Integrated Human Practices

Our Human Practices Mindset

From the beginning of our project, we believed that science alone cannot answer the most pressing questions about cancer therapy. Engineering biology has immense potential, but its real impact depends on ethical responsibility, social awareness, and dialogue with experts and the public.

Our team approached Human Practices with the principle of integration --- not as a separate activity, but as something that actively shapes our design choices, experiments, and educational outreach. By combining public awareness surveys, expert interviews, and educational presentations, we created a cycle where feedback and insights continuously guided our project development.

Public Awareness Survey

Before we began our experimental work, we wanted to understand how people perceive cancer, immunotherapy, and biologically engineered treatments. We designed an online survey targeting a wide range of age groups and educational backgrounds. The survey aimed to capture how familiar the general public is with cancer treatments and their openness to engineered immune technologies.

You can find the raw data of the survey in the following attachment:

Download Survey Results (PDF)

Survey Results and Interpretation

Q1. What do you think cancer is?

For the first question of the public survey, "What do you think cancer is?", our goal was to assess how well the general public understands the biological nature of cancer --- not just as a disease, but as a cellular process involving uncontrolled growth and immune evasion.

Findings

The majority of participants described cancer simply as "a serious disease" or "a deadly illness." While this shows that most people recognize the severity of cancer, very few respondents demonstrated an understanding of what actually makes cancer different from other diseases. Only a small fraction mentioned concepts related to cell growth, mutation, or the body's own cells behaving abnormally. Almost no one referred to cancer as a condition involving the body's own cells dividing uncontrollably or avoiding immune detection.

This pattern indicates that, for many people, cancer remains a black box concept --- something feared and recognized by its symptoms and consequences, but not understood in terms of its biological cause.

Interpretation

These results highlight a key gap in public understanding. People tend to view cancer as an external threat rather than a failure of normal cellular regulation. This distinction is critical because the way people conceptualize cancer directly influences how they perceive treatments. For example:

If cancer is thought of as a "foreign invader," immunotherapy or genetic engineering may sound unnatural or risky.
If it's understood as a self-originating cellular disorder, immune-based and molecular treatments make more intuitive sense.

Therefore, this question confirmed the need for foundational education about what cancer truly is --- not merely a "disease," but a biological process within our own cells that can, in theory, be targeted and corrected through advanced biomedical engineering.

Q2. What factors do you think most lead to/cause cancer?

When asked about what causes cancer, participants provided a wide range of responses --- from lifestyle factors like smoking and diet to environmental pollution and genetics. However, the overall trend revealed that most people attribute cancer primarily to external causes, while fewer respondents recognized the internal biological and genetic mechanisms involved.

Findings

A large portion of participants (around half) mentioned lifestyle-related factors, such as smoking, alcohol, and unhealthy diets. Environmental causes, including pollution and radiation, were also frequently cited. These answers show a general awareness of modifiable risk factors --- a positive sign that public health campaigns about smoking and pollution have been effective.

However, fewer than one in five participants mentioned genetic mutations or inherited risks, and even fewer referred to the cellular-level changes that drive tumor development. Hardly anyone described how mutations in DNA, accumulated over time, can disrupt normal cell-cycle control and lead to uncontrolled growth.

Interestingly, a small number of respondents attributed cancer to stress or emotional factors, which, while not scientifically accurate as direct causes, indicates a perception of cancer as a condition deeply linked to lifestyle and psychological well-being.

Interpretation

These results demonstrate that while the public recognizes many external triggers of cancer, the underlying molecular and genetic nature of the disease remains less understood. People tend to connect cancer prevention with behavioral choices --- eating healthy, exercising, avoiding smoking --- but not with the biological mechanisms that transform normal cells into malignant ones.

From an educational perspective, this insight guided us to focus on bridging the gap between cause and mechanism. In our presentation, we emphasized that:

External factors such as UV radiation or chemicals do not directly cause cancer overnight; instead, they damage DNA or disrupt signaling pathways.
The real cause of cancer is the accumulation of genetic mutations that allow cells to escape the body's control systems.

