Human Practices

Why did we approach him?
Our decision to approach the EQPF was driven by our desire to gain a deeper understanding of how Taiwan’s laws, carbon credit systems, and international regulations impact the development and adoption of emerging environmental technologies. EQPF, as a local NGO with international connections and involvement in global climate conferences, is a perfect fit to provide valuable insights into how Taiwan is addressing carbon emissions and what barriers still exist.

What did we learn?
After the meeting, we realized that funds remain the greatest obstacle to the large-scale implementation of carbon fixation technology. Without substantial financial or legal incentives, new solutions are often unable to compete with inexpensive, traditional practices. Taiwan lacks the necessary legal and policy frameworks to promote industrial sustainability. Current laws do not adequately regulate major industrial polluters. Additionally, Mr. Cheng also suggested we look into Taiwan’s 2050 Net Zero Transition Action Plans for carbon capture and utilization as a potential market.

What did we change?
Due to the inability to compete with current practices, we shifted our focus from low-incentive SMEs to large factories with existing bioscrubbers, which already purify the released air to remove other pollutants, leaving CO₂ behind.

Why did we approach him?
After shifting our focus, we sought to investigate how we could demonstrate the effectiveness of our technology on a larger scale to meet the needs of factories. Hence, we approached Dr. Hintze, a researcher from Germany with extensive experience in synthetic biology research, seeking experimental and methodological feedback on functional experimental design and materials testing.

What did we learn?
Dr. Hintze emphasized the importance of functional thinking in both education and experiments. For PVA gels, rather than only measuring pore size, he recommended flow resistance and bacterial migration assays. He suggested casting gels with varied polymerization parameters and first measuring water flow resistance, then populating them with bacteria to assess bacterial flow resistance.

What did we change?
According to his advice, we added a two-stage functional screen. Moreover, we also simplified board-game mechanics to convey function over form in genetic modification, and created a gel casting matrix tied to resistance readouts.

Why did we approach them?
Since we separated the cmpAB fusion genes and the cmpCD fusion genes from the original cmpABCD operon, we approached Dr. Price, who specializes in molecular and physiological analysis of the CO₂ acquisition processes in plants, for validation on whether the two fusion genes would retain the functions of the original operon when put together in the cyanobacteria. His team verified the directed locations of the cmpABCD constituents with chloroplast transit peptides in their experiment.

What did we learn?
Since we separated the cmpAB fusion genes and the cmpCD fusion genes from the original cmpABCD operon, we approached Dr. Price, who specializes in molecular and physiological analysis of the CO₂ acquisition processes in plants, for validation on whether the two fusion genes would retain the functions of the original operon when put together in the cyanobacteria. His team verified the directed locations of the cmpABCD constituents with chloroplast transit peptides in their experiment.

What did we change?
Considering Dr. Price’s advice, we standardized low-CO₂ activation windows before measurements. We’ve also switched to success metrics based on OD/chlorophyll/protein/dry weight, reserving glycogen for the late phase. These technical insights were obtained from Dr. Mangan and Dr. Price, allowing us to complete our experiment in the lab. However, we’ve only investigated the research end of product development, raising questions on how to implement our project into real-world industry conditions.

Why did we approach her?
After determining our project goal, we aimed to examine the biological efficiency of our cyanobacteria cultures. Therefore, we approached Dr. Mangan, who specializes in mathematical modeling, for insights into CCM modeling. The goal of this meeting was to gain a deeper understanding of how efficiency is defined in computational models, identify key enzymes beyond RuBisCO and RuBP involved in carboxylation, and explore how environmental conditions affect the performance of our genetically modified pathway.

What did we learn?
She emphasized the importance of carbonic anhydrase and CCM-related carboxysomes, all of which can become limiting factors in CO₂ uptake and delivery to RuBisCO. A key piece of advice she offered was to avoid adding sugar to the culture medium, as it could provide an alternative energy source and reduce the system’s reliance on CO₂ uptake. This would not only compromise the goal of improving carbon fixation but could also distort the experimental data.

What did we change?
After the meeting, we incorporated her CCM diagram logic into MATLAB predictions. We’ve also removed sugar from culture media across CO₂-fixation efficiency tests, and explicitly tracked CA/carboxysome assumptions in model–experiment comparisons.

Why did we approach him?
Dr. Lan from National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU) kindly provided our team with Cyanobaceira (Synechococcus elongatus PCC 7942), allowing us to begin experimenting in April 2025. His support is exceptionally significant, as our project involves genetically modifying cyanobacteria. Although we did not reach out to him for follow-up meetings and guidance regarding the mechanisms and questions we encountered, we were truly thankful for his generosity.

