Human Practices | LYON

Human Practices – Overview

The idea for our project began to take shape in November, when 17 of us—students from three different institutions in Lyon (INSA, ENS, and Lyon 1)—met for the very first time. During those early weekly meetings, several ideas emerged, spanning oncology, space exploration, and climate change. After such debate, we chose to focus on PFAS—so-called “forever chemicals”. But why particularly?

If you drive just a few kilometers south of Lyon, along the Rhône river, you reach Pierre-Bénite. At first sight, it looks like any other quiet town in France: small houses, schools, playgrounds, and the steady flow of the river nearby. But hidden behind the everyday scenes lies a story that has shaken the whole region.

For decades, a chemical plant owned by Arkema has been producing substances known as PFAS. Once they are released, they stay in the environment for years, even centuries, contaminating soil, water, and living organisms.

At Pierre-Bénite, PFAS waste leaked into the Rhône and surrounding land. Slowly, invisibly, it spread into the water supply and the local ecosystem. Residents didn’t notice at first — there’s no smell, no color, no taste. But then came the studies. Researchers started finding PFAS in tap water, in vegetables from local gardens, even in the blood of people living nearby. The levels were far above safe limits.

The discovery triggered outrage. Parents worried about their children. Farmers feared for their crops. Environmental groups demanded answers. Journalists revealed that Arkema had known about the risks for years but had continued production, adding to the contamination.

Map Pierre-Bénite — Map of Pierre-Bénite showing PFAS pollution sites

Arkema site 1 — Citizen Mobilization in front of Arkema Factories

Arkema site 2 — Citizen Mobilization in front of Arkema Factories

The Pierre Benite site became one of Europe’s most emblematic PFAS scandals. As a team from Lyon, we felt it was our duty to do our best to provide a solution to our families, our friends, and our neighbors.

Moreover, we soon discovered that what began as a local controversy revealed something much bigger. The Arkema case was not an isolated event: PFAS contamination was discovered worldwide.

That dual reality — local urgency and global scale — is why we chose PFAS pollution as the focus of our iGEM project. We started diving into literature and nothing could have prepared us for what we discovered…

The Project

Whom did we contact?
21 experts whithin the scientific community
11 companies or government organisations
100+ people outside the academic world
8 iGEM Teams

💡 Click on the buttons
to see who we met! 💡

Just a week after picking our subject, we presented our idea to one of our key partners, bioMérieux. Their positive feedback, particularly from Ms. Bénédict Blot, Head of Sustainability, encouraged us to pursue PFAS bioremediation. Two days later, our academic mentor, Dr. Erwan Gueguen, officially validated our project, setting us on a clear path.

We began by reviewing literature and past iGEM projects, notably Padua 2023, to build on existing strategies and gain inspiration. We were particularly drawn to their “enzyme cocktail” approach and their bioinformatics workflow, recognizing that docking results would be central to our research. We organized a Zoom meeting with them in the following days and, based on their feedback regarding defective promoters, we reached out to Agnès Rodigue, former iGEM mentor and biosensor expert, for guidance.

To structure our efforts, we met with iGEM Lyon 2024, gathering advice on team organization. We ultimately divided into seven working groups: Human Practices, Education, Communication, Entrepreneurship, Agenda, Team Building, and Science - and we agreed on holding weekly online meetings to share progress and maintain cohesion.

In December, we dove into the literature and had marathon brainstorming sessions—basically letting our curiosity run wild. Some of the wilder ideas we explored included:

Could PFAS be trapped using biosorption mechanisms?
Could studying PFAS-contaminated soils reveal microbes with natural strategies for dealing with these pollutants?
Could we find a bacterium with a strong affinity for PFAS and co-culture it with another strain designed to degrade it?
Could plants capture PFAS in their roots? (We knew European GMO rules would probably block that path, but it was fun to think about.)

Alongside these big ideas, we catalogued enzymes that could act on PFAS—like dehalogenases, laccases, and peroxidases—and mapped the main researchers and labs in France working on this topic.

On the detection side, we explored biosensor designs and transcriptomics approaches. Current PFAS detection is slow—you have to send samples to specialized labs and wait days for results. Our goal was to create something rapid, user-friendly, and deployable outside specialized labs, maybe a test strip that changes color when PFAS is present. A tool could really empower communities, municipalities, and environmental groups to monitor water safety in real-time and respond quickly to contamination.

Through all of this, one question kept guiding us: what unique value could our project bring compared to what already exists? That’s when we turned our attention to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which is particularly concerning. Because of its small size and extreme persistence, TFA is highly bioaccumulative, yet current removal strategies remain inadequate (IKSR Report on TFA in Aquatic Systems, 2023). Reverse osmosis can separate TFA from water, but this process generates a concentrated waste stream that is even harder to manage. Incineration—often considered the ultimate solution for PFAS destruction—has the unintended consequence of releasing TFA into the atmosphere. In 2025, Le Monde and Que Choisir raised the alarm when critical concentrations of TFA were detected in tap water across France, rendering it unsuitable for consumption. Moreover, TFA belongs to the ultrashort-chain PFAS, which makes it suitable for enzymatic degradation. Structurally, TFA contains only three carbon–fluorine bonds—just one more than what natural dehalogenases are known to break. From that moment on, TFA became our ultimate degradation target.

For Human Practices, we kicked things off with sociologist Marianne Chouteau. Together, we drafted an ethical matrix for PFAS remediation, helping us map all the people and actors potentially affected by our project and technology. By the end of December, we hadn’t yet chosen a single experimental path, but we had clearly outlined the key questions and the stakeholders involved.

At the beginning of January, we decided to organize ourselves into five dedicated subgroups to be more efficient:

Docking (enzyme mutants)
Detection (biosensor)
Degradation
Analysis (methods for measuring PFAS and their breakdown products)
Safety

After reviewing the literature, we quickly realized that our next step had to be expert feedback.

Degradation

We first met with two leading French researchers in PFAS degradation, Michaël Ryckelynck and Stéphane Vuilleumier, who lead the Microfluor project. Their work uses microfluidic channels and fluorescent sensors to isolate individual bacteria that might degrade PFAS. They encouraged us to look into RNA aptamers for biosensing and introduced us to Corinne Ravelet, an expert in aptamer design. She gave us valuable insights, including a critical perspective on existing literature and possible design directions. However, we ultimately concluded that this technology is still too new for us to develop within the scope of iGEM, as there is little reliable literature and no past iGEM team to build on.

