Team:TU Delft-Leiden/Human Practices/Appendix

Interviews with stakeholders

Visit to BioDetection Systems (BDS)

Summary: BDS is a company working in the field of traditional, fluorescence-based, whole-cell biosensors. They focus on optimizing their CALUX system and do not work on novel output system. However, their Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Van Der Burg, was very enthusiastic about the ELECTRACE system on saw opportunities for a commercial product.

To learn more about the commercial development and application of biosensors, we visited Amsterdam-based biosensor company BioDetection Systems (BDS). Here we met with the Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Van Der Burg. With him, we discussed the activities of BDS, our project Electrace and the biosensor industry.

The main focus of BDS is their sensing system CALUX. A range of CALUX systems exist, which all work according to a mechanism in which the compound to be detected binds to an intracellular receptor. This complex subsequently binds to a promoter in front of a luciferase gene. The luciferase which is then formed emits light and is in that way used to measure the compound of interest. Compounds which can be detected with CALUX include dioxins and several hormones.

The CALUX system is mainly applied to detect environmental and food contaminations which might be harmful for humans. “We aim to stay close to the physiology of our subject, so in this case this means that we have to use eukaryotic cells, in our case rat cells,” Van Der Burg tells. The use of eukaryotic cells however presents some problems. “For multicellular eukaryotes, there is a big step between contact with the contamination and uptake by a cell, which we have to model and simulate in our experiments. In bacteria you don’t have this problem. Next to that, eukaryotes are less robust and more complex than bacterial cells.” Upon asking why they did not work with bacteria, Van Der Burg tells us: “We are developing a bacterial version of CALUX, but only for usage in areas where bacterial physiology is important, such as soil contamination or antibiotic detection.”

The activities of BDS mainly consist of measuring samples sent by other organizations whit their CALUX system and selling licenses and training to use the system. Their customers include pharmaceutical companies, food companies and (governmental) organizations involved in environmental issues. “We have customers from all over the world. We are currently working on a project in Vietnam to detect dioxins. The concentration of these compounds in Vietnam is far above the health limits as a result of spraying with dioxin-contaminated defoliants.”

Upon being asked about innovations in BDS, Van Der Burg tells us: “We are currently mainly focused on optimizing our CALUX system. We simplify and automate the process of doing assays using our CALUX cells. Although we do not really focus on the detection of novel compounds with new pathways, we are currently trying developing a dioxin sensor for our project in Vietnam. We do this by searching for dioxin receptors which might have arisen in species living in contaminated areas.” However, this is not their usual approach in developing new sensor systems, which consist of extensive literature study and making use of toxicological research.

When we came to discussing Electrace, Van Der Burg reacted very enthusiastic. “Alternative read-outs are very interesting. For light and fluorescence assays you need lots of equipment and devious procedures. For us, this is not really a problem since we do our measurements in the lab, but for a device like yours, which is to be applied in the field, is a really ‘nice trick’.” Also, our plan to create single-use, disposable paper microfluidics strips fascinated him: “That is very interesting; a disposable device is really the thing you need. What would make it even better is if you don’t have to cultivate your bacteria anymore. These costs a lot of time, and maybe even more important, a lot of money.” We further discussed possible (commercial) application of our Electrace system. “Even when a handheld device shows to be unfeasible, there is a lot of potential for you to develop your project in a kit-like setting. This is much easier to sell than a license!”

We told Van Der Burg that we had some concerns about the speed of our system. He told us not to worry about that too much: “Our systems have a response time between 4 and 24 hours. If you really want a fast reaction you should use the translocation of tagged proteins, but this is at the expense of your accuracy.” Furthermore, he gave us some valuable advice: “The specialty of BDS is the measurement of complex mixtures, which is really important for real world applications. If your reporter responds to TNT in a distilled water solution, that is nice, but you should try if it is also possible to sense it in the kind of sample that you will use. In your case this will mean adding TNT to ground water and test it.”

Visit to the Kampfmittelräumdienst Rheinland-Pfalz

Summary: The Kampfmittelräumdienst Rheinland-Pfalz is responsible for bomb defusal in the German Bundesland Rheinland-Pfalz, were they mostly encounter unexploded ordnance. ELECTRACE would not be suitable for their work, since the aircraft bombs they mostly deal with are tightly sealed and don't leak TNT. Howvever, the head of the organization, Mr. Horst Lenz, pointed out that our application might be suitable for other types of explosives.

We visited the Kampfmittelräumdienst Rheinland-Pfalz (Bomb disposal team Rhineland-Palatinate) in Koblenz in Germany. Their work consists of the defusal and disposal of unexploded ordnance found in the German Bundesland Rheinland-Pfalz. We met with the head of the organization, Mr. Horst Lenz, with whom we discussed the search and disposal of unexploded ordnance and the possible role the TNT-sensing module of Electrace could play in that.

