Interview with an Expert

Dr. Diane Evans Full 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, 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 as the chain lengthens twists on itself, creating the molten mass that can be shaped. His information was very useful about generation of plastic and he provided PET samples for our lab work.

Susan Reynolds Facilities Manager at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

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 just 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 rest were sent to Indiana State University’s recycling facilities. But soon, the demand grew enough for Rose to develop the current center with 3 compactors and multiple recycling drop offs per week. Currently, Rose has received grants and worked with Republic recycling company to manage the tons of recycling. A report she gave us reported a total 48 tons of cardboard, 6 tons of paper, and 27 tons 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 of to improve better signage, convenience, and sees Rose as doing well but “could be doing more.”

Implementation Methods Survey

We designed a survey to gauge our community's thoughts and knowledge on recycling and genetically engineered bacteria. In the survey, we presented three possible implementation methods of our project and ask about the public's concerns with each of our possible methods. 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.

★ 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.

Team:RHIT/Human Practices

Connect with us on Facebook!