Integrated Human Practices

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

Our initial idea involved modifying DNA origami, but by April, we shifted our focus to a protein-based approach. During this phase, we sought feedback and validation to ensure that our new direction was both original and promising. To this end, we interviewed Prof. Dr. Kerstin Göpfrich, a renowned expert in the field of nucleoside origami.

What We Learned:

We presented our idea of using fused Cas proteins to orchestrate dsDNA organization to Prof. Dr. Kerstin Göpfrich. Although our project had evolved beyond its original DNA origami concept, we still framed it within the context of DNA origami during our discussion. She advised us to move away from our original inspiration and fully focus on our new concept, which is no longer tied to traditional DNA origami.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Based on her advice, we shifted our focus away from DNA origami and began concentrating on the strengths of our new technology—inducing proximity between two dsDNA strands within the genome. This approach involves using specific genetic elements in our experiments and designing staples that interact with their surrounding environment. It was during this interview that we first considered linking the activity of our staples to environmental factors, such as the presence of proteases.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

At this stage of the project, we had outlined the main concept of using Cas staples for DNA-protein hybrid nanostructures and needed expert advice to finalize our constructs. We turned to Prof. Dr. Kurt Vesterager Gothelf for insights into his work in DNA nanotechnology and organic chemistry, eager to explore the possibilities within this field.

What We Learned:

In our discussion with Prof. Dr. Kurt Vesterager Gothelf, we primarily focused on potential readout methods. He suggested using labeled protein staples and also envisioned the possibility of a FRET-based readout. We explored the use of triplex DNA formation as a readout method and discussed various strategies for stabilizing our origami constructs. Gothelf advised us to replicate successful approaches from other scientists when in doubt and when direct guidance isn't available. We also discussed how DNA-protein hybrids fit into the broader landscape of DNA nanotechnology.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Following the input from this interview, we finalized our concept for designing an in vivo FRET readout. While many possibilities discussed with Prof. Dr. Kurt Vesterager Gothelf were not implemented as our project evolved from genome origami to 3D genome engineering—shifting our focus away from stabilizing constructs—the interview still offered valuable insights into DNA nanotechnology. We were also encouraged by Gothelf's positive outlook on the future of DNA-protein hybrid constructs.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

During the idea development phase of our project, we explored existing DNA nanotechnologies, including DNA origami. To understand the possibilities and limitations of these technologies, we spoke with industry stakeholders. We sought insights into what these technologies are most commonly used for and what their most important applications are. We contacted Tilibit, a company that provides DNA origami development for projects in the DNA nanotechnology field, aiming to receive a broad overview of this field.

What We Learned:

Dr. Sumersing Patil first provided us with an overview of DNA origami, noting that he believes in vivo production offers no significant advantages over in vitro production, given the complex development for in vivo manufacturing. Furthermore, the technology, developed over a decade ago, is now well-established with numerous applications. He identified the size of our structures as the primary limitation. While Patil didn't have specific thoughts on this idea, he emphasized that having a large toolbox of methods is always beneficial. Since we were also exploring potential readout methods, he suggested using agarose gel for this purpose.

How We Integrated the Advice:

We decided to investigate protein staples as a promising direction, even though we had not yet considered Cas staples at that time. Patil's vision of a versatile toolbox inspired us to dive deeper into it. Furthermore, for our readout method, we chose EMSA but continued searching for an in vivo readout, seeking further advice from other experts.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

He works on molecular dynamics simulations of membrane proteins and contributes to existing scientific software such as PolyPly or Martini DNA, which he worked on during his PhD. Thus, he is an expert on molecular dynamics simulations. We contacted Dr. Grünewald to present our ideas, and our work plan and to ask questions about the subject, as no one in the team had ever worked with MD simulations before and we had learned everything so far from textbooks, some very helpful online tutorials, and our ideas.

