As a group of young scientists, we all have a passion for learning, discovery, and sharing knowledge. Our project TRAPS is not only about research and providing a new platform for new and old scientists to work with. It is about inspiring the next generation of scientists, thinkers and problem solvers.
Being members of iGEM, we looked for diverse opportunities to educate the public on synthetic biology and our project and journey as a team. Science communication has been a key element of our outreach efforts, allowing us to engage with a variety of target groups from young to old. With each interaction, we sharpened our ability to communicate the potential of synthetic biology.
How can we support people in a holistic approach. Fundamental science often uses a language that's hard to follow and lacking the connection to the day to day life of many people.
We translated research topics to a broad audience with talks and interactive communication for all ages, from children to pensioners.
Audiences were intrigued by how synthetic biology drives research and to learn more about RNA. The exchange with many people highlighted the lifelong curiosity for science and how early the desire to learn arises and how long lasting it is.
In collaboration with Carola Queitsch, the communications manager from the Student Marketing Office of TU Dresden and the Study in Saxony program of the Ministry of Education of the Free State of Saxony, our team was part of a joint educational video project aimed to inspire future students, to apply to university and possibly start their own student research project. Starting in March 2025 we worked closely with Carola Queitsch and Dr. Magdalena Gonciarz, the PR Officer of the CMCB, as well as with video production experts from the creative agency Heimrich & Hannot to develop a video script, that presents our iGEM project and learnings we made in synthetic biology communicated to a non professional audience. Alongside the experiences gained by a student research project in the opportunity rich environment of TU Dresden were communicated. On 19th of May Celina and Malte, parts of our labwork and the research work behind our project were filmed by the crew of Heimrich & Hannot. Our educational video aims to reach high school graduates who may have little prior exposure to synthetic biology. By presenting our research in an accessible and visually engaging way we want to teach them about biomolecular condensates and spark curiosity about the application of biology. The final video will also benefit our team to spread awareness about the existence of student research competitions like iGEM, to hopefully recruit new students interested in research for next year's iGEM team and to present our project to a broad and young audience
During UniStem Day, Julius participated in a science slam competition designed for high school students across Europe. Alongside Fabian, he prepared a presentation aimed at introducing young learners to fundamental scientific principles and practices. The talk covered core concepts such as the scientific method and the modular design of biological parts, exemplified through the use of BioBricks. To make these ideas tangible, in the presentation he used plastic play-bricks as a hands-on analogy to explain how synthetic biology assembles standardized components to build biological systems. By conveying the project’s objectives and the broader context of iGEM in an accessible and concise manner, Julius helped bridge complex scientific concepts to a wider, non-expert audience. This effort was recognized with a 3rd place award in the competition.
At TU Dresden’s Uni Day, an open house event for prospective students, we provided information about our team, the iGEM competition, and our project to visitors. Our poster and booth served as interactive platforms for discussing scientific concepts and the basics of synthetic biology. To make the science tangible and engaging, we brought plastic play-bricks as a hands-on analogy to explain how synthetic biology assembles standardized biological parts. Visitors could interact with these bricks while exploring the project through our detailed poster. This approach helped create a welcoming space for dialogue and exploration of science beyond formal presentations.
Dylan and Julius presented our iGEM project in a seminar attended by biotechnology students and educational staff within their degree program. While Dylan discussed the details of the project, Julius focused on explaining the need for in vivo RNA detection. This seminar provided an opportunity to share and discuss the team’s research approach with peers and educators, fostering valuable feedback and scientific discussion. It also served as a platform to engage the academic community in understanding contemporary biotechnological methods and experimental design.
