Overview
Project Inspiration
MethaNO was born out of a pressing need to confront the silent but deadly threat of methanol poisoning—an issue that often lurks beneath the surface of festive gatherings and travel adventures. Despite its devastating consequences, methanol poisoning remains under-reported and poorly understood, largely due to its subtle symptoms and the mistaken assumption that all alcohol is safe. Recent tragedies have cast a harsh spotlight on this overlooked danger: in November 2024, six international travellers—including two Australian teenagers—died after consuming methanol-tainted alcohol in Laos [1]; earlier that year, several people in Indonesia were poisoned after mixing contaminated liquor with energy drinks, resulting in multiple deaths [2]. These incidents are not isolated—they reflect a broader crisis affecting thousands across the APAC region and beyond. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that 25% of global alcohol consumption is unrecorded, often produced without oversight and posing serious risks like methanol toxicity [3]. The WHO also reported that 38% of world population (or 2.3 billion) aged 15 and over are current drinkers [8]. This implies approximately 0.6 billion people potentially consuming unrecorded alcohol. This issue directly undermines UN Sustainable Development Goal 3 [4], which calls for reducing substance abuse and preventable deaths. MethaNO aims to prevent such tragedies by empowering individuals with reliable, accessible detection tools before a celebration turns into a catastrophe.
Purpose of Human Practices
Creating a solution for methanol poisoning goes far beyond building a biosensor in a lab—it demands a deep understanding of how the technology can truly serve its purpose in real-world contexts. MethaNO is not just a technical innovation; it’s a public health intervention aimed at safeguarding lives. We want our solution to be customer driven and balanced by scientific capabilities. That means listening closely to the communities most at risk, uncovering needs we may not have initially considered, and adapting our design to fit within regulatory frameworks and cultural norms. It’s a multi-directional feedback loop, where Human Practices can guide us to be both responsible and responsive. By reflecting on what we learn and integrating it into every stage of development, we ensure that MethaNO is not only scientifically sound, but socially meaningful and market-ready.
How We Approach Human Practices
We identified the aspects of the project for which we require insights and guidance from academia, industry experts, and the general public. We then carried out interviews, surveys, research, and engagement activities, as well as attending workshops to gather information and interact with the stakeholders. The diagram below gives an overview of our Human Practices.
Mentorship
Professor Robert Willows
Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular Science, Macquarie University · CSO of HydGene® Renewables
Prof. Willows helped us refine our experimental strategy by encouraging us to consider the broader regulatory and societal context. He advised exploring cell inactivation to ease GMO-related concerns and offered insights into how E. coli behaves as a chassis—highlighting factors that could influence biosensor performance. His guidance pushed us to design MethaNO not just for lab success, but for real-world feasibility and responsible deployment.
Dr Paul Jaschke
Associate Professor in Synthetic Biology, Macquarie University
We received valuable feedback on our plasmid designs, including recommendations for suitable promoters and ribosome binding sites to optimise expression. It was also highlighted that we need to deepen our literature review, particularly around the feasibility of expressing PQQ-dependent methanol dehydrogenase in E. coli, which could significantly impact our biosensor’s functionality.
Dr Roy Walker
Research Fellow, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University
Dr Walker provided guidance in plasmid designs and protein sequencing analysis.
Tom Collier
Synthetic Biologist and CEO, Levur
Tom Collier, our main advisor on commercialisation, played a pivotal role in shaping our business strategy, drawing from his own journey as a scientist-turned-entrepreneur. He offered practical guidance on forming a robust business plan and walked us through key aspects of startup development—including capital raising, navigating grants and incentives, scaling production, pitching to investors, and articulating product value. His insights helped us bridge the gap between technical innovation and market readiness, ensuring MethaNO is positioned as a viable venture.