What We Learned:

Dr. Grünewald approved our pipeline, describing the molecular dynamics part of it as "a good but rather ambitious plan". He also liked our setup on the Heidelberg HPC cluster. He gave us several important considerations, such as how to maximize runtime, how to tune the model parameters to our system, what to consider when setting up an umbrella sampling simulation, and how to estimate the errors of molecular dynamics simulations. In addition, he advised us to use the TIP3P or OPC water system instead of our first idea (the TIP4P), as the latest Amber force field was calibrated using TIP3P. He also advised us to use the amber14sb-ol21 ff for DNA/RNA/protein interactions.

How We Integrated the Advice:

We used the suggested run-time considerations and tested our system capabilities on the Grubmüller Group benchmark sets, improving our run-time by up to 20 times. We improved our parameters for calculating particle-particle interactions and used the recommended force field. We also started using VMD to visualize our models. He also advised us on a bug resulting from an unspoken Amber naming convention.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

As one of the leading developers for oxDNA, we contacted Dr. Poppleton to learn more about oxDNA and to discuss our idea of using this software to simulate whole plasmid stapling with an expert. We wanted to learn about oxDNA's constraints and capabilities, for which Dr. Poppleton seemed ideal.

What We Learned:

During our discussion, we learned about a force type with which we could simulate the force exerted by the staple onto the DNA. We realized that to efficiently simulate DNA behavior and structure of bigger sizes using a coarse-grained simulation tool is ideal. He additionally offered to keep helping us throughout the project—an offer we thankfully accepted.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Throughout working on the model, Dr. Poppleton hinted us toward how to circularize linear strands into plasmids, gave advice regarding the stapling process, and continued to give us advice on which parameters meaningfully affect our simulations. His feedback allowed us to structure our pipeline efficiently and refine our approach.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We reached out to Dr. Lesterlin, an expert in bacterial conjugation, who specializes in studying the DNA and protein machinery involved in horizontal gene transfer between bacteria. Our goal was to gain deeper insights into the mechanisms of bacterial conjugation and evaluate the feasibility of our initial idea. Additionally, we sought guidance on strategies to enhance conjugation efficiency and determine which approaches would be most effective to pursue.

What We Learned:

In our conversation with Dr. Lesterlin, we received confirmation that our initial idea is feasible, and the conjugation system we proposed is the most promising option. We also recognized that engineering the T4SS would go beyond the scope of iGEM, making it unlikely to yield meaningful results, particularly given the limited understanding of the specific events that trigger conjugation.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Following the interview, we decided to proceed with the conjugation system we had already selected without making any modifications to the functional components of the T4SS. Instead, we chose to concentrate our efforts on improving efficiency by enhancing cellular proximity through the expression of synthetic adhesins on the bacterial surface.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We reached out to Dr. Marta Robledo for her expert opinion on the progress of our project. We were eager to hear her evaluation of our plans and any suggestions for improvement. As an expert in bacterial conjugation, Dr. Robledo’s scientific work has demonstrated that adhesins play a significant role in enhancing conjugation efficiency in bacterial cells. Given her expertise, we sought her insights to translate this knowledge from the bacterial context and evaluate our proposed delivery platform.

What We Learned:

During our conversation, Dr. Robledo emphasized several important aspects we had already considered, such as the distinction between liquid and solid-media conjugation. She also pointed out that, if successful, our results might suggest the opposite of what we initially expected—that the limiting factor in conjugation is cell-to-cell contact rather than the type of cells involved.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Taking her advice into account, we ensured that our experiments included a sufficient number of negative controls to rule out the influence of any random processes occurring during conjugation. Our key takeaway was the importance of carefully designing each experiment and being clear about the specific conclusions that can be drawn from the results.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

Dr. Abdelhakim Boudrioua strongly encouraged us to pursue the idea of conjugation between bacterial and mammalian cells. He advised us to use an existing conjugative machinery rather than creating a hybrid system by combining different ones. Additionally, he highlighted the potential challenge of ssDNA stability in the cytoplasm of mammalian cells, which could hinder successful DNA transfer. To address this, he recommended investigating viral proteins involved in nuclear import to see if they could be adapted to assist with the nuclear import of ssDNA transferred into mammalian cells via conjugation.

