In the Human Practices journey, we demonstrate how we combined scientific ambition with real-world responsiveness, stakeholder integration, effective communication, and ethical reflection. Our project evolved from a conceptual sketch into a data-driven, clinically informed, and socially grounded universal platform against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). At every stage, feedback from experts, stakeholders, and the public reshaped both our technical design and our communication strategies.
Responsiveness
In the Responsiveness section, we focus on how to respond to urgent problems at both social and scientific levels. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is coupling resistance with infectiousness/transmissibility into a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop. Resistance causes treatment failure and prolongs the infectious period, while a longer infectious period increases population-level transmission intensity (often reflected as higher Rā, the basic reproduction number). Pathogens like MRSA, which combine strong resistance with high transmissibility, are therefore extremely difficult to control in both hospital and community settings.
Our actions in the Responsiveness part include literature review, data analysis, mathematical modeling, and social feedback, to demonstrate the real urgency of the problem and confirm that converting MRSA back to MSSA is the most rational response.
Real-world urgency
Multiple epidemiological studies have quantified the burden of AMR: drug-resistant bacterial infections directly caused about 1.27 million deaths annually, with overall associated mortality even higher, and the burden disproportionately severe in low- and middle-income countries. For MRSA specifically, environmental and hospital surfaces show positivity rates of 2.5ā8.8%, with 46.3% identified as coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). CoNS often serve as the gene reservoir/intermediate host for mecA/SCCmec, facilitating the circulation and reintroduction of resistance within the Staphylococcus population. In addition, HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA harbor different SCCmec types (II/III vs. IV), combining multidrug resistance with high transmissibility, further complicating infection control in hospitals and communities.
In the Responsiveness stage, we highlight these data as background evidence to address societal concerns about whether MRSA truly represents a pressing and urgent threat.
SIRD and Competition Models
To validate the principle that "resistance = transmission advantage," we used mathematical models to test whether converting MRSA back to MSSA is dynamically reasonable and necessary.
SIRD (SusceptibleāInfectedāRecoveredāDeceased) model
In this framework, "treatment failure or delay caused by resistance" is represented as a
decrease in recovery rate Ī³ (i.e., prolonged infectious period), which increases
Rā (= Ī²/Ī³) at the same transmission rate Ī². Simulations showed:
MRSA, compared with MSSA, has a later and higher peak, with a longer tail,
a classic "long tail effect." This means that as long as resistance exists, outbreaks
are both larger and more persistent. The causal chain (longer infectious period ā higher Rā)
is transparent in the model and aligns with clinical intuition.
Resistantāsensitive competition model
We further incorporated an "antibiotic selection pressure" term to reflect combination or rotational therapies.
Under this setting, resistant strains gain higher relative fitness during drug exposure.
The model showed: even when MSSA initially dominates, MRSA eventually overtakes and replaces it under sustained antibiotic pressure.
This mirrors the clinical reality of infections becoming increasingly difficult to treat and resistance spectra expanding over time.
Thus, simply escalating or switching antibiotics only strengthens the competitive advantage of resistance. A more systemic strategy is to convert MRSA back to MSSA, removing the "long-tail advantage" of resistance and restoring the system to a "treatableāquickly cleared" trajectory.
Predictive value of mecA
Instead of analyzing broad resistance genes, we focused specifically on mecA: is it stable and informative enough to serve as a priority target for de-resistance?
We analyzed 989 isolates from the NCBI S. aureus Pathogen Detection Browser (2024-01-01 to 2025-01-01), with both AMR genotypes and AST phenotypes available.
- Coherence: Among all methicillin-resistant isolates, 95.8% carried mecA, demonstrating strong genotypeāphenotype consistency.
- Discriminative power: Logistic regression and ROC analysis showed that mecA predicts composite methicillin resistance (METāŖOXAāŖFOX) with AUC = 0.967, sensitivity 95.8%, specificity 97.6%. For individual drugs: OXA AUC = 0.944; FOX AUC = 0.829. Thus, mecA alone achieves high-precision population-level classification.
- Effect size: Composite methicillin resistance showed OR = 352.2 (95% CI 162.8ā761.9); intercept OR = 0.016 (indicating near-zero resistance when mecA-negative). This is a magnitude-level effect, identifying mecA as a high-value, actionable target.
