Why did we focus on inclusivity
At the outset of our project, while gathering information on Progeria and shaping the foundations of ProgERASE, we were confronted with what is a common experience for many iGEM teams: navigating an extensive body of scientific literature. Identifying and extracting the information relevant to our work required careful selection from a large and often complex corpus of research.
Through discussions with our peers – coursemates, classmates, and fellow researchers – we became increasingly aware that this challenge, while intrinsic to scientific work, is not equally experienced by everyone. For some individuals, particularly those with specific learning differences or other forms of neurodivergence, the cognitive effort demanded by reading and interpreting scientific articles is significantly greater.
This awareness prompted us to reflect on the accessibility of scientific knowledge and led us to start researching the impact and implications of this problem as it relates to the access to scientific information and ultimately scientific research.
First small steps (february-june)
The first person we consulted with was the professor responsible for inclusivity at the biology department of UniPD.
During our discussion with him, we touched on many different aspects related to inclusion and accessibility. We explored which tools the Department of Biology has developed to promote inclusion and whether some of these are specifically designed for students with DSA, dyscalculia, or ADHD.
He also suggested we talk to our University Office for Inclusivity, where we were welcomed with enthusiasm and we were able to further talk about the tailored plans put in place for students.
As a first step they gave us the standard guidelines used by professors to render the course slides more inclusive and accessible. At this point we decided to try and test them, by applying them in our dissemination work.
At the same time we further continued our research on the issue and our dialogue with the Office for inclusivity.
Inclusive science in schools
We wanted to share our passion for science and synthetic biology with students, so we collaborated with Liceo Scientifico Statale Leonardo da Vinci to engage with the school’s Biotechnology group.
You can find more details about the educational activity on our education page
While carrying out these activities, we paid particular attention to keeping our materials accessible to all the students present in our class. We studied the guidelines provided from our Inclusivity Centre and we adapted our power-point presentations and the lab protocol accordingly. We made our materials accessible by paying special attention to learning disabilities, neurodivergence, and visual impairment in our presentations – daltonism and low vision. We also considered physical setups during the activity to make the work possible for people facing greater challenges — for example, pairing students so they could support each other, and taking into account the number of tutors available in case some of us needed to dedicate extra time to assisting those in difficulty.
These are small gestures, but meaningful ones. They made us realize how little it takes to include those who are often left out — and how frequently such considerations are overlooked.
We seized this opportunity to take our first steps into experimenting with the measures that can be applied to meet the needs of people with specific impairments.
From a graphic perspective, we designed our presentation so that some slides would be accessible to everyone, while others would be more challenging to tackle. While explaining, we chose to apply oral measures for people with impairments, such as repeating core concepts multiple times and frequently asking if something needed to be repeated, in certain parts of the presentation. In other parts, we proceeded as we would in a standard presentation. Then we asked for feedback. For privacy reasons, and because all participating students were minors, we did not collect any personal data. Instead, we designed our initiative to be suitable for both students who needed simplification and those who did not. We were also aware that understanding a specific topic depends on each student’s prior knowledge, cognitive abilities, and learning experience. Nevertheless, we used this trial merely as an exercise to move our first steps in the field of simplification and accessibility.
We delivered several lessons, and each time we improved our presentation in order to optimize it, following an approach similar to the DBTL cycle.
Here are some slides of our presentations:
Cycle A - first presentation:
As you can see, in this first attempt we still had to learn the core concepts of accessibility. In figure 1, the line spacing is too narrow, the bright colours on the sides are distracting, the key words are not effectively highlighted and the picture is too small. The slide in figure 1 is not accessible.
Cycle B - Second presentation:
In figure 3, is depicted a simpler and more linear slide, with larger text and explanatory images. Although it is more accessible, this slide still needs a higher contrast between the background and the text, as well as an enhancement of the black captions at the bottom, highlighting the key words and making them larger. The images could also be improved. While explaining the slide, we repeated the most important concepts multiple times and frequently asked for feedback. We decided to apply these measures in this specific part of the presentation because it was the most challenging to understand, as the concepts to explain were more abstract and technical. Our efforts were appreciated by the students.
We then designed this slide to be as inaccessible as possible (Figure 5) and then we asked, during the feedback phase, whether it was more difficult to follow the explanation. As you can see, there is a wall of text, although we kept some key words highlighted. The image is too small and overlaps with the bright colours in the background. While explaining this slide, we did not repeat core concepts and we did not ask anything to the audience. Surprisingly, students reported that even though the presentation was more difficult to follow, they were able to understand what we explained in this part.