Customer Discovery
Interviews
On 28 May 2025, we interviewed Kristy Baker, General Manager of Mad Monkey Hostel Coogee Beach, Sydney, to gather insights on MethaNO’s marketability in hospitality settings. While she noted that alcohol adulteration isn’t a major concern in Australia, she highlighted the economic impact of methanol poisoning incidents in Laos—where a Mad Monkeys branch and nearby bars experienced a sharp decline in business following the fatalities. This underscores the broader consequences of methanol contamination on tourism and hospitality. Kristy agreed that a simple, portable testing method like MethaNO’s strip-based biosensor would be appealing for quick safety checks. However, when discussing the idea of making drink testing a responsibility of bars and hostels, she emphasized the need for top-down enforcement by regulators or governments. Without oversight, establishments—particularly in high-risk regions—could potentially falsify certifications if left to self-regulate
On 16 July 2025, we interviewed Dr Robert Speight, Director of the Advanced Engineering Biology (AEB) Future Science Platform (FSP) at CSIRO. Dr Speight highlighted that enzyme-based designs are often easier to market, as they can build on existing “off-the-shelf” tools such as formaldehyde test strips, making them more attractive from an entrepreneurship perspective. He suggested that for whole-cell designs, a potential way to overcome GMO restrictions would be to explore cell-free reconstitution systems. To address scalability, Dr Speight advised starting with the quantity of enzyme needed in a single test strip and working backwards to calculate the required fermentation output. He also recommended reviewing the precedents of biological diagnostic tests, such as COVID-19 and influenza test kits, to guide our development.
On 18 July 2025, we presented our project pitch to Dr Michele Stansfield, Co-founder and CEO of Cauldron, a global biomanufacturer specialising in precision fermentation. Dr Stansfield suggested that we begin by procuring off-the-shelf methanol dehydrogenase to first confirm methanol oxidation to formaldehyde. From a business perspective, she emphasised the importance of clearly defining our value proposition and pitching why our solution is worth investment. She recommended quantifying the financial impact by estimating the cost of deaths caused by methanol poisoning and considering the broader consequences on tourism and hospitality in developing countries. She also noted that parents and governments could be more effective target audiences than individuals.
On 29 July 2025, we pitched our project to Dr Laura Novane, R&D Director at Eden Brew, where she leads research in precision-fermented dairy products using synthetic biology. Dr Novane encouraged us to consider external factors that could influence the accuracy of methanol detection assays and how these might be controlled. She also suggested using an established method, such as HPLC, as a secondary assay to confirm and validate the specificity and sensitivity of our biosensor results.
On 22 August 2025, we interviewed Dr Eric Wilkes, Group Manager of Commercial Services at the Australian Wine Research Institute, with over 28 years of experience in wine and beverage research and production. Dr Wilkes viewed our design as practical for field-deployed testing, with likely customers being government health inspectors, customs services, and testing agencies. He noted that our selling points of portability, ease of use, and quick readout would fit well with these applications. Pricing would also be more feasible when targeting government buyers, who have greater purchasing power, compared to the general public. He explained that in developed countries, the device could be used to detect fake alcohol at border inspections, while in developing countries, health inspectors could take it to bars for spot checks, although affordability would be key in these markets. He pointed out that estimating the consumer market size is challenging, whereas government contracts are more predictable. Dr Wilkes also highlighted challenges with existing chemistry-based methanol tests, such as GC-FID, which requires trained technicians, takes 15 minutes per run, and costs about $1 per test. This is however not including significant upfront cost investing in the machine and ongoing maintenance costs, which remain a barrier to entry to test for methanol. He explained that methanol testing is not legally required in Australian wine production due to the naturally low levels, and the main risk lies in fake or adulterated alcohol. Current methanol safety limits are not based on toxicology but rather on local practices, resulting in wide variation between countries. He suggested referring to Codex (set by WHO) if we wanted a single standard to follow. Ultimately, he stressed that the real danger comes from heavily adulterated alcohol containing methanol at levels hundreds or thousands of times higher than legal limits, rather than from properly produced beverages.
On 16 September 2025, we interviewed Dr Leon Scott, Director of Research Infrastructure Operations at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), who oversees a wide portfolio of research facilities spanning bio futures, biorefining, food, biomedical manufacturing, and clean energy. Dr Scott stressed that high sensitivity should be a key priority in our design, as avoiding false negatives is critical. He recommended pursuing an enzyme-based approach, noting that whole-cell solutions are almost impossible to market. He also commented that our methanol dehydrogenase should be able to withstand drying temperatures of around 50°C. Dr Scott introduced us to the Bioinnovation Research facilities at QUT, which operate as an intermediate step between experimental labs and commercial production. These facilities provide industrial-standard processes in a lab setting, with fermentation capacities ranging from 60 mL to 2400 L—ideal for start-ups like ours. He explained that cost is primarily determined by scale, time, and inputs, giving the example that a small start-up could expect lab bench costs of about $15,000 for full-time use over 12 months. He also emphasized that food-grade safety would need to be considered for our product.