What We Learned:

We contacted Abdelhakim Boudrioua as he is a postdoc working with T3SS, a closely related bacterial machinery for protein delivery, from Salmonella and T4SS from Legionella. By the time we had contacted him, we were still in the project brainstorming phase. Therefore, it was very important for us to hear the opinions of various experts who have different perspectives regarding our idea. As the work of his PI includes both the T3- and T4 Secretion Systems, we decided to seek his advice for our idea in development.

How We Integrated the Advice:

After our interview with him, we decided to stick to the RP4 transfer system from the incompatibility group P. We designed our experiments in a way that ensures they deliver solid results. Just like Abdelhakim did during our interview, we kept questioning every plan and experiment design to minimize possible wrong conclusions.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We contacted Dr. Timo Kehl, the Head of Biosafety at the DKFZ Heidelberg, to get an expert opinion on the overall biosafety of our project and potential safety concerns that we should keep in mind in our work.

What We Learned:

We learned that our project, within the scope we are aiming for, is generally regarded as safe, as long as we make sure to not introduce toxins and limit off-target activity in our design. Kehl first assured us that working with E. coli K-12 derivative strains is the safest strategy regarding the organism we are using, as it cannot proliferate outside the lab environment. In case of environmental exposure, the conjugation experiments remain in a safe range as long as we do not transfer harmful elements like pathogenic/toxic proteins/viral factors, as conjugation is not an unnatural process. The biosafety level will only change once we reach DNA transfer efficiencies close to those of other BSL2 systems (e.g. viral vectors).

In our guide RNA design for the Cas staples, we should ensure that there is no close sequence homology especially to oncogenes/tumor suppressor genes to minimize off-target activity. Regarding in vitro enhancer hijacking experiments, BSL 1 is kept if no viruses/ BSL 2 systems are used. He referred us to additional resources for biosafety evaluation of research projects in the frame of the university and German law. Finally, he reflected on our observation of common misconceptions about GMOs in society, highlighting the accepted use of GMOs in pharmaceuticals and biotechnological production in contrast to food.

How We Integrated the Advice:

We decided to keep working on our project in the previously decided scope, while making sure to design our constructs responsibly and in check for potential harmful effects that could result in every following step. Furthermore, we integrated Dr. Kehl's opinion on the observation of GMOs in society into our HP efforts.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We reached out to Prof. Dr. Carl Herrmann because of his extensive knowledge in chromatin modifications and their effects, particularly concerning ectopic gene overexpression and the phenomenon of enhancer hijacking. These topics are highly relevant to our overall project. Our goal was to discuss potential applications of these mechanisms and gather ideas on how they could be incorporated into our project. Given his expertise in chromosomal interactions and disease mechanisms, Herrmann was an ideal expert to help guide us in this area.

What We Learned:

In our conversation with Prof. Dr. Carl Herrmann, we were introduced to the concept of enhancer hijacking, which became a key component of our project. This phenomenon, where chromatin modifications lead to altered gene expression, opened up new possibilities for applying our technology. Herrmann also connected these ideas to disease mechanisms, such as those seen in neuroblastomas, which deepened our understanding of how chromosomal interactions drive disease development. The interview took place early in our project and significantly shaped our subsequent literature review and the overall direction of the project.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Based on Carl Herrmann's insights, we adapted our project to focus on enhancer hijacking as a potential tool for therapeutic intervention and disease modeling. His advice strongly influenced our project approach, particularly regarding the use of CRISPR technology to manipulate specific chromosomal interactions. Additionally, his suggestions led us to explore specific cell lines and datasets, like the HI-C datasets, as part of our research. Following his advice, we also reached out to other key experts, such as PD Dr. Frank Westermann and Karsten Rippe, to obtain further resources and support for our project.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We reached out to PD Dr. Frank Westermann because of his expertise in cancer genetics and his research on enhancer hijacking and chromosomal interactions. His knowledge of circular extrachromosomal DNA (Amplicons) and their role in enhancer hijacking was of particular relevance to our project. We wanted to explore how we could model and potentially induce enhancer hijacking in a research context and discuss the broader implications for cancer research.