In Germany, still a lot of unexploded ordnance, mostly remnants from the second world war, is found. When a area of land is developed into a construction site, contractors have the possibility to screen the area for the possible presence of explosives. This screening was formerly done by the Kampfmittelräumdienst, but as of July 1st 2014, this part of their activities has been cut, a fact Mr. Lenz did not seem too sad about. Not very surprising, since this screening mostly consist of the tediously painstaking study of old photos taken by military planes. Nowadays, this screening is done by the private companies. “It is big business.” Mr. Lenz mentioned. “Private companies will ask between €2.500,- and €10.000,- for the screening of a single construction site, which comprises just doing historical review and taking a look on air photographs.”

Mr. Lenz showed us a large number of the photographs they have used for bomb screening purposes. The images were obtained from the British Air Force. Lenz: “After an air read, they flew over the area to take pictures and investigate if they had done there work right.” The images, which were of surprisingly high quality taking into account that they had been taken seventy years ago, showed parts of Germany just after being bombarded, displaying impact craters and destroyed buildings. In these pictures, one has to search for small dots indicating unexploded bombs. It is nearly impossible to deduce the presence or absence of bombs from these pictures with an acceptable degree of certainty. Lenz mentioned he felt “like a shaman hovering with his hands over the pictures to pick up signals” when he was searching for bombs on these pictures.

When it is suspected that a certain area contains bombs, the Kampfmittelräumdienst goes over there to thoroughly search the area for bombs with the use of a magnetometer. “Magnetometers sense changes in field lines of the earth’s magnetic field due to the metal in the bomb. A larger bomb has more influence on the magnetic field, but depth, position and shape also matter.” When a signal is picked up, the metal object has to be dug up. The signal often does not match with what is found: “Sometimes you expect a hand grenade, and you find a 250 pound bomb!” However most of the times a suspicious signal just comes from an iron bar or something like that.

Yet, the use of a magnetometer pose several difficulties. Altough, they can detect signals up to a depth of approximately 5 meters., much of the bombs lay at depths of around 10-15 meters and therefore cannot be found in this way. Lenz: “Although I’m not really convinced of the number, it is said that 30% of the bombs is missed by magnetometer searches.” “Current methods are not that satisfying that I can go to sleep well. Words like ‘maybe’ and ‘possibly’ are not in use by EOD specialists, because it is a matter of life and death.”

When a bomb is located, it has to be dug up. This is not without danger: “Some time ago, in our area of operation, more precisely in Ludwigshafen, a 500 pound bomb was hit with a drill, leading to the deflagration of the charge, which lifted the 80 t drilling device about 50 cm into the air. The machine operator was injured by glass shards. In Euskirchen (which is in Nordrhein-Westfalen, so another part of Germany and not in the area of operation), an excavator operator was killed by the deflagration of a 4000 pound bomb. In both cases, no employees of the Kmrd were involved.” When a bomb is excavated, in most cases the fuse is removed on site. Only in very special cases the bomb has to be detonated. The defused bombs are brought to a company where they are sawn open and where the explosive compounds are burned.

But why is bomb disposal necessary? “When bombs are in a forest or a field, they don’t pose a threat. But at a building site, in a city, they are a real danger when if they are hit.” Another danger is posed by spontaneously exploding bombs. “Under the influence of humidity and time, chemicals of the detonation mechanism can react with the metal of the bomb casing, which can cause spontaneous detonation.” A special type of bomb is particularly susceptible to spontaneous detonation. These are bombs designed to not explode on impact, but up to 144 hours afterwards. These were mostly used in WWII on industrial areas like the Ruhr Area. On impact, an ampoule filled with acetone is broken, which slowly degrades a piece of celluloid which holds a needle in place. This needle will hit the detonation mechanism when released, causing the explosion. However, this often has not worked as planned, and the bombs remain unexploded, with the risk of the needle coming off and causing detonating at a random moment.

Besides discussing the work of Mr. Lenz, we also discussed the TNT-sensing module of our project. Since land mines are not a real issue anymore in Europe (except from former Yugoslavia) and therefore not in the field of expertise of Mr. Lenz, we mostly discussed the detection of unexploded bombs. This kind of bombs is hermetically closed to keep water out, so Mr. Lenz was skeptical of the chances of TNT leaking out of the bombs, which is a necessity for our project. The types of bombs Mr. Lenz usually encounters have very thick metal casings (6 mm and thicker) and although they rust, it is very rare that corrosion forms spots where TNT can leak out. However, he mentioned that “a free lying bomb might emit some gaseous TNT, which can be detected, although it has very low concentration.” Another opportunity for TNT to leak out is through cracks in the bomb shell, which can arise when the bomb is dropped on a hard surface. Unfortunately for us, this is quite exceptional. Yet another way of the bomb emitting TNT is under stress our partial explosion, but this is very rare.

