Team:MIT/Medals
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
(16 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<tr><td><h3 align="center" style="font-size:42px; color:teal; text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px black"><b> MEDALS </b></h3><br></td></tr> | <tr><td><h3 align="center" style="font-size:42px; color:teal; text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px black"><b> MEDALS </b></h3><br></td></tr> | ||
+ | <tr><td><p style="font-size:12px" align=center><i>Attributions: Alexa Garcia, Christian Richardson</i></p></td></tr> | ||
<tr><td align=center> <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/8f/MIT_2014_medals_icon.png"> </td></tr> | <tr><td align=center> <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/8/8f/MIT_2014_medals_icon.png"> </td></tr> | ||
Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
<dd>We have collaborated with several other registered iGEM teams, providing and receiving assistance in various aspects of our projects. Such collaborations include: | <dd>We have collaborated with several other registered iGEM teams, providing and receiving assistance in various aspects of our projects. Such collaborations include: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
- | <li><i>WPI iGEM Team</i> - We performed confocal microscopy data collection for the WPI iGEM team, to aid with the characterization of their parts</li> | + | <li><i>WPI iGEM Team</i> - We performed <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:WPI-Worcester/Collaborations" style="color:teal">confocal microscopy data collection </a>for the WPI iGEM team, to aid with the characterization of their parts <br><p align=center><img width=40% src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/4/40/MIT_collaboration_WPI_Microscopy.jpg"></li> |
<li><i>Tufts iGEM Team</i> - Both the MIT and Tufts iGEM teams administered surveys in order to obtain public opinion on certain aspects of our projects. We handed out a proportion of the Tufts iGEM’s surveys, and they in turn distributed several copies of our survey. This aided both teams by increasing the number and diversity of respondents and making the data collected more representative of the general population.</li></dd></dl></li> | <li><i>Tufts iGEM Team</i> - Both the MIT and Tufts iGEM teams administered surveys in order to obtain public opinion on certain aspects of our projects. We handed out a proportion of the Tufts iGEM’s surveys, and they in turn distributed several copies of our survey. This aided both teams by increasing the number and diversity of respondents and making the data collected more representative of the general population.</li></dd></dl></li> | ||
Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
<br> To address this, we designed a public opinion survey, which aimed to determine what method of delivery would cause the least public outcry and be able to be administered as a therapeutic to the largest majority of people. | <br> To address this, we designed a public opinion survey, which aimed to determine what method of delivery would cause the least public outcry and be able to be administered as a therapeutic to the largest majority of people. | ||
The survey data was useful and provided results akin to those we expected. In general, people are more comfortable with less invasive methods of delivery. This lead to design decisions for our project that are compatible with viral delivery to neurons, that would be (theoretically) administered via blood injection. | The survey data was useful and provided results akin to those we expected. In general, people are more comfortable with less invasive methods of delivery. This lead to design decisions for our project that are compatible with viral delivery to neurons, that would be (theoretically) administered via blood injection. | ||
- | <br> This survey could be easily modified and used for any project considering the public opinion of their research/science. It includes several set-up and gating questions, and is short, simple and quick. More details about our survey may be found <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/ | + | <br> This survey could be easily modified and used for any project considering the public opinion of their research/science. It includes several set-up and gating questions, and is short, simple and quick. More details about our survey may be found <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Wiki/2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Survey" style="color:teal"> here</a>.</dd></dl></li> |
</ol> | </ol> | ||
</tr></td> | </tr></td> | ||
Line 36: | Line 37: | ||
<li><dl> | <li><dl> | ||
<dt><b>Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick part or device of your own design and construction works as expected</b></dt> | <dt><b>Experimentally validate that at least one new BioBrick part or device of your own design and construction works as expected</b></dt> | ||
- | <dd>We have verified that the miR | + | <dd>We have verified that the miR 125b high sensor works as expected - supporting data can be found <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Parts" style="color:teal"> here</a>.</dd></dl></li> |
<li><dl> | <li><dl> | ||