We designed the slide in figure 6 to contain no text and rely entirely on images. We thought that bright, large pictures would help the audience understand everything more easily. Surprisingly, this was not the case, and some students struggled to follow our explanation.
Cycle C: third presentation
This presentation has a high contrast between the background and the text. The background colour, a peach tone, was chosen to be effective for both people with visual impairments and neurodivergent individuals. The text is very large, the spacing is wide and some key words are correctly underlined. This slide was at the beginning of the presentation and it provided an overview of what the presentation would cover. Additionally, we repeated multiple times the thematic areas of the presentation, indicating at each point which section we were presenting.
In figure 7, you can see a significant difference between this design and the one we saw in the first presentation. The text is larger, the colours are chosen to stand out against the background and to be distinguishable for people with colour blindness. Using capital letters and bold text is helpful to people with ADHD or low vision.
Finally, here is the lab protocol we prepared for the students, optimized to all kinds of people, with or without impairments. In designing this protocol, we tried to:
- explain the steps clearly and in a logical order;
- use bold text to emphasize the actions required in each step;
- use an accessible font - Tahoma;
- keep the text large;
- maintain wide line spacing;
- leave ample blank space for students to take notes and keep track of the steps they had already completed
State of the Art for text simplification (march-may)
At the same time our research leads us to a better understanding of the extent of the issue and the barrier that it poses for accessibility in scientific research.
People with Specific Learning Disorders (SLD), ADHD, and neurodivergent profiles compatible with autism spectrum conditions often show difficulties in reading and understanding texts. This concerns both school texts and everyday documents, such as popular science articles, administrative forms, and institutional communications [1] [2] [3].
Such difficulties often arise from the complexity that characterizes these texts, regarding both their style and structure and the manner in which information is presented within them. Overcoming them is the reason why UniPadua-IT became more and more interested in techniques for text simplification, in a desire for information, and in particular scientific information, to be equally accessible by everyone.
The traditional approach to text simplification usually focuses only on linguistic aspects, such as using short sentences or reducing uncommon words.
However, more recent literature highlights the importance of cognitive simplification, which also involves comprehension structures, going beyond linguistic form [4] [5].
Up to now, most studies have focused on young readers and on narrative or descriptive texts [4].
This leaves a gap in the field of scientific and academic texts aimed at university students and PhD candidates. This represents an important limit, considering that most scientific publications do not follow the most recent accessibility criteria. As a result, current academic production risks becoming a significant barrier to full access to scientific content for students with SLD, ADHD, or other neurodivergent profiles [6] [7] [8] [9].
Easy accessible science for you
The E.A.S.Y. project (Easy Accessible Science for You) was created to address this issue by developing recommendations for writing accessible scientific texts. Its main goal is to ensure inclusive academic paths and equal opportunities for students with SLD or neurodivergence, with a particular focus on university and doctoral students.
To begin filling this gap in the research, collaborating with the Psychology department of the University of Padua and specifically with the representatives for inclusivity prof. Barbara Arfè, we set up a pilot study: E.A.S.Y. ‘25.
The study is composed of 5 phases. The first phase conducted from may until july consisted in data collection from an online survey. This was implemented as a way to validate the data collected through literature, by establishing a dialogue with the target group. The goal was to explore the challenges represented by academic texts and papers that students have to face every day
Based on the collected data and its analysis we manage to stabilize some ground rules and initial guidelines in order to proceed with the next phase - Creation of simplified text.
In this phase, we selected a scientific article which was reviewed and made accessible by experts. Certain cognitive simplification criteria and graphic strategies were followed, such as keywords in bold, titled paragraphs, summary tables, specific colours etc. After simplifying the articles, the next step was the Experimental phase.
Two groups of students (with and without a diagnosis) were involved to test comprehension of the article in its original and accessible versions. Each student read only one version (original or accessible), distributed evenly across both groups. The study measured comprehension, prior knowledge, reading time, and perceived reading difficulty. All participants first completed standardized tests to assess comprehension and reading difficulties independently of any formal diagnosis. After reading the article, students who would consent were invited to a brief interview to further explore the comprehension difficulties they experienced.
The final goal was to present a preliminary set of guidelines (gathered in a handbook) that can help render scientific publications more accessible to everyone.
Survey results (may-july)
An anonymous online survey with a sample of university students (n=153) collected data about demographic features (age, gender, academic field, diagnosis of learning disorders or other neurodevelopmental conditions), reading habits, and difficulties.
The study sample:
24.5% of students reported a diagnosis of SLD or neurodevelopmental disorder (Chart 2). 75.5% had no diagnosis; both groups reported difficulties in reading scientific articles and academic texts.