Why did we approach him?
Our decision to approach Dr. Matsumura, who specialized in functional polymeric biomaterials and biomedical engineering, was actually due to some difficulties and confusion about our final product’s component: PVA gel. We wanted to ask him about methods to verify or quantify whether our PVA gel has achieved the desired pore size, as well as ways to prepare the gel to balance transparency and rigidity. We also sought his advice on two issues we encountered with the PVA gel: dissolving in DI water and the cyanobacteria not entering the pores of the PVA, but instead sitting on the surface of the gel.

What did we learn?
We learned that the transparency of the gel is indicative of the pore size, as shown by the white, rigid gels resulting from 100% water due to physical crosslinking and water crystallization through hydrogen bonding. Dr. Matsu suggested the method to create sponge-like PVA by freeze-drying the gel and removing DMSO using ethanol or water washing, followed by vacuum drying. For quantification, he suggested using tensile testing with Young’s modulus, which is employed by their lab, or employing spectrophotometry for cell viability assessment with staining to evaluate structural features.

What did we change?
After receiving a reminder from Dr. Matsumura to review other designs of commercially available scrubbers, we discovered that most bioscrubbers actually employ a liquid culture of their engineered or desired microorganism, without any carrier polymer. That was when we decided that the focus of our project should shift towards synthetic biology instead of on chemical engineering-heavy PVA optimization methods. It was an unexpected outcome, as our initial goal was to improve our PVA gel; however, in the end, we decided that it should not be overemphasized in iGEM.

Why did we approach him?
Due to the continuous failures of cyanobacteria transformation using various methods, we reached out to Dr. Wu, an expert in biotechnology, including prokaryotic cellular reprogramming, for assistance with the transformation of cyanobacteria. His expertise in this field may help us carry out some troubleshooting or offer alternative perspectives on our protocols or experimental approach.

What did we learn?
He stated that since there are numerous available methods for bacterial transformation, each is tailored for different conditions or cell strains, we may need to consider several aspects to select the optimal protocol for our transformation. For instance, natural uptake might work well for certain Synechocystis strains but not others. Additionally, electroporation protocols (voltage, electrical field, and exposure time) can vary for specific cyanobacterial species, which requires other factors such as vector information, antibiotic resistance usage, and segregation time, etc., to determine the most suitable method further.

What did we change?
Acknowledging that the cyanobacteria we previously used for transformation and cultivation were not fresh enough, Dr. Wu referred to another professor at NTU, who provided us with two new plates of cyanobacteria. Yet, we didn’t change any part of our methods except for pipetting the new cyanobacteria into the center of the medium plate for cultivation, as suggested by the professor.

Why did we approach her?
While designing our education plan for elementary students from rural indigenous communities, we wanted to ensure that the class content, which introduces synthetic biology, wouldn’t be too complicated for young children to understand, and to verify that the games and activities we created serve educational purposes. Therefore, we approached Ms. Lori Principe, who had extensive experience in teaching elementary students, for feedback to adjust the lesson plan according to the children’s needs.

What did we learn?
We learned from Ms. Lori Principe that we can provide examples of inherited traits when introducing the function of DNA. She also suggested we create a self-evaluation session after the lesson ended to check students’ understanding.

What did we change?
We added a session for students to look at photos and distinguish between inherited and non-inherited traits. After this activity, we explain the science behind how these characteristics are inherited. Moreover, we designed self-evaluation handouts for students to complete, which included multiple-choice questions and drawing areas where they could organize what they had learned in class.

Why did we approach her?
While working on the applications of our product, we sought to consult professionals regarding the potential dangers or issues we might encounter when implementing our product in various industries. Therefore, we visited Ms. Tori Ho, who had a strong background in biochemistry, and asked for advice on how to maintain the cyanobacteria’s environment to optimize carbon fixation rates.

What did we learn?
From our discussions, we learned that temperature is a key factor we need to keep an eye on. Since cyanobacteria die in high temperatures, we need to ensure not only that the environment remains cold, but also that the CO₂ gas stays at a low temperature. We also learned to target households as our primary customers to build our project before aiming for large-scale industries, as households require smaller product sizes and are easier to target.

What did we change?
We initially switched our focus from power plants to households. Still, we realised that various households require different product sizes and efficiency, which made it hard for us to design a specific product for every targeted household. As a result, we switched back to targeting local power plants. Another reason that influenced our decision was the effect of our product when applied to these locations: installing it in large-scale power plants would have a significantly larger impact than in households.

