Integrated Human Practices
“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 experiments you conduct in the lab? How does this feedback enter into the process of your work all through the iGEM competition?”
Throughout this process, we have made sure to consider the ethical, environmental and social implications of our project. In doing this, we have contacted various stakeholders in order to develop our understanding of pertinent issues in the project, and adapt accordingly. We developed a reflection cycle (The 4Ds of Improvement, as below), to ensure that with every interaction we managed to extract the most efficient and applicable information to our project.
Establishing definitions
Our cycle: The 4D's of improvement
- Drive:
In tackling recurring challenges, it’s important to stay focused on the core objective, ensuring quality takes precedence over being pulled in too many directions. This section emphasises the drive that fuels our ongoing efforts in human practice activities, detailing why we were motivated to engage with experts and collaborators who were instrumental to the advancement of our project. - Discourse:
To create meaningful impact, it’s essential not only to identify a challenge and stay focused on the objective but also to engage in thoughtful discourse with others. This section highlights how we navigated complex conversations that enriched our understanding of the problem and advanced our project. - Deliberation:
After each conversation, careful deliberation of the outcomes is essential to ensure diverse inputs are considered in shaping the project. This section highlights the insights gained from each discussion and how those insights helped refine and advance our project. - Delivery:
While understanding is crucial, the delivery of that understanding in an efficient and effective manner is equally important. This section highlights how we incorporated feedback and analysis into our project, executing it to the best of our abilities
Influences of interactions on our project
-
Redirection:
Under this section are cycles of reflection pertaining to moments where we have changed something fundamental about our project outlook. This includes and is not limited to our main focus, where we chose to implement our project and things to keep in mind when crafting our project. -
Science and Technology:
Under this section are cycles of design which reflect any moments in which we changed our scientific approach to the project. The science behind our project includes a lot of new research and so it was necessary for us to adapt and change our approach as we discovered new things. -
Ethics + Regulations:
Under this section are cycles of design which reflect the way in which we conducted our project. This includes ensuring our project met regulatory requirements but also includes how we were affected by external sources to ensure our ethical approach was more widespread (e.g education instead of just environmental focus).
Stakeholders
High power - High interest
- For high power-high interest stakeholders we strive to monitor them closely and engage with them consistently throughout our project, often seeking feedback which can inform our project’s development.
- Stakeholders designated in this category will be our target stakeholders for the implementation of our product.
- Feedback from these stakeholders is vital in creating a dialectic development of our project.
- We classified Healthcare providers as being in this section.
High power - Low interest
- For high power - low interest stakeholders, we strive to ensure that we address their concerns. Their feedback is vital in the implementation of our project, despite their field of interest being less relevant to our project.
- We classified Environmental Agencies and Regulatory bodies as being in this section.
Low power - High Interest
- For low power - high interest stakeholders we strive to keep them informed regarding our project. We classify them as being potential users of our project. Therefore, we understand their expertise may not be vital to our project’s development, but still appreciate their inputs.
- We classified NHS employees as being in this section.
Low power- Low interest
- For low power - low interest stakeholders we maintain regular contact with them. Despite them not providing much feedback, and not having great interest in our project, we understand that these circumstances may alter in the future. Therefore, when necessary, we consult the stakeholders we have placed in this section, particularly to gain a general idea of engagement with our project.
- We classified patients and the general public in this section.
Redirection
Farmers (low power - high interest stakeholder)
Drive:
During the initial stages of our project, we focused on addressing nitrous oxide emissions in the agriculture sector, since it was the largest emitter. Specifically, we aimed to mitigate nitrogen run-off from farms, due to its impact on water pollution and overall environmental degradation . However, due to our limited knowledge of agricultural systems, we conducted surveys on an online farming forum to better understand the feasibility of our project and gain insights into farmers' opinions, who were our main stakeholders.
