Our project, Cas-T Away, seeks to explore a new therapeutic strategy for HIV. A RNA-targeting Cas13a fusion protein with a delivery system optimized through landing pad HEK293T cells. To ensure our project is both scientifically rigorous and socially responsible, we engaged with specialists from biomedical engineering, molecular and cell biology, biochemistry, ecology and evolution, and clinical medicine. These conversations helped us refine our research and outreach efforts in order to maximize our impact in the time we had.
Our journey reflects adaptation and impact. Every step of design, build, and testing was influenced by direct feedback from experts, advisors, and the community.
Like iGEM states on their website, “Before you pick up your first pipette, you should think about Human Practices.” At the start of our iGEM journey, we aimed to make Human Practices an integral part of our work by adopting a reflective framework inspired by the Gibbs Reflective Cycle. Our approach emphasized listening, learning, acting, and adapting. At each stage, we:
Our 15-member interdisciplinary team includes students majoring in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Biochemistry, Biology, Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, Environmental Studies, and Psychology, ranging from sophomores to seniors. We represent a wide range of races, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds, which strengthens our ability to think creatively and approach problems from multiple perspectives. This diversity fosters open-minded collaboration, encourages critical dialogue, and allows us to integrate ideas from different fields in meaningful ways. By combining our varied academic and personal experiences, we are better equipped to address the complex biological, ethical, and societal challenges of HIV research through a well-rounded and inclusive lens.
Throughout our Human Practices work, we engaged with numerous stakeholders spanning multiple sectors to ensure our project was informed, ethical, and impactful.
We consulted Dr. Balázsi (Biomedical Engineering), Dr. Gunn (Biochemistry and Structural Biology), Dr. Gergen (Biochemistry and Cell Biology), Dr. Rest (Ecology and Evolution), Chris Helenek (Biomedical Engineering), and Melanie Cragan (Biochemistry and Cell Biology).
We sought feedback from faculty mentors and advisors to refine our project design, optimize experimental efficiency, and ensure that our system was both feasible and reproducible in a mammalian cell model.
All mentors emphasized the technical challenges of maintaining multiple plasmids in HEK293T cells. They recommended using landing pad HEK293T cells to integrate stable gene cassettes, thereby reducing plasmid complexity and increasing reliability in gene expression.
Based on their advice, we streamlined our system from four plasmids to two and adopted the landing pad model. This refinement made our design more realistic, stable, and experimentally robust, improving the likelihood of reproducible and interpretable results.
We worked with Melanie, an experienced researcher who had previously performed protein expression and purification in similar systems.
We needed to express and isolate our fusion protein for testing, and Melanie’s prior experience made her an invaluable mentor for optimizing and troubleshooting this process.
Under her guidance, we learned how to perform seed culturing, small- and large-scale protein expression, SDS-PAGE, Western blotting, nickel affinity testing, protein purification and fractionation, and in vitro assays. She also helped us understand the purpose behind each step and how to interpret our results.
Melanie’s mentorship provided critical technical direction when procedures did not work as expected. Through her guidance, we developed a stronger conceptual understanding of our workflow, enabling us to troubleshoot effectively and make informed decisions about next experimental steps based on our results.
We reached out to Chris, a lab mentor with extensive experience in molecular cloning techniques.
Our initial ligation and HiFi DNA assembly reactions were unsuccessful, and we needed guidance to identify potential sources of error in our workflow.
Chris advised us to adjust the DNA concentrations and optimize incubation times and temperatures. Through these modifications and iterative testing, we observed a significant improvement in reaction efficiency and cloning success.
This troubleshooting process allowed us to refine our experimental protocols and identify conditions that work best for our specific constructs. The experience also improved our team’s understanding of experimental optimization and reproducibility, strengthening the technical foundation of our wet lab work.
We met with Dr. Jinfang Ju, a researcher specializing in cancer biology and therapeutic development.
We wanted to gain background insight from his experience in therapeutic research, particularly regarding challenges in drug design and delivery.
Dr. Ju recommended that we focus on the limitations of current therapeutics and clearly articulate how our system addresses these gaps. He also emphasized the importance of an effective and targeted delivery method, as this often determines whether a therapeutic can succeed in real-world applications.
His feedback guided us to highlight the delivery mechanism as a core strength of our design and to frame our project within the broader context of existing therapeutic challenges, ensuring our approach addressed both scientific and clinical needs.