Why did we approach her?
We approached Dr. Liu, who had a research background in fields including innovation, strategy, and entrepreneurship, because we wanted to understand how our solution would be evaluated from a business and investor perspective. Since our project focuses on integrating synthetic biology into an industrial setting, we recognized the importance of testing whether our business model is convincing and practical from a business perspective.

What did we learn?
She highlighted that we need quantifiable evidence that companies and investors expect. In particular, she asked us to define clearly how much CO₂ our system could capture, how often the cyanobacteria medium would need to be replenished, and how long the engineered cyanobacteria could remain active before requiring replacement. We learned businesses are also looking for a clear return on investment.

What did we change?
We conducted a competitive analysis, performed precise calculations for carbon fixation efficiency, and estimated the annual amount of CO₂ that could be captured, depending on the reactor size. We also added medium replenishment schedules and costs into our operational plan and started modeling the lifespan of cyanobacteria cultures.

Why did we approach her?
We reached out to Ms. Jay, the SDGs ambassador at Kang Chiao International School, because we wanted to test how well our project aligned with sustainability frameworks and UN SDGs. Since our solution aims to have both environmental and economic value, her perspective was crucial in helping us connect our project with a measurable sustainability impact and broader market expectations.

What did we learn?
We learned that we need to show the long-term outcomes our bioreactor can achieve, not just short-term outcomes. She explained how each SDG contributes to broader goals and impacts. She also recommended thinking carefully about how we measure sustainability by using approaches such as the carbon tax method.

What did we change?
We revised our SDG targets in response to her feedback. For SDG 9, we changed from 9.2, Sustainable Industrialization for Growth, to 9.4, Resource Efficiency and Sustainable Practices. We also added 12.5 to highlight waste reduction, updated SDG 13 by changing from 13.1 to 13.3, which emphasizes education and awareness of climate change, and specified our connection to SDG 15.1.

Why did we approach him?
To make our project practical in real-world settings, we approached a local medium-sized factory owner, seeking to gather information from an industrial perspective. We reached out to Mr. Lou, a small-scale factory administrator, to gain insight into the incentives and challenges small to medium-sized factories face regarding carbon credit policies and carbon fixation adoption.

What did we learn?
He states that without an established structure for carbon credits and taxes in Taiwan, there is no incentive for medium-sized factories to implement carbon-fixing technology into their operations.

What did we change?
We have refined our marketing techniques to promote ESG benefits and collect the biomass generated from cyanobacteria for sale, potentially as a raw material for dietary supplements.

Why did we approach her?
As we are working on the project's entrepreneurship component and intend to employ the device in industry as subsequent orientations, we reached out to Dr. Chu, who is the current agent of Chimera Bioscience Inc., in the interest of learning more about Taiwan's business environment and industrial demands.

What did we learn?
She stated that we have to establish a comparative analysis with other companies that currently implement cyanobacteria for scaling. Conducting a SWOT analysis can also be considered, according to Dr. Chu, to examine product feasibility and customer/market size.

What did we change?
After the discussion with Dr. Chu, who helped us refine our value proposition, we established relevance for local companies with global customers. Additionally, we conducted further research on existing technologies, specifically those that utilize cyanobacteria or similar genetically modified organisms to enhance carbon fixation rates. We compared their costs, efficiencies, and market usefulness to estimate a reasonable price and determine a suitable market for our product.

Why did we approach him?
Since we are engaged in the entrepreneurship aspect of the project and aim for industrial use of the device in future orientations, we approached Mr. Alex Chuang, who has served as deputy director in Chroma ATE Inc. since September 1999, hoping to receive a more comprehensive knowledge about Taiwan’s industrial demands and business environment regarding ESG compliance.

What did we learn?
Through our discussions, we learned that only by incorporating diverging perspectives, such as companies’ carbon footprint, efficiency, input versus output, economic value, side effects, and costs, among others, can we effectively promote our device into the industrial sector in Taiwan. Moreover, he mentioned that, considering Taiwan has an inchoate carbon trading system, we should advance our device into foreign markets, emphasizing its societal benefits and effectiveness during marketing.