Discourse:
On 'The Farming Forum', we proposed the concept of utilising an Archimedes screw turbine to generate energy from the run-off. The feedback from farmers highlighted several challenges. First, they noted that the turbines were expensive to install and maintain, especially given the low energy output. Additionally, archimedes screws require a high and steady water flow, but the inconsistent flow of the run-offs meant that this approach was financially unfeasible. Furthermore, some farmers utilised the run-off as a fertiliser, which meant our project would be irrelevant to them. Moreover, the majority of run-off systems were old and directed to watercourses, making it impractical to install turbines.
Deliberation:
From this, we learned several key insights surrounding the limitations of implementing our project in farms. The run-off, which would have to be carefully controlled to have a steady stream of water, was unrealistic to achieve, and the financial feasibility meant that our project would not benefit farmers. Furthermore, our limited understanding of farm operations, compounded by our urban location, contributed to the challenges we faced in this investigation.
Delivery:
Given these barriers, we concluded that pursuing this project was not viable. However, we gained valuable knowledge regarding farm drainage systems and their potential for improvement. This experience prompted us to shift our focus toward other sectors, particularly the NHS, where we could apply our knowledge to develop more effective solutions.
NHS Greener (high power - low interest stakeholder) - environmental agencies
Drive:
During the initial stages of the second cycle of design of our project, we wanted to gain a further insight into how
Discourse:
We asked NHS Greener similar questions to the ones we asked Dr Lie.
Deliberation:
This allowed us to better understand how Entonox is used in NHS hospitals.
Delivery:
This proved invaluable in informing the design of our product, as we could now incorporate external considerations such as temperature of the room, air flow, and more.
NHS - conferring about the actual problem (high power - high interest stakeholder)
Drive:
After understanding our project was not ideal to work in agricultural space we were approached by Lyndsay Muirhead of the NHS informing us that our project could work well in breaking down Entonox. When looking at implementing our project within the NHS we needed to get an idea of what the problems are and what goals the NHS wishes to achieve. To get the best idea of how to achieve this we spoke to Lyndsay who is an NHS employee and the Clinical Sustainability Project Manager of the University College London Hospital NHS Trust. She helped us to understand the problem fully as well as understand the strains for the NHS when dealing with the gas. Getting this information was integral to the progress of our project as well as making the project ideal within a hospital environment. She informed us that Entanox was particularly harmful but also a vital gas to use within the healthcare sphere which inspired us to shift the narrative of our project from focusing on the agriculture sphere to the healthcare sector.
Discourse:
We then conducted an interview with her asking her various questions such as:
- How is Entonox is currently stored in hospitals?
- If / how is Entonox currently broken down?
- How effective are the machines that break Entonox down?
By interviewing Lyndsay we gained a better understanding of the point of view of the NHS and the role they played in nitrous oxide emissions and their limits when it came to reducing emissions. Some limitations included expense and sustainability.
Deliberation:
Understanding this criticism of current systems was key when we first began thinking of ways to integrate our project effectively within the hospital system. We looked at specifically how Entonox is being broken down and we saw that it was either through thermal cracking or being re-released to the atmosphere because of the expense of that product.
Delivery:
In our project, we prioritised minimising costs by selecting affordable materials for the components. For instance, the current thermal cracking machine uses a palladium core, a costly metal that significantly raises the price per unit. Instead, we chose durable yet inexpensive materials like steel, incorporating an enzyme-based reaction to break down nitrous oxide. This approach not only reduces costs but also enhances sustainability, as it eliminates the need for high-energy consumption to reach extreme temperatures.
Paul Owen (Medclair - low power - high interest stakeholder)
Drive:
When considering the implementation of our project in NHS hospitals, we had to consider how it would fare in comparison to similar devices. Therefore, we consulted Paul Owen at Medclair to better understand how their device works to decide whether ours was more or less viable and whether it would be a competitive product in the market. Furthermore, we spoke to him about price points of their products and potential areas of improvement within the MDU.
