Symbioza 2024
We met through Symbioza, a nationwide association that brings together Polish students of biotechnology and related fields, and throughout the entire project it has provided tremendous support with administration and shared resources.
In Poland, it is uncommon to build projects across different universities, and even more unusual to form truly interdisciplinary teams. In contrast, we created a diverse consortium. Initially, our group included students from four Warsaw universities. We represent backgrounds in natural sciences, medicine, social sciences, business, and the arts. We welcomed anyone who could contribute, regardless of affiliation or field of study. In our wet lab and dry lab teams we have biotechnologists, bioinformaticians, and medical students. In our Design and Media team we have students of journalism, media logistics (business), and graphic design.
Choosing the problem and the solution
When we were choosing the problem we wanted to address, we invited Kasia Klimek from the University of Warsaw Incubator, a professional mediator, to facilitate the discussion. We selected our team leader’s proposal. He is a medical student at one of the largest liver transplantation centers in Europe, the University Clinical Center of the Medical University of Warsaw, where he encounters people with cancer every day, including many with liver disease. One image left a lasting mark on him: a 35-year-old man with advanced HCC, suffering from jaundice, ascites, unbearable pain, and vomiting blood, in a condition where doctors could no longer offer relief. This experience fueled his determination to act so that, in the future, others would not have to endure such suffering.
At a medical conference, Bartek had listened to a discussion about a major challenge with targeted therapies: they often end up in the liver instead of the organ where they are meant to act. He decided to turn this problem into a solution by developing the idea of a targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that we are working on.
Validating the idea and planning our lab work
Before we began planning our project, we decided to validate the concept. A small group of us met to consider every potential drawback of Bartek’s idea and everything that could go wrong. We tried to find as many holes as possible and asked whether the concept could be challenged. Then we looked for answers to each objection, so we could approach our solution critically and be sure it is doable—something we truly want to pursue and believe makes sense.
Then we met with experts to learn what they thought about our idea.
PROF. MAGDA KONARSKA
read more
We reached out to stakeholder Magda Konarska, as she is an experienced molecular biologist with deep knowledge of Saccharomyces cerevisiae genetics and RNA regulation. We wanted to validate our initial idea of screening our designed toehold switches activity in the yeast model to save our funds on cell culture reagents and time.
From our conversation with Magda Konarska we learnt, that Saccharomyces cerevisiae would be a problematic model for screening activity of our toehold switches. We got valuable insight into how working with yeast looks like and what challenges it poses.
With this advice we decided to reevaluate our idea of screening and decided to do teohold switches screening directly in the human cell lines on the small scale. It allowed us not only to make our experimental plan easier, but also more time efficient in the long run.
DR MACIEJ CIEŚLA
read more
To review our experimental design and provide feedback on its overall feasibility, especially the most efficient strategy to generate a HEK293T cell line expressing alpha-fetoprotein.
We gained a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches for introducing this gene into the HEK293T cell line. Most importantly, he provided a realistic timeline for generating the modified cells and highlighted potential problems.
We chose a more time-efficient path. Instead of creating an AFP-positive HEK293T cell line, we decided to use an alternative cell line for the experiment. While this makes the flow-cytometry analysis slightly more challenging, it significantly shortens the overall timeline and simplifies our workflow.
PROF. ALLEN LIU
read more
One of the best scientists working on toehold switches in eukaryotes. We wanted to ask about whether toehold switch is the full sequence of 5' UTR and should be treated like it or does it need extra sequence on 5' end to be a fully functional 5' UTR.
Toehold switch sequence is sufficient to work as a fully functional 5' UTR and we should treat it like that.
We used this knowledge to design our genetic constructs and it simplified our cloning strategy because there was no additional sequence to add.
LAMBERT IGEM 2018
read more
Expertise in designing riboswitches and experience in selecting suitable regulatory elements for specific applications. We wanted to learn from their methodology, design criteria, and practical considerations.
Off-target interactions can critically undermine the performance of a toehold switch, even when in-silico predictions initially appear favorable. The importance of analyzing binding probabilities and carefully evaluating RNA-RNA interactions using tools such as NUPACK was emphasized.
We expanded our design workflow to include a systematic check for potential self-binding and off-target interactions of the trigger RNA. By using NUPACK as a secondary verification step, we ensured that our selected toehold designs prioritize favorable binding to the intended trigger. We also generated multiple candidate constructs to mitigate the risk of design failure.
PROF. ANTONIS GIAKOUNTIS
read more
Expertise in riboswitch design. We wanted to learn about the influence of biological context and computational predictions.
Computational tools provide useful guidance, but the true performance of toehold switches can vary significantly in practice. Key design parameters such as low free energy and appropriate trigger size are important, but biological context is critical.
We treated computational predictions as an initial filter rather than a guarantee of functionality. We placed emphasis on trigger accessibility and variability, selecting multiple candidates instead of relying on a single “ideal” design.
FRANCOIS ROULEAU
read more
Expertise in riboswitch design. We wanted to learn about sequence features and thermodynamic parameters.
Specific sequence features at certain nucleotide positions can strongly influence toehold performance. The balance between OFF-state and ON-state stability is important, and rational design can only increase the probability of success.
We refined our design strategy to prioritize overall Gibbs free energy and pay attention to nucleotide distribution and position-specific effects. We designed multiple variants per trigger and incorporated suggested literature into our design review.
DR LESZEK FRANCISZEK KRAJ
read more
We were looking for a clinical oncologist who could provide us with deeper medical background for our project. Dr. Kraj specializes in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and has extensive expertise in this field, which is why we decided to reach out to him.
We gained valuable insights into the epidemiology of HCC, its main causes, and patient prognosis. Dr. Kraj shared with us details about patient treatment at the University Clinical Center in Warsaw (Banacha Hospital), as well as the way oncologists collaborate with radiologists and surgeons. He also introduced us to the currently available therapies for HCC.
