Why did we talk to him?

• Patrick Schröder is a scientific administrator at the German Environment Agency. He is specialized in biodegradation of pharmaceuticals and the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance in the environment.

• He brought common mistakes in the disposal of pharmaceuticals to our attention. In many regions in Germany, it is sufficient for them to be disposed of via household waste, but in others, they must be returned to designated collection facilities or pharmacies. In Germany, consumers can find out the correct disposal method on arzenitmittelentsorgung.de
• He also told us about pharmaceuticals that cause an immense burden on the environment due to their high consumption such as ibuprofen and hormones like estrogen. These pose risk to aquatic flora and fauna.
• Furthermore, he pointed out that diclofenac, a substance that we focus our attention on, has never undergone an environmental risk assessment as of today since it was authorized before 2005, like many other pharmaceuticals.

• To bring the information about the proper disposal of pharmaceuticals to the broader public, we translated the flyer from the German Environment Agency into English, to increase the awareness of the general public internationally.
• We also decided to take a closer look at the degradation of estrogen and ibuprofen by laccases. Since laccases also are able to transform both substances, we try to make our contribution here.
• Our goal is to educate the citizens. If illness or symptoms exist, it is necessary to use pharmaceuticals in the process of recovery, but excessive consumption leads to environmental pollution and species extinction^[1].
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• We wanted to know more in detail how micropollutants affect the aquatic world in our waters. Therefore, we contacted Prof. Dr. Jörg Oehlmann. He has been Professor for aquatic ecotoxicology at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main since 2001.

Which information did we gather?

• Prof. Oehlmann informed us about the evaluation of substance toxicity and why harmful effects are difficult to prove.
• Once again, he told us how harmful diclofenac (PNEC 50 ng/L) is and that in a lot of waters in Germany the recommended threshold values are exceeded.
• Additionally, he mentioned the negative effects of especially carbamazepine, 17-alpha-ethynyl estradiol as well as endocrine disruptors such as bisphenol A.
• Concerning our implementation, he drew attention to our plastic-based biofilm carriers. Through them, we would introduce plasticizers as well as microplastics into the water. In addition, he made us aware of the spatial limitation municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) have, which could make the inclusion of an additional clarifier for our biofilm impossible.

How did we adjust our project?

• We did a lot of research on the aforementioned substances and found that the laccases we use are already able to degrade all of them. As a future outlook when we could go into the laboratory, we plan to test laccase activity in assays with those compounds.
• Furthermore, we thought about new strategies for the implementation of our project besides that of an additional clarifier. We want to avoid using plastic carriers and developed a system which fits the conditions in municipal WWTPs as well.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• Jörg Stülke is the Head of the Department of General Microbiology at the Institute of Microbiology and Genetics at the University of Göttingen. He is an expert for B. subtilis and designed a strain that has got a knockout of the genes sinR and tasA (GP1622)^[2]. This strain would be useful for testing if we could bring our enzymes as fusion proteins with TasA into the biofilm matrix (see here).

What information did we gather?

• Besides providing us with the needed strain GP1622, he agreed with our assumption, that a knockout of sinR would not have any negative impacts on our biofilm.

How did we adjust our project?

• Getting the GP1622 B. subtilis strain enabled us to design our experiments and would have shortened the needed time in the lab.

Why did we talk to her?

• Dr. Sabine Sané did her subsequent PhD studies at the Department of Microsystems Engineering at the University Freiburg and investigated biotechnological approaches to regenerative energy systems. Among other things, her research also concentrated on the degradation of micropollutants in wastewater. Therefore, her work and experience with laccases made her a great asset for our project. Dr. Sané was interviewed by our friends from iGEM Kaiserslautern.
  Dr. Sané mainly worked with the laccase of the fungus Trametes versicolor.

What information did we gather?

• The purification of laccases is very laborious and expensive, as a result we would benefit from avoiding it. An ABTS assay can be used to detect the most efficient laccase concentration.
• The degradation of estrogen via laccases is theoretically possible and was proved successful with the laccase of Trametes versicolor.


• The pH optimum of the laccases needs to be considered and the pH of the wastewater must eventually be adjusted accordingly.

How did we adjust our project?

• We were able to gather information in the conversation with Dr.%nbsp;Sané, thanks to the framework of our partnership with iGEM Kaiserslautern and iGEM Stuttgart. As a result, all her input has helped us to acquire more knowledge about the functionality of laccases, like the degradation of estrogen, which is also a problem in wastewater (see here). For our experimental approach, we can resort to her contribution.

