The debate around genetic engineering has permeated society for decades. A crucial aspect of this debate is the containment of genetically engineered organisms. This project outlines the three types of biocontainment and the conclusions drawn about each in the form of policy briefs. These briefs utilize case studies to sketch an overview of the current biocontainment paradigm in the United States. In addition, there is a brief discussing the major conclusions drawn from the case studies, as well as a brief containing useful definitions.

Industries and research utilizing genetically-engineered organisms are often subject to strict containment requirements such as physical isolation or specialized equipment to prevent an unintended escape. A relatively new field of research looks for ways to engineer intrinsic containment techniques- genetic safeguards that prevent an organism from surviving outside of specific conditions. As interest in this field has grown over the last few decades, researchers in molecular and synthetic biology have discovered many novel ways to accomplish this containment, but the current literature faces some ambiguity and overlap in the ways they describe various biocontainment methods. Additionally, the way publications report the robustness of the techniques they test is inconsistent, making it uncertain how regulators could assess the safety and efficacy of these methods if they are eventually to be used in practical, consumer applications. This project organizes and clarifies the descriptions of these techniques within an interactive flowchart, linking to definitions and references to publications on each within an Excel table. For each reference, variables such as the containment approach, testing methods, and results reported are compiled, to illustrate the varying degrees to which these techniques are tested.

Industries and research utilizing genetically-engineered organisms are often subject to strict containment requirements such as physical isolation or specialized equipment to prevent an unintended escape. A relatively new field of research looks for ways to engineer intrinsic containment techniques- genetic safeguards that prevent an organism from surviving outside of specific conditions. As interest in this field has grown over the last few decades, researchers in molecular and synthetic biology have discovered many novel ways to accomplish this containment, but the current literature faces some ambiguity and overlap in the ways they describe various biocontainment methods. Additionally, the way publications report the robustness of the techniques they test is inconsistent, making it uncertain how regulators could assess the safety and efficacy of these methods if they are eventually to be used in practical, consumer applications. This project organizes and clarifies the descriptions of these techniques within an interactive flowchart, linking to definitions and references to publications on each within an Excel table. For each reference, variables such as the containment approach, testing methods, and results reported are compiled, to illustrate the varying degrees to which these techniques are tested.

Industries and research utilizing genetically-engineered organisms are often subject to strict containment requirements such as physical isolation or specialized equipment to prevent an unintended escape. A relatively new field of research looks for ways to engineer intrinsic containment techniques- genetic safeguards that prevent an organism from surviving outside of specific conditions. As interest in this field has grown over the last few decades, researchers in molecular and synthetic biology have discovered many novel ways to accomplish this containment, but the current literature faces some ambiguity and overlap in the ways they describe various biocontainment methods. Additionally, the way publications report the robustness of the techniques they test is inconsistent, making it uncertain how regulators could assess the safety and efficacy of these methods if they are eventually to be used in practical, consumer applications. This project organizes and clarifies the descriptions of these techniques within an interactive flowchart, linking to definitions and references to publications on each within an Excel table. For each reference, variables such as the containment approach, testing methods, and results reported are compiled, to illustrate the varying degrees to which these techniques are tested.

Within the last decade, there has been a lot of hype surrounding the potential medical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. During the same timespan, big tech companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Google have entered the healthcare market as developers of health-based AI and ML technologies. This project aims to create a comprehensive map of the existing health-AI market landscape for the standard biotech reader and to provide a critical commentary on the existing market structure.

Telehealth is the use of information and communications technology by healthcare professionals to provide care to patients. When this technology is being used specifically for genetic services, it is called telegenetics. Previous studies that examine the small-scale use of telegenetics for the field of genetic counseling have shown that the technology may provide a way to address the problem of patient access to genetic counseling services, assuming its efficacy. Patients are satisfied with telegenetics, but genetic counselors hold more reservations. Because of this and the many regulatory barriers in its way, telegenetics was only slowly being adopted when the coronavirus was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic forced a switch to telegenetics at a scale never seen before. This study begins with a literature review to assess the situation of telegenetics before and during the pandemic. It then surveys practicing genetic counselors in Arizona in order to reveal what they think about telegenetics when it is the encouraged, and sometimes only, modality. Since the literature review revealed that genetic counselors, not patients, are the ones with concerns, it is important to hear their points of view. This study reveals that genetic counselors want telegenetics as an option but not as a replacement for in-person appointments. All respondents agreed that increased patient access is the main benefit of telegenetics. There are reported challenges that must be overcome, but genetic counselors in Arizona overwhelming believe that telegenetics use will be continued in the future.