"
Team:British Columbia/Team/Gallery
From 2014.igem.org
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Our Darwin's Metals project received praise from the judges for the clearly defined mining problem we are attempting to create an iGEM solution for, our original concept, biotechnological feasibility, and environmental and economic relevance. Another much appreciated element of our project was our proposal to introduce additional functionality to the BIOBRICK registry. Our suggestion was to introduce a tracking feature to monitor the sustainability of individual BIOBRICKS, tracking each new application and sequence change for popular BIOBRICKS with demonstrated histories of development and successful implementation within industry. This particular proposed “Human Practices” effort was well-received because the current BIOBRICK registry doesn't provide means for tracking evolution of the “most sustainable” BIOBRICKS as they are altered under the direction of different iGEM teams and research labs over many years. </p><br/> | Our Darwin's Metals project received praise from the judges for the clearly defined mining problem we are attempting to create an iGEM solution for, our original concept, biotechnological feasibility, and environmental and economic relevance. Another much appreciated element of our project was our proposal to introduce additional functionality to the BIOBRICK registry. Our suggestion was to introduce a tracking feature to monitor the sustainability of individual BIOBRICKS, tracking each new application and sequence change for popular BIOBRICKS with demonstrated histories of development and successful implementation within industry. This particular proposed “Human Practices” effort was well-received because the current BIOBRICK registry doesn't provide means for tracking evolution of the “most sustainable” BIOBRICKS as they are altered under the direction of different iGEM teams and research labs over many years. </p><br/> | ||
| - | <p>Constructive criticism mainly revolved around the performance issues surrounding our last-minute-prepared presentation, mainly related to transitions between presenters, and particular slides with communication issues. We also received advice on the different stages of our project, and how we could arrange our project into modules of successive experimental stages. One significant remark on our theoretical model (during a chalkboard elaboration of our intended chemical floatation context) inspired us to reconsider the prioritization of sinking versus floating of targeted minerals. </p> | + | <p> |
| + | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/e/e1/Ubc_Calgary_p2_resized.jpg" height="" width="700" style="float: right"/> | ||
| + | Constructive criticism mainly revolved around the performance issues surrounding our last-minute-prepared presentation, mainly related to transitions between presenters, and particular slides with communication issues. We also received advice on the different stages of our project, and how we could arrange our project into modules of successive experimental stages. One significant remark on our theoretical model (during a chalkboard elaboration of our intended chemical floatation context) inspired us to reconsider the prioritization of sinking versus floating of targeted minerals. </p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 05:49, 13 October 2014
Gallery
Trip to Calgary aGEM 2014
On September 13, 2014 we made a trip to Calgary to present our iGEM project, “Darwin's Metals”, at geekStarter/Alberta Innovates Technology Futures, hosted at the University of Calgary. This annual gathering of Canadian iGEM and BIOMOD teams provided us with effective constructive feedback on our presentation and our scientific theory from a panel of North American iGEM judges, before the major international iGEM 2014 jamboree in Boston on November 1st.
Our Darwin's Metals project received praise from the judges for the clearly defined mining problem we are attempting to create an iGEM solution for, our original concept, biotechnological feasibility, and environmental and economic relevance. Another much appreciated element of our project was our proposal to introduce additional functionality to the BIOBRICK registry. Our suggestion was to introduce a tracking feature to monitor the sustainability of individual BIOBRICKS, tracking each new application and sequence change for popular BIOBRICKS with demonstrated histories of development and successful implementation within industry. This particular proposed “Human Practices” effort was well-received because the current BIOBRICK registry doesn't provide means for tracking evolution of the “most sustainable” BIOBRICKS as they are altered under the direction of different iGEM teams and research labs over many years.
Constructive criticism mainly revolved around the performance issues surrounding our last-minute-prepared presentation, mainly related to transitions between presenters, and particular slides with communication issues. We also received advice on the different stages of our project, and how we could arrange our project into modules of successive experimental stages. One significant remark on our theoretical model (during a chalkboard elaboration of our intended chemical floatation context) inspired us to reconsider the prioritization of sinking versus floating of targeted minerals.
