2021 International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition(iGEM)
2021 International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition
2021 國(guó)際遺傳工程機(jī)器大賽
項(xiàng)目介紹
International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition （iGEM）國(guó)際遺傳工程機(jī)器大賽于2003年由MIT麻省理工創(chuàng)辦。2005年后發(fā)展壯大成為一個(gè)國(guó)際性學(xué)術(shù)學(xué)術(shù)活動(dòng)，iGEM涉及生物學(xué)、計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)、數(shù)學(xué)、藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)等多學(xué)科，是以合成生物學(xué)為核心多學(xué)科交叉國(guó)際級(jí)科技學(xué)術(shù)活動(dòng)，其理念在于鼓勵(lì)大學(xué)生和中學(xué)生積極創(chuàng)新，用創(chuàng)新去改變世界。iGEM涉及的合成生物更是是近年來新興研究領(lǐng)域，受到了學(xué)術(shù)界和工業(yè)界的廣泛關(guān)注，其參賽隊(duì)伍所做的相關(guān)研究成果常年發(fā)表于《Nature》、《Science》、《Scientific American》、《Economists》 等頂尖學(xué)術(shù)期刊，同時(shí)受到BBC等媒體的關(guān)注和專題報(bào)道? 。
iGEM創(chuàng)始之初僅是針對(duì)在校本科生的校內(nèi)學(xué)術(shù)活動(dòng)，后逐漸擴(kuò)大到研究生以及高中生。涵蓋多學(xué)科的iGEM團(tuán)隊(duì)需要利用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)生物模塊（Biobricks）來構(gòu)建基因回路、建立有效的數(shù)學(xué)模型，實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)精致復(fù)雜人工生物系統(tǒng)（artificial biosystem）的預(yù)測(cè)、操縱和測(cè)量以完成比賽。參賽選手必須把自己研究的項(xiàng)目所有重要內(nèi)容都放進(jìn)一個(gè)海報(bào)并準(zhǔn)備一個(gè)20分鐘的演講。iGEM為學(xué)生們提供了靠自己通過解決世界面臨的日常問題來突破合成生物學(xué)的邊界機(jī)會(huì)，施展自己的才能。每年都有近6000人把他們的暑假獻(xiàn)給iGEM，然后在秋天匯聚一堂，展示各自的成果，項(xiàng)目交流學(xué)習(xí)。來到這里，展示他們的工作，參加一年一度的聚會(huì)。
iGEM獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)設(shè)置
iGEM獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)和獎(jiǎng)牌設(shè)置非常廣泛，等級(jí)分Grand Prizes，Standard Track Awards，Special Track Awards及Special Prizes四個(gè)類別，難度由難至簡(jiǎn)以此類推，每年的類別可能有所不同，每個(gè)類別的具體獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)如下：
- Grand Prizes：小部分被組委會(huì)評(píng)審為最終決賽者團(tuán)隊(duì)獎(jiǎng)角逐此等獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)，為該學(xué)術(shù)活動(dòng)的最高獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)，按不同年齡組頒獎(jiǎng)
- Undergraduate組：
- Grand Prize Undergraduate：另稱為aluminum BioBrick Trophy，為該年齡組的最高獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng);
- First Runner-Up Undergraduate：該年齡組的第二名
- Second Runner-Up Undergraduate：該年齡組的第三名
- Overgraduate組
- Grand Prize Overgraduate：另成為aluminum BioBrick Trophy，為該年齡組最高獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)
- First Runner-Up Overgraduate：該年齡組的第二名
- High School組
- Grand Prize High School：另稱為BioBrick Trophy，為該年齡組的最高獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)
- Undergraduate組：
- Standard Track Awards：由組委會(huì)根據(jù)團(tuán)隊(duì)參賽內(nèi)容的造詣程度來按以下類別頒獎(jiǎng)
- Best Diagnostics Project：很多病癥如果可以在早期就被診斷出來，就可以很好的成功治愈。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要提出一個(gè)更快、更便宜、更好的診斷技術(shù)來改善全世界的醫(yī)療服務(wù)
- Best Energy Project：自1950年以來，世界能源消耗增加了大約六倍。2013年5月，Mauna Loa Observatory夏威夷莫納羅亞天文臺(tái)的大氣C02讀數(shù)首次超過400ppm，這樣高濃度二氧化碳完全無法維持。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要嘗試?yán)煤铣缮飳W(xué)創(chuàng)造出能產(chǎn)生更少二氧化碳的能源技術(shù)，利用原料和廢料制造能源，或者以其他可持續(xù)的方式產(chǎn)生能源