Why did we talk to him?

• PhD Yunrong Chai is an assistant professor at the College of Science at the Northeastern University in Boston and an expert for microbial genomics and biofilm formation. We talked to him about our ideas to engineer and improve our biofilm.

Which information did we gather?

• Concerning our plan to knockout the sinR gene of our B. subtilis to simplify the induction of the biofilm formation, PhD Chai explained that this knockout will make our biofilm more robust. The effects on other properties of our B. subtilis and our biofilm should be minor.
• Endospores are not able to produce our degradation enzymes, which is why preventing sporulation of our B. subtilis would be useful. As the sigma factor F (σ^F) regulates genes associated with sporulation, he suggested a sigF knockout to avoid sporulation. PhD Chai predicted no impact on gene expression outside of sporulation.
• The combination of a sigF and sinR knockout would lead to a B. subtilis that can not sporulate and forms a more robust biofilm.
• A fusion protein of the matrix protein TasA with our enzymes would be a perfect way to display the degradation enzymes in the biofilm matrix. Because TasA is very abundant, many enzymes would be located in the matrix. Furthermore, he already worked with fusion proteins of TasA with fluorescence proteins, which were originally made in Roberto Kolter’s lab (Harvard Medical School, Boston).
• A mixed biofilm of different microorganisms could increase the robustness of our biofilm but would also complicate our assays and would be an advanced step in your project.

How did we adjust our project?

• We continued planning our fusion proteins with TasA and the knockout of sinR. Additionally, we integrated the knockout of sigF into our project to avoid sporulation of our B. subtilis.

Why did we talk to him?

• Dr. Dietmar Schlosser is group leader of the Environmental Mycology Research Group in the Department of Environmental Microbiology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ in Leipzig. Although he is more of an expert for fungal laccases, we still considered his experience with laccases in general as valuable. All given answers and input from below were gathered from the interview protocol provided by iGEM Kaiserslautern, since they spoke directly with Dr. Schlosser and offered to ask our question in collaboration

Which information did we gather?

• Dr. Schlosser has confirmed one (among other) native functions of laccases: their ability to detoxify. Polymeric products frequently arising from laccase-catalyzed oxidation of toxic (or otherwise biologically active) compounds are often biologically inactive.
• Using discontinuous fungal cultures, ABTS assays can be employed in order to determine the time point of maximal laccase activity. Typically, this is observed over a range of a few days up to several weeks. As optimal assay concentration of ABTS, he recommended 1-2 mM.
• To monitor the oxidation of parent compounds, Dr. Schlosser uses UHPLC coupled with either DAD or MS/MS detection.
• He has also investigated the toxicity of products by means of bacterial inhibition tests, which provide EC₅₀ values.

How did we adjust our project?

• The information we gained from the conversation with Dietmar Schlosser within the framework of our partnership with iGEM Kaiserslautern and iGEM Stuttgart has helped us to develop further understanding for working with laccases. In our experimental planning we can resort to the bundled knowledge we have collected, as Dr. Schlosser’s approach on the tracing of product degradation is similar to our approach with HPLC. In correspondence to his toxicity assessments, we are confirmed in our experimental approach.

Why did we talk to her?

• Professor Dr. Lackner is the head of the department for sewage management at the TU Darmstadt since 2016. She is known for her work with microbial communities regarding wastewater purification in Germany, but also abroad, which is why an interview with her was of great interest for us. More so compelling was the fact that she has significant experience with the degradation of harmful pharmaceutical residues.

What information did we gather?

• Prof. Lackner told us about possible complications regarding GMOs in wastewater treatment plants and the difficulties surrounding this topic. She could confirm the danger pharmaceuticals pose in wastewater, among them diclofenac, as she has been working on its degradation herself.
• Hence, she was able to assure us that an oxidation of diclofenac was more than possible – as this has already been done. For this, it was even more helpful that she sent us continuative literature regarding diclofenac, as one of her Ph.D. students has worked on degrading the substance.
• When asked about other harmful substances, Prof. Lackner mentioned ibuprofen and carbamazepine as well as others.
• Due to her vast experience, she also gave us immense input regarding a carrier material for our biofilm and told us about the most efficient environmental conditions.

How did we adjust our project?

