iGEM and the Biotechnology Workforce of the Future

Abstract

An important factor in growing the US bioeconomy is recruiting and training its future workforce. Other science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields have relied on diverse educational opportunities for recruitment, including prestigious high school and collegiate competitions. For genetic engineering and synthetic biology, there are very few competitions; they include the Biodesign Competition and the much larger and scientifically focused International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition. iGEM, run by an independent nonprofit organization, is often cited as a measure of progress in developing the synthetic biology workforce. Starting in 2021, iGEM will move its main competitive event, the “Giant Jamboree,” from its long-standing home in Boston to Paris, which is likely to negatively affect participation by the US team. In this article, we describe the value of iGEM to the bioeconomy and its upcoming challenges through a review of available literature, observation of the iGEM Jamboree, and interviews with 10 US-based iGEM team coaches. The coaches expressed positive views about the iGEM process for their students in providing a hands-on biotechnology experience, but they were concerned about the funding US students received to participate in iGEM compared with teams from other countries. They were also concerned that the relocation to Paris would negatively affect or preclude their participation. Possible options to continue the benefits of experiential learning in synthetic biology are discussed, including alternative funding for iGEM teams through a grant process and the need for additional biology competitions.

An important factor in growing the US bioeconomy is recruiting and training its future workforce. Recruitment for genetic engineering and synthetic biology relies on a limited number of educational opportunities and competitions, which includes the large, scientifically focused International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition. This article describes the value of iGEM to the bioeconomy and its upcoming challenges through a review of available literature, observation of the iGEM Jamboree, and interviews with 10 US-based iGEM team coaches.

Introduction

Competitions are a time-honored method to draw high school and college students into science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, strengthening the pipeline to the technological workforce of the future. Dozens of US-only and global competitions in robotics and computer science are sponsored by governments and by companies such as Google, Intel, and Siemens.^1-5 The competitions can be both prestigious and fun. For example, the American Rocketry Challenge for middle school and high school students requires building a model rocket to carry a raw hen egg to an altitude of 800 feet, stay airborne for 40 to 43 seconds, and return to ground without breaking the egg. In the FIRST Robotics competition, sponsored by 3M, FedEx, Disney, and Siemens among other companies, student teams are given a set of parts with which to create robots to complete a specified challenge, such as shooting a basketball.⁶ This competition has been demonstrated to increase enrollment in STEM classes in college and increase the likelihood of the participants attending college.^7,8 The influx of team-based, hands-on challenges have had success in creating long-lasting engagement in STEM fields.⁹

Biological competitions could be similarly important for building the biotechnology workforce of the future, although there are not as many competitions as in other areas of STEM. This article focuses on the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition, but we note that there is also the New York-based Biodesign Challenge, which began in 2016 and which aims to create a “community of collaboration among artists, designers, and biologists” and promote public dialogue about biotechnology.¹⁰ The Biodesign Challenge is open to high school and college students, and teams design art, architecture, fashion, transportation, or other products using biotechnology or biotechnology concepts, and many competing teams come from schools of art and design.¹¹

The iGEM competition is much larger and scientifically focused. It began in 2004 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with 5 teams participating. It has since grown to include more than 350 teams from more than 40 countries competing in 2019.¹² There are approximately 40,000 alumni of the competition, both students and instructors, worldwide.¹³ As with the robotics competitions, the teams of high school, undergraduate, and post-undergraduate students are given access to standardized biological “parts” called Biobricks, and they have a defined period of about 5 months to solve a biotechnology problem of their choosing. In 2019, projects ranged from attempting to create a painless glucose measurement tool for diabetics to developing a pathway for engineered Escherichia coli to produce suckerin, the strong, flexible protein found in squids, as a potential tool to treat burns with hydrogels.^14,15

The competition is intended to bring together the multiple disciplines needed to develop a biotechnology product, so the teams are judged on a variety of attributes, including entrepreneurship, communications, and ethics, as well as the quality of the science. For example, entrepreneurship may be evident if the team reached out to companies to identify what parameters need to be met for their product to be commercially sold, or if the team raised money for their research. Communication skills may be determined by whether the team interacted with potential community stakeholders for their project, such as talking with local farmers for projects about improving agricultural practices.