An interesting finding shows that most of the diagnosed students received their diagnosis during university (81.1%). This confirms recent evidence about the late identification of neurodivergences [10] [11] [12] highlighting the need to make academic content more accessible.
Difficulties reported with texts:
63.9% of students with a diagnosis and 82% of those without diagnosis reported obstacles in understanding scientific texts or articles (Figs. 2 and 3).
Students with a diagnosis showed more difficulties with academic material in general.
The tools used by the two groups to aid comprehension are only partially overlapping: the diagnosed group more often uses a ruler to keep their place and schematic tables to ease reading and understanding.
This data has been used in the simplification phase to improve text accessibility.
Creation of Simplified texts (August)
Based on the data collected through interactions with the student community and a review of the relevant literature, we developed a series of text simplification steps, which are presented here.
Based on the data collected through interactions with the student community and a comprehensive review of relevant literature, we developed a series of text simplification and accessibility steps, which are detailed throughout this handbook. Our framework is built on two complementary pillars: Linguistic and Cognitive Simplification (focused on content structure and language) and Accessibility (focused on presentation and usability).
These guidelines were systematically applied to test their effectiveness in academic contexts. As a practical demonstration, we simplified the abstract of a complex scientific article according to the E.A.S.Y. framework principles. Here, you can find the LaTeX template used to create the accessible and simplified version, serving as a concrete reference for implementation and adoption of the guidelines: HANDBOOK.
These steps were systematically applied to simplify the abstract of a scientific article. Here you can find the LaTeX_Overleaf_template_EASY.pdf used to create the simplified version.
The final product was reviewed and approved by professor Barbara Arfè and PhD Gaia Spicciarelli.
Experiments and Pilot study results (september - october)
Once we had redacted the simplified version of the abstract all that was left to do was testing the efficiency of the simplification.The question was:”Did our modifications aid comprehension?”
The experimental phase of our pilot study began as scheduled in the first week of September. To conduct the tests, we designed a structured protocol (EASY_experimental_Protocol_eng.pdf) aimed at assessing participants’ reading comprehension and cognitive engagement when exposed to scientific texts of varying complexity.
The protocol combined standardized evaluation tools with customized materials developed within the E.A.S.Y. framework, allowing us to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.
All the material was redacted in Italian and presented to Italian speakers (in the documents uploaded in this page however, you can find the english translation on the bottom pages for dissemination and exemplification purposes of this wiki).
Participants were first introduced to the study through an informed consent (validated by our university IRS process and a brief explanation of the general procedure)
In particular, all participants were informed that the study collected anonymous data through an online questionnaire, including demographic information, language skills, education, reading habits and possible learning or neurodevelopmental disorders, while no identifying data would be gathered in the initial phase of the study. Moreover, they were notified that audio-recordings would be collected in an interview-like second phase, but only for immediate transcription, after which recordings would be deleted to ensure complete privacy. In addition, all participants were told that at any moment they could withdraw from the study or ask to erase any data about them.
The experimental activities were carried out online via the Zoom platform to ensure accessibility and consistency across sessions. Each participant completed a series of tasks including the administration of a standardized cognitive assessment[13], the reading of either the original or simplified versions of scientific texts, and subsequent comprehension questionnaires Comprehension_EASY.pdf.
As positive control, a standardized reading test (narrative text + comprehension questionnaires) , provided to us by the psychology department, was also administered to every participant, in order for us to have an objective and validated reference to the average comprehension performance of the group. Additional self-assessment measures were included to evaluate perceived fatigue and reading effort [14].
In this phase, personal data was collected but all participants were informed that each dataset would be assigned a unique alphanumeric code linked the participant name in a separate, securely locked document accessible only to the research team. In December 2025, this document will be destroyed, and the data will be anonymized and aggregated for analysis and dissemination.
This comprehensive approach was designed to capture multiple dimensions of reading performance—accuracy, speed, comprehension, and subjective experience—while maintaining a controlled and replicable experimental environment. We tried to measure as many parameters as possible, keeping in mind that, as this was a Pilot study, the goal was to detect possible interesting differences between performances.
Results
The validation of the E.A.S.Y. guidelines was conducted through a pilot study designed and carried out by the Uni-Padua-IT iGEM team in collaboration with the Department of Developmental and Socialization Psychology of the University of Padua. The objective of this experimental phase was to empirically test whether the proposed simplification and accessibility criteria could effectively improve comprehension and usability of scientific texts for readers with different cognitive and linguistic profiles.
