UBC iGEM 2025 SynBio Case Competition

From skill-building workshops and a life sciences research panel to a unique opportunity to tackle a pressing issue, the UBC iGEM 2025 SynBio Case Competition engages local high school students to gain exposure to synthetic biology and critical problem-solving. Learn more about how we organized the Case Competition and developed an engaging case study in this page!

What if everyone could experience iGEM?

This is a question we asked ourselves before organizing the first synthetic biology case competition tailored to local high school students. From attending educational workshops, to delivering a team Project Proposal that addressed a real-world issue, participants received the opportunity to kick off their learning in synthetic biology.

Unlike past educational workshops, the Case Competition challenged us to design a comprehensive yet targeted educational program. Over the course of two days, students would expand their knowledge on synthetic biology, explore their real-world understanding of emergent issues in sustainability and engineer a solution plan.

How did we plan the iGEM Case Competition?

1. Reflecting on Synthetic Biology Education

From hosting several workshops and others forms of educational programs, it was clear that we should provide a more well-rounded and comprehensive experience. While workshops offered an overview of a specific area in synthetic biology, we were interested to elevate the intellectual skills from our learners by directly applying the synthetic biology principles .

After attending community events such as the PuMP+ Fair, many individuals showed interest in deepening their enquiry on synthetic biology. We were pleased that our case competition was oversubscribed with overwhelming interest.

To deliver an impactful learning experience, we applied our 3 E’s framework, encouraging students to expand their knowledge, explore real-world applications and engineer a project proposal. The 3 E’s system connects back to the iGEM Engineering Cycle where through learning, designing, building, and testing, we can enable greater insights and innovation.

Following this approach, synthetic biology learning is made not only educational but tangible as students take ownership over their learning. At the end of the case competition, participants would be able to:

Expand

a variety of concepts in synthetic biology through activity-based learning from a series of interactive and skill-building workshops

Explore

students’ understanding of synthetic biology applications by showcasing unique journeys in scientific research through the Pathways to SynBio panel and real-time advancements in bioengineering via the UBC iGEM Project Presentation on meduCA.

Engineer

a solution by utilizing the knowledge and skills acquired from the former educational activities to deliver a comprehensive Project Proposal addressing a sustainability challenge

Why is this Case Competition designed for high school students?

High school students are at a pivotal stage in their education. They are exploring career pathways, choosing post-secondary fields, and building the confidence to engage with real-world issues. By introducing synthetic biology concepts through a challenge-driven format, we aimed to:

• Spark curiosity in a post-secondary education in STEM
• Provide an opportunity to think like iGEM Jamboree participants, engaging with a real-world challenge that they aim to solve
• Provide students with an opportunity to apply critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication skills
• Inspire students by educating them in ways in which biology can be applied to global problems such as pollution and sustainability

1. Identifying an open ended global issue

To design our case study, we first identified a modern problem in the world. As meduCA aims to bioremediate mining waste on earth, we connected this notion of improving sustainability practices on earth with this compeitition. Additionally, we aimed to narrow our focus to a growing issue that showed significant contributions across multiple industries.

Synthetic dyes have caused widespread environmental pollution and significant health problems. In breaking down the case study, students can tackle a real-world challenge, analyze background information, and form a project proposal.

Background Information:

Synthetic dyes are used in numerous industries, ranging from textiles, plastics to cosmetics. Azo dyes account for 60-70% of the dyes produced annually and are applied in high density in textile industries. Yet, due to their chemical stabilities, these dyes are difficult to degrade and often chronically harmful to human health and the environment ([1]).

Traditional chemical and physical methods struggle to decompose the over 800,000 tons of dyes used annually. ([2]). Traditional chemical treatments can be costly and tend to produce mass amounts of wastewater or sludge which contain heavy metals and pollutants harmful to the environment ([3]).

According to a review article in the GSC advanced research and reviews, “3000-4000 kilotons of wastewater [are] generated from dye producing and dye-utilizing industries” ([4])

Secondary impacts of this released wastewater may range from soil contamination, disruption of the aquatic ecosystem, altered oxygen levels to effects on the immune system ([5])

The case study prompts students to research a more cost-effective and environmental friendly treatment to process synthetic dyes.

