Communication Overview
Communication is not only about showcasing our project but also about listening, learning, and co-creating. Throughout our journey, we actively engaged with universities, companies, hospitals, and academic conferences. These exchanges allowed us to gain valuable feedback on technical design, commercialization potential, and social impact, ensuring that our project stayed grounded in both scientific rigor and real-world needs.
University Interchange
As part of our communication efforts, we actively engaged with other university teams and research groups to broaden our perspectives and refine our project design. These exchanges provided us with opportunities not only to present our ideas, but also to learn from peers who are tackling challenges in synthetic biology with different approaches.
We structured our university exchanges into two levels:
Basic Exchange: Introductory meetings where we shared our project goals, listened to others' progress, and built mutual understanding. These sessions served as an important platform for networking and for gaining inspiration across diverse synthetic biology applications.
In-depth Exchange: More targeted discussions focused on project commercialization, inclusivity design, and technical validation. These conversations allowed us to critically examine our own strategies and receive constructive feedback from experienced student researchers and faculty advisors.
Through these dialogues, we developed a more comprehensive view of how synthetic biology projects can move beyond the lab—toward application, societal impact, and long-term sustainability.
Basic Exchange
To expand the visibility of our project and strengthen mutual understanding within the iGEM community, we engaged in basic exchanges with several universities, including Zhejiang University of Technology, the University of Science and Technology of China, and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.
During these interactions, we briefly introduced our project design and research goals, while also listening to the general directions of their projects. Although these exchanges did not involve in-depth discussions, they provided us with valuable opportunities to clearly present our ideas to peers from other institutions and to practice academic communication across teams.
These initial connections laid the groundwork for potential future collaborations and helped spread our project concepts among a broader academic audience. More importantly, they trained us in the skills of science communication and interdisciplinary dialogue—goals that lie at the heart of iGEM’s Communication track.
In-Depth Exchange
Wet Lab Advice
Wet Lab Advice
In the early stage of our project, during a joint discussion with another ECUST team and the Guanghua Alliance, we not only introduced our projects to one another but also engaged in a focused dialogue on experimental design.
In terms of experimental validation, the Guanghua Alliance's advisor proposed a highly valuable suggestion: adopting organoid technology to simulate the intestinal environment as an alternative to vertebrate models (such as mice), which are restricted under iGEM regulations. For our project, this provided a practical and innovative pathway for validation and offered new perspectives on how to advance our design.
This advice had a direct impact on our subsequent progress. Following the exchange, we reached out to Yaosu Biotechnology Co.Ltd.a company specializing in organoid technology, to explore potential collaboration. This concrete step, inspired by the discussion, allowed us to refine our wet lab approach with more forward-looking and feasible methods.
Through this in-depth exchange, we not only identified the limitations of our initial experimental strategy but also acquired a specific and actionable solution. The insights gained strengthened the feasibility of our wet lab design and laid a more solid foundation for future translational applications.
HP Advice
Human Practice Advice
In the mid-stage of our project, we held a focused exchange with the iGEM team from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, centering primarily on Human Practices. Both teams began by introducing our projects and exchanging outreach materials such as brochures and cultural-creative products. We also shared experiences from conferences and collaborations with other universities.
The core of this discussion was on how to structure and strengthen HP work. The SJTU team emphasized the importance of not treating Human Practices as scattered activities but as an integrated whole, where each effort—education, inclusivity, communication, and outreach—should connect logically and support the project's overall narrative. They also pointed out that inclusivity deserves a more central role, ensuring that activities are not just diverse but also aligned with our project's core mission.
This feedback directly influenced our subsequent HP development. In later stages, while drafting wiki texts, we deliberately improved the logical flow of our HP section, ensuring that each activity was not an isolated effort but part of a coherent, overarching framework. The exchange reminded us that Human Practices is not just about what we do, but how we present and connect these activities to create real social impact.
During our in-depth exchanges with other university iGEM teams, we realized that collaboration can greatly expand the social impact of Human Practices. These interactions inspired us to move beyond sharing ideas—to co-creating impactful science communication activities that reached audiences nationwide.
After multiple rounds of discussion with Jiangnan University, we jointly organized the nationwide “Light of Life” science-art contest. The event invited children and teenagers from across China to depict their understanding of synthetic biology through paintings and stories. Together, our teams co-developed the promotional plan, online submission system, and judging criteria. The campaign received over 20 submissions from diverse regions, including remote and rural areas, vividly showcasing how creative education can make synthetic biology accessible to learners of all ages.
In addition, our team actively participated in the “Rumor Crusher” nationwide science communication initiative—coordinated by Jilin University and joined by 33 iGEM teams across China. The project aimed to combat public misconceptions about probiotics, gut health, and synthetic biology. Our team contributed a series of real-world rumors and scientific clarifications, based on public misunderstandings and the data we collected from our Human Practices surveys. These materials were integrated into a shared educational resource pool and later transformed into short videos and infographics by participating teams. Through this effort, we provided scientifically grounded content that empowered the campaign to reach thousands of people online and offline.
Through such collaborations, we expanded the influence of our HP work from local communities to the national level. By working hand in hand with partner universities, we transformed communication from a one-way dissemination into a co-created movement—sharing knowledge, creativity, and responsibility in shaping a scientifically informed society.
Model Advice
Model Advice
In the later stage of our project, we held an academic exchange with the Tsinghua University iGEM team. Their work on a yeast-based oscillator system inspired by pulse sensing included dynamic modeling to predict cellular responses under stress.