We introduced sorafenib as an internal “state-of-the-art” control in order to compare our therapy with current standards. Dr. Kraj also recommended that in the future we consider targeting proteins other than gasdermin, such as anti-VEGF monoclonal antibodies. Following his advice, we also applied for an Oxford Nanopore grant and implemented the FFPE protocol for RNA purification from paraffin-embedded tumor blocks (which we plan to carry out after iGEM due to time limitations).
Our framework for documenting stakeholder meetings is inspired by
the iGEM Heidelberg team website. Read more
We adopted the “Who we contacted / Why we contacted / What we learned / How we integrated the advice” framework—adapted from the 2024 iGEM Heidelberg team—because it turns Human Practices from a narrative into a traceable engineering process.
- Traceability & accountability: Every interaction is tied to a concrete project change. This avoids vague claims and lets reviewers audit our choices.
- DBTL alignment: The columns map cleanly onto the design–build–test–learn cycle:
- Why = design hypothesis,
- What we learned = test/learn,
- How we integrated = design/build update.
- Judge-friendly evidence: iGEM asks not only whether we reflected, but how feedback changed the project. This layout shows that at a glance and supports links to protocols, commits, and documents.
- Comparability & replication: A consistent table lets readers compare different stakeholders’ inputs side-by-side and makes the approach easy for other teams to reuse.
- Risk, ethics, and compliance: It highlights how expert advice altered our safety, regulatory, and IP decisions—key to responsible innovation.
- Clarity for broad audiences: The structure is readable for scientists, policymakers, and industry partners alike, improving external communication and internal team alignment.
At first, we also wanted to make patient interviews. With the guidance of a psychologist experienced in oncology research, we designed interview protocols and tried to reach patients through hospitals and cancer support organizations. We soon realized that HCC patients are often less open to interviews than patients with other cancers, and foundations quickly lose contact with families because of the disease’s rapid progression and poor prognosis. We treated this not as a failure, but as a strong signal that this cancer urgently needs more attention.
One of the most important validations for us was also receiving a grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Ministry experts recognized our project and awarded us PLN 277,188 to fund research and part of the travel costs for the competition. The application deadline was also a key factor in why we began planning our work so early.
Start of our media and consultations
In iGEM, Integrated Human Practices is, by design, a two-way process—our outreach should influence the community, and community feedback should shape our project. Our goal was to demonstrate that Web 2.0 can be an effective part of Human Practices precisely because it enables this bidirectional exchange. Through platforms like LinkedIn and Facebook (for professional stakeholders) and TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube (for broader audiences), we shared updates and educational content while continuously collecting feedback via comments, messages, and analytics. We emphasized short-form video and accessibility features such as captions to increase inclusivity and engagement. This approach not only amplified our impact but also provided actionable input that we used to iterate on both the project and our communications. We documented the method and results on a dedicated media subpage to show how Web 2.0 can be thoughtfully integrated into Human Practices in iGEM.
Who we consulted:
MAREK STANISZEWSKI
read more
Strategy consultant, business trainer, team coach, facilitator, lecturer, and author. We asked him for a meeting because we were impressed by the way he spoke about brand creation, and we wanted to learn how to communicate our project in a similar way.
Together, we prepared the elevator pitch for our project. Before that, we struggled to explain it in just a few sentences because of the wide range of activities it involves.
We implemented the storytelling approach we had developed into all our shorter promotional and PR materials, as well as in places where only an introduction to the project was needed.
WERONIKA MODZELEWSKA
read more
We had difficulties reaching a younger target audience with our educational content, and she is an expert in tailoring content to specific audiences as well as in social media.
We analyzed our target audience more closely.
We improved our social media analytics and, by observing what resonates best with our audience, we started planning our content more methodically shifting its format from mostly home recordings to those filmed in the laboratory.
PROF. JAROSŁAW KOŃCZAK
read more
Researcher specializing in corporate communication and the image of different social groups, as well as a practitioner with experience in sponsorship (from the sponsors’ side).
We learned what characteristics project communication should have to be attractive to corporate sponsors, and we also received suggestions on how to talk about the topic of cancer with respect for patients.
We incorporated these suggestions into our emails to corporations and decided to move away from strongly emphasizing HCC symptoms, such as alcohol.
Our framework for documenting stakeholder meetings is inspired by
the iGEM Heidelberg team website. Read more
We adopted the “Who we contacted / Why we contacted / What we learned / How we integrated the advice” framework—adapted from the 2024 iGEM Heidelberg team—because it turns Human Practices from a narrative into a traceable engineering process.
- Traceability & accountability: Every interaction is tied to a concrete project change. This avoids vague claims and lets reviewers audit our choices.
- DBTL alignment: The columns map cleanly onto the design–build–test–learn cycle:
- Why = design hypothesis,
- What we learned = test/learn,
- How we integrated = design/build update.
- Judge-friendly evidence: iGEM asks not only whether we reflected, but how feedback changed the project. This layout shows that at a glance and supports links to protocols, commits, and documents.
- Comparability & replication: A consistent table lets readers compare different stakeholders’ inputs side-by-side and makes the approach easy for other teams to reuse.
- Risk, ethics, and compliance: It highlights how expert advice altered our safety, regulatory, and IP decisions—key to responsible innovation.
- Clarity for broad audiences: The structure is readable for scientists, policymakers, and industry partners alike, improving external communication and internal team alignment.
Planning commercialization
Two independent initiatives inspired us to plan the commercialization part of our project.