- Interpretability: Confusion matrices (e.g., OXA: TP = 243, FN = 8, FP = 42, TN = 487) further confirmed strong dependency. This provides a clear engineering loop: delete mecA ā loss of PBP2a ā Ī²-lactams regain efficacy ā MRSA ā MSSA (epidemiologically equivalent to shortening infectious period, lowering Rā, and flattening the long tail).
In Responsiveness, this analysis serves as data-driven justification for our design: targeting mecA directly dismantles MRSA's resistance advantage.
Literature cross-validation
We also cross-validated our findings with existing literature, addressing external concerns about consistency with scientific consensus.
Evidence confirms: CoNS act as reservoirs/intermediate hosts for SCCmec, environmental and hospital surfaces repeatedly detect MRSA/CoNS, and HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA differ in SCCmec types, reflecting ecological adaptation. Together, these factors establish that "resistance persists through cross-host, cross-environment circulation." This aligns with our strategic orientation: rather than racing against resistance, remove it altogether.
Survey: Public awareness and acceptance
As part of Responsiveness, we conducted surveys among the public and medical students, focusing on:
- Awareness of AMR;
- Acceptance of gene editing and de-resistance strategies;
- Concerns over safety, controllability, and risks.
A total of 306 sets of data were received from various parts of China, with the majority coming from the central and eastern regions of China.
Awareness of AMR
- Perceived harm: Only 9.5% rated themselves as "very knowledgeable," while 42.8% reported "limited or no knowledge," showing a general lack of awareness of the AMR crisis.
- Prevention awareness: Only 5.6% considered themselves "very knowledgeable," while 68% admitted limited understanding, highlighting major knowledge gaps in resistance mechanisms and prevention methods.
Attitudes toward novel gene-editing therapy
When asked about "using DNA origami to deliver CRISPR-Cas9 to remove resistance genes," 79.7% responded "supportive" or "very supportive," with only 2% opposed. This indicates high acceptance of innovative approaches.
AMR awareness vs. gene-editing support
- Among those with low awareness, opposition rates were higher (~10%).
- Among those with high awareness, support exceeded 90%, with significantly more "very supportive."
- Chi-square test (ĻĀ² = 33.36, df = 9, p < 0.001) confirmed significant correlation: higher AMR awareness predicts stronger support for gene editing.
Attitudes toward gene editing vs. interest in educational tools
- Among supporters of gene editing, over 75% expressed interest in interactive wiki tools.
- Among skeptics or opponents, interest dropped below 40%.
- Chi-square test (ĻĀ² = 17.13, df = 9, p = 0.047) confirmed significant correlation: supportive attitudes predict stronger interest in interactive tools.
These results show that technical acceptance and learning willingness are coupled: those who accept new technology are more eager to engage with explanatory tools. This validates our plan to build an interactive wiki module on DNA origamiāCRISPR, not just as outreach, but as an educational intervention to reduce public concerns.
The survey revealed: public awareness of AMR is low, but acceptance of de-resistance gene editing is high; moreover, awareness strongly correlates with support, and attitude strongly correlates with willingness to learn. This means that only by making society understand the dual threat of "resistance + transmissibility" can people truly accept the MRSAāMSSA strategy and actively participate in learning through interactive science communication.
We identified public cognitive gaps and social expectations through questionnaires and significance analysis. In the project, we simultaneously advanced "scientific design for de-drug resistance" and "social response of information transparency + interactive popular science" to ensure the dual realization of scientific rationality and public acceptability.
Integration
Stakeholder Analysis
Our project started as a scientific idea, but for it to become meaningful and impactful, it had to be understood, supported, and eventually adopted by the right stakeholders. We recognized early that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is not just a laboratory challenge but a societal issue that affects clinicians, patients, hospitals, regulatory agencies, and industry. Therefore, before building our timeline of iterative improvements, we first conducted a Stakeholder Analysis to clarify who matters most to our project and how their perspectives could guide our design choices.
We used a PowerāInterest Grid to map stakeholders according to their influence and level of concern regarding AMR solutions.
- Clinicians: Highly interested in effective therapies but with limited procurement power.
- Large hospitals: Both powerful and interested, making them our core stakeholders.
- Community hospitals: Lower interest and power, but potential secondary adopters in later stages.
- Research institutes: High scientific interest, providing validation but limited deployment authority.
- Public health agencies: Very powerful in shaping policies and funding decisions, with variable interest depending on public health impact.
- Pharma/biotech companies: Initially low interest, but high long-term power to industrialize.
- Livestock and veterinary sectors: Currently low interest and willingness to pay unless policy-driven.
