Personal Design Portfolio (PDP)
Grading: Individual grade, up to 25% of your final grade
The following links go to pages with details of each Personal Design Portfolio assignment.
PDP3: Write a Script and Storyboard
Assignments
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
Draft a letter. Address this letter to someone(s) you care about. Your letter should introduce and describe a real world problem or opportunity, one that you have inherited, identified, dreamed about, or otherwise encountered, and that you would like to solve or realize. Your letter should explain why you feel the problem or opportunity is important, and what the consequences of success might be. You can focus on more than one issue, but each issue needs to be explained. Please print and bring your letter to the studio tomorrow.
Time to Complete This Letter: 1 Hour Max.
|
Why are we doing this?? We’re looking ahead to the project you and your team will design this term…the first step is for you to decide what you’d like to work on. This letter should start you thinking about your areas of interest. The letter will also be a way to talk with others about things that interest them. Maybe you’ll hear an idea you never considered and want to investigate it further. Maybe you’ll find someone with very similar concerns. |
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
-
To solidify the biology and engineering that’s associated with the two projects we studied today, please look at the documentation of their projects (iGEM Heidelberg 2008 and iGEM MIT 2006) and answer the following questions:
- The Heidelberg team built two chimeric receptors to drive chemotaxis in response to AI-2. What successes did they realize? What
experiment didn’t work? What will they try next? - The lambda phage built by the Heidelberg team had both a selectable drug marker (CamR) and an origin to enable the phage to transfer via the F pilus (oriT). However the phage wasn’t able to lyse either the predator strain it resided in, or the prey strains it infected. Why (you’ll have 2 different answers here)?
- We didn’t spend a great deal of time in class discussing the Colicin experiments that the Heidelburg team worked out. In your own words, please describe this component of their work: what was their “prey”? what was their “killer”? How did they expect this system to work? Did they build and test this?
- Do you believe, as this team does, that “science communication” is the basis for the formation of public opinion and acceptance of new technologies? Give an example of an effective and an ineffective approach to scientific communication.
- The MIT team made some “on the fly” adjustments to their project based on early data collected. For instance they decided to control the banana smell for expression in stationary phase since the smell overwhelmed the wintergreen. Could they have used a computer simulation of their system to make this decision? Why or why not?
- The Heidelberg team built two chimeric receptors to drive chemotaxis in response to AI-2. What successes did they realize? What
-
You should revise your letter based on any feedback you received from your classmates today.
Time to complete this letter revision and answer these questions: 1 hour max.
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
Over the next week we’ll be turning the letter you wrote into a script and then later a storyboard. The script should be fun to write and doesn’t have to win you a Pulitzer Prize since you’ll be turning it into a comic book.
For inspiration, look through Adventures in Synthetic Biology and its original storyboard.
Original storyboard for Adventures in Synthetic Biology, by Drew Endy.
This storyboard was sketched on regular paper by Drew Endy as he was flying from one place to another. The genesis of the comic is documented here.
Then, using the problem or opportunity you described in your letter (PDP1), draft a two chapter script for a comic book using characters from your imagination. In chapter 1, have the characters talk about the problem or opportunity. In chapter 2, have the characters brainstorm a way to solve the issue.
Time to complete this script: 1 hour max.
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
Part 1: Team Dynamics
Listen to the first 10 minutes of a short radio program:
“Ruining It for the Rest of Us.” This American Life. Chicago Public Radio. December 19, 2008.
The introduction to this show describes the effect that “one bad apple” can have on a team’s productivity, as well as the simple, almost magical way to counteract the effect. You can stop listening (if you want) when the host introduces Act I.
Then, think about the kind of contributions you’re likely to make to a team, and the kinds you’d like to be making to a team. Copy the following items into a Word document and then answer “almost never,” “sometimes,” or “almost always” to each item:
- I set team direction (vision/strategies/identity/purpose)
- I innovate (experiment/take risks)
- I plan (set goals/set schedules/detail milestones)
- I align people (communicate team goals/serve as role model/build consensus)
- I broker plans (manage upward/negotiate/use power and politics)
- I organize (structure/coordinate/staff/delegate)
- I motivate (inspire/energize)
- I monitor (appraise status)
- I mentor (develop other people’s capabilities)
Now set some plan for development. Choose one aspect from the list above you’d like to learn or change. Next, think of at least one way to accomplish your objective. You should think about what would provide evidence for accomplishment. Evidence for progress might seem small (e.g. asking a question in class, speaking louder, interrupting less) but make the measures for progress as concrete as possible. Remember there is no right or wrong answer to this series of questions. You’re just being asked to commit to some area for growth.
Part 2: Learning Styles
Next, take this questionnaire to gauge your learning style. Take a screen shot of the results and paste it into the Word document you started for Part 1. Then read this index of learning styles and add a few sentences to your Word document to say how well questionnaire’s results match your own impressions of how you best learn.
Time to Complete Team Dynamics and Learning Styles Assessment: 1 Hour Max.
|
Why are we doing this?? You’re all here to learn and to work on a team project. But teams are only as functional as their most dis-functional member and everyone learns differently. Hopefully today’s challenge and this homework assignment have helped raise your awareness of team dynamics and various learning styles, as well as giving a concrete example of some social implications that may be a consequence of your success. |
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
First, reconsider the challenges and opportunities that were presented in today’s studio (Week #3).
Then select your 3 favorite project ideas as well as your first and second choice for a camp assignment to your counselors. Next week, you’ll be assigned a team and, as a team, you’ll get started on 3 ideas in your area of interest.