1. THURSDAY GATHERING: BIOCONNECT (VENTURE CAFÉ WARSAW)
This was our first project-related networking session. The Innovate Health BioConnect series aims to strengthen Poland’s biotech sector by fostering connections among industry leaders and promoting open dialogue we could actively join. They are building a platform to address critical challenges and inspire growth. Through partnerships with leading research centers and top biotech entrepreneurs worldwide—whom we had the chance to meet—they connect innovators and young scientists like us, providing knowledge and role models for international success. Their events also spotlight emerging technologies, including the transformative potential of AI in the life sciences, and offer actionable steps for organizations eager to adopt them. The most inspiring panel for us explored different routes to commercialization; it not only showed us how to approach it, but also convinced us that this is a path we want to pursue.
2. INNOVATIONS HUB FOUNDATION INCUBATOR
Separately, we were invited via LinkedIn to join the Innovations Hub Foundation Incubator, which supports startup creation. They helped us with business planning and with shaping our commercialization strategy. During the program, we took classes on innovation, startups, and business. To graduate, we prepared a one-pager about our project based on the program’s materials. That one-pager later became a key reference when creating presentations for potential sponsors and corporate partners. Find out more!
Symbioza 2025
A year later, we returned to the same event where the idea of entering the competition was born — not as people merely listening to a talk about iGEM, but with a concrete project plan. We were about to step into the lab with everything prepared, and now, a year on from that moment, we are beginning to create our molecules.
There we contacted Mateusz Rudnicki, former iGEM participant and leader of iGEM Gdańsk 2023, to benefit from his rich experience in securing sponsors and building valuable partnerships. Mateusz is an active member of BioForum, an organization that connects and supports the biotechnology industry in Central Europe. Through this role, he closely collaborates with numerous biotechnology companies, which gives him unique expertise in understanding corporate expectations, networking, and creating meaningful collaborations. His proven track record in fundraising and industry partnerships made him an excellent mentor for our team.
From Mateusz, we learned how to effectively approach companies with professionalism, present the mutual value of collaboration, and tailor communication to the specific needs of biotechnology and related industries. He showed us how important it is to not only seek financial support, but also to create opportunities for in-kind contributions, knowledge exchange, and industry engagement. His direct experience with BioForum and biotech companies helped us understand how to align our scientific project with the interests of potential corporate partners.
Thanks to his guidance, we reached out to nearly 200 companies, with a strong focus on the biotechnology sector, and successfully secured partnerships with almost 30 of them. Many of these collaborations involved biotech companies that provided not only funding, but also specialized products, expertise, and visibility within the industry. By applying Mateusz’s strategies and leveraging his network from BioForum, we managed to establish long-term, sustainable partnerships with biotechnology firms. These relationships not only supported our current project but also positioned our team within the biotech ecosystem, creating opportunities for future collaboration and growth.
Now, together with the teams from the previous two years, we form the Polish iGEM community. We maintain an active group chat, consult with our predecessors, and, like them, we plan to promote iGEM in Poland and share our experiences with future teams.
Entering the lab
Our grant was very helpful, but it did not cover all the costs of the project. Our research was very extensive, but thanks to the generosity of Agnieszka Kobielak from the Center for New Technologies at the University of Warsaw (CeNT UW), we were able to conduct part of the research in their laboratory.
Throughout she was our advisor. Her research focuses on cancer stem cells, which are key to tumor initiation and growth, as well as disease progression, metastasis, and therapy resistance. She investigates the signaling and molecular pathways that regulate tumor cell heterogeneity. Her goal is to identify new markers of cancer cell invasion and to elucidate the pathways involved ultimately to develop therapeutic strategies against invasive cancer cells. Her extensive experimental experience and deep oncology expertise made her a constant source of support and guidance whenever challenges arose.
During our lab work, Megha Gautam offered her support. She was working nearby and told us that, back in India during her studies, she had wanted to join iGEM. Now, as a researcher in Poland, she still couldn’t take part in iGEM directly, but she generously supported our team with her safety expertise. We are very grateful for her help.
Addressing the challenge
We reached out to Traci Haddock, Director of Community at Asimov, about challenges we faced when using genetic parts supplied by the company. A synthetic biologist with deep iGEM experience, Traci has coached university teams, served at the iGEM Foundation as a Science & Technology Fellow and Director of Technology, and currently serves as Director of Competition.
From the consultation, we learned practical ways to optimize bacterial transformation—most notably, concentrating cells before plating to boost efficiency. We incorporated these recommendations into our protocol, improving transformation outcomes and streamlining the overall workflow.
Consultations
PROF. JANUSZ BUJNICKI
read more
We contacted Prof. Bujnicki to discuss the principles of riboswitch design and the potential use of a new program developed in his laboratory — DesiRNA — in our software.
During the meeting, we learned that this program would not be suitable for our case, as DesiRNA performs poorly when handling sequence constraints and is designed more for generating sequences from structures rather than the other way around. Nevertheless, the meeting proved valuable for another reason: we gained an understanding of the basics of riboswitch design thermodynamics and received many insightful comments regarding RNA experimental procedures.
As a result of this meeting, we ultimately abandoned the idea of integrating DesiRNA into our software and instead focused on the ViennaRNA package, which DesiRNA itself also relies on. The wet lab also benefited from the meeting, since Prof. Bujnicki suggested adjustments to the experimental approach. Most importantly, however, we were able to present our project to one of Poland’s leading experts in RNA design.
GEORGE CHURCH LAB (ALEX GARRUSS)
read more
We contacted George Church’s laboratory at Harvard because of their publication on eukaryotic riboswitch design and the potential use of their machine learning model for our purposes. Their model had designed prokaryotic riboswitches with higher efficiency than previous thermodynamic approaches.
Alex Garruss replied that unfortunately it would not be possible to use their model for our goals, as it has specific requirements regarding sequence length — and Shine-Dalgarno and Kozak sequences differ in length. However, he suggested either creating our own riboswitch library and training a model on our data, or reading another paper on eukaryotic riboswitches that make use of IRES sequences.
