We reached out to John Lewis, CEO of Entos Pharmaceuticals and Professor in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry's Oncology Department, to gain insights from an industry perspective on developing biotechnology solutions. At this early stage of IHP we were focused on a therapeutic solution based on mesoporous nanoparticles.

In our meeting, John identified our project as addressing a huge area of interest for respiratory illnesses. Transmission mitigation was also a focus area for the Gates Foundation, with whom Entos currently collaborates. However, he cautioned that our project seemed ambitious given the typical development timeline. He explained that such systems usually require three years to develop in the industry. We found out the importance of focusing on developing a working prototype rather than trying to tackle all aspects simultaneously. We should have a realistic perspective on the development challenges we would face in transitioning from concept to functional device.

John raised technical concerns about our system such as RNA sourcing costs, degradation prevention, and the critical issue of false positives that could compromise system reliability. He suggested implementing redundant systems and testing both silica and gold nanoparticles to improve our detection methodology. From a regulatory standpoint, he warned that approval processes are extremely tedious and would take years. John indicated that no major ethical considerations were overtly present in our project, which was encouraging for our development path.

Entos Pharmaceuticals expressed interest in pursuing sponsorship with iGEM Calgary and agreed to become repeat stakeholders for our project if we continued in the same direction. John's most actionable recommendation was to build a comprehensive pitch deck for our project. This would make us more streamlined and professional when approaching other companies and potential partners. We were now conditioned to think beyond the technical aspects to include business development and communication strategies in our project planning.

Nanostics Precision Health is a Calgary-based biotechnology company that develops liquid biopsy tests for early cancer detection and monitoring. We reached out to Desmond Pink (Co-Founder & CSO) to gain insights from an established diagnostic company on the technical, commercial, and strategic aspects of developing our biosensor technology. Desmond was joined by Colin Carlos (Chief Commercialization Officer) and Catalina Vasquez (Co-founder and COO). This meeting was conducted when we were still considering a gold nanoparticle lateral flow assay.

In our meeting with Nanostics, we learned to narrow our focus to clearly defined sectors rather than pursuing a broad approach. The team advised us to concentrate specifically on the cattle and poultry industries for more relevant stakeholder engagement before speaking to other sectors. After a collaborative discussion, we determined that targeting poultry transport vehicles represents a particularly promising application for our diagnostic system. This niche offers several advantages: it circumvents the regulatory barriers, presents fewer ethical constraints, and exists within a high-volume, high-need industry. Additionally, Nanostics encouraged us to thoroughly explore existing solutions in this space to better position our system in terms of market differentiation and value proposition.

From a technical standpoint, several critical design considerations were raised. These included the mechanism of linker RNA cleavage, how our system could be integrated into a lateral flow assay, and how to implement reliable positive and negative controls. The team also highlighted the importance of planning for scenarios where cleavage efficiency is suboptimal, and recommended we quantify both the strength of signal amplification and the assay's sensitivity to ensure robustness and reproducibility.

They saw promise in our concept as a commercial high-throughput diagnostic tool, particularly if it could offer a rapid, light-based readout for point-of-care applications. They also discussed the challenges of intellectual property protection, pointing out that patenting is an expensive process and recommending that we engage the Technology Transfer Office at the University of Calgary for support. Nima Najand at Innovate Calgary was suggested as a helpful point of contact for commercialization and startup resources.

Finally, we were encouraged to explore connections with other innovation-focused organizations such as Nucleate and Startup TNT Calgary, both of which could offer mentorship, exposure, and potential funding. We were also advised to consider expanding our system's applicability to include crop and bovine viruses, which would increase the versatility and market reach of our device as a point-of-care diagnostic platform.

Dr. Mohamed Careem is a diplomate of the American College of Poultry Veterinarians and the American College of Veterinary Microbiologists and a leading researcher of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian influenza) in Alberta.