M. Ryckelynck and M. Vuilleumier also helped us refine the stepwise approach pioneered by Team Padua (2023). With their guidance, we structured our experimental plan around progressive validation: starting with chlorinated compounds, then moving to fluorinated analogues (FA, DA), before finally tackling TFA.

Next, we sought a chemistry perspective. Our meeting with Prof. Médebielle and Dr. Doumèche, both fluorine chemistry experts, was a real game-changer. They explained why some PFAS, such as TFA, are extremely resistant to degradation and require strong oxidative or reductive strategies. They highlighted the limitations of conventional dehalogenases and suggested exploring photobiocatalysis with enzymes like FAP. They also proposed creative chemical–biological cascades, such as first introducing aromatic cycles to delocalize electrons, followed by optimized dehalogenases.

Later, we discovered a paper on Lipase SPL, which described adding an aromatic cycle to TFA using the enzyme. This approach aligned perfectly with Dr. Doumèche’s strategy of electron delocalization to destabilize C–F bonds. Based on this insight, we included cycled TFA in our docking ligands and defined it as our main target for simulations.

Detection

On the detection side, our chemistry mentors recommended designing “sensor ON” systems, where PFAS triggers a signal rather than inhibiting it. This approach reduces false positives and, combined with fluorescent reporters, increases sensitivity. Following this advice, we decided to focus more on our detection strategy. We reached out to Carlos Afonso, a PFAS detection expert, who explained the high costs and practical challenges of current detection methods. He confirmed the need for a user-friendly, rapid, and low-cost detection tool, motivating us to explore multiple biosensor approaches:

Engineering GPCRs, known for their environmental sensitivity, into PFAS-responsive biosensors.
Fusing PFAS-binding domains to intracellular signaling motifs, or even repurposing human nuclear receptors.

Both ideas were ultimately excluded by our mentor, Erwan Gueguen, mainly because they would require engineering of complex protein systems that would be too challenging and time-consuming to implement reliably within the timeframe of iGEM.

At this point, transcriptomics emerged as a promising alternative. By performing RNA-seq on bacteria exposed to PFAS, we could identify strongly upregulated genes and use their promoters to design novel biosensors. Although costly, this approach offered rapid insights and the potential for publishable results. Shortly after, a paper on E. coli transcriptomics upon PFAS exposure was published. Initially, we were disappointed, but we quickly realized it was a huge time-saver: we could analyze the reported upregulated genes and order the necessary plasmids sooner than expected. We reached out to Molly Winterberg, the paper’s lead author, and she generously shared all her raw data.

In collaboration with bioMérieux, we decided to still perform RNA-seq, but on a different bacterial strain, Pseudomonas putida. Multiple Zoom meetings with Molly guided us on RNA sequencing conditions, and her help was instrumental in shaping our biosensor development strategy.

Docking

Once our overall strategy was clearer, we turned to docking simulations. On the recommendation of our bioinformatics teacher, Nicolas Parisot, we contacted Emmanuel Bettler at IBCP, widely recognized as the “AlphaFold expert of Lyon.” Emmanuel not only provided us with docking software licenses but also offered several weeks of hands-on training in ChimeraX and YASARA. We also had the opportunity to discuss molecular dynamics with Stéphanie Aguero. However, due to time and computational constraints, we decided not to pursue these simulations for this project.

Inspired by Team Padua’s previous work, we compiled a list of eleven candidate enzymes, aligned their sequences, and searched for homologs in PFAS-resistant bacterial strains. From this analysis, we selected RPA1163 dehalogenase for our docking simulations, as it had the most complete crystallized model.

However, we soon realized the limitations of manual mutagenesis: we could only test a tiny fraction of the potentially relevant mutations, which was frustrating. To overcome this bottleneck, we looked for ways to automate mutant generation—and that’s when artificial intelligence came into play. We reached out to Dr. Xavier Robert, who introduced us to AI-based bioinformatics simulations and gave us access to the IN2P3 supercomputer, which notably processes data from CERN – Europe’s largest particle accelerator! This approach reduced what would have been a 50-year simulation into just five days. Through this pipeline, over 300,000 distinct mutants were generated, from which 20 were selected for experimental testing in the lab.

Enzyme Production and Purification

Once we had a clearer idea of which enzymes to target from our docking studies, we turned to the question of how to deploy them effectively. Several strategies were considered, each with advantages and limitations:

Cytoplasmic expression maximizes enzyme yield but complicates purification.
Vesicular secretion (VNP15 tag) improves stability and simplifies delivery, though vesicle purification can be technically challenging.
Membrane anchoring (Lpp-OmpT system), previously tested by Team Padua 2023, enables enzymes to act directly at the cell membrane in living bioreactors, facilitating in situ catalysis but potentially limiting total yield.

These considerations built directly on our Docking and Degradation planning. Cytoplasmic expression provides enough enzyme for in vitro testing of candidates like RPA1163 and cycled TFA, while secretion or membrane anchoring could support applied setups, such as bioreactors with minimal purification. We also explored membrane immobilization, though substrates like TFA remain challenging due to specific enzyme requirements. Linking enzyme expression methods with practical deployment allowed us to draw a scalable experimental plan.

Analysis

On the analysis side, Carlos Afonso guided us toward the Institut des Sciences Analytiques (ISA), just a five-minute walk from our school, to access mass spectrometry equipment. We contacted Jérôme Lemoine at ISA, who kindly granted us access for July and August, on the condition that experiments be meticulously designed in advance and samples handled carefully.

To prepare, we consulted our analysis expert sponsor, Carso Lab, to obtain protocols and advice on rigorous sample preparation. While they could not share their proprietary protocols directly, they encouraged detailed bibliographic research and introduced us to Maxime Louzon, an environmental ecotoxicologist at Envisol. Maxime helped clarify our purification and extraction methods, emphasizing the importance of tailoring protocols to our specific buffers and matrices, and assisted us in designing a robust safety pipeline.

As we progressed, it became clear that developing our own mass spectrometry protocols for PFAS was unrealistic. Luckily, we met Karine Faure, who advised that cycled TFA analysis could be performed using UV spectroscopy instead, since TFA contains a detectable aromatic ring. This allowed us to drop the costly and time-consuming MS approach. We then explored more practical alternatives:

Exchanges with Xavier Saupin, from ISA, added fluoride ion chromatography to our analytical toolbox.
Stéphane Chambert introduced us to NMR spectroscopy, which can detect fluorine atoms (19F NMR) and is especially powerful as fluorine has 100% natural abundance. He also helped us develop an HPLC-UV method and provided protocols and guidance for synthesizing chemically cycled TFA. Importantly, he warned us about the solubility and stability of fluorinated substrates in our chosen enzyme buffers, allowing us to adjust our experimental design accordingly.