Through this correspondence, we realized how pioneering our research area truly is. We abandoned the idea of using a machine learning model for riboswitch design and also decided against designing riboswitches based on IRES sequences, as this would deviate significantly from our software’s current architecture. Instead, we chose to continue developing the thermodynamic approach to riboswitch design.
PROF. EWA KOZŁOWSKA
read more
We contacted Professor Kozłowska to ask if our flow cytometry experiment to measure toeholds activity is correctly designed and does not require additional controls.
We verified our flow cytometry experiment plan with her; she confirmed it, and we were able to carry it out.
We conducted the experiment according to the original plan, now with a clearer understanding of what to watch for and which factors are critical when defining our flow-cytometry gating strategy.
DR VLADYSLAVA LIUDKOVSKA
read more
We contacted Vladyslava Liudkovska to review our cloning strategy, confirm the accuracy of our planned assemblies, and provide practical tips to improve the cloning process. Her expertise helped ensure our design is both correct and efficient, reducing the risk of errors during construction.
We confirmed that our design was correct and Dr. Liudkovska offered valuable troubleshooting advice to help address potential challenges during the cloning process.
Once we confirmed that our design was correct, we ordered the necessary parts and began the experimental work. When initial cloning attempts were unsuccessful, we applied the troubleshooting advice we had received to overcome the obstacles and keep the project moving forward.
PROF. PAWEŁ SIKORSKI
read more
We reached out to this expert because of their extensive experience in mammalian cell culture. Since our project required a reliable cellular system to test our constructs, we wanted to ensure that our experimental design would follow best practices and that our protocols would be both robust and reproducible.
From this consultation, we gained valuable insights into the technical aspects of cell culture, including optimal growth conditions, handling practices to maintain sterility, and strategies for monitoring cell health. The expert also highlighted common pitfalls and practical tips that helped us anticipate challenges and prepare accordingly.
Based on this input, we refined and finalized our cell culture protocol, adapting it to the specific needs of our project. The advice shaped not only the technical details of our experimental workflow but also reinforced the importance of careful handling and quality control, which became integral to our laboratory practice.
DR SAAD REHMANI
read more
We have established contact due to challenges encountered with the efficient isolation of plasmids. Saad Rehmani is an experienced molecular biologist affiliated with the Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
As a result of the consultations, we have enhanced our understanding of how to improve the efficiency of the plasmid isolation protocol from bacterial cultures, with particular emphasis on the repeated application of the cell lysate onto the column.
Based on this consultation, we have refined the plasmid isolation protocol, enhancing the overall process efficiency.
DR MARTHA O’BRIEN
read more
We reached out to Dr. O’Brien because of her expertise in studying pyroptosis and her prior work on using nigericin as an inducer of cell death pathways. Since our project required a reliable positive control for pyroptosis induction, we wanted guidance on appropriate concentrations of nigericin across different cell lines. Her experience offered an opportunity to align our experimental setup with well-validated practices in the field.
From this exchange, we learned that the effective concentration of nigericin is highly cell type–dependent. While immune-derived THP-1 cells respond strongly to as little as 10 µM nigericin within one hour via the canonical caspase-1/gasdermin D pathway, non-immune cell lines such as HeLa or A549 require much higher concentrations (around 90 µM) and longer exposure times to undergo pyroptosis, in this case mediated by caspase-3/gasdermin E. This consultation also clarified that “excessive cytotoxicity” is not a separate effect but an intrinsic outcome of pyroptosis, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing pyroptotic from non-pyroptotic death forms when interpreting results.
We incorporated this advice by tailoring our experimental design to account for the cell type-specific sensitivity to nigericin. For immune-derived cells we will use lower micromolar concentrations and shorter exposure times, while for non-immune cell lines we will test higher doses and longer incubations, as recommended. We also adopted the perspective of carefully differentiating pyroptosis from other forms of cell death in our readouts, ensuring that nigericin is used not just as a generic cytotoxic agent but as a meaningful positive control for pyroptosis in our assays.
GENOMED
read more
We contacted Genomed, the largest provider of oligonucleotides and sequencing services for scientists in Poland, to explore potential support for our team and to gather their feedback on our project. Their expertise and perspective are valuable for refining our approach and identifying opportunities for collaboration.
We received valuable feedback on potential weaknesses in our project, including the importance of considering off-target effects when designing drugs. Genomed also explained the regulatory process for introducing new therapeutics in Poland and generously provided financial support to help advance our work.
Thanks to Genomed’s financial support, we were able to begin sending samples for sequencing and ordering the necessary oligonucleotides. We also incorporated their advice by updating our business plan and alerting the bioinformatics team to implement broader off-target screening.
IDT
read more
We contacted IDT to learn more about the support they offer to iGEM teams and to identify which of their services - such as custom oligonucleotide synthesis or gene fragments - could best support our project’s needs.
We learnt which services of IDT can be used in different parts of the project and what is their feedback on our project, including how we can use their service of RNA synthesis for our final experiments on checking our mRNA therapeutic in vitro.
We used IDT services during our experiments, focusing mostly on DNA synthesis. We also planned later experiments on RNA to possibly use IDT services.
PROF. DOMINIK GRONT
read more
As we wanted to deepen our understanding of interactions of toeholds with their target sequences, and subsequent effect of these for protein expression, we contacted prof. Dominik Gront, an expert in molecular dynamics to discuss our ideas. Our goal was to create a simulation which would allow to test our sequences in terms of their affinity and effectiveness. Dominik Gront, being a member of Rosetta group, a group whose leader received a Nobel prize, is an excellent choice, taking into account his experience with modeling, and knowledge of the field.
