Team:Manchester/Interviews
Stakeholder Interviews
- Prof Philip Shapira and the Manchester Responsible Research and Innovation Group: guidance on social media analysis and surveys, the definition and importance of human practices, the value in being transparent.
- Dr Hennige, Coral Reef Researcher: mechanism of sunscreen-induced coral bleaching, bioremediation, consumer greed and the desire to feel good about our purchases, limitations in experimental methods researching coral bleaching.
- Louise Laing, Co-founder of people4ocean: consumer confusion, climate change, sunscreen formulations, restricted purchasing powers, characterisation of consumers, dangers of nanoparticles.
- Angus Elliman, Sailor: what is important for sunscreens, restricted purchasing power, zinc oxide sunscreens, concern for coral bleaching.
- An Expert Dermatologist: UVA and UVB damage, vitamin D deficiency, preachy expectations of consumers, varying UV sensitivity across the body, positives of sun exposure.
- Paul Misselbrook and Frances Salisbury, Intellectual Property Lawyers: intellectual property and biotechnology.
- Will Wright and Albert Anis, the Entrepreneurship Program Innovation Community (EPIC) chairmen: case studies of entrepreneur success in iGEM, the narrative of our resource, design thinking, conflictions between iGEM being an open source community and intellectual property.
When creating a new product it is important that the opinions of your stakeholders are reflected in your work and any concerns are addressed in the final product. In order to do this we conducted a series of online interviews over the summer to find out what's important to our stakeholders and how to incorporate these opinions into our project. We interviewed key stakeholders such as dermatologists, potential customers and current manufacturers of reef-safe sunscreens to ask about any concerns about our biotechnology. We also had regular discussions with the Responsible Research and Innovation Group from the University of Manchester to ensure our human practices approaches followed ethical guidelines. We used our interviews to help define our project values and design a socially responsible project.
02/07/2020 and 29/07/2020 - Meeting with Prof Philip Shapira and members of the Responsible Research and Innovation Group at the University of Manchester
Due to the global impact of the coronavirus pandemic we had a lot of issues contacting various stakeholders. We found that companies and individuals were simply too busy to find time to talk to us. In order to discuss potential alternative methods to ensure our stakeholders opinions were reflected in our work we reached out to Professor Philip Shapira and members of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) group at the University of Manchester for some expert advice. The RRI group is an interdisciplinary group based at the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research and the Manchester Synthetic Biology Research Centre for Fine and Specialty Chemicals.
When asked about the importance of human practices they responded that there should always be an ongoing flow of conversation between you and your stakeholders, describing human practices as a cycle of continuous feedback between the project and publics. They reminded us that no concerns are invalid. We, as biologists, may not see certain concerns as relevant but they may radically impact how publics perceives our product. They stressed that when conducting human practices it is important to be transparent, and not hide behind narrow intellectual property rights. Our feedback loop between stakeholders and ourselves would be irrelevant if we hide information.
In a previous email exchange Dr Andy Balmer, an RRI group member from the School of Social Sciences at the University of Manchester, recommended using social media to examine different stakeholder opinions. In particular he recommended using YouTube because it is a global media platform with lots of content being uploaded daily (please see our YouTube analysis, click here). We further discussed this idea with the RRI team and they showed us how we could use video media to de-code how different groups of people are using sunscreens and what the message in the video tells us about how people perceive sunscreen. We could then use this analysis as a framework for how we should market our product. We might also be able to use YouTube to establish ways to communicate our product to and interact with publics to avoid misunderstanding.