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
In this assignment you will address the characteristics of “good design.” For instance, Joel Schindall from the Gordon Engineering Leadership Program offers these elements of good product design:
- You know it when you see it
- Minimalist — meets requirements in an efficient manner
- Wow factor — leaps out at you
- Robust — failure-resistant
- “Anticipatory” — easily modified to overcome unanticipated problems (this is subtle but important)
- Adaptable
- Expandable
- Flexible
- Combines functions to increase efficiency — mounting bracket doubles as heat sink, etc.
By contrast, this interview with Blade Kotelly from Endeca Technologies offers these elements of good software design:
- Visually Clean
- Communicates clearly and quickly
- Anthropomorphic
- Useful in some way (intended or unintended)
- Provides clear feedback
- Keeps users oriented as to their current state
- Maintains locus of control with user
- Emotionally compelling
- Provides simple controls for input
- Aligns to societal mores
Now it’s your turn. Please make 2 lists. The first list should be 5-10 characteristics of good design in biology as we find it in the natural world. The second list should be 5-10 characteristics of good design in biologically engineered technologies.
|
Why are we doing this?? As you start to design your own projects, it’s important to think at a high level about “good design” elements. If you can articulate “what makes it great,” then you should be in a powerful position to make wise decisions about project ideas, to accurately evaluate competing ideas and technologies, and to fully appreciate of what exists and what can be improved. |
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
You can find the term “biohacking” and “DIYbio” (for “Do It Yourself Biology) increasingly tossed into conversations and presentations. There are examples ranging from “how to” Web sites to Charles Vest’s 2007 MIT commencement address. Begin your follow-up work from today’s lecture by reading this:
Dyson, Freeman. “Our Biotech Future.” The New York Review of Books 54, no. 12 (July 19, 2007).
He foresees a domestication of biotechnology that will dominate our lives for the next 50 years. He foresees an “era of Open Source biology (in which) the magic of genes will be available to anyone with the skill and imagination to use it.”
Based on your backyard biology experience today, what do you think of the present and future possibilities of biohacking? As a point of comparison you might consider the hacking of the iPhone. Here are some other questions you might consider as you think about this topic:
- Who can hack computers and who can hack biology?
- Are there speed, safety, and training considerations?
- Do you expect to see garage biotechnologists in your lifetime? Do they already exist? Should they?
Decide for yourself if biohacking is confirmed, plausible or busted and write-up your reflections. You might include thoughts on today’s challenge, on Freeman Dyson’s vision, on what you imagine the DIYbio movement will look like in 2 years or in 20.
PDP1 | PDP2 | PDP3 | PDP4 | PDP5 | PDP6 | PDP7 | PDP8
There are three short parts to this assignment. You should spend no more than 1 hour reading the assigned chapter by Charles Weiner, and then answering these questions.
Read:
Weiner, Charles. “Recombinant DNA, Policy, Asilomar.” In Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology. Edited by T. Murray and M. Mehlman. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. ISBN: 9780471176121.
Part 1: What is Recombinant DNA?
To illustrate your understanding of genetic engineering techniques, describe how you might make the DNA that programs the GloFish as described at Wikipedia: Recombinant DNA.
GloFish genetically modified flourescent fish. (Public domain image.)
Call the gene for glowing “GFG” and the fish plasmid “pFP.”
Part 2: Key Events for Regulation of Experiments Involving Recombinant DNA
Concisely describe the relevance/importance of
- 1973 Gordon Conference
- 1974 Berg letters in Nature and Science
- 1975 Conference in Asilomar
- Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee
Part 3: Public Scrutiny of and Say in Research Decisions
Consider these three quotes and then
- give your idea(s) about how to best engage the public in the scientific enterprise
- comment on one author’s viewpoint or agenda, as best you can glean from the short quote
- and finally say if you think the publication was an appropriate places to express that author’s viewpoint
Quote 1: from pg 910 of the Weiner chapter:
“The motive from the start was to avoid public interference and to demonstrate that the scientists on their own could protect laboratory workers, the public and the environment.”
Quote 2: from “Open Letter to the Asilomar Conference” written by Science for the People (PDF):
“There is little evidence that the technologies being discussed at this meeting arise from social or medical needs of large segments of the population. Rather, they represent specialized interests including those of the scientific community itself.”
Quote 3: from “Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference” written by Paul Berg, et al., and published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:
“In the longer term, serious problems may arise in the large scale application of this methodology in industry, medicine and agriculture. But it was also recognized that further research and experience may show that many of the potential biohazards are less serious and/or less probable than we now suspect.”
|
Why are we doing this?? This homework assignment serves three important purposes for our class. First, it provides some context for our upcoming class viewing the video of the 1974 Cambridge City Council Hearings. These hearings enabled the citizens of Cambridge to directly address the scientists themselves and question the intent and efficacy of national safety guidelines for recombinant DNA work. The video was made available to us by Charles Weiner and it will be shown on Tuesday in class. Second, this chapter will give some timeline for the development of recombinant DNA technology itself as well as for the meetings and hearings that addressed its hazards. Finally, this chapter gives some insight into the polarizing viewpoints and biases inherent in many of the discussions associated with these issues. |
Course Info
Instructors
Departments
As Taught In
Spring
2009
Level
Learning Resource Types
theaters
Tutorial Videos
notes
Lecture Notes
group_work
Projects with Examples