We learned the intricacies of molecular dynamics, and associated hardships with simulating the nucleotidal polymers. The discussion was centred about differences in simulating amino acids vs nucleotides, and how inherent polarisation and degrees of freedom of nucleic acids is causing the simulation to be inherently expensive and inaccurate with regard to protein folding. The coarse grain dynamics were also discussed, as an attempt to mitigate the problem of the computational cost, albeit it highlighted the problem of decision of force field management into the final results.
Enlightened with insight of discussion, we were both eager to expand our understanding of the topic and try to work towards the results that would allow us to come up with a simulation that would seek the answer to the question given. However, due to professor departure to the foreign countries for purposes of scientific exchange the project was halted both to said event as well as lack of time needed to achieve meaningful results before the Grand Jamboree. We would like to continue both as the time allows though.
Our framework for documenting stakeholder meetings is inspired by
the iGEM Heidelberg team website. Read more
We adopted the “Who we contacted / Why we contacted / What we learned / How we integrated the advice” framework—adapted from the 2024 iGEM Heidelberg team—because it turns Human Practices from a narrative into a traceable engineering process.
- Traceability & accountability: Every interaction is tied to a concrete project change. This avoids vague claims and lets reviewers audit our choices.
- DBTL alignment: The columns map cleanly onto the design–build–test–learn cycle:
- Why = design hypothesis,
- What we learned = test/learn,
- How we integrated = design/build update.
- Judge-friendly evidence: iGEM asks not only whether we reflected, but how feedback changed the project. This layout shows that at a glance and supports links to protocols, commits, and documents.
- Comparability & replication: A consistent table lets readers compare different stakeholders’ inputs side-by-side and makes the approach easy for other teams to reuse.
- Risk, ethics, and compliance: It highlights how expert advice altered our safety, regulatory, and IP decisions—key to responsible innovation.
- Clarity for broad audiences: The structure is readable for scientists, policymakers, and industry partners alike, improving external communication and internal team alignment.
We contacted more experts, but some of them didn’t reply, and some were unable to meet us.
We also conducted a survey among students of the Medical University of Warsaw to learn about their dietary habits, knowledge of liver cancer, and opinions on potential preventive measures. The survey was anonymous, and participation was voluntary. We used the acquired knowledge to adjust our project to better fit the needs of potential end users.
Commitment to Excellence
We continuously invested in our education. With funding from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, we dedicated part of our budget to professional training. We obtained certificates through specialized courses and took part in programs such as the Innovations Hub Incubator, the Health Protection Academy, OAK: Attractive Conventicles Camp (Symbioza Association), and the “Wisła na Rozdrożu” training retreat organized by the University of Warsaw and Jagiellonian University, which focused on presentation skills.
To strengthen our communication and design capabilities, we completed the following courses (without listing individual participants):
VIRAL & CREATIVE MARKETING
audience segmentation, storytelling, growth loops, and A/B testing applied to our social media strategy.
FOUR LAYERS OF PRESENTATION: CREATE DECKS THAT RESONATE
narrative structure and visual hierarchy used to upgrade sponsor and scientific pitches.
ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR (BASIC)
vector fundamentals for consistent brand assets, figures, and posters.
CONTENT MARKETING (STREFA KURSÓW)
content strategy, SEO basics, editorial planning, and analytics to build a sustainable outreach pipeline.
These trainings and programs directly informed our project communications, stakeholder presentations, and overall commercialization readiness.
Additionally Daniel Grygorowicz and Wiktoria Szymanek from wet lab, attended the course “Introduction to Spatial Transcriptomics” Course at ETH Zurich to gain hands-on experience with a cutting-edge laboratory technique that is not yet available in Warsaw and is still rarely used in Poland. Spatial transcriptomics enables the study of gene expression at single-cell resolution while preserving the spatial context of each cell within the tissue—a capability that is becoming essential for investigating the tumor microenvironment. During the course, they learned how to perform the entire workflow, from experimental setup at the bench to computational analysis. We became familiar with specialized software for data processing and extraction of key insights. This knowledge will support the next stage of our project, where we will examine how induction of pyroptosis affects both tumor tissue and the surrounding healthy tissue, using organoid models in vitro and mouse models in vivo. These analyses will help us evaluate the effectiveness of our therapy, guide optimization, and provide early indications of potential side effects.
As one of the iGEM teams, we also wanted to learn from each other. On March 13th in Munich, a representative of our team met with the iGEM Munich team during an educational trip to German academic centers. We held an insightful joint seminar where we presented the concept of the solution we are developing. The German team, in turn, shared information about their own project, which gave us a valuable opportunity to look at our work from a new perspective. This meeting significantly enhanced our understanding and project scope.
We also wanted to see if we can tell our story in a way anyone can understand—so we put ourselves to the test at FameLab, the world’s leading science communication competition. Contestants explain complex ideas without slides, using only simple props to make science feel approachable. In this year’s FameLab Poland, about 100 participants reached the semifinals, and just 12 advanced to the final. The final takes place on October 14 in Katowice. Our talk, “HepaSwitch: The Genetic Switch to a Healthy Liver,” is the only finalist presentation delivered by a regular student — proof that clear, relatable storytelling can come from anywhere. To make the science tangible, Bartek uses a shape-shifting prop that becomes a liver, a cell, and even a genetic switch. This hands-on narrative was also our rehearsal for telling an equally accessible story at the Grand Jamboree.
Commercialization readiness
KAMIL MIESZKOWSKI
read more
We reached out to Kamil Mieszkowski because we faced challenges regarding the protection of our project’s intellectual property. We also had doubts about certain provisions in the agreements with our sponsors, so we decided to consult our actions with him.
From this consultation, we learned how we could file a patent application for our toehold switch and how to secure priority for our discoveries. Thanks to his guidance, we were able to safely sign agreements with sponsors, fully understanding the obligations we were committing to as a party.