Study Group and General Overview
The pilot study involved a total of 37 participants (29 without a diagnosis and 8 with a diagnosis of learning or neurodevelopmental disorder). Participants were all Italian native speakers and students between the ages of 19 and 28 years (M = 22.7, SD = 1.85), mainly attending university-level scientific or humanistic programs. The balanced gender distribution and comparable educational background across participants allowed for the creation of two equivalent groups in terms of reading proficiency and familiarity with academic texts.
Each participant was first introduced to the study through an informed consent procedure approved by the University Ethics Committee. The sessions were carried out online through the Zoom platform to ensure accessibility, reproducibility, and standardized timing across all participants.
To obtain an initial measure of reading difficulties, every subject completed the VINEGRAD+ standardized questionnaire [13], which provides an index of reading and comprehension difficulties. Subsequently, participants were assigned to one of two groups:
- the Simplified Text Group, who read a version of the scientific article prepared according to the E.A.S.Y. guidelines;
- the Original Text Group, who read the same content in its unmodified scientific form;
Experimental Tasks
The experimental protocol included the administration of the following tasks, in this order:
- the administration of the VINEGRAD+ questionnaire to assess reading difficulties;
- the experimental task, where participants read and answered reading comprehension questions of the original version of the scientific text or the simplified version;
- standardized reading comprehension text [13] , in order to assess participants’ reading comprehension skills;
- cognitive fatigue self-report questionnaire [14] to assess perceived cognitive effort;
Importantly, participants were allowed to consult the text while answering, leading to the interpretation that the simplified version facilitated faster information retrieval and better organization of content, rather than simply faster recall from memory.
Comprehension accuracy was slightly higher for the simplified version (M = 8.00, SD = 1.60) compared to the original (M = 7.50, SD = 1.40), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = .40). Self-reported fatigue levels were low and comparable between groups, indicating that neither text imposed an excessive cognitive demand. The similar comprehension levels across the two text types, which is a positive result for the effectiveness of simplification in maintaining comprehension, suggest that simplification does not compromise understanding, even if it slightly increases reading and answering times.
Overall, simplifying the text did not affect comprehension and facilitated quicker responses, suggesting that simplification improves accessibility without compromising comprehension accuracy.
VINEGRAD Scoring and Objective Reading Profiles
To complement self-reported diagnoses, participants were also divided according to their standardized VINEGRAD scores, providing a more objective index of participant's issues with reading and comprehension.
We used the VINEGRAD questionnaire as a covariate in our study on text simplification to divide the sample based on reading difficulty. By including it, we aimed to assess whether the simplification compensated for differences in reading comprehension. This approach allowed us to control for variations in readability and better understand whether the simplification techniques we applied effectively addressed the challenges faced by individuals with reading difficulties, ensuring that any previously mentioned improvements in the time for answering the comprehension questions, were due to the simplification process itself.
Based on the results of VINEGRAD scores, multiple analyses were carried out. The overall model is statistically significant (F = 5.3079, p = 0.005): both text variant and VINEGRAD factors are significant (p = 0.013 and p = 0.025, respectively), with moderate effect sizes, indicating a meaningful impact on the outcomes.
Furthermore, the post hoc comparison between the ”original” and ”simplified” text conditions shows a significant mean difference of 73.0 (SE = 27.8), with a t-value of 2.63 and p-values of 0.013 (Tukey) and 0.013 (Bonferroni), confirming that simplification leads to a significant difference in the responses.
The scatter plot 4.5 showing the relationship between Vinegrad score and time spent on E.A.S.Y. tasks indicates that response times for comprehension questions generally increase as Vinegrad scores rise, reflecting the increased difficulty faced by individuals with higher reading challenges. However, the effect of the simplified text is still evident even at high Vinegrad scores (high defined as a score of 10 or more). Although individuals with high Vinegrad scores still take longer to respond, the simplified text reduces their response time to a level similar to that of readers without difficulty who read the original text. This demonstrates that simplification helps not only those with lower reading abilities but also those with higher Vinegrad scores, bringing their response times in line with proficient readers, without compromising comprehension.
Although the limited sample size (N = 37) precludes firm statistical generalization, the data show that text simplification significantly impacts questions answering times. Moreover, these findings highlight an important implication: the need for accessibility is not confined to individuals with a clinical profile. Even readers without a diagnosis may benefit from clearer structure, explicit logical links, and guided information design. The E.A.S.Y. method, therefore, has the potential to offer universal benefits, improving the usability of complex scientific material for all readers.
Interviews
To better understand how readers interact with scientific texts, several interviews were conducted with participants from different backgrounds. The interviews revealed that difficulties in approaching scientific texts are multifactorial and aren’t limited to visual accessibility issues, but mainly concern the cognitive load imposed by the text’s structure and density.