During Dresden’s annual Science Night, universities, research institutions, and companies open their doors to the public, offering hands-on insights into science, research, and innovation through lectures, experiments, and interactive activities. Our team hosted a booth at the Center for Molecular and Cellular Bioengineering (CMCB), where we engaged with a diverse audience consisting of children, students, and adults. Through conversations about synthetic biology, current research, and our iGEM project with the over 2,200 visitors at the event, we had the opportunity to exchange ideas with them and the other research groups. To make our project approachable and stimulate scientific thinking, we designed a quiz that challenged visitors to explore key concepts in synthetic biology. This interactive format encouraged curiosity, learning across age groups and sparked discussions about the topics. Later in the evening, Fabian, one of our team members, represented us in a science slam competition, where he presented our project in a concise and engaging format. The audience consisted of visitors and scientists. His performance earned 3rd place, highlighting our commitment to accessible science communication.
Franzand Celinahad the opportunity to present TRAPS as part of the Seniorenakademie, a special university-organized lecture series tailored for individuals aged 55 and older. This program is designed to be highly accessible, encouraging open dialogue and thoughtful exchange between presenters and audience members. Understanding the unique needs and interests of the audience, Franz and Celina carefully adapted their presentation to foster a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere. They invited attendees to actively engage by asking questions, sharing their perspectives, and exploring new scientific ideas together. About 20 deeply interested participants joined the session, bringing vibrant curiosity and thoughtful reflections that went beyond our initial expectations. The questions they raised highlighted fresh angles and considerations, demonstrating how valuable it is to communicate science in ways that resonate across generations. This event was a rewarding experience, reinforcing the importance of tailoring scientific communication to diverse audiences and embracing the enriching nature of interactive learning and mutual discovery.
To educate an audience beyond the TU Dresden and to connect with a professional research community, we contacted the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics (MPI-CBG) in Dresden and asked whether we could present our project to their researchers. We were warmly invited to give a talk in their weekly “Chalk Talk” series, a format where every presenting researcher only has a blackboard and a piece of chalk to explain their work. On July 25th, our team member Li Jingpresented our project and could even showcase the first lab results. The audience at MPI-CBG consist mostly of experienced scientists and graduate researchers, many of whom have worked on or with biomolecular condensates. This gave us the opportunity to discuss our plan to harness the process of condensation as part of a RNA detection platform and explain the biochemical and biophysical background behind our concept. We also informed the audience of potential applications we see and the impact our system could have. Beyond presenting our own work, this event became a true exchange of knowledge, as there was time to network and engage with MPIs researchers after our talk. We had many interesting conversations with scientists telling us about their work and possible collaborations or cases where they would like to use our RNA detection platform, giving us valuable feedback for improving our project along the way.
There are structural gaps in support, visibility, and infrastructure for young researchers participating in research competitions.
We reached out to universities all over East Germany and discussed the participation of new teams and the hurdles they would need to overcome.
The survey evaluation identified barriers and aligned efforts in supporting potential new teams and young researchers.
Student research competitions such as iGEM provide unique opportunities for young scientists: independent project work, interdisciplinary collaboration, and hands-on experience in synthetic biology. By looking at which German universities have put together teams ever since the beginning of iGEM we realised that there seems to be an imbalance. Universities in the western part of the country seem to have more representation than those in the east. This could be a hurdle for networking abilities compared to teams of geographically closer universities, other potential research collaborations and thereby further keep the imbalance.
We want to explore if this is really the case and highlight our outreach to East German universities, the legacy of iGEM in Dresden, and what can be done to create a stronger culture of student research projects across the region.
East Germany is home to excellent universities and renowned research institutions like Max Planck, Helmholtz, Fraunhofer, and Leibniz institutes. Yet student-driven initiatives like iGEM are less common. This is not due to lack of talent or interest, but rather structural and institutional factors. We found a limited financial situation at the university level, time taking and administrative workloads that lead to missing opportunities.