They advised us that a next step would be to conduct a more systematic analysis using surveys. Following this advice we produced two surveys: one looking at people’s sunscreen habits and how they view sunscreen and another asking about people’s perception of synthetic biology products. In our YouTube analysis, we noted that younger people aged 15-30 presented sunscreen as a beauty product, while older content creators stuck to the typical health product representation. For this reason we asked people in our surveys how old they were and whether they viewed sunscreen as a beauty or health product to see if this trend was confirmed with our respondents. Furthermore, Prof Shapira emphasised that in order for our team to comprehend how our project would be received, we needed to determine how different groups of people feel about synthetic biology. We were directed towards different social science studies and we noticed a trend linking world-view, religion and perception of synthetic biology. However, some of these studies were old and we were concerned about applying earlier social science findings to today’s publics. Especially in light of recent political and social change brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, in our own survey design, we included probes for an updated analysis of the relationships between these factors.
Originally we had planned to produce a third survey to examine the impact of jargon on public understanding of synthetic biology. However, in a follow up meeting with Prof Shapira’s team we learned that this would be an uncertain approach because previous studies have shown that heavy jargon does not influence moral support for biotechnology. They used the example of CRISPR; many people know what gene editing is but could not explain how CRISPR works using scientific jargon. Therefore, following this advice we did not proceed with this as a separate survey and instead focused our efforts on the research questions in the other two surveys.
16/07/2020 - Meeting with Dr Hennige Coral Reef Researcher
Dr Sebastian Hennige from the University of Edinburgh, is a coral reef researcher who looks at the impacts of environmental change and pollutants to marine ecosystems. He was a contributing author in the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and lead editor of a United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity report on the impacts of ocean acidification on marine biodiversity. We contacted Dr Hennige to learn more about what causes coral bleaching and how our project would help relieve the issue.
To begin our interview we simply asked what factors are contributing to coral bleaching and Dr Hennige explained that the main issue is the rising sea temperature. In Australia where mass bleaching is more regular it tends to occur in the warmer seas to the north. When asked how sunscreen contributes to this he said that if we continue to add additional stress to areas where corals live, the combined effect of warmer seas and toxic compounds will “tip the scale” resulting in the complete bleaching of the coral. Therefore, any attempts to minimise other stresses on the reef will prevent exacerbating the problem. This means that our project will not solve coral bleaching entirely but instead reduce the oxidative stress corals experience increasing the likelihood that corals will be able to withstand rising sea temperatures and continue to support the organisms that live there.
In continuation of this discussion we asked him if he felt total bioremediation of coral reefs was possible and he explained to us how plastic degradation can complicate this issue. As plastics are broken down it leads to the formation of “transitioning compounds” which bacteria can adhere to and this becomes ingested by marine life. This is a widespread, complicated and sensitive issue for bioremediation and therefore, this would be a future goal. In response to this we removed bioremediation from our project's goals and focused our aim on the immediate goal of supporting coral ecosystems. He continued saying he feels there is a market for reef-safe sunscreens but current manufacturing processes are expensive. He stressed that people want to help the environment but purchasing power is limited and this is a gap in the market in which our product would be attractive. This was referred to as “consumer greed” the desire to feel like consumers are helping to solve an issue without having to make a commitment. Reduced purchasing power due to expensive products is a recurring theme in our human practices.
We also discussed the various experimental procedures used by scientists to test if sunscreen compounds were contributing to coral bleaching. Dr Hennige informed us that the most commonly used procedures involved placing coral into plastic bags and adding high concentrations of various sunscreens. The researchers would then track the colour change in the coral from normal to white. He explained how this initial study led to the discovery that sunscreen was inducing the lytic cycle promoting viral growth around the coral, this stresses the coral causing it to expel its symbiont algae, this aligned with our literature research. We asked if this was the only impact sunscreen had and he revealed that another study found that sunscreen compounds could also change the lipid composition in cells which resulted in the expulsion of algae. Another issue is that nano-particles produce ions in the water which are toxic to corals. This demonstrated to us that sunscreen has much wider effects on coral than we initially thought and that nanoparticles are not the perfect solution to coral bleaching they are presented as being. When asked if Hipposudoric Acid was likely to cause stress on corals Dr Hennige said it was unlikely because it is already present in water and therefore, will have a reduced impact compared to a novel inorganic compound. However, he recommended performing dispersal experiments and replicating previous studies. He explained how juvenile corals are often more tolerant than adults and thus these experiments may in invalid if performed on young corals. Unfortunately due to restricted lab access it is not possible for us to perform these experiments but it is important we think about the potential impacts of Hipposudoric Acid on corals and attempt these experiments as soon as it is viable.