Discourse:
When speaking with him, we went through how both the CDU and MDU worked. He was extremely thorough in his response giving us a lot of detail behind the care that went behind the implementation of CDU and MDUs within a Hospital. He further explained the price point of the devices, elaborating on reasons for their current pricing. We were very grateful for his collaboration and openness towards us in the interview. He gave us a large insight into the industry of Medclair and their products, providing us with key information on whether our project was viable.
Deliberation:
From the interview, we identified the differences in the perspectives of the NHS and Medclair, highlighting various factors that could impact the efficiency of their product. By understanding the mechanism of implementation, we recognized why the product might not be suitable for older branches and why its efficiency could be limited in modern branches as well. Additionally, learning that a significant portion of their costs stems from an expensive core used for thermal cracking of the gas helped us realise that while the product addresses the issue, it also requires considerable energy and costly materials to mitigate a potent environmental hazard. Overall, this raised concerns about whether the approach was fully sustainable in its current form.
Delivery:
The interview with Medclair was crucial in helping our hardware and biology teams identify key aspects to consider for future solutions. We made sure to thoroughly address any concerns raised during the discussion, both from our team and the NHS, and worked to integrate improvements into our project. By closely examining the limitations Medclair acknowledged in their own product, we were able to focus on refining those less effective elements and distinguish our approach for greater viability.
Human Practices Design elements
Drive:
After our initial design we approached Lyndsay and conferred with her on whether this would function effectively within the NHS. We wanted to ensure that not only would our design be effective but also easy to use for the workers within the NHS.
Discourse:
We conducted a follow-up interview with Lyndsay, adopting a more focused approach this time. We presented our project and explained how we planned to replace the MDU. Lyndsay acknowledged that while our project could work in theory, it could benefit from additional features to enhance user-friendliness—a crucial factor, especially in hospital settings. She emphasised that, in high-pressure situations, patient welfare remains the top priority, and achieving goals should not compromise that. Taking her feedback to heart, we ensured our project would be intuitive and easy to use, so healthcare professionals wouldn’t waste time trying to "activate" or troubleshoot it in inevitable high-stress scenarios.
Deliberation:
We took a step back to thoroughly reassess our project, focusing specifically on how we could refine and adapt certain aspects to make it better suited for hospital environments. We recognized that this feedback was crucial for ensuring the project’s effectiveness, particularly given the unique and sensitive nature of the healthcare setting. Hospitals operate with a primary aim of enhancing patient care and experience, and it became clear that for our project to succeed in such a demanding context, it would need to align seamlessly with this goal. Understanding the importance of this, we took the necessary steps to ensure our project would not only integrate well but actively contribute to the hospital's overall mission of patient-centred care.
Delivery:
In response to the feedback, we initiated a second design iteration, incorporating features aimed specifically at enhancing usability for hospital staff, while still maintaining our core objectives of affordability and sustainability. For instance, we revisited the size of our device and found a way to reduce it, making it more compact and practical. However, after further discussions, we decided against placing the box near the patient, recognizing that it could interfere with the patient’s comfort and care. This careful balancing of usability with our primary goals ensured that our project would remain both functional and accessible without compromising its intended purpose in a healthcare setting.
Science & Technology
Marc Solioz (low power - high interest stakeholder)
Drive:
In order to elucidate the viability of the idea, we emailed Dr Marc Solioz, one of the authors of the article about the outer membrane proteins ComC and ComR.
Discourse:
After outlining our idea in an email to Dr Marc Solioz, he highlighted a potential challenge we may face and outlined an in vitro approach to addressing nitrous oxide decomposition using the reductase. His main concern was that there is evidence that metallation of periplasmic enzymes proceeds via cytoplasmic copper by specific directed mechanisms so just adding copper to the periplasm may not work.