What We Learned:

Enhancer hijacking is a crucial mechanism in tumorigenesis, providing a selective advantage to cancer cells. PD Dr. Frank Westermann emphasized the significant role of circular extrachromosomal DNA (Amplicons), which are frequently involved in enhancer hijacking and are present in many tumors. While it is challenging to model enhancer hijacking experimentally, Westermann highlighted that it can be induced in certain cell types, such as stem cells, offering the potential for studying specific pathological events. He introduced us to the idea of using Amplicons as a central mechanism in cancer, as they facilitate abnormal gene expression without altering the entire chromosomal framework. Westermann also recognized that our project could be applied to develop model cell lines to better study enhancer hijacking and its implications, particularly in cancer research. Our approach could help create systems where oncogene expression and tumor suppressor gene activation can be precisely modulated, allowing for a deeper understanding of these mechanisms and their therapeutic potential.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Based on the insights provided by Dr. Frank Westermann, we shifted our focus more strongly towards the application of our project in creating model cancer cell lines. His suggestion that our project could be applied in this area encouraged us to conduct further literature research to explore how our approach could be used to study enhancer hijacking and its implications in cancer. We incorporated the concept of circular extrachromosomal DNA (Amplicons) into our project, as Westermann highlighted their central role in enhancer hijacking. His advice led us to investigate how enhancer hijacking could be utilized to disrupt driver interactions in cancer cells and assess its potential therapeutic effects, particularly regarding the modulation of oncogene expression and tumor suppressor gene activation.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We contacted Prof. Dr. Mundlos due to his expertise in gene regulatory landscapes, particularly his work on the relationship between enhancers, promoters, and 3D chromatin folding. On his website, he pointed out a major challenge in the field: “Currently, this is not possible due to our lack of knowledge of how gene regulatory landscapes work and how the interplay between enhancers, promoters, 3D chromatin folding, and epigenetics functions produces the high precision of gene expression we can observe, e.g., during development.” This lack of understanding makes it difficult to predict the outcomes of non-coding genome variants, which aligns directly with the goals of our iGEM project. We believe that by presenting our work, which aims to manipulate proximity-induced DNA interactions, we can gather valuable feedback from Prof. Mundlos and explore whether our platform could contribute a solution to these knowledge gaps. His insight helped us refine our approach and ensure it addresses real-world scientific challenges.

What We Learned:

From our interview with Prof. Dr. Mundlos, we gained important insights into the challenges surrounding 3D chromatin folding and enhancer-promoter interactions. He emphasized the complexity of inducing artificial proximity and the limited understanding of enhancer-promoter specificity. We learned that while proximity can be measured, its transient nature presents significant challenges. Prof. Mundlos acknowledged that our tool has the potential to experimentally validate proximity-based interactions, filling a gap in current research. Furthermore, he confirmed that our system could be applied not only in disease models, such as cancer, but also in fundamental research, addressing a significant unmet need in the field.

How We Integrated the Advice:

After our interview with Prof. Dr. Mundlos, we have taken several steps to integrate his valuable advice into our project. We began by conducting additional literature research to better understand the complexities of 3D chromatin folding and proximity-induced interactions, particularly in the context of enhancer-promoter relationships. Additionally, we reached out to the two experts he recommended, Mike Robson and Anton Hensen, to explore their work on nuclear lamina attachment and extra-chromosomal DNA, respectively. These discussions will allow us to expand our knowledge and refine our system.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

Dr. Dorothea Kaufmann, with her extensive experience in science communication and her involvement in initiatives to raise awareness and promote inclusivity in science - particularly for women in STEM - is an ideal interview partner to provide valuable insights into effective strategies of science communication. Her perspective was invaluable as we refined our Human Practices plans, particularly in shaping our Inclusive Science Thursday Workshop series and other educational projects.