We can conclude from this that our TNT-sensing module will probably not be very suitable for the detection of unexploded ordnance. However, there are still possibilities for the detection of other kinds of explosives, which are not sealed that well.

Visit to the Explosieven Opruimingsdienst

The Explosieven Opruimingsdienst Defensie is a branch of the Dutch military responsible for the disposal of explosives in the Netherlands and on military missions. We learned from Luitenant Kolonel Bergman, commanding officer centre of expertise EODD, that our ELECTRACE system is particularly well suited for the detection of IEDs, since these usually leak a lot of TNT.

We visited the Explosieven Opruimingsdienst Defensie (EODD) in Soesterberg. The Explosieven Opruimingsdienst Defensie , which literally translates in Explosive cleanup service from the department of defense, is a branch of the Dutch military responsible for the disposal of explosives in the Netherlands and on military missions in foreign countries. We had a meeting with Luitenant Kolonel (Lieutenant-Colonel) Bergman, commanding officer centre of expertise EODD. We discussed the activities of the EODD, our landmine sensor and possible applications of the sensor in their operations.

“Our activities can be split in two equal parts,” Lt Col Bergman told us, “fifty percent national operations and fifty percent of what we call “out of area” operations. The national operations mostly consist of removing unexploded ordnance for World War II, but also the disposal of possible improvised explosive devices (IEDs) such as bags left at the airport with wires sticking out.” The discovery of unexploded ordnance still happens very often. In 2013, the EODD received 2300 notifications of such findings. “We have five teams on the road every day for the disposal of unexploded ordnance,” Lt Col Bergman mentioned. Those teams are available 24/7 to prevent the sometimes life-threatening situations that occur. Lt Col Bergman: “This work is not without danger. A colleague of mine lost a part of his arm when removing a bomb attached to a traffic enforcement camera.”

For the detection of unexploded ordnance in national operations, first a screening is done. This kind of area screening is mostly done in the preparation of large building projects. Such a procedure consist of the research of historic documentation and doing sample measurements with a metal detector. Bergman: “We increasingly also “walk in the area digitally”, making use of explosives detecting robots.”

For the out-of-area missions, people of the EODD are deployed in foreign countries (often war zones) to remove explosives hampering military operations or endangering civilians. “We have been active in recent conflicts such as the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Currently, people from the EODD assist special forces deployed in Mali, West-Africa. Also, the EODD is investigating the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 [plane with about 200 Dutch citizens shot down above the East of Ukraine], trying to resolve how and by whom the plane was shot down.”

“In Afghanistan we encountered a lot of IEDs,” Lt Col Bergman continued. “At first they were made with a lot of metal, which we could easily detect with a metal detector, but then the Taliban started to make IEDs with less or even no metal at all. This rendered our metal detectors useless, so we used dogs to detect the IEDs. Dogs are very good at detecting explosives, but the problem is that they indicate the main charge, while you would like to find the trigger.”

We were wondering if the “traditional landmine” was still in use, since you hear mostly about IEDs in the news. Unfortunately, it is: “Landmines are used in every conflict. Besides that, it takes a couple of seconds to lay a landmine but it might take decades to remove it. There is still a lot of trouble with landmines laid during the conflict in the Balkans and the war between Egypt and Israel.” Besides landmines, also cluster bombs provide a large threat. Cluster bombs are large bombs with many small mines/bombs inside; these small bombs are spread around the site of impact. Bergman: “About 10% of the bombs do not explode. In the case of a cluster bomb with 200 bombs in it, this means that twenty new landmine-like bombs are laid upon impact. In Iraq, where cluster bombs were heavily used, we usually found them by asking kids. They exactly knew where the bombs were, since the bombs marked the boundary of their football field.”

When telling Lt Col Bergman about our landmine sensor, he tells us: “The development of new landmine detection methods is a real business opportunity. Currently, there is no method that can say with 100% certainty that an area does or does not contain landmines. Therefore, a lot of new detectors are developed. We have an intensive collaboration with TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) to test them and buy only the best of the best.” We explained our project in more detail, especially how it is dependent on whether TNT leaks out of the bomb. After the meeting with Mr. Lenz from the Kampfmittelräumdienst, where he showed us how thick the shells of the bombs were they usually encountered (aircraft bombs), we had some doubt about the fact if TNT would leak out at all. Lt Col Bergman told us that for aircraft bombs, this is probably true, but that most other types of bombs have quite thin shells in which leaks occur easily. “IEDs are often made of jerry cans, which will always contain traces of explosive material inside and outside. Also landmines usually have very thin shells. These will have leaks, especially when they are in the ground for a while.” Lt Col Bergman showed us a truly enormous amount of different bombs to corroborate his statement (see photos).