This mapping exercise revealed that our short-term credibility depends on clinicians and hospitals, our mid-term scalability relies on public health agencies and research institutes, and our long-term sustainability will hinge on industry partnerships. By clarifying these roles, we could better align our interviews, collaborations, and communication strategies with the needs of each group.
The Stakeholder Analysis became the foundation of our Integration strategy. It not only shaped the sequence of our timeline but also explained why certain feedback loops mattered more than others. By embedding stakeholder perspectives into our design, our project evolved from a purely technical idea into a socially responsive and practically feasible platform.
Timeline
Our Human Practices journey was not a linear path but a continuous cycle of Anticipation, Reflection, Engagement, and Action (AREA). Starting from a conceptual sketch of a DNA origamiāCas9 platform, our project gradually evolved into a data-driven, clinically informed, and socially grounded universal platform against antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
Each step in the timeline reflects how we combined wet-lab, dry-lab, and HP efforts: from professor consultations and epidemiological modeling, to stakeholder interviews with doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, to exchanges with companies and iGEM peers. At every stage, feedback reshaped both our technical design and our communication strategies.
This integration timeline demonstrates how our project grew through real-world feedback loops, transforming initial ideas into a platform that is not only scientifically feasible but also clinically relevant, socially responsible, and commercially aware.
0. Leaders Brainstorm: Project Blueprint
At the very beginning, our team framed the project as a platform against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The vision was to design a modular system that could, in principle, be adapted to different resistant bacteria by swapping targeting elements, while keeping the delivery and safety framework universal.
We chose methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as a representative model pathogen:
- MRSA is one of the most notorious āsuperbugsā worldwide.
- Its resistance is largely mediated by a single gene, mecA, which makes it a practical entry point for proof of concept.
- MRSA infections impose a heavy clinical and societal burden, thus aligning our project with urgent public health needs.
The v0 design of the platform included:
- A DNA origami cylinder encapsulating sgRNA/Cas9 complexes to cleave resistance genes (starting with mecA).
- G4āhemin clusters at both ends to catalyze HāOā into reactive oxygen species (ROS), enabling bacterial membrane permeabilization.
- Disulfide bond locking strands to protect Cas9 cargo and allow glutathione-triggered release inside bacterial cytoplasm.
While the system was theoretically elegant, at this stage it remained a concept sketch: it had not yet been validated experimentally, modeled quantitatively, or examined for ethical and societal acceptance.
Aims
- To build a universal platform against resistant bacteria, adaptable to different pathogens.
- To align the project with the Infectious Diseases track, while using MRSA as a representative model.
- To integrate wet-lab, dry-lab, and Human Practices into one unified design framework.
- To provide a baseline for future refinement through validation and stakeholder feedback.
Process
During our initial brainstorming, the platform workflow was outlined as follows:
- DNA origami assembly with G4 modifications.
- Encapsulation of sgRNA/Cas9 targeting a resistance gene.
- ROS-mediated membrane permeabilization for bacterial entry.
- Controlled disulfide-lock release inside the cytoplasm.
Key uncertainties quickly surfaced:
- Could ROS-mediated permeabilization be strong enough against bacterial membranes yet safe for host tissues?
- Would Cas9 remain functional during transport?
- Could the platform be adapted to other pathogens in practice?
- Would regulators, clinicians, and the public accept a āgene-editing antibacterial platformā?
Reflection
The v0 blueprint gave us a universal vision but lacked real-world grounding. Without background data, modeling, or ethical validation, it risked being dismissed as over-idealized. We recognized that a platform must prove itself not only technically but also in terms of safety, adaptability, and social legitimacy.
Action
- To seek professor's guidance on biosafety and feasibility.
- To conduct a literature review and database screening to confirm mecA as a model target.
- To initiate Human Practices interviews with clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and the public.
- To prepare wet-lab and dry-lab validation modules for stability, activity, and delivery efficiency.
š Project Description
1. Professor Consultation
After the initial v0 blueprint, our team reached out to faculty advisors for early guidance on biosafety and targeting strategies. While the DNA origami, Cas9 concept was promising, two unresolved questions emerged:
- Safety ā Direct work with MRSA and mecA posed unacceptable biosafety risks for a student team.
- Targeting ā The v0 blueprint lacked a robust mechanism for ensuring selective entry into resistant bacteria.
This consultation became a turning point where our project transitioned from a conceptual sketch to a structured roadmap with safety and targeting modules.