• She did not only confirm the alarming toxicity of diclofenac and that there is a need of a project idea like ours, but also pointed us in the direction of searching for other substances like carbamazepine.
• Her willingness to be at our disposal regarding literature or information about diclofenac and wastewater purification made her a great asset for our project. Thanks to her, and her research group, we were able to get crucial information on how and to which extent diclofenac can be oxidized by laccases.
• Since we were undecided on which carrier material we should apply for our biofilm, her recommendation of the ones she uses and the offer to provide us with them has meant a great deal for the thrive of our project.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• In the early phase of our project, we already knew that wastewater treatment plants would be the main users of our project. Therefore, we had to find an expert who could introduce us into the purification stages and help us find the best way to implement our biofilm. Udo Bäuerle studied construction engineering and focused on water management as well as wastewater treatment. With his company B&P Beratende Ingenieure he constructed a lot of WWTPs.

Which information did we gather?

• He told us about the reoccurring problems associated with commonly used procedures like ozonolysis and the use of active carbon.
• Udo Bäuerle assured us that a project like ours would be really helpful and advised us to implement our system in an additional clarifier as fourth purification step. Our engineered Bacillus subtilis probably will not survive in the activated sludge clarifier which is the second purification step.
• Udo Bäuerle was the first person to mention rotating disc filters on which our biofilm could grow on and could be implemented into the WWTP.

How did we adjust our project?

• On this basis we were able to discuss our project with plant managers of local WWTPs. We did research about the diving bodies and after discussing this idea with other experts we finally came to the biofilm carriers we want to use.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• Florian Heyn occupies a management position for the WWTP in Alzenau and is mainly responsible for organizational decisions.

Which information did we gather?

• Heyn explained us that micropollutants such as drug residues are a well-known problem and that "filtering out these substances is only possible to a limited extent or not at all, or only at great expense", which further confirms the relevance of our project.
• He also considers the use of biofilm carriers as a platform for the formation of our biofilm to be possible. For the first testing, Heyn told us about special test basins called IBCs (Intermediate Bulk Containers), which have a volume of about one cubic meter.
• It is crucial to secure that GMOs do not get into the environment as they can bring great harm to natural species. Therefore, the safety option Heyn suggested is treatment with UV light or an agitator that could kill the microorganisms mechanically.

How did we adjust our project?

• His input inspired us to think more in detail about safety aspects and because this is such an important topic for the final implementation of our project, we started to develop a biological security system using a newly designed kill switch.
• Heyn stressed that it depends particularly on costs, use, safety and economy, whether our project is useful enough for the final integration. As a result, we spent more time thinking about how our project can be perfectly adapted to the specifications and guidelines of WWTPs.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• In order to implement our biofilm into wastewater treatment plants, we have to deal with legal requirements in Germany. Therefore, the team from Kaiserslautern had the idea to contact Dr. Ulrich Ehlers from the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) and since we are working close together, we were able to ask him a few questions. He has been the head of the "release and placing on the market" section in the BVL’s "Genetic Engineering" department.

Which information did we gather?

• A distinction is made between content use and work outside a closed system. The latter is divided into “release” and “placing on the market”. Both of them are no applicable options for our project. (See more -->here[link zu langen Versionen])
• For our project, he recommended content use with measures to ensure the biofilm is not leaving the WWTP. The treatment plant in which we would implement our project would then have to be classified as a “genetic engineering plant” by the local state authorities.

How did we adjust our project?

• Now we do know whom we have to contact, if we plan to implement our system into the first WWTP. We have also put our focus more on creating a system that enables working in content use and getting a WWTP classified as genetic engineering plant. Besides various efforts, we designed a kill switch.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• Thomas Seeger is part of the management team of the Weiterstadt wastewater treatment plant. He is responsible for employee safety and organizational activities.

Which information did we gather?

• Seeger told us that there are already technical attempts to treat difficult-to-degrade substances in the final purification process, but this so-called “fourth purification stage” is very expensive to be installed. In his opinion, this is an important reason for the necessity of our project.
• He spoke to us about the competition between the native microorganisms of the biological purification stage and our genetically modified organism and recommended that we should consider a further, separate purification stage for the integration of the module.
• When we asked about employee protection, Seeger mentioned that WWTP workers are already receiving regular safety instructions, and that basic biological knowledge is also passed on to the workers in the corresponding training, before they start to work in the WWTP.

How did we adjust our project?