2. Designing the Case Study

What issue was the Case Competition targeting?

To the general public, synthetic biology may still seem abstract. For our high school audience, we used a two-part approach to break down this concept through a case study. Similarly for our case study on the biodegradation of synthetic dyes, we understood that we must address its distinct yet complementary components in biology and engineering.

Part 1: How can scientists utilize a biological degradation treatment to break down synthetic dyes?

This first section of the case study focuses on how organisms possess specific enzymes capable of breaking down chemical compounds in synthetic dyes. Most importantly, by selecting for a suitable bacterial agent which already display high enzymatic functions, the student recognizes that a biological degradation method maximizes efficiency in the breakdown of dyes. Compared to a chemical or physical method which produces an abundance of toxic wastewater, optimizing the natural degradation features of a bacterial species enables bioremediation and more sustainable processes in dye processing.

Part 2: Explain how you can introduce or enhance biodegradation abilities in your host by practicing genetic engineering.

Part two is an extension of the former part of the case study by building on the notion of biodegradation. By having participants apply synthetic biology techniques, they can utilize gene selection and plasmid editing to optimize degradation functions. Pursuant to part one, students deepen their understanding of biodegradation by applying research methods and creating their own experimental models. To incorporate the iGEM framework, students are encouraged to develop their proposals by considering the social, economic, environmental impacts associated with the biodegradation of synthetic dyes. In this second section, students leveraged their earlier analysis on the benefits of biodegradation to create a proposal. Their proposals outlined techniques for enhancing degradation functions and addressed the broader societal impacts of implementing sustainable, organism-driven degradation methods.

Each section of the case study allows students to explore the decomposition of synthetic dyes more deeply. Part one introduces bioremediation of toxic waste products as a key concept, while part two examines how techniques like plasmid editing can optimize biodegradation and advance synthetic biology.

How does the Biodegradation of Synthetic Dyes connect to meduCA?

Our project meduCA is centered on modifying bacteria to facilitate calcium carbonate precipitation by surface-displayed carbonic anhydrase (CA) . By having cyanobacteria display carbonic anhydrase, it enables biocementation, allowing $CO_2$ to be sequestered. In turn, this enables the in-situ development of living building materials on Mars, generating biologically engineered bricks or alternatively, biobricks.

Although the biodegradation of synthetic dyes does not present any direct connections to the construction of living building materials (LBMs), both processes contribute to the bioremediation of earth’s resources. Where cyanobacteria sequester $CO_2$ to produce LBMs, degrading synthetic dyes biologically reduces the volume of polluted wastewater required than a chemical method. By emphasizing key techniques like plasmid editing and bacteria modifications, we can exposure students to a core area of synthetic biology research.

3. Conducting Community Outreach

To advertise the event, we set up a public registration page and released a post outlining the event details on our social media page. As an effort to reach local high school students, we contacted Science teachers from Grade 9-12 and career counsellors. Interested participants were provided the option to register solo and be paired up at the event or sign up in groups of up to five people. Due to space constraints, we closed registration at 40 people but received interest from a total of 50 individuals. To maximize accessibility to the event, all fees were covered for the attendees including lunch and snacks provided on both days.

How did we run the Case Competition?

Now lets walk through each aspect of the schedule:

Day 1: Educational Programming & SynBio Exploration

What was the purpose of Day 1?

The first day of the Case Competition was centered on exposing students to a range of fundamental concepts and techniques in synthetic biology. The schedule was designed so students can participate in three targeted skill-building workshops, attend a Pathways in Synbio panel, and learn from project design and implementation via our presentation on meduCA. This first day would be essential in equipping students with the skills and knowledge to tackle the case study and deliver a cohesive Project Proposal.

What workshops did we run?

For this case competition, we designed skill-building workshops to equip participants with the tools needed to tackle the problem statement. We aimed to balance key synthetic biology concepts with essential problem-solving skills. After multiple rounds of brainstorming, gathering feedback, and identifying the most practical options, we selected three workshops: plasmid design, research paper analysis, and introduction to biosensors. These workshops provide both conceptual synthetic biology knowledge (plasmid design and biosensors) and practical research skills (paper analysis) that directly support our problem statement.