Aims
- To redesign the validation route in compliance with iGEM biosafety standards.
- To decide on a specific targeting mechanism for bacterial recognition.
- To establish a computational-experimental workflow for aptamer selection and evaluation.
Process
During consultation, professors emphasized two directions:
- Biosafety: Direct MRSA handling was not feasible. They advised us to adopt a surrogate validation system, leading us to replace mecA with lacZ for early in vivo experiments, while retaining mecA as the ultimate in vitro validation target.
- Targeting specificity: To improve selectivity, professors encouraged us to incorporate aptamers that could recognize bacterial surface components.
Following this guidance, our team launched a Dry-Lab screening and modeling pipeline for aptamer design:
- Database search for candidate aptamers.
- MOE docking to evaluate interaction with bacterial surface proteins.
- mfold for secondary structure prediction.
- RNAcomposer for 3D folding analysis.
- Aptatrans (deep learning tool) for final binding affinity scoring.
This pipeline allowed us to rationally choose aptamers with high predicted binding strength and structural stability, which would then guide wet-lab validation.
Reflection
This combined step marked a double refinement of our project:
- By switching to lacZ surrogate validation, we aligned our wet-lab work with biosafety requirements.
- By integrating aptamer targeting with computational screening, we added precision and adaptability to the platform.
It also clarified our identity: not a one-pathogen therapy, but a universal, safe, and adaptable platform against resistant bacteria.
Action
Replaced mecA with lacZ in initial in vivo validation to ensure safety.
- Retained mecA as the ultimate in vitro validation target.
- Established a Dry-Lab aptamer screening and modeling workflow to select optimal candidates.
- Updated our Safety documentation and project roadmap accordingly.
š Wet-Lab lacZ Ā· š Safety Ā· š Aptamer Modeling
2. Validating mecA and MRSA Burden
To strengthen our platform concept, we recognized the need for solid data evidence. Without clear epidemiological and genetic justification, our design risked being dismissed as purely theoretical. Therefore, we carried out three streams of background support:
- Literature review of AMR and MRSA to establish the clinical and societal burden.
- Database analysis of mecA to validate it as a reliable genetic marker of resistance.
- Mathematical modeling (SIRD and competition models) to quantify MRSA transmission compared to MSSA.
Aims
- To demonstrate the global importance of MRSA within the AMR crisis.
- To confirm mecA as a valid and specific marker of resistance.
- To model MRSA infection dynamics and show why targeting it brings public health benefits.
Process
- Through literature review, we collected WHO reports and high-impact publications demonstrating that MRSA causes significant morbidity and mortality, and is one of the āESKAPEā pathogens prioritized for global research.
- Using the NCBI Pathogen Detection database (~1000 isolates), we showed that the presence of mecA strongly correlated with the resistant phenotype, with high ROC performance, confirming it as a credible gene target.
- By building SIRD and competition models, we compared MRSA with methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). The models showed that MRSA exhibits a longer infectious period and higher mortality, amplifying its public health burden.
Reflection
This stage moved our project from concept to data-driven legitimacy. The combination of literature, databases, and modeling showed that we were not just proposing an idea, but grounding it in evidence. It also reinforced the choice of MRSA as a representative pathogen while clarifying that our platform remains adaptable to other resistant bacteria.
Action
- Integrated AMR/MRSA background into our HP documentation and wiki.
- Selected mecA as the model resistance gene with database support.
- Published SIRD/competition modeling results in our wiki HP Responsiveness section.
š Background Ā· š iHP responsiveness
3. Doctor Interviews
With literature review, database analysis, and epidemiological modeling in place, we turned to frontline clinicians for insights into how an anti-MRSA platform might be perceived in real healthcare settings. We conducted on-site interviews at the Hangzhou Integrative Medicine Hospital, a leading tertiary hospital in Zhejiang Province. Our interviewee was the associate director of the infectious diseases department (name anonymized for privacy).
Doctors not only face resistant infections daily but also understand the realities of treatment decision-making, patient safety, and regulatory pathways. Their input was critical for aligning our conceptual platform with clinical needs.
Aims
- To identify doctorsā main concerns about applying a DNA origamiāCas9 platform.
- To understand expectations for safety, effectiveness, and clinical usability.
- To reflect as a team on how these concerns should reshape our project design and communication.