This clarification helps the public move from a simplistic "cause-and-effect" view toward a more accurate understanding of how environmental and genetic factors interact --- an essential concept when discussing modern cancer treatments like targeted therapy or immunotherapy.

Q3. "Which of the following treatments have you heard of?"

This multiple-choice question asked respondents to identify which cancer treatments they were familiar with. The list included chemotherapy, radiation therapy, targetted therapy, and immunotherapy.

Findings (multi-select):

Chemotherapy: 25 responses (89.3%)
Radiation therapy: 23 (82.1%)
Targeted therapy: 8 (28.6%)
Immunotherapy: 5 (17.9%)
None of the above: 1 (3.6%)

Interpretation

The data reveal a clear imbalance in public awareness between conventional and modern cancer treatments. Nearly all respondents (over 80%) were familiar with chemotherapy and radiation therapy --- methods that have been standard for decades and are frequently portrayed in media, hospitals, and general health discussions. In contrast, awareness of immunotherapy (17.9%) and targeted therapy (28.6%) was strikingly low.

This result highlights an important educational gap: while public understanding of cancer remains grounded in traditional treatments, knowledge of newer, biology-driven approaches is still limited. Immunotherapy, in particular, represents one of the most significant medical advancements in recent years --- offering personalized and less invasive treatment options by harnessing the patient's own immune system --- yet it remains unfamiliar to most people.

For our team, this finding provided a clear direction for our outreach efforts. It emphasized that before we could discuss complex topics like MHC modification or immune recognition, we first needed to build foundational awareness of what immunotherapy actually is and how it differs from older treatments. We therefore structured our educational presentation to gradually progress from familiar concepts (like surgery and chemotherapy) to advanced ones (like immune-based and engineered protein therapies).

Ultimately, this question reinforced one of our project's central goals: bridging the gap between innovation and understanding. While science continues to evolve rapidly, effective communication ensures that the public can follow --- and trust --- the progress being made in cancer therapy.

Question 4: "How much do you think cancer treatments cost on average?"

This question assessed how people perceive the financial scale of cancer treatment --- an often-overlooked part of understanding cancer care accessibility.

Findings

Out of 28 total responses:

10.7% believed the average cost is less than $10,000 USD.
50.0% estimated it to be between $10,000 and $50,000 USD.
32.1% selected $50,000--$100,000 USD.
Only 7.1% thought treatments exceed $100,000 USD.

This distribution shows that while most respondents recognize cancer treatment as costly, they tend to underestimate the upper range of expenses, especially for long-term or advanced therapies.

Interpretation

The data suggest that the general public has a moderate but incomplete understanding of cancer treatment costs. While half of respondents placed their estimate within a reasonable middle range, only a small percentage realized that modern treatments --- especially immunotherapy and targeted biological therapies --- can easily exceed $100,000 USD over multiple sessions.

This underestimation highlights a broader awareness gap regarding the economic burden of cancer care, particularly as new therapies grow more sophisticated and expensive.

In our educational presentation, we included this finding to contextualize discussions about treatment innovation and accessibility. By showing real-world cost comparisons, we aimed to encourage a more informed conversation about how future cancer therapies --- including engineered immune approaches --- can balance effectiveness and affordability.

Question 5: "How would you find more information regarding cancer?"

This question explored where people typically seek information about cancer --- identifying which sources they rely on most, and which remain underutilized. Understanding these preferences helped shape how we designed our outreach materials and chose our communication channels.

Findings

News articles / TV: 27 respondents (96.4%)
Medical professionals: 12 respondents (42.9%)
Friends and family: 10 respondents (35.7%)
School: 3 respondents (10.7%)
Other sources: 3 respondents (10.7%)

Nearly all participants indicated that they would turn to news articles or television as their primary source of cancer-related information. In contrast, formal educational settings such as schools (10.7%) and expert-driven sources like medical professionals (42.9%) were far less common.

Interpretation

These results reveal that mass media is the dominant channel for public understanding of cancer, while educational and professional sources play a much smaller role. This reliance on general media suggests that the public's knowledge is often shaped by simplified, dramatized, or incomplete portrayals of cancer rather than by scientific or medical explanations.