Workshop #1: Plasmid Design

What was the purpose of this workshop?

We included a plasmid design workshop to introduce students to fundamental principles of synthetic biology and genetic engineering. Participants learned about plasmid structure, their function as vectors in molecular cloning, and how scientists use them to express genes of interest. The workshop balanced conceptual understanding with practical application, encouraging participants to think like synthetic biologists: a crucial skill for developing their own project proposals.

What were the main skills targeted?

We focused on scientific literacy and design thinking as these would essentially help the students in their solution to the case competition. For the former skill, we provided a presentation to educate participants on the purpose and components of plasmids. Similar to previous workshops, we included appealing graphics as well as guiding questions to keep students engaged. For the latter skill, we provided participants with the opportunity to assemble their own plasmids using the concepts they learned in the presentation.

How did we implement active learning?

Our presentation covered these main concepts before diving into a hands-on activity:

• What plasmids are and why they are used in synthetic biology.
• Core features of plasmids (ORI, selection markers, promoters, restriction sites).
• Examples of plasmids in research, industry and medicine

For our hands-on activity, participants received paper cut-outs of plasmid parts and were asked to assemble their own plasmids using [xyz] criteria. Originally, this activity was going to consist of the participants drawing their own plasmids, similar to a previous activity we did. However, based on the feedback we received from previous workshops, the students preferred tangible activities as they facilitate learning and understanding of difficult concepts. This physical assembly activity encouraged creativity and reinforced understanding of plasmid modularity.

Workshop #2: Biosensor Design

What was the purpose of this workshop?

The biosensor workshop aimed to introduce participants to how synthetic biology can be applied to design living systems that detect and respond to external perturbations . The session combined teaching, discussion, and a creative design activity where participants built their own biosensor models to mimic a medical detection device.

Since our project focused on synthetic dye degradation, we demonstrated how biosensors could detect dye contamination that’s invisible to the naked eye. Participants designed their own biosensors, learning how biological systems can be engineered as detection and reporting tools.

What were the main skills targeted?

The workshop developed three skills. For systems thinking, we taught students to understand biological circuits as input-output devices. For application-focused design, we connected biosensors to medical detection devices used in real-world settings. Finally, we held an open discussion exploring the benefits and limitations of biosensors in practice.

Main concepts covered in the presentation:

• What a biosensor is and how it works (input → sensing mechanism → output).
• Core components of a biosensor.
• How microbes are engineered to serve as biosensors.
• Examples of biosensors in medicine (COVID tests), the environment (metal detection), and industry.

How did we implement active learning?

To make the concept of biosensors tangible, we mimicked the process of a medical diagnostic test:

1. Healthy starting point: Each participant began with a “healthy” solution, representing an individual without bacterial contamination.
2. Outbreak scenario: Facilitators introduced contamination by spraying solutions with a mock bacterium (either an acidic, basic, or neutral solution). This created uncertainty about which solutions were affected.
3. Detection using a biosensor: Participants then used pH paper as their biosensor. A color change indicated whether their solution had been contaminated, simulating how biosensors detect biological signals in real diagnostic tests. Through this activity, participants experienced how biosensors convert invisible biological changes into visible, measurable results following an input-sensor-output sequence.

Workshop #3: Research Paper 101

What was the purpose of this workshop?

As our final skill-building workshop, we ran a research paper analysis workshop to introduce participants to the process of reading, analyzing, and extracting information. The goal was to equip participants with the skills needed to critically evaluate research findings and for them to use these skills in literature reviews for the case comps as well as beyond the case compeition.

Solving complex challenges in synthetic biology requires strong literature review skills. Since the case competition asked students to design research-based solutions, we taught them how to analyze scientific papers effectively. This workshop equipped participants to navigate research articles, identify key findings, and evaluate the strengths and limitations of published studies.

Main concepts covered in the presentation:

• The structure of a research paper (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion).
• How to quickly scan for relevance and key findings.
• Tips for evaluating methodology and data critically.
• How to connect findings from literature to designing solutions.