We are currently preparing a provisional patent application (a filing that allows us to secure priority for our invention for one year before submitting a full patent application). Additionally, we successfully acquired new sponsors, confident that our agreements are now properly protected.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BROKER
read more
We reached out to a Technology Transfer broker at one of our universities. We specifically wanted to speak with him because he has experience in drug commercialization and has even written a guide on the topic. During an in-person meeting, we also discussed how we could collaborate with Technology Transfer Offices in the future.
We learned which aspects of bringing a drug to market are more specific than for other scientific inventions, what the Bioethics Committee might focus on in our case, and what the current landscape of biotech companies developing therapeutics in Poland looks like.
We incorporated his suggestions into our software design, carefully assessing where personalization adds value and where it might, for example, complicate approval by the Bioethics Committee. Consequently, we aim for our therapeutic to work in two configurations: a personalized molecule variant and a non-personalized, broadly applicable version.
IP SPECIALIST FROM A TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
read more
We needed to discuss intellectual property issues regarding the publication of our part in the iGEM Library.
We gained a better understanding of how to secure intellectual property at various stages of technology readiness (TRL).
We understand that we can still transfer our technology after conducting further research following the competition, as developing an approved medicine is a complex process.
Our framework for documenting stakeholder meetings is inspired by
the iGEM Heidelberg team website. Read more
We adopted the “Who we contacted / Why we contacted / What we learned / How we integrated the advice” framework—adapted from the 2024 iGEM Heidelberg team—because it turns Human Practices from a narrative into a traceable engineering process.
- Traceability & accountability: Every interaction is tied to a concrete project change. This avoids vague claims and lets reviewers audit our choices.
- DBTL alignment: The columns map cleanly onto the design–build–test–learn cycle:
- Why = design hypothesis,
- What we learned = test/learn,
- How we integrated = design/build update.
- Judge-friendly evidence: iGEM asks not only whether we reflected, but how feedback changed the project. This layout shows that at a glance and supports links to protocols, commits, and documents.
- Comparability & replication: A consistent table lets readers compare different stakeholders’ inputs side-by-side and makes the approach easy for other teams to reuse.
- Risk, ethics, and compliance: It highlights how expert advice altered our safety, regulatory, and IP decisions—key to responsible innovation.
- Clarity for broad audiences: The structure is readable for scientists, policymakers, and industry partners alike, improving external communication and internal team alignment.
Visiting Kawaska
We not only were in contact with our partner Kawaska online, but they also invited us to their residence.
We decided to contact Kawaska, a leading company in the field of microscopy, because of their extensive expertise and long-standing commitment to advancing science in Poland. As an industry leader, Kawaska not only provides high-quality scientific equipment but also actively supports student initiatives and educational projects. Their strong position in the market and dedication to fostering research made them a valuable stakeholder for our consultations.
From our conversation with Kawaska, we learned about the early days of the company and gained insights into the development of science in Poland during the 20th century. This historical perspective helped us understand how research infrastructure and industry cooperation evolved over time. Most importantly, we learned how crucial interdisciplinarity is in modern science – combining expertise from different fields to achieve innovative results. Kawaska’s perspective highlighted how technology, academia, and business can work together to push scientific boundaries.
Inspired by these insights, we began to look at our own project more interdisciplinarily, identifying opportunities to integrate different fields of knowledge and tools. We also recognized the importance of building collaborations not only within academia but also with industry leaders, whose experience and resources can accelerate scientific progress. Thanks to Kawaska’s example and advice, we started to shape our partnerships and project strategies in a way that reflects the value of combining diverse perspectives and long-term cooperation between science and industry.
Education
WAWRZYNIEC KOFTA
read more
We reached out to a high school biology teacher to get their perspective on our project, a free online platform for students focused on synthetic and molecular biology. We chose this specific stakeholder because their experience and feedback are invaluable for shaping a project designed for the educational environment.
Our main goals were to ask for their opinion on:
Effectiveness of communication: We wanted to know if sending emails to our contact list of 600 schools would be an effective way to reach teachers and encourage them to use our platform in their classrooms. We also asked for suggestions on other ways to reach teachers more effectively.
Student/teacher motivation: We asked for ideas on how to further motivate students and make it easier for teachers to implement our course in their school.
Project timeline: We wanted to know if our proposed schedule—a three-week competition in September with a workshop for winners in October—was realistic from an organizational standpoint within a school.
The teacher's insights have been extremely helpful in confirming our assumptions and giving us new ideas to consider. The feedback we received directly informed our next steps and helped us refine the project to be as impactful as possible.
Based on this valuable feedback, we've taken the following actions to improve our platform and outreach strategy:
Strategic Communication: We are no longer relying solely on general email blasts. We have expanded our communication efforts to include direct marketing and engaging with teacher groups, allowing us to reach more motivated educators through a variety of channels. We're also actively reaching out to methodical advisors and leveraging our network to spread the word through social media.
Content Restructuring: We've revised our course modules to be more flexible and adaptable. The course can now be completed over several lessons, which makes it much easier for teachers to integrate into their schedules.
Enhanced Interactivity: We have added many more interactive elements throughout the platform to better suit the needs of young people. Our course now includes more quizzes, drag-and-drop exercises, and multimedia content to keep students engaged and make learning more dynamic.
WSB SYMBIOZA
read more
We held a meeting to present a demo of our platform to students from WSB Symbioza. Our main goal was to gather feedback on the platform’s usability, content, and overall user experience from our target audience — students with a strong interest in biology. We wanted to see how they interacted with the course modules, what parts were most engaging, and what areas needed improvement before the official launch.
The demo and testing session provided us with crucial insights that helped us refine the platform's content and design. The students' feedback was invaluable and confirmed our plans while also highlighting new areas for development.
