Team:Hong Kong HKUST/human practice/start-up kit/report

The graph shows the percentage change of teams who did human practice for the period from 2008 to 2013. It can be clearly seen that there has been a large increase in the percentage of iGEM teams who participated in human practice.

The percentage of teams who did human practice has risen considerably over the time period. In 2008 there were nearly 80 percent of the teams who did not participate in human practice. This percentage decreased to approximately 40 percent in 2010, and then dropped dramatically to 5 percent only after three years. Since 2008 there has been a steady increase in the number of the teams who participated in human practice, with around 20 teams increase annually.

There are multiple reasons for this phenomenon. First of all, it could be caused by the increase of interest towards human practice within the iGEM participants. With the rapid development of synthetic biology, promoting the correct information about this area of science became important. Since the main goal of human practice is to promote synthetic biology and explore different topics towards the work, students are willing to promote synthetic biology in creative ways through human practice.

Secondly, the increasing trend in human practice may have been led by emphasis on human practice by the iGEM headquarters. Human practice is crucial for building safe and sustainable projects that serve the public. The value of human practice has been increasing recognized with the abrupt emergence of issues regarding bioterrorism. Furthermore, being able to communicate is as equally important as doing the lab work. For the reasons mentioned above, the role of human practice grew in iGEM.

To sum up, human practice has become an increasingly popular destination for iGEM teams, especially in recent years.

In each region, it can be deduced that the number of teams who did human practice project in each region differ from one another. Graph 4.1 indicates the relationship between the percentage of teams who did human practice project in each region whereas graph 4.2 indicates the number of teams in each region. The results from graph 4.1 indicates that approximately 90% of the teams in Latin America did human practice project and roughly 79% of the teams in Europe and Asia. North America scores the lowest among the region with approximately 62% of the teams did human practice project.

The evidence shown from the 2 graphs is quite surprising especially towards North America. Despite the fact that North America has the most number of teams, it seems that compare to the other regions, North America did not show as much attitude towards human practice, in reference to the data in graph 4.1. It can be concluded that from the values of the percentage of number of team who did human practice project in each region is different from one another.

The number of human practice projects in each type is estimated to be growing in number in the past years. Taking the data from graph 5.1, the amount of human practice project done has increased more than expected. This may be caused by the growing trend of synthetic biology and the increase in the importance of human practice project. Graph 5.2 describes the amount of projects done in each type from the year 2008 to 2013. The observation from the graph can conclude that the amount of projects done in every type increased in every year.

Graph 5.3 also shows the number of projects done in each type from 2008 to 2013. From this graph, it is suggested that from 2011 to 2013, talks has been the most favourable types of project. It is estimated that half of the total projects of each types occurred in 2013. This may prove that the number of human practice project is increasing at an acceleration, also as given from graph 5.1. By observing the correlation between the 3 graphs, the turn events of the number of projects done is in 2011 where it increased by almost twice than in 2010.