Market Research Survey
The survey revealed that most respondents are aware of GMOs, synthetic biology, and methanol poisoning, and the majority are willing to use and pay for a biosensor product, provided it is affordable, portable, and fast. There was strong support both for personal-use test kits and for methanol certification at bars, suggesting multiple pathways for real-world application. The clear demand for an accompanying map as part of a digital app, highlights opportunities for integration of biosensor technology with mobile platforms.
Aspects that were surveyed are listed as follows:
Age demographics:
Respondents were spread across different age groups, with the largest proportion between 18–25 years (30.2%), followed by 26–35 years (27%) and 36–45 years (25.4%). Smaller groups included under 18 (11.1%), 46–55 (4.8%), and 55+ (1.6%). This shows that most participants were young adults, aligning well with typical university open day attendees.
Awareness of GMOs and synthetic biology:
A very large majority (93.7%) had heard of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Awareness of synthetic biology was also strong, with 85.7% indicating familiarity. This highlights a general public literacy in biotechnology topics, especially among younger demographics.
Awareness of methanol poisoning:
85.7% of respondents were aware of methanol poisoning as a public health issue, while 14.3% were not.
Recognition of risk:
When asked if methanol poisoning was a concern while travelling to exotic locations such as Laos, 72.7% said “Yes,” showing high recognition of travel-related risks.
Preferred testing method:
Respondents were split fairly evenly when asked whether they preferred to test their own drinks (53.3%) or go to a bar that has pre-tested its drinks (46.7%). This suggests both personal-use kits and business-focused certification could be viable.
Biosensor product design preferences:
Among five potential biosensor prototypes, the most appealing design was Option 1 – Pour Tube design (35.7%), followed by Option 4 – Folded Test Strip design (23.8%), Option 2 – Dropper design (19%), and Option 3 – Straw design (16.7%). Only 4.8% selected Option 5 – Multi-well Tray design. Comments indicated that portability, ease of use, and a “less chemistry-set feel” were important considerations.
Pricing willingness:
Most respondents (56.8%) would pay under $10 for a single disposable methanol test. Another 31.8% said $15–25, while smaller groups indicated willingness to pay over $30 (6.8%), exactly $5 (2.3%), or $0.50 (2.3%). This indicates that affordability under $10 per test is key for accessibility.
Kit size preference:
Though few respondents answered this question, the responses indicated a preference for 10 tests per kit, suggesting users want multi-use rather than single-use purchases.
Alcohol types most relevant for testing:
Among the limited responses, participants equally indicated spirits (vodka, gin, rum, tequila, whiskey) and beer (lager, ale, stout, IPA) as the main alcohols they consume and would want to test. This reflects the higher risk perception with spirits but also recognition of risk across different beverages.
Time acceptable for readout:
Respondents were divided: 50% preferred 10 seconds, while the other 50% accepted 1 minute as a reasonable wait. No one wanted to wait 5 minutes, highlighting the importance of fast results.
Testing behaviour in social settings:
Answers were mixed: 50% would test every drink they ordered, while the other 50% would only test the initial couple of drinks per bar. This shows a balance between convenience and safety.
Digital safety tools:
When asked if they would use an app showing methanol-safe certified establishments, 100% of respondents said yes. This demonstrates clear interest in combining biological testing with digital tools for safety assurance.
