The strong interest in synthetic biology and building block engineering, whereon my intent to join the Heidelberg iGEM team rests, arises from my enthusiasm for various relevant issues - from contextual problems to factual application in research.

Throughout the western hemisphere, the latter years are continuing to bring about concern rather than recognition over the advancement of biosciences. This state of affairs is particularly worrying, since it not only has dire immediate implications for development, but also reveals a broad gap between lawmakers and scientists. Having participated in numerous politically oriented events, from annual MUN meetings to debate clubs, I had the opportunity to gain some understanding of how exactly politically interested peers and political professionals motivate present-day decision making. "Caution" seems to be the the purported reason for alarmism. Although no one has any solid notion of what exactly he is cautious about, it seems obvious to me that this concern is deeply rooted in the ambiguity of risk assessment in traditional bioengineering. This state of events shows that in today's ecologically overconcerned world, unhindered scientific advance lies with new, more reliable methods, whose risks can be unambiguously assessed. Thus making my first point for synthetic biology: well documented genetic building blocks allows for better control; interchangeable parts facilitate frequent reuse (and thus increased practically-oriented review of single components); and ultimately, purposive thinking allows the former assets to quickly benefit industry and consumers alike. Synthetic cell projects might not yet be within reach of mainstream research, but it is obvious in how far such paradigm developments might augment modularity, reliability, and usability. I believe iGEM would provide for ample opportunity to network with like-minded students, and see in how far me and my peers can do our part in promoting these assets.

Political context aside, science faces yet a second set of delicate circumstances. Various modern licensing practices - such as gene licensing - impose heavy restrictions on immediate benefits to consumers, and thus hinder applied research, as well as contributing to the gap between science and the public. Technology already had to confront similar issues with the advent of computer science - and indeed solutions have surfaced. It was in the summer of 1985 at the MIT that a group of hackers started what came to be known as the GNU project - an open framework striving to counter limitations imposed by licensing. The GPL licence - though unapplicable to biological systems - might indeed serve as prototype for free licensing in biotechnology, which would find particularly fertile soil in the highly modular system of synthetic biology. Having participated in and led (albeit only organisationally) various FOSS projects I came to find that open standards and open source frameworks provide a strong impetus for practically-oriented development. Having witnessed the development of the linux kernel over several years I also find that self-regulation of open projects makes for stronger pro-active concern about security issues amongst experts - a kind of concern which I consider constructive, as opposed to the laic concern described earlier. Therefore, as an enthusiastic linux user and a long-time member of the FOSS community, I can only salute the initiative of promoting "free" and open-source values amongst young and motivated bioscience students - and I am sure that iGEM's dedication to this goal will help the next generation of bioscientists gain a solid understanding of the legal and licensing context of their work.

Having outlined the context of my interest in iGEM I would like to take the opportunity and go into further detail on how my particular areas of interest relate to synthetic biology. Although I have put considerable effort in several branches of bioscience - and found I have more interests than time to spare - my main focus undoubtedly remains on the field of research which has held my fascination since my latter years in high school, and which also motivated me to come to Heidelberg - neuroscience. Out of the numerous relevant courses I have taken, it was the combination of neurophysics (offered by the group of Winfried Denk) and sense-physiology (offered by Stephan Frings) that helped me get better acquainted with applications of synthetic biology. Having taken these two courses in parallel, I found it striking in how far sensory systems facilitate the study of the central nervous system. Halfway through the semester I heard the first courses on magneto- and electro-sensitivity. Having been familiarized with the problems facing electrophysiology, I was instantly struck by the overwhelming possibilities that would be offered by expression of magneto- and electro-sensory constructs in neural cell populations of living organisms. I was quick to approach one of our neurophysics lecturers - Andreas Schaefer - with this idea, and it seemed to strike a chord with him. I knew that similar systems relying on optical stimulation had already been researched and implemented, and I was pleasantly surprised to hear that such systems were also in use in his laboratory. Even more so, his group possessed the necessary means to build such systems, and he himself was also thinking about implementations of novel stimulation/inhibition methods which would be less invasive and more penetrant than optostimulation. He was very happy to help me get acquainted with the problems facing the issue at hand, and also made a point about gladly welcoming me should I have any ideas for practical work on this subject. Since then I have dedicated considerable amounts of time to better insight in the implementation of synthetic biological systems that might permit non-invasive, population-selective inhibition/stimulation in neural networks. I found the work of Ed Boyden's Synthetic Neurobiology Group at the MIT particularly interesting, as I was even further motivated by their multicolour silencing approach (as of January 2010), which is a fine example of how the modularity of synthetic biological systems can be put to excellent use.

Through iGEM I hope to be able to experience synthetic biology first-hand either by confronting novel problems or by augmenting my engagement to the aforementioned area of research. I would also be delighted if I could put the networking skills acquired in the open-source world in biological context and ultimately see if first-person synthetic biology proves as open and multifaceted as is advertised in third-person research.