Difference between revisions of "Team:RHIT/Human Practices"
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<h1>Susan Reynolds - Facilities Manager at Rose-Hulman </h1> | <h1>Susan Reynolds - Facilities Manager at Rose-Hulman </h1> | ||
| − | <p>Ms. Reynolds talked to us about the level of recycling at Rose-Hulman and the variety of initiatives taken over the past 22 years. Initially, the campus had several home-sized recycling bins at the back of one building and only took PET plastic, paper, cardboard, tin, aluminum, and E-scraps. The paper and cardboard were sold, while the other recycled products were sent to Indiana State University’s recycling facilities. The demand grew enough for Rose-Hulman to develop the current center with 3 compactors and multiple recycling drop offs per week. Currently, Rose has received grants and works with Republic recycling company to manage the recycling. A report she gave us indicated a total of 48 tons of cardboard, 6 tons of paper, and 27 tons of scrap metal recycled in 2015. While impressive, Rose can still improve as there was still over 400 tons of trash generated that year, which was equivalent to 2552 cubic yards. She has been very receptive to the student driven initiatives to improve better signage and convenience.</p> | + | <p>Ms. Reynolds talked to us about the level of recycling at Rose-Hulman and the variety of initiatives taken over the past 22 years. Initially, the campus had several home-sized recycling bins at the back of one building and only took PET plastic, paper, cardboard, tin, aluminum, and E-scraps. The paper and cardboard were sold, while the other recycled products were sent to Indiana State University’s recycling facilities. The demand grew enough for Rose-Hulman to develop the current center with 3 compactors and multiple recycling drop offs per week. Currently, Rose has received grants and works with Republic recycling company to manage the recycling. A report she gave us indicated a total of 48 tons of cardboard, 6 tons of paper, and 27 tons of scrap metal recycled in 2015. While impressive, Rose can still improve as there was still over 400 tons of trash generated that year, which was equivalent to 2552 cubic yards. She has been very receptive to the student driven initiatives to improve better signage and convenience. Understanding what Rose’s campus has done to help the plastic waste build up and their initiatives has helped us target our implementation methods and has informed the background of our project. </p> |
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
<div class = "column full_size"> | <div class = "column full_size"> | ||
<h5><a id="survey"> Implementation Methods Survey </a></h5> | <h5><a id="survey"> Implementation Methods Survey </a></h5> | ||
| − | <p> | + | |
| + | <p> As our team considered different implementation methods, we brainstormed ideas and chose 3 to be most feasible. </p> | ||
| + | </div> | ||
| + | <center> | ||
| + | <img style="width:50%" src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/1/1a/T--RHIT--Method1.jpg"> | ||
| + | </center> | ||
| + | <p> Method 1 directly addresses the issue of plastic waste in the ocean, because it involves deploying small vessels to follow the ocean currents and filter the surface water for floating plastic and microplastics. The sea water would filter through the base of the vessel through a screen infused with the PEBBLE bacteria. Any plastics would be caught on the mesh and be degraded by the bacteria. The mesh would also theoretically collect and store the terephthalic acid byproduct until the vessel is picked up for maintenance. The collected acid would then be removed and shipped to the industries that need it, while the vessel culture would be diluted and sent back out. This method would need government-level support and would also be a standardized collection method for TPA.</p> | ||
| + | <br><br> | ||
| + | <center> | ||
| + | <img style= "width:50%" src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/1/15/T--RHIT--Method2.jpg"> | ||
| + | </center> | ||
| + | <p>Method 2 institutionalizes bioreactor tanks of the modified E.coli at major waste and recycling collection facilities. The bacteria in the reactors would filter out the PET plastic and breakdown the polymer into terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol, a carbon source for the cells’ metabolisms. The acid would be syphoned off and sent to plastic industries to be used in the creation of additional plastics. The material not degraded would be sanitized and moved on to the next stages in the waste disposal process. This method would be a community and local government/business commitment and would address the waste generated on land. </p> | ||
| + | <br><br> | ||
| + | <center> | ||
| + | <img style="width:50%" src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/6/60/T--RHIT--Method3.jpg"> | ||
| + | </center> | ||
| + | <p>To make an impact on the individual-level, we came up with Method 3 where home kits would degrade the PET plastic before it was sent to collection facilities. These kits would be equipped with a receptacle for the bacteria to be housed, and the plastic would be fed through a system which prevented the user from coming in contact with the bacteria. The terephthalic acid would be syphoned off and the user could bring it to a collection facility for the plastic industry and potentially receive monetary compensation. This reward would act as an incentive for users to put the plastics in the compost kit. The material not degraded could then be sanitiatized, packaged, and taken to the local recycling or waste collection facilities. Method 3 addresses the source of the waste generation at the very beginning of the process and provides an incentive for people to recycle. </p> | ||
| + | <br><br><br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <p> Having designed three methods from our own backgrounds, we wanted to reach out to the community to gauge their receptiveness to each method and understand their concerns about the growing plastic waste. In the survey, we present the three possible implementation methods of our project and ask about the public's concerns with each of our methods. We reached out to experts and willing volunteers for help with the design and piloting of the survey. We ask the final career question to gather an idea about the relative age groups of our populations. </p> | ||
<img style="padding-top:0px; padding-bottom:0px; margin:0" src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c1/T--RHIT--Survey1redo.jpg"> | <img style="padding-top:0px; padding-bottom:0px; margin:0" src = "https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/c/c1/T--RHIT--Survey1redo.jpg"> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 74: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
<div class = "clear extra_space"></div> | <div class = "clear extra_space"></div> | ||
<div class = "column full_size"> | <div class = "column full_size"> | ||
Revision as of 16:02, 7 August 2018
Connect with us on Facebook!