Process
- The interview was conducted face-to-face on site. We introduced our platform concept and asked about its potential clinical value. The doctor acknowledged the innovation but emphasized several key concerns:
- Safety first: Would the ROS generated by G4āhemin damage host tissue? How could off-target Cas9 activity be minimized?
- Metabolic clearance: How would the origami structure and Cas9 protein be degraded or removed from the human body?
- Delivery route: Could the system be applied locally (e.g., lung infections, wound infections) rather than systemically, to reduce risk?
- After the interviews, our team held an internal reflection meeting to integrate these insights into the design roadmap.
Reflection
The interviews revealed that clinicians think beyond ācan it workā to āis it safe, controllable, and clinically usable.ā Our blueprint had emphasized molecular mechanisms, but doctors reminded us that translation into practice depends on delivery, clearance, and risk communication. In our reflection, we realized we must embed safety explanations not only in lab design but also in our public-facing communication.
Action
- Added local administration scenarios into our application design.
- Began drafting safety texts for wiki and outreach.
- Planned additional wet-lab validation for ROS levels and cytotoxicity, to demonstrate safety boundaries.
š Safety
4. Head Nurse Interview
Following the doctor interview, we continued our stakeholder engagement at the Hangzhou Integrative Medicine Hospital. This time, we conducted an on-site, face-to-face interview with the head nurse (name anonymized for privacy).
Nurses play a central role in bedside care, drug administration, and patient monitoring. Their feedback directly reflects how a novel therapeutic platform could be implemented in real-world practice. For us, this interview bridged the gap between conceptual design and practical usability at the nursing level.
Aims
- To understand nursesā expectations regarding usability and workflow.
- To evaluate whether our platform could be applied without adding excessive complexity to care.
- To explore how wet-lab validation could address these nursing-level concerns.
Process
During the interview, the head nurse emphasized three concerns:
- Ease of use ā Administration methods should be simple and not require advanced technical training.
- Clear instructions ā Nursing staff rely on practical guidelines: duration of effect, frequency of administration, and handling precautions.
- Patient safety ā Nurses need assurance that the product will not cause unpredictable side effects during use.
In response, our team reflected internally and adjusted our wet-lab roadmap:
- Planned NPN uptake experiments to quantify bacterial membrane permeability, linking it to āease of delivery.ā
- Designed Proteinase K protection assays to test Cas9 stability, ensuring product reliability during handling.
Reflection
The interview highlighted that usability is as important as innovation. Without simple, standardized instructions, even the most advanced therapeutic platform would face barriers at the bedside. By linking wet-lab data to clinical usability, we learned to design experiments not only for scientific rigor but also for practical validation.
Action
- Discuss nursing-friendly application routes (e.g., wound hydrogel, local spray).
- Drafted preliminary templates for frequency, dosage, and handling.
- Integrated nursing feedback into our HP communication materials, highlighting usability and patient safety.
6. Pharmacy Director Interview
We continued our stakeholder engagement at the Hangzhou Integrative Medicine Hospital. This time, our on-site, face-to-face interview was conducted with the pharmacy director (name anonymized for privacy).
Pharmacists are responsible for drug dispensing, medication counseling, and ensuring that patients understand their prescriptions. Their perspective reflects how a novel therapeutic platform would be received by patients at the pharmacy counter and how information should be communicated transparently.
Aims
- To identify pharmacistsā concerns about patient acceptance of gene-editingābased platforms.
- To explore how risk communication should be structured at the dispensing level.
- To integrate Dry-Lab visualization tools for clearer public-facing explanations.
Process
- Patient trust ā Many patients are skeptical of āsyntheticā or āgene-editingā solutions. Transparent communication is key.
- Side effects ā Pharmacists need to clearly explain potential risks, metabolism, and clearance pathways.
- Information accessibility ā Explanations should avoid overly technical jargon, focusing instead on intuitive visuals and FAQs.
In our team reflection, we decided to make Dry-Lab results more accessible:
- Aptamer binding scores and 3D models were turned into simple visuals to explain targeting specificity.
- Membrane permeability simulations were animated to show how DNA origami safely enters bacteria without affecting human cells.
Reflection
The interview underscored that patient acceptance depends on transparency and clarity. A scientifically strong project may still fail if patients fear it. By integrating Dry-Lab outputs into risk communication, we turned abstract results into relatable explanations, bridging the gap between science and pharmacy-level counseling.
Action
- Translated Dry-Lab aptamer and permeability models into public-friendly visualizations.
- Added pharmacist feedback into HP communication strategies.