Students confirmed that the topics we cover, such as molecular and synthetic biology, are interesting and not typically taught in a comprehensive way at their high schools. This feedback validated the core purpose of our project.
They especially enjoyed the gamification elements, like the quizzes and the interactive nature of the platform. This confirmed that our approach to making the content engaging is working.
We discovered a few technical and navigational issues that were not apparent during our internal testing. Students pointed out that some parts of the interface were not intuitive and that the platform could be more user-friendly on various devices.
Some students found certain concepts to be too complex or not explained clearly enough. They suggested adding more visual aids, like diagrams and animations, to simplify difficult topics.
Based on the feedback from the WSB Symbioza students, we are taking the following steps to improve the platform:
Interface Optimization: We are working on making the platform more intuitive and user-friendly, especially for mobile users. Our focus is on improving navigation and simplifying the layout to ensure a smooth user experience.
Content Simplification: We are reviewing and revising our course materials to clarify complex topics. This includes adding more animated visuals, diagrams, and simplified explanations to make the content more accessible to students.
Expanded Interactivity: We will be adding more interactive elements beyond just quizzes, such as drag-and-drop exercises and short, hands-on simulations, to make the learning process even more engaging and dynamic.
Our framework for documenting stakeholder meetings is inspired by
the iGEM Heidelberg team website. Read more
We adopted the “Who we contacted / Why we contacted / What we learned / How we integrated the advice” framework—adapted from the 2024 iGEM Heidelberg team—because it turns Human Practices from a narrative into a traceable engineering process.
- Traceability & accountability: Every interaction is tied to a concrete project change. This avoids vague claims and lets reviewers audit our choices.
- DBTL alignment: The columns map cleanly onto the design–build–test–learn cycle:
- Why = design hypothesis,
- What we learned = test/learn,
- How we integrated = design/build update.
- Judge-friendly evidence: iGEM asks not only whether we reflected, but how feedback changed the project. This layout shows that at a glance and supports links to protocols, commits, and documents.
- Comparability & replication: A consistent table lets readers compare different stakeholders’ inputs side-by-side and makes the approach easy for other teams to reuse.
- Risk, ethics, and compliance: It highlights how expert advice altered our safety, regulatory, and IP decisions—key to responsible innovation.
- Clarity for broad audiences: The structure is readable for scientists, policymakers, and industry partners alike, improving external communication and internal team alignment.
Additionally, as we saw how iGEM inspired us to act and how we decided to participate in it thanks to our colleagues from previous years, we decided to not only educate high schoolers but also educate other students about this competition. We talked about it at the open days of the Biology Department at the University of Warsaw.
Also we had the opportunity to present the HepaSwitch concept and the iGEM idea to students of the elite ID program at the Warsaw University of Technology. During the seminar, we discussed in detail the SynBio cycle (Design–Build–Test–Learn), which underpins synthetic biology. Our presentation of HepaSwitch sparked a lively, insightful discussion that went beyond biology itself, touching on engineering and ethics. This inspiring exchange not only helped us refine the project’s vision but also ignited students’ curiosity — potentially encouraging them to get involved in future synthetic biology initiatives.
Moreover, between July 7–9, 2025, our team member Dominika Krasoń had the opportunity to participate in the 4EU+ Alliance Against Cancer Summer School hosted at Sorbonne Université. She presented our project there.
Wiki
One of our team members, as part of their Journalism thesis, conducted an analysis of narrative strategies used in top iGEM projects. In this work, we examined 60 award-winning WIKI pages from the past three years, focusing on how scientific stories were structured and presented. The study looked for narrative elements such as a protagonist, an antagonist, or a unique tool, as well as classical storytelling structures including exposition, rising action, and climax. This perspective proved especially important for our team, since a large part of our work involved communicating with external audiences. Using clear and engaging narrative structures helped us explain our project not only to professionals, but also to non-specialists. It also made us more aware when creating our own WIKI, allowing us to focus on building messages that were clear and interesting from the very beginning for all readers. The thesis defense is scheduled for the end of October. The findings, along with practical advice on how to narrativize science, will be shared during a panel at the iGEM Grand Jamboree. We believe that this reflection will serve as an inspiration both for our team and for other participants.
Public Policies Ideathon
In conversations with stakeholders, and by analyzing our own situation, we identified systemic issues in Poland that make it harder to commercialize projects like ours. For example, while we may access venture capital (VC) funding, our innovative therapeutic concept requires long-term financing typical of drug development and multi-year studies. When we reach later stages, Poland offers limited access to private equity at the scale needed. As a result, even though we want to keep the company in Poland and avoid seeking capital abroad, we may not have that option, which could also be detrimental to the national economy we care about.
In response, one of our teammates joined a public policy sprint (an ideathon) specifically to tackle this problem. Competing in the capital markets category, the team addressed undercapitalization and the shortage of innovation finance, working with two collaborators who brought complementary perspectives and skills. After training at the National School of Public Administration on drafting policy briefs, they produced a brief and presented it in the competition, winning first place in the capital markets category. This led to an opportunity to present the proposal to the state innovation network, as well as to policymakers, administrators, and state-backed VCs.
Summary — National Network for Innovation Capitalization (KSIK)
Concept. KSIK is a public–non-profit network that coordinates all state actors supporting innovation (ministries, agencies, regulators) into a one-stop shop for innovators and a de-siloed policy tool for the state. It “picks winners,” connects stakeholders, and builds a domestic/foreign promotion platform to shepherd Polish scale-ups to IPO.
How it would work.
- Annual cohort: ~60 scale-ups selected each year for administrative, technical, and promotional support.
- Case officers & compliance: Dedicated PFR handlers guide firms through public capital instruments; sector regulators ensure compliance.
- Promotion & alumni: PAIH drives international exposure; an alumni forum feeds mentorship back into the system.