What We Learned:

In the interview with Dr. Kaufmann, we learned several key strategies for effective science communication and outreach. We understood the importance of using diverse platforms and public spaces to reach a broader audience. To maintain public interest we have to focus on the project's unique selling points while using simple communication. Furthermore, improving inclusivity in STEM is crucial and can only be achieved through targeted workshops and active community involvement.

How We Integrated the Advice:

We took Dr. Kaufmann's recommendations to heart by refining our outreach strategy. We developed visually appealing materials to accompany our presentations and tailored our messaging to ensure clarity and accessibility. Furthermore, we planned to leverage social media platforms to disseminate information about our project and to engage a wider audience. By incorporating personal narratives into our communication, we aimed to make the subject more relatable and encourage a deeper interest in synthetic biology among our target groups.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We contacted Prof. Dr. Markus Bühner, a professor at the Department of Psychology at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, because of his expertise in psychological methodology and diagnostics. As a specialist in aptitude diagnostics and test construction, we wanted to gain a better understanding of how to scientifically structure our survey and identify key factors we should be mindful of during its design.

What We Learned:

In the interview with Prof. Dr. Markus Bühner, we learned several key elements to improve the scientific quality of our survey. First, he emphasized the importance of pre-testing the survey with a small group of 5-10 people to ensure the questions were clear and covered the target audience effectively. He also highlighted the necessity of formulating well-constructed questions that can differentiate between respondents' knowledge levels. Additionally, he recommended a minimum sample size of 250 participants for our survey to obtain statistically significant and stable results. Prof. Bühner also stressed the importance of avoiding open questions unless we are aiming to explore hypotheses and suggested focusing on structured questions that provide quantifiable data.

How We Integrated the Advice:

We incorporated Prof. Dr. Bühner's advice in several ways. First, we conducted pre-testing to refine and finalize the survey questions. We also ensured that our sample size exceeded the recommended minimum to achieve statistically stable results. Based on his feedback, we adjusted our question format from open-ended questions to a Likert scale, which allows for more quantifiable and structured data. Lastly, we reduced the total number of questions to the amount he suggested, ensuring that the survey remains focused and manageable for participants.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We contacted Prof. Dr. Armin Baur, an expert on school education, to assess the didactic quality of the content of school workshop concepts. We aimed to gain valuable insights in designing an engaging workshop to spark interest in synthetic biology and scientific research in children and teenagers.

What We Learned:

After presenting our preliminary concept, Prof. Baur emphasized the importance of incorporating diverse lesson elements and actively engaging students to keep their attention. He recommended providing a clear outline of what students can expect and advised minimizing traditional lecture time in favor of more interactive activities. These activities could involve sharing opinions on an introductory question, independent research, and transferring presented concepts to new examples in varying group sizes. To further enhance engagement, Prof. Baur suggested using a variety of media, such as texts, videos, presentations, and internet resources. He also introduced us to the concept of lesson plans, an established method to break lessons into structured units, each differentiated by activity type, content, media, social interaction, and time allocation. By carefully planning these elements, we can create a well-rounded, engaging workshop.

Moreover, we gained a clearer understanding of what to expect from the students and which activities would most effectively spark their interest in synthetic biology. In high school classes, students would be highly interested in our work and experiences in research. For elementary school children, Prof. Baur strongly advised maximizing hands-on engagement through practical activities, games, and breaks to maintain their attention and enthusiasm throughout the workshop.

Finally, Prof. Baur recognized our elementary school workshop as a valuable addition to the curriculum, as the cell concept is usually not introduced until a more advanced grade. All in all, this interview played an integral role in the development of our workshops, transforming our initial draft into a well-designed, scientifically grounded educational concept. It highlighted the importance of incorporating varied lesson elements and provided us with tools to effectively plan and assess the quality of our workshop. Additionally, it enabled us to re-evaluate which components are most valuable for the students, helping us prioritize and refine the different units to create a more engaging and effective learning experience.