- Best Environment Project：空氣、水和土地的質(zhì)量決定了所有生物的幸福生活。獲獎(jiǎng)的團(tuán)隊(duì)需要研究生物技術(shù)能否被用來幫助凈化空氣，提供新鮮的飲用水，恢復(fù)或提高土壤質(zhì)量，或者將就近的小行轉(zhuǎn)變成地球類似的環(huán)境，以及保護(hù)增強(qiáng)自然生物多樣性
- Best Food & Nutrition Project：俗話說人是鐵飯是鋼，一頓不吃餓得慌。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要研究是否有什么技術(shù)或材料既可以安全的生產(chǎn)食品提供營(yíng)養(yǎng)又不會(huì)造成短缺的同時(shí)又不損害長(zhǎng)期的環(huán)境?
- Best Foundational Advance Project：35年前，科學(xué)家們還不能像今天這樣，將現(xiàn)有的遺傳物質(zhì)片段剪切和粘貼。DNA重組的發(fā)現(xiàn)和應(yīng)用使我們能夠合成新的基因。合成生物學(xué)正在尋找能夠幫助創(chuàng)造的新技術(shù)。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要研究在自然中是否還有其他任何我們以前從未發(fā)現(xiàn)的方法但是有可能可以徹底改變合成生物學(xué)的方法
- Best Information Processing Project：生物特性、行為和部件的多樣性和豐富度蘊(yùn)含著豐富的信息。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要提出一個(gè)創(chuàng)新的系統(tǒng)可以使我們能夠快速有效地瀏覽和使用這些信息
- Best Manufacturing Project：你聽說過納米技術(shù)嗎? 生物學(xué)就是一種已經(jīng)存在且非常有效的納米技術(shù)。核糖體是一種可以復(fù)制的可編改的納米載體。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要研究我們能否利用生物學(xué)來制造有用的產(chǎn)品，從納米級(jí)(原子)到數(shù)百倍大的物體(建筑物和橋梁)生物可以被用來制造什么
- Best New Application Project：獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要能想出一個(gè)在生物技術(shù)領(lǐng)域中一個(gè)全新的應(yīng)用領(lǐng)域，是其他人沒有想過的或者從來沒有跟任何人提過了
- Best Therapeutics Project：許多健康和醫(yī)療問題都可以用新的療法來解決。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要提出合成生物學(xué)能怎樣改進(jìn)技術(shù)從而獲得新的治療方法
- 注意：每個(gè)項(xiàng)目需要至少由10個(gè)候選才能選出undergraduate和overgraduate兩個(gè)組各一名，否則想合并兩個(gè)組僅選出一名
- Special Track Awards：由組委會(huì)根據(jù)團(tuán)隊(duì)參賽內(nèi)容的造詣程度來按以下類別頒獎(jiǎng)
- Best Art & Design Project：獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要可以使用藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)來探索合成生物學(xué)當(dāng)前和未來的影響，包括利益相關(guān)者，交流，教育學(xué)等
- Best Hardware Project：當(dāng)許多在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域工作的團(tuán)隊(duì)研究了很多年后，許多硬件已經(jīng)成為iGEM很重要的一部分。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要研究開發(fā)提出一個(gè)合成生物學(xué)相關(guān)的硬件，包括低成本實(shí)驗(yàn)室設(shè)備、微流體技術(shù)、測(cè)量專用設(shè)備和許多其他領(lǐng)域的項(xiàng)目。組委會(huì)鼓勵(lì)團(tuán)隊(duì)將wetware components 應(yīng)用在開發(fā)的項(xiàng)目中，但不強(qiáng)制要求提交該部件
- Best Measurement Project：在實(shí)驗(yàn)室里已經(jīng)有了那么多儀器的時(shí)候，精確測(cè)量依舊是合成生物學(xué)的一個(gè)巨大問題。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要提出要怎么解決這個(gè)問題
- Best Software Project：計(jì)算機(jī)已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了很多年并發(fā)展的很好了，但是我們已經(jīng)沒有什么更好的工具來幫助大家可以用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)生物部件來合成生物系統(tǒng)。獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要提出一個(gè)可能
- Special Prizes：由組委會(huì)頒給最具創(chuàng)新性以及獨(dú)特貢獻(xiàn)的參賽團(tuán)隊(duì)的榮譽(yù)獎(jiǎng)
- Best Advancement in Plant Synthetic Biology：植物生物學(xué)領(lǐng)域最好的項(xiàng)目
- Best Applied Design：頒發(fā)給一個(gè)開發(fā)出一個(gè)synbio product（益生菌方案）并可以輕松解決一個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)問題的團(tuán)隊(duì)。該獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要考慮產(chǎn)品如何解決問題和其他潛在的解決方案，產(chǎn)品如何整合或破壞其他產(chǎn)品及其生產(chǎn)過程，以及它的生命周期如何以積極和消極的方式更廣泛地影響我們的生活和環(huán)境