We met with Dr. Paula Cevaal, a researcher experienced in lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems and HIV-related therapeutics.
We wanted to learn about efficient delivery strategies for our CRISPR-Cas13a fusion protein and understand how to better frame our project’s purpose within real-world therapeutic contexts.
Dr. Cevaal emphasized that our therapeutic should be framed as a supplement to current treatments, not a cure, to more accurately reflect its potential role in HIV management. She encouraged us to explore LNP-based delivery as a promising future direction, since LNPs can efficiently deliver mRNA encoding Cas13a and are widely used in gene therapy. She also raised important considerations regarding gRNA stability, therapeutic cost, and frequency of treatment in practical applications. From our discussion, we gained insight into how other researchers tackle latent HIV reservoirs, the challenges of protein-based delivery, and the emerging shift toward mRNA-LNP platforms in CRISPR therapeutics.
Her feedback prompted us to reconsider our delivery mechanism and evaluate LNPs as a potential future avenue for transporting Cas13a and gRNA into target cells. We also adjusted how we communicate our project, focusing on its role as an adjunct therapy that could enhance existing treatments by degrading viral RNA and improving quality of life for people living with HIV. This meeting refined both our scientific direction and public framing, aligning our project more closely with current trends in gene therapy research.
We met with Dr. Susan Morgello (Mount Sinai School of Medicine) and Dr. Wickramasinghe from the Manhattan HIV Brain Bank, a longitudinal clinical research program that studies the long-term effects of HIV infection on systemic and neurological health.
We aimed to gain a clinical and patient-centered perspective on HIV as a systemic disease, understand current research challenges, and gather input on our survey design for studying the effects of recent HIV research funding cuts.
Dr. Morgello provided an in-depth overview of how HIV affects the central and peripheral nervous systems, emphasizing that HIV is a multi-systemic condition, not confined to immune dysfunction. She discussed the difficulty of studying latent HIV reservoirs, especially in tissues such as the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) and the brain, where the virus persists despite antiretroviral therapy. We learned that most HIV DNA in the body is defective, complicating therapeutic targeting, and that only a few patients globally have been “cured” through bone marrow transplantation with rare genetic mutations. Both Dr. Morgello and Dr. Wick shared concerns about federal research budget cuts, explaining how funding instability directly affects patient care and scientific progress. They also reviewed our survey questions, offering suggestions to better capture the human and institutional impact of these funding cuts. Clinically, we learned that despite advances in therapy, viral replication often persists in lymphoid tissues, leading to chronic immune stimulation even in patients with undetectable plasma viral loads. Their insights reinforced the importance of our therapeutic’s focus on targeting viral RNA replication, and encouraged us to consider the gut lymphoid tissue as a potential target for our system.
This engagement grounded our project in the real-world medical and social context of HIV research. We reframed our therapeutic approach as one that could supplement existing antiretroviral treatments by reducing residual viral activity in hidden reservoirs. The discussion also helped us greatly refine our Human Practices survey, ensuring that it reflected the perspectives of clinicians and researchers most directly impacted by policy changes. Overall, our conversation with the Manhattan HIV Brain Bank strengthened both the scientific relevance and ethical awareness of our work, reminding us that progress in biotechnology must always prioritize patient well-being and research sustainability.
We consulted Dr. Joseph Kawuki, Sunny Cheong, Josh Fording and the Stony Brook IRB to guide us through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) application submission process.
Our team had never conducted an IRB study before, and our PI also had limited experience with the process. We needed support to ensure that our survey design, application materials, and protocol met ethical and institutional standards.
From Dr. Kawuki, we learned best practices for constructing clear and unbiased survey questions. Sunny Cheong and the Stony Brook IRB helped us navigate the IRB system, clarifying which forms and documents were required. Josh Fording provided valuable input on survey planning, structure, and implementation. Through this process, we revised our materials multiple times to align with feedback and compliance requirements. We also learned which training the team would have to complete.
These conversations allowed us to develop a well-structured, ethically sound survey and gain a strong understanding of the IRB process. By learning how to justify our study design and prioritize participant safety, we ensured that our research methods were both scientifically rigorous and ethically responsible.
Josh Fording, a graduate student with extensive IRB (Institutional Review Board) expertise, who guided us through the ethical research approval process for our HIV funding impact survey.