Validation of the Initial Conclusions through Interviews
The conclusions drawn from the initial questionnaires found strong and almost complete validation in the conclusions developed after the interviews. The priorities identified for accessibility, both for the diagnosed group and for the general public, were confirmed and further detailed by the interviewees.
Main areas of Convergence:
After conducting an initial questionnaire to gather participants’ first impressions and suggestions, we carried out a series of comprehension interviews to test and refine those ideas in practice. Finally, the outcomes were validated based on participants’ feedback and observed effectiveness. All these steps and their corresponding results are summarized in the following table.
| Initial Questionnaire conclusion | Final interview conclusion | Validation |
|---|---|---|
| Glossary of technical/difficult terms (for everyone) | Include a dictionary of terms at the beginning and a glossary on the side for acronyms/specific concepts | Total. The lack of a glossary was a major difficulty for the group without a diagnosis and was the first recommendation in every interview |
| Summary diagrams (for neurodivergent readers) | Include an essential graphic overview at the beginning and summary diagrams after each section, with a final general diagram | Total. The diagrams are considered essential for orienting and connecting the concepts |
| Table of contents and better structure (for neurodivergent readers) | Sections should be organized with clear and focused titles. The use of bullet points helps to present data clearly | Total. The request evolved from a table of contents to the need for a more navigable and well-titled structure |
| Shorter sentences (for neurodivergent readers) | Writing should favour short and simple sentences, avoiding unnecessary wordiness and complex constructions (e.g., double negatives) | Partial. This directly corresponds to the difficulties related to sentence length and syntax |
| Highlighted words and key concept (for neurodivergent readers) | It is better to avoid excessive use of colours, preferring bold to highlight key concepts, leaving the reader free to highlight what they think it’s important | Partial. The concept is validated, but specifying how to highlight (better bold than colours) |
| More space between paragraphs (for neurodivergent readers) | Need for clear formatting and visual support | Partial. The issue of spacing is linked to the too compact layout and the need for bullet points to break the “wall of text” |
| List of introductory/preparatory texts (for everyone) | An introduction that also anticipates the conclusion and guides the reader is useful | Partial. The solution shifts from an external reading list to providing all the necessary background within the article itself |
2. Motivation and Connection of each Conclusion to the Interviews
The final recommendations are directly supported by the experiences and reading strategies shared by the interviewees. Here you can find a brief summary of some of the interviews we conducted, highlighting the main difficulties, reading strategies, and improvement suggestions shared by the participants.
A. Terminology and context (Glossary, Introductions)
- Related conclusions: Include a dictionary of terms, a side glossary for acronyms/specific concepts, and an introduction section to guide the reader;
- Motivation from the interviews: Terminology was the initial difficulty for many, including Candidates #1-2. Candidate #3 struggled with acronyms, having to go back to recall their meaning. Candidate #4, lacking prior knowledge on the topic, found some terms meaningless, which frustrated them. The lack of a glossary had already emerged in the questionnaires for those outside the field. During their normal reading, to overcome this barrier[MB2] , interviewees resorted to external tools, such as AI to “translate” texts into comprehensible language
B. Text Structure and organisation (Headings, Index, Bullet Points)
- Related conclusions: Sections organized with clear headings, use of bullet points (especially in the conclusions), and a better subdivision into paragraphs;
- Motivation from the interviews: Many reported an unclear structure or the absence of an index/outline. The difficulty of following a “wall of text” makes reading more difficult. Candidate #5 suggested breaking very long paragraphs into shorter sub-paragraphs, each with a focused title that also serves as a summary. Candidate #6 proposed dividing the text into more sections with clear headings. Moreover, presenting the conclusions in the form of bullet points was recommended as a way to schematize both methodology and findings
C. Simplification and Style (Sentence Length, Repetition)
- Related conclusions: Favor short and simple sentences, avoiding complex constructions (e.g., double negatives); In addition to repeat and clarify complex ideas;
- Motivation from the interviews: Sentences that were always too long or unnecessarily verbose were a dominant criticism in the diagnosed group. This length caused loss of focus and a difficulty in finishing the sentence. Candidate #7 found the syntax unnecessarily elaborate (pointing out the problem of double negatives) adding unnecessary cognitive effort in an already demanding field. Candidate #2 criticized the tendency of papers to condense too much information, making them accessible only to those with an already solid background. Candidate #8 suggested expanding the text rather than shortening it, revisiting difficult concepts to promote “cognitive simplification”;
For those with visual sensitivities, formatting is critical: too many figures or colours, or overly narrow page layouts can be irritating. Candidates #6-9 preferred to add their own highlights, suggesting bold text as a more effective tool rather than an excessive use of colours. Candidates #8-10 found that excessive highlighting, intended to help, could actually become a source of distraction, interrupting the reading flow.