This interview with Dr Hennige inspired us and demonstrated how sunscreens can be dangerous for coral reefs beyond what we had discovered in the primary literature. This helped us to define our primary goal - producing a reef-safe alternative UV filter that will reduce the oxidative stress corals experience helping to minimise bleaching events.
28/07/2020 - Meeting with IP Lawyers Paul Misselbrook and Frances Salisbury
After deciding to create a business plan for our entrepreneurship it became clear to us as biologists, that we had limited knowledge about Intellectual Property and how it could potentially affect our project in the future. Therefore, to gain more insight we contacted Frances Salisbury from Mewburn Ellis to teach us the basics of Intellectual Property Law.
Firstly we were told there were 3 main types of Intellectual Property (IP) patents one could apply for; branding, design and functionality. Branding refers to the recognisable sign attached to the source of a product. We were advised that when creating a brand one must “clear it and protect it”, this means it must be a unique symbol that has not been used before. This ensures that when someone searches for your brand it is the first result that comes up. Branding can be registered and unregistered, unregistered trademarks typically use ™ symbol, while registered trademarks use Ⓡ symbol. Occasionally ™ can be used for registered products when utilized for international or expiry circumstances. We were pleased to learn there is no deadline to register your trademark by however, this may mean another company might try to use it.
Design patents protect the look and aesthetics of your project and registration must occur within the first year of sales, this reminded us how important it is to keep track of your sales. Design patents only protect the way a product looks and can be powerful patents if your product is brought based on how it looks, for example clothing. This doesn’t really apply to our project much because sunscreen is usually brought for its cosmetic elegance not its packaged appearance. We learnt that an unregistered patent is automatically applied when the product is made and can be fought over if another company/individual uses the same aesthetic.
Finally, the last type of IP is a functionality patent and this protects the way a product functions or the method by which it was produced. We were shocked to learn that a functionality patent must be filed for application before any information about the functioning/method is disclosed publicly. After a quick discussion it was clear to us that this included our iGEM meetups and presentations however, this rule applies to absolute novelty, meaning the information must be findable online to classify as disclosure. There are no unregistered patents for functionality and specific IP laws are territorial, meaning they are specific to the country you are in.
After this quick teaching session we began discussing IP and our university. We asked who would classify as the inventors of our project and we were informed that under UK law, if receiving funding from a university then IP usually automatically transfers to the university. From this we realised our goal would be to work with the university/Principal Investigator (PI) who will own the patent as they will provide necessary funds to carry out the application and work with us, the team of conceptualizers, to further this project. Typically universities will not try to take the patent and run with profits, they will facilitate our patent process.
We then asked if there are any important IP regulations regarding biotechnology specifically and we were told that in biotechnology there are certain things we are not allowed to patent. This includes an immoral technology for example human embryo editing, modified human DNA and elements of human bodies. We were given the example of a newly discovered protein; the protein itself could not be patented because it has always existed in the human body however, the purification process for that patent would be eligible for a functionality patent. We learnt how in Europe the law says that if the production of a transgenic animal causes the animal suffering without sufficient medical benefit then it cannot be protected. Following this we then discussed what we could patent from our project should we want to in the future and we concluded that the pathway, retrosynthesis, our target acids, logos and company aesthetic are all patentable.
This meeting transformed how we approached iGEM meetups and what information we disclosed publicly. Having never encountered information about IP before, we decided to incorporate lessons from this interview into our Essential Entrepreneurship Learning Resource to ensure that other iGEM teams can gain access to and understand this important information.
