When we first outlined our idea of creating an RNA-based tool for modulable translation, we knew that the project’s success would depend on more than just technical design. To strengthen it, we reached out to stakeholders from very different backgrounds, opening a continuous dialogue that shaped the project at every stage.
To reflect that, across the wiki you can find HP cards 💡 (click on the lightbulb) that connect the specific concept with the stakeholder who influenced it. The cards serve as both a map of our interactions and a record of how external perspectives were continuously translated into tangible aspects of our project, ensuring that it remains transparent, traceable and grounded in real-world dialogue. Our final goal was to make our HP work visible, so we came up with this new and creative way to achieve just that.
To ensure a robust experimental design, we contacted researchers and engineers to redefine wet lab design, select adequate assays, and understand the practical limits of riboswitches. Professors and experts from all over shared their advice to ground our project in feasible experimental strategies and guided us towards improvements in our software toolkit.
Beyond the lab, we tested our education toolkit with teachers and schools directly with students, offering practical feedback on clarity, engagement and proper time management. Their insights helped us define a modular and accessible resource that not just introduces the general public to the emerging ambit of synthetic biology, but also encourages debate about the ethical questions it raises.
In order to guarantee compliance to biosafety standards, institutions specializing in biosafety and regulation reviewed our open-source plans, validating that our tool posed low-dual use risks. In this sense, we committed to an exhaustive research of what-if scenarios that are compiled in our very own Dual-Use Assessment.
Through these conversations, our project evolved from a technical proof-of-concept to a well-rounded platform. As our project progressed, so did we: what began as a purely scientific challenge gradually revealed itself as a multidisciplinary effort that demanded responsibility beyond the lab. By engaging openly with stakeholders, we created a tool that not only advances synthetic biology but also embodies the principles of responsibility, accessibility and collaboration that modern science requires.
Reviewing iGEM’s Maturity Models
In 2025, the iGEM Foundation and the Responsibility Committee introduced a new framework for Human Practices evaluation: the Maturity Models. These models aim to guide teams and judges in understanding the evolution of HP work and how it can be integrated into project design.
The models are based on three core concepts:
- Reflection: teams should demonstrate how project and design decisions have been influenced by their rationale and HP work (MM1). Additionally, work should extend beyond the laboratory –beyond the [technical] finish line– and take into account how the context (MM2) –regulations, extant policy, and market capabilities– can influence the project.
- Responsibility: projects should identify, map and engage a diverse spectrum of stakeholders –industry, communities and individuals– to both incorporate varied perspectives (MM3) into design decisions and to proactively anticipate (MM4) positive and negative impacts, documenting the rationale behind every choice and mitigation strategy.
- Responsiveness:teams must integrate Human Practices work continuously (MM5) from project inception through execution, using stakeholder feedback and contextual insights to iteratively adapt and improve their design, while transparently assessing limitations (MM6) and charting a documented roadmap for addressing risks and seizing new opportunities.
We strategically aligned our HP work with the Maturity Models to ensure a comprehensive, reflective, and responsible approach. Our goal was to design a strategy that would:
- Cover all dimensions of the Maturity Models,
- Address the specific challenges of a project with limited direct societal impact like ours,
- Ensure a stringent and coherent HP narrative across the wiki.
To achieve this, our HP work was structured into two main categories:
This section encompasses activities that directly investigate and act upon the ethical, societal, and regulatory implications of our project.
Dual-use Concerns
Given the potential dual-use implications of genetic tools, this was a central part of our HP work (MM4). We conducted an exhaustive analysis of the possible beneficial and harmful applications of our system, building upon preliminary work developed in a university bioethics course. This reflection helped shape design decisions to ensure biosecurity and ethical robustness.
Regulatory Research
Because our project involves the development of a new tool, we researched how similar technologies are currently regulated. Our objective was to explore how our system could fit into existing European frameworks and consider international approaches (e.g., US, Japan, UK). The findings will inform potential guidelines for safe and responsible use in research, industry, and educational contexts (MM2).
Feedback Loops and Stakeholder Engagement
In alignment with MM3, we established targeted stakeholder dialogues in three domains:
- Engineering: receiving technical feedback to refine our design;
- Education: engaging educators and experts to enhance outreach components;
- Biosecurity Compliance: discussing legal and ethical frameworks.
Each conversation contributed concrete insights that were integrated into project decisions.
To ensure that Human Practices were present at every stage of the project, we implemented HP Cards across the wiki. These cards accompany different sections (e.g., Engineering, Software, Education) and briefly describe how HP considerations informed specific decisions (MM1, MM5).
By clicking on each card, readers can access the full explanation on the HP page. For example:
- Theophylline Aptamer: chosen for its biosafety properties, as it is a synthetic molecule not found in nature.
- Software Interface: improved through stakeholder feedback from students and faculty.
Additionally, several HP cards explicitly acknowledge project limitations, and explain how we addressed them (MM6). These demonstrate our commitment to integrity and transparency, especially in communicating complex technical or ethical information.
Overall, our experience with the Maturity Models has been very positive. We found that they successfully encompass most, if not all, of the key aspects of Human Practices –from reflective decision-making to responsible stakeholder engagement and transparent communication. As this marks the fourth time iGEM UB has participated in the competition, our team is familiar with HP work, and we genuinely found the Maturity Models to be a useful and thoughtful framework that helped us structure and assess our progress.
We believe this tool will be especially valuable for new teams and future iGEM generations, offering a clear pathway for developing meaningful HP practices. At the same time, we recognize that Human Practices can be approached in many creative ways, and that overly prescriptive guidelines might risk constraining the diversity and innovation that have traditionally characterized iGEM HP work.
Overall, we consider the Maturity Models an excellent and insightful addition to the iGEM competition. It helped us reflect on our work in a more structured way, though we still had space for creativity and team identity.
Integrated HP
Get to know all the researchers, stakeholders and students that have helped us along the way, and know more about HP cards.
Biosecurity
Understand how we have assessed and mitigated Dual-Use risks associated with new, foundational technologies.
Implementation
Learn about how Skippit can revolutionise the way we do science through hands-on examples and world-class researchers.