Safety

Considerations guided both our laboratory work and our envisioned applications:

Laboratory Biosafety: All cloning and expression experiments were conducted in E. coli DH5α and E.coli MG1655, a non-pathogenic chassis commonly used in iGEM. Experiments were carried out under BSL-1 and BSL-2 conditions, with strict protocols for handling PFAS-contaminated cultures under fume hoods and using sealed containers. We consulted biosafety officers at ENS Lyon and Lyon 1 to ensure that no PFAS waste entered the environment, and all residues were sent for incineration under authorized procedures.
Regulatory Landscape: Our meetings with regulators and industry revealed a complex landscape. While enzyme-based bioreactors are generally more acceptable than environmental release of GMOs, their implementation must comply with water treatment standards and EU regulations on novel biotechnologies. By designing our bioreactor around immobilized enzymes rather than living organisms, we aligned with a regulatory pathway more likely to achieve acceptance.
Risk Mitigation Strategies:
- Use of non-pathogenic host organisms
- Avoidance of environmental GMO release
- Containment strategies for PFAS handling
- Focus on enzyme immobilization to minimize biosafety risks

Around April, we began asking not only how to detect and degrade PFAS, but also how to translate these solutions into concrete tools. On the entrepreneurship side, we envisioned the biosensor as a lab kit: a compartment separated by a membrane that would let water and small molecules pass through, while lyophilized bacteria on the other side would serve as the detection system. This concept raised further questions: how could detection be linked to remediation?

A masterclass by Claire Peyruchat was a turning point. Her lecture on bioreactors and enzyme production inspired us to consider an enzymatic bioreactor for water treatment. One idea was to market the biosensor alongside a bioreactor—if PFAS were detected upstream, the user could then employ an enzymatic degradation unit downstream. Following discussions with Ms. Peyruchat, we decided to start with a batch system without immobilization, using His-tagged enzymes for easy recovery, and to separate bacterial growth from the enzymatic reaction. This strategy optimized enzyme yield while keeping conditions simple and scalable for an iGEM proof-of-concept.

Claire also recommended exchanges with Marion Letisse, an expert in enzymology and process engineering. Marion advised starting by reproducing the protocols first on the WT enzyme, before performing Michaelis–Menten analyses on mutants, to avoid confusing experimental errors with enzyme inefficiency. She also suggested using a simple agitated cuve for first enzyme activity tests.

A key remaining question was choosing our target water matrix, given the many possible options. A milestone was the meeting with the scientific team of our sponsor Veolia, who shared expertise on wastewater treatment. They highlighted the need for post-reverse osmosis treatment and guided us in integrating enzymatic solutions into real processes: starting in batch mode to study retention times and optimal conditions, then moving to continuous sequential batch systems to allow enzyme regeneration while maintaining flow.

They also recommended splitting the bioreactor design into two: one for bacterial production in-house and another enzymatic unit implementable at water treatment plants. This interaction also broadened ethical reflections: was it ethically acceptable to increase water costs in order to pay for pollution caused by our lifestyles? Could this worsen inequalities between municipalities, since wastewater treatment is managed locally in France?

Based on all of this, we began writing our business plan with the help of DaVinci incubator experts. It really made the project feel tangible and motivated us to submit our first startup proposals based on our iGEM work to several incubators. By the end of July, we were accepted into Station F.

STATION F is the largest startup campus in the world, founded by Xavier Niel and based in Paris. It supports over 1,000 startups each year and has already seen many successes, including Hugging Face, Yuka, and Neoplants. Our project was selected for the Round 1 of the Fighter Program, a month-long acceleration program, designed for early-stage entrepreneurs with unconventional journey. The program gave us the opportunity to explore the future of our iGEM Lyon 2025 project.

As part of our Human Practices work, we engaged with the City of Villeurbanne (our commune) and Pierre Benite (affected by the Arkema factories) to explore the local relevance of our project. These discussions revealed that PFAS contamination disproportionately affects vulnerable communities, and that remediation strategies must be equitably financed. They also sparked an ethical debate within our team: should we collaborate with companies that still produce PFAS? Guided by the ethical matrix we developed with Marianne Chouteau, we decided not to engage directly with PFAS producers, ensuring our project aligned with societal and ethical responsibility. Instead, we focused on partnerships with water treatment providers and analytical laboratories, selecting sponsors who not only supported us financially but could also guide us scientifically and help uphold our values.

We also reached out to local advocacy groups, including Action Justice Climat Lyon, Générations Futures, and Notre Affaire à Tous, as well as local representatives of the Marie de Lyon. These conversations challenged us to think critically about science communication in schools and public events, emphasizing the need to inform without alarming. As a result, we developed communication materials that explain PFAS risks in accessible terms, aiming to empower citizens with knowledge rather than fear.

Later, we met Nicolas Thierry, the French deputy behind the national law banning PFAS in cosmetics and certain textiles. This meeting gave us a perspective on the political and societal dimensions of the PFAS crisis. We learned that the law only gained traction after local mobilization to pressure the Parlement. This experience highlighted the importance of citizen pressure, not just scientific communities, in driving regulatory change.

Further discussions with Marianne Chouteau led us to integrate the principles of One Health into our approach. One Health is a framework that recognizes the interconnected health of humans, animals, and ecosystems, emphasizing that chemical challenges like PFAS cannot be addressed in isolation. Inspired by this perspective, we decided to organize a multidisciplinary event at ENS, during the ENSL Interface Days in December 2025. These days aim to bring together different disciplines—scientific, social, and literary—to examine a single societal issue from multiple perspectives.

The event will feature experts from journalism (Stéphane Horel, Le Monde), chemistry (Pr. Jacob de Boer), policy (Marie-Charlotte Garin, deputy of the 3rd constituency of Rhône), water management (Pouradier Duteil, Veolia Water) and local government (Marie-Charlotte Garin, Rhône deputy), to share insights on PFAS distribution across France, health risk (focusing on population living around Arkema factories in Lyon), legislation, remediation strategies and local initiatives. This event represented the culmination of our efforts, bringing together all societal actors in a single space to collectively explore the PFAS challenge. The goal is to demonstrate that addressing PFAS is not just a scientific issue and to reinforce our commitment to co-designing scientific solutions with society.

Finally, we strengthened collaboration within the iGEM community by initiating contact with other French teams to coordinate a Mini Jamboree, creating opportunities for knowledge exchange and reinforcing national synergies ahead of the international competition.