13/08/2020 - Meeting with Will Wright Chairman and Albert Anis Co-chairman of EPIC: iGEM’s entrepreneurship course
Entrepreneurship is a large part of our project this year and involves producing our own business plan for our product Hipposol. As we began completing the skills and the tasks necessary to produce a business plan we realised that like ourselves, many participants in iGEM do not have experience in business with many students coming from biology or biology-based degrees. In response to this we decided to create a public resource aimed at iGEM teams to help them learn basic entrepreneurship skills. After producing an initial draft we decided to meet with Will Wright and Albert Anis, chairman and co-chairman of iGEM’s own entrepreneurship course the Entrepreneurship Program Innovation Community (EPIC) to help guide us in creating our resource.
When asked about their own course they said that the EPIC course was designed to take iGEM teams through the process of developing a business, from design thinking to how to market a product and make financial predictions. The goal of their course is to create successful start-ups that attract investors and help teams turn their iGEM projects into professional businesses. From this discussion the primary aim of our resource developed into a tool iGEM teams could use to determine if a start-up would be appropriate for their project. By conducting analyses and completing tasks set within the resource iGEM teams gain a clearer picture on what their start-up would look like and whether or not it would be successful. We aim to help teams begin to think like investors and provide information that would form the foundation of their start-up. From here the teams would be redirected to EPIC’s course where they can begin their entrepreneurship journey.
With our new goal in mind we then asked EPIC what they felt were the most important aspects of entrepreneurship to which they responded “design thinking”. They explained how design thinking forms the basis of your project: you begin by identifying the issue you are trying to solve and then reduce this to a set of problem statements which are then aligned with business and organisational objectives. Then the project is developed through repeated tests which focus the team's effort before the final concept is realised and launched. This process is known as “The Double Diamond Design Process” and EPIC provided us with sources to help us include this information within our own resource. From our own interview with Mewburn Ellis we know how difficult this information about intellectual property can be to access and how functionality patents can widely affect what information you choose to disclose about your project publicly. This conversation then expanded into a discussion about iGEM as an organisation. iGEM is dedicated to creating an open source community which thrives on collaboration and information sharing. This directly defies intellectual property laws which state you cannot patent information that has been publicly disclosed, which creates issues when iGEM start-ups apply for functionality patents. Therefore, we agreed that including advice about IP would be extremely valuable for iGEM teams.
Finally, EPIC advised us to incorporate the examples of Ginkgo bioworks and PvP Biologics, both of which are now successful global companies that began as iGEM projects in 2006 and 2011 respectively. They also suggested using the 2019 Copenhagen team and the 2018 San Diego team to act as case studies in our resource to demonstrate how the skills covered in our resource have been previously successful. As advised we integrated these case studies into our resource and discovered that they aided the story we were trying to tell and added evidence for the claims made within our resource. Image taken from: https://igem.org/EPIC.
After this meeting our Essential Entrepreneurship resource undertook a radical redesign into the final product available now.
19/08/2020 - Meeting with Louise Laing - From Reef Restoration and Co-founder of People4ocean
People4ocean makes ocean conscious sunscreens using micronized zinc particles in a classical formulation to help reduce oxidative stress on coral reefs. When asked about the goal of her company Louise Laing responded they aim to completely remove reef-toxic and skin-toxic sunscreens from the market. However, she noted that research moves fast and new findings are made everyday creating lots of conflicting information. For example, no research on the impacts of sunscreen on human health had been conducted since the 70s, until recently a new paper found that sunscreen compounds can be absorbed into the skin and detected in the blood, breast milk and urine. We believe this demonstrates why our team must stay on top of scientific research. This means our project must be versatile and we must be willing to adapt our product formulation based on new findings. Laing confirmed this by warning us to not get stuck in one approach; “it doesn’t make sense to not change our habits''. In continuation Laing said that the effects on sunscreen on the body are very “insidious effects” and go unnoticed by the average consumer, such as potential impacts on male fertility. All of this creates uncertainty in the consumer and therefore, partening the issues of skin care with ocean care creates a clear narrative that allows consumers to navigate the research with greater confidence and understanding. In line with this Laing recommended attempting to reduce the amount of ingredients we use in our sunscreen: by reducing the ingredients there are fewer unknown effects on the body and the ocean helping to resolve the confusion left by conflicting research.