- Best Education & Public Engagement：頒給在合成生物學(xué)領(lǐng)域中可以提出一個(gè)更有效傳播教育科學(xué)并讓大家都參與進(jìn)來的方案
- Best Hardware：頒給為合身生物學(xué)領(lǐng)域開發(fā)出一個(gè)有效硬件的團(tuán)隊(duì)。這個(gè)iGEM的硬件可以使合成生物學(xué)分成更方便快速應(yīng)用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)部件，或者一個(gè)可以幫助研究團(tuán)隊(duì)更好的表述合成生物學(xué)特性等
- Best Innovation in Measurement：合成生物學(xué)中還有很多部分沒有辦法被準(zhǔn)確的描述出來，或許可以設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)更高效的測(cè)量表述方法描述各個(gè)部分
- Best Integrated Human Practices：頒給可以影響社會(huì)并從中可以獲得有效信息的方案
- Best Model：合成生物學(xué)是一門工程類學(xué)科，工程的一部分是模擬和建模來確認(rèn)制作可行的系統(tǒng)。此獎(jiǎng)?lì)C給可以開發(fā)出一個(gè)數(shù)學(xué)模型或計(jì)算機(jī)模擬的方式來描述BioBrick零件和運(yùn)行的團(tuán)隊(duì)。
- Best New Basic Part：大多數(shù)基因編碼還沒能轉(zhuǎn)換為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的BioBrick部件，因此，獲獎(jiǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)需要尋找更多的基因編碼性能，并將這些DNA編碼轉(zhuǎn)換成BioBrick標(biāo)準(zhǔn)生物部件。需要注意的是，本部分必須遵循注冊(cè)樣本提交指南，并已發(fā)送到標(biāo)準(zhǔn)生物部件注冊(cè)中心。你研究出來的最好的基礎(chǔ)部分可以在你的維基數(shù)據(jù)頁(yè)上呈現(xiàn)，請(qǐng)參考http://igem.org/Sample_Data_Page
- Best New Composite Part：新的BioBrick設(shè)備可以通過結(jié)合現(xiàn)有的BioBrick部件來制造。例如，逆變器、放大器、嗅覺發(fā)生器、蛋白質(zhì)氣球發(fā)生器、發(fā)送器、接收器、執(zhí)行器等等。為獲得該獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)，本部分必須遵循注冊(cè)樣本提交指南，并已發(fā)送到標(biāo)準(zhǔn)生物部件注冊(cè)中心且你研究出來的最好的基礎(chǔ)部分可以在你的維基數(shù)據(jù)頁(yè)上呈現(xiàn)
- Best Part Collection：團(tuán)隊(duì)需要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造一個(gè)類似CRISPR系列或MoClo系列的系列，這個(gè)系列可能含有超過10個(gè)零件。這些部分必須遵守注冊(cè)表樣本提交指南，并已發(fā)送到標(biāo)準(zhǔn)生物部件的注冊(cè)表。
- Best Poster：最具有吸引力且可以很好的展示團(tuán)隊(duì)工作的海報(bào)
- Best Presentation：引人入勝且可以清晰的將你研究的項(xiàng)目傳播出去的演講
- Best Software Tool：可以對(duì)一個(gè)項(xiàng)目的成功產(chǎn)生決定性影響的軟件設(shè)計(jì)，比如一個(gè)工具或者運(yùn)算方法等，可以不用太復(fù)雜。篩選符合條件的團(tuán)隊(duì)所設(shè)計(jì)的軟件必須在OSI認(rèn)可的開放源碼許可下被記錄和提供。
- Best Supporting Entrepreneurship：為表彰為將iGEM項(xiàng)目商業(yè)化而做出貢獻(xiàn)的商業(yè)項(xiàng)目，向所有團(tuán)隊(duì)開放的，以表明創(chuàng)業(yè)精神是所有團(tuán)隊(duì)都可以追求的。這個(gè)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)可以頒給一個(gè)新的項(xiàng)目，或者一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)想要商業(yè)化的項(xiàng)目
- Best Wiki：團(tuán)隊(duì)維基頁(yè)面是團(tuán)隊(duì)iGEM項(xiàng)目封面，團(tuán)隊(duì)的維基頁(yè)面將是未來參與iGEM學(xué)術(shù)活動(dòng)的團(tuán)隊(duì)以及世界各地人員的主要信息來源方式，所以將頒給維基頁(yè)面做的最好的團(tuán)隊(duì)
- 注意：每個(gè)項(xiàng)目需要至少由10個(gè)候選才能選出undergraduate和overgraduate兩個(gè)組各一名，否則想合并兩個(gè)組僅選出一名，同時(shí)也會(huì)頒給high school組
iGEM評(píng)審規(guī)則
評(píng)判由以下三個(gè)部分組成：
- Medals Section：由評(píng)審根據(jù)團(tuán)隊(duì)的情況決定，暫無具體信息
- Project Section：共分成以下兩個(gè)分類進(jìn)行評(píng)審，10個(gè)評(píng)審標(biāo)準(zhǔn)獎(jiǎng)決定是否可以進(jìn)入決賽
- main project category：8個(gè)評(píng)審方面
- the track-specific category：2個(gè)評(píng)審方向