What were the main skills targeted?

The main skills we aimed to target through our presentation and activity were developing scientific literacy and scientific writing analysis. To tackle both skills, we explained the main components of a research paper and what key pieces of information we can find from each component. We then practiced analyzing an abstract and a figure from a sample paper to apply the information that was learned in the workshop.

How did we implement active learning?

For our hands-on component, participants worked in small groups to analyze a real (simplified) research paper. We focused on the abstract and the main figure in the study.

• Abstract analysis: Students read the abstract and identified the main research question, methods, and overall findings.
• Figure interpretation: Students examined a selected figure from the paper, discussed what the data showed, and connected it back to the research question.
• Group discussion: Facilitators guided participants in combining the abstract and figure insights to summarize the paper’s core message.
• Application: Students reflected on how this kind of analysis could help them conduct literature reviews for the case competition. This activity made research papers less intimidating and gave participants practical strategies for extracting meaning even without reading the entire paper.

Pathways to SynBio Panel

What was the purpose of this panel?

The “Pathways to SynBio” panel highlighted diverse backgrounds across academia and life sciences research. While the British Columbia high school curriculum does not provide exposure to interdisciplinary domains, we hoped to showcase intersectional interests across biology and engineering.

Who were the panelists and what questions were asked?

Transcript:

1. Sebastian Hyland : UBC 3rd Year Undegraduate Student studying Biomedical Engineering, UBC iGEM Computation Lead
2. Antonio Wong : UBC PhD Student studying Interdisciplinary Oncology, UBC iGEM Team Instructor
3. Matthew Chan : UBC 5th Year Undergraduate Student studying Microbiology & Immunology, UBC iGEM Wet Lab Lead
4. Veronika Bumbulovic : UBC 5th Year Undergraduate Student studying Microbiology & Immunology, UBC iGEM Human Practices (Inclusivity) Lead

Questions:

1. Describe your journey in the Life Sciences and Synthetic Biology?
2. How did you get involved with UBC iGEM?
3. How are you currently involved in research?
4. What’s something you would tell your high school self?

The panel provided an opportunity to foster meaningful connections about exploring pathways in the life sciences and beyond. Speakers shared their journey in the life sciences and how they became involved with research and synthetic biology programming. To highlight various perspectives, we brought together a panel of undergraduate and doctorate students who represented various backgrounds and degrees of experiences in research and academia. Through the “Pathyways in SynBio” panel, we hoped attendees left with personalized takeaways and an appreciation for the many facets of synthetic biology.

Lab Tours

What was the purpose of the lab tour?

Following the positive feedback from our previous STEM LP session, we incorporated lab tours into the case competition. These tours gave participants a chance to explore a university research lab while taking a break from the competition to socialize and see how real-world problems are addressed in laboratory settings. We structured the tours similarly to before: beginning with safety protocols, introducing lab workflows and roles, then showcasing the microbiology and molecular biology techniques and equipment our iGEM team regularly uses.

Day 2: Project Proposal + Presentations

What was the purpose of Day 2?

Day 2 focused on project synthesis and communication. While Day 1 explored ideas and background concepts through workshops, Day 2 challenged participants to transform that knowledge into polished proposals. The goals were to practice structured science communication by presenting solutions and to foster peer learning through team exchanges and feedback.

Introducing the case study: Biological Degredation of Synthetic dyes

Slidedeck introducing the case competition theme and guidelines regarding AI use as well as QR codes guiding attendees to the Complementary Information Guide and Workshop Slidedecks.

Iterative Development

The Case Competition planning went through several iterations before reaching its final form. We built the problem statement around synthetic dye wastewater pollution, chosen for its tangible environmental and human health impacts. Early drafts emphasized real-world relevance, while later versions refined the language to balance scientific accuracy with age-appropriate clarity. For the final deliverable, we structured the project as a slideshow: providing a clear scaffold for student teams while modeling how iGEM projects are typically communicated. We introduced the case study in PowerPoint format at the beginning of Day 2.