Nearly 36 years ago on 09.11.1989 the inner-German border fell through the efforts of thousands of Germans protesting peacefully against the dictatorship and the crimes against humanity the GDR organs exerted. During the time Germany was divided into two parts the regions accumulated differences for example through different economic systems, which can be seen in the difference in the GDP per capita in 1989, before the reunion, which in West Germany was at 36,200 DM (deutsche Mark, the currency before Euro in Germany) and 14,000 DM in East Germany (Vergleich von West- Und Ostdeutschland Vor Der Wiedervereinigung Im Jahr 1989| Statista, 2025, April 8). Ever since October 3, 1990 East and West Germany have been reunited under the name Federal Republic of Germany, the German government has worked for the equalisation of both parts of Germany. As all of the TRAPS Team members were born during a time where Germany was reunited, we did not experience life in a divided Germany, but we can still feel the scars the division and ongoing reunification have left. If you take a look at different socioeconomic indicators like income disparities, wealth inequality, demographic differences and also education, the inner-German border can still be seen (Regionale Unterschiede in Ost Und West, 2025, December 6).
In recent years, several German iGEM teams have ranked among the top at the Grand Jamboree. In 2024, four German teams placed in the global top ten with two German teams winning the overall grand prize in their respective categories. Universities in western Germany especially in large metropolitan areas often provide teams with established infrastructure, lab access, mentorship, and sometimes direct funding.
TU Dresden has had iGEM teams since 2009, based at BIOTEC and later supported by the TU Dresden associated Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology and the Biology Faculty of the TU Dresden. Over the years, Dresden’s projects have achieved several milestones, including gold medal projects as well as several special prize nominations with the teams SensorBricks from 2010, EncaBcillus from 2017, DipGene from 2019, Wunderband from 2022, DRIP from 2023 and ReFiBa from 2024. The teams from Dresden have had a wide variety of research questions and fields ranging from detecting cell surface cancer markers, over DNA-Sequence detection methods and bioresponsive hydrogels to the recycling of textile fibers so far. An outstanding and award-winning project among the Dresden-projects is the DRIP project which succeeded in diatom-based water remediation with the help of immobilized proteins and was not only rewarded a gold medal but also chosen as one of the top 10 projects from the 2023 competition. Despite these successes, the Dresden legacy is not as deeply rooted in the university's identity compared to universities where iGEM is firmly embedded in teaching and alumni networks.
Disclaimer: We have excluded all Berlin-based Teams from the statistics, as Berlin is considered an outlier that is not representative of East Germany. This is due to its special historical status, as it was divided in East and West Berlin after the second world war.
Ever since 2006 Germany has constantly formed teams that participated in the iGEM competition with rising popularity in the whole of Germany. This year, 2025, Germany has a total of 17 iGEM teams, but only two of them are from East Germany:
Looking back on the history of iGEM in Germany it is obvious that this is not an outlier but the rule. Since 2006 Germany brought forward 216 teams, from which only 15 were from East Germany or had a collaboration with an East German University (mixed team Heidelberg-Weimar in 2010). From the total of 15 East German teams more than half, so nine teams are associated with the TU Dresden, Aside from Dresden, East German participation in iGEM has been sporadic. In the history of iGEM in Germany, there has not yet been a single year in which more than two teams from Eastern Germany participated, even though East Germany has many universities, including some with very strong life science hubs: Chemnitz, Cottbus/Senftenberg, Dresden, Erfurt, Freiberg, Greifswald, Halle-Wittenberg, Ilmenau, Jena, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Potsdam, Rostock. Even beyond the named universities there are numerous higher education institutions and research centers in East Germany with students in the life science sector.
While there are isolated teams and synthetic biology teaching initiatives (e.g. at TU Berlin), there is no consistent multi-year tradition at most universities. The contrast to West Germany is clear: teams in Heidelberg, Munich, and Düsseldorf often sustain a continuous presence over many years, creating a feedback loop of alumni, mentors, and institutional memory.