Our Education initiatives multiplied. Our goal aimed to bring science into everyday life and show that everyone can engage with environmental challenges like PFAS pollution:

Primary School: We created the “PFAS Game”, a board game with wooden and 3D-printed pieces, turning children into ecological superheroes while teaching biodegradation and bioremediation. In partnership with Ébuliscience, we ran a three-week program combining bacterial cultures, games about pollution, and hands-on DNA extraction from bananas.
Middle and High School: Through the Pollutants’ Workshop, inspired by the Climate Fresco, students explored how daily activities connect to pollution, fostering critical thinking and personal responsibility.
University: We organized presentations at Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, ENS Library, and INSA, sharing our research with students and researchers.
Public Outreach: At events like the 24h de l’INSA Festival and the Lyon Municipal Library, we engaged broader audiences with games, proving that science can be both accessible and inspiring.

We also launched creative projects to reach wider audiences:

We co-developed a PFAS educational video game with Master’s students from Lyon 2, inspired by Plague Inc., where players must convince mayors to stop PFAS pollution by adopting our technology. The goal was to bring nonscientific students to work on a scientific project.
We partnered with Épicerie Séquentielle, a collective of comic artists, to produce a comic combined with storytelling that could be used to present our project at the Grand Jamboree.
We wrote a children’s book to bring PFAS issues to life for the Grand Jamboree.

Through all these activities, we learned that science only becomes impactful when it connects with people. From children to university students, each interaction reinforced our belief that informed citizens are empowered citizens.

In August, after obtaining our validated Safety Form, the team could finally start lab work. Enzyme cloning, purification, and biosensor plasmid assembly were initiated under supervision. We quickly confronted the constraints of time and resources. It became clear that testing all 25 enzyme candidates was unrealistic. We therefore prioritized a shortlist for cloning and characterization, while carefully documenting in our wiki the rationale for these choices. Purification protocols also brought practical challenges: with only one filtration pump available, processes lasted 5–6 hours for a single run, leading us to consider investing in additional or stronger pumps to accelerate throughput.

At the organizational level, we finalized the Mini Jamboree, coordinating with other teams and preparing scientific and educational content for the event. We also launched the “Free PFAS” student label, encouraging campus associations to identify and eliminate PFAS sources in daily student life, from food packaging to textiles. This initiative combined scientific insight with social responsibility.

The Mini Jamboree allowed our team to present plans and early results, exchange feedback with other French iGEM teams, and prepare for international competition. The entrepreneurial track progressed with Round 1 of the Station F Fighter Program, linking our scientific work to potential real-world applications.

Our Human Practices journey was a continuous dialogue between science and society. Through this iterative process, Human Practices transformed our project from a purely technical endeavor into a socially embedded innovation. By engaging experts, industries, policymakers, NGOs, and citizens, we ensured that our project evolved in a direction that is scientifically sound, ethically responsible, and socially relevant. The insights we gathered shaped not only our experimental designs but also our vision of how biotechnology can contribute to a sustainable future. Looking ahead, we aim to deepen our collaborations with water treatment stakeholders and regulatory bodies, while scaling our educational initiatives to reach broader audiences. That is why we are now working with Station F, the world’s largest startup campus, to turn our iGEM project into a biotech startup. Ultimately, our project demonstrates that tackling PFAS pollution requires more than enzymes—it requires trust, transparency, and collective action.

We are deeply grateful to all those who guided and challenged us throughout this journey. Above all, we are proud of the creativity, resilience, and commitment our team demonstrated. Investing our energy, skills, and free time in this project was not only a scientific adventure but also a profoundly rewarding human experience.

💡 Click on the icons to learn
more about One Health! 💡

Environmental Health

Can we really “repair” the planet?

We chose to develop the environmental pillar of the One Health approach by questioning the relevance of our project and its impact on the environment and the planet as a whole.

To what extent can our technology repair the planet? 🌍

Once upon a time, there was a renowned group of Lyon students called the Fluorobreakers. Alarmed by the severe PFAS pollution in their region, they decided to develop a bioremediation technology to tackle this major problem. After years of research, experimentation, and development, they succeeded in creating a technology capable of detecting and degrading certain toxic PFAS present in the environment! But the road to success was arduous. They were repeatedly questioned and criticized by those around them:

“Your project is contradictory and unecological: to degrade TFA, you synthesize another fluorinated cyclic molecule (N-[(4-chlorophenyl)methyl]-2,2,2-trifluoroacetamide), which could be just as toxic! Are you aware of this?”

“Yes, we are aware that producing a potentially toxic molecule is not necessarily ecological, but it is an intermediate in the TFA degradation reaction that is ultimately degraded! Even if this molecule is toxic, it does not accumulate in the environment because it is rapidly degraded by our dehalogenase enzymes!”

“Your project involves GMOs: aren’t you afraid they will spread into the environment?”

“To prevent the GMOs we synthesize from ending up in the environment, we have established a HACCP plan to identify, assess, and control the potential hazards associated with the production and use of GMOs.”

“Your project is expensive for society: is PFAS degradation really a priority in this debt-ridden world? Shouldn’t we just accept the irreversibility of pollution?”

“In today’s world, where human health and ecosystems are heavily impacted by PFAS, we believe that degrading these ‘forever chemicals’ can be considered one of the current priorities. We are aware that PFAS pollution caused by human activities is partly irreversible, but we hope to limit this contamination with our technology.”

Dystopia: What if our technology goes wrong?

These relevant and legitimate remarks and concerns drove them to relentlessly pursue their work until they obtained a functional technology capable of degrading TFA in water. Unfortunately, this project, originally intended for public use to decontaminate concentrates from drinking water treatment plants, attracted the attention of large PFAS-producing companies in the region. These companies illegally seized the innovation to create their own patents. Supported by their lobbies, they diverted the technology’s use to improve their image and continue producing as many PFAS as ever. Our technology even allowed them to produce more PFAS while staying below the regulatory thresholds imposed by French law! What an injustice! The Fluorobreakers team, stripped of their technology, could not stand up to these PFAS giants and their lobbies and were forced to abandon their project… Their technology was misused, and society was thus deprived of the benefits of their innovation: PFAS remained just as present in the environment.

Utopia: Our technology at its peak

These relevant and legitimate remarks and concerns drove them to relentlessly pursue their work until they obtained a functional technology capable of degrading TFA in water. Following this success, the close-knit group decided to create their startup, “Fluorobreaker,” to improve, commercialize, and expand their technology to a greater number of drinking water treatment companies, with the goal of common well-being. They were supported and encouraged by many stakeholders (water treatment companies, local authorities…) and paved the way for new PFAS bioremediation research, including other decontamination techniques such as phytoremediation, which uses plants to degrade, stabilize, or eliminate pollutants in contaminated environments. The Fluorobreakers managed to challenge the traditional boundaries between political responsibility, industrial decisions, and engineering.