Successful iGEM teams are often multidisciplinary, having subgroups for laboratory bench work, fundraising and contacting businesses, and interactions with community members and stakeholders. This approach requires ethical and problem-solving skills and practices and is intended to draw students from different academic majors. There is also a safety and security committee that flags potential issues and interacts with the teams as they develop their projects. This provides a good opportunity to impart norms for safety and security in the synthetic biology field. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is one of the sponsors of the competition, along with biotechnology companies such as Integrated DNA Technologies, Twist Biosciences, GenScript, and Ginkgo Bioworks.¹⁶

The teams compete at the Giant Jamboree, a 5-day event held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where they present their project, are scored by volunteer judges, learn from and interact with the other participants attending the event, and potentially take home a prize. Multiple prizes are awarded, including individual team awards at the bronze, silver, and gold levels representing the team's number of deliverables, as well as competitive awards given to the best team projects in each academic level and for each project topic.

iGEM has gained in international prestige and involvement. In 2005, students came from Canada and the United Kingdom.¹⁷ In 2019, 350 teams from more than 40 countries competed.¹⁸ Some experts in China credit iGEM with sparking China's advancement in synthetic biology. In 2007, Tianjin University hosted its initial iGEM training session, which was the first time several institutions had participated in an event about synthetic biology.¹⁹ Now, iGEM is seen as an important component of China's biotechnology enterprise and as critical for international exchanges in the field; in 2019, 104 iGEM teams came from China.^20,21 A representative of the Dutch government attended the 2019 Giant Jamboree to observe the Dutch teams, which are sponsored by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport.^22-24 In addition to national interests, there is private sector sponsorship. Several teams have corporate sponsors that provide reagents, equipment, software, DNA, or money for teams.

iGEM has been described as a source of potential commercial innovation. More than 150 companies have been formed by iGEM teams, including some established ones, such as Ginkgo Bioworks ($4.2 billion valuation), PVP Biologics ($100 to 500 million), Opentrons ($10 to 50 million), and Puraffinity.^10,11,25,26

Participation in iGEM has been used as a shorthand metric for excellence in cutting-edge biotechnology.¹⁰ A 2020 National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, credited iGEM with spurring interest in synthetic biology and advancing a governance model for the field to include norms for safety, security, and ethics.²⁷ A 2015 US Department of Defense report recommended instituting bioengineering programs at each of the service academies and requiring students to spend at least 1 summer at a major research university to participate in iGEM.²⁸ The report described opportunities for defense in synthetic biology, especially in specialty materials and sensing, but it raised serious concerns about the technical knowledge among program managers and uniformed individuals and saw iGEM as part of the solution to this problem. An earlier report from the National Defense University described the benefits biology could provide to military readiness but noted that “it is difficult to bridge the gap between what is happening in the world of iGEM and the research and operations inside the Department of Defense.”²⁹

If participation in iGEM is a metric of excellence, then current trends are not positive for the United States. Only 58 (17%) of 339 participating teams at the 2019 competition were from the United States; 104 (31%) teams were from China and 81 (24%) were from Europe.²¹ None of the overall grand prize winners nor the runners up were from the United States in 2019. Furthermore, there are challenges to future US participation in iGEM, as iGEM leaders have decided to move the Giant Jamboree, the culminating judging event, from its longstanding home in Boston to Paris starting in 2021, for at least 2 years.

To better understand the benefits of iGEM for inspiring participation in synthetic biology, creating a future workforce pipeline, and assessing the impact on current US teams of the move to Paris, we conducted a small study to interview iGEM team coaches, not for attribution; observed the 2019 iGEM Jamboree; and surveyed the literature on the topic. We interviewed coaches from 10 US-based iGEM teams, including from community labs, public and private universities, and military academies, to hear their opinions on the benefits, challenges, and barriers to competing in iGEM and to assess the importance of this type of experiential learning for building the synthetic biology workforce of the future.

Findings

Participation in the iGEM competition is a positive experience to train students in synthetic biology. There was widespread appreciation of the iGEM experience among the coaches, with some stating that iGEM was the best training their students had received for biotechnology at their institution. The structure of the competition was thought to inspire teamwork and creativity in hands-on biological research, which can be challenging to impart in traditional educational environments. As one coach said, “It's a program that by design is all experiential learning. Students are drawing the information and skills out of the program in an extremely real way. Our students get their degree in the year they work with me on iGEM. The rest of the years are not nearly as useful.”