Furthermore, Laing said her company (people4ocean) aim to see sunscreen in an alternative way; not just as a sunblock but as a tool to help bring awareness to the larger causes of coral bleaching. When asked how her company's product helps the issue of coral-bleaching, she responded: “It has been shown that corals exposed to sunscreen chemicals such as Oxybenzone, had a lower bleaching threshold than when not exposed to chemicals. In other words, sunscreen chemicals increase corals sensitivity to heat and affect their capacity to resist beaching. In that sense, formulating sunscreens without such chemicals should help with that issue. However, let's not forget that the major driver or coral bleaching that needs addressing is the increase of sea surface temperatures driven by anthropogenic climate change”. We discussed how sunscreen is an intimate product that is put directly onto the skin and thus it brings the issue of coral bleaching closer to humans. She advised we used the parallel of protecting your skin and protecting the ocean to our advantage. In particular she stressed that customers want to feel good about their actions and want to help in ways that aren't going to be disruptive to their daily lives. Therefore, one possible marketing strategy is to sell the idea that by simply changing your sunscreen you are reducing your impact on coral reefs. People4ocean donate $1 to reef conservation every sale and so customers also get satisfaction knowing they can give back. Laing says that she feels that conscious consumers are increasing and the want to help the environment will only grow and so our product can help to satisfy that want. By making reef-safe sunscreen we create a global interest in coral bleaching and this can encourage consumers to learn about the real issue: climate change. This discussion mirrored that one with Dr Hennige and we found the narrative parallel between caring for your skin and caring for the ocean to be extremely prevalent. This narrative has become the basis of our reflective work on ethical consumerism which aims to help our customers remember that the ocean is a precious resource.
We asked Laing what approach her company takes to ensure they meet their goals of removing reef-toxic and skin-toxic sunscreens from the market and she responded saying they follow a strictly holistic approach. She explained that this means removing all compounds that are known to damage the skin or the ocean and designing a product with the remaining options. This reminded us as a team to always stay innovative, just because a solution exists does not mean it’s the best option. This discussion alo realigned us with our own goals: to create a completely reef-safe sunscreen we must consider the entire product beyond just the UV filter. She recommended looking at “The HEL List” from Haereticus Environmental Laboratories: a list of products that are detrimental to the skin and the ocean. She emphasised how customers want to move away from cheap chemical formulations because sunscreen is used on the largest organ in the body, the skin. People4ocean used a mix of zinc powder and other compounds known to be beneficial to the skin, such as Vitamin E to act as the matrix for their sunscreen. For us she recommended placing our active ingredients into emulsifiers made from essential oils which aid in absorption and protection. She specifically recommended looking into using a coconut oil base because of its small particulate size it can help carry other essential oils or compounds into the skin to enhance the efficiency of the sunscreen.
Knowing that our project would target similar groups we then asked Laing about her customers, how they view sunscreen and how they would react to a synthetic biological approach. In her opinion Laing believes that most people view sunscreen as a cosmetic product rather than a medical product despite its therapeutic function. In her experience people want to look good and this is heightened in summer; people want a tan and to show off their skin. This could change how people use sunscreen with more companies advertising daily use. She mentioned how all-in-one products are rising in popularity which is why the skin care/sea care story is so appealing as people can fight two issues in one. She also provided some insight into how potential customers might react to a syn-bio sunscreen stating that “wellness” is a multi-billion-dollar industry that is constantly growing. Our project utilises a gap in the market for innovative sunscreen, it also appeals to the wellness industry. She recommended using words such as “probiotic” and “organic” to attract this industry and suggested we take time trying to find the right message that will appeal to the majority of people. The price for 200ml of people4ocean’s products is $49.00 and so their biggest customer group was 30-40 years olds due to higher purchasing power. She said how this places our product at an advantage because synthetic biology in principle is cheaper than producing chemical formulation. She said this would be particularly appealing to the younger generation who although have less disposable income have greater concern for the environment; “younger generations are sensitive to the environmental cause, and love the outdoors and aquatic-based activities''. This comment allowed us to identify potential consumers such as sailors leading to our interview with Angus Elliman.
