Integrated Human Practices - Public

1. Purpose of our Public Interviews

To develop educational materials that resonate with diverse audiences, we conducted structured interviews and surveys aimed at uncovering public knowledge and perceptions of phage therapy. Our primary goal was to identify baseline understanding, common misconceptions, and emotional reactions to the idea of using bacteriophages as precision antibacterial agents. These insights guided the tone, content, and format of our animations, infographics, white papers, and workshops, and ensured our outreach was both informative and accessible.

Beyond mapping knowledge gaps, we sought to understand which aspects of the technology inspire confidence and which raise concerns. By capturing real-world questions about safety and efficacy, we aimed to preempt confusion and build trust before Mystiphage is introduced in community settings. Ultimately, these interviews provided the foundation for our strategy in building our educational outreach materials.

2. Participant Demographics

Our stakeholder group spanned four categories: hospital patients, university students, urban pedestrians, and parents.

Patients in hospitals across the University Health Network offered insights rooted in lived experiences with bacterial infections and antibiotic treatments. Their perspectives helped us gauge how familiarity with conventional care influences openness to novel therapies.

University students, drawn from both life sciences and non-science backgrounds, reflected emerging adult viewpoints and a demographic attentive to logistical and ethical considerations.

Street interviews in downtown Toronto engaged a cross-section of the general public, encompassing varied ages, occupations, and cultural backgrounds.

Finally, parents provided viewpoints shaped by family-oriented health decisions, emphasizing safety and simplicity. This rich demographic mix allowed us to compare needs and preferences across distinct segments of the population.

3. Interview Findings

We distilled our qualitative data into six thematic areas, each revealing critical insights for Mystiphage’s educational design.

Baseline Awareness and Definitions

Initial conversations revealed that most participants had never encountered the term “phage therapy.” Many conflated bacteriophages with human viruses, assuming all viruses posed a health risk.

For example, one parent remarked, “I thought viruses only made you sick—using one to treat an infection sounds counterintuitive.”

This highlighted the need to begin materials with a concise definition: phages are naturally occurring viruses that specifically target and destroy bacteria while leaving human cells unharmed.

Perceived Urgency of Antibiotic Resistance

When presented with global mortality projections—40 million deaths by 2050—participants expressed genuine concern. A third-year biochemistry student commented, “Learning that antibiotics could lose effectiveness so soon made me realize why alternatives are critical.” Similarly, a downtown respondent shared, “I treated my last infection with antibiotics and never thought about resistance until now.” These reactions underscored the importance of contextualizing phage therapy within the broader crisis of antimicrobial resistance.

To translate statistics into tangible motivations, interviewees recommended case studies of patients facing resistant infections.

As one hospital patient suggested, “Hearing a story about someone cured by phages after antibiotics failed would make the data feel real.”

Therefore, we incorporated narrative elements alongside hard numbers into our materials, fostering emotional engagement and underscoring the necessity of phage-based solutions.

Understanding of Phage Mechanism

In follow-up exchanges with those who lacked base-line awareness of phage therapy, participants responded positively to analogies comparing phages to guided missiles. A university student said, “Imagining phages as microscopic robots honing in on bad bacteria helped me grasp the concept quickly.” Explaining how phages attach to bacterial surfaces, inject genetic material, and lyse the cell wall challenged respondents until they saw dynamic visuals. A graphic animation demonstrating phage replication inside the bacterium prompted another student to say, “Now I can picture it—these viruses are like tiny Pac-Men devouring bacteria from within.” With this, we learned that such analogies and simple visuals will serve as an entry point before delving into more technical details.

Such feedback confirmed that animations or step-by-step infographics are indispensable for clarifying the phage life cycle.

Participants also raised questions about specificity: “How does a phage know which bacteria to target?” Addressing receptor-binding protein design and host range will require simplified schematics showing lock-and-key interactions. Including side-by-side comparisons of broad-spectrum antibiotics versus precision phages will further illustrate differences in collateral effects on beneficial microbes.

AI-Driven Workflow

Introducing Mystiphage’s AI pipeline prompted curiosity about data provenance and safety validation. One student asked, “Where do you get the protein datasets, and how do you verify predictions?” Another pedestrian expressed concern, “What if the AI suggests a design that backfires biologically?” These comments revealed the necessity of transparent explanations detailing our in silico screening steps such as ESM-3 sequence generation, Boltz-2 stability assessments, molecular docking, and MCMC refinement and how each stage includes expert review and laboratory verification before any candidate reaches human consideration.

This prompted us to create our informative newsletter and public risk assessment which helped audiences appreciate both speed and safety of our AI pipeline.

