Overview
Human Practice plays a crucial role in our project and serves as the guiding spirit that constantly drives us to reflect on and improve our work. Through open, candid, and in-depth conversations, our team came to a shared belief: the ultimate goal of our project is to address a real issue that exists in both nature and human society. Therefore, whether it is the evolution of the problem itself or the ways, processes, and outcomes of our solutions, all of these will impact various stakeholders.
As problem solvers, we must pay close attention to how these stakeholders are affected, listen to their opinions and feedback, and reflect on our research project accordingly. By doing so, we aim to ensure that our project meets the positive needs of as many stakeholders as possible, while minimizing potential risks and harm.
We truly value these open and thoughtful conversations within the team. They gave everyone a chance to better understand and reflect on the meaning and importance of Human Practice. In fact, this was exactly how our Human Practice journey began - with a brainstorming session on the potential issues in our project.
PART I. Brainstorming to Address Potential Issues of Our Project — Based on the 3Rs
Our project uses Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a model organism. By applying genetic engineering, we aim to overexpress the endogenous gene CPN60C. This modification is designed to help C. reinhardtii withstand heat stress and maintain its photosynthetic efficiency, thereby enhancing its applicational potential to regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide by improving its survivability.
C. reinhardtii is widely regarded as a safe and well-established model organism, and our research methods are supported by numerous previous studies. Still, when defining our project goals, we felt it was important to hold a brainstorming session with the entire team.
The focus of this session was to explore potential issues in our project through the lens of the 3Rs. Below are the main issues we identified during that discussion:
Throughout the project, we kept revisiting and exploring these questions. They not only guided our Human Practices work but also inspired reflection during our background research and scientific experiments, helping us refine our methods and themes along the way. Naturally, this process sparked new questions which we will explore in the following sections.
PART II. Comprehensive Survey to the Public – About Global Warming, Algae Solutions, and Our Project
We conducted an anonymous survey to gather public opinions on the greenhouse effect/global warming and on our project. The survey was distributed electronically, and participation was entirely voluntary. Before launching the survey, we carefully ensured that it complied with Chinese laws and regulations governing online surveys, and we strictly followed iGEM’s ethical policies. These include, but are not limited to:
- Participation and responses were fully voluntary, and respondents could withdraw from the survey at any time.
- All minors (defined under Chinese law as individuals under 18) were required to obtain permission from an adult guardian before participating.
- Demographic information collected was stored anonymously and temporarily for statistical and correlation analysis. These data were used solely for our iGEM project and not for any other commercial or non-commercial purposes.
- Strict confidentiality of raw data was enforced within the team. Aside from the P.I., all raw data were stored by a designated data manager and made accessible only to authorized team members for analysis. The P.I. oversaw the entire process.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections:
- Demographic information – to support cross-sectional statistics and correlation analysis.
- Greenhouse effect and global warming – to assess respondents’ awareness and level of concern about greenhouse effect and global warming, as well as any gaps or challenges they face.
- Our research topic – to gather perspectives on our project idea, giving us new insights and reflections.
- Other questions – to explore the public’s motivation and willingness to take action against global warming, along with targeted suggestions.
As of September 2025, we had collected 200 valid responses. In terms of age distribution, participants ranged from teenagers (with guardian consent) to individuals over 60. Among them, 40% were under 18, 35.5% were aged 18–25, 16.5% were 26–44, and 7.5% were 45–59. Regarding gender identity, about 59.5% of respondents identified as female and 36% as male, with some identifying as non-binary or choosing not to answer. In terms of education level, 10.5% had completed junior high school or below, 44% high school, 34% undergraduate, 7% master’s, and 4% doctoral studies.
2.1 Overall Speculation
A. Respondents’ awareness and understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming still leave room for improvement, especially compared to their perceived impacts.
A large majority of respondents (92%) said they had at least “some understanding” of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Similarly, 90% reported that they had at least occasionally felt its impact on their lives. In addition, 83.5% believed they had at least some understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect.
These statistics suggest that respondents are well aware of the presence of global warming in their daily lives and perceptions. However, the number of respondents who felt they understood the concept and causes “very well” was much smaller (21.5% and 20.5%, respectively). Meanwhile, those who reported they “always” or “frequently” felt its impact made up the majority, at 23% and 43.5%. Taken together, this shows that people’s awareness and understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming remain notably insufficient compared to the impacts they themselves experience.
