I’m Cristopher, an entrepreneur and founder working across software, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology.
I operate at the intersection of deep technology and real-world problems, particularly with productive companies seeking to automate processes, make better decisions, and scale without losing control.
I have led the development of ERP systems with integrated accounting, SaaS platforms, and AI-powered assistants that operate 24/7. These are not just chat interfaces, but action-capable systems that interact directly with real processes such as sales, customer support, analytics, and operational control.
I also come from a scientific background, with experience in microbiology and protein design, which shaped a systems-oriented mindset grounded in validation and rigor. This blend of science and software defines how I build products: not only to work, but to make sense and scale sustainably.
I am currently focused on building technology solutions with international reach, forming strong teams, and connecting with people who are building ambitious projects, especially in technology, science, and entrepreneurship.
First, describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why. This could be inspired by an idea for your HTGAA class project and/or something for which you are already doing in your research, or something you are just curious about. I propose the conceptual development of a system for the recreation and control of extreme environments aimed at the study of extremophile cell colonies, using ecosystems located in Bolivia—particularly desert regions such as the Salar de Uyuni—as an initial reference. This environment is characterized by highly extreme and variable conditions, including high salinity, abrupt temperature changes, and pronounced humidity cycles, which pose a challenge both for life itself and for laboratory-based study. The main motivation of this project arises from the question of how to design experimental systems capable of approximating, in a controlled manner, this type of boundary conditions. I am aware that a complete and faithful recreation of the Salar de Uyuni environment is not fully achievable with current laboratory technologies, especially due to the presence of abrupt natural events that are difficult to simulate. However, the core value of this proposal does not lie in guaranteeing the successful cultivation of extremophiles, but rather in the development of the system itself—its architecture, control mechanisms, and technical limitations. From this perspective, the project focuses on the design and planning of a tool with high scientific potential, useful not only for the study of extremophiles but also for reflecting on the technical, ethical, and governance challenges associated with biological engineering in extreme contexts.
Subsections of Homework
Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices
First, describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why. This could be inspired by an idea for your HTGAA class project and/or something for which you are already doing in your research, or something you are just curious about.
I propose the conceptual development of a system for the recreation and control of extreme environments aimed at the study of extremophile cell colonies, using ecosystems located in Bolivia—particularly desert regions such as the Salar de Uyuni—as an initial reference. This environment is characterized by highly extreme and variable conditions, including high salinity, abrupt temperature changes, and pronounced humidity cycles, which pose a challenge both for life itself and for laboratory-based study. The main motivation of this project arises from the question of how to design experimental systems capable of approximating, in a controlled manner, this type of boundary conditions. I am aware that a complete and faithful recreation of the Salar de Uyuni environment is not fully achievable with current laboratory technologies, especially due to the presence of abrupt natural events that are difficult to simulate. However, the core value of this proposal does not lie in guaranteeing the successful cultivation of extremophiles, but rather in the development of the system itself—its architecture, control mechanisms, and technical limitations. From this perspective, the project focuses on the design and planning of a tool with high scientific potential, useful not only for the study of extremophiles but also for reflecting on the technical, ethical, and governance challenges associated with biological engineering in extreme contexts.
Next, describe one or more governance/policy goals related to ensuring that this application or tool contributes to an “ethical” future, like ensuring non-malfeasance (preventing harm). Break big goals down into two or more specific sub-goals. Below is one example framework (developed in the context of synthetic genomics) you can choose to use or adapt, or you can develop your own. The example was developed to consider policy goals of ensuring safety and security, alongside other goals, like promoting constructive uses, but you could propose other goals for example, those relating to equity or autonomy.
Since I am proposing a system for the recreation of extreme environments that can generate sensitive knowledge and technical capabilities transferable to other contexts, I consider it essential to incorporate governance objectives that guide its development toward ethical and responsible use, beyond immediate experimental outcomes. General Objective 1: Prevent the misuse or misappropriation of the system and the knowledge generated This objective seeks to ensure that both the system and the information obtained from it are used exclusively for scientific and constructive purposes, avoiding applications that could cause biological, environmental, or social harm. Specific Sub-objectives: Define clear boundaries regarding acceptable uses of the system, prioritizing academic research and excluding applications that could pose ethical or safety risks. Promote responsibility and traceability in the use of the system and the generation of results, so that experimental decisions can be evaluated under ethical and governance criteria. General Objective 2: Respect scientific autonomy and the local context of the project Since the project is inspired by extreme ecosystems located in Bolivia, this objective aims to avoid decontextualized or extractive approaches and to recognize the value of the local environment as a legitimate source of scientific research. Specific Sub-objectives: Recognize the local environmental and scientific context as the starting point of the project, without assuming direct exploitation of biological resources or inappropriate appropriation of associated knowledge. Preserve scientific autonomy in the design and evolution of the system, allowing technical and conceptual flexibility, always within responsible ethical frameworks, without imposing unnecessary restrictions that limit academic exploration.
