Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

A1. I want develop a living biological tool that works like a chromatography instrument. I have been thinking since a long time that what if we could use 3D bioprinting to create a living tissue (I like to call it an ‘organstrument’) that can selectively bind and separate ions/molecules. I propose it could work similar to a ion-exchange / affinity chromatography columns but instead of using mechanical parts, it would be bio-engineered. It would be made of cells and biomaterials that do the separation biologically.

The idea came to me while attending an industrial training program wherein we were being taught chromatography and other such techniques, the program also had a guest lecture on 3D bioprinting. While being taught HPLC, I asked if I could do it hands-on and try things out. The lecturer refused as if anything went awry, it would cost the university a lot of money as the column could get damaged. I thought that if the current instruments are so expensive and rigid, how about entirely replacing them entirely and biologically. The bio-nature might allows for self-adaptation and regeneration. Perhaps this could open way for bio-disposable columns (one and done kind of way). One thing that also sort of fascinates me is the ethics behind idea of using a living system as a tool.

A2. Overall goal should be that these ‘organstruments’ are developed and used safely without causing any kind of harm. The goal can be divided into 2 further subgoals.

a. Prevent harm - if the tool is highly efficient, it has to be made sure that it is not used for concentrating toxic compounds. The access will have to monitored or the tool will have to be tested for alternate use cases.

b. Ensure safety and environmental protection - reduce risks of contamination and make sure these tissues cannot evolve outside controlled settings.

A3. Governance Actions

1. Safe by Design - Biosafety is a major factor to consider if these tools are going to be used. Biosafety as of now depends on lab training and rules, we would have to make the tools safe by design. Incorporating specific nutrient dependence to function or using non replicating cells would make it so. The assumptions here are that these safety mechanism work properly and reliably and that the standards of use are being followed honestly. Risks - safety mechanisms fail over time. complexity of design.
2. Class based tools division - Dividing the organstruments into different categories based on their risk would make it easy to ensure/reduce malicious use of the tools. low risk tools would be open to use, high risks would have restricted access and so on. The assumption is that risks can be clearly defined. Reliance on too much documentations, approvals for restricted access could slow down research.
3. Transparency and shared registry - Researchers would voluntarily register organstrument designs, uses and safety features. if we provide incentives to them for doing so, the sharing of information would help in making the tools better and safer. The risks here would be that the shared information could be misused, the friction of registration could lead researchers to not register, therefore the registration process would have to be made smoother.