We ask every team to think deeply and creatively about whether their project is responsible and good for the world. Consider how the world affects your work and how your work affects the world.
From Dr. Averesch's presentation, we learned that one of the biggest challenges of space exploration is reducing the amount of materials that need to be launched from Earth. Since launch costs increase significantly with distance, future missions will need to rely more on in-situ manufacturing, which means producing materials and products directly on the Moon or Mars instead of transporting everything from Earth.
We also learned that the resources available depend on the destination. For example, Mars has access to carbon and nitrogen, while the Moon provides water and regolith (space soil). These differences directly affect how biological systems are designed and what materials can realistically be produced in each environment.
Another important takeaway was the role of microbes in creating a circular economy for space missions. Instead of treating plastic waste as trash, engineered microbes can break it down into smaller molecules and convert those materials into useful products such as new plastics, fibers, or biomass. This approach helps reduce waste while making better use of the limited resources available during long-duration missions.
Finally, we learned that the technologies being developed for space also have major benefits on Earth. Biological recycling offers a more sustainable alternative to traditional plastic production, which depends heavily on fossil fuels. Overall, the presentation showed that microbial engineering can help make future space missions more self-sufficient while also contributing to more sustainable manufacturing practices here on Earth.
During our discussion with Dr. Averesch, we asked about the challenges of developing biological systems for space and how enzymatic plastic recycling could fit into future missions. He explained that space systems are designed based on Equivalent System Mass (ESM) rather than traditional financial cost, meaning lightweight and compact technologies are often far more valuable than cheaper, heavier ones.
He also emphasized that the biggest technical hurdle is the fundamental engineering of the microbes themselves, since modifying microbial genomes and maintaining consistent performance takes significant time and effort. We learned that spacecraft size, strict containment requirements for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and precise temperature control have a major influence on final system design.
Finally, Dr. Averesch explained that biological recycling systems could become vital for long-duration missions because they would allow astronauts to reuse plastic waste and produce useful materials, such as feedstock for 3D printing, drastically reducing the need for constant resupply from Earth.
Dr. Raviteja gave a presentation about the work of ResearchSat and the challenges of developing technology for space research. He explained that one of the biggest differences between Earth and space is microgravity, where objects float instead of falling. This unique environment allows scientists to perform experiments that cannot be carried out on Earth, especially in areas such as biotechnology, life sciences, and materials research.
ResearchSat focuses on making these kinds of experiments possible by developing reliable research platforms for space. He also explained that designing hardware and software for space requires much higher reliability because cosmic radiation can interfere with electronic systems. To reduce the risk of failures, engineers use redundant systems and additional software protections to ensure spacecraft continue operating correctly in the harsh space environment.
Another key topic of the presentation was the engineering challenges that still exist in space technology. Dr. Raviteja explained that one of the biggest unsolved problems is heat management. While heat on Earth can be transferred through conduction, convection, and radiation, convection is not possible in the vacuum of space, making it much harder to cool electronic components such as microchips.
He also discussed how technologies such as enzymatic plastic recycling and other biological systems must be redesigned for use in microgravity because liquids like water and oil behave very differently in space. Overall, we learned that although many technologies are first tested on Earth, they must be carefully adapted to function in space, and companies like ResearchSat are helping advance scientific research by overcoming these unique engineering challenges.
Explain how you have determined your work is responsible and good for the world.
Visit the Medals page for more information.
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, design and the experiments you conduct in the lab? How did this feedback enter into the process of your work throughout 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.
Visit the Special Prizes page for more information.
At iGEM, Human Practices is about more than just outreach. It's about actively considering the societal implications of your synthetic biology project and demonstrating how those considerations have shaped your work. This page documents our team's Human Practices activities and their impact on our project.
For more information, visit the Human Practices Hub.
The section below is a separate, independently-written draft, produced by a team member outside the main documentation process. Kept here for reference and comparison; not yet fact-checked by team leadership.
Two parallel pieces of work: a Power–Interest stakeholder map for the people who could greenlight, fund, or block engineered biology in orbit, and a public survey in Taipei testing whether ordinary people actually feel the problem being claimed to be solved.
| Quadrant | Who |
|---|---|
| Manage closely (high power, high interest) | NASA, ESA, Taiwan Space Agency, in-space manufacturers, SpaceX & Axiom Space |
| Keep informed (high interest, low power) | Astronauts (current & former), sustainability experts, science educators & students, university professors/biotech researchers |
| Keep satisfied (high power, low interest) | Biosecurity & space-environment regulators |
| Monitor (low power, low interest) | General public, students outside the synbio field, science-museum visitors |
The decision made from this map: concentrate outreach on Manage Closely and Keep Informed for the remainder of the season — NASA/ESA/TASA contacts and at least one astronaut — while scheduling separate sit-downs with biotech professors and sustainability researchers to harden the science case.
An in-person survey plus short interviews, ~40 respondents, recruited at a community event in Taipei's Wenshan District, covering plastic use, recycling habits, attitude toward GMO-based recycling, and news exposure.
| Question | Headline result |
|---|---|
| Daily plastic use | 49% moderate (1–3 items/day) |
| Most-used plastic type | 60% plastic bags/carriers |
| Recycling frequency | 64% recycle daily/often |
| Support for GMO-based recycling | 76% supportive, only 8% against |
| News exposure to plastic pollution | 54% hear about it often/daily |
The unexpected result was the GMO-support question — public scepticism of GMO-based recycling is the failure mode iGEM teams typically worry about most, and in this sample it wasn't the dominant signal. The flip side: since 64% already consider recycling a solved problem, the framing can't be "better recycling" — it has to be "recycling somewhere recycling doesn't yet exist," i.e. orbit.
Documented candidly: be an active listener rather than sticking to a script; match the respondent's pace and formality; approach people when they have free time, not mid-meal; explain jargon like "genetically modified" with a quick analogy before asking; and a small recruitment incentive (milk) helped, disclosed here for honesty rather than as a recommendation. Also flagged as a limitation: ~40 respondents is small, and the conclusion holds for Taipei in this window, not as a general claim.
Continue to Jett's Version of Education → · Back to Jett's Version of Entrepreneurship