In our meeting with Dr. Mohamed Careem, we began with an overview of our project and our current understanding of the issue at hand. Dr. Careem provided insights into poultry farming practices. Poultry are raised either for meat (35-day cycle) or egg production (52-week cycle). A key concern in the industry is the rapid lethality of H5 avian influenza strains, with infected birds dying within four days and a mortality rate of around 90%. The industry prioritizes distinguishing between highly pathogenic strains (particularly H5 and H7) rather than detecting other influenza types, which are not considered a major concern.

Dr. Careem recommended that we pivot from barn runoff sampling to environmental monitoring of water bodies, which are more relevant for surveillance due to the absence of continuous waste runoff during the 35-day poultry production cycle. He also advised against focusing on transport trucks because infection sources are more tied to migratory wild birds and farm workers who work between multiple facilities. In the event of an outbreak, CFA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) protocols require depopulation not only of the affected barn but also of surrounding barns. This revelation highlighted the need and financial viability for early detection tools like ours. We learned that poultry are kept isolated and immobile within farms, further supporting the idea that infection is introduced externally, most often during the spring and summer months due to wild bird migration patterns.

Dr. Careem commented on the technical aspects of our diagnostic approach, suggesting we target sites on the hemagglutinin gene unique to H5 and H7 subtypes. Differentiating strains via structural differences in hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins is advisable, as other viral components tend to be more conserved. There are multiple H17-N11 subtype combinations and hundreds of clades, with Class A viruses infecting both birds and humans, Classes B and C infecting only humans, and Class D affecting cattle and pigs. The virus has a segmented genome, making it highly susceptible to reassortment, especially in the context of vaccination, which is why vaccination of birds is discouraged in Canada to avoid driving viral mutations through selective pressure. A major value proposition of our detection system is its potential for rapid turnover, which aligns well with industry needs. We learned that avian influenza can rarely infect humans because of its rapid mutation rate; if the virus ever gained the ability to spread easily from person to person, it could trigger a pandemic even more severe than COVID-19. As next steps, we are advised to reach out to meat-type poultry producers and veterinarians working in the poultry sector for further insight and potential collaboration.

Christine O'Grady, Executive Director of Advancing Canadian Water Assets (ACWA). We reached out to Christine to ask how wastewater monitoring is currently conducted in Alberta and to understand the applicability of our RNA biosensor to environmental surveillance. Since ACWA has been active in wastewater testing, they could provide both technical insights and practical advice on framing and partnerships.

ACWA's role focuses on water sample collection. The detection process is performed by partners at University of Calgary's Energy Environment and Experiential Learning Building or Foothills Campus through researchers such as Dr. Casey Hubert and Dr. Michael Parkins. ACWA already operates 256 sensors uploaded to servers with sewer shed sampler devices monitoring multiple diseases. Christine emphasized the importance of correlating what we can test in laboratory conditions with real-world applications, noting that currently there is no policy requirement for municipalities to implement such devices. We confirmed that leaching from plastic casings was not an environmental concern in flow-through systems and that installing sensors in sampling devices or water treatment plants is technically feasible.

Another key point was that there are key distinctions between municipal wastewater and agricultural runoff. We would probably not see avian flu in municipal water systems. For agricultural applications, she recommended looking into discharge licenses for agricultural wastewater. Specific information on pH and chemical composition of agricultural runoffs varies. We found out that small remote communities like Yukon, where shipping samples for testing is expensive, would benefit from our point-of-care diagnostic system.

Christine emphasized our project's commercial advantages of being low cost, real-time results, and elimination of shipping requirements. We were informed about commercial viability and recommended studying FREDsense’s (a Calgary-based biotech company that develops portable, field-deployable water quality testing systems using synthetic biology) journey for insights into product development, marketing, and funding strategies. She also noted the social and regulatory challenges, particularly that poultry farmers may be reluctant to report findings that could shut down their operations.

Dr. Douglas Muench is an expert in working with RNA. His research involves the characterization and engineering of proteins that regulate post-transcriptional gene expression in plant cells. His expertise provided crucial insights that directly shaped how we thought about the applications and technical design of our biosensor. We consulted with Dr. Muench to get guidance on RNA detection challenges, target organisms, and explore the applicability of our system for agricultural, fungal, and plant-specific uses.