How We Integrated the Advice:

We created a detailed lesson plan following Prof. Baur's template to make it reproducible for other team members and future iGEMers. This also allowed us to review the workshop structure and adjust time allocation for each unit. By prioritizing key activities, we ensured a balanced program that included group work, independent thinking, and interactive elements. For the elementary school workshop, we included only one practical experiment, allowing ample time for thorough explanations and ensuring a solid understanding of cell concepts.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We contacted Prof. Graf as an expert in elementary school didactics to learn how to design a workshop for elementary school students. We aimed to gain insights on strategies to design an age-appropriate and effective lesson, keep the children's attention, and explain an advanced biological concept clearly and understandably.

What We Learned:

In this interview, we gained valuable insights on how younger children learn most effectively. Prof. Graf emphasized the importance of consistency when teaching young children. Every new concept must be clearly explained, and graphical elements used to visualize these ideas should be applied consistently throughout the entire workshop. When introducing abstract concepts like cells, it's helpful to start with familiar phenomena, such as the human body to make new concepts easier to understand. She also highlighted the value of active learning: for children, exploring new concepts by hands-on experiments and collaborative group activities is essential for a deep understanding. Regarding the content of the workshop, Prof. Graf advised focusing on one main concept rather than introducing too many new ideas at once. This ensures that the topic is thoroughly explained and understood. Finally, she stressed that children have limited attention spans. Frontal lectures should be kept to a minimum, with regular breaks after each coherent lesson element to maintain focus and engagement. This enabled us to choose media and activity forms that convey knowledge while catching the attention of children and presenting scientific concepts in an exciting and vivid form, sparking the children's interest in science and biology.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Together with Prof. Graf, we reviewed our concept draft and made improvements based on the advice she gave us. We incorporated a lot of visual elements, making sure to be consistent to not confuse the children with contradicting or changing information in the process of the workshop. We integrated various types of activities that allowed the children to independently discover and learn while structuring the workshop to avoid opportunities for boredom or distraction.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

Following the valuable insights from our previous interview, we sought to gain further guidance on our educational projects. PD Dr. Kaufmann's expertise in education and science communication was crucial in helping us evaluate and refine our program.

What We Learned:

Our conversation reaffirmed that our educational initiatives, such as the school workshops, play a key role in providing evidence-based knowledge on crucial topics like genetic engineering. We serve as multipliers for CRISPR/Cas, improving public understanding of this technology and equipping the next generation with the tools to critically evaluate scientific information. This is a vital part of scientific enablement, where people are empowered to think independently about complex topics such as GMOs and personalized therapies. Dr. Kaufmann acknowledged that by enhancing people's understanding of these subjects, we are enabling them to engage in informed discussions and decisions. Dr. Kaufmann encouraged us to critically evaluate our program to ensure its effectiveness and relevance. She provided valuable insights on how to position our educational efforts within the broader context of Germany's educational landscape. Her suggestions have helped us refine our approach and consider how future iterations of our program can continue to make a meaningful impact.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Dr. Kaufmann encouraged us to critically evaluate our program to ensure its effectiveness and relevance. She provided valuable insights on how to position our educational efforts within the broader context of Germany's educational landscape. Her suggestions have helped us refine our approach and consider how future iterations of our program can continue to make a meaningful impact.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We reached out to Dr. Katja Naie to obtain feedback on our plans regarding the Art Science Competition. Given her expertise in educational program design, we sought her insights to ensure that our competition would be effective and engaging for participants.

What We Learned:

Dr. Katja Naie provided us with valuable feedback on our plan, noting that our timeline and outreach goals were rather optimistic. She recommended starting with a smaller group of participants for an initial test run before scaling up. Additionally, she suggested refining the task to better suit the target audience, making it clearer and more accessible for the students.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Following the expert feedback, we plan to implement the Dream Organism Competition with a smaller group of students first, which also simplifies the outreach effort. Additionally, we refined the competition categories and finalized the prizes for the participants.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

Our initial hypothesis—that a negative opinion about GMOs correlates with less knowledge in scientific topics—naturally ties into assessing the needs of our education system. To explore this further, we reached out to experts in STEM education across Germany. One of our conversations was with Laura Krauß, project lead of "Make Your School", a program that provides students with hands-on experience using digital and electronic tools. As an expert in engaging students in STEM, particularly those who may not have a natural interest in these subjects, we were eager to hear her perspective on STEM education in Germany and how our projects can contribute to it.