Should we intervene, or sometimes accept to “let nature take its course”?

Let nature repair our planet: Some philosophers (such as Aldo Leopold) argue that humans should minimize their impact and let nature take its course, out of respect for its autonomy. This ethics of non-intervention emphasizes the humility we must show in the face of the complexity and robustness of ecosystems. Indeed, ecosystems have both the capacity to regenerate and act autonomously. Nature constantly demonstrates a remarkable ability to regenerate after disturbances—for example, forests after a fire, coral reefs after bleaching. This resilience shows that, in the case of PFAS degradation, certain microorganisms might, over time, succeed in sufficiently degrading these forever chemicals to naturally reduce pollution. Ecosystems are interdependent and often unpredictable. Intervening can sometimes make things worse by disrupting the biological balance. For example, introducing invasive species to “repair” an environment is a harmful human intervention for ecosystems. In the case of PFAS and the implementation of our bioremediation technology, active chemical and biological monitoring (water sampling, population monitoring) must be put in place to ensure that our technology does not negatively impact the surrounding ecosystem.

Intervene to repair our planet: The natural regeneration process is slow compared to the rapid degradation of ecosystems. For example, it can take hundreds of years for a forest to regain its full diversity of species after a fire, while its destruction by fire can take only a few hours! (Brut., 2021) In the case of forever chemicals, the degradation of these substances by natural processes is minimal and can take centuries (Lecomte, 2025). Moreover, humans continue to produce and use them on a massive scale. Not intervening to degrade them would therefore endanger biodiversity and the health of populations currently exposed to these pollutants, and allow already fragile ecological balances to deteriorate further. Furthermore, in the current situation of ecological urgency, not intervening would be human irresponsibility. Humans, who are responsible for the degradation of planetary ecosystems, must act to repair them. We must also intervene to contribute to intergenerational justice (not acting condemns future generations to inherit an impoverished planet) and environmental justice (not acting is to let innocent living organisms suffer the harmful effects caused by human activities).

Conclusion

In conclusion, one solution would be to implement our technology cautiously, taking ecological, ethical, and health precautions to avoid disrupting ecosystems. It would be interesting for our technology to complement other bioremediation techniques such as phytoremediation or adsorption on resin or activated carbon. Moreover, our solution must not be purely technical, but part of a broader change, linked to citizenship. By regulating access to our technology and promoting collaborations around eco-responsible innovation, it becomes both social and technical, capable of durably impacting society. The project questions the traditional separation between responsibility, environmental justice, political decisions, and the spheres of engineering or industry.

Bibliography

Régis Barraud. Ne pas intervenir, laisser évoluer librement la nature ?.
Rémi Luglia; Rémi Beau; Annabelle Treillard. De la réserve intégrale à la nature ordinaire : Les figures changeantes de la protection de la nature. XIXe – XXIe siècle, PUR, 2023, Espace et territoires, 978-2-7535-9198-1. ⟨hal-04547325⟩
Brut. (2021, août 18). VIDEO. Comment une forêt se régénère-t-elle après un incendie ? Franceinfo. https://www.franceinfo.fr/environnement/biodiversite/video-comment-une-foret-se-regenere-t-elle-apres-un-incendie_4719313.html
Lecomte, V. (2025, août 25). Les substances per- et polyfluoroalkylées (PFAS) : quel risque ces « polluants éternels » font-ils peser sur l’environnement ? Ecotoxicologie.fr. https://ecotoxicologie.fr/pfas-risque-environnement

Animal Health

What are the ecotoxicologic effects of PFAS?

We have expanded the focus on animal health to include plants, which also play a role in the issue of PFAS, as they form the base of the trophic chain.

Impact of PFAS on Living Organisms

How do PFAS enter living organisms?

In aquatic ecosystems, organisms absorb PFAS in two ways: by ingesting contaminated organic matter (animal or plant) and through direct contact with polluted water or sediments. Once inside an organism, these pollutants distribute and accumulate in various tissues (blood, fat, muscles), a phenomenon known as bioaccumulation. This process intensifies with the duration of exposure and the organism’s position in the food chain. Certain PFAS, such as PFOS, are particularly persistent and concentrate in organs like the liver or kidneys. Fish are especially vulnerable, as they feed on other already contaminated organisms, which amplifies PFAS concentration along the food chain: this is biomagnification. At the top of the food chain, large predators such as polar bears, seals, and humans, who consume contaminated fish, are most exposed to the toxic effects of PFAS.

Bioremediation & Bioaccumulation of PFAS in Living Organisms

Figure 1: Bioremediation & Bioaccumulation of PFAS in Living Organisms (Schauffler & Schauffler, 2025)

What are the effects of PFAS on living organisms from different trophic levels?

Most studies on the effects of PFAS on living organisms—especially aquatic organisms, which are the most exposed—are conducted in ecotoxicology laboratories. Algae and animals (both vertebrates and invertebrates) are exposed to varying concentrations of PFAS, and various measurements and observations are made to identify the potential health effects of PFAS on these organisms. Following these ecotoxicological studies, several effects have been documented:

🌱 In plants (first trophic level): PFAS accumulation disrupts photosynthesis and photorespiration mechanisms. Exposed plants also tend to have lower germination rates, slower growth, and shorter roots compared to unexposed plants (Ebinezer et al., 2022).
🐌 In invertebrates (second trophic level): Aquatic crustaceans and insects are particularly exposed through water and sediments, while terrestrial species such as earthworms and collembolans (soil micro-arthropods) are also affected, with impacts on soil fertility.

Mortality and growth: PFAS reduce growth and cause cellular and tissue damage in various invertebrates (insects, crustaceans, worms, mollusks). PFAS induce oxidative stress in many invertebrate species, impairing their health (weight loss, apoptosis in certain tissues, immune system disruption) (Ma et al., 2022).
Endocrine disruption: PFAS can interfere with the hormonal systems of invertebrates, affecting reproduction (gamete production) and the development of eggs and larvae.
Behavior and physiology: Some PFAS alter feeding behavior, mobility, and stress resistance in invertebrates. For example, in the current IPANEMA project (“Impact of PFAS, Fate and Ecotoxicology of Mixtures”), it was shown that earthworms exposed to PFAS exhibit reduced burrowing activity, which affects soil quality.