• His valuable input encouraged us to focus on a separate purification stage in the integration part of our project.
• Employee safety is a key aspect that needs to be taken seriously. This led us to creating a safety form about how to handle our biofilm which can be used by the future users, especially the responsible persons as well as the workers of the WWTPs.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Visit of a WWTP in Darmstadt, Germany

• Since our project is to be integrated into wastewater treatment plants in the future, we wanted to have a first-hand look at such a plant. For that, we visited the wastewater treatment plant from ENTEGA in Darmstadt. This visit gave us the opportunity to see by ourselves how wastewater treatment can work and which steps are necessary to achieve a clean outcome. We learned how different waste water treatment plants can be and how differently they have to deal with new guidelines concerning the quality of the treated wastewater. The wastewater treatment plant in Darmstadt is built of a primary treatment clarifier, followed by a biological wastewater treatment and a final clarifier.
  For the implementation of our biofilm, a new clarifier for an additional purification stage would be necessary in the mentioned wastewater treatment plant. Space for another tank in this plant is available but we have to consider that especially wastewater treatment plants in bigger cities wouldn’t have enough space for this. Considering this issue, we thought about different options to implement our project.

Visit of a WWTP in Archbold, Ohio

• Wastewater treatment is a global problem. In our project, we do not only aim for implementation in wastewater treatment plants in Germany but also in other countries. Therefore, it is important to look into the structure of WWTPs around the globe. Our partnership with the iGEM team from Kaiserslautern enabled us to get into contact with Mike Short and Dan Avers from the WWTP in Archbold, Ohio. Dan Avers is a water distribution chief and Mike Short is a wastewater superintendent.
• We found out that there are five different classes of plants in the United States, ranging from one to five with five being the highest. The higher the class, the bigger the plant and the amount of water purified daily. In addition, more and more complex purification stages are installed with increasing class^[3]. The WWTP in Archbold belongs to class three with a 2.5 MGD (million gallons per day) design flow. It contains bacterial sewage sludge as secondary treatment in seven aeration tanks with two settling tanks installed behind. The effluents from those tanks are treated with chlorine to kill pathogenic organisms. Sodium chloride is used to remove any remaining chlorine before the effluent flows into the Brush Creek^[4]. Mr. Short told us that they do not measure the concentration of micropollutants in the incoming wastewater as it is done in the WWTP we visited in Darmstadt, Germany. Instead, there is mandatory annual testing by the state. He told us that as far as he knows there are no federal laws or regulations prohibiting the use of GMOs in WWTPs. But the decision whether GMOs are allowed is still up to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• Another key factor is funding. As WWTPs are always being redesigned and new components are added there is a need for financial security. Therefore, costs for the installation and operation of our project have been estimated and it has been shown that the use of "B-TOX" is cheaper than currently available methods for removing micropollutants from wastewater. Besides, the fact that the WWTPs are constantly redesigned benefits us. The implementation if "B-TOX" can be combined with normal refurbishments or other new installations. Making it easily implementable and also easy to remove from the system.
• By this WWTP tour we learned more about the differences that exist between WWTPs around the world. Understanding the different types and classes of WWTPs helped us to think about an implementation strategy that fits for many different plants and reminded us that it would be good to think about alternative approaches.

Why did we talk to him?

• Prof. Dr. Ralf Möller is the head of the Aerospace Microbiology group at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Cologne.
• He is also professor of Space Microbiology at the Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences.
• Prof. Dr. Möller has almost 20 years of experience with biofilms and especially with B. subtilis.

• Overexpressing a TasA enzyme fusion protein in B. subtilis could not only be used for wastewater treatment on earth but also for biomining so-called rare earth elements, especially for the later application in the field of asteroid mining.
• In order to be able to purify wastewater with the "B-TOX" system e.g. on a space station, the stability of our biofilm would have to be increased. This is necessary because biofilms behave differently in space than they do on earth due to the equal distribution of liquids in space.
• Our kill switch is a good method to ensure biocontainment.

• Prof. Dr. Möller inspired us to broaden our horizon and to look into the implementation of our biofilm in space. (Biofilm in space as link)
• Furthermore, he encouraged us in the development of our kill switch, as he thinks it is of great interest to be able to make the growth rate of the biofilm dependent on certain situations or desired environments.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to her?

• Prof. Dr. Sibylle Gaisser is a professor for industrial biotechnology and her field of teaching includes bioethics among other subjects at the University of Applied Sciences Ansbach. Whereas her field of research consists of Synthethic Biology and antibiotics-biosynthesis, her research about socio-economic analyses and technology assessment in life sciences was of great interest to us.

Which information did we gather?