Dr. Muench had several key ideas on how we could apply our RNA biosensor system to plants. He noted that there was potential for use in detecting plant pathogens, especially fungal and viral diseases like wheat rust and blackleg in canola. He also suggested potential for early environmental monitoring through water sampling and detection of RNA/DNA from infected plants. This encouraged our team to consider cross-sector applicability, reinforcing the importance of early detection as a key value proposition for agriculture. With viruses in particular, Muench described how viruses bind to the plasmodesmata of plants, which allows it to infect leaves and move through the shoot. He was unsure how much differentiating between healthy and infected samples, but still emphasized the importance of early detection in agriculture.

A challenge recognized by Muench was difficulties in RNA extraction from plant tissues due to the complex metabolites and the possibility of bypassing purification steps. With environmental testing, Muench mentioned that there are biological thresholds for RNA detection in fresh water environments, which is something we need to take into consideration when designing the test-kit. These points directly informed our design process by highlighting the need to test and optimize extraction and detection methods under real-world conditions. With his expertise in RNA, Muench was able to provide us with strategies to handle RNA and prevent degradation.

To end off our discussion, Muench described several future prospects of our environmental biosensor, and necessary data for scientific validation and publication. He also recommended other professors we can consult for other research opportunities related to our biosensor. These recommendations provided us with concrete next steps to strengthen both the scientific and entrepreneurial trajectory of our project.

Claire Bertens is the Alberta Milk Farmers Representative and brings first hand insight into dairy production challenges, disease management protocols, and industry regulations. While exploring the market potential for Rumino, we looked into the implications of avian influenza on dairy operations. Her input helped us evaluate the potential role of our biosensor beyond poultry and consider how dairy operations might perceive and adopt such technology. While exploring the market potential for Rumino, we looked into the implications of avian influenza on dairy operations. The team aimed to assess the relevance and feasibility of implementing avian flu diagnostic tools within the dairy industry and gain expert input to support the development of our biosensor.

We discussed the implications of avian flu on dairy operations with Claire. Her perspective influenced our thinking on market feasibility and barriers to adoption. Claire stated that although avian influenza has yet to reach cattle in Canada, proactive biosafety measures would be valuable. It was important to note that current zoonotic threats in cattle (rotavirus, coronavirus) are treated with vaccines. As there is no current action that can be taken against avian influenza in cattle, there is potential for resistance from producers against diagnostic tools due to the sensitive nature of disease surveillance and concerns about stigma or regulatory repercussions. This highlighted for our team that messaging, accessibility, and regulatory framing would be critical to ensure producer acceptance.

From a technical stand-point, Claire brought up several key factors that could impact implementation of our system into dairy farms. For starters, Claire pointed out that milk or manure would be the best suited sample for avian influenza testing in cattle due to its ability to hold viral loads. This encouraged us to think more carefully about sample choice and practicality in different livestock industries. In addition, human consumption of milk also adds a second layer of health necessity to testing for avian influenza. Pasteurization effectively eliminates the virus from milk, but raw milk remains a niche concern. However, there were several technical limitations revolving around difficulties of continuous monitoring in large-scale manure or waste systems due to sheer volumes. She also mentioned how the current infrastructure of dairy farms may not be readily equipped to support inline or portable detection systems without significant investment and costs. Similar to Jenna Griffin, Claire mentioned that detection systems must be low-cost to gain adoption in the dairy industry, where budget constraints are a major barrier.

Jenna Griffin is the Manager of Programs and Research at Egg Farmers of Alberta. The meeting was held to gather insights from a key stakeholder in the poultry industry to evaluate the feasibility, relevance, and potential market for our system. The goal was to understand practical use cases, adoption barriers, and funding opportunities for the system within the egg production sector.