Research & Workshops
Intellectual Property Workshop
On 18 August 2025, we attended an Intellectual Property (IP) and Patent Strategy Workshop organised by the Australasian Synthetic Biology Challenges, where two organisations IP Australia and FPA Patent Attorney presented. IP Australia is the primary government body administering intellectual property law, whereas FPA Patent Attorneys is a major Australian intellectual property firm, specialising in patents, designs, and IP strategy. Through this workshop, we learned about the definition of IP, the patent process and requirements, how patent protection works in synthetic biology examples, and techniques appropriate for early start-ups.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Regulatory Framework
Australia regulates gene technology through a tightly controlled, process-based framework, anchored by the Gene Technology Act 2000 [5][6]. This legislation governs all dealings with live and viable genetically modified organisms (GMOs), from certified laboratory research to intentional environmental release [5]. The Act established the Gene Technology Regulator, supported by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), to oversee compliance [7]. Intentional release of GMOs into the environment is prohibited without an OGTR-issued licence, which requires a comprehensive risk assessment and management plan, followed by consultation with stakeholders, including state and territory governments, federal agencies, Biosecurity Australia, local councils, and the public [7]. Importantly, The Act distinguishes between live GMOs, regulated by OGTR, and genetically modified (GM) products, which fall under other agencies such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) [7]. This distinction is critical for MethaNO’s development: while whole-cell biosensor designs face significant regulatory hurdles due to their classification as GMOs, enzyme-based biosensors—considered GM products—are subject to a less complex compliance pathway. Understanding these regulatory nuances helps us make informed design choices that balance innovation with feasibility.
Stakeholders Engagement
Macquarie University Open Day
16 August 2025
On Macquarie University’s Open Day, our team hosted an interactive stall to share our project with the wider community. We designed the space to be approachable and fun, with games, gifts, and small goodies to engage visitors of all ages, from children to parents. Throughout the day, we spoke with people from a wide range of backgrounds, explaining the problem of methanol poisoning and how our biosensor could provide a practical solution if brought to life. To better understand public perception and potential impact, we also conducted a survey, gathering responses that we later analysed through pie charts and written feedback. These results provided valuable insights into community awareness of methanol risks, levels of trust in biotechnology, and interest in field-deployable testing solutions. Open Day gave us the opportunity not only to raise awareness but also to capture real community perspectives, which will guide how we shape and communicate our project moving forward.
Ester Spirits Distillery Site Visit
11 September 2025
As part of our research for MethaNO, we organised a site visit to Ester Spirits, a craft distillery in Sydney, to gain firsthand insight into the spirits industry and how methanol testing is—or isn’t—incorporated into production. Ester Spirits employs about eight full-time staff, turning over AUD 1-2 million in revenue per year and has an annual production capacity of 15,000L of pure alcohol. We met with co-founder Felix Clark, who shared his enthusiasm for simple, user-friendly testing methods like litmus-style strips, noting their potential for quick methanol assessments at various stages of distillation to guide optimal cut decisions. The visit deepened our understanding of the distillation process, particularly the differences between single and double distillation and how methanol removal is managed through precise temperature control and timing. Felix also highlighted that in Australia, methanol testing isn’t mandated by regulators; instead, quality and safety are upheld through best-practice standards within the industry. We concluded the visit with a tour of the facility, learning about the stills, aromatic ingredients, and waste disposal practices—an experience that enriched our perspective on how MethaNO could integrate meaningfully into artisanal production settings.
References
- “Deaths of backpackers poisoned by methanol-tainted alcohol in Laos highlights 'forgotten crisis',” Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. [Online]. Available: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-29/methanol-poisoning-broader-impact-south-east-asia/104652326 (accessed Sep. 22, 2025).
- “Six travelers in Laos died from suspected tainted alcohol. Here’s where most incidents occur,” Consumer News and Business Channel. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/25/where-does-methanol-poisoning-happen-most-incidents-are-in-asia.html (accessed Sep. 22, 2025).
- Unrecorded Alcohol : What the Evidence Tells Us. Snapshot Series on Alcohol Control Policies and Practice. Brief 2, 2 July 2021, 1st ed. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2022.
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. United Nations, 2024.
- “Current regulatory status,” Australian Academy of Science. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org.au/support/analysis/reports/synthetic-gene-drives-australia-implications-emerging-technologies/current (accessed Sep. 22, 2025).
- G. M. O’Sullivan, J. G. Philips, H. J. Mitchell, M. Dornbusch, and J. E. Rasko, “20 years of legislation—how Australia has responded to the challenge of regulating genetically modified organisms in the clinic,” Frontiers in Medicine, vol. 9, p. 883434, 2022.
- “Regulatory Framework in Australia,” Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. [Online]. Available: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/farm-food-drought/biotechnology/framework#office-of-the-gene-technology-regulator-ogtr (accessed Sep. 22, 2025).
- Global status report on alcohol and health and treatment of substance use disorders. World Health Organization, 2024.
