Human Practices

The Gibbs Reflective Cycle is a structured framework designed to support reflective learning in both individuals and groups. Its six phases—description, feelings, assessment, analysis, conclusion, and action plan—allow experiences to be systematically investigated in order to achieve meaningful advancement. In our iGEM project on Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC), we implemented this reflective model to ensure our design process remained highly responsive to the needs of patients, clinicians, and the community.

We used the Gibb’s Reflective Cycle and its components to inform our human practices work. We condensed it to the following steps:
    Impetus ~ The driving force for us to reach out to people
  • Two-Way Communication ~ Have both the team and stakeholders be able to ask questions and voice concerns
  • Analysis ~ Process information from stakeholders to better our project
  • Implementation ~ Change and evolve our project to become better suited for the needs of our stakeholders

Impetus:
Our motivation for this project stemmed from the urgent need to address the limitations of the current TNBC diagnostics. If cancer is detected at a later stage, treatment must be more aggressive. Treatment options for TNBC are frequently restricted to aggressive chemotherapy, which has serious side effects and limited efficacy, because TNBC lacks the hormonal receptors that oncologists rely on to treat other breast cancers with targeted therapy. To guarantee our project addressed actual gaps in care, we felt compelled to contact oncologists, researchers, patients, and advocacy groups after realizing these difficulties. The “Description” and “Feelings” phases of Gibbs' cycle are reflected in this motivation, and we started with a well-defined issue and a sympathetic understanding of its effects on people with TNBC.

Two Way Communication:
The foundation of our project's stakeholder engagement was two-way communication. We invited patients to share their experiences, advocacy groups to voice concerns about communication, safety, and accessibility, and oncologists to question the viability of our methods, rather than just sharing what we were developing. For example, clinicians encouraged us to consider scalability and integration into existing treatment protocols, while patients stressed the significance of treatments that minimize side effects and maintain quality of life. The "Evaluation Phase" of Gibbs' cycle states that this reciprocal communication enabled goals and concerns from various viewpoints to actively influence the course of our project. The specific information that we learned and how we incorporated it is described below.

Analysis:
After collecting feedback, our team shifted to the analysis stage. We examined recurring themes like affordability, accessibility, and safety, and contrasted the input from stakeholders with our current project framework. For example, after stakeholders raised the issue of ensuring equitable access to innovative cancer treatments, we found that our design needed to consider biological efficacy and the project’s potential for implementation in various healthcare contexts. This reflective analysis helped us see the broader implications of our work: a successful TNBC therapy must be both innovative and beneficial for patients and healthcare providers.

Implementation:
Converting insights into real change was the last stage of reflection. We modified parts of our design and communication plan in accordance with Gibbs' "Conclusion" and "Action Plan" phases. We considered pathways to make the therapy scalable and accessible, and improved our suggested model to highlight specificity in targeting TNBC cells. Regarding human practices, we created educational resources that directly addressed patient concerns and explained complicated science in an understandable manner. These adjustments demonstrate our dedication to developing the project in light of reflection, guaranteeing that our TNBC initiative is both a scientific breakthrough and a socially responsible solution.

Identification of Stakeholders: Our main stakeholders were Triple Negative Breast Cancer doctors, patients and survivors, researchers, and current medical manufacturing companies.

Stakeholder Profiles:

Project Summary: TNBC Diagnostic

Our project's objective is to develop a toehold switch-based diagnostic for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC), one of the most aggressive and difficult subtypes of breast cancer to treat due to its high recurrence rate and lack of receptor targets. Though modern diagnostic methods, including fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC), are helpful in identifying receptors, they are still invasive, costly, and not generally accessible, often requiring uncomfortable and stressful biopsies.

Among others, Dr. Cesar Augusto Santa-Maria and Ally Huang stressed the importance of developing patient-centered, non-invasive, and easily accessible tools that are backed by strong technical validation. Their suggestions prompted us to concentrate on issues related to scalability, quantification techniques, and experimental design, guaranteeing that our system is not only novel but also feasible for real-world use.

Theoretically, our diagnostic scans for miRNAs associated with TNBC using cell-free toehold switches. Expert consultants guided us on how to deal with problems such as the short length, low abundance, and modifications of miRNAs, which may necessitate pre-amplification and careful probe design. They also underscored the importance of balancing specificity to TNBC subtypes with the necessity of maintaining a manageable marker panel.

Quantification methods, such as colorimetric or fluorescent outputs that could be measured by plate readers or calibrated apps, were recommended for accuracy and repeatability. Scalability issues—labor, packaging, and distribution costs—were also brought to light, and suggestions were made to work with reputable biotech companies to overcome infrastructure barriers. Our project's technical foundation was formed by these realizations, ensuring that we approached design with a focus on both practical implementation and scientific rigor.

Patient interviews reaffirmed the importance of TNBC diagnostics from the community's viewpoint. Emily Hernstein, a survivor, highlighted the fear of recurrence, and Mary Passini, a current patient, described how her treatment experience was affected by delayed detection because of dense breast tissue. Both voiced strong support for a straightforward, non-invasive test that could provide peace of mind and accurately track remission or recurrence, like a finger-prick blood assay.

Their comments emphasized that the benefits of diagnostics go beyond simple detection, including patient comfort, clarity, and an enhanced quality of life. Our project aims to provide a diagnostic that is not only scientifically sound but also easily accessible, reasonably priced, and significant to the TNBC community by combining patient input with professional technical advice.

The Baltimore Biocrew’s project was shaped by our goals to improve accessibility and reduce inequality in healthcare by creating an improved remission detection technology for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). We aimed to help support post-breast cancer individuals, promote early, non-invasive cancer diagnostics, and ensure accuracy in tests using ethical and sustainable methods with our project. Our project is based on the fact that there are limited opportunities for recurrence monitoring as women receive very expensive standard mammograms every year after treatment. Oftentimes, because of how infrequent the mammograms are, the breast cancer has time to develop and become severe without the patient’s notice. This was our call to action and why we chose this project–we support the development of a rapid test meant to identify breast cancer mRNA that is cheap and can be done at home. Then we needed to inform the community about our project for support, so our human practices group surveyed and interviewed doctors, researchers, and patients to guarantee a positive impact produced by our project. The results were widely supportive, and past and current patients, as well as doctors and experts, gave us suggestions about how we might improve our project to meet its full potential.

Defining the Problem

The highly aggressive subtype of breast cancer known as triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is distinguished by the lack of HER2, progesterone receptor (PR), and estrogen receptor (ER) expression. The two main diagnostic techniques used today for TNBC are fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Although these methods work well for determining receptor status, they have a number of drawbacks:


  • Time-consuming procedures: The preparation, staining, and analysis of pathology tests frequently take several days.

  • Expensive: Because these tests require specialized equipment and reagents, they are not widely available in underdeveloped areas.

  • Error risk: Subjectivity and variation amongst laboratories can be introduced by human interpretation of staining results.

  • Late detection: TNBC is frequently identified later, when treatment options are more constrained, due to the absence of specific biomarkers.

How Our Initiative Enhances Diagnosis

By creating a faster, affordable, and potentially more accurate recurrence detection system, our project avoids these restrictions. Our approach capitalizes on the fact that miRNA expression is changed in TNBC cells. This makes it possible for:


  • Early identification of TNBC subtypes which accelerates treatment decisions.

  • Decreased reliance on pricey chemicals or specialized equipment, which lowers barriers to access and affordability.

  • Increased precision through standardized, quantitative analysis that lessens subjectivity.

By addressing the shortcomings of current diagnostic methods and expanding upon them to identify TNBC more quickly and precisely, our project could increase patients’ survival rates.