B. Fast-paced daily lives and a lack of reliable information sources are the main reasons for low awareness.
Among those who considered the greenhouse effect a less significant issue, 65% said they were too busy to pay attention, and 55% pointed to a lack of reliable information sources. This finding is consistent with our own experiences in conversations with friends.
C. Respondents showed mixed support and concerns about our proposal to address global warming with genetically modified Chlamydomonas.
Of all respondents, 47% rated our solution as “excellent,” 42% as “pros and cons,” and 9.5% as “hard to say”. Compared to our expectations, respondents showed more caution and hesitation.
Notably, when compared with last year’s survey, where our project focused on genetically modified silkworms and respondents showed clear majority support. This year’s results highlight a more cautious public attitude. This shift has prompted careful reflection within our team.
D. Concerns centered mainly on the risk of overgrowth of genetically modified algae.
Among the 104 respondents who expressed doubt or uncertainty, 72 (69.23%) were concerned about the overgrowth of genetically modified algae in cities or the wild.
This contrast with last year’s project is telling: the final product then was genetically modified silk, while this year’s product is the organism itself. The data suggest that public acceptance of genetically modified organisms is lower than acceptance of genetically modified materials. Additionally, while Chlamydomonas is not usually linked to harmful algal blooms such as red tides, many respondents did not clearly distinguish it from other algae, which may have amplified their concerns.
Other key concerns included:
- 43.27% doubting the project’s ability to genuinely mitigate the greenhouse effect.
- 38.46% believing that genetically modified algae would be too costly for mass production.
- 35.58% expressing general distrust of genetic modification technologies.
E. “Green transportation” is the most common action respondents take to mitigate the greenhouse effect. Among all respondents, 160 (80%) reported engaging in green transportation—such as using public transit, new energy vehicles, shared transportation, walking, or cycling. Other widely adopted actions included conserving electricity (68.5%), reducing single-use plastics (61%), and waste sorting (57%).
F. Self-media is the dominant channel through which respondents learn about global warming. Of the 200 respondents, 166 (83%) said they learned about the greenhouse effect and global warming primarily through self-media platforms. This far exceeded the second most common source, “books, newspapers, and official media,” cited by 117 respondents (58.5%).
2.2 Cross-Sectional Speculation
A. Higher-educated respondents show deeper understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming, but not necessarily greater concern.
About 28.57% of respondents with a master’s degree and 37.50% of those with a doctoral degree said they “understand very well” the greenhouse effect and global warming. These proportions are notably higher than those of respondents with junior high school or below (19.05%), high school (21.59%), or undergraduate education (19.12%). However, when it came to the perceived impact of the greenhouse effect on daily life, master’s and doctoral respondents did not show statistically significant differences compared to other groups.
B. Respondents with master’s degrees and those with junior high school education or below expressed the highest levels of distrust toward genetic modification.
Compared with respondents holding high school (17.05%), undergraduate (16.18%), and doctoral degrees (12.5%), as many as 28.75% of respondents with master’s degrees expressed overall distrust of genetic modification technology—a percentage equal to that of respondents with junior high school education or below.
It is worth noting that our sample included only 14 respondents with master’s degrees and 8 with doctoral degrees, so the small sample size requires us to treat these conclusions with caution.
Even setting aside the potential bias caused by small samples, we speculate that this pattern may arise because highly educated respondents are more likely to encounter or actively seek out information regarding the risks of genetic modification. To further explore this issue, we plan to conduct follow-up surveys and interviews targeting highly educated groups.
Our Reflections
A. We should further promote public awareness of the principles and harms of the greenhouse effect and global warming, so that these issues receive broader recognition and attention.
B. In today’s fast-paced information environment, self-media plays a key role in allowing the public to access information quickly and efficiently. Ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the content we share is therefore central to our strategy for public communication and education.
C. Given respondents’ widespread concerns about the potential overgrowth of genetically modified algae, we should place greater emphasis on laboratory management of model organisms. At the same time, through background research and expert consultation, we need to deepen our understanding of this issue and refine our current research approach.
PART III. Expert Interview with Dr. Hou
From our initial brainstorming to the insights gained from public questionnaires, expert interviews have been a vital part of our Human Practices work.