Interviews with Experts
Dr. Diane Evans - Professor at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Diane Evans, Ph.D teaches the six-sigma classes here at Rose-Hulman. She has been teaching this class for seven years and is certified with her black belt. Six-sigma is a class that collects real world data and then implements a change that has a positive influence on world problems. In the past, the six-sigma classes have taken data on food waste in the cafeteria, recycling, and food sharing programs. The most recent class chose to do a project where they recorded data on plastic straw usage. As part of the educational outreach, Dr. Evans asked Dr. Shikha Bhattacharyya to come to Rose and talk about the impacts of plastic straws on the environment. This movement made a huge impact on the school as a whole, and was one of the motivations to picking our project this year.
To find out more about her biodegradable straw project watch the video below:
We also asked Dr. Evans what she thought about our project and the possible implementation methods we have come up with. Watch the video below to find out her thoughts:
Dr. Jared Tatum - Plastic Specialist at Ampacet
Dr. Jared Tatum is a chemical engineer who works with PET plastic at Ampacet. He explained that in the manufacturing process, pure plastics are typically mixed with other materials in order to make them as cheap as possible. Materials such as metals can be added so that the plastic can be stretched to be as thin as possible. Other chemicals can also be mixed in to give the plastic a clear and shiny appearance, so the product is more appealing to the consumer. He also explained how PET plastic is initiated as a single strand that twists on itself as the chain lengthens, creating the molten mass that can be shaped. His information about the generation of plastic was very useful, and he provided PET samples for our lab work.
Susan Reynolds - Facilities Manager at Rose-Hulman
Ms. Reynolds talked to us about the level of recycling at Rose-Hulman and the variety of initiatives taken over the past 22 years. Initially, the campus had several home-sized recycling bins at the back of one building and only took PET plastic, paper, cardboard, tin, aluminum, and E-scraps. The paper and cardboard were sold, while the other recycled products were sent to Indiana State University’s recycling facilities. The demand grew enough for Rose-Hulman to develop the current center with 3 compactors and multiple recycling drop offs per week. Currently, Rose has received grants and works with Republic recycling company to manage the recycling. A report she gave us indicated a total of 48 tons of cardboard, 6 tons of paper, and 27 tons of scrap metal recycled in 2015. While impressive, Rose can still improve as there was still over 400 tons of trash generated that year, which was equivalent to 2552 cubic yards. She has been very receptive to the student driven initiatives to improve better signage and convenience. Understanding what Rose’s campus has done to help the plastic waste build up and their initiatives has helped us target our implementation methods and has informed the background of our project.
Implementation Methods Survey
As our team considered different implementation methods, we brainstormed ideas and chose 3 to be most feasible.
Method 1 directly addresses the issue of plastic waste in the ocean, because it involves deploying small vessels to follow the ocean currents and filter the surface water for floating plastic and microplastics. The sea water would filter through the base of the vessel through a screen infused with the PEBBLE bacteria. Any plastics would be caught on the mesh and be degraded by the bacteria. The mesh would also theoretically collect and store the terephthalic acid byproduct until the vessel is picked up for maintenance. The collected acid would then be removed and shipped to the industries that need it, while the vessel culture would be diluted and sent back out. This method would need government-level support and would also be a standardized collection method for TPA.
Method 2 institutionalizes bioreactor tanks of the modified E.coli at major waste and recycling collection facilities. The bacteria in the reactors would filter out the PET plastic and breakdown the polymer into terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol, a carbon source for the cells’ metabolisms. The acid would be syphoned off and sent to plastic industries to be used in the creation of additional plastics. The material not degraded would be sanitized and moved on to the next stages in the waste disposal process. This method would be a community and local government/business commitment and would address the waste generated on land.