(note:
Waldron, K.J., Firbank, S.J., Dainty, S.J., Pérez-Rama, M., Tottey, S. and Robinson, N.J. (2010). Structure and Metal Loading of a Soluble Periplasm Cuproprotein. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 285(42), pp.32504–32511. doi:https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m110.153080.
)
Deliberation:
However, we discovered that nitrous oxide reductase is an outlier and metallation of the CuA site of the enzyme does in fact occur in the periplasm.
(note:
Wunsch, P., Herb, M., Wieland, H., Schiek, U.M. and Zumft, W.G. (2003). Requirements for Cu A and Cu-S Center Assembly of Nitrous Oxide Reductase Deduced from Complete Periplasmic Enzyme Maturation in the Nondenitrifier Pseudomonas putida. Journal of Bacnitrous oxideeriology, 185(3), pp.887–896. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.185.3.887-896.2003.
)
Consequently, we hypothesised that increasing the permeability of the outer membrane to copper by upregulation of ComR which could increase the periplasmic copper concentration and thus more copper cofactor would be available for metallation of the CuA centre. As a result, this may increase the rate at which the reductase is metallated thus leading to an increase in enzymatic activity.
Delivery:
In addition to this, he suggested that an in vitro approach may be worth considering. Since
International survey
Drive:
In the middle stages of our project, we tried to gauge the general public’s understanding of what we were trying to solve, as well as their opinions.
Discourse:
We sent out a survey to hundreds asking about their awareness of climate change, nitrous oxide, and maternal care. Additionally, we asked whether they wanted central processing or local processing masks (the former having bacteria in a central location at a hospital and the latter inside the mask).
Deliberation:
Merely 29% of participants knew of the dangers attributed to nitrous oxide, with 64% viewing climate change as either very important / important. 35% and 64% were content with local processing and central processing units respectively.
Delivery:
This allowed us to reflect upon our engagement with low power - low interest stakeholders, as we were better able to ascertain the public’s knowledge regarding this prominent issue. Therefore, we concluded that the international community could be better informed regarding the issue we set to solve, and we hence implemented more education and collaboration schemes with international teams to bridge the epistemic distance.
The responses and results of our survey can be found here:
Dr Jason Lie, Consultant Anaesthetist & Acute Pain Team (high power - high interest stakeholder) - healthcare provider
Drive:
During the initial stages of the second cycle of design of our project, we were determined to better understand how our project would fare in comparison to similar devices in the market. We also had limited knowledge of how exactly Entonox operated. Therefore we consulted Dr Jason Lie to clarify our comprehension of these aspects of our project.
Discourse:
We asked Dr Lie many questions, some regarding Medclair, a potential competitor to our device, and some regarding the concentrations of
Deliberation:
From this feedback some of our concerns regarding our competitor were assured, and we were able to better ascertain how Entonox operates and the issue of the emissions in the NHS.
Delivery:
This allowed us to move forward with our project, as it was clear that there was a gap in the market that we could fill. It also enabled us to plan how our device would operate in more depth, as we considered
Wet lab
Drive:
Having discussed with last year’s team from COL about their lab work, we were put in contact with Dr Anatoily Markiv. As a high school team, we greatly appreciate the time that academics give to help us, and we take on board the advice given.
Discourse:
After exchanging emails extensively with Dr Markiv, we discovered some flaws in our preconceptions about lab work. We therefore organised a series of online and in-person meetings in order to devise a functional wet lab plan. Additionally, during and after wet lab work was completed, we remained in close email contact to exchange further information (like sequencing) which was relevant for the project writeup.
Deliberation:
Having taken on board Dr Markiv’s input, we looked at what we could learn from our first cycle of design. We concluded that in the week we had available in the lab, we should focus on the most achievable aspects of our project, rather than stretching ourselves too thin. We also decided to plan our lab work around a core team to ensure continuity in the project, whilst also ensuring that we used any gaps to get as many team members into the lab as possible to experience the exciting world of genetic engineering.