We interviewed Dr. Yuyong Hou, a senior engineer at the Tianjin Institute of Industrial Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and an active researcher in the field of microalgae. Dr. Hou has been very supportive of our project: he donated the backbone and helped synthesize a plasmid carrying the endogenous CPN60C gene driven by the pSAD promoter (see our parts registration page for details), donated the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii laboratory strain UVM4, and kindly agreed to an in-depth interview.
The conversation lasted about 70 minutes and centered on the following topics:
- What are the advantages of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a model organism for transgenic research?
- If we successfully develop a transgenic Chlamydomonas with enhanced carbon fixation capacity and release it into the natural environment or daily life, what environmental and safety risks should we consider?
- From a professional perspective, what key technological breakthroughs or bottlenecks exist in current research on transgenic algae for carbon dioxide absorption and mitigation?
- In our experiments, we often find that cultivating algae in the lab is both difficult and expensive. Are these the same challenges faced when applying transgenic algae solutions at scale?
- What suggestions do you have for improving our project design?
Dr. Hou noted that as a model organism, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is generally considered safe. It has a well-characterized genetic background and mature transformation methods, providing researchers with a reliable and efficient chassis for transgene expression.
Regarding risks, he explained that the primary concern with releasing transgenic Chlamydomonas into the environment is gene leakage. However, since our approach involves overexpressing endogenous genes, this risk is largely minimized. Public acceptance, on the other hand, may remain a significant challenge.
Dr. Hou also highlighted two major technical bottlenecks: low production capacity and high costs. While algae are much more efficient at absorbing CO₂ than most plants thanks to their carbon-concentrating mechanisms, the global total biomass of microalgae is only around 20,000–30,000 tons. Even if each ton of microalgae biomass can sequester 1.83 tons of CO₂, this amount is still negligible compared to humanity’s growing carbon emissions. Moreover, compared to E. coli and yeast, microalgae-based products are expensive and yield less, limiting their competitiveness. As a result, much academic research is currently focused on boosting biomass yields—for example, using specialized fermentation methods to increase microalgae dry weight or engineering artificial pathways within algal cells.
Finally, Dr. Hou gave us valuable suggestions for improving our experimental design. He recommended that, if time permits, we should use Western blotting in addition to PCR to confirm protein expression of the target gene. He also suggested varying environmental conditions to observe potential phenotypic differences. We have incorporated these ideas into our future research plans.
PART IV. Exploring Global Perspectives, and the Interview with a Former UN Humanitarian Peace Ambassador from the South Pacific
We are extremely proud of this project because it has received support from friends across the globe. Through this process, we have come to appreciate more deeply that global warming is truly a global challenge.
Our team members come from China and the United States. Through internal conversations, we realized that our own experiences of global warming often resonate with each other, probably given our similar exposure to urban, industrialized contexts. At the same time, we recognized that voices from other contexts are underrepresented in our group. This led us to wonder: how do people living in different countries and regions experience these changes?
To explore this question, we invited friends from diverse regions to share their perspectives in our Project Promotion Video. Edmund "Kaka" Saksak from Vanuatu, Nina from Germany, and François from France all noted that their local summers in recent years have become noticeably hotter and more unpredictable than before.
Edmund, a native of Vanuatu and a former United Nations Humanitarian Peace Ambassador, graciously accepted our invitation to share his insights. Currently active in leadership work in his home country, he reflected on how Vanuatu, an island nation in the southwestern Pacific Ocean with a strong cultural and ecological heritage, has in recent years faced unique challenges in adapting to global climate shifts. From his own experience in Port Vila, the capital city, he described how the climate has become warmer, with more frequent sudden downpours and droughts disrupting fields and grasslands. Reports of extreme and unusual temperatures are also becoming increasingly common.
These testimonies reminded us that while the manifestations of global warming could differ from place to place, the urgency of the challenge should be shared across all regions. This reinforced our conviction that our research, however limited in scope, carries real significance. We hope that future iGEM teams would continue this spirit of cross-cultural dialogue, building on and expanding efforts like ours.
PART V. Campus & Community Thematic Sharing Events
Through questionnaires and interviews, we gained a deeper understanding of the public’s awareness and concerns regarding the greenhouse effect and global warming, as well as the opportunities and challenges of using genetically modified Chlamydomonas to address these issues. Our team unanimously agreed that engaging directly with the people around us—listening to their perspectives, sharing reliable scientific information, and collecting their feedback—is crucial for reflection and improving our project. This was also our way of responding to the input we had received from the surveys.
