To retract the direction of our project is on the right track, we collected opinions from experts in various fields, not limited to cancer nanotechnology, and engaged the general public.
Expert Opinions
In an interview with Dr Lau, a molecular pathologist working in Yan Chai Hospital, a public hospital, expressed her interests in our research and opined that it is an innovative idea to build the nanostructure to deliver cancer drugs which would have excellent potentials for developing a personalised treatment with less side effects. After discussing with Dr. Lau, we tried to make our drug carrier more cancer cell-specific by adding an aptamer onto it. With Dr. Lau's idea integrated, improved drug entry into cancer cells was achieved in our project. Dr. Beijersbergen, an expert of cancer cell signalling from Netherlands Cancer Institute, reminded us on the potential side effects of our drug carrier. After that, we planned experiments to evaluate any altered drug effects caused by our carrier. His advice led us to confirm our nanaostructure's non-toxicity and discover its other interesting characteristics. Dr. Berkhout, from Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam, also gave us valuable insights on application and safety, which were discussed on our Safety page.
Intercalated in between our research period, we also attended a CRISPR One Day Symposium when we were privileged to be able to interview several experts in different fields. Dr. Berkhout reminded us the potential toxicity caused by the DOX-DNA tetrahedral complex, which triggered us to review on the safety practice during the laboratory session. Dr. Berkhout also reminded us the importance of careful considerations over the possible off-target consequences such that we revised our design with the incorporation of AS1411, a DNA aptamer against nucleolin which has an overexpression level in breast cancer cell. Meanwhile, Dr. Beijersbergen raised a question regarding how to reach a sufficient dose in the target cells. This allowed us to find a solution by investigating the properties of the DOX-DNA tetrahedral complex in different pH settings, such that we can induce a high dosage drug release by merely changing the pH of the environment by manipulating organelles such as endosome which can release low pH.
The CRISPR One Day Symposium also provided us with innovation and inspiration about the future and human practice of our project. Dr. Berkhout gave us some insights about the future of the project, pointing out that future testing on the screening of in-vivo system and the toxicity effect caused by DOX-DNA tetrahedral should be investigated after the characterisation of the DOX-DNA tetrahedral such that a safe treatment could be provided to the patients. He also offered further suggestions in the human practice, namely the importance of incorporating with the patients. In the meantime, Dr. Beijersbergen suggested that we should also target the drug resistance against our DOX-DNA tetrahedral complex by targeting both the regular escape route and the compensating route. The same idea were supported by Dr. Berkhout that he suggested using drug combinations to make resistance more difficult. Gathering all those information, we would be delighted to further work on the utilisation of other drugs or designing drugs that can bind to the DNA tetrahedral as doxorubicin as the next step of our project.
The 51st Joint School Science ExhibitionApart from hearing opinions from the experts, the voice from the public who are our potential benefits, are equally important. Our research direction is further reaffirmed during the 51st Joint School Science Exhibition which was a valuable chance to understand public interests involved. A lot of working adults with a curious minds expressed their appreciations in the actual need to optimize current cancer research and triggered us to think about the potential impacts of our design on public healthcare. This encouraged us in developing a project using techniques in design thinking, a practice that is human centred and an iterated process.
Mentorship CollaborationThe human practice also allowed us to feedback to the society by enhancing STEM development in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, or even extending the scope in Asian regions, the research attitude among high school students has been limited due to the design of the examination based education and also the traditional opinions in the society towards scientist. The students in Tsuen Wan Public Ho Chuen Yiu Memorial College (HCY) rarely had any opportunities to perform hands-on experiences in edge cutting research in biotechnology before, not to mention exposing to synthetic biology. Yet, the HKU iGEM team this year did provide avails in pushing the scientific atmosphere in the college such that the school designed to expand their laboratory, allowing the students not only to learn and acquire old-fashioned knowledge from the paper textbooks but also understanding the modern days technology and inspired them to study in the field of STEM and stimulate their scientific amplitude. The scientific education in high school is deemed to be important as illustrated by the proliferation of Nobel prize winners in Japan and the US. Therefore, we hope that our success will further enhance the participation of high school in Asian regions and change the ways the society judging the science students.