Many coaches highlighted the importance of participation in the Giant Jamboree. “Its eye opening and life changing. It's huge for the team. It's always so much more than they think it will be,” said one coach. Another remarked, “Jamboree lets the kids interact with peers that are also struggling and trying to make an impact and doing amazing work. It helps kids relate to each other really well. They see that if they work a bit harder, they can be the same as the big winning teams. Every year after Jamboree, the kids say they wish they had worked a little bit harder and then they can be just like the peers they look up to, and when they see peers doing so well, they have more push to do more.”

Motivation through competition was a common theme. As one coach explained, “We love the medal structure where they are competing against themselves. We won gold for the first time this year, and it really helped keep our students focused and engaged. It got returning students to take a leadership role and gave motivation. Without iGEM, there wouldn't be that much motivation and direction. It would be more willy nilly.” The opportunity for students to meet other peers from all over the world who share their passion and to experience the presentations of other competitive teams was invaluable.

iGEM is an opportunity to communicate professional norms for research, including safety and security. Each iGEM team can contain upwards of 15 students participating in different capacities. The competition estimates that more than 40,000 students and instructors have participated since its inception over 15 years ago.¹³ Each team must comply with iGEM's safety and security standards, and each has access to a number of tools to help better understand the risk implications of their work. The underlying necessity of practicing proper biosafety and biosecurity is not the focal point of the competition, but it is a requisite piece for successful participation. As one coach said, “We appreciate that bioethics and biosafety are integrated into the competition. That's great for our students. It forced them to interact with professional scientists, which really helped with career guidance and was potentially career changing.”

Funding for participation in iGEM has been a serious and time-consuming constraint for almost all US teams. The cost to register as a team with iGEM is US$5,500.³⁰ Attending the 5-day Giant Jamboree in Boston, including travel, room, and board for the team members and an adult chaperone, is a hefty expense. Many US iGEM teams raise money through a combination of fundraisers, parental support, and university funds, which is a time-consuming endeavor that competes with other priorities: university classes, jobs, and clubs, as well as the laboratory work required to compete in iGEM. The National Science Foundation offers some funding for high school iGEM teams, with support averaging around $10,000 per team.³¹ Several coaches expressed frustration at how time-consuming the fundraising process could be for the students, and they wondered if the time and energy spent on fundraising would not be better spent on the actual iGEM project.

Financial constraints for competing in iGEM extend to laboratory supplies, laboratory space, and mentor support. Some coaches reported having to fundraise to purchase laboratory supplies to conduct experiments, while others were able to let their iGEM team use their laboratory equipment and supplies. Space for the teams to do their work was also difficult for some of the teams. Some research institutions were hesitant to give space and equipment for iGEM teams or had liability concerns in allowing unsupervised use of laboratory space.

Not having a departmental “home” can be a barrier to getting support for an iGEM team. While it is an asset that the competition is multidisciplinary, with students coming from multiple academic majors such as chemical engineering, biology, communications, art, and others, this can create a logistical barrier, as no one department has a sufficient number of students to invest in a team. As there are fewer than 30 students on a team, the iGEM teams are resource intensive for a department for relatively few students, particularly when there are department clubs comprised of many more students from one academic department.

There are serious concerns about whether attendance at the Giant Jamboree in Paris will even be possible. At the 2019 Giant Jamboree, staff of the iGEM foundation announced that the Giant Jamboree would move to Paris in 2021. Coaches were disappointed that the competition was leaving the United States; they viewed it as something that had been nurtured and developed in the United States, and moving it would make it harder for US teams to participate. As one coach said, “Our first instinct was ‘Oh, great, now we can't do iGEM anymore.’” Another said, “When iGEM moves to Paris, I have no idea how we will do that. It's going to be so much more money. I know I will do it, but I literally have no idea how I am going to do it. We have allowed iGEM to leave the US. Why the hell did we allow that? How did we let that happen?” Several coaches were particularly worried about the cost of attending the Giant Jamboree because plane tickets will be more expensive, students will need to pay for passports, and more adults will need to accompany the team.