Jenna highlighted that Canadian regulatory and industry priorities currently favor environmental surveillance for HPAI. On-farm, in-barn diagnostics are adopted only at specific decision points. She also emphasized that CFIA protocols operate under the assumption of a high baseline risk and prescribe standardized outbreak responses, meaning any new tool must be designed to support farmer decision-making within existing biosecurity frameworks. Jenna provided valuable insight into the egg farming industry's perspective on disease detection technologies. In Alberta, there is minimal demand for in-barn diagnostics. Jenna noted that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) currently assumes that all birds are carriers for avian influenza and that CFIA protocols already dictate standard outbreak responses. However, farmers do value tools that can enhance their decision-making through early risk quantification, particularly in high-risk zones. Notably, farmers are concerned about what steps they can take after detection. This fact poses a major challenge to the usefulness of the technology. This insight emphasized to us that usefulness would depend not just on technical accuracy, but also on how our tool supports farmer decision-making and integrates with existing biosecurity frameworks.

One of the main challenges we discovered after discussing our project with Jenna were potential adoption barriers that our technology would have in farms. Farmers in high-risk areas benefit from early warning systems that help quantify risk, but the assumption that most waterfowl already carry Avian Influenza reduces the need for additional data. Therefore, while farmers would prefer environmental sensors, they would benefit more from a detection system that allows for on-site diagnostics. Jenna noted that historical tools like colorimetric virus-detection sticks were considered useful by farmers, suggesting that simplicity, speed, and practicality are key to adoption. This feedback guided us to prioritize user-friendliness and speed over more complex, regulatory-grade features. Importantly, producers want tools that act as early warning systems to support proactive biosecurity measures.

A significant concern raised was cost. Producers are generally averse to subscription models and prefer one-time purchases that do not require ongoing financial commitment. Additionally, there is skepticism around systems that do not offer immediate, tangible value if the tool does not provide insights beyond what farmers already intuitively observe and may be viewed as redundant.

Finally, Jenna provided valuable information on potential use cases that Rumino could target. In the initial design of Rumino, the kit was intended to operate directly on poultry or eggs. However, Jenna pointed out that avian influenza does not usually spread from the chicken to egg but said that the CFIA would be more interested in water or milk sampling systems. Water or milk would be able to have enough viral load to be detected by our system. This shifted our design considerations toward environmental samples rather than direct animal products. From an environmental standpoint, Jenna highlighted the relevance of wildlife transmission and suggested exploring integration into environmental monitoring systems, such as air and water sources. Targeting surveillance at points where disease interfaces with ecosystems may broaden the tool's application beyond egg farms and into wildlife conservation.

Dr. Herman Barkema is a researcher of epidemiology of infectious diseases. We reached out to Dr. Barkema to understand the surveillance requirements and epidemiological considerations for implementing our diagnostic tool in real-world outbreak detection and monitoring systems. His input was instrumental in helping us align Rumino with existing surveillance frameworks and identify the logistical and biosafety challenges our system would need to address.

In our meeting, we learned about the surveillance infrastructure needed for effective disease monitoring and the relevance of outbreak prediction systems in Canada. He explained that there are two primary types of transmission pathways we need to consider for avian influenza: direct contact of flocks with infected birds via their feces/secretions, and indirect contact via contaminated surfaces, equipment, clothing, or contaminated feed/water. In terms of HPAI surveillance of cows, it requires sampling all herds in Alberta through milk tank monitoring. This influenced our consideration of both sampling strategies and the types of environments where our test kit could be most impactful.

We learned that outbreak modeling and prediction in Canada operates through a federal-provincial system, where modeling is conducted by agencies like the CFIA and Agriculture Canada at the federal level while health management remains provincial jurisdiction. The federal government's ability to mandate specific actions within provinces is therefore limited. This made us more aware of the regulatory landscape and highlighted the need to frame Rumino for private stakeholders, such as farmers and veterinarians.

From a biosafety perspective, Dr. Barkema highlighted the stringent safety protocols required when conducting surveillance on farms, including full personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent infection of researchers and transmission between locations. He stressed that surveillance must be conducted directly on farms with physical examination of birds and noted that any dead birds, whether domestic or wild, can carry bird flu, making this work particularly hazardous. These biosafety considerations reinforced the importance of designing Rumino to be safe, user-friendly, and deployable without requiring specialized personnel.