The low percentage of respondents citing schools as a source (only 10.7%) indicates that cancer education is still rarely integrated into standard biology or health curricula. Similarly, less than half seeking information directly from medical professionals may reflect either accessibility barriers or a preference for easily consumable media content.

For our team, this finding was pivotal. It guided us to design outreach materials that combine scientific accuracy with media-style accessibility --- clear visuals, storytelling elements, and analogies that align with how people are already accustomed to learning through news or TV. We also viewed this as an opportunity to strengthen the connection between schools and biomedical education, making complex topics like immunotherapy approachable in classroom contexts.

Question 6: "Do you think there is enough education or information about cancer available to the general public?"

Findings

Responses were evenly divided: 50% answered "Yes" and 50% answered "No."

Interpretation

This balanced result suggests that while half of the respondents feel adequately informed about cancer, the other half perceive a lack of accessible or comprehensive education. The split reflects how information availability does not always equal understanding --- people may have access to data but still feel unprepared to interpret it.

This outcome further validated our initiative to develop clear, engaging educational materials that go beyond awareness and help people truly understand the biological and social aspects of cancer.

Question 7: "If you said 'Yes' to the previous question, what source would you rely on? If you said 'No,' what would be helpful?"

This follow-up question was designed to clarify why some people felt sufficiently informed about cancer while others did not. It explored which sources are considered reliable and what kind of additional resources the public believes would make cancer education more effective.

Findings

Among respondents who answered "Yes" to the previous question (50%), the majority said they rely on:

News articles and TV programs, particularly health documentaries and medical news segments.
Medical professionals, such as doctors or nurses, for direct information.
Online health portals and government health websites, which were viewed as credible and accessible.

For those who answered "No", common suggestions for improvement included:

More school-based education, especially in middle and high school biology or health classes.
Easily understandable online materials, including visual explanations and short educational videos.
Public campaigns or seminars led by healthcare experts to help people distinguish between reliable and misleading information.

Interpretation

These responses reveal two key insights:

Information reliability depends on accessibility and trust. Those who felt well-informed tended to rely on mainstream and professional sources, but even these can lack depth or scientific clarity.
There is a strong demand for structured, educational content---especially in schools and digital media---that simplifies complex topics like cancer biology and treatment mechanisms.

This directly guided our outreach strategy. Our educational presentation was designed to fill this gap by offering scientifically accurate yet easy-to-understand content, presented through visual storytelling and interactive explanations. We also focused on using the same channels people already trust --- such as short online videos and public seminars --- to maximize engagement and accessibility.

Question 8: "How credible do you think the information we have access to regarding cancer is? Please briefly explain your reasoning."

This question aimed to assess how much trust people place in the cancer-related information they currently encounter --- whether from media, online sources, or professionals --- and to understand the reasons behind their confidence or skepticism.

Findings

Responses were mixed, revealing a cautious but generally moderate level of trust:

A portion of participants expressed that they trust medical sources and official health organizations, such as hospitals or government health websites, citing professionalism and evidence-based information.
However, a nearly equal number voiced doubts about the credibility of media and online platforms, noting that sensationalism, misinformation, or commercial bias often make it difficult to discern reliable facts.
Some participants mentioned that information consistency varies, depending on where they look --- for example, between doctors, websites, and social media posts.

A few respondents explicitly stated that while there is a lot of information available, it is often too complex or contradictory, leading to confusion rather than clarity.

Interpretation

These results suggest that public trust in cancer information is fragile and context-dependent. People tend to trust medical professionals and official institutions, but not necessarily the sources they encounter most frequently --- such as TV news or online articles. This inconsistency underscores the importance of scientific communication that is both accurate and understandable.

For our team, this feedback shaped our approach to public education. We aimed to create materials that balance scientific accuracy with accessibility, using clear visuals and plain language while emphasizing credible references. Our goal was to make complex cancer biology not only easier to grasp, but also more trustworthy in the eyes of the general public.

Question 9: "What concerns you the most about cancer treatment?"