Next, describe at least three different potential governance “actions” by considering the four aspects below (Purpose, Design, Assumptions, Risks of Failure & “Success”). Try to outline a mix of actions (e.g. a new requirement/rule, incentive, or technical strategy) pursued by different “actors” (e.g. academic researchers, companies, federal regulators, law enforcement, etc). Draw upon your existing knowledge and a little additional digging, and feel free to use analogies to other domains (e.g. 3D printing, drones, financial systems, etc.).
+ Purpose: What is done now and what changes are you proposing?
+ Design: What is needed to make it “work”? (including the actor(s) involved - who must opt-in, fund, approve, or implement, etc)
+ Assumptions: What could you have wrong (incorrect assumptions, uncertainties)?
+ Risks of Failure & “Success”: How might this fail, including any unintended consequences of the “success” of your proposed actions?
Action 1: Establish clear usage policies and access control for the system
Purpose:There are currently no formal rules defining who can access or operate the system. This action establishes clear policies to prevent unauthorized use and ensure the system is used only for scientific and constructive purposes.
Design:A governance board will be formed with academic researchers, biosafety officers, and legal advisors. Users must register, accept compliance protocols, and use secure authentication. Access logs and monitoring systems will be implemented. Funding may come from institutional or governmental grants.
Assumptions:Users will comply with the policies, and monitoring systems will function reliably.
Risks of Failure & “Success”: Failure may occur if policies are ignored, leading to misuse or harm. Overly strict policies could reduce collaboration or make the system difficult to use.
Action 2: Implement an ethical review framework for experimental design
Purpose: Experiments may currently be conducted without consistent evaluation of ethical, environmental, or social impacts. This action ensures that all experiments are reviewed before approval.
Design: An interdisciplinary review committee will be created, including ethicists, environmental representatives, and scientific experts. Researchers must submit experiment proposals with risk assessments. All decisions must be documented and justified.
Assumptions: Reviewers can identify relevant risks, and the committee has sufficient authority and independence.
Risks of Failure & “Success”: Ethical risks may be underestimated or overlooked. Excessively cautious reviews could slow scientific progress.
Action 3: Develop technical safeguards for system integrity
Purpose: Technical failures or misuse could lead to data loss or environmental release. This action introduces automated safeguards to protect system integrity.
Design: Sensors will continuously monitor key parameters such as temperature, humidity, and salinity. Automated alerts and emergency shutdown procedures will be implemented. Engineers, IT specialists, and lab managers are responsible. Funding will come from institutional research budgets or grants.
Assumptions: The technology operates correctly, is well maintained, and staff respond appropriately to alerts.
Risks of Failure & “Success”: Failures may occur if sensors malfunction or alerts are ignored, leading to safety risks. Excessive confidence in automation could reduce human oversight.
Next, score (from 1-3 with, 1 as the best, or n/a) each of your governance actions against your rubric of policy goals. The following is one framework but feel free to make your own:
Does the option:
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Enhance Biosecurity
• By preventing incidents
1
2
1
• By helping respond
1
2
1
Foster Lab Safety
• By preventing incident
1
2
1
• By helping respond
1
2
1
Protect the environment
• By preventing incidents
2
1
1
• By helping respond
2
1
1
Other considerations
• Minimizing costs and burdens to stakeholders
2
3
2
• Feasibility?
1
2
1
• Not impede research
1
2
1
• Promote constructive applications
1
1
1
Last, drawing upon this scoring, describe which governance option, or combination of options, you would prioritize, and why. Outline any trade-offs you considered as well as assumptions and uncertainties. For this, you can choose one or more relevant audiences for your recommendation, which could range from the very local (e.g. to MIT leadership or Cambridge Mayoral Office) to the national (e.g. to President Biden or the head of a Federal Agency) to the international (e.g. to the United Nations Office of the Secretary-General, or the leadership of a multinational firm or industry consortia). These could also be one of the “actor” groups in your matrix.
Based on the scoring of the proposed governance actions, I prioritize establishing clear usage policies as the main mechanism to guide the development and use of the extreme environment system. This action is essential because it directly reduces the risk of misuse, strengthens biosecurity, and supports safe laboratory practices, while remaining feasible and not significantly hindering research activities. Technical safeguards are considered a necessary complement, as automated monitoring and fail-safe mechanisms help prevent accidents and limit potential environmental impacts. Ethical review frameworks are also important for responsible experimentation; however, I propose implementing them initially in a lighter form to avoid slowing the early stages of system development.
This prioritization involves clear trade-offs. Emphasizing policies and technical controls accelerates research and reduces administrative burden, but may overlook more subtle ethical considerations. Conversely, a strong ethical review process could delay experimentation. The proposed approach seeks a balanced solution that maximizes safety, constructive use, and respect for the local context in Bolivia.
The main assumptions are that researchers and institutions will comply with established policies, respond appropriately to technical safeguards, and that monitoring systems will function reliably. Remaining uncertainties include the behavior of extremophiles under partially simulated conditions and the potential misuse of generated knowledge.This recommendation is primarily directed at university leadership and laboratory managers, who can implement these measures locally, as well as national and international regulatory bodies responsible for oversight and broader biosecurity standards.