Delivery:
In order to implement Dr Markiv’s suggestions, we decided to make the rest of the work on our nos operon inserts theoretical, whilst using the wet lab to build the ComR and GFP inserts. Overall, 7 of the 14 biology team members spent at least one day in the lab, and we are using the experience we gained to help next year’s team.
Hardware - potential to design a nitrous oxide sensor using MOFs
Drive:
As part of our design of the site for nitrous oxide breakdown, we hoped to develop our own nitrous oxide sensor to allow us to measure the efficiency of the system. Current sensors on the market, however, surpass our budget significantly, and their expense would not be justified (many are quoted at more than $5000). So, the hardware team investigated the potential of different materials that could ‘catch’ the nitrous oxide, and soon identified metal organic frameworks (MOFs) as a potential material for their great sensitivity and release of electric signals when in contact with nitrous oxide. However, the price of common MOFs were around $1000/g, and so we needed very high confidence in the potential of the design if we were to invest in it. To do so, we contacted Dr. Philip J. Milner at the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Cornell University - whose 2021 paper we had already used in our analysis of the potential of MOFs - for his opinion on this application of MOFs and its feasibility.
Discourse:
Having reached out via email, Dr. Milner soon replied and expressed his lack of confidence in this proposal. Moreover, he specifically cited the sensitivity of the MOFs, which we had previously believed to be their main advantage, informing us that it would be insufficient due to the affinity of MOFs to competitively bind water from air.
Deliberation:
Dr. Milner’s opinion that MOFs would not be sensitive enough was surprising and revealing to us, as we had been under the impression that it was one of few materials with sufficient sensitivity to nitrous oxide, and thus crucial in our improved understanding of the system.
Delivery:
Having exposed the uncertainty in the potential success of the MOF design of a nitrous oxide sensor, joint with the price of the material, we decided we could not go forward with this design. Dr. Milner’s advice inspired us to investigate cheaper alternatives and explore biochemical systems instead of purely physio-chemical ones for nitrous oxide detection. This led us to explore NMDA-receptors for nitrous oxide sensing.
Hardware - discontinuing the design for a nitrous oxide sensor
Drive:
Having investigated NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptors in synapses, and their unique binding to nitrous oxide, as a promising candidate for nitrous oxide sensing, we needed to verify the feasibility of this concept, and the likely steps forward if it were feasible. Due to the complete lack of research available online in the application of NMDA receptor-binding to nitrous oxide sensing, we required direct contact with professionals to gain insight from their experience and knowledge. To do this, we reached out to Prof. Nick P. Franks, at the department of Biophysics and Anaesthetics at Imperial College London, whose 2022 paper had originally inspired us to follow this potential route.
Discourse:
Having contacted him by email, we asked for his opinion on the feasibility both of the accuracy of the concept itself, and of the actual implementation of the concept into a functioning sensor. Prof. Franks expressed his lack of confidence in the idea, telling us that it was not a good approach, in his opinion, due to the likely weak binding of the NMDA receptors, and the practical difficulty of coupling receptor activity to a measurable readout. Moreover, he suggested we take an alternative pathway, specifically suggesting we investigate the inhibition of methionine synthase by nitrous oxide.
Deliberation:
Prof. Franks’ expression of disconfidence at the concept was highly important in helping verify the lack of certainty in this proposed design, and his reluctance towards the difficulty of implementing the design to give physical readout confirmed our concerns for the design. Moreover, we had previously not been certain of the binding of the NMDA receptor, and assumed it to be very strong, and so this information regarding its likely weak nature was extremely informative and changed our understanding of the concept completely. This was all crucial in confirming that we should discontinue this concept and look into the methionine synthase design.
Delivery:
We decided to move on from the NMDA receptor-based design and investigate methionine synthase inhibition. Though promising, as Prof. Franks expressed, the lab work this concept would involve was too great for the resources we had, and so this led to us deciding not to design our own nitrous oxide sensor, and rely on predictive modelling of enzyme reaction rates instead, given confirmation of the success of the transformation.