Non-US teams may not have the same funding and space constraints as US teams. The experience of self-funding, common among the US teams, may not be as common for international teams. It is widely understood that many teams that compete in iGEM receive government support for their projects. The teams do not have to report their funding sources to judges or on their team website. A 2011 iGEM team from China conducted a survey and found that China's iGEM teams were primarily funded by their schools.³² However, this appears to be changing as some Chinese iGEM teams have posted on Twitter that they have been sponsored by companies.^33,34

Funding extends to mentor support; most US coaches we interviewed were not compensated for the considerable hours of time coaching iGEM. However, several reported that they knew of non-US teams that compensated coaches or had a hired coach whose sole professional responsibilities involved managing the iGEM team. Most iGEM coaches are university faculty members with multiple job responsibilities. It can be challenging for these faculty to spend adequate time with an iGEM team without compensation.

There is concern among coaches that the United States is neglecting the synthetic biology workforce of the future. The experience of uneven support in synthetic biology concerned all the coaches and is expressed in multiple reports. “I'm a judge every year. China is investing so much in the bioeconomy. I see it through their high school and undergrad teams every year. Their high school teams are doing stuff at the same caliber as top US undergrad teams. We are in trouble as a country. Their teams are funded by the national government because it's a priority for the national government. This is an area where the US is actively falling behind.”

Recommendations for Action

A strong workforce is critical for US success in several STEM fields.³⁵ A trained workforce is critical to the development of new biotechnology solutions and advancing the bioeconomy.^36,37 The iGEM competition has been considered a valuable method for developing the biotechnology workforce and strengthening the field of synthetic biology for the future. Given the number of US biotechnology companies that had their roots in iGEM, and the continually increasing number of startups that emerge from the competition, it also appears to be a valuable part of the US bioeconomy at the present time. There are challenges, however, for the United States to fully benefit from this and other competitions.

Many iGEM teams face challenges that require solutions specific to their research institution. For example, some teams would benefit if iGEM were a class that students could enroll in for credit. This would allow instructors to be compensated for their time and laboratory resources to be assigned to the class by the university. For other teams, particularly those that have a heavy concentration of engineering students on the iGEM team, offering iGEM as a class would preclude their participation. The engineering curriculum is concentrated and structured, and there is no possibility to add another class for credit. Engineering students are maxed out in their available credit hours, so they would not be able to take iGEM as a class—they would only be able to volunteer their time. An indepth examination of the training opportunities and pipeline for synthetic biology would likely uncover additional challenges and options for addressing them.

Nonetheless, in this examination of iGEM, there are some clear steps that the US government should take to strengthen the future pipeline of talent in synthetic biology:

The US government should create a granting mechanism that iGEM teams (or teams in other competitions) can apply to for funds for their team and participation. Currently, iGEM teams fundraise for their participation. Thousands of dollars are needed for registration, laboratory supplies, and travel and lodging to the Giant Jamboree. Team members do this through a patchwork of corporate sponsorships, private donations, university funds, parental support, and even bake sales. As one iGEM coach said, “It's complete trauma every year to come up with the money. But students are seeing what research in the US is really like—if you don't raise money, you don't do research. So, in terms of experiential learning, they get it. They have to do it.” While the experience of raising money for research can be valuable for the team, and may nurture entrepreneurial talents, there is an opportunity for the United States to award funds to US teams based on a grant application from the team that is specific to the work the team intends to do. Learning how to write grants and apply for research money is a better training opportunity for future biotechnologists than organizing bake sales, and a better use of limited time.

Creating a mechanism to award money for teams would also allow for tracking teams and their progress over time and for recognizing additional opportunities to support teams in underserved areas or students who require more financial support. One coach whose college is in an underserved area described food insecurity on his team. There were many descriptions in the interviews of students who would have benefited from attending the Giant Jamboree but could not go because they did not have the funds for travel. While talented students in need of financial aid are tracked in other scholarship programs, it is likely their interest and involvement in synthetic biology is not recorded or supported.

Compensation for mentors would also be valuable; funding to support postdoctoral fellows to advise iGEM teams may relieve pressure on faculty coaches while providing teams with more direct and frequent mentorship.