- Special Awards Section：按照獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)設(shè)置，每個(gè)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)均由4-5個(gè)評(píng)審標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，想要參與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的團(tuán)隊(duì)需要按要求填寫Judging Form
大致的評(píng)審要求如下所示，摘自官網(wǎng)：
| Number | Category | Aspects |
| 1 | Project | How impressive is this project? |
| 2 | Project | How creative is the team's project? |
| 3 | Project | Did the project work? |
| 4 | Project | How much did the team accomplish? |
| 5 | Project | Is the project likely to have an impact? |
| 6 | Project | How well are engineering principles used? |
| 7 | Project | How thoughtful and thorough was the team's consideration of human practices? |
| 8 | Project | How much of the work did the team do themselves and how much was done by others? |
| 9 | Track Specific - Standard Tracks | Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology and standard parts? |
| 10 | Track Specific - Standard Tracks | Are the parts functions and behaviors well-documented in the Registry? |
| 9 | Track Specific - Special Tracks | Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology? |
| 10 | Track Specific - Special Tracks | Are the project components (hardware, software, art & design, etc) thoroughly documented on their wiki? |
| Special Prizes | ||
| 1 | Wiki | Do I understand what the team accomplished? |
| 2 | Wiki | Is the wiki attractive and easy to navigate? |
| 3 | Wiki | Does the team provide convincing evidence to support their conclusions? |
| 4 | Wiki | How well does the team describe what they did and what was done by others? |
| 5 | Wiki | Will the wiki be a compelling record of the team's project for future teams? |
| 1 | Presentation | Did the presentation flow well? |
| 2 | Presentation | How professional is the graphic design in terms of layout and composition? |
| 3 | Presentation | Did you find the presentation engaging? |
| 4 | Presentation | How competent were the team members at answering questions? |
| 1 | Poster | Did the poster flow well? |
| 2 | Poster | How professional is the graphic design in terms of layout and composition? |
| 3 | Poster | Did you find the poster appealing? |
| 4 | Poster | How competent were the team members at answering questions? |
| 1 | Integrated Human Practices | Was their work integrated into their project? |
| 2 | Integrated Human Practices | Does it serve as an inspiring example to others? |
| 3 | Integrated Human Practices | Is it documented in a way that others can build upon? |
| 4 | Integrated Human Practices | Was it thoughtfully implemented? (did they explain the context, rationale, prior work) |
| 1 | Education & Public Engagement | Did their work establish a dialogue? |
| 2 | Education & Public Engagement | Does it serve as an inspiring example to others? |
| 3 | Education & Public Engagement | Is it documented in a way that others can build upon? |