Conclusions and future perspectives
Although the E.A.S.Y. project shows promise, much more work is needed for its completion. First and foremost, a significantly larger number of participants will be necessary to properly assess the effectiveness of the text simplification techniques we have implemented. As a pilot project, E.A.S.Y. 2025 is still in its early stages, and its scope and results are in the process of being expanded.
The results achieved so far are encouraging, especially given the preliminary nature of this study. The interviews conducted up to this point, while limited, have already provided valuable insights. Our goal is to continue expanding E.A.S.Y., particularly by involving more individuals who have been diagnosed, and further testing and refining the outcomes we have observed.
To ensure the continuation of the project, we applied for the Innovation Award in Neurodiversity (2025 Edition), promoted by the Zaccai Foundation for Augmented Intelligence (USA) and the Fondazione Imprendi – School of Entrepreneurship (Padua, Italy). This €22,000 prize aims to support innovative projects that address the challenges faced by individuals with neurodivergence. Open to researchers, research teams from Italian universities and research centers, as well as startups, the award focuses on solutions that enhance the quality of life for individuals with intellectual disabilities, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and related conditions. Through this initiative, we aim to foster technological and social advancements for the neurodivergent community, promoting inclusivity and independence.The presentation submitted for the application is available in supplemental materials.
Additionally, we have developed a preliminary version of a large language model based on GPT 5.0, which simplifies texts according to the guidelines established in our study. While the model is still in its early training stages and prone to errors, it represents an initial experiment. Our goal is to refine and fully develop this tool in the future and use it in the next testing session alongside the source text and the manual simplified version. You can explore and try our LLMmodel at the following link: https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68bd5a6b7e088191abf877fee9bdb170-paper-simplifier.
This is, in essence, a pioneering pilot study, particularly focusing on scientific articles, a completely new approach in this field. Due to time constraints, we were able to conduct valuable, yet limited, experiments that will be further developed in the future, with an already predefined schedule and the possibility for the project to be economically self-sustaining. The initial results we have gathered serve as a promising starting point for the project's ongoing progress and we are excited to bring this project to an end.
Progeria and inclusivity
Conducting research on Hutchinson–Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS) inherently represents an act of scientific inclusivity. This disease affects an exceptionally small patient population, estimated at around 400 individuals worldwide, yet its impact on those affected is profound. From an evolutionary and genetic perspective, the prevalence of such conditions is naturally minimized through negative selection, meaning these individuals constitute an extreme minority within the human population. Nevertheless, this should not equate to invisibility. By conducting research on this disease we are also raising awareness about the difficulties a person with progeria encounters. By working on this project we are actively restoring representation to an underrepresented group, highlighting the biological significance of rare genetic pathologies, and contributing to the broader goal of ensuring that advances in biomedical science address not only widespread diseases but also those that affect the few. Here, not only are we talking about Progeria but we’re bringing light to other rare diseases as well. The continuous discussion about any rare disease, despite their limited prevalence, remains highly important.
At the same time, it is vital to remember that any rare disease is not just something to study or a goal for future treatment, but the essence of someone’s life. Sometimes, it’s hard to keep in mind that behind the conditions there are real people just like us trying to live a normal life just as we do. This is the reason why our Team dedicated itself not only to studying Progeria inside the lab, but also to meet real people that could give us a more human insight to the condition. Through this approach, we had the opportunity to meet exponents of the AIProSaB association, one of the most important associations for Progeria, held by Sammy Basso’s parents and even a Progeria patient, Niccolò Gherardi, both through an online meeting and a real-life gathering in Milan.
Breaking Age and Background Barriers
Collaboration with Lataste group and Mutans 2024 in UniPD
At our university, new student groups are formed every year. The Lataste group is managed by students from the Natural Sciences program. Although their main activities focus on excursions, speleology and natural observation, we collaborated with them to organize an event dedicated to synthetic biology. The collaboration involved us, Lataste and the Mutans Team 2024 (the Padua’s iGem team of the past year). The meeting was divided into three parts. In the first part, we introduced synthetic biology and the iGEM competition. Next, we presented the projects that our group has done throughout the years - first project PASTA, last year’s project SurPFAS; and finally our own project ProgERASE.