7. Science Communicator Interview
To better understand how the general public perceives synthetic biology and gene-editingābased platforms, we interviewed a popular Chinese science communicator, who is currently studying abroad and has built a large online following of over 300,000 fans on platforms such as Bilibili. His videos mainly focus on biotechnology, everyday science myths, and public science education.
Since he was overseas, the interview was conducted online via video call, focusing on public misconceptions and communication strategies. She emphasized that public fear often stems from misunderstanding: many people mistakenly believe gene-editing technologies directly alter human DNA or pose uncontrollable risks. These insights encouraged us to rethink not only our wiki explanations but also our broader outreach strategy.
Process
- The science communicator shared her experiences in running science channels, noting that terms like āgene editingā and āsynthetic biologyā sound intimidating to lay audiences. Without careful explanation, people imagine scenarios of human genetic modification rather than bacterial-targeted interventions.
-
Drawing on her media experience, she suggested that we:
- Create short educational animations comparing natural vs. synthetic products.
- Emphasize in wiki and outreach that our system edits bacterial resistance genes only, not human DNA.
- Use simple analogies and visual metaphors (like locks and keys) to explain mechanisms such as ROS generation and DNA origami delivery.
- Inspired by this, we later joined a broader communication initiative: together with CJUH-JLU-China and 33 other iGEM teams, we co-authored the āSmashing Synthetic Biology Rumoursā brochure, aiming to clarify misconceptions and reassure the public.
Reflection
The interview revealed that science communication is not an āoptional extraā but a core requirement for societal acceptance. By joining a 34-team collaboration, we moved beyond individual outreach and positioned our project as part of a collective effort to normalize synthetic biology in public discourse.
Action
- Produced public-friendly educational materials (animations, FAQ, analogies).
- Revised wiki safety and communication sections to clarify ānon-human editing.ā
- Co-authored the āSmashing Synthetic Biology Rumoursā brochure with CJUH-JLU-China and 33 other teams.
š Collaboration
8. Hangzhou iGEM Exchange
At the Hangzhou iGEM Exchange, we not only shared our project but also listened to the experiences of past iGEM teams. Several teams presented how their projects had successfully transitioned from competition to industrialization, with some even entering the market as real biotech products.
This realization made us aware that scientific innovation alone is not sufficientāfor our platform to have real-world impact, we also needed to consider business feasibility, commercialization pathways, and entrepreneurship.
Aims
- To learn from past iGEM teamsā successful industrialization cases.
- To integrate business and market considerations into our project.
- To draft the Entrepreneurship section for our wiki.
Process
- Industrial success often depends on cost reduction strategies, clear value proposition, and investor engagement.
- We collaborated with mentors to produce:
- TAM/SAM/SOM analysis for antimicrobial therapeutics.
- TRL milestones and stage assessments.
- Market entry strategies such as hospital collaborations.
Reflection
The exchange reshaped our perspective: our project should not only be evaluated by its scientific feasibility but also by its commercial viability. By completing the entrepreneurship documentation, we laid the foundation for our project to be viewed not just as a lab prototype but as a potential biotech solution.
Action
- Completed the Entrepreneurship section of our wiki.
- Integrated market analysis (TAM/SAM/SOM, TRL milestones).
- Positioned our project as a scientific + commercial platform.
š Entrepreneurship Ā· Collaboration
9. CCiC Meeting Feedback and Safety Revision
During the Nucleic Acid Drug Exchange Meeting and Living Therapeutics Exchange Session at CCiC, our team presented the DNA origamiāCas9 platform. Discussions quickly centered on biosafety.
It became clear that while our platform was scientifically novel, its safety documentation was underdeveloped. The exchange directly prompted us to revise our safety framework and collaborate with peers on standardized safety practices.
Aims
- Address biosafety concerns raised during CCiC discussions.
- Strengthen our safety section with structured, evidence-based arguments.
- Co-develop standardized safety practices with peer teams.
Process
- Risks discussed: uncontrolled proliferation, long-term persistence, and off-target effects.
- We realized our safety section must include specific, evidence-backed frameworks.
- Collaborated with Peking University iGEM to draft the Living Therapeutics Safety Form.
Reflection
CCiC discussions showed that biosafety is a shared responsibility. By revising our safety documentation and contributing a new Safety Form, we turned a weakness into a community contribution.
Action
- Rewrote our wiki safety section with detailed, evidence-based content.
- Co-developed the Living Therapeutics Safety Form with Peking University.
