"
Team:Tokyo Tech/Safety
From 2009.igem.org
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
A | A | ||
Biosafety committee of our organization accepted our aplications. | Biosafety committee of our organization accepted our aplications. | ||
| + | |||
Q | Q | ||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
A | A | ||
They think our project is leagal. | They think our project is leagal. | ||
| + | |||
Q | Q | ||
| Line 24: | Line 26: | ||
A | A | ||
No. Our parts are safty level one. We used genes which are analysed in peer-reviewed papers. | No. Our parts are safty level one. We used genes which are analysed in peer-reviewed papers. | ||
| + | |||
Q | Q | ||
Revision as of 16:57, 19 October 2009
For iGEM 2009 teams are asked to detail how they approached any issues of biological safety associated with their projects.
Specifically, teams should consider the following four questions:
Would any of your project ideas raise safety issues in terms of: researcher safety, public safety, or environmental safety?
Q
Is there a local biosafety group, committee, or review board at your institution?
A Biosafety committee of our organization accepted our aplications.
Q
What does your local biosafety group think about your project?
A They think our project is leagal.
Q
Do any of the new BioBrick parts that you made this year raise any safety issues?
A No. Our parts are safty level one. We used genes which are analysed in peer-reviewed papers.
Q
If yes, did you document these issues in the Registry?
A Just in case, we refereed papers for our new biobrick parts.