Dr. Barkema emphasized the urgency of this issue, noting that we are "one or two mutations away from the next pandemic," making avian influenza surveillance extremely relevant in Canada. This reinforced the timeliness and broader societal relevance of our project, strengthening its positioning in our business case. He advised us to consult FAO data rather than WHO data for more comprehensive agricultural disease information and provided valuable contacts including Keith Lehman, the Chief Veterinary Officer in Alberta, and veterinarian Murray Gillies from Animal Health Canada for further collaboration and insights into practical implementation of our diagnostic system. These connections gave our team concrete next steps for building partnerships that could facilitate Rumino's real-world deployment.

Emily Hicks is the Co-founder and COO of FREDSense Technologies Corporation, a water testing company that started off as an iGEM team at the University of Calgary 2013. We reached out to her in order to gain feedback on the transition from an iGEM research project to commercial biosensor development. Emily emphasized the importance of having a clear focus during the iGEM competition, advising us to be realistic about our goals and aim to develop a minimum viable product (MVP) with specific use-cases rather than attempting to excel in all categories. We learned that having theoretical frameworks and roadmaps for prototypes is crucial when working towards the actual working device.

Emily shared the technical challenges FREDSense faced. We discovered that achieving selectivity in biosensors is a significant challenge, as binding compounds often lack the necessary specificity required for reliable detection. The transition from laboratory conditions to real-world applications presents major hurdles since biological systems are inherently difficult to reproduce due to environmental factors like humidity, sample variability, and changing conditions. We learned that calibration systems with known reference standards are essential for accurate measurements, though calibration curves may change daily and require constant adjustment. For our continuous environmental monitoring system, we were advised that maintaining biological components is extremely challenging, which may require us to consider alternative approaches like point-of-care testing before continuous monitoring.

Regarding intellectual property, we learned the importance of acting quickly since teams have only one year to file patents after the iGEM competition. FREDSense chose to pursue individual commercialization rather than working through the University of Calgary. A downside to this was that it required three years of negotiations. Emily recommended focusing on cost modelling early. We were advised to research the economics behind similar diagnostic tools like pregnancy tests and COVID-19 tests to ensure our solution remains economically feasible. Emily also offered to connect us with contacts in the manufacturing sector and suggested customer discovery through platforms like LinkedIn to identify early adopters and understand market needs.

Dr. Keith Lehman is the Alberta Chief Veterinary Officer in charge of overseeing animal health, disease prevention and control, food safety, and veterinary public health programs across the province. We reached out to his office to learn more about the challenges that veterinarians face in livestock diagnostics and the implementation of regulatory policy surrounding the current Avian Influenza outbreak. Dr. Keith was also joined by Deana Rolheiser, Delores Peters, and Mark Hicks, veterinarians from Airdrie and Edmonton, to give a more comprehensive take on our questions.

During this meeting, we learned that a point-of-care diagnostic device for zoonotic viruses would address a need for veterinarians and farmers who often face delays in rural, low-resource settings. Current PCR testing requires sample collection, shipping samples to a provincial vet lab and lab validation, where results can take 2-3 business days. This delay has been shown to cause anxiety for farmers, and a cheap/rapid diagnostic like ours would be very useful in that context. The costs associated with the testing process were pointed out to cost a minimum of 500 CAD for a vet visit to the farm and an additional 25-30 CAD for shipping samples to a provincial lab. These numbers highlighted the economic value proposition of our system and strengthened the financial case in our entrepreneurship analysis. When questioned about the aspects of our diagnostic that we should focus on the most, the veterinarians emphasized that specificity is the most critical feature for the device. For screening tests like ours, we were advised to make it so that it can rule out serious diseases like H5 and H7 strains of avian influenza. It was noted that regulated diseases are covered by government funding, but the tight profit margins in agriculture make cost-effectiveness essential for diseases not covered by such funding. Experts noted that while highly pathogenic diseases would still require accredited lab confirmation, a reliable screening tool could transform routine disease monitoring and serve as a valuable first-line test.