- Incorporated CCiC discussions into our HP storyline as a turning point for safety design.
š Safety Ā· Collaboration
Entrepreneurship
While our stakeholder analysis and iterative timeline focused on scientific, clinical, and social integration, another critical layer soon emerged: commercial feasibility. During exchanges such as the Hangzhou iGEM meeting, we learned how past iGEM projects had successfully transitioned from competition prototypes into real biotech products. These stories revealed that even the most innovative designs could only generate lasting impact if they were also economically viable, scalable, and positioned within a clear market pathway.
For this reason, we gradually embedded a commercial perspective into our Integration frameworkānot as a replacement for science or safety, but as a complementary dimension. This awareness helped us evaluate issues such as production cost (e.g., phage-based origami), regulatory approval, and eventual translation into clinical or public health settings. The detailed entrepreneurship content is presented in a dedicated section of our wiki, but here we highlight how commercial thinking was born out of our HP journey and became a natural extension of integration.
Science Communication
Science communication is an essential component of our project. While our experiments and modeling were designed to develop a universal platform against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), we were fully aware that scientific achievements can only generate real societal impact when they are understood, trusted, and accepted. With this in mind, we sought from the very beginning to advance communication in parallel with experimentation. From grassroots education to academic exchanges and cross-team publications, we gradually built a communication pathway that helped our project gain broader understanding and recognition.
Science Outreach Teaching
At Meitan Zhejiang University Primary School, we conducted a science outreach class introducing the background of our project to a group of curious young students. Through interactive experiments and everyday analogies, we explained the basic concepts of DNA and DNA origami, as well as the role of bacteria, the function of antibiotics, and the causes of resistance.
The purpose of this activity went beyond simply delivering knowledge; it aimed to cultivate curiosity, trust, and early scientific literacy. For many students, this was the first time they had encountered the concept of "antimicrobial resistance." Their responses highlighted that early engagement in science communication is crucial for the long-term social acceptance of synthetic biology.
Campus Outreach at Zhejiang University
At the Zhejiang University international campus, we carried out a presentation and discussion aimed at fellow university students. We explained the design of our universal anti-resistance platform and why MRSA was chosen as the model system. At the same time, we also introduced the iGEM competition itself, highlighting how synthetic biology connects life sciences, engineering, and societal challenges.
This outreach fostered interdisciplinary participation: students from computer science, design, and business backgrounds showed interest and later contributed in areas such as visualization, data analysis, and business planning. This experience revealed to us that synthetic biology is not reserved for biology students alone but is instead an open and collaborative discipline that welcomes diverse expertise.
Conferences and Exchanges
We actively participated in a series of iGEM academic exchanges, where we promoted our project, learned from others, and continuously adjusted our communication strategies. Through this process, we gradually developed a layered communication model.
- SUSTech SynBio Exchange (May 31)
Focused mainly on sharing ideas of synthetic biology, especially dry lab design and modeling pipelines. Our team presented only the platform concept, rather than project details. - Hangzhou iGEMer Exchange (July 26)
Several schools gathered in Hangzhou to share their projects and provide feedback. Mentors offered suggestions for improvement, which directly contributed to upgrading our project. - Living Therapeutics Exchange (August 4)
Centered on living therapeutics. Our team mainly shared the safety control principles of living therapeutics and emphasized the safety aspects of our project in communication. - CCiC ā Conference of China iGEMer Community (August 5)
The most challenging communication scenario, with judges, mentors, and other teams present. Here, we systematically applied the layered narrative model: the stable story of a "universal AMR platform" remained at the center, while technical detail was expanded or simplified depending on the audience.
These exchanges showed us that communication is not only about presenting a project but also about iterating through feedback. This experience gradually shaped the layered communication framework that underpins our wiki writing and outreach.
Collective Public Outreach
Recognizing the persistence of public misconceptions, we collaborated with CJUH-JLU-China and 33 other iGEM teams to co-author the Smashing Synthetic Biology Rumours Science Brochure. This publication targeted common fears, such as "gene editing alters human DNA," and dismantled them with plain explanations, visuals, and references. By transforming communication into a collective effort, we amplified both credibility and reach. The brochure circulated widely in iGEM and public science networks. As for the details of Smashing Synthetic Biology Rumours Science Brochure, please see Collaboration.