What did we change?
Knowing that Taiwan has not yet established a comprehensive carbon exchange system, we decided to expand our target market to international energy industries, where regulatory conditions for carbon taxes and ESG infrastructure are more established. We also adjusted our TAM SAM SOM market and had the Asia and international markets as a crucial part in our long-term business plan. In addition, we investigated the strengths and weaknesses of our product, including its economic value and internal and external weaknesses, in comparison to existing technologies, and were able to form a comprehensive SWOT analysis.

Why did we approach them?
With technical foundations and industry focus established, we aimed to communicate and justify our approach externally. So we turned to peer exchanges with several iGEM teams to strengthen our outreach and project presentation. The first team we approached is the Cali-mod iGEM team. We wanted to exchange projects, receive feedback, and compare strategies for scaling up implementation.

What did we learn?
We presented our projects to each other and received feedback from the Cali-mod team on existing projects that could serve as inspiration for scaling up our product in our target industries. Based on their product implementation of modified IL-10 in the food industry, we noticed their problem was more focused on a local scale, whereas we were aiming for a global scale.

What did we change?
After the exchange, we were able to identify the benefits of a more local approach. We narrowed our focus to specific industries relevant to Taiwan’s carbon emissions, such as cement and steel companies. We’ve decided to draft a regional pilot before global scaling.

Why did we approach them?
After multiple meetings with peers and professionals, our project was nearly completed. To prepare for the iGEM jamboree, we participated in the mock judging to simulate Jamboree conditions, practice our presentation skills, and exchange feedback with several professors and peers. This allowed us to identify areas for improvement, which helped us finalize our project.

What did we learn?
This was our first time officially presenting our project and experiencing the feedback and questions from the judges. During the Q&A session, issues regarding maintaining the temperature and light within our carbon fixation chamber were raised, which helped us identify weaknesses in our product design. In addition, the constructive feedback and challenging questions from professors highlighted areas where we need to clarify and strengthen our communication to judges.
For example, we realized the importance of justifying how our modeling can reliably predict whether our modified cyanobacteria are more effective at fixing CO₂, especially since we currently lack functional assays to validate this experimentally. Another suggestion from professors is to consider whether the internal conditions of the bioreactor can support the growth and survival of cyanobacteria.

What did we change?
For the hardware of the project, we added a thermal/illumination control plan with sensors and PID targets. For internal conditions, we conducted a pH test to ensure the pH level remained relatively constant despite the acidification caused by CO₂ dissolution. Noticing that temperature significantly impacted the bioreactor, we shifted our target customers to industrial facilities with existing purification systems already installed, thereby avoiding direct entry of raw air. This also prevents air from exceeding the optimal temperature range for cyanobacteria, which is 30 °C to 40 °C.

Why did we approach them?
Despite having the exchange with a member of the Cali-mod iGEM Team, we also approached the NIS Kazakhstan iGEM Team. We aimed to share projects, explore collaboration opportunities, and learn about their science communication initiatives. Since this exchange session involves many members of the NIS Kazakhstan iGEM Team, we can share ideas from different perspectives.

What did we learn?
In addition to discussing synthetic biology, we explored opportunities for cross-team collaboration. One key initiative was their multilingual picture book project, which aims to make science more accessible to younger audiences across cultures.

What did we change?
We identified areas to collaborate by supporting the translation of their picture book into Mandarin and arranging for it to be displayed in our school library. This partnership allows us to contribute to science communication and outreach beyond our immediate project. It also provides our team with experience in engaging the public in synthetic biology through the development of accessible educational materials.

Why did we approach them?
In addition to the NIS Kazakhstan iGEM Team, we also reached out to the Louisville iGEM Team, hoping to explore collaboration opportunities and shared educational initiatives.
We recognized that their project had a strong focus on environmental sustainability and community education, which aligned closely with our goals. By working with them, we could expand our outreach and gain new perspectives on communicating science to the public.

What did we learn?
We planned a joint podcast in the Climate Crisis Village with guest experts on climate and pollution. Through our conversations, we also learned about the strategies the Louisville team used to engage local schools and design policy, including interactive workshops and social media campaigns. This provided us with new ideas to enhance the accessibility and impact of our own outreach activities.

What did we change?
Through our collaboration with the Louisville iGEM Team, we made several adjustments to strengthen our outreach and engagement strategies. In addition to scheduling joint podcast episodes, we also drew inspiration from their emphasis on youth-centered education. This led us to design short science lesson plans for tutoring elementary to middle school students, making our project more accessible to younger audiences. Furthermore, we adopted their model of bi-directional collaboration by exchanging feedback on communication materials before public release, ensuring that our outreach would be both scientifically accurate and engaging to diverse communities.