We learned that farms are already equipped with biohazard disposal bins, ensuring that our disposable testing kit components can be properly handled without requiring additional specialized disposal protocols. Another interesting outcome we found was that general insurance does not cover infection-related losses in the cattle industry. Discussions also touched on the role of vaccines, with experts cautioning that vaccines pose efficacy risks due to the high mutability of viruses and complicate testing by being unable to differentiate vaccinated animals from infected animals. There are no plans for implementing vaccines in Canada for the near future, as vaccines force selection pressures that may cause the virus to mutate and infect other hosts like humans, and conserved regions, which we are targeting, may also mutate. This reinforced the strategic importance of diagnostics as a front-line tool where vaccines are limited or unavailable. For bird migration monitoring applications, there is merit, but the concern is timeliness since birds migrate quickly and vaccines need at least 3 weeks to take full effect, which is longer than typical migration periods. However, a relatively quantitative test would be good as it could inform us about spikes in infection rates, making rapid diagnostics a more preventive and adaptable solution in this regard.

Janina Willkomm is a laboratory safety specialist at the University of Calgary, overseeing many aspects of lab safety primarily at the Foothills and Spyhill campuses. This includes the current incident reporting system at University of Calgary. Janina was contacted to help the development of our incident analysis and report. With our team's initial inexperience with safety, holding little knowledge of the field, Janina helped guide us through the first steps of developing a near-miss reporting system and analysis. Key ideas from this meeting included how near misses were currently reported at the university, important elements of a reporting system, and also flaws in the current system.

Through this meeting we learned that near-misses are underreported and a potential factor could be the current reporting system. All incidents, whether it is a major injury or a near-miss, are reported through the Online Accident Reporting System (OARS), which is a relatively long form consisting of 4-6 pages. There is clarification through the environment, health and safety department at University of Calgary that near-misses do need to be reported, however the clarification is not obvious considering the underreporting of near-misses. Janina also said that besides the length of the form, human factors could be another large factor for underreported incidents. There are many protocols available on the University of Calgary website, however the 'take action' portion of safety is not well established.

Before conducting any analysis, we needed to collect data. In order to collect data for incidents, it is usually done through a form. Janina discussed that since near-misses are already underreported and viewed as a burden or an inconvenience, there is no reason to make a reporting system more detailed than it already is. The form should be short and concise, but still able to include a thorough description of the incident. From this we made a one page form consisting of 2 main elements, the nature of the incident, and what led up to the incident.

Janina also discussed how near-misses were analyzed. At University of Calgary, when an incident is reported, the information goes to someone from EHS and they determine severity, they give advice on what to do next. In cases where there are recurring events, Janina (or someone of the same title) would step in to analyze and take part in decision making. Janina talked about her investigation process once a repeated or severe near-miss is established. The investigation process includes a cognitive part, which covers the human factors of the incident, such as fatigue, stress, teamwork, etc. She also mentioned that this is something that could be included in the incident form to begin with. This does not mean having an entire different section dedicated to it, but it could be included in what led up to the incident.

This meeting addressed key beginning steps to develop a near-miss analysis. It covered what should be in a reporting form, and how to make it simple. It gave us insight on what to include in the analysis in the future, as well as current flaws in the system. We learned the importance of simplicity in reporting, but details in analysis to prevent more harm from occurring.

Denise Howitt is also a safety specialist at University of Calgary, who works directly on the analysis of incidents at the university primarily on occupational injuries. She was contacted to discuss how incidents are analyzed, important ideas to consider upon making a reporting system, and also how to enhance a report.

We learned that there is no prescribed methodology for a formal near-miss report. This considered we thought we could still perform an analysis, but include key components that we want to address in it. Denise also reminded us that it is great that we are focusing on safety reporting and analysis, however at the same time we cannot forget to work safely in a hazardous environment, such as a lab. Analyzing incidents is a great way to develop protocols and training so we can have a safer environment, however working in a safe environment with minimal incidents is better.