To make an impact on the individual-level, we came up with Method 3 where home kits would degrade the PET plastic before it was sent to collection facilities. These kits would be equipped with a receptacle for the bacteria to be housed, and the plastic would be fed through a system which prevented the user from coming in contact with the bacteria. The terephthalic acid would be syphoned off and the user could bring it to a collection facility for the plastic industry and potentially receive monetary compensation. This reward would act as an incentive for users to put the plastics in the compost kit. The material not degraded could then be sanitiatized, packaged, and taken to the local recycling or waste collection facilities. Method 3 addresses the source of the waste generation at the very beginning of the process and provides an incentive for people to recycle.
Having designed three methods from our own backgrounds, we wanted to reach out to the community to gauge their receptiveness to each method and understand their concerns about the growing plastic waste. In the survey, we present the three possible implementation methods of our project and ask about the public's concerns with each of our methods. We reached out to experts and willing volunteers for help with the design and piloting of the survey. We ask the final career question to gather an idea about the relative age groups of our populations.
Having designed three methods from our own backgrounds, we wanted to reach out to the community to gauge their receptiveness to each method and understand their concerns about the plastic issue. We decided surveying the community was the most efficient way to collect the information. We reached out to experts and willing volunteers for help with the design and piloting of the survey.
References:
- [1] “How it works.” Ocean Clean Up founded by Bolan Slat. 2018. [Online]. https://www.theoceancleanup.com/technology/
- [2] D. Reid, “A self-made billionaire is giving away his fortune to clean up the oceans,” CNBC Make it. May 2017. [Online]. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/18/a-billionaire-is-giving-his-fortune-away-to-clean-up-oceans.html
Here's where our survey results and change stuff can go
★ ALERT!
This page is used by the judges to evaluate your team for the medal criterion or award listed below.
Delete this box in order to be evaluated for this medal criterion and/or award. See more information at Instructions for Pages for awards.
Human Practices
At iGEM we believe societal considerations should be upfront and integrated throughout the design and execution of synthetic biology projects. “Human Practices” refers to iGEM teams’ efforts to actively consider how the world affects their work and the work affects the world. Through your Human Practices activities, your team should demonstrate how you have thought carefully and creatively about whether your project is responsible and good for the world. We invite you to explore issues relating (but not limited) to the ethics, safety, security, and sustainability of your project, and to show how this exploration feeds back into your project purpose, design and execution.
For more information, please see the Human Practices Hub. There you will find:
- an introduction to Human Practices at iGEM
- tips on how to succeed including explanations of judging criteria and advice about how to conduct and document your Human Practices work
- descriptions of exemplary work to inspire you
- links to helpful resources
- And more!
On this page, your team should document all of your Human Practices work and activities. You should write about the Human Practices topics you considered in your project, document any activities you conducted to explore these topics (such as engaging with experts and stakeholders), describe why you took a particular approach (including referencing any work you built upon), and explain if and how you integrated takeaways from your Human Practices work back into your project purpose, design and/or execution.
If your team has gone above and beyond in work related to safety, then you should document this work on your Safety wiki page and provide a description and link on this page. If your team has developed education and public engagement efforts that go beyond a focus on your particular project, and for which would like to nominate your team for the Best Education and Public Engagement Special Prize, you should document this work on your Education and Education wiki page and provide a description and link here.
The iGEM judges will review this page to assess whether you have met the Silver and/or Gold medal requirements based on the Integrated Human Practices criteria listed below. If you nominate your team for the Best Integrated Human Practices Special Prize by filling out the corresponding field in the judging form, the judges will also review this page to consider your team for that prize.
Silver Medal Criterion #3
Convince the judges you have thought carefully and creatively about whether your work is responsible and good for the world. Document how you have investigated these issues and engaged with your relevant communities, why you chose this approach, and what you have learned. Please note that surveys will not fulfill this criteria unless you follow scientifically valid methods.
Gold Medal Criterion #1
Expand on your silver medal activity by demonstrating how you have integrated the investigated issues into the purpose, design and/or execution of your project. Document how your project has changed based upon your human practices work.
Best Integrated Human Practices Special Prize
To compete for the Best Integrated Human Practices prize, please describe your work on this page and also fill out the description on the judging form.
How does your project affect society and how does society influence the direction of your project? How might ethical considerations and stakeholder input guide your project purpose and design and the experiments you conduct in the lab? How does this feedback enter into the process of your work all through the iGEM competition? Document a thoughtful and creative approach to exploring these questions and how your project evolved in the process to compete for this award!
You must also delete the message box on the top of this page to be eligible for this prize.