From this, it seemed like the bombs that pose problems for our method, namely those with thick metal walls, are quite easy to find, and that the bombs which are more suited for our method (thin-walled bombs) usually have low metal content and are hard to find with current methods. Bergman confirms this: “The methods seem quite complementary.”

We asked Lt Col Bergman how important speed was for the detection of bombs, since promoter-based biosensors like ours are inherently slow. “When on out-of-area missions, we have to clear a route before a patrol drives there, so if the detection method is slow, we’re halting the whole convoy. However, if you can somehow spray your bacteria on the area the night before and this method would make the bombs clearly visible, it would be a great method.” Furthermore, Lt Col Bergman indicates that our method is well suited for screening of, for example, building sites.

Visit to PAX

We visited PAX, a Dutch peace organization which was until recently known as IKV Pax Christi. Here we met with Suzanne Oosterwijk, Programme Officer Security & Disarmament. With her, we discussed the “soft” side of the battle against landmines and cluster munitions, in which PAX is an important player, and the landmine detection module of our project.

PAX is one of the founding organizations of the Cluster Munitions Coalition (CMC) and has until very recently been a governance board member of the ICBL-CMC (merger between the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and CMC). PAX is still closely involved with the activities of this organization. “These coalitions are very diverse,” Ms. Oosterwijk tells us, “You have organizations involved in victim assistance, clearance and also organizations that are more focused on lobbying and research, all working together to create a world free of landmines and cluster munitions.”

“Our main focus is cluster munitions. We are very active in a disinvestment campaign, Stop Explosive Investment, which aims to prohibit the investment in companies which make cluster munitions. We also focus on the monitoring of compliance to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) and universalization of this treaty.” PAX has had particular success with their disinvestment campaign in the Netherlands: as of January 2013, investments in companies making cluster munitions are prohibited. “In the CCM, assistance to companies making cluster munitions is prohibited. In our view, investment is also assistance, but this is not explicitly stated in the CCM. We try to create a norm that investment in such companies is not-done, which might result in countries banning cluster munitions investments.”

Since the PAX campaign against cluster munitions is a very good example of how such organizations work, we discussed it in further detail. “It all started in 2007 with a controversial Zembla documentary ‘Het Clusterbom Gevoel’ (the cluster bomb feeling) on which we collaborated. This caused widespread civil unrest. Since then, we have provided MPs with input for anti-cluster munitions motions and did lobbying efforts at various ministries. We also publish a yearly report, Worldwide Investments in Cluster Munitions: A Shared Responsibility, in which we present a survey of financial institutions which invest in companies who make cluster munitions, or, on the other side, financials who have very good practices concerning cluster munitions; you could call it a naming-and-shaming approach.” In the end, the campaign resulted in the Netherlands becoming one of the first countries to prohibit investments in companies making cluster munitions.

The Stop Explosive Investments campaign is not only important as a means to create a cluster munitions-free world: “We try to establish a precedent in international humanitarian law that investments are seen as assistance, so that when for example a treaty against nuclear weapons comes along, signees are forced to ban investments in nuclear weapons.”

We were wondering why the ICBL and the CMC, involved in what appear to be the quite distinct subject of respectively landmines and cluster munitions, joined forces. Ms. Oosterwijk explains: “You should realize that the Mine Ban Treaty (MBT) is very unique. It’s a great case of civil diplomacy, since it was instigated not by the UN but by a group of benevolent countries in cooperation with civil society, international organizations, military experts, etc. . The goal is to end humanitarian suffering. The CCM is based on the LMT. The humanitarian imperative is the same and the texts are largely identical. Both treaties include provisions to end use and production of the weapons and also for the destruction of stockpiles of those weapons. Besides that, both landmines and cluster munitions are weapons adhering to the no distinction principle, which means that they are not aimed at a specific target, but kill people, soldiers and civilians alike, at random. Also, when sub munitions of a cluster bomb do not explode, they turn into de facto landmines. Because of that, it is logical that the ICBL and the CMC combined their efforts.”