| 4 | Education & Public Engagement | Was it thoughtfully implemented? (did they explain the context, rationale, prior work) |
| 1 | Model | How impressive is the mathematical modeling? |
| 2 | Model | Did the model help the team understand their part or device? |
| 3 | Model | Did the team use measurements of the device to develop the model? |
| 4 | Model | Does the modeling approach provide a good example for others? |
| 1 | Measurement | Is the measurement potentially repeatable? |
| 2 | Measurement | Is the protocol well described? |
| 3 | Measurement | Are there web-based support materials? |
| 4 | Measurement | Is it useful to other projects? |
| 5 | Measurement | Was a standard reference sample included? |
| 1 | Entrepreneurship | Customer Discovery - Has the team interviewed a representative number of potential customers for the technology and clearly communicated what they learned? |
| 2 | Entrepreneurship | Based on their interviews, does the team have a clear hypothesis describing their customers' needs? |
| 3 | Entrepreneurship | Does the team present a convincing case that their product meets the customers' needs? |
| 4 | Entrepreneurship | Has the team demonstrated a minimum viable (MVP) product? And does the team have customers to commit (LOI, etc.) to purchasing it / using it? |
| 5 | Entrepreneurship | Does the team have a viable and understood business model/value proposition to take their company to market? |
| 1 | Applied Design | How well did the project address potential applications and implications of synthetic biology? |
| 2 | Applied Design | How creative, original, and compelling was the project? |
| 3 | Applied Design | How impressive was the project installation in the art & design exhibition space? |
| 4 | Applied Design | How well did the team engage in collaboration with people outside of their primary fields? |
| 1 | Software Tool | How well is the software using and supporting existing synthetic biology standards and platforms? |
| 2 | Software Tool | Was this software validated by experimental work? |
| 3 | Software Tool | Did the team use non-trivial algorithms or designs? |
| 4 | Software Tool | How easily can others embed this software in new workflows? |
| 5 | Software Tool | How user-friendly is the software? |
| 1 | Hardware | Does the hardware address a need or problem in synthetic biology? |
| 2 | Hardware | Did the team conduct user testing and learn from user feedback? |
| 3 | Hardware | Did the team demonstrate utility and functionality in their hardware proof of concept? |
| 4 | Hardware | Is the documentation of the hardware system sufficient to enable reproduction by other teams? |
| 1 | Plant Synthetic Biology | How impressive was the use of a plant chassis? |
| 2 | Plant Synthetic Biology | How impressive was the collection of parts made for the plant chassis? |
| 3 | Plant Synthetic Biology | How well did the team use the special attributes of the plant chassis? |
