Introduction

To answer this question, we conducted interviews with researchers in the microplastic field, visited a wastewater treatment plant and talked to organisations working to reduce plastic pollution in nature. For every question we asked, more came to mind, and to answer them we continued to reach out to experts across all sectors: academia, governmental agencies, organisations, institutes and companies. The experts provided us with invaluable feedback that not only helped us to improve our construct design, but also our outreach and educational activities, as we gained a holistic perspective of the microplastic and synthetic biology related problems. Below, you can explore what we learned during our discussions with experts, stakeholders and the public, and how we integrated these findings in our project.

Characterisation of the problem & our proposed solution: LuciPEP

Early on in the brainstorming phase, we started to discuss the development of a novel detection method for microplastics. Although researchers had been aware of the presence of microplastics for quite some time, it appeared as if little was known about the effects of microplastics on the environment, partly because of the difficulty of measuring them in environmental samples. To decide if microplastic detection was a problem we wanted to target, we first wanted to answer the following main questions:

To answer these questions, we conducted a survey to ask for the public’s opinions on our project ideas, and reached out to researchers with expert knowledge on microplastics and iGEM projects.

2. Scientific development of LuciPep

To solve the big and small technical development issues throughout the project, we continuously consulted experts working in the field. Some of the main questions we wanted to answer during this phase was the following:

Below, you can read more about the discussions and interviews we conducted, what we learned from them, and how they helped us improve our work in the wet and dry lab.

3. Societal benefits of LuciPep

As the work in the lab carried on, we wanted to confirm that we were still on the right track with our development of LuciPep. We wanted to make sure that LuciPep is good for the world and can contribute to a better future, in Sweden and globally. Our aim was to answer the following main questions:

To answer these questions, we conducted further interviews with both potential stakeholders, and experts in policymaking with knowledge about our proposed stakeholders. Additionally, we organised a study visit to one of our main stakeholders - a wastewater treatment plant.

Safety risks and ethical considerations of LuciPep

To ensure that our project and our end-product LuciPEP is responsible, safe and the risk of causing any harm is kept to a minimum, we investigated the following questions:

The answers to the questions were found during our discussions with experts in ethics and legislations related to gene modified organisms in Sweden.

Responsibly produced educational tools & activities and closing of the loop

Our project is much more than lab work and research. The development of Lucipep extended beyond the lab to make sure that our project was responsible and good for the world. Likewise, the development of our educational tools extend beyond the classrooms. We wanted to be certain that our students, no matter if they were young or old, or whether they had prior knowledge of the topics or not, could benefit from the knowledge we shared with them. Therefore, we asked teachers and people with knowledge in syntehtic biology for advice when we developed our educational tools and workshops. We aimed to answer the following questions:

Through feedback form the experts, including the teachers, we could answer these questions. Below, you can read more about how we integrated the feedback in the different activities and tools we developed.

As we conducted the educational activities all the way to the end of our iGEM journey, we got our final receipt of our hard work in the lab - the public’s opinion of our final product. For example, we spoke with high school students at ForskarFredag, and most of them were very curious about the function and use of LuciPep. However, one of the most common question was if we could also break down microplastics after their detection. We explained how that was not the main aim of our project, but how that may be solved by another team in another project. Perhaps by them, someday in the future?

Integration of feedback during the development of our educational tools and activities

Colouring book

For the colouring book, several teachers (Domenic Hogrebe, student teacher ; Ingrid Shute ; Eline Fivaz, primary school teacher) were kind enough to read through the story and give constructive critisism for how it can be improved to suit the target audience better.

Computer game

When we decided what educational texts and information to include, we took inspiration from what seemed the most important to explain based on our feedback from the workshop at the summer research school, where we targeted an audience of similar age. However, the computer game was designed to be played and educating also for students with little to no biology background, and for that reason we extended the explanations on e.g. what DNA and bacteria are.

PRO workshop

Based on feedback from the teacher and organiser of the course for pensioners, Heidi Englund, our workshop took a sustainable development approach. Heidi explained that the pensioners took the course because they want to take an action against climate change, to leave a better world behind for children and grandchildren in the future. Therefore, she advised us to tie our presentation and discussion questions to the sustainable development goals and Agenda 2030. By centering around a topic that inspired and unified the audience, it made our workshop more engaging to them.

Summer research school

A previous iGEM team in Stockholm (iGEM Stockholm 2018) had performed the DNA extraction lab and they told us it was a success. They explained what they had learned during their iGEM experience, that syntethic biology can be complicated to understand if it is only theoretical. So we wanted to share this simple experiment with our audiences to show them that DNA is not just an abstract microscopic molecule only accessible in the most advanced research labs - it can actually be seen with our own eyes! We encouraged the students and pensioners to bring the instruction for the lab with them home to try it out in their own kitchen. Hopefully, others can enjoy learning about synthetic biology in this relaxed, fun way just as they did.

Outreach events

From all the interviews we conducted throughout the course of our iGEM journey we gained a lot of scientific knowledge that did not only help us to develop our product further in the research lab, but it also inspired us to bring up certain aspects about microplastic research during our many public outreach events. The fact that the size of the particles matters when it comes to exposure and effects of microplastics in living organisms was something we wanted to share based on our interviews. Also, the fact that plastic is not entirely bad, but actually a very useful and important material if used in the right context, was something we shared with the audience to broaden their perspectives, as the experts had done to ours.

Moreover, our interviews with The Swedish Gene Technology Advisory Board and the discussion regarding ethics also contributed to our way of approaching synthetic biology in education, as many opinions on the topic can be involved. We encouraged open discussions about the topics through our many discussion questions, regarding both positive and negative aspects of synthetic biology. To make sure that most of our initial goals with our educational activities were met, we asked all participants at the workshops and the readers of the colouring book to answer feedback forms. Whenever we could, we tried to implement this feedback in our next upcoming educational activity.