- Evaluator corps (KZE): A well-paid, professional National Pool of Evaluators to raise selection quality and reduce conflicts of interest.
- Financing stance: The state does not add new grants; it facilitates access to global investors and syndicates to reach IPO (GPW/NewConnect; IPO Academy).
Problem KSIK addresses.
- Fragmentation & overlap among NCBR, PFR, PARP, and regions → low policy efficiency and poor fit to market needs.
- Capital structure: In Q1 2025, ~50–60% of VC funding came from public/mixed sources; only ~40–45% was fully private. Persistent late-stage gap (Series A–C PLN 50–300m).
- Weak exits: No VC-backed IPOs on GPW/NewConnect in the last 12 months; exits are mainly trade or PE sales, limiting international capital attraction.
- Socio-economic costs: Fewer scale-ups reach job-creating size; higher transaction costs; constrained international expansion.
Why now.
- New FENG EU funds, rising EU focus on innovation hubs/tech sovereignty, and a domestic policy window (strategy updates; opening pension funds to invest) create momentum.
Legal/regulatory fit.
- Aligned with EU AIFMD and state-aid rules; domestically under KNF oversight. KSIK dovetails with Team Poland (PFR Ventures, PARP, PAIH, ARP, BGK) to coordinate execution.
Stakeholders mapped.
- Strategy: MRiT, MF
- Regulators: KNF, UOKiK
- Execution: PFR (incl. PFR Ventures), PARP, PAIH, ARP
- Credit guarantees: BGK
- Capital markets: GPW, IPO Academy
Benchmark.
- French Tech 2030: a government-led, one-stop model integrating finance, mentoring, admin facilitation, and international promotion—an analogue for KSIK.
Governance, funding, evaluation.
- Monitoring by an MF/MRiT committee; modest program costs (can be covered via small transfers from PFR). Success is measured on the tracked cohort’s performance (financing, internationalization, IPO readiness).
Risks & constraints.
- Shortage of qualified evaluators; risk of conflicts of interest and process delays in a small expert market—mitigated by strong KZE standards, pay, and oversight.
Breaking barriers
Throughout the year we kept hearing the same story—from mentors, administrators, and peers—and we experienced it ourselves: students eager to do research meet opaque processes, scarce resources, and uneven support. We didn’t want to rely on anecdotes, so we moved from impressions to evidence. We designed a short, anonymous questionnaire for adult STEM and medical students enrolled at Polish universities in 2024/25 and distributed it via student groups and social media. Our aim was to map barriers, motivations, time commitment, access to labs/funding/mentoring, and to gather concrete ideas for change — evidence we can bring to iGEM and to policymakers.
Preliminary findings from our Polish pilot (n ≈ 76)
Who responded:
- Mostly early-stage students: modal ages 21–24 (median ≈ 22–23).
- ~68% women, ~31% men (small % non-binary/other).
- Strong life-science skew: ~76% biological sciences; ~19% chemical; ~18% medical; ~8% computer science (multi-select).
- Heavily Warsaw-centric: ~92% study in Mazowieckie; ~89% in a city >1M.
- ~76% have already taken part in student research; most often via research clubs/organizations.
What they achieve and why they do it:
- Most frequent outputs: conference talks/presentations (~53%), unpublished results (~38%), journal articles (~26%). Prototypes/patents are rare (~6% each); early commercialization is very rare (~1–2%).
- Top motivations: curiosity (~72%), strengthening the CV (~65%), desire for impact (~49%), career advancement (~37%).
- Time commitment: a majority (≈60%) spend ≥5 h/week; ~18% report >20 h/week.
Biggest barriers (quant + open answers):
INFORMATION GAP: No clear, centralized “how to start/run a project” guidance (scores 1–2 dominate).
SKILLS & CURRICULUM: Classes underprepare for independent research (1–3 dominate on “I gained needed knowledge”). Repeated calls for courses in experiment planning, statistics, methods, publishing, and ethics.
FUNDING CONSTRAINTS: Grants/scholarships seen as uncertain or partial; open answers highlight lack of consumables and no pay for student researchers.
ACCESS & LOGISTICS: Mixed access to labs/equipment/software after classes; heavy paperwork and unclear grant rules.
TIME PRESSURE: Dense curricula (“zapychacze”), exams, and jobs limit availability.
CULTURE & SUPERVISION: Independent projects are generally viewed positively, but many report hierarchy, uneven mentoring, occasional “academic exploitation,” and gatekeeping in student clubs; onboarding to equipment is inconsistent.
INCLUSION: Individual notes flag additional hurdles for students with disabilities.
HOW TO START: Among non-participants, the #1 blocker is simply not knowing how to begin; others cite feeling unprepared and high study load.
What students propose:
Recognize research for ECTS/credit; formalize roles, assign supervisors, and acknowledge hours/contributions.
Increase and earmark funding (including stipends); simplify grant rules/accounting; publish lists of labs willing to host student projects.
Add practical, rotation-style courses placing students in labs for 2–3 months; expand internships and industry–university links.
Streamline bureaucracy; lighten non-essential coursework; improve communication and onboarding for equipment/methods.
Value mentorship in staff evaluations; discourage gatekeeping and free-riding; foster inclusive teams and a second-chance culture.
How this shapes our next steps
These insights guide our outreach and policy work at iGEM. We will:
- expand the survey to ≥300 responses and new regions;
- publish a policy brief with university-level recommendations;
- invite iGEM teams to replicate the study locally so we can compare barriers and share practical fixes across the community.
Voice Impact Award
Also, to spotlight the challenges we faced and how we overcame them one of our team members wrote an article that was submitted to the T-Mobile Voice Impact Award. The piece earned recognition. Polityka, a leading Polish weekly, has covered our story and will also publish his article on its website.