Most people think that Inclusivity concerns only disabilities and physical or psychological impairments. In reality, it goes far beyond that. Differences in ages and educational background can also act as barriers, especially when it comes to the explanation of complex topics such as synthetic biology, which need to be communicated clearly and simply so that everyone can understand. Science should be welcoming to people of all ages and backgrounds. Age, however, often becomes an obstacle to entering the scientific community: It can often seem that if science hasn’t been part of your life from a young age, it never will be, as if you no longer have the ability to comprehend its challenging concepts anymore. Moreover, the scientific world has grown more and more specialized, creating the perception that if you study natural science, you cannot - and you should not - be interested in completely different fields. With the multidisciplinary spirit of iGEM, we tried to reach the widest audience possible, regardless of background and age.
Postgraduate Course in Bioethics
On June 6th, our team members Nicolò Donà and Marco De Nard participated as co-speakers in the lecture “Synthetic Biology: Bioethical and Biolaw Challenges”, delivered by Professor Diego Puricelli within the Postgraduate Course in Bioethics, directed by Professor Enrico Furlan. Our contribution took place after an explanation of various bioethical issues raised by synthetic biology in recent years, such as the creation of synthetic life (the Synthia project by Craig Venter and collaborators), de-extinction, and others.
We contributed to the discussion by presenting the history of the iGEM community and briefly outlining our project, with particular attention to how synthetic biology can now be studied, explored, and even envisioned even by university students and high school students. We also highlighted how the growing iGEM community is advancing synthetic biology while adhering to ethical standards and promoting openness and engagement with the broader public beyond research.
Collaboration with “Università popolare di Mestre”
Inclusion means engaging in the scientific community with all those who are usually left aside. Often, the first idea that comes to mind is paying special attention to people with impairments or working to overcome gender gaps and inequalities. Yet, including elderly and mature citizens is also an important side of inclusivity, one that is not always prioritized by the scientific community. Older people are sometimes perceived as being at the end of their professional and cultural journey, but this is far from true. Uni-Padua-IT is determined to bring science and synthetic biology to anyone interested in listening to us, regardless of their age.
For this reason, we reached out to the “Università popolare di Mestre” (UPM). UPM believes in including older citizens in lessons that are usually accessible only to younger students. Their intention is to invite everyday people into highly cultured discussions and to hear the voices of those whose career did not follow an academic path. They regularly offer courses on physics, philosophy and open debates aimed at building a more knowledgeable and engaged society.
Collaboration with Conegliano High School
What makes our lesson at high school in Conegliano stand out is the fact that we had to adapt it to younger students who did not study biology or chemistry in high school. The presentation included the introduction of our group and also some general information about the genetic material, central dogma, proteins and other very important biological molecules. We tried our best to simplify these concepts without losing their significance. After explaining the basic concepts we then passed to explaining synthetic biology and iGEM. To explain synthetic biology, we used some of the most known examples such as genetically modified plants, Dolly the sheep, insulin production etc. After establishing all these concepts we explained our team’s previous projects presented ad iGEM and our current project ProgERASE. This experience really helped our team improve when it comes to modifying and adapting our presentations in a certain way based on our audience.
Science for the unseen
Who decides where science and research should be promoted? Traditionally, scientific dissemination occurs within well-established contexts such as science festivals, schools, or universities…too easy. Our goal is to go beyond these boundaries and bring science to those who may have little or no familiarity with biology at all.
Quadrato meticcio
For all of us on the Uni_Padua_IT team, our iGEM project had to go beyond the laboratory: we wanted to bring science to places where opportunities for growth and discovery are often denied.
It’s exactly for this reason that we decided to contribute to our city in the way we know best, by going to the heart of the Palestro neighborhood. The Palestro neighborhood is a complex area, home for many immigrant families, where children and young people do not have the same opportunities as others. We were sure that we could find fertile ground to cultivate curiosity and inclusion.
Thanks to our collaboration with Quadrato Meticcio, an association initially founded in 2012 to save the local soccer field, which has since become a symbol of community and equality. Today, it’s no longer just a football team, but a vehicle for promoting a fair and inclusive idea of community, offering free housing advice services, after-school programs, film forums, Italian language courses, cultural activities, and events for the neighborhood.
In this setting, we organized two days of hands-on science experiments, during their after-school programs, for children aged 6 to 12, many of whom had never had the opportunity to explore the fascinating worlds of biology, chemistry, and physics. Through science explained as a game and through experiments in which the children took an active role, we encouraged the wonder of discovery, proving that science is for everyone, without any barriers.
The dialogue with the young participants and the Quadrato Meticcio team was the beating heart of the project: we listened to their needs, respected their cultures, and adapted activities to make them truly inclusive and significant for them. Quadrato Meticcio is not just a place to play, it is a crossroads of lives, languages, and diverse stories, all united by the desire to build a better future through inclusion
We experienced firsthand the power of sport and culture as tools for social change. This project was not just an educational experience, it was a concrete step toward a fairer society, where science becomes a tool for inclusion and empowerment.