Case Competition Resources for Participants: Complementary Information Guide

What was the purpose of the Complementary Information Guide?

By engaging with the guide, students practiced the core iGEM skillset: reviewing existing literature, integrating it with creativity, and communicating findings in a project format. This design choice prepared students not only to learn about synthetic biology but to think like iGEM participants---evaluating information, identifying opportunities for innovation, and presenting ideas compellingly.

What key planning considerations went into the guide?

Throughout the planning process, we focused on supporting student learning effectively. Our central challenge was balancing scaffolding with creativity---providing enough structure for students to feel confident while leaving room for open-ended innovation.

We designed the guide with Bloom’s taxonomy in mind [6], progressing from foundational skills (remembering and understanding) toward higher-order thinking (analyzing, evaluating, and creating). Background readings built comprehension, rubrics and guiding questions prompted analysis, and the PowerPoint template with extension prompts required students to evaluate existing knowledge and create persuasive proposals.

We also integrated key iGEM elements---problem scoping, Human Practices, and novelty framing---without overwhelming participants. Activities emphasized active collaboration and critical discussion rather than passive reading. Finally, we prioritized clarity by providing detailed rubrics and formatting templates so students understood exactly what was expected of them.

A copy of the iGEM SynBio Case Competition Complementary Information Guide. Included is a suggested presentation format, helpful vocabulary words, and a copy of the marking rubric combined with guiding questions and recommended readings of articles.

How are the “3 E’s” applied in this resource?

Expand

First, it taught students to analyze scientific information and identify what was relevant to their challenge. The curated readings paired with evaluation rubrics showed students how to prioritize key details and apply relevant findings to their case study.

Explore

Second, the guide taught students to apply existing knowledge to new contexts, mirroring how iGEM teams conduct literature reviews and frame novelty in their projects. Slide expectations and extension questions centered on Integrated Human Practices prompted teams to consider real-world applications, ethical implications, and societal needs.

Engineer

Finally, the guide provided a structured approach for assembling research into persuasive proposals. A PowerPoint template with guiding questions helped students organize their findings into cohesive narratives rather than disconnected facts. Additionally, a vocabulary guide defined unfamiliar scientific terms, enabling students to analyze research papers more confidently.

How did the judges evaluate the Project Proposals?

How did we set up the Marking Rubric:

We developed a marking rubric that guided three independent judges in evaluating presentationsto ensure fairness and consistency.

Part 1: Biodegradation of Synthetic Dyes (16 points)

Students were asked to select an appropriate bacterial agent, justify their choice, compare biodegradation with chemical methods, identify a dye target, describe degradation mechanisms, and discuss challenges. Judges evaluated both factual accuracy and depth of reasoning.

Part 2: Synthetic Biology Application (12 points + 2 bonus)

This section emphasized applying genetic engineering to improve dye degradation. Students identified a suitable host chassis, selected relevant genes, explained introduction methods, and considered scaling to industrial wastewater treatment. Extra credit was awarded for broader considerations such as iHP applications and socio-economic impacts.

Each prompt included point allocations and a guiding criteria, allowing judges to give partial credit where students showed reasoning, even if incomplete. Judges also provided written and comments during the judging which translated into questioning. Questions such as such as “How are you going to fit both genes into the plasmid?” ensure feedback was actionable.

The rubric emphasized dimensions such as the scientific rationale behind the proposed solution, depth of explanation, feasibility, and consideration of broader impacts. By using a common framework, we were able to provide transparent evaluation while also generating quantitative data on student performance.

Copy of the iGEM SynBio Case Competition Judges Rubric. Suggested/ example of answers are included.

Solution Slidedeck presented by iGEM:

To synthesize learning and provide a model, we created a sample solution slide deck. This exemplar demonstrated the expected PowerPoint format and level of detail while still allowing room for creative approaches. By showing a concrete example, we helped participants understand what a strong proposal looked like and gave teams a reference point for improving their own presentations.

Sample slidedeck outlining a possible solution and the presentation format expected for the problem statement

Awarding Top-Scoring Presentations:

To recognize effort and motivate engagement, we awarded recognition to the top-scoring presentations, with the winning group receiving gift cards as a prize. The evaluation was based not only on scientific or technical accuracy, but also on clarity, creativity, and the ability to connect ideas to broader human practices. This multi-faceted approach made sure that recognition went to the well-rounded presentations.