It is not logical to reduce the higher number of teams to a simple “East vs. West” population size argument. Student numbers and degrees in states such as Saxony or Brandenburg are comparable to western regions. Percentage wise even more people are students in the east than in the west (excluding Berlin). While 3.1% of the total population in the west are students, in the east it amounts to 4.8% for the winter semester of 2024/2025 (Wintersemester 2024/2025: Studierendenzahl weitgehend unverändert zum Vorjahr - Statistisches Bundesamt. (2024, November 28)). The question why there are more teams in the west therefore relates less to population size but maybe to the number of institutions that have the financial resources, the established networks and infrastructure. Thus reducing it to a simple “more universities” argument does not hold up. In total there are 352 higher education institutes and 71 universities in the east listed on the university information system ‘Hochschulcampus’ (Hochschulen in Deutschland - Universität, Fachhochschule, Usw. - Hochschulkompass, n.d.).
East Germany has 5.73 universities per million, while West Germany has 4.94 universities per million. East Germany has relatively more universities per inhabitant. So the differences in numbers of teams does not lie in population size or number of universities but might be dependent on the lack of financial resources and established networks.
As the Dresden iGEM team, we often felt like an outlier. During the meetups in Düsseldorf and Frankfurt we noticed a level of cooperations between universities that are geographically located closer to each other which we have not experienced. This made us wonder: Where are the teams from cities near us? Is this maybe connected to financing issues, a systematic problem?
Critical questions and reflection are essential to science. When we joined iGEM, we realized that this also applies to the competition itself. With participation fees of around 20,000 USD for our team, and lowest possible fees exceeding 9,000 USD, it was not always easy to convince fellow students and professors of iGEM. Some critical voices even described it as overly corporate, which made us question: how can a non-profit competition be this expensive? To some, it might seem contradictory to promote iGEM to other universities without investigating this question beforehand.
To find answers, we looked into iGEM’s audited financial reports (Financials | iGEM, 2023; Igem Foundation Inc – Nonprofit Explorer – ProPublica, n.d.). In 2023, total expenses amounted to 7,216,674 USD. Roughly 6 million USD were allocated to program-related costs (including ~2.6 million USD for the Grand Jamboree venue in Paris and associated expenses) and 1.2 million USD were spent on administrative costs. Executive compensation, e.g. COO Meagan Lizarazo (168,462 USD in 2023) and CEO Randy Rettberg (236,554 USD in 2022), falls within the typical range for non-profits this size (Hansmann, 1980; Is There a Floor for Association CEO Salaries?, 2023). From this perspective, high participation fees can be explained by the scale and complexity of the event.
However, there is still room for improvement. Hosting the Grand Jamboree in one of the most expensive cities in Europe significantly increases costs for all participants, which is, in our opinion, not necessary. A fairer model could be to differentiate fees based on the economic strength of participating countries. This is already practised in international organizations or scientific publishing, where lower-income countries pay less. Thus allowing greater inclusion of teams from economically weaker regions.
For us in East Germany, this aspect is particularly relevant. Structural disadvantages and limited funding opportunities already pose barriers for student initiatives. High fees amplify these challenges and partly explain why East German universities are chronically underrepresented in iGEM. Critically engaging with these issues is not about undermining the competition but about strengthening it. Just as science, which benefits from reflection and debate, iGEM could grow by addressing questions of fairness and accessibility.
We reached out to multiple universities across the region to ask why they do not participate in iGEM and how familiar they are with it. Our aim is not only to document the challenges but also to take action through meetups, outreach, and partnerships such as our upcoming collaboration with Potsdam. We prepared a Survey with the TU Dresden survey tool and sent a link and text to various researched public available email addresses.
Our questions covered funding, awareness of iGEM, perceived hurdles, and the potential usefulness of guidance materials. The aim was to identify structural barriers and opportunities that might explain why fewer iGEM teams emerge in the East, despite relatively high numbers of universities per capita and high student enrolment rates. We reached out to a total of 18 Universities with a biology or related fields study program and wrote over 50 Emails to respondents with different roles in the university context. We got nine responses in a span of four weeks, after we extended the responding deadline of two weeks.