<dt><b>Document the characterization of this part in the “Main Page” section of that part’s/device’s Registry entry</b></dt> | <dt><b>Document the characterization of this part in the “Main Page” section of that part’s/device’s Registry entry</b></dt> | ||
- | <dd>We have documented our miR | + | <dd>We have documented our miR 125b high sensor and all supporting data on the Main Parts Page of the iGEM Parts Registry, as seen <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Parts" style="color:teal"> here</a>.</dd></dl></li> |
<li><dl> | <li><dl> | ||
<dt><b>Submit this new part to the iGEM Parts Registry</b></dt> | <dt><b>Submit this new part to the iGEM Parts Registry</b></dt> | ||
- | <dd>We have submitted the miR | + | <dd>We have submitted the miR 125b high sensor to the iGEM Parts Registry</dd></dl></li> |
<li><dl> | <li><dl> | ||
Line 50: | Line 51: | ||
<dd><i>Q: How will we deliver our system into the human body?</i> | <dd><i>Q: How will we deliver our system into the human body?</i> | ||
<br> A: This question arose at the beginning of our research journey, and continued to affect the direction of our project over the subsequent months. As a potential therapy for Alzheimer’s disease, our system would have to somehow be inserted into the human body. We considered several aspects of this process, and though we would never be performing it ourselves, we sought to design our system such that the safest, most effective, and most publicly acceptable method of delivery would be used. | <br> A: This question arose at the beginning of our research journey, and continued to affect the direction of our project over the subsequent months. As a potential therapy for Alzheimer’s disease, our system would have to somehow be inserted into the human body. We considered several aspects of this process, and though we would never be performing it ourselves, we sought to design our system such that the safest, most effective, and most publicly acceptable method of delivery would be used. | ||
- | <br> We began by interviewing professionals in the field of neuroscience and Alzheimer’s disease (see | + | <br> We began by interviewing professionals in the field of neuroscience and Alzheimer’s disease (see <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Interviews" style="color:teal"> Interviews</a>). Armed with the industry opinion and our own research, we designed various methods of delivery and considered the pros and cons of each. |
- | <br> We also considered the necessity of public approval of the system for it to be effective as a therapeutic. This led to the formulation of our <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/ | + | <br> We also considered the necessity of public approval of the system for it to be effective as a therapeutic. This led to the formulation of our <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Wiki/2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Survey" style="color:teal"> public opinion survey</a>. |
<br> Ultimately, these considerations aided us in designing the system that we have developed. We targeted the path of neuron delivery, but also explored numerous other delivery options.</dd></dl></li> | <br> Ultimately, these considerations aided us in designing the system that we have developed. We targeted the path of neuron delivery, but also explored numerous other delivery options.</dd></dl></li> | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
Line 77: | Line 78: | ||
<li><dl> | <li><dl> | ||
<dt><b>The description of each project must clearly attribute work done by the students and distinguish it from work done by others, including host labs, advisors, instructors, sponsors, professional website designers, artists, and commercial services</b></dt> | <dt><b>The description of each project must clearly attribute work done by the students and distinguish it from work done by others, including host labs, advisors, instructors, sponsors, professional website designers, artists, and commercial services</b></dt> | ||
- | <dd>We have compiled a complete list of <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/ | + | <dd>We have compiled a complete list of <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Actually_Attributions" style="color:teal"> attributions </a></dd></dl></li> |
<li><dl> | <li><dl> | ||
- | <dt><b>Document at least one new standard BioBrick | + | <dt><b>Document at least one new standard BioBrick part or device used in your project/central to your project and submit this part to the iGEM Registry </b></dt> |
<dd> We have created, documented and submitted a variety of new parts (see our <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Parts" style="color:teal"> Parts </a> page) | <dd> We have created, documented and submitted a variety of new parts (see our <a href="https://2014.igem.org/Team:MIT/Parts" style="color:teal"> Parts </a> page) | ||
</dd></dl></li> | </dd></dl></li> | ||
Line 91: | Line 92: | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
- | |||
</html> | </html> |
Latest revision as of 03:09, 18 October 2014
Home | Our Project | Lab Work | Outreach | About Us | Medals |
MEDALS | |
Attributions: Alexa Garcia, Christian Richardson | |
Gold Medal | |
| |
Silver Medal | |
| |
Bronze Medal | |
| |