From this discussion, we gained valuable insights into how modeling can better connect wet lab data with computational predictions. In particular, we were encouraged to explore dynamic simulations of probiotic function and AI-assisted dietary data modeling, which later helped refine the design of our Goutbuster framework.
This exchange showed us that interdisciplinary dialogue can directly strengthen the mathematical backbone of our project, ensuring that our experimental design is supported by robust predictive models.
Comercialization Advice
Commercialization Advice
In the later stage of our project, we held a dedicated exchange meeting with Fudan University, focusing on commercialization and inclusive design. Both teams introduced their respective projects—Fudan’s research on antifungal drug development and our engineered probiotic solution for hyperuricemia management—and shared strategies for translating scientific research into real-world impact.
During our exchange with Fudan University, they emphasized that successfully introducing synthetic biology products requires not only technological innovation but also clear market positioning, public trust, and user education. One valuable piece of advice was to strengthen the educational and verification dimensions of our Suprobiotics platform, making it a credible channel for science communication rather than just an information portal.
Following this feedback, we upgraded Suprobiotics in the later phase of our project.
We enhanced the expert review system, refined the question classification structure, and added verified science articles to help users identify misinformation, understand probiotic mechanisms, and evaluate product quality. These improvements not only deepened the platform’s scientific content but also increased user engagement and accessibility.
Through this optimization, Suprobiotics evolved from a basic Q&A interface into a comprehensive educational platform, connecting scientific expertise with public learning. This process reflected our commitment to integrating education, inclusivity, and credibility into our outreach efforts, ensuring that synthetic biology is communicated in a responsible, trustworthy, and impactful way.
Academic Conferences
Participating in academic conferences provided us with valuable opportunities to position our project within the broader scientific community. By attending high-level discussions and sharing our own work, we not only learned from cutting-edge advances in microbiology and synthetic biology but also tested the relevance and novelty of our project in front of experts and peers.
We took part in two major conferences:
CCiC 2025
The 2025 China iGEMer Community Conference (CCiC), themed Synbiopunk, combined the scientific rigor of synthetic biology with the rebellious spirit of punk. For our team, it was more than an academic gathering—it was a journey of inspiration and reflection.
Throughout the event, we witnessed how automation and artificial intelligence are reshaping the speed and accessibility of research. Danaher Life Sciences and Opentrons showcased high-throughput robotic platforms and AI-driven design tools, giving us new perspectives on how automated and intelligent workflows can accelerate experimentation. At the same time, scholars from Tsinghua University and Tianjin University hosted a special forum on “Biosafety and Responsibility,” highlighting governance challenges in gene editing and the potential risks of synthetic organisms. Their insights reminded us that innovation must go hand in hand with responsibility and ethics, a principle that has deeply influenced the safety measures we built into our own project.
Another striking feature of CCiC was the diversity of attendees. iGEM teams, startup founders, biotech investors, ethicists, and even artists all came together, creating a vibrant space where ideas crossed disciplinary boundaries. Discussions expanded beyond science into commercialization strategies and social impact, offering us valuable new perspectives for our project.
On August 7, we delivered a flash presentation of our work, focusing on the social burden of hyperuricemia, our engineered probiotic solution, and our biosafety considerations. During the Q&A session, we received direct feedback from professors, engineers, and peers on strain specificity, scalability, and the feasibility of future clinical translation. These exchanges not only helped us refine our design but also led to potential collaborations, broadening our academic and industrial connections.
For us, CCiC went far beyond information sharing. It illustrated both the present and the future of synthetic biology, emphasizing the power of cross-disciplinary integration and inclusivity, encouraging students to be contributors rather than mere learners, and demonstrating that the fusion of automation, artificial intelligence, and ethical responsibility will be key to advancing this field. CCiC was not just a platform for presentation—it was a call to action: to build projects that are not only scientifically sound but also socially responsible and globally relevant.
Bioreactor Engineering Conference
Unlike CCiC, which focused broadly on synthetic biology and its societal implications, the Bioreactor Engineering Conference emphasized the technological backbone required to transform laboratory-scale research into scalable applications. Cutting-edge talks on process intensification, continuous bioprocessing, and digital twin technologies showcased how modern bioreactors enable precise control of cell growth, metabolite production, and system safety. For our engineered probiotic strain, scalability and biocontainment are essential for future application. This conference exposed us to industrial strategies for safe scale-up and gave us new perspectives on how to align our design with manufacturing needs. While we remain in the research stage, these insights helped us imagine the translational pathway from bench to industry, reminding us that innovation must be paired with robust production processes to be impactful in real-world healthcare.
Conclusion
Through a series of multi-layered communication activities—including academic exchanges with universities, participation in international conferences, and dialogues with industry experts—we built a dynamic bridge between our project and the broader community. University exchanges provided us with peer feedback and fresh perspectives, helping us refine both our technical design and presentation skills. Meanwhile, CCiC and the Bioreactor Engineering Conference offered complementary insights: the former highlighted the societal responsibilities and ethical dimensions of synthetic biology, while the latter emphasized the technological foundations needed for safe scale-up and industrial translation.
Together, these efforts created a two-way process: while we shared the vision of engineered probiotics with diverse audiences, we also absorbed practical, real-world insights that shaped our project into a design that is scientifically rigorous, socially responsive, and industrially feasible. In this sense, communication was not an add-on, but a core driving force throughout our journey.