While these insights are valuable, we have to critically reflect on the limitations of the survey we did. We only received a total of nine responses that did represent a variety of roles (students, coordinators, deans) but they can not capture the full range of perspectives. The sample size raises questions about representativeness, especially since those who chose to respond may already be more engaged or aware than the general university population. It also excludes the potential interest of students that might want to start a team on their own and take the inititive. Furthermore, some of our questions were suggestive, potentially hitting respondents towards answers that emphasised barriers rather than potential. This bias should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. But the consistency across responses particularly regarding funding challenges and lack of awareness suggests that these are not isolated problems but a recurring pattern. Another consideration is the timing and context of our outreach. Universities are large and decentralised institutions. It is possible that in some cases, our emails did not reach the individuals best to answer, or that institutional support structures exist but were unknown to the respondents. Especially considering we reached out to students that might not be informed on the financial standing of their respective department.
Our survey points to systemic obstacles but also shows a need for deeper, more systematic investigation. A larger dataset, ideally supported by institutional statistics, could help confirm whether the patterns we observed are widespread. Our next focus on meetups, outreach, and partnerships (like the one with Potsdam) are ways of addressing these limitations, both by broadening the conversation and taking action changing the system beginning with us.
Our next step was doing a colaboration with the team of the HPI of Potsdam. We first reached out on social media where we connected and made plans to meet. After setting up online meetings talking about our projects we provided each other answers to questions that we had from basic understanding to giving insights in our respective fields. With the software expertise of the Potsdam team and the hands-on lab expertise of us we both could exchange valuable knowledge. We learned important tips and tricks to further develop our project and gained insights in their experience as a new forming team in a east german university. As a final act we held a Meetup with five members of the HPI Team on the 29th of September in Dresden and organized a whole day of presentations and networking. We talked about the results of our survey, showed them our Lab and went through both of our presentations with feedback and comments on what to touch up.
Funding: New small-scale programs for student teams, covering lab materials and travel costs and participating fees
Awareness: More systematic outreach at East German universities to raise visibility of iGEM. Continuing programs of iGEM like the ambassador-program, who should reach out to universities that have not participated. Additionally, as a team bringing up concerns of costs and indifferences in provided support.
Networking and Cross-regional Cooperation: Establish connections with Teams from East & West and building traditions like e.g. BFH - Meetup or initiating cross regional Mixed Teams like the Team from the two cities Heidelberg-Weimar in 2010.
Institutional: Encouraging faculties and administrations to officially recognise student research groups as part of education
The imbalance in iGEM participation between East and West Germany is not about population or talent. It reflects differences in resources, networks, and institutional cultures. Dresden has shown that success is possible, but continuity and support are essential. With partnerships like the one between Potsdam and Dresden, and with targeted support structures, East German universities could become equally strong contributors to iGEM and to student-led innovation in synthetic biology.
63.767 views
1225 interactions
102 stories and 27 posts
674 total followers
For over a decade, Instagram and other social media platforms have significantly shaped how information is perceived and disseminated. Recognizing this, we consider these platforms essential tools for communicating our iGEM project to a broad audience.
Since launching our Instagram account, we have garnered over 63,767 views and 1,225 interactions. This includes likes, comments, and reposts from both our 674 followers and many non-followers. Such consistent activity, through 102 stories and 27 posts shared to date, has fostered meaningful engagement across diverse audiences.
Our content has covered a variety of formats to engage and inform, including detailed project updates, educational infographics, behind-the-scenes glimpses, interactive quizzes, and highlights from events and competitions. Notably, we also created a post addressing the underrepresentation of women in science, aiming to raise awareness and encourage inclusivity within STEM fields, since we noted that we do also lack non male members.
Looking ahead in our iGEM journey, we plan to leverage Instagram to attract new team members, share our experiences at the Jamboree, and provide updates on the project's future. As the Instagram channel has been used by different iGEM teams from TUD over the years, we aim to empower the next team to continue this legacy by sharing their own projects and journey with the community.