| 4 | Plant Synthetic Biology | Are the parts/tools/protocols for plants made during this project useful to other teams? |
| 1 | New Basic Part | How does the documentation compare to BBa_K863006 and BBa_K863001? |
| 2 | New Basic Part | How new/innovative is it? |
| 3 | New Basic Part | Did the team show the part works as expected? |
| 4 | New Basic Part | Is it useful to the community? |
| 1 | New Composite Part | How does the documentation compare to BBa_K404122 and BBa_K863005? |
| 2 | New Composite Part | How new/innovative is it? |
| 3 | New Composite Part | Did the team show the part works as expected? |
| 4 | New Composite Part | Is it useful to the community? |
| 1 | Part Collection | Is this collection a coherent group of parts meant to be used as a collection, or just a list of all the parts the team made? |
| 2 | Part Collection | How does the documentation compare to BBa_K747000 and BBa_K525710? |
| 3 | Part Collection | Did the team submit an internally complete collection allowing it to be used without any further manipulation or parts from outside Registry? |
| 4 | Part Collection | Did the team finish building a functional system using this collection? |
| 5 | Part Collection | Did the team create excellent documentation to allow future use of this collection? |
項(xiàng)目時(shí)間
學(xué)術(shù)活動(dòng)時(shí)間：2021年10月6日 - 10月11日
申請(qǐng)要求
- 需要求由一個(gè)指導(dǎo)老師帶領(lǐng)組隊(duì)參賽，沒有人數(shù)上限，分三個(gè)組別，推薦8-10個(gè)人一組，并完成網(wǎng)上的Team Roster確認(rèn)參賽成員
- Overgraduate：至少其中一個(gè)隊(duì)員年齡在2020年3月31日前大于23周歲
- Undergraduate：所有團(tuán)隊(duì)成員年齡在2020年3月31日前小于23周歲
- High School：所有成員在2020年3月31日前均為高中生，包括2020年春季的學(xué)生
- 團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的組成分以下幾個(gè)不同角色和要求：
- Students：參賽隊(duì)員需要完成自始至終全程參與項(xiàng)目，各自注冊(cè)iGEM賬號(hào)，填寫信息并加入小組的Team Roster
- Primary and Secondary PI：團(tuán)隊(duì)的經(jīng)理角色，需要由有權(quán)利的人擔(dān)任，因?yàn)樗獏f(xié)調(diào)團(tuán)隊(duì)的實(shí)驗(yàn)室的使用，繳費(fèi)等，同時(shí)擁有iGEM賬號(hào)并加入team roster，不同年齡組要求的不同，如下：
- Collegiate teams：只要有一位PI是教授，第二位PI至少 為博士后
- High School teams：至少有一位是學(xué)校的老師或者校長(zhǎng)，必須有學(xué)校簽字決定權(quán)
- Community Labs：至少其中以為是實(shí)驗(yàn)室的主管
- Instructor：要可以每天提供技術(shù)指導(dǎo)，同樣擁有iGEM賬號(hào)并加入team roster
- Student team leader：團(tuán)隊(duì)領(lǐng)隊(duì)，是 團(tuán)隊(duì)與PI以及iGEM總部溝通的橋梁
- Advisor：提供團(tuán)隊(duì)的輔助指導(dǎo)，可以是研究生，博士后，技術(shù)人員等 ，同樣擁有iGEM賬號(hào)并加入team roster
- 網(wǎng)上注冊(cè)比賽，收費(fèi)為
- Early registration: $4500 USD
- Regular registration: $5000 USD
- Late registration: $5500 USD
- Multiple team discount: a discount of $1000 USD
- 注冊(cè)比賽后需要填寫一個(gè)Judging Form，來幫助評(píng)審團(tuán)可以快速了解團(tuán)隊(duì)研究的核心和特色
- 內(nèi)容為150字然后根據(jù)要求添加修改團(tuán)隊(duì)項(xiàng)目維基頁(yè)面上的信息
- 完成這個(gè)表時(shí)不需要同時(shí)完成你項(xiàng)目的維基頁(yè)面，詳情參考http://2018.igem.org/Judging/Pages_for_Awards
- 你必須要?jiǎng)?chuàng)立一個(gè)Registry Part頁(yè)面，為你要申請(qǐng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的所有獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)做準(zhǔn)備
國(guó)際競(jìng)賽真題資源免費(fèi)領(lǐng)取
美高學(xué)分項(xiàng)目重磅來襲！立即了解