Safety Communication
We worked with Peking University to draft the iGEM Safety Standard for Engineered Live Biotherapeutic Products (LBPs). Although designed as a technical guideline, the handbook also functioned as a communication artifact, translating laboratory biosafety protocols into transparent, standardized formats accessible to other teams and even non-specialists. In this way, we framed biosafety not as a hidden laboratory detail but as a shared, communicable standard, reinforcing public trust in synthetic biology. As for the details of iGEM Safety Standard for Engineered Live Biotherapeutic Products (LBPs), please see Collaboration.
Together, these activities illustrate how science communication was integrated into every stage of our project. From early education in primary schools, to interdisciplinary outreach on campus, to multi-level exchanges with iGEM teams, and finally to collective publications, our communication pathway expanded step by step. Each effort not only strengthened understanding and trust among different audiences but also reinforced our project's identity as an open, responsible, and collaborative platform.
Ethic & Engage
In building a general anti-resistance platform, we not only focus on the technical implementation itself but also use an Ethical Matrix to systematically evaluate its potential impacts. As discussed in Improving the Ethical Matrix: Constructing a Tool for Ethical Assessment of Biomedical Technologies, the Ethical Matrix adopts well-being, autonomy, justice, and safety as its core principles to organize the concerns of different stakeholders.
Based on early stakeholder analysis and field inquiries, we re-identified several key groups: patients and clinicians, the public and public-health professionals, scientists and companies, and policymakers. Building on this, we ran simulation workshops and tried to articulate concerns from different standpoints.
Qualitative Analysis and Potential Viewpoints
| Stakeholder | Primary Concerns | Potential Positive Views | Potential Negative Views |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | Efficacy, side effects | May save lives; fewer antibiotic side effects | Stability/reliability; unknown consequences |
| Healthcare providers | Comparison with current care | More therapeutic options | Added burden of consent and communication |
| Public | Population health impact | Reduced societal AMR burden | Complex to understand; risk of public anxiety |
| Patients across strata | Fair access | Broad benefit if covered by insurance | High prices may exacerbate inequities |
| Companies / Institutions | Returns & development | Drives industrial advancement | Potentially skewed resource allocation |
| Policymakers | Regulatory safeguards | Transparent oversight builds trust | Lagging regulations hamper timely responses |
| Scientists | Biosafety | Controllability; degradable DNA carrier | HGT risks may be underestimated |
In practice, we drew on the "integrative mode" of the Ethical Matrix, conducted small-scale supplementary inquiries, and organized cross-disciplinary simulation discussions within the team. We then looped these reflections back into project design and external communication.
The red markings indicate the roles that the stakeholders played in promoting our project, while the blue markings highlight the limitations on the impact they had through their participation in the activities.
In this way, ethical reflection shifts from a one-off assessment to a cycle of experimentation ā communication ā feedback, becoming embedded in project evolution. This gradually builds a dynamic mechanism of responsibility and response, ensuring the design is consistent with scientific logic while aligning with social values. On this basis, we further used a Likert scale (ā2 to +2) to simulate perceived impacts across four dimensions for different groups:
| Stakeholder | Well-being | Autonomy | Justice | Safety |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRSA patients | +2 | +1 | +2 | ā1 (risk of side effects) |
| Clinicians | +2 | 0 | +1 | 0 |
| Scientists | +1 | +2 | +1 | ā1 (environmental implications) |
| Public-health staff | +2 | ā1 | 0 | ā2 (resistance pressure) |
| General public | +1 | 0 | ā1 | ā1 |
These quantitative scores are not definitive conclusions; rather, they help reveal the coexistence of benefits and risks. The technology shows promise for improving individual well-being and therapeutic fairness, yet it requires caution around safety and public acceptance. Introducing the Ethical Matrix not only enables a more systematic view of stakeholder concerns but also allows these reflections to permeate naturally into the project's design and communication. As inquiry, discussion, and quantitative appraisal advance, our project establishes a more balanced dialogue between science and society. This process does not end with a single assessment; instead, it provides an internal point of convergence for the RISE framework, where feedback from each component can gather and continue forward.
Conclusion
Through the integration of Responsiveness, Integration, Science Communication, and Ethics & Engagement, our project evolved from a conceptual sketch into a comprehensive, data-driven, and socially grounded universal platform against antimicrobial resistance. Each dimension reinforced the others: data justified our design, stakeholder feedback refined our approach, communication built trust, and ethical reflection ensured responsibility. This journey demonstrates that impactful synthetic biology requires not only scientific innovation but also deep engagement with society, stakeholders, and ethical frameworks.