Ethical Allocation and Equity

Questions about fair access emerged organically. A patient at Toronto Western worried, “If demand outpaces supply, who decides who receives phage therapy first?” A parent also echoed this concern: “I want to know how vulnerable groups, like low-income communities, will be included.” Such comments highlighted the need to outline prioritization frameworks and affordability plans clearly. Interviewees recommended detailing partnerships with not-for-profits and tiered pricing models to reassure stakeholders that Mystiphage intends to serve both high-resource and underserved settings.

Addressing global equity also means acknowledging structural barriers. A student noted, “Even cheap technologies can fail to reach remote areas if labs lack equipment.” In response, we designed our entrepreneurship business model to reflect the need for cheaper compassionate care phage therapy.

Communication Preferences and Trust-Building

Across all demographics, trust hinged on opportunities for two-way dialogue and peer learning. Many interviewees requested contact with previous patients who had undergone phage treatment. “Talking to someone who’s been through it would allay my fears,” said a downtown respondent. Others preferred printed FAQs they could review at home. A parent explained, “I want something I can take to my doctor and discuss before consenting.” Based on this feedback, our strategy integrated printed materials, online forums, virtual Q&A sessions, and a peer-mentorship network program.

3.1 Special Segment! Exploring Faith and Technology

This next section highlights one of the most unique parts of our human practices experience: street interviews with members of different religious communities. These conversations gave us a deeper understanding of how various faiths view the intersection of phage therapy and artificial intelligence, raising questions about ethics, healing, and the role of technology in life. The insights were so interesting to us that we felt they deserved to be shared in full, not just summarized. It’s a special segment that reflects our commitment to inclusive design and listening across perspectives. Of course, we’ve still included the main takeaways at the bottom.

4. Survey Insights and Educational Implications

Our online survey (n=60) quantified attitudes and preferences, yielding five essential observations that shaped Mystiphage’s educational resources.

Familiarity Scores

Respondents rated their pre-exposure familiarity with phage therapy at an average of 1.8 out of 10. This near-universal unfamiliarity confirms that all educational content must begin with foundational explanations rather than assume prior knowledge. Introducing a “Phage newsletter” module, covering basics such as what phages are, how they differ from antibiotics, and where they have been used historically, will establish the groundwork for deeper topics.

Trust and Information Needs

Over 90 percent of survey participants indicated that they feel more comfortable with new biotechnology when its mechanisms and safeguards are clearly explained. Requested formats included visual infographics, concise FAQ sheets, and short testimonial videos. These preferences align with our interview findings and will inform a multimedia approach combining print, web, and video to cater to varied learning styles.

Comfort with Phage Therapy

While 85 percent of respondents said they would consider phage therapy if antibiotics failed, nearly all qualified this by stating they would want comprehensive education first. Comments ranged from “I’d be open to it but need to understand the risks” to “I wouldn’t volunteer for a first-in-human trial unless I had real data.” These responses highlighted for us the importance of including clear summaries of clinical trial results, safety data, and regulatory approvals to reassure potential patients.

Perception of AI in Healthcare

Survey feedback described AI in healthcare as “promising but opaque.” Many participants cited “AI blind spots” and “lack of accountability” as concerns. To address this, we dedicated a section of our materials to explaining human-in-the-loop validation, peer review of computational models, and real-world performance monitoring. Including endorsements from independent regulatory bodies and quotes from clinical collaborators will further bolster credibility.

Demographic Variations

Analysis by respondent category revealed nuanced differences. Parents placed the highest value on safety testimonials and clear procedural outlines. Students (particularly those in STEM fields) requested deeper dives into algorithmic workflows and case study data. General public respondents favored layperson analogies and minimal jargon. Understanding these variations enables us to tailor parallel versions of each educational asset, ensuring that every audience receives the right level of detail in the most engaging format.

Overall, our qualitative and quantitative research revealed that public familiarity with phage therapy remains extremely low, with most participants unaware of phages’ bacterial specificity or the urgency of antibiotic resistance. Visual analogies and animations proved essential for conveying how phages infect and destroy bacteria, while detailed explanations of our AI-driven design pipeline, including data sources, validation steps, and expert oversight, addressed concerns about safety and reliability. Ethical questions about fair access and affordability, especially for marginalized communities, highlighted the need to present clear allocation criteria and low-tech deployment options. These insights affirm that effective education must start with basic definitions, employ multimedia formats, and integrate real-world examples to demystify phage therapy and build informed support. All of the above data and insight informed our newsletter, regulatory framework whitepaper, sustainability report, socio-economic report, and social media posts that helped inform the public not only of our project but of the phage therapy landscape in general.