Collaboration with a Scout group
It might be an unusual collaboration, but making science accessible for everyone means engaging with diverse associations that work with different people in society and communities. We wanted to bring science into contexts where the research world is usually not present or perceived. For this reason, we collaborated with our local scouts group and organized a scout activity for 14-15 years old kids. Scouting promotes a practical approach to problems that everyone can face in their everyday life, and surprisingly, this approach does not differ significantly from research methods and iGEM philosophy. The DBTL cycle, an approach based on trial and error, working in organized teams to achieve better results, and the goal of helping society and people in need are principles common to both.
We emphasized the common ground by trying to present a pragmatic activity suitable for the scout members, unifying the theory behind science with the hands-on experiences they are familiar with. For this reason, we proposed initially a brainstorming session where they could express their thoughts and beliefs about science and synthetic biology, and then we gave them some problem-solving activity to be more pragmatic. They had to find a solution for different people with invented diseases. One of the activities was more engineering-driven, where they needed to think of a way to help a person with equilibrium issues. The other was more synthetic biology-oriented where the patient had a disease caused by the accumulation of abnormal proteins in the cell (like Progeria). Both the scouts and the leaders were enthusiastic about the activity, especially because it was different from their traditional activities.
Little acts that can make a huge difference
Inclusivity is expressed also by everyday-life gestures. As a group, we wanted to embody the inclusivity spirit trying to change our way to perceive the world and the science community specifically. For this reason, we got invested in multiple initiatives with the goal to enrich ourselves and our society in order to build together a more accepting future.
Padova Pride attending
On the 31th of May, the Pride Parade took place in Padua. This event is held every year to highlight the significant presence of the LGBTQUIA+ community in our society and to advocate for social and legal recognition. We joined the parade to show our support for inclusivity, acceptance and cooperation with the community, both in our everyday life and in the lab. We are proud to state that our group includes representatives of the community, and we marched together with 15.000 others, flooding Padua streets with our shared values. We also wanted to show our support by posting a video on Instagram sharing our presence in the parade, along with an important description, which we are sharing here:
“June is internationally recognized as Pride Month: a time dedicated to celebrating and promoting the rights of LGBTQIA+ people — including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual individuals, and all other identities. This year, our small research team has chosen to take part in the Padua Pride, an event that fills the city each year with color, voices, and calls for freedom and equality. In the world of research, as in everyday life, LGBTQIA+ individuals still face far too many forms of discrimination, inequality, and stigma. The MUTANS team firmly stands against all forms of discrimination based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. We’ve decided to join thousands of people because we believe it’s time to overcome exclusion — in science, in society, everywhere.“ Click here
Social activism
We tried to make a difference with the small tools we can use as a group to try to educate and sensibilise people. In our socials, we tried to advocate inclusion to different social groups that are usually not relevant in our society and the scientific society. Here we report some of our work:
- Of course, we shared multiple posts about rare diseases, raising awareness on their understanding and on the importance of scientific research — with a particular focus on Progeria, its treatments, and ongoing therapeutic approaches. We also featured all the events carried out in collaboration with AiProSaB and our meetings with Niccolò Gherardi, which you can also find detailed in the Human Practices section of our wiki;
- We also raised awareness about other lesser-known conditions, such as autism, by dedicating specific posts during April, Autism Awareness Month, especially on April 2nd – World Autism Awareness Day;
- We also promoted awareness about digital accessibility, especially during May, the Global Digital Accessibility Awareness Month, when we first started developing our E.A.S.Y. project to make science more accessible for everyone;
- We posted multiple updates celebrating women’s contribution to science and society. On women’s day, for example, we posted a Science Pill about the brilliant women who changed the world, alongside with an article on our website. We wanted to use socials to convey a meaningful message with a joyful tone. One post read: “In a scientific world that strives to be inclusive, there’s still a mindset that sees women as supporters rather than leaders or protagonists. But brilliant minds have no gender. We respond with a smile! We believe in women as leading voices in science — not just background figures. The road is still long, but our team walks it every day, driven by the belief in true equality. Man or woman, talent knows no difference!”;
- As a final initiative, we also created a reel aimed at younger audiences and the iGEM community, focusing on mental health awareness — on understanding one’s own body and mind, and on recognizing the importance of taking a break when needed to recover from the intense efforts of iGEM and lab work. This action was part of our broader commitment to inclusivity, as we believe it is essential to spread the message that we are human beings — not lab rats, puppets, or people defined solely by work, but individuals who deserve balance, care, and well-being