Because landmines are not such a hot topic in the news anymore as a couple of years ago, we asked if the issue is as good as solved. “In the run up to the Mine Ban Treaty, the problem was huge. Over 20.000 people died per year, as a direct result of landmines. However, the BMT is near universal now, so most countries do not have, produce or use landmines anymore. The near-universality of the treaty also impacts the unaffiliated countries, since landmines are a stigma nowadays; there is a universal norm not to use landmines. You can compare it to the attitude towards chemical weapons: when Assad decided to use these, this was universally disapproved. This stigmatization is why the universalization of the cluster munitions treaty is of the utmost importance.”

The success of the Mine Ban Treaty however has not caused eradication of the use of land mines. “Still every year people die because of landmines. The numbers are not comparable to those of before the landmine treaty, but every casualty is one too much. Landmines have recently been used in the conflict in Syria, by the FARC in Colombia and in Yemen. We have also received reports of the use of landmines and cluster bombs in the conflict in Ukraine. However, these are not verified and it should be noted that there is a propaganda war going on there as well: because of the stigmatization, claiming that the opposing party uses landmines is great propaganda.”

We also discussed the particular position the United States have with respect to landmines: “The US haven’t signed the Mine Ban treaty, despite years of encouragement. However, they are by far the world’s biggest donor for landmine removal and victim aid. They don’t use and produce landmines for years, and they even stated that it is their goal to sign the treaty ‘in due time’. I speculate that the fact that they want to reserve the right to use them is related to a possible conflict between North and South Korea.”

After we explained our project in quite some detail, Ms. Oosterwijk wondered whether our system would be able to precisely mark the location of landmines. “Many new methods to search for landmines have been developed, such as the use of dogs and rats, but in practice everybody still uses metal detectors, because these are the only devices which can precisely locate the landmines” We explained that, although precise localization will probably not be possible, our device can be used for screening purposes and that it will be especially strong in the detection of IEDs, which are currently hard to find due to low metal content. “If you get it working the way you envision, we will probably pop some champagne corks here at PAX!”

Finally, we asked whether or not a device like ours would pose a dilemma for PAX, since on the one hand it would be a step in solving the landmine problem, but on the other hand it involves synthetic biology, which might be conflicting with the Christian roots of PAX (Parent organizations IKV, which stands for interkerkelijk vredesberaad (interdenominational peace council), and Pax Christi, which is rooted in the Catholic Church, where both Christian organizations). “It would surprise me. PAX works on the basis of two central values of peace in conflict areas: human dignity; solidarity with peace activists and victims of war violence, so a world without landmines and cluster munitions. We are fully focused to fulfill that endeavor, so we would be very happy with any opportunity to do this. The requirements are implementability, economical feasibility and it should be comprehensive. Discussions that might arise from a method like yours are to be dealt with when they come.”

Report RIVM meeting "Verantwoord omgaan met Synthetische Biologie"

The RIVM, which stands for RijksInstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), in collaboration with the Rathenau Institute, which promotes the formation of political and public opinion on science and technology, has organized a meeting concerning synthetic biology. The title of the meeting was Verantwoord omgaan met Synthetische Biologie: Wat is het en wat zijn de kansen en mogelijkheden (Dealing responsibly with synthetic biology: what is it, and what are the chances and possibilities). The attendants of the meeting were mostly policymakers from various departments of the RIVM, involved in synbio legislation and related subjects such as biobased economy. The goal of the meeting was to inform the attendants about synbio and to start the discussion on if and how the current policy concerning synbio needs to be changed.

All four Dutch iGEM teams were invited to present their project and host a discussion about the policy&practice-aspects of their project. We were asked to use our project as a specific case study. This provided the attendants with an opportunity to discuss the specific problems concerning a real-life project, instead of the more common general, very non-specific discussion which is usually conducted. For us, this provided the opportunity to discuss real-life implementation of our ELECTRACE project with a large amount of specialists at once. In this report, a summary of the discussion we hosted will be given.

At the start of the meeting, Tomek and Duco gave a presentation in which they explained what iGEM was and explained what our ELECTRACE project entails. The main focus of the presentation was to show that currently, lots of different synbio applications are developed, but that there are still no (consumer) products. They explained how, by enabling biosensor applications outside the lab, our ELECTRACE system is able to change this. We described our end product, a cheap, generic biosensor on a chip, designed for use outside the lab, and asked the question “how do we get from a working prototype to a commercial end product?”

