Team:Cambridge/Safety

From 2009.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Safety)
(Safety)
Line 3: Line 3:
= Safety =
= Safety =
-
TODO!
+
The Cambridge 2009 iGEM team took safety considerations seriously throughout our project.  One of our supervisors, Jim Ajioka, is a Safety Officer in the Department of Pathology, so we were able to discuss with him the potential impact of our ideas. Additionally, we followed Cambridge University safety regulations in the lab.
-
  1. Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of:
+
In assessing the risks involved with our work in the lab, we adhered to the safety guidelines set by the Cambridge University School of Biological Sciences Biological Safety Committee. We completed a “COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) Risk Assessement of a Project involving Biological Agents” form, in which we assessed our work from a dangerous pathogens point of view and from a genetically modified organism point of view. 
-
          * researcher safety,
+
-
          * public safety, or
+
-
          * environmental safety?
+
-
  2. Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
+
-
  3. What does your local biosafety group think about your project?
+
-
  4. Do any of the new BioBrick parts that you made this year raise any safety issues?
+
-
          * If yes, did you document these issues in the Registry?
+
 +
From the dangerous pathogens point of view, the biological agents we worked with are a derivative of E. coli K-12.  While E. coli can be a dangerous pathogen, E. coli K-12 is multiply disabled.  Because it maintains several genetic deletions for nutritional genes, it will not survive outside the lab and will not compete with normal human or other animal flora.  It is an ADCP Hazard Group 1 organism and can be used under UK designation containment level 1 regulations – in summary, use of good microbiological practice, disinfectants (70% ethanol, TriGene), and known disposal routes (autoclaving); suitable protection (lab coats and gloves); and limited lab access. 
-
<!--Do not remove the first and last lines in this page!-->{{Template:CambridgeBottom}}
+
From a genetically modified organism point of view, our project came under the umbrella of a Genetic Manipulation Project for Cloning in E. coli in Dr. Jim Haseloff’s lab.  We worked with non-mobilizable plasmids, and the genes we worked with produce products with known properties.  We assessed that there is no significant hazard regarding the bioavailability of our pigment products.

Revision as of 14:54, 20 October 2009


Safety

The Cambridge 2009 iGEM team took safety considerations seriously throughout our project. One of our supervisors, Jim Ajioka, is a Safety Officer in the Department of Pathology, so we were able to discuss with him the potential impact of our ideas. Additionally, we followed Cambridge University safety regulations in the lab.

In assessing the risks involved with our work in the lab, we adhered to the safety guidelines set by the Cambridge University School of Biological Sciences Biological Safety Committee. We completed a “COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) Risk Assessement of a Project involving Biological Agents” form, in which we assessed our work from a dangerous pathogens point of view and from a genetically modified organism point of view.

From the dangerous pathogens point of view, the biological agents we worked with are a derivative of E. coli K-12. While E. coli can be a dangerous pathogen, E. coli K-12 is multiply disabled. Because it maintains several genetic deletions for nutritional genes, it will not survive outside the lab and will not compete with normal human or other animal flora. It is an ADCP Hazard Group 1 organism and can be used under UK designation containment level 1 regulations – in summary, use of good microbiological practice, disinfectants (70% ethanol, TriGene), and known disposal routes (autoclaving); suitable protection (lab coats and gloves); and limited lab access.

From a genetically modified organism point of view, our project came under the umbrella of a Genetic Manipulation Project for Cloning in E. coli in Dr. Jim Haseloff’s lab. We worked with non-mobilizable plasmids, and the genes we worked with produce products with known properties. We assessed that there is no significant hazard regarding the bioavailability of our pigment products.