We discussed how the 'take action' portion of safety is the most difficult as it can be hard to motivate people to report near-misses, especially because nothing actually happened for a near-miss. Denise talked about certain ways she has seen companies attempt to increase reporting. She gave the example of a reward/punishment system where staff who report most numbers of near misses will receive a bonus. The key issue for this would be false reporting. By having such a system for reporting, numbers may go up, however staff could easily 'fake' an incident in attempts to receive a reward or get out of a punishment. So we need to find either a balance, or even better, develop a better safety culture so it becomes the norm to report.

Denise gave us the idea of making infographics as part of the near-miss analysis. A visual would be impactful because despite the importance of safety and such analyses, they end up becoming a long document that very few people would want to read. The infographics will be a summary of the analysis, but in a visual and eye appealing format.

Through this meeting we once again got confirmation that near-misses are underreported and it has always been the case. In the faculty of science, they said many departments have set up their own systems to report near-misses. As an example, the chemistry department developed a survey app, however this got very low responses so this attempt was quickly discontinued. Specifically in science they found lots of unreported occupational near-misses. Chris discussed that safety culture is a difficult topic to speak about because there are many different levels of cultures. They have tried to put out different ways to report and the reporting culture is a difficult thing to change. Monique agrees that near-miss reporting is hard because many people look more towards accidents. She emphasized the need to build safety culture and awareness. However she also mentioned that awareness could improve culture, but not necessarily reporting numbers. Despite this, she still emphasized the importance of awareness and teaching of safety. She mentioned how visuals are very useful and impactful because they help people remember information. Monique gave the safety card on an airplane as an example because it is a very visual yet simple piece of paper, but it relays the idea of safety on the plane easily. This reassured our idea of making infographics as a supplement to the final incident analysis.

This meeting gave us insights on the importance of incident reporting, developing safety culture, and safety awareness. Safety is not unknown, but sometimes undermined due to the idea that it can be an inconvenience. Chris and Monique told us about certain failed attempts on safety reporting and potential reasons for it. After this meeting, we decided to continue making infographics, and how awareness and culture can alter daily habits as well as reporting numbers.

Sarelle Azuelos is a Partnership and Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, from the Research Services department at the University of Calgary. She is an expert in maximizing research impact on communities, and helps in connecting research teams with relevant stakeholders, and in working with specific communities. This meeting was held before reaching out to most stakeholders that ended up providing good feedback for our project. She provided good advice on how to approach stakeholders, pitch a project and ask for feedback in specific knowledge gaps that they have expertise in. She also underscored how important equity is in research design, mobilization and dissemination of the knowledge we had collected. Mostly, she emphasized how important continuous feedback is in research. She highlighted that the more feedback we collect, the more our system will evolve. This played a role in how future meetings were organized, conducted, and what they focused on.

Dr. Richa Pandey is a professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering, with a research focus of developing wearable biosensors, which detect a range of physiochemical and environmental signals, convert those into transmittable electric signals, and transmit them to a software. A sub-focus of her project is designing wearable biosensors that detect viruses present on the fabric. We believed that her experience in user-friendly, virus-detecting sensors would be great for feedback on SDG 3 and SDG 12.

When we had this meeting, we were still planning to do an analysis of how our system impacts SDG 12. We had a discussion about environmental sustainability within SDG 12, where Dr. Pandey explained how she doesn't believe complete environmental sustainability can be achieved. There are always central enzymes, toxic chemicals, proteins, etc. that are required for the system function in health diagnostics. Therefore, it is more practical to minimize the number of toxic chemicals to make it more environmentally sustainable.

Next, we focused on her research and how she balances user-friendliness and environmental sustainability. She summarized how the testing and validation processes for her wearable biosensors are conducted, and how we might be able to translate that into our research. Some of these include (1) cell toxicity testing, that is similar to biocompatibility testing, (2) conducting a participant/end-user survey determining what characteristics they would prefer to have in a biosensor. These ideas will contribute to making a socially sustainable product, and help with approval protocols. To summarize, it is really important to consider who the end user is, and what they might want from a biosensor product. These suggestions were important considerations when evaluating our system against the two SDGs 3 and 12.