The ensuing discussion started off, as expected, with safety issues concerning the use of GMOs outside a safe lab environment. The question was raised how to prevent a release of GMOs in the environment and to what degree this would be harmful. After explaining the possible implementation of kill switches and the fact that our (and most other) GMOs are crippled versions of lab strains which will not be able to survive in nature and have an evolutionary disadvantage, a certain degree of consensus was reached: the possible release of GMOs in the environment is not as big a safety issue as it seems and should not stop the development of outside-the-lab-applications when the pros outweigh the cons. This viewpoint strongly contrasted with the current Dutch legislature, which forbids the (possible) release of GMOs in the environment, and would therefore render the application of the ELECTRACE system impossible. The call was made that the current GMO policy needs to be reconsidered, possibly by providing the opportunity for case-by-case approval decisions.

The point was raised that the legislative discussion is largely technocratic, but that in order to reach acceptance of synbio in society, the discussion should be conducted at a societal, ethical and even emotional level. This currently goes wrong, since although the questions asked are on the societal, ethical level, the answers given by the scientists are largely technical. Various strategies to raise the acceptance of synbio were discussed.

One of the most interesting findings of the discussion was that, in order to reach more acceptance, (synbio) innovation should not be stand-alone, but incorporated in processes. When synbio innovations are used to solve important issues, this would increase the acceptance. In this context, it was mentioned that the synbio solution should clearly be better and cheaper than other (non-synbio) solutions. A demonstrable benefit for the end user is essential.

In order to reach aforementioned problem-based development of synthetic biology, it is necessary to bring together the people with the problem, investors, scientists and commercial parties to develop an application. The call for such a interdisciplinary platform was widely supported and one of the main conclusions, not only of our own discussion but also of meeting as a whole.

Another interesting topic raised was the way synbio should be communicated to the general public. When selling ELECTRACE, should you focus on the fact that it uses synthetic biology or on the application? In this context, a comparison was made to the introduction of nanotechnology. Possibly hazardous nanoparticles are an ingredient of suntan oil, but this is not stressed, and public concerns are not an issue. However, there is a thin line between “not stressing” and deliberately selling false information, and therefore this might not be the best approach.

Another approach would be to strive for total openness; this is the open-source development approach used by iGEM and the scientific community. Several drawbacks of this approach were discussed. Firstly, following the proverb “Let sleeping dogs lie”, stressing all the scientific details might provoke protests that otherwise wouldn’t happen. Next to that, and more importantly, open-source development might inhibit commercial development, since it does not fit well in the current business models.

In synthetic biology communication, framing was found to be a big issue. The term GMO was found to be so “contaminated” in public perception that its use should be averted altogether. The term synthetic biology scores a bit better, but still evokes negative associations. An important goal should be to find a term with a very positive ring to it. Another solution could be to sell something which evokes good associations (a particularly good synbio application like a cure for ebola) while stressing that it is synthetic biology, to change the perception of the term.

The main conclusion of the discussion was that in order to get synthetic biology accepted, a clearly beneficial real-life application is needed. Our ELECTRACE system could play a big part in this by enabling biosensors to be used outside the lab. To make such an application possible, a change in legislature, a different innovation process, and a different way of communication, is needed.

Report NPA meeting

To familiarize ourselves with the current methods used for landmine detection and to understand better the upsides and downsides of these methods, we got in contact with NPA (Norwegian People’s Aid http://www.npaid.org/).Mr. Justin Brady kindly accepted our invitation and visited our office on 3rd of September.

Mr. Justin Brandy is a senior adviser for NPA and is based now in the Netherlands. Previously he was the head of the United Nations Mine Action Service in New York, having a vast experience in this field. The NPA in active in different countries, covering: Asia, Europe, Middle East, Africa, and South America. They got a lot of advocacy work to prohibit landmines and cluster munitions. Furthermore, their works expands also to explosive remnants from war (ERW).

They rely primary on manual demining, using metal detection methods, partially also due to costs. In countries where they are active the labor is quite cheap and this represents also a productive way to put people back to society. In addition, they have also a very large dog programme, being one of the leaders in using the canine detection. They also used to supply dogs to other programmes. Yet, dogs have several limitations, mainly due to the environmental conditions (eg. heat as well as the terrain where they are working on).

There are also other efforts for landmines detections. There is a tool sensor which uses a ground penetrating reader and a metal detector. However, this is not commonly used due to the fact that is quite expensive. Another experiment is a plant that reacts to nitrogen, turning into a specific color. But, this is subjected also to some limitations. Another experiment for detection was by using bees. In the end this was classified as an inefficient method.

Apart from asking about the current used methods, we also asked more details about the process itself. Mr. Brady exemplified on one of their most recent works in Lebanon –where they are doing battle area clearance from the 2006 war. They tend to have a team of nine people going out early morning, coming back mid-day. The limitations of this approach: once they fund something, need to deal with national authorities that regulate that.