This question aimed to identify which aspects of cancer treatment the public finds most troubling --- providing insight into how emotional, financial, and physical concerns influence people's attitudes toward therapy.

Findings

The responses were distributed as follows:

Pain or side effects: 42.9%
Impact on family/lifestyle: 25.0%
Risk of treatment failure: 14.3%
Emotional toll: 10.7%
Cost: 3.6%
Other: 3.6%

The most common concern, by a clear margin, was pain or side effects, followed by the impact on family and lifestyle. This indicates that people primarily worry about how treatment will affect their daily quality of life, not just their medical outcomes. Only a small percentage mentioned cost or other issues, showing that the personal and emotional burden of treatment resonates more strongly than financial concerns among this group.

Interpretation

The findings reflect a deeply human perspective on cancer care --- people fear the suffering and disruption associated with treatment more than the disease's biology itself. Concerns such as physical pain, exhaustion, and the effect on family life highlight how cancer treatment is viewed as a life-altering experience that extends beyond the patient to their support network.

This insight guided our educational approach by reminding us that science communication must address empathy as well as information. When explaining advanced therapies such as immunotherapy, we emphasized how these approaches aim not only to increase survival but also to reduce physical side effects and emotional distress, improving overall quality of life.

Question 10: "How open would you be to trying a new, less conventional therapy if it had promising early results but wasn't yet widely available?"

This question was included to understand public openness toward emerging or experimental cancer treatments, which is essential for evaluating how people might respond to future developments such as engineered immune therapies.

Findings

The responses were distributed as follows:

Very open: 14.3%
Somewhat open: 39.3%
Hesitant: 35.7%
Not open at all: 10.7%
Not sure: 0%

A combined 53.6% of respondents expressed either strong or moderate willingness to consider a new therapy with early promising results, while 46.4% were hesitant or opposed.

Interpretation

These results reveal a cautiously optimistic attitude toward innovation. The majority of respondents are at least somewhat open to novel treatment options, suggesting a general willingness to embrace medical advances --- provided they are backed by clear evidence of safety and efficacy.

However, the significant proportion of hesitant respondents (35.7%) reflects lingering skepticism, likely rooted in limited understanding of how new therapies, such as immunotherapy or gene-based interventions, are developed and tested. This balance of curiosity and caution aligns with what we observed in earlier questions: people are receptive to scientific progress, but trust depends on education, transparency, and perceived safety.

This insight reaffirmed the importance of explaining how new cancer therapies are validated --- through controlled trials, molecular modeling, and ethical oversight --- to build confidence in biomedical innovation. Our educational presentation incorporated this perspective by illustrating the development pipeline from research concept to clinical testing.

Question 11: "In your opinion, what would make a cancer treatment more 'comfortable' or 'human-centered'?"

This open-ended question invited participants to reflect on the emotional and personal side of cancer care --- asking what changes or qualities would make treatment feel more humane, empathetic, and centered around the patient experience.

Findings

Across the responses, several recurring themes emerged:

Emotional and psychological support was the most common suggestion. Many participants emphasized the importance of empathy, consistent communication, and psychological counseling alongside medical treatment. They felt that emotional reassurance helps patients endure the long and uncertain journey of cancer therapy.
Minimizing pain and discomfort was frequently mentioned, with respondents calling for more focus on managing side effects, improving comfort during procedures, and tailoring treatment intensity to individual tolerance levels.
Personalized care stood out as another major theme. Participants valued treatment approaches that consider each patient's circumstances --- not just their biology, but also their mental health, family responsibilities, and lifestyle.
Accessible information and transparent communication were repeatedly highlighted as ways to make care feel more "human." Respondents wanted clear explanations in plain language, helping them make informed decisions without feeling overwhelmed by medical jargon.
Finally, several respondents mentioned the need for supportive environments, such as friendlier hospital spaces, patient communities, or dedicated family support programs.

Interpretation

These responses underline that for many people, a "human-centered" cancer treatment is not defined solely by technological sophistication but by compassion, clarity, and comfort. Patients want to feel seen and supported --- emotionally, physically, and socially --- throughout their treatment journey.

