Team:USTC Software/Why

From 2009.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(→Why)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
=Why=
+
__NOTOC__
-
 
+
{{USTCSW_Heading}}
 +
{|-
 +
|valign = "top"|
 +
{{USTCSW_SideBarL}}
 +
|valign = "top" align = "justify" border = "0" width = "600px"|
 +
{|
 +
<br />
 +
<font size = "5">Why?</font>
 +
----
 +
|-
 +
|valign = "top" align = "justify" border = "0" width = "600px" bgcolor = "#F3F3F3"|
These computational tools (figure 1) are designed to facilitate the scientists in wet lab in purpose of saving time and cost. On the other hand, no matter synthetic biology standardization or biobricks registry maintenance, they provide powerful tools for engineering biological systems in lab even in future industrial factories. In other words, all the current efforts are put to serve the scientists and could never replace the intelligence of human beings who design the experiments and model.  
These computational tools (figure 1) are designed to facilitate the scientists in wet lab in purpose of saving time and cost. On the other hand, no matter synthetic biology standardization or biobricks registry maintenance, they provide powerful tools for engineering biological systems in lab even in future industrial factories. In other words, all the current efforts are put to serve the scientists and could never replace the intelligence of human beings who design the experiments and model.  
-
 
-
[[Image:USTC_Software.png|right|300px|thumb|Computational_Software]]
 
Is it possible to move further to the steps of intelligence? Is it possible to generate the design protocol and list feasible biobricks? Is it possible to make a biological networks design a funny game even for laymen who know little about synthetic biology? Not that further, is it possible to suggest different topologies of network that can achieve desired functions? Is it possible to tune an existing network to perform new functions? Is it possible to make a biological network more robust?  
Is it possible to move further to the steps of intelligence? Is it possible to generate the design protocol and list feasible biobricks? Is it possible to make a biological networks design a funny game even for laymen who know little about synthetic biology? Not that further, is it possible to suggest different topologies of network that can achieve desired functions? Is it possible to tune an existing network to perform new functions? Is it possible to make a biological network more robust?  
Another unavoidable challenge is to fill the gap between computational design and experiment operation in lab. Is it possible to guarantee our design solution biologically significant? Is it possible to propose several “strong” examples to illustrate efficiency and truthiness of our idea?
Another unavoidable challenge is to fill the gap between computational design and experiment operation in lab. Is it possible to guarantee our design solution biologically significant? Is it possible to propose several “strong” examples to illustrate efficiency and truthiness of our idea?
 +
 +
[[Image:USTC_Software.png|right|300px|thumb|Computational_Software]]
Here, we make best endeavor to challenge these seemingly impossibilities and make them possible. We hope our software to be cradle where amazing happens. However, it’s of little significance to say whose work is more important in computational synthetic biology design. Instead, a vast of collaboration is needed between these computational scientists accompanied with traditional biologists and engineers. As we described in our flowcharts, ABCs of ABCD, relevant tools are strongly needed to cope with difficulties we meet separately.
Here, we make best endeavor to challenge these seemingly impossibilities and make them possible. We hope our software to be cradle where amazing happens. However, it’s of little significance to say whose work is more important in computational synthetic biology design. Instead, a vast of collaboration is needed between these computational scientists accompanied with traditional biologists and engineers. As we described in our flowcharts, ABCs of ABCD, relevant tools are strongly needed to cope with difficulties we meet separately.
 +
|}
 +
 +
|valign = "top"|
 +
{{USTCSW_SideBarR}}
 +
|}
 +
|}
 +
{{USTCSW_Foot}}

Revision as of 13:00, 20 October 2009


About Team and People Project Standard Notebook Demo Safety External Links

USTCSW What.png

USTCSW hoW.png

USTCSW Who.png

USTCSW When.png


Why?

These computational tools (figure 1) are designed to facilitate the scientists in wet lab in purpose of saving time and cost. On the other hand, no matter synthetic biology standardization or biobricks registry maintenance, they provide powerful tools for engineering biological systems in lab even in future industrial factories. In other words, all the current efforts are put to serve the scientists and could never replace the intelligence of human beings who design the experiments and model.

Is it possible to move further to the steps of intelligence? Is it possible to generate the design protocol and list feasible biobricks? Is it possible to make a biological networks design a funny game even for laymen who know little about synthetic biology? Not that further, is it possible to suggest different topologies of network that can achieve desired functions? Is it possible to tune an existing network to perform new functions? Is it possible to make a biological network more robust?

Another unavoidable challenge is to fill the gap between computational design and experiment operation in lab. Is it possible to guarantee our design solution biologically significant? Is it possible to propose several “strong” examples to illustrate efficiency and truthiness of our idea?

Computational_Software

Here, we make best endeavor to challenge these seemingly impossibilities and make them possible. We hope our software to be cradle where amazing happens. However, it’s of little significance to say whose work is more important in computational synthetic biology design. Instead, a vast of collaboration is needed between these computational scientists accompanied with traditional biologists and engineers. As we described in our flowcharts, ABCs of ABCD, relevant tools are strongly needed to cope with difficulties we meet separately.

Automatic Biological Circuits Design
Team Logo: wanna know more about the hinding metaphors and inspirations in this little red square? Click to check out how much fun this year's iGEM has brought us!



Sponsorship

Teaching Affair Office, USTC

School of Life Sicences, USTC

Foreign Affair Office, USTC

Graduate School, USTC

School of Information Science and Technology, USTC

School for the Gifted Young, USTC

Retrieved from "http://2009.igem.org/Team:USTC_Software/Why"