The most efficient method: the tool box –manual deming represents “the bread and butter” of what they do, although is not as fast as dogs and machines (flails, rollers) are also employed, mostly to discount areas. The first challenge is that they are given a very large area and delineating it down takes some time. Therefore, the first step is discounting the initial area to get to the area where the actual problem is they go with a manual team for the surface clearance.

Typically a single demander –one man lane can clear approximately 25 square meters per day, up to 50 square meters depending on the conditions. Anything beyond this number is questionable in terms of safety, comprehensiveness and accuracy. In addition, the soil type impacts the number of false positives.

To overcome the dog usage limitations, there are experiments with loose free range dogs. This implies, not keeping them on the line, and thus bringing some versatility. In the current methods they are boxing the area. Moreover, one organization is using rats for detection. The idea is similar as the dogs for the detection method. However, “at the end the day they are back to one man detection”. There are areas that are so contaminated that goes directly to excavation, according to the standards.

We asked Mr. Brady if the current methods suffice. His main answer was that methods that are faster would be great. For instance, he gave an example about a South African Company that takes their samples across instead of brining the dogs. That has been useful to overcome the limitations of the dogs, but not completely.

There have been tweaks on the way landmines detection is done, but no major leaps on speed and versatility were achieved yet. Speed, versatility and maintaining the safety standards are some of the most important elements that need to be taken into account in the detection method.

In addition, when dealing with landmines clearance there are also several social limitations: poor infrastructure, low level of education of the workers, due to the fact they don’t have great exposure to technology. Another problem is posed by the heavy machinery. Mr. Brady recalled cases on Angola, where the equipment was not able to arrive at the field.

In addition, the equipment consumes a lot of fuel and with metal detections battery life represents an issue. These are small things, but they tend to become obstacles in the long-run.

NPA has a Humanitarian department. What brings them to a particularly country has to deal with the urgency, ability to raise funds, humanitarian impact. Priorities are brought from outside. Within the countries there is coordination done trough national authorities and United Nations to make sure there are no redundancies in the process.

Mr. Brady mentioned also about the Global Landmines survey Initiative. This was supposed to be an impact survey and get some sense of the impact. Yet, the number of the affected area is not 100% accurate as they were coming back with exaggerated areas. For instance in Yemen were identified over 900 square kilometers. They were taking into account only the face value, and in the end it turned out being smaller. Demining technical people where involved to bring the numbers down ( and was possible to up to 20%). This urges to work with technical people and then delineate the area. The results of the survey are available online. The database that is used in all mines programmes is the Information Management System for Mine Action.

Because we wanted to have a cost-benefit analysis of our device, ELECTRACE used in order to detect landmines, we asked about the current typical prices for the detection method. We found out that the target price for screening the area is less than 1 dollar per square meter, including all the costs: logistics, administration costs, etc. However, in some cases can go beyond this value, or could be more expensive, depending on the locations. For instance, in Cyprus the costs were higher due to the fact is a more developed country.

A notable aspect to mention here is the huge amount of square meters that have to be initially detected. For instance in the initial survey 100.0000 square meters are identified; this is brought down trough triangulation of data, to 20.000 square meters. There are square meters included by other organizations, that shouldn’t be included and should be discarded from the beginning.

Next, we asked the opinion about using ELECTRACE as a detection system for landmines and how feasible would be to detect landmines by taking samples from the groundwater were the samples are supposed to leak. Mr. Brady confirmed that there is a leakage, but that is difficult to attach a number to it, or to say how much. However, our sensorial system will work on the same principle as the dog detection. What is sure is that there is enough leakage, as none of them are 100% sealed. But how much goes into the soil and can be detectable in the ground water is hard to say. Yet, Mr. Brady see our device as a great potential to identify areas where there is contamination and then that area can l be further process. Currently there is a long process trying to discard areas, if there would be a device that can tell about the contamination and quickly discount areas, and the effort could go toward areas where there are heavy contaminations.

To conclude the interview, we asked his opinion about using the synthetic biology approach to detect landmines. The response was positive and encouraging: “If we can get a tool that can help people ( …) personally I don’t foresee any principle objections from the community at all ”.

Desk study concerning landmines

What is a landmine?

A land mine is a bomb that is buried in the ground and that explodes when someone steps on it or drives over it [1]. It can lay dormant for years until a person or animal triggers their detonating mechanism. Land mines cannot be aimed and therefore indiscriminately injure or kill not only their targets but also innocent civilians [2].

Types of landmines

There are two main types of land mines: Anti-personnel (AP) mines and anti-tank (AT) mines. Anti-personnel mines are specifically designed to reroute or push back foot soldiers. These mines carry enough explosive material to kill or disable their victim. They can be activated by pressure, a tripwire or remote detonation.