Judging Feedback Approach

We emphasized constructive critique on top of numerical scores. Judges highlighted strengths such as creative strain selection or detailed enzyme pathways, while also pointing out missing considerations (e.g role of biofilms, scaling strategies, or measurement of dye decolorization).

This approach ensured that students received specific, technical guidance on how to improve, instead of just a grade. For example, feedback often prompted students to think about how lab-scale procedures could transition to industrial contexts.

Participant Feedback

To evaluate the impact of the case competition, we collected feedback from participants through a post-event survey.

How did the participants find the workshops?

Students consistently praised the workshops, especially those on bioreactors and plasmid design, which they found engaging and informative. Many noted that the material successfully introduced them to new concepts in synthetic biology. Suggestions for improvement included pacing the content more slowly, offering clearer explanations of technical terms, and adding more interactive components. One participant recommended explicitly comparing plasmids and chromosomal DNA to help clarify concepts.

How did you find the resource materials provided for the Case Competition?

The Complementary Information Guide was described as “very helpful” for organizing research and structuring presentations. Although a few students found some repetition in the resource package, most agreed it clearly outlined expectations and prepared them well for the case study.

How did find the meduCA Project Presentation?

The introduction to our project meduCA was viewed as effective in explaining constraints around space transport and demonstrating the application of synthetic biology. Students appreciated the clear visuals and accessible explanations, though a few suggested dedicating more time to connecting genetic engineering methods to real-world challenges.

How was the timing and structure of the event?

Most participants felt that two days was a sufficient amount of time to complete the project proposal. However, some commented that the schedule felt rushed or too concentrated on a single day, and suggested distributing the workload more evenly. Common challenges included finding reliable sources online and simplifying technical content into a concise seven-minute presentation.

How did you find the learning outcomes?

Participants reported strong educational value:

• The average difficulty rating was 7.6/10, suggesting the case study struck a balance between being challenging and achievable.
• Satisfaction with the event averaged 8.6/10, with students describing the competition as “super fun” and “an awesome experience.”
• The educational value was rated 8.2/10, with many highlighting gains in critical thinking and teamwork skills.
• 100% indicated they felt more motivated to pursue synthetic biology research after attending.

  

  

How did you find the overall experience of the Case Competition?

General feedback emphasized the event’s positive atmosphere, with students commending both the hospitality of organizers and the opportunity to engage with peers who share an interest in science. As one participant summarized, “I loved the experience!”

What’s next?

Looking forward, we envision several directions to continue building on the success of our case competition. One possibility is to run the competition at a larger scale, expanding participation and capacity beyond the group of ~40 students. We are also exploring the potential to integrate more hands-on experimental components, giving students the chance to directly apply synthetic biology concepts in a lab-based setting.

Our team hopes to establish the case competition as an annual event, growing both the number of participants and the diversity of challenges presented. Future iterations will be shaped by the feedback we have collected, allowing us to refine the structure, improve accessibility, and enhance the learning experience through integrating the feedback collecting from this event.

We also see opportunities to strengthen the career development aspect of the program. Inviting external expert panelists in synthetic biology to join the career panel rather than the internal panelists we had would give students greater exposure to diverse career paths and perspectives in the field.

Special Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our gratitude to everyone who helped make this case competition possible. The Hallam Lab generously hosted lab tours, giving participants a chance to see synthetic biology in action. Our UBC iGEM members also played a vital role in supporting the event, from logistics to mentorship.

A special thanks goes to our design team for creating the marketing materials that brought our vision to life, and to Domino’s Pizza for helping with providing utensils as part of coordination for lunch to keep everyone energized throughout the day. We also appreciate the guidance from Geering Up, whose expertise in outreach helped us shape this program effectively.

Finally, a heartfelt gratitude to the Education team from our Human Practices subteam whose creativity, dedication, and enthusiasm were the driving force behind this initiative. This event could not have happened without you all, well done!