What We Learned:

Laura Krauß emphasized the importance of overcoming stereotypes and integrating 21st-century skills like teamwork and problem-solving. She acknowledged the challenges in the German education system, particularly in reaching beyond gymnasium students, and suggested providing target group-specific offers. She praised our project for its approach and encouraged making educational opportunities as accessible and cost-free as possible. Lastly, she highlighted ongoing efforts to modernize MINT education in Germany and suggested connecting with relevant networks for further support.

How We Integrated the Advice:

The interview helped us to reflect on our educational efforts within the broader context of STEM education in Germany. It revealed that many of the challenges we faced are common across the field, yet also highlighted how several aspects of our projects address key gaps in STEM education. For instance, our fully funded summer school allowed students to gain hands-on experience with expensive kits that would typically be beyond the budget of regular lab courses, effectively bridging a gap in access to practical learning resources. Additionally, we planned the "Berufsparcours" to reach students from a wider range of school types beyond just Gymnasium, ensuring broader access to our initiatives.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We reached out to Benjamin Gesing because he leads the largest STEM network in Germany. We aimed to gain insights from his extensive experience and knowledge in STEM education, particularly regarding effective strategies to engage students and address current challenges in the field.

What We Learned:

Benjamin Gesing emphasized the importance of hands-on, engaging projects to combat technology skepticism among students and the general public. He praised our approach of sparking enthusiasm for STEM subjects in elementary school and deepening this interest with older students through our educational programs. He also highlighted the rare opportunity our programs provide for students to gain insights into top-level research. Gesing noted that effective STEM education in Germany heavily relies on motivated teaching staff, yet there is a significant shortage of qualified STEM teachers. He pointed out that while student competencies in STEM have rapidly increased in recent years, there is a growing gap between high and low achievers despite the increased efforts in STEM education. Additionally, he provided us with recommended literature on this topic.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Through the interview, we gained a better overview of the current STEM education in Germany, which made it possible for us to evaluate our projects in this context. Furthermore, Benjamin Gesing encouraged us to assess the future viability of our projects again, which we implemented by already planning upcoming events for 2025.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We had the privilege of speaking with a project management agency of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, specifically the Department Empirical Educational Research at the German Aerospace Center (DLR). Our discussion included Dr. Stephanie Schaerer, Head of Department, along with Dr. Sara Weckemann, an expert in public relations and science communication, and Dr. Karin Freitag, a specialist in research funding in education. This diverse group provided us with invaluable insights into Germany’s educational funding landscape and how our projects can effectively contribute.

What We Learned:

The experts commended our efforts for offering a diverse range of educational programs and providing insights into cutting-edge research. They provided us with crucial background information on dealing with diversity, principles of successful science communication and effective instruction and education. Furthermore, they highlighted the importance of aligning methods with goals to ensure successful learning outcomes.

How We Integrated the Advice:

In this interview, we received important background information on the current state of STEM education in Germany, which was essential for evaluating our educational work. We reviewed and, where necessary, revised all our educational materials based on the feedback received, ensuring that our projects aligned with the experts' recommendations. Specifically, we focused on whether our methods matched our goals and whether our explanations resonated with the realities of people's lives.

Why we contacted this stakeholder:

As part of our analysis of the education system in Germany, we wanted to learn from experts involved in early STEM (MINT) education, particularly those focusing on elementary school levels. We reached out to Ida Sagner, the academic director of the Hector Kinderakademie Heidelberg, which is renowned for its focus on fostering curiosity and talent in young students in STEM subjects.

