Our goal was to make the game as broadly accessible as possible.  The game does have some ties back to underlying DNA on the website and in some introductory animations in the game, although most of the in-game explanation is focused on explaining how to play.  However, most of the game rules are derived from DNA displacement principles, so it is possible that with some bridging information or activity the game could be a fun introduction!

I think the fact that game rules match DNA displacement principles is what got me excited about the affordances of this for helping people learn about DNA and genetics. Like you, I think the game itself can serve as the major part of the introduction to DNA and genetics with some additional resources to bridge (as you say) to what geneticists and genetic engineers actually do and the goals they have. 

I want to suggest that you read the work of Jim Gee on games and learning and Constance Steinkuhler on kids' learning in the context of Worlds of Warcraft. The really big deal idea in what they wrote about is the reflection that happens between episodes of game play and the roles that websites they interact on play in helping them do that reflection and make sense of the rules of the game. The thing that strikes me here is that even if many players' interest is mostly in the rules of the game and what they can build with the components, the discussion as a whole will help everyone who participates learn about genetics and genetic engineering as they discuss between playing episodes. Lots of potential here (see my note below also about my like of the low floor/no ceiling.

I should mention, the game is mainly focused on the structural properties of DNA, to use DNA as a building block; so it might not be especially well-suited for introducing genetics.

We are hoping that the game could be played by younger players.  I've certainly seen high school students figure out how to play when we have demoed the game. It has also been used as an introduction in a master's level synthetic biology class. But I don't know of it being used with younger students in a classroom setting yet!

1. The main use case is as a game, for crowdsourcing the design of new devices through gameplay. We have been curious to see what kinds of things players build. We also imagine it could be useful as an educational introduction to synthetic biology. In both those cases, the use is by novices without prior experience in synthetic biology. Another possibility may be professional use as a design interface (similar to VisualDSD) although we have not explored that as of yet.
2. There is a set of introductory tutorial levels meant to teach players how to play.  They start out relatively simple, with just a few pieces of DNA, and get more complex as new concepts are introduced.
3. There is some information on the science behind the game on the website (http://nanocrafter.org/science), and there are some in-game animations that explain what the objects in the game represent in terms of actual DNA.

As I said above, because the game rules and genetics and DNA rules match, you're already most of the way there in affording learning; what's left is to figure out how to encourage learning of genetics and genetic engineering from the experiences the players are having.

You might also be interested in another project I am working on, Foldit, which has a video here (http://stemforall2017.videohall.com/presentatio...), which might also be suited to demonstrating shape complementarity and IMFs.

Excellent point. There are a lot of possibililties with this game. I have been preaching for years that a tool is as good as the way it is used. I'm pretty psyched that the commenters this week have made so many good suggestions. I hope the developers feel the same way.

And one more suggestion, developers: What about making the game an add-on to museum exhibits about genetics and genetic engineering? I'm going to put you in touch with somebody who might want to talk to you and work with you on that.

Janet