Opportunities for experiential learning in synthetic biology should be expanded. iGEM offers hands-on training in synthetic biology and is a valuable educational experience. For students at large research universities, there are additional opportunities to work in a laboratory and participate in cutting-edge research (and perhaps to get their names as author on a scientific publication, which will likely be more impressive for graduate school acceptance than iGEM participation). Participation on iGEM teams is not the only mechanism for students to get experiential training. More such opportunities are clearly needed, however, through expanded participation in iGEM as well as additional types of competitions.

Compared to the dozens of engineering and robotics competitions, there are relatively few competitions in the biological field. Competitions with different goals that occur at different times of the year could help to provide experiential learning in synthetic biology to more people. The conditions and timing of iGEM does not work for all students. For example, for military academy teams, the summer is a problematic time for students to be in the laboratory instead of training for combat.

Support is needed for “After-iGEM” ideas. There are opportunities to incentivize the further development of ideas by teams. There is tremendous creativity in the approaches taken by teams: For example, the University of Virginia team aimed to transform plastic waste into biodegradable plastic; Rice University wanted to make plants resistant to extreme temperatures; Florida State University aimed to address citrus greening; and Baltimore's community laboratory, BUGSS, tried to repopulate the gut microbiome after a course of antibiotics.^38-41 However, unless the students form a startup with their team idea, their next step is to participate in iGEM with a new idea the following year. It may be valuable to have an “After-iGEM” competition to focus on developing a project further as a potential commercial technology. As one coach explained, “The experience is great, but the data is important, too. It's a lot of money for projects that won't continue on. That's why I think about iGEM as an educational program not a research program. Because what happens after iGEM?”

Developing the future US workforce in synthetic biology deserves more attention, and it is clearly important to the US bioeconomy. There are many data gaps to be filled that will help guide appropriate steps for the US government to take; more data are needed about iGEM alumni and their career choices, funding sources of iGEM teams worldwide, and additional organizational challenges for US team participation. However, increasing the ability for US teams to effectively participate in iGEM, as well as other experiential learning opportunities, are important steps that are likely to boost the US workforce to support the bioeconomy in the future.

References

Berlinsky-Schine

Prestigious STEM competitions for high school students. CollegeVine. June 8, 2017. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://blog.collegevine.com/prestigious-stem-competitions-for-high-school-students/

Society for Science & the Public. Frequently asked questions. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://www.societyforscience.org/regeneron-sts/frequently-asked-questions/

The Doolittle Institute. Workforce development & STEM outreach. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://doolittleinstitute.org/workforce-development/

Anderson

CyberForce competition reflects NETL's commitment to STEM outreach, workforce development. National Energy Technology Laboratory website. Published November 25, 2019. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://www.netl.doe.gov/node/9332

Department of Defense Science Technology Engineering Mathematics (DOD STEM). Competitions. DOD STEM website. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://dodstem.us/taxonomy/term/49

FIRST. 2020 FIRST robotics competition suppliers. Accessed February 4, 2020. https://www.firstinspires.org/content/first-robotics-competition-suppliers-0

Melchior

, Cohen

, Cutter

, Leavitt

. More than Robots: An Evaluation of the FIRST Robotics Competition Participant and Institutional Impacts. Manchester, NH: FIRST; 2005. Accessed July 14, 2020. http://www.techfire225.com/uploads/6/3/7/1/6371896/first_study.pdf

Welch

. Using the TOSRA to assess high school students' attitudes toward science after competing in the FIRST robotics competition: an exploratory study. Eurasia J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2010; 6(3):187-197.

Gamse

, Martinez

, Bozzi

. Calling STEM experts: how can experts contribute to students' increased STEM engagement?. Int J Sci Educ Part B. 2017; 7(1):31-59.

10.

Feldman

Synthetic biology company Ginkgo Bioworks tops $4 billion valuation, pushing its Ph.D. founders' stakes to some $250 million each. Forbes. September 19, 2019. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2019/09/19/synthetic-biology-company-ginkgo-bioworks-tops-4-billion-valuation-with-t-rowe-investment-pushing-its-phd-founders-stakes-to-some-250-million-each/

11.