This insight aligns closely with the mission of our project: to approach biomedical innovation with both scientific precision and human empathy. As we designed our educational materials and outreach initiatives, we aimed to reflect this philosophy --- ensuring that the promise of next-generation therapies goes hand-in-hand with patient dignity and emotional well-being.

What These Results Taught Us

The survey results confirmed that education and communication are just as vital as scientific research itself. Understanding what people know --- and what they don't --- allowed us to design an educational program that meets the public where they are. Rather than overwhelming audiences with technical terminology, we developed content that builds scientific understanding step-by-step, transforming complex ideas such as immune recognition and MHC-peptide binding into relatable concepts.

How We Applied These Findings to Our Educational Presentation

Each section of our education program was directly shaped by the insights gathered from the survey:

Project Direction:
The survey revealed that most people were unfamiliar with how the immune system detects and responds to cancer, and even fewer had heard of MHC. This finding drove us to restructure our presentation --- beginning not with our research, but with the fundamentals of immune defense. We used simple illustrations showing how T-cells "inspect" cells through MHC molecules, gradually connecting that to how cancer cells evade detection.
Education Design:
Responses also showed that participants learn primarily through media and visual content, and that technical explanations are often intimidating. As a result, our presentation was intentionally visual-driven, using animations, metaphors, and color-coded diagrams instead of text-heavy slides. For example, the MHC groove was described as a "lock" and peptides as "keys," helping audiences intuitively grasp how structural mutations might alter binding affinity.
Social Responsibility:
Several survey participants expressed concerns about the safety and ethics of engineered biological therapies. Rather than presenting safety as an afterthought, we made it a recurring theme throughout the presentation. Each section concluded with a short reflection on ethical design --- emphasizing biosafety standards, dual-use awareness, and the social responsibilities of young scientists.
Accessibility and Inclusivity:
Because many respondents cited TV or online news as their main source of information, we adapted our materials to be shareable and publicly accessible --- short videos, infographics, and modular slide decks that teachers or community groups can reuse without specialized knowledge.

Beyond the Presentation: Continuing the Conversation

Our engagement does not end with this project. We plan to extend these findings into a long-term outreach initiative focused on sustained public education and dialogue. Planned activities include:

Community Workshops:
Hosting small, interactive sessions at local schools and community centers, where students can simulate "immune-cancer interactions" using models and games. These workshops will target younger audiences who may not have formal cancer education in their curriculum.
Educational Partnerships:
Collaborating with teachers to develop a short module on cancer and immunity that can be integrated into high school biology classes. This addresses the survey finding that schools were one of the least common sources of cancer education.
Follow-Up Surveys and Feedback Loops:
Conducting a follow-up survey after public presentations to evaluate changes in awareness and perception. This will allow future iGEM teams to measure long-term educational impact and continuously refine outreach methods.

Expert Interviews

While public awareness helped us understand social perception, expert guidance provided scientific and ethical grounding. We interviewed:

An immunotherapy professor, who emphasized the importance of peptide-MHC stability in immune escape mechanisms.
A computational protein engineer, who discussed both the promise and the limitations of AI-based design in protein engineering.

How Expert Input Shaped Our Project

Integration of AI and Wet-Lab Work: We learned that computational predictions must be validated experimentally --- shaping our decision to verify every model through lab assays.
Safety and Dual-Use Considerations: Experts encouraged us to define ethical limits for engineered immune molecules and include dual-use risk discussions in our project.
Broad Perspective: Their feedback helped us imagine future applications beyond oncology, including immune research and therapeutic enzyme design.

Moving Forward

Human Practices will continue to guide our work through:

Education: Presenting accessible, evidence-based explanations of immunotherapy to improve public understanding.
Implementation Considerations: Addressing social and ethical challenges such as fairness, accessibility, and long-term risks.
Feedback Loops: Maintaining ongoing dialogue with scientists, educators, and the community to refine future project directions.

Note: This page introduces our Human Practices framework and shows how public and expert perspectives shaped our design. More details can be found in the dedicated Interviews and Education pages.