By September 28, 2025, we had organized three thematic sharing events on campus and in our local communities. These activities took place mainly at Shangde campus and in the neighborhoods where our team members live. The events included flash mobs in campus hallways, on-campus presentations, class seminars, and community-based volunteer science outreach. The community events, in particular, allowed us to connect with older residents who were underrepresented in our other Human Practices activities, giving us new perspectives and feedback.
From these activities, we drew several insights:
Elder residents have a more vivid sense of climate change. Many told us that summers in Shanghai used to be far more bearable when they were younger, and that the city today feels noticeably hotter than the suburbs.
Most participants showed awareness of climate change, but limited knowledge about algae. Students, faculty, staff, and community members were generally concerned about the greenhouse effect and global warming. However, few people knew the differences between algae species, or why Chlamydomonas is valuable as a model organism for transgenic research. This highlighted our responsibility to strengthen public education in this area.
Public hesitation toward transgenic products remains. As Dr. Hou pointed out, gaining public acceptance is likely to be a challenge for future research. During our events, we explained the potential harm of the greenhouse effect and global warming, while also highlighting in clear and engaging ways the high carbon sequestration efficiency of algae, the safety and reliability of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a model organism, and the significance of our project. We hope that these small steps will help bring the public closer to taking action on climate change and to better understanding the science behind algae research.
PART VI. Social Media Launch and Operation
From our brainstorming in Part I and survey findings in Part II, we learned that self-media has become the main channel through which the public receives information about the greenhouse effect and global warming. However, because the quality of such information varies widely, people are at risk of being misled by unreliable sources, an experience that can also reduce their long-term interest in the issue.
To address this gap, we decided to launch our own social media platforms, where we share scientific knowledge from trustworthy sources. Our content focused/will focus on the following key topics:
- The causes and severity of the greenhouse effect and global warming;
- The principles of algal photosynthesis;
- The value of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a transgenic model organism;
- The necessity of genetic engineering and common misconceptions about it;
- The theme and significance of our project. In addition, we may share updates from our team’s daily lab work to give audiences a more direct look at our project and perspectives.
For platforms, we chose WeChat Official Accounts (mainly for Chinese audiences), Instagram (for international audiences), and Xiaohongshu (RedNote), which reaches both groups. We also considered starting a TikTok account, but since most of us are a bit camera-shy, we decided to postpone that plan for now.
PART VII. Outreach and Collaboration
External contributions have been indispensable to our project. Like many iGEM teams, we faced both expected and unexpected challenges, including limited experimental resources. The generous support we received helped us overcome these obstacles. In addition to Dr. Yuyong Hou, we are deeply grateful to Dr. Lei Zhao (Tianjin Institute of Industrial Biotechnology, CAS) and Dr. Kaiyao Huang (Institute of Hydrobiology, CAS) for their prompt and enthusiastic assistance. We also sincerely thank Dr. Lian Ye, a member of Dr. Huang’s team, who provided plasmid backbones and shared valuable advice. Our appreciation extends to all external advisors and supporters of our project, as detailed in the attribution form.
We also wish to acknowledge our partner school, Gaston Day School in North Carolina, USA. Their collaboration has helped us establish a tradition of iGEM participation at our school and has supported our efforts to engage across languages, cultures, and time zones.
We place great value on collaboration with others. This year, we sought to learn from previous teams who worked with Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, such as the 2021 South China Agricultural University team and the 2019–2020 Arizona State University team. Although we were unable to reach them within the project timeframe, we gained meaningful insights from their contributions in the Team Wiki and Registry.
According to the iGEM 2025 Team List, approximately 14 teams this year are working under the Climate Crisis Village category, and we made efforts to contact them. We were fortunate to receive a response from Team EPFL, which led to an online meeting on October 5th from 8:00 PM to 8:30 PM Beijing time.
During the meeting, we learned about Team EPFL’s focus on wildfires, their design of flame-retardant hydrogels, and their safety measures during fire-resistance testing. We were particularly impressed by their Human Practice and Entrepreneurship work, especially their systematic stakeholder interviews, which were highly inspiring.
The discussion also gave us new insights into our own project. For example, their use of E. coli and yeast as model organisms allows for cost-effective amplification, whereas cost control remains a major challenge in transgenic research using Chlamydomonas. These exchanges proved to be highly beneficial for us.