Additionaly, There are three main types of AP mines that can be divided as following [3]:

• Blast mine: This type of mine is usually buried only a few centimeters beneath the surface and is activated by a pressure plate. It is designed to destroy an object in close proximity and to break it into fragments to cause secondary damage.
• Bounding mine: This type of mine is propelled to a height of approximately one meter when triggered, before the main charge is ignited. In this way, it damages the vital parts of the victim instead of the legs.
• Fragmentation mine: This type of mine releases sharp fragments in all directions when activated. It is able to cause injury at distances up to 200 meters away and kill at closer distances. The fragments used in the mines are either metal or glass. Fragmentation mines can be bounding or ground-based.

Anti-tank mines function in a similaressentially the same way as AP mines, but the pressure needed to detonate them and the amount of explosive material is several times bigger. AT mines are capable of destroying tanks or armored vehicles and kill the people in or around it [3].

Use of landmines

Land mines as we know them today where first used during the first world warFirst World War as defense against tanks. These mines where very large and easy to detect. Often enemy soldiers would remove the mines for their own use. To prevent this, the first anti-personnel mines were developed[4]. The use of land mines as an important offensive and defensive weapon started in World War II [5]. The use of land mines reached its peak in the Cold War, especially in the conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan[6].

The use of land mines provides military strategist with the ability to provide a defensive barrier around vulnerable sites and utilities, channel enemy troops into a unmined area where themselves would be vulnerable to attack, deny the enemy access to utilities they might need, even after those placing the mines have withdrawn, and assist in surprise attacks and ambushes[5]. Originally, land mines were laid in clearly marked fields. However, the use of land mines shifted from use against military targets to use against civilians, in order to terrorize communities and prevent population movement. For this purposecase, mines were placed at random locations without any specific pattern [7].

Why are landmines a problem?

Since the end of the Cold War and the implementation of the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, the use of land mines has sharply declined. Also, the production (in almost every country) and trade in land mines has come to a standstill. However, land mines still pose a large humanitarian problem. There are two main reasons for this. First, In some conflicts, land mines are still used in several conflicts. Secondly and eEvven more importantly, large areas of former war zones are contaminated with unexploded land mines, which continue to cause (civilian) casualties on a daily basis [7].

Ongoing use and production of landmines

Due to the Ottawa Convention, most countries have stopped the production and use of landmines. However, there are still eleven countries who continue to produce mines or reserve the right to do so. These countries are: China, Cuba, India, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, and Vietnam. Of those, four were actively manufacturing antipersonnel mines in 2012: India, Myanmar, Pakistan, and South Korea. The United States have recently (27 June 2014) declared a change of Mine Ban stance, announcing that they are planning to join the Mine Ban Treaty in the future and that they will not produce antipersonnel mines[7].

New antipersonnel landmines have been laid in recent years in Yemen (a State Party of the Mine Ban Treaty), apparently by government forces. There are also allegations that State Parties South Sudan, Sudan and Turkey have used antipersonnel mines. From the countries who have not signed the treaty, the governments of Syria and Myanmar have made use of landmines in 2012 and 2013. Mines are also placed by non-state armed groups (rebel armies, terrorists) in Afghanistan, Colombia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, and Yemen. In this case, the used devices are usually not “real” landmines, but victim-activated improvised explosive devices [8].

Old landmines and explosive remnants of war

Mines emplaced during a conflict can still kill or injure civilians decades later. Next to that, after a conflict, areas remain contaminated with explosive remnants of war (ERW). These are explosive weapons that somehow failed to detonate and are left behind. They pose dangers similar to landmines. These weapons continue to cause casualties long after the conflict has ended, and they hamper development and post-conflict reconstruction. Large stretches of land cannot be cultivated, medical systems are drained of resources by the cost of helping landmine/ERW casualties, and money must be spend on clearing mines instead of, for example education [8].

The amount of mine contamination as of October 2013 is shown in figure 1. As depicted in the figure, the most affected countries are current (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,Palestine) or former (Vietnam, Cambodia, the Balkans) war zones[9].

An example of the impact of old landmines and ERW is Vietnam. Although the Vietnam War is already over for decades, Vietnam is still suffering from the large-scale use of landmines during that conflict. In the period 1999-2012, landmines caused 1683 casualties, of which 630 were killed [8]. Another example of this problem can be found in the Balkans. Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina recently (May 2014) suffered major flooding. Due to landslides caused by this flood, landmines from the Bosnian War (1992-1995) resurfaced and dislodged, adding to the dangers of people living in the areas as well as rescuers [10][11].

Survey of casuaties

In 2012, a total of 3628 mine/ERW