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
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.
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.
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.