Finally, we asked about her company's approach of using micronized zinc oxide as an alternative to nano-particles. Upon further discussion, she said that no current sunscreen is completely nano-particle free. Therefore, Laing suggested there is a gap in the market for a synthetic sunscreen that could create a completely nano-particle free product. Using Hipposudoric Acid could get around the clumping of zinc oxide into nano-particles as well as providing an exciting new formulation for sunscreen that catches consumer attention. She also mentioned how zinc oxide is difficult to work with as it often leaves a white cast, which for people of colour is problematic. Having this in mind would also help to ensure our project is suitable for use by all racial groups and would prevent us from sticking to a narrow western point of view. By adding pigments and removing zinc oxide we create a product that is accessible to people of colour ensuring their values are also represented.
Members of the Manchester and St.Andrews Team conducting the interview with Louise Laing, co-founder of people4ocean.
24/08/2020 - Interview with Potential Customer and Sailor Angus Elliman
Angus Elliman is a semi-professional sailor who has travelled around the globe sailing with his team and regularly uses sunscreen for his trips. Therefore, he is a potential future customer of our product Hipposol who can present perspectives as a sailor. We contacted him to try and find out what is important to him in a sunscreen product.
When asked what he values in sunscreen he replied “the most important thing is that a sunscreen is waterproof”. Angus explained how often sunscreens market themselves as being waterproof yet cannot withstand the strong splashes of water that get kicked up from the bottom of the boat. Therefore, often he is not protected and this has resulted in unexpected facial burns during sailing. He emphasised that the best sunscreen available at the moment is a zinc oxide stick that can only be brought in Australia. However, due to limited disposable income living as a student, instead of paying for shipping Angus must resort to asking his friend to bring back bulks of sunscreen from Australia when his friend visits home. He said that UK zinc based sunscreens often contain carcinogens and that he does not feel comfortable using these products on his face. This revealed to us a new customer value that sunscreens should be waterproof and must not contain carcinogens but rather compounds which replenish and smooth the skin. Our product in order to be successful must have these characteristics.
Noting that he mentioned using zinc oxide we asked Angus if he was bothered by white casts which are common with zinc based sunscreens, he said that while on the boat no-one can see you so it doesn’t bother him personally. However, he admitted that he can understand why people of colour don’t want to use these sunscreens and therefore a sunscreen that was invisible on the skin would be the better, more versatile option. This aligns with what we’ve found in our YouTube video analysis and interview with Louise Laing. Thus in the future during the design phase of our project we will explore options to remove the colour from Hipposudoric Acid and sunscreen matrix alternatives that do not leave a white cast.
Finally, we asked Angus if coral bleaching was a concern of his and if he felt it was even important to be attempting to make a reef-safe sunscreen. His response to this was an enthusiastic yes! He said that as a sailor he has seen the effects of coral bleaching first hand and it makes him and others extremely upset to witness the death of what he described as being a “beautiful” and “important” ecosystem. He also mentioned that he currently does not use reef-safe sunscreen products because they are too expensive for his student budget. We explained that synthetic biology approaches tend to be cheaper than conventional production methods and he said this would increase the chances he purchased our product over others. From this conversation it has confirmed to us that preventing coral bleaching should be the primary goal of our project but we must also remain cautious that our production method is cheap enough to be accessible to customers in Angus’s position. He also mentioned that he is not bothered by the use of synthetic biology if the sunscreen proved to be beneficial for coral reefs. This is encouraging for our team because it has confirmed that people are worried about coral bleaching and are willing to alter their consumer behaviours to help.