What We Learned:

Ms. Sagner highlighted several significant trends and challenges in STEM education. She also emphasized the importance of nurturing children's natural curiosity at an early age, as they enter school eager to learn and explore. One key takeaway from our discussion was the importance of connecting theory and practice, something that many students do not often experience. Ms. Sagner praised our elementary school workshop for offering this connection and noted that the digital integration of theoretical content was a particularly new and beneficial experience for the students. When asked about the shortcomings of science education in elementary schools, she pointed out that in many primary schools, science education is embedded within a broader "Sachunterricht" (general studies) curriculum, which also includes subjects like history, geography, and politics. As a result, the depth of scientific teaching often depends on the teacher's background. This highlights the need for more teachers with a solid grounding in science. Mandatory training for all teachers in STEM subjects could also help overcome the barrier to effective science education. Moreover, there is a lack of specialized classrooms and essential lab equipment such as microscopes and pipettes. Ms. Sagner suggested that creating a "lab atmosphere" in schools would significantly boost students' motivation to engage in hands-on science. She also pointed out the most of the problems are connected to significant financial challenges that schools face, with budget cuts, larger class sizes, and teacher shortages impacting the quality of education. She stressed that funding is essential, not only for improving school facilities and equipment but also for making the teaching profession more attractive through higher salaries. Ms. Sagner further explained that education policy in Germany is the responsibility of individual federal states, meaning that even national initiatives may not always be uniformly implemented. Additionally, she mentioned that long travel times often make it difficult for students and teachers to participate in external projects, highlighting the importance of local accessibility. Ms. Sagner recommended that we target schools directly, including not only gymnasiums but also comprehensive schools and vocational schools. She noted that adapting our material to suit different levels of knowledge would be essential in reaching a broader audience.

How We Integrated the Advice:

Based on Ms. Sagner's feedback, we specifically targeted other schools, including non-gymnasium schools, by reaching out directly with adapted programs. We designed these offerings to be accessible and tailored to the needs of a broader range of students, ensuring that our programs not only had a local impact but were also partially available online. Although we do not have direct control over funding for schools, we tried to work within our means to support them. By offering our additional locally-based initiatives, we aimed to provide significant enrichment and relief to schools. These efforts were intended to help bridge gaps in resources and offer valuable, easy-to-reach opportunities for students. We placed a strong emphasis on integrating practical, hands-on experiences across all our initiatives. This approach was implemented consistently, whether at the career fair, in the summer school, or during Inclusive Science Thursdays. In each of these settings, we ensured that students had the opportunity to actively engage in science through real-world applications, enhancing their understanding and fostering a deeper interest in the subjects.

Why We Contacted this Stakeholder:

We contacted the stakeholders to gain insights from educators regarding the current state of STEM education in Germany. We aimed to understand their perspectives on how our initiatives could address existing gaps and engage a wider range of students, ensuring that we cover as many layers of the educational system as possible.

What We Learned:

In general, they regarded the science education at gymnasium schools (leading to the university entry exam) as good. Nevertheless, they identified some gaps, particularly noting the limited hours allocated for STEM subjects in middle school grades, due to the shortened middle school program (G8). In day-to-day school life, this results in longer school days and an increased workload for students, which affects their concentration and learning success. They explained that while additional STEM opportunities are available, students must actively choose to participate. They regarded our projects as valuable supplements to the school curriculum, emphasizing that practical courses offer the greatest benefit to students, as methods like those provided in our summer school cannot be incorporated into regular school lessons. By highlighting the connection between real-world scientific research and its complexity, our projects have the potential to inspire students to pursue careers in science. Additionally, they noted that the Friday lecture series gives students with less support from their environment the opportunity to engage with scientific topics. We learned that our education efforts pose a valuable addition to the STEM education offered in school, especially the practical parts as well as the insights we offer into academia and research. What we also take from this feedback is that science education outside of school lessons might give students the chance to engage more concentrated and motivated than they can during the typical, strenuous school day.

How We Integrated the Advice:

This feedback gives us confidence in our education concept, as well as a perspective for future iGEM teams to focus on the most effective STEM education activities.