Our team had never conducted an IRB study before, and our team needed expert guidance to understand when IRB approval is required, how to navigate the application system, how to design ethically sound surveys, and whether there were strategic alternatives to lengthy approval processes that would still allow us to gather patient and physician perspectives on HIV research and treatment.
Josh revealed advisory boards bypass IRB requirements while achieving patient/physician engagement goals, and recommended expedited review for our quantitative survey over extensive face-to-face approval taking "definitely longer than weeks." His survey best practices emphasized conciseness with around 5 minutes and around 10 questions, prioritizing multiple choice over open response, including only essential demographics, avoiding technical jargon, and having physicians review surveys while validating against literature. His emphasis on participant burden, appropriate compensation, and mutually beneficial relationships shaped our ethical framework for all stakeholder engagement, ensuring Human Practices work met rigorous standards.
Josh’s guidance allowed us to refine our survey design to meet ethical research standards while remaining practical within our project timeline. We streamlined our survey, applied for expedited review, and planned an advisory board component to collect qualitative insights without IRB delays. His advice shaped our Human Practices strategy by ensuring that all community engagement and data collection efforts prioritized ethical compliance, participant comfort, and scientific rigor.
We met with three former Stony Brook iGEM team members (Maryam, Zach, Aarush) who had extensive outreach and team leadership experience.
We needed guidance from those who had successfully navigated the iGEM competition before. Specifically, we sought institutional knowledge, practical experience, strategic guidance, technical expertise, network access, and lessons learned.
Past team leaders provided critical logistics that would prevent costly mistakes: to avoid Airbnb, don't book flights until academic accommodations confirmed, use GoFundMe, implement ASA reimbursement tracking early, and plan Welcome Week sessions for recruitment of new members next year. They opened partnership doors through Blood Drive collaborations, NMDP connections, and RA events with USG funding, while teaching "synbio first, project second" outreach covering financial systems, competition strategy, and social media consistency that transformed us into strategically positioned competitors.
We implemented their logistical systems, adopted their outreach framework, and refined our project presentation to align with the competition standards. Their advice not only improved our current planning efficiency but also laid the foundation for stronger institutional memory and smoother transitions for future teams. Their mentorship allowed us to make an impact beyond the Jamboree as evidenced by our detailed plans for collaborative events in November and December.
We met with Maria Pasquale to discuss some questions about the Children’s book we were writing.
To receive feedback on our children’s biology book and guidance on how to make it more engaging and accessible for a young audience. We also wanted to learn about the process of copyrighting and publishing.
She recommended shifting the book’s perspective from third person to first person to make it more interactive and relatable for children (e.g., “Hi, I’m A - Adenine!” instead of “This is Adenine”). She also helped us define our target audience more clearly as children ages 3-8 and walked us through the basics of copyrighting a book including the difference between common law and registered copyright, and how to self-publish using Amazon Kindle or Staples.
Her feedback led us to revise the book’s narrative style to be more character-driven, helping young readers connect with the material. We also solidified our plan for publication by preparing for copyright registration and exploring accessible publishing options for our target age group.
Representatives from the Alliance for Positive Change, a New York-based organization supporting people living with HIV.
To better understand the real-world challenges faced by individuals living with HIV and how community organizations address gaps in welfare, healthcare access, and support, especially during times of federal funding cuts.
We learned about the Alliance’s ongoing diagnostic, relief, and outreach programs that provide critical support to people living with HIV in New York City. They emphasized the importance of community-based resources and the impact of budget cuts on their ability to deliver care.
This collaboration helped us connect our research to tangible community needs and reinforced the social responsibility aspect of our project. We committed to donating 10% of the funds raised through our GoFundMe campaign (approximately $300) to support the Alliance’s diagnostic and relief initiatives, ensuring that our work contributes not only to science but also to immediate community welfare.
Dr. Malik, our assigned iGEM mentor.
To gain guidance on how to effectively communicate our findings, present our project to the public, and plan for the long-term direction of our research.
Dr. Malik helped us refine how we articulate our results and scientific concepts to both technical and general audiences. His extensive business background helped us ensure our method of communication was accessible and easier to understand by a broader audience. His feedback was especially valuable as we prepared for the Maker Faire and presentation-based outreach events such as CommUniversity Day. Through discussions about our stakeholder meetings, he also guided us in identifying logical next steps for expanding our project beyond the competition.
His mentorship strengthened our science communication skills and helped us clarify our project’s long-term vision. With his input, we developed a clearer roadmap for future iterations of our therapeutic design and public engagement initiatives.