• Prof. Dr. Gaisser advised us to guarantee the compliance with ethical standards, such as that there would come no harm to the public or non-beneficiaries, that we would provide accessibility to all, preserve the environment and protect all wildlife with our project.
• In the case of an implementation of our project idea into WWTPs, we would have to prove that private households pose to be the primary source of wastewater pollution in order to justify possible tax increases. This way, we would employ the polluter-pays principle.
• She advised us to always ensure a closed system, when it comes to the application of GMOs. In addition, we should provide a physical containment as well in order to prevent a break out of bacteria. Those can be achieved in form of cartridges and immobilization steps.
• No WWTP personnel should get in contact with GMOs without prior safety instructions.
• The public opinion on GMOs reveals a dread of unprecedented affects but an acceptance when used for medicinal applications.
• She suggested to prevent misuse (dual use issue) by adding a safety form.

How did we adjust our project?

• To comply with ethical standards, we kept all standards in mind during the development of our project. To justify possible tax increases because of our project, we had to prove private households as the primary source of wastewater pollution – which we were also told by Prof. Dr. Oehlmann. To provide proper safety, we strictly complied to safety regulations for laboratories and developed a kill switch system. Furthermore, we incorporated the concept of enzyme immobilization. To assure personnel safety, we created a “How to use B-TOX” instruction to educate WWTP employees beforehand. To minimalize the risk of misuse we decided to add a safety form for our project.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• The ethical evaluation of our project is a major part in our research. Andreas Jürgens is professor at the Department of Biology at the Technical University of Darmstadt and is part of the ethics committee at this university. The ethics committee evaluates if research projects are in agreement with ethical standards. Therefore, he is most suited to help us find strengths and weaknesses of our considerations. Together with Prof. Dr. Jürgens we talked about how to evaluate our project and further considerations.

Which information did we gather?

• To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a project, one part is to make risk evaluations, considering not just biological aspects like horizontal gene transfer but also the practical implementation. Therefore, thinking about the worst-case scenario is really important. Prof Jürgens told us, that the use of the endogenous B. subtilis laccase helps to stay genetically closer to the wild type. Thereby, we reduce the risk of unexpected effects if cells do somehow escape into the environment. To evaluate the concrete risks of our project he suggested to talk to experts of B. subtilis or the staff of wastewater treatment plants.
• A cost-benefit analysis could help us to understand how the costs for reducing the potential risks for humans and the environment relate to the potential benefits.
• He confirmed our assumption, that we need to train the people getting in contact with our GMO.

How did we adjust our project?

• We wrote a "safety instruction form” for the staff of WWTPs on how to handle our biofilm, regarding the safety of the user.
• Our next step is to discuss with B. subtilis experts the risk of horizontal gene transfer and with WWTP experts the physical containment possibilities.
• We are continuing to make our project safer and reduce potential risks.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.

Why did we talk to him?

• Besides our whole Human Practices work, we wanted to know how to create an ethical and responsible research project more specifically. Therefore, we contacted Prof. Alfred Nordmann who is a philosopher at the TU Darmstadt and expert for technoscience and science philosophy.

Which information did we gather?

• Nowadays, the idea of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) plays a major role. It describes that researchers should be in contact with possible stakeholders while researching and designing their project. The input they get from various groups should be included in the whole process.
• Prof. Dr. Nordmann explained to us how to evaluate a project ethically, which should not be a simple checklist. He also told us why it is important to think about this field while designing a scientific project and not afterwards.
• Consequently, Science Communication is an important issue too. Hereby, it is especially important to differ between educating or coming in a dialogue with the public. The latter is more important since it fulfils the idea of RRI much stronger.
• The precautionary principle is in a certain way a direct consequence of RRI as well. It means that during the design process a producer or a researcher should think of possible problems and do everything possible to avoid them.
• Since micropollutants are present in the environment, we as humans are liable for their removal. The question of who is to be specifically responsible for the removal remains open. While discussing this we considered consumers and producers into account.

How did we adjust our project?

• We had to process and reflect on all his considerations and thoughts. On one hand, we did this through writing a discussion about our project and how we tried to do responsible research. On the other hand, we have taken much out of this discussion and thought this topic was so important that we recorded a podcast episode about it.
• We felt confirmed in our focus on Science Communication, but learned something for further research projects. With our survey and the livestream with iGEM team Kaiserslautern, we came in direct contact with people and listened to their opinions. In future projects, we would focus more on establishing such forms of interactive Science Communication.
  
  For a more detailed review of our interview click here.