🐟 In vertebrates (top trophic level): several effects have been observed, particularly in zebrafish (a model organism) (Mahoney et al., 2022):

Hepatic toxicity: Fish exposed to PFAS often develop liver lesions, including hepatomegaly (enlarged liver) and disrupted lipid metabolism. Changes in the expression of genes related to detoxification and metabolism are also observed, which can impair overall health.
Endocrine and reproductive disruption: PFAS act as endocrine disruptors, affecting the production of sex and thyroid hormones and reproduction. Effects include reduced fertility, gonadal malformations, impaired sperm motility, and altered reproductive behavior.
Developmental and growth effects (pre- and post-natal): Fish eggs and larvae are particularly sensitive to PFAS. Exposure can lead to embryonic malformations, slowed growth, and increased juvenile mortality.
Oxidative stress and immunotoxicity: PFAS induce oxidative stress, damaging cells and tissues. They also weaken the immune system, making fish more vulnerable to infections and diseases.
Behavior and survival: Changes in behavior (activity, feeding, stress response) have been observed in PFAS-exposed fish, which can affect their survival and reproductive success.

What are the limitations of these findings?

Despite numerous laboratory ecotoxicological studies, accurately assessing the impact of PFAS on living organisms remains challenging for several reasons.

First, the term “PFAS” encompasses thousands of distinct compounds, all based on the same core structure but with highly variable toxicity levels. The effects of PFAS on living organisms therefore depend on the specific molecule (longer-chain PFAS are generally more toxic) and the species (some are more sensitive than others) (MacCarthy et al., 2021).

Second, in the environment, these substances are typically found at concentrations much lower than those used in laboratory tests, but exposure occurs over much longer periods (chronic exposure), complicating the assessment of their effects (Von der Trenck et al., 2018).

Finally, in nature, PFAS are never found in isolation; they coexist with many other pollutants (microplastics, heavy metals, pesticides, etc.), forming a complex mixture. The harmful effects of each molecule, studied separately, can add up, reinforce each other (synergistic effect), or, conversely, be mitigated (antagonistic effect) when they interact (Lecomte, 2023).

Impact of Our Project on Living Organisms

Why is our technology ecologically relevant?

A technology that protects all species

PFAS are not just a human problem: they persist in natural environments, accumulate in living organisms, and disrupt their reproduction, health, and interspecies interactions. Our solution also protects non-human species that are unjustly affected by PFAS pollution in their habitats. One of our project’s goals is to address this ecological injustice, particularly for aquatic species living in polluted waters.

A sustainable bioremediation technology that acts at the source

By targeting PFAS at the source (in the concentrate from drinking water filtration), we protect downstream environments such as rivers, aquifers, and their biocenoses. Our technology acts upstream in the trophic chain, thereby limiting the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of PFAS in living organisms. Moreover, our solution avoids simply displacing pollution (as is currently the case with reverse osmosis): by degrading PFAS rather than concentrating or storing them, we prevent temporal or geographical displacement of the problem. We are aware that our project has several technical limitations that we aim to improve. For example, our biosensor is not sensitive enough to detect environmental PFAS concentrations, which are on the order of µg/L. Since PFAS are a vast family of chemical compounds, our technology currently targets only a limited range of fluorinated molecules, but we hope to expand its scope through further study.

A project that considers the biological risks associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

The creation of a bacterial GMO is a powerful bioremediation tool, but its development must be accompanied by a thorough assessment of its impacts. It was therefore important to evaluate the various biological risks associated with GMO creation and to find ways to control them. The main risk is the dissemination of GMO bacteria into the environment in the event of a bioreactor leak, which normally operates as a closed batch system. Such dissemination could lead to the transfer of modified DNA to wild bacterial strains (e.g., through horizontal transfer of the synthetic plasmid). For example, antibiotic resistance genes introduced in our synthetic plasmids, such as the Kan gene present in our biosensor, could be transmitted to pathogens and exacerbate the current public health issue of antibiotic resistance. Furthermore, even if the most likely outcome is the natural degradation of the plasmid upon GMO release, the GMO could have unintended impacts on biodiversity (interaction with the metabolism of non-target species, uncontrolled effects, etc.) and thus contribute more broadly to ecosystem disruption. To avoid these dissemination-related problems, one solution is to include an auxotrophic gene in the plasmid design—a mutated gene that prevents the synthesis of a metabolite essential to the bacterium. While the biosensor constructed for this project does not currently include such a gene, it would be interesting and safer to introduce one in future improvements. Aware of these risks and the absence of this safety system, we have taken extra precautions during manipulations. To evaluate and consider all risks associated with GMO handling, a HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) plan, inspired by food safety management systems, was implemented:

HACCP matrix

Bibliography

Ebinezer LB, Battisti I, Sharma N, et al. Perfluorinated alkyl substances affect the growth, physiology and root proteome of hydroponically grown maize plants. J Hazard Mater. 2022;438:129512. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129512
Lecomte, V. (2023, Dec 2). Effet cocktail : quelle est la toxicité d’un mélange de polluants ? Ecotoxicologie.fr. Link
MacCarthy DS, Adam M, Freduah BS, et al. Climate Change Impact and Variability on Cereal Productivity among Smallholder Farmers under Future Production Systems in West Africa. Sustainability 2021;13:5191. doi:10.3390/su13095191
Mahoney H, Xie Y, Brinkmann M, Giesy JP. Next generation per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances: Status and trends, aquatic toxicity, and risk assessment. Eco-Environment & Health. 2022;1(2):117-131. doi:10.1016/j.eehl.2022.05.002
Ma T, Ye C, Wang T, Li X, Luo Y. Toxicity of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Aquatic Invertebrates, Planktons, and Microorganisms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(24):16729. doi:10.3390/ijerph192416729
Schauffler M, Schauffler M. Testing the Waters: Tracing the movement of PFAS into waterways and wildlife. The Maine Monitor. 2025 Jun 2.
Von Der Trenck KT, Konietzka R, et al. Significance thresholds for the assessment of contaminated groundwater: perfluorinated and polyfluorinated chemicals. Environ Sci Eur. 2018;30(1). doi:10.1186/s12302-018-0142-4

Human Health

Managing PFAS is not only a scientific or health challenge — it is also a deeply political and societal issue. The European regulation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) aims to protect human health and the environment while maintaining the competitiveness of the chemical industry. However, despite more than 10,000 PFAS identified, only a few dozen are currently restricted. This gap reflects the limitations of evaluating substances one by one, as well as the influence of industrial lobbying, which often delays or weakens regulatory action. In January 2023, five European countries — Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway — jointly submitted a historic proposal to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA): to restrict almost all PFAS uses across the EU, with only a few essential exemptions. If approved, this would become the most comprehensive PFAS ban in the world. The proposal has faced strong opposition from the chemical industry, citing economic concerns and lack of alternatives.

