"
Team:Arizona State E/Problem
From 2012e.igem.org
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<body> | <body> | ||
<h2>Problem</h2> | <h2>Problem</h2> | ||
| - | + | <p> | |
| + | In 2006, the University of Edinburgh iGEM team developed an arsenic biosensor that could effectively detect trace arsenic in water. Inspired by the enormous social implications such a device would have upon developing nations, Lumen Biosensors was born. Led by Dr. Gautam Mukunda of Harvard University, the socially-focused Lumen Biosensors was a pioneer venture developed from iGEM. Unfortunately, the project failed due to an array of reasons. In a general address to the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Mukunda noted that two critical elements that they could not adequately account for at the early stages were funding and effective team composition. | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p> | ||
| + | This startup soon became a case study that posed interesting questions for the field of synthetic biology: | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p> | ||
| + | <b>Was there room for synthetic biology products that were less profitable but held solutions to social ailments?</b> | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p> | ||
| + | <b>Why is this field predominantly surrounded by forprofit companies?</b> | ||
| + | </p> | ||
| + | <p> | ||
| + | <b>Could a nonprofit synthetic biology company exist despite high research and legal studies costs? And would there be adequate donations for it to work?</b> | ||
| + | </p> | ||
</body> | </body> | ||
</html> | </html> | ||
Revision as of 10:30, 26 October 2012
Problem
In 2006, the University of Edinburgh iGEM team developed an arsenic biosensor that could effectively detect trace arsenic in water. Inspired by the enormous social implications such a device would have upon developing nations, Lumen Biosensors was born. Led by Dr. Gautam Mukunda of Harvard University, the socially-focused Lumen Biosensors was a pioneer venture developed from iGEM. Unfortunately, the project failed due to an array of reasons. In a general address to the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Mukunda noted that two critical elements that they could not adequately account for at the early stages were funding and effective team composition.
This startup soon became a case study that posed interesting questions for the field of synthetic biology:
Was there room for synthetic biology products that were less profitable but held solutions to social ailments?
Why is this field predominantly surrounded by forprofit companies?
Could a nonprofit synthetic biology company exist despite high research and legal studies costs? And would there be adequate donations for it to work?