PvP Biologics. Overview. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/pvp-biologics

12.

International Genetically Engineered Machine. About. Accessed January 14, 2020. https://igem.org/About

13.

iGEM. After iGEM. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://igem.org/After_iGEM

14.

TecMonterrey

GDL

. Gliksys. 2019. Accessed January 14, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:TecMonterrey_GDL

15.

2019 Leiden iGEM Team. S.P.L.A.S.H. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:Leiden

16.

iGEM. Sponsors for iGEM 2019. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Sponsors

17.

iGEM. IGEM 2005 – project summaries. Accessed February 3, 2020. http://2006.igem.org/wiki/index.php/IGEM_2005_-_Project_Summaries

18.

iGEM. Previous competitions. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://igem.org/Previous_Competitions

19.

Soysal

. Transnational Trajectories in East Asia: Nation, Citizenship, and Region. New York: Routledge; 2015.

20.

Zhang

. The ‘National’ and the ‘Cosmos.’ The emergence of synthetic biology in China. EMBO Rep. 2011; 12(4):302-306.

21.

iGEM. Team list for iGEM 2019 championship. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://igem.org/Team_List?year=2019&name=Championship&division=igem

22.

2019 TU Eindhover iGEM Team. Our partners. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:TU_Eindhoven/Sponsors

23.

2018 Groningen iGEM Team. Sponsors. Accessed February 3, 2020. http://2018.igem.org/Team:Groningen/Sponsors

24.

2019 Leiden iGEM Team. Sponsors. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:Leiden/Sponsors

25.

International Genetically Engineered Machine. iGEM startups. Accessed January 15, 2020. https://igem.org/Startups

26.

OpenTrons. Overview. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/opentrons

27.

National Academy of

Sciences

, Engineering, and Medicine . Safeguarding the Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2020. Accessed July 13, 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25525

28.

Office of Technical

Intelligence

, Office of the Assistance Secretary for Defense for Research and

Engineering

. Technical Assessment: Synthetic Biology. Washington, DC: Department of Defense for Research and Engineering; 2015. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD1010199

29.

Armstrong

, Drapeau

, Loeb

, Valdes

. Bio-Inspired Innovation and National Security. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press; 2010.

30.

iGEM. Competition, registration, team fee. 2020. Accessed February 4, 2020. https://2020.igem.org/Competition/Registration/Team_Fee

31.

Shape the future of synthetic biology! Apply for funding to mentor high school iGEM teams. BIO BUZZ. Published October 7, 2019. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://oadblog.nsfbio.com/2019/10/07/shape-the-future-of-synthetic-biology-apply-for-funding-to-mentor-high-school-igem-teams/

32.

2011 ZJU-China iGEM Team. Biotech industry funding assessment. 2011. Accessed February 3, 2020. http://2011.igem.org/Team:ZJU-China/Assessment.html

33.

iGEM SHSSIP China. “#iGEM2019 Thank you @MATLAB that we received Matlab software as a special offer for iGEM teams. Some of the team members has installed and activated this software.” April 27, 2019. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://twitter.com/ShssipO/status/1122064155756773377

34.

iGEM Tongji_China. “Thanks for labfolder's sponsorship ! @labfolder So we can use the electronic lab notebook (ELN) to organize our data, plan experiments and record results ! #iGEM” June 4, 2019. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://twitter.com/Tongji_China/status/1135791872004239360.

35.

National Science Board. Revisiting the STEM Workforce: A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2015. Accessed July 14, 2020. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201510.pdf

36.

Summary of the 2019 White House Summit on America's Bioeconomy. Washington, DC: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; 2019. Accessed July 14, 2020. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Summary-of-White-House-Summit-on-Americas-Bioeconomy-October-2019.pdf

37.

Gronvall

. US competitiveness in synthetic biology. Health Secur. 2015; 13(6):378-389.

38.

2019 Virginia iGEM Team. Transfoam. Description. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:Virginia/Description

39.

2019 Rice iGEM Team. Thermoplant. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:Rice

40.

2019 FSU iGEM Team. FLOEMA. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:FSU

41.

2019 Baltimore BioCrew iGEM Team. GUT WARS. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://2019.igem.org/Team:Baltimore_BioCrew.