Understanding these dynamics is key to a One Health perspective, where human, environmental, and societal factors are inseparable.

In her talk on PFAS and environmental justice, given at the French Mini Jamboree, Paloma Bert (iGEM Lyon 2025) highlighted the role of agnotology—the deliberate production of ignorance—in delaying the banning of toxic substances. These delays disproportionately impact communities most exposed to chemicals, particularly those living near industrial sites or in economically disadvantaged areas. The result is a profound case of environmental injustice, where vulnerable populations bear the severe consequences of pollution generated by the lifestyles of the broader society.

Fair Access to Our Water Depollution Technology

Problem: How to ensure equitable access to a water depollution technology while keeping an economically realistic framework?

Two possible models:

Model 1 — Adjusted Pricing: Prices set according to population size and municipal budget, providing transparency and fairness for smaller towns.
Model 2 — City Pairing: Large municipalities sponsor smaller ones, covering part of the costs to ensure equitable access.

Comparison Table

Criteria	Model 1: Adjusted Pricing	Model 2: City Pairing
Main idea	Prices depend on city size or budget	Big cities help pay for small cities
Goal	Make it cheaper for small/poor towns	Help all cities get access, even the poorest
Who benefits most	Small and medium cities	Small cities with no budget
Client reaction	Good for small cities — mixed for big ones	Positive if well explained; useful for public image
Business sustainability	Profitable if tiers set well	Depends on external funding or commitments
Benefits	Easy to explain; Fair for small towns; Simple to include in contracts	Strong symbolic value; Creates partnerships; Helps very poor cities
Risks	Big cities might reject higher prices; May raise legal questions	More complex to manage; Needs strong commitment from cities
Social justice impact	High	Very high
Environmental impact	Broad access, more water cleaned	Focus on underserved areas, faster results

By using these models, we aim to give **small and poor towns access to water depollution technology** while maintaining fairness, transparency, and feasibility for all municipalities.

Giving Legitimacy to Citizens’ Knowledge

In February 2025, the first French law banning PFAS was passed. To understand how this milestone was achieved despite strong lobbying pressure, our iGEM team reached out to Nicolas Thierry, the ecologist deputy who authored the law.

From the very beginning, French ecologist deputy Nicolas Thierry, understood that political action on such an invisible yet pervasive pollution had to be grounded in citizen experience and local realities. Rather than relying solely on parliamentary debate, he worked to build legitimacy from the ground up. Across several French regions — such as the Haute-Savoie, Rhône, Jura, and Oise — he met local actors, visited polluted sites, and engaged with municipal leaders and NGOs. These visits created a network of territorial knowledge and collective pressure that pushed PFAS pollution onto the national agenda.

Through social media, interviews, and local assemblies, Thierry amplified the voices of citizens and scientists who had been raising the alarm for years. This bottom-up mobilization became one of the key forces that pressured the French National Assembly to adopt the PFAS ban in 2025 — despite intense lobbying from the chemical industry. His approach demonstrates how citizen knowledge and lived experience can become powerful drivers of policy when they are acknowledged as legitimate evidence, not just emotion.

Thierry also reflected on the political journey of passing the PFAS ban through Parliament, in the face of heavy resistance from industry lobbies. He emphasized the influence of groups like Groupe SEB (known for Tefal), which became a leading voice for the chemical industry — even after cookware was excluded from the law’s scope, as the company’s national reputation gave it a more favorable public image than large international corporations. He also brought nuance to the discussion by highlighting the constructive collaboration with the cosmetics industry, which acknowledged the necessity of the law and worked closely with policymakers to ensure its realistic and effective implementation within industrial practices.

By listening to citizens while collaborating with responsible industrial actors, Thierry built a bridge between public concern and practical policymaking.

The Concept of One Health

Figure 1: One Health Graph

One Health is a multidisciplinary approach that recognizes human, animal, and environmental health as closely linked and interconnected, and thus must be addressed in an integrated manner. It relies on collaboration across disciplines such as medicine, veterinary science, ecology, human and social sciences, and policy to tackle global health challenges.

The One Health approach is particularly well-suited to studying the current issue of PFAS contamination, as it is a major, complex, and multidisciplinary problem involving multiple stakeholders.

Environmentally, PFAS persist in soil, water, and air, disrupting ecosystems at multiple scales and contributing to the fragility of planetary balance including climate change, habitat alteration, and biodiversity loss. The challenge is to find ways to limit these disruptions and restore planetary equilibrium. Bioremediation initiatives, such as the Fluorobreaker project, could help address this.

In terms of biocenosis, the accumulation of toxic PFAS in living organisms leads to and exacerbates diseases such as cancer, metabolic, endocrine, and immune disorders, as well as pre- and post-natal developmental issues. These diseases contribute more broadly to population decline and overall loss of biodiversity, particularly in aquatic fauna. By reducing the release of certain toxic PFAS found in concentrates from drinking water purification, Fluorobreaker technology helps decrease aquatic pollution over the long term, thereby lessening the impact of PFAS on aquatic life and biodiversity as a whole.

For human health, as the top of the food chain and in direct contact with PFAS-containing objects, humans are especially affected by PFAS contamination through their environment and diet. However, humans are also responsible for this contamination, since PFAS in the environment originate from human activities (chemical, pharmaceutical, textile industries, etc.). Addressing this pollution is therefore a societal and political challenge, requiring each citizen to take responsibility. By organizing conferences, speaking in schools, and participating in festivals, Fluorobreakers help inform and raise awareness among all citizens about the PFAS issue.

Contamination by PFAS is a widespread, systemic issue involving a large number of stakeholders. The ethical matrix below highlights the parties affected by the environmental, health, societal, economic, political, and technical challenges posed by PFAS today. More specifically, it also underscores the stakeholders in the Lyon region, as well as those involved in our project. By listing these actors and considering their autonomy, justice, and well-being in relation to PFAS, we arrived at the One Health concept.

Figure 2: Stakeholder interaction mapping within the Ethical Matrix framework.

Presentation of the ethical matrix:

Three aspects : AUTONOMY, WELL-BEING, and JUSTICE were analyzed for each actor.

(+) means that the actor responds positively to this aspect.

(-) means that the actor responds negatively to this aspect.

(+/-) means that the actor responds both positively and negatively to this aspect.

Table 1: Ethical Matrix

Click HERE to download or view full size

For the student associations of École Normale Supérieure de Lyon

“Ignorance is manufactured, but our awareness is real.”