Ethics & Regulations
Corresponding with NHS for cycle design
Drive:
Our impetus for this cycle of design was the ethical consideration of whether having patients breathe into a box full of E. coli is safe and would be allowed by hospital control teams. Even if our design for the box has a big and positive environmental impact, this would be completely outweighed if there was any chance of the E. coli spreading to the patients and infecting them which would be incredibly dangerous.
Discourse:
In order to find an answer for this question, we wanted to ask a NHS employee for their input as the design process would be human-centred. Lyndsay Muirhead, a clinical sustainability project manager at the UCL Hospital NHS Trust was a good option as she would have knowledge in biochemistry, NHS sustainability, and NHS ethical precautions. We asked her about the ethical considerations of having E. coli in a box that the patients would breathe into, so that nitrous oxide can be broken down, and the environmental impact of NHS Hospitals can be reduced. She assisted us by using her knowledge as well as her microbiology colleagues and gave us the following feedback. There would have to be a 0% chance of E. coli escaping and infecting the patient. If so, we would have to be able to prove this with a tested concept of absolute patient safety. They also raised these two important points: 'Is there a way of isolating the enzyme without viable E. coli bacteria?' And 'Is there a way of capturing Entonox and taking it offsite, away from patients, to break down?' They encouraged us that our concept can be hugely beneficial.
Deliberation:
We carefully analysed the feedback from Lyndsay and her colleagues and collectively decided that the second point they raised of taking the Entonox offsite to be broken down would be the most efficient and viable option for us as proving that there would be an absolute 0% chance of infection from our original design would be incredibly difficult and probably impossible.
Delivery:
To implement the idea of having the Entonox taken off site we designed a system where the gas breathed out by the patient after using Entonox would be collected into canisters and taken to an external site. This location would be where the nitrous oxide is broken down by the E. coli with recombinant DNA. This would allow for the same environmental impact while assuring complete safety for the patients as there would be no risk of infection.
CLSG friends (high power - low interest stakeholder)
Drive:
This served as an important source of funding for our team, so we took the committee's expectations very seriously. Their goal was not just to support the development of our design, but also to promote greater awareness of sustainability and synthetic biology, particularly among younger audiences. With this in mind, we made sure to integrate these values into our research and planning, ensuring that our project would not only achieve its technical goals but also contribute to a broader understanding of these important topics, especially within educational settings.
Discourse:
We engaged with the committee to discuss educational initiatives that could help introduce children to synthetic biology in a gradual, accessible way. One of our suggestions was a podcast series designed to build up knowledge incrementally with each episode, making complex topics easier to understand over time. For younger audiences, we also proposed using key dates like “DNA Day” and “Earth Day” as opportunities to provide additional educational content and raise awareness. These were just a couple of the ideas we presented to the committee as part of our broader approach to promoting synthetic biology and sustainability in an engaging, child-friendly format.
Deliberation:
From this, we learned the importance of being adaptable and responsive to feedback, which helped us balance technical goals with broader educational and sustainability objectives. By iterating on our design and aligning it with both usability and the committee’s expectations, we ensured our project was not only functional but impactful. Our focus on targeted educational strategies, like bite-sized podcasts and using awareness days such as DNA Day and Earth Day, allowed us to effectively engage younger audiences and promote synthetic biology in an accessible way. This holistic approach ensured our project contributed to both immediate needs and long-term scientific literacy and sustainability.
Delivery:
We put these ideas into action by releasing podcast episodes to younger students at our school and gathering their feedback, which we used to improve the second season. Additionally, we visited CJS and Cavendish Primary Schools to teach students about DNA and sustainability. We also participated in Earthfest, where we educated a range of primary schools, as well as students from years 7-12, on the exciting potential of synthetic biology and the importance of bioremediation in addressing environmental challenges. For more information about our educational events and resources, please see the education page.
