and a source of physical and mental strength. Jyrki Haaraoja said that the cultural value is fading but it is still there and it should be protected to the next generations.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
The fisher helped us understand fishing and the impact our project has to the fisher community. We listened and took their insights into consideration: we decided that one of our goals is to protect the safe use of fish. Also the fishers helped us understand more of the great meaning of traditional hobbies and livelihoods. Therefore, one of our values is well-being because these traditions promote well-being in whole communities.

Why did we reach out to him?
Since we got the idea to utilize our project in waste water treatment, we needed to know more about how the wastewater is handled in Finland at the moment. We reached out to the local wastewater treatment plant (Kakolan jätevedenpuhdistamo) and got an invitation to a guided trip.

What did we learn from this?
The tour at the plant was amazing and we learned a lot about wastewater treatment. The water treatment plant collects water from the municipalities’ households and factories with the help of pump stations. When the water comes to the plant it may contain anything like trash, nitrogen, phosphorus, anything. After the water has been treated at the plant, it will be directed to the sea. The sludge will first go to a biogas factory and the outproducts from that process will be used for green infrastructure such as planting plants by roads. The sludge will first be hygienisized (living cells are killed). Any solids will be burned for energy. The water will be purified mechanically of solids and biologically from any dissolved waste such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The bacteria accumulate the dissolved waste. Any toxic substances that are accumulated by the bacteria will go to the environment with the sludge. The purification process and the use of the end products do not have a standard protocol in Finland. In the biological process there is no knowledge of the content of the water: it may contain anything. The main goal of the process is to get nitrogen out of the water. The main responsibility with the heavy metal emissions lie on the factories that produce that kind of emissions; they need to clear the water from those before it comes to the wastewater plant.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
We realized that there are many emissions that are not requuired to be taken care of. New ways of water purification are needed and our project could be one of those. We need to make people realize how harmful heavy metal, especially mercury, emissions are to the environment and then maybe someday the Finnish emission law will tighten .

Why did we reach out to Kirsi and Pihla?
When researching information regarding photobioreactors, CircLab appeared. CircLab is a new Research and Development environment located in Micropolis in Ii. Pihla and Kirsi are working in Micropolis regarding CircLab and Growth from the Circulation with Green Techniques project called KASKI. They have first hand experience of photobioreactors and growing algae. Thus we contacted them to talk about the experiences they have had and understand what we should consider.

What did we learn from this?
We learned that algae growing is not as simple as one might think. There are a lot of things to consider such as the design of the reactor, the aeration of the system and what are the optimal conditions for the organism. In addition we learned that the growing process must be done gradually and there are contamination risks involved in every step. Before leaving the meeting they assured us that every unwanted result is an important result: because then we know if something does not work.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
After the meeting with Pihla and Kirsi we started to research answers for all the questions and points they had. This conversation helped us to make our implementation plan even more whole and to consider aspects we had not thought of for example the aeration of the system.

Why did we reach out to her?
We reached out to Katja so we could understand more about the Baltic Sea, those who spend time there and how we should consider this community.

What did we learn from this?
Katja told us that there is not much talk regarding mercury but thinks it would not be a bad idea if the community would know more about it and the possible dangers. The hot topic right now is plastic waste which can be seen in the archipelago. This might be because the problem is visible unlike mercury pollution. She said that she knows that there are safety recommendations for eating fish and suspects that the boating community knows this too. We talked about the toxic paints that are used to prevent barnacles from attaching to the boat bottoms. Katja said that although there is information regarding the downsides of this and even the yacht club offers a free washing of the boat, it is a habit and tradition to paint the boat and those rooted opinions are hard to shake. Even though it might be hard she believes change can happen through spreading information in a positive and not judgemental way. She recommended us to also spread information in a positive manner to get people interested and motivated about the topic. This route is often the harder one but worth it in the long-run. In the end of the conversation we talked about the importance of the Baltic Sea to the boating community and personally to Katja. She said that sailing and the sea has always been part of her life and nature overall gives her a place to calm down and enjoy her time.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
We can now take the boating community and the Baltic Sea into consideration even better in our project because we understand them and their point of views. What we took home from this enlightening conversation was to spread more information about mercury, the dangers it poses and how we can fight against it in a positive, encouraging and motivating way. In addition this conversation assured us that there is willingness to do something about this mercury problem and that the Baltic Sea is important for several people and whole communities.

Why did we reach out to him?
One of our team members noticed that there is a Finnish company called Hiilipörssi, which offers marshland restoration services. We wanted to learn more about the restoration and people’s opinions about it.

What did we learn from this?
We discussed marshlands in general, how they are huge carbon storages and how this carbon is released when the turf breaks down. We learned more about the restoration process of marshlands, what advantages it has and compensation companies. In addition, Risto emphasized the importance of understanding the bigger picture and making sure the restoration process is beneficial in the long run also. We discussed the rooted opinions people have on marshland restoration and how spreading more information about the process and its advantages could help change these opinions. It was hopeful to hear that some people have understood the benefits of restoration and have given their marshlands for restoration even without any financial compensation. Although such individuals are still quite uncommon.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
This meeting really supported our previous conclusions about the importance of marshlands as carbon storages and how they are a vital part of our ecosystems. People need more information in order for nature conservation projects to happen and attitudes towards conservation to change. This is why we will keep up the education work and recommend it to next year's team too. In addition this conversation impacted our views on our possible end users: perhaps some of our end users will not demand financial benefit but will use our application since they understands the bigger picture benefits. You can read more about our end users on the Implementation page.

Why did we reach out to him?
We reached out to the Eläinoikeuspuolue to understand their views on fishing and animal rights. From 2016 Eläinoikeuspuolue has been a registered political party which aims to make Finland a society where equal rights for fulfilling life and secured future are guaranteed for humans and other animals. Jaakko Perttunen, a board member of the party, answered our email and shed light on their opinions. Jaakko was glad to hear that we want to consider the critical side of fishing also in our project and says that it is good to bring up the viewpoints of other animals in addition to humans.

What did we learn from this?
Jaakko told us that the Eläinoikeuspuolue opposes all killing of animals, which also includes fish. They want stricter laws for fishing because the loose commercial fishing rules are one reason why the fish populations have crashed and marine ecosystems are endangered. Although they do not endorse fishing, they believe that as long as fish is used for the food of humans and pets it should be safe from mercury. The Eläinoikeuspuolue also spreads information regarding fish and aims to break myths and flawed beliefs about fish such as them being lesser animals than mammals. Regarding mercury, Jaakko said that it is great that we are creating a solution to purify it from our environment because mercury is as dangerous to other animals as it is to humans. He also said that regardless of the use of fish as a food source, it is still right to clean the mercury out of nature for the sake of the animals themselves.

What kind of impact did this have to our project?
Learning more about animal rights helped us consider them even better in our project by greatly emphasizing that both mercury and MercuLess can impact all organisms, not just humans. Also in our Implementation page we consider the risk of increasing the loosely regulated commercial fishing and the negative impacts it has to marine ecosystems. After pondering our project goals we still agreed as a team to have protecting the safe use of fish and other marine food sources as our value. We want to protect the safe use of these food sources for all species that consume fish.