Why a Label?

As members of the iGEM Lyon 2025 team, we believe that science must not only innovate but also protect. Our mission is twofold: to preserve the health of our community and to make scientific knowledge on pollutants such as PFAS accessible to all. Raising awareness and empowering others with actionable solutions is at the heart of our commitment.

PFAS are “forever chemicals”: invisible, persistent, and toxic. They are everywhere: cookware (non-stick pans, plastic spatulas, synthetic baking paper), textiles (waterproof jackets, fire-resistant jackets, nylon tights), packaging (pizza boxes, fast-food cartons, cardboard cups), cosmetics (foundations, mascaras), and many others.

They do not degrade naturally. They accumulate in the body and in the environment. They cause cancer, liver and kidney diseases, immune disorders, infertility, and developmental problems. According to Santé Publique France, 100% of French citizens already carry PFAS residues in their blood. In Lyon, this is not theory. The Rhône Valley is one of Europe’s PFAS hotspots, with industrial emissions from Arkema and Daikin Chemical in Pierre-Bénite contaminating air, water, and soils.

Our target

École Normale Supérieure de Lyon is not just a school. It is a leading institution of science and knowledge, home to research that addresses some of the world’s greatest challenges. With its tradition of excellence, ENS de Lyon has trained generations of scientists, thinkers, and leaders. Its community has been marked by the presence of a Nobel laureate, Fields Medalists, ministers, and internationally recognized researchers, a testament to its role as one of the intellectual hearts of France and Europe.

Every year, more than 2,500 students and hundreds of researchers study, teach, and innovate within its walls. They are tomorrow’s professors, engineers, political leaders, civil servants, entrepreneurs, and industry decision-makers. ENS de Lyon is not a closed institution: it is designed to make knowledge flow into society, shaping public debate, inspiring innovation, and equipping future generations to act. This makes PFAS pollution a critical issue within ENS de Lyon itself. Located in the heart of the Rhône Valley, one of Europe’s hotspots of PFAS contamination, ENS de Lyon has both the scientific capacity and the civic responsibility to act.

At ENS de Lyon, student associations unintentionally amplify this exposure: during cooking, catering, or events, PFAS migrate, abrade, or volatilize, ending up in food, drinks, and air. The very activities meant to bring students together can, unknowingly, become sources of contamination.

By implementing the PFAS-FREE Label, the ENS community demonstrates that awareness can be transformed into leadership. It is not only about protecting students’ health, but about sending a strong message: the future leaders trained here will bring the same commitment to science, politics, education, and industry. This label turns the school into a model institution, where research excellence goes hand in hand with societal responsibility.

Our Goal

Protect our community and reward those who act.

The PFAS-FREE Label

It limits avoidable PFAS contamination, recognizes associations adopting safer practices, and what’s more spreads a culture of responsibility, grounded in knowledge and care.

Specific Objectives

Raise awareness about PFAS-related risks
Share best practices to reduce exposure
Award the PFAS-FREE Label to compliant associations
Reassess compliance annually, especially after board changes

Eligibility Criteria

**Table 2:** The eligibility criteria
Remove	Replace With
Non-stick pans	Stainless steel, ceramic, cast iron
Plastic cooking utensils	Wooden or stainless steel utensils
Plastic or non-stick baking molds	Pyrex (heat-resistant glass)
Bleached baking paper	Organic, plant-based baking paper
Greasy food packaging (pizza boxes, burger cartons, polystyrene containers)	Glass containers, reusable plates, paper napkins
Single-use cutlery/cups (plastic or cardboard)	Reusable stainless steel, wood, ceramic, glass
Plastic cutting boards	Wood, stone, stainless steel

Perspectives

After one year: evaluate the adoption rate of the label and identify obstacles encountered.
Position ENS de Lyon as a pilot institution, paving the way to extend the PFAS-FREE Label across the University of Lyon.

Engaged Actors

This initiative was inspired by Dr. Caroline Combes (ENS de Lyon) and carried out by the student team iGEM Lyon 2025 “Fluorobreakers”.

Mini-Jamboree posters

In September, our team organized the French Mini Jamboree, bringing together nearly all French iGEM teams—Aix-Marseille, Ionis, Évry, Grenoble, and Sorbonne—while regrettably missing only Toulouse. Beyond its scientific importance, this event was conceived as a Human Practices milestone, where the iGEM community could collectively reflect on the role of synthetic biology in society.

We invited Yasmine Amrani, iGEM Europe Ambassador, who emphasized the power of regional collaboration and the ways in which localized initiatives strengthen the iGEM spirit. Alongside her, Youssef El Sherif, an official iGEM judge, shared invaluable insights into evaluation standards, helping all teams better prepare for the international Jamboree. The presence of Marc Santolini added a unique dimension: his work on open science illustrated how iGEM’s presence in new countries directly correlates with increased investment in synthetic biology, showing how competition-driven initiatives can reshape research funding landscapes.

From the outset, our goal was to ensure equity and accessibility. To make participation possible for all teams, we took charge of covering travel and accommodation costs. This decision reflected our broader commitment to inclusivity and recognition that financial barriers should never prevent young researchers from sharing their ideas.

Our team also contributed to the societal discussions by holding a conference on “PFAS and Environmental Justice”, framing our research within the broader questions of fair access to our technology (cf lien).

The Mini Jamboree thus became more than a rehearsal for the Grand Jamboree: it was a national forum, where ideas, values, and visions for the future of synthetic biology converged.

References

Rosso, E. (2024, 13 juin). ENQUÊTE PFAS. Pollution et mise en danger de la vie d’autrui, comment l’industriel Arkema « prépare sa défense ». France 3 Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes.
EUR-Lex. (2024). Communication from the Commission — Guidelines for monitoring of certain parameters in water intended for human consumption (2024/C 149/10).
ARS Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. (2024). PFAS : focus sur la situation au sud de Lyon.
Métropole de Lyon. (2023). La gestion de l’eau est devenue publique dans la métropole de Lyon.
Rosso, E. (2025, 16 janvier). PFAS et lobby : les stratégies d’influence « éternelles » d’Arkema et de l’industrie chimique. France 3 Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes.
Ecotoxicologie.fr. (n.d.). Les substances per- et polyfluoroalkylées (PFAS) : quel risque ces « polluants éternels » font-ils peser sur l’environnement ?
Leroux, M. (2025, 4 octobre). PFAS. « On doit penser à l’avenir de nos enfants » : des associations réclament des études épidémiologiques dans. France 3 Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes.
tableau_rejets_eau_arkema_daikin_annee2024.ods