General Human Practices
What values—environmental, social, moral, scientific, or other—did you have in mind when designing your project?
Environmental:
Both schools in our team share a passion for sustainability and environmental wellbeing. This was a huge consideration in our project as we recognised the importance and need for climate action in London, a heavily polluted city.
Moral and Social:
Simultaneously, we saw the strain placed on the NHS, particularly after the events of COVID, which inspired our choice of sector when tackling the issue posed by nitrous oxide. We were driven to alleviate some of the pressure placed on the NHS by creating a cheaper and more sustainable solution to combat nitrous oxide emissions.
Despite our project being hypothetical, it could develop to have a profound impact on the NHS’ carbon footprint, particularly workers who handle Entonox.
Scientific:
Our team particularly has a passion for expanding the knowledge of the current scientific world and as a result took care in our research of a very novel mechanism which is under researched: ComR and ComC. Our exploration of this would hopefully inspire other teams to research this further bringing more understanding of how these genes interact.
Which resources or communities did you consult to ensure those are appropriate values in the context of your project?
Throughout our project we consulted various communities, from farmers in the agricultural sector to anaesthesia specialists. From these interactions, we were able to better consider these values in relation to our project, and reflecting on each one (as shown below) has enabled us to think critically and get the most out of each discussion. As we would implement this in hospitals we went out of our way to ensure communication with NHS branches was at the forefront of every step of our project. By consulting with them on cycles of design, sustainability, price points, and, above all, patient centred care and safety, we not only prioritised our values but also the NHS’ values.
What evidence do you have to show that your project is responsible and good for the world?
Our aim with this project was to raise awareness about the dangers of
Furthermore, this project will have a significant positive impact on the NHS, not only by potentially reducing the financial strain upon them due to our solution being cheaper than the one currently in the market, but also by reducing their carbon footprint, of which
What impact will your project have?
Our project would theoretically reduce financial strain and help the NHS to come closer to achieving their green goals without compromising on the high efficiency and service provided by healthcare workers. It would also help reduce the disastrous side effects experienced by healthcare workers whilst administering and monitoring Entonox usage. We understand not only the importance of Entonox in terms of the efficiency and safety of the results it provides but also the disastrous effects it places on the environment and healthcare workers who strive to help the public. Our impact will be in helping to aid the environment and the workers so that the health and safety of people, the environment or our NHS workers do not have to be compromised.
Who are your proposed end users? How do you envision others using your project? How would you implement your project in the real world?
Our proposed end users include hospital branches and the general public. We hope our project could be implemented in hospitals, primarily in the UK but later potentially expanding to other countries who may face similar problems.
Responsibility
Ethical considerations:
Due to our project dealing with the healthcare industry, more specifically due to our project’s involvement with anaesthesia, we found it pertinent to consider ethical issues such as patient comfort, which comprises patient privacy and safety. This is why we made various surveys to understand the public’s willingness to use our mask and how they would find it. This enabled us to better comprehend potential patient participation in using the product, which helped us to develop our product to make it comply with their privacy and safety expectations. Furthermore, we had to consider safety issues for NHS workers. Our project would make it safer for NHS workers to work with Entonox as they would no longer be exposed to
Environmental responsibility:
Due to our project having an environmental focus, we find it pertinent to focus on this aspect. To address this, we have ensured that in doing wet and dry lab work we prioritised low waste research methods. Furthermore, we conducted the majority of our research through technological devices, further mitigating waste.
Responsiveness:
Any successful project needs iteration.
One of our examples of integrated human practices at work was a survey conducted, which can be found here.
Through conducting research with various stakeholders, our team has been able to identify issues or potential optimisations for the project and adapt it to fit these new criteria. This cycle of reflection and subsequent adaptation has ensured that our project remains scientifically and socially relevant and sustainable.