Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

1. First, describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why.

I want to develop a 3D Bio-Art Platform that merges biological growth with interactive synthetic biology. The idea is to use 3D-printed molds and structured agar media to create “living sculptures” that don’t just sit there but actually “feel” and react.

The sculpture uses a quorum sensing circuit to create organic, emergent color gradients as the bacteria colonize the 3D agar structure. However, by engineering the bacteria with inducible promoters sensitive to microcurrents, heat, or other factors, the sculpture reacts to human and environmental touch. When you touch a specific plate, the bacteria trigger a rapid flash of bioluminescence or a sharp color change. It’s a very solarpunk vision where the artwork is a living, sensing entity that bridges the gap between autonomous growth and intentional human interaction.

2. 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.

Some of the main goals include the following:

A. Preventing Malicious Use & Biological Escape (Biosecurity: To ensure that the bacteria used in the sculptures cannot be extracted and repurposed or survive outside the controlled art environment. This could be achieved with the help of:

1. An Intrinsic Biological Lock: Implementing a strategy where the metabolic reagents and the bacterial chassis are only viable inside a specific chemical or mechanical environment of the 3D bio-art sculpture.

2. Genetic Safeguards: Using “kill switches” so the organisms are biologically incapable of surviving in the local ecosystem if the sculpture is broken, archived, or discarded.

3. Access Control & Registry: Establishing a “Bio-Art registry” where any high-expression or highly interactive strain is registered and tracked from the lab to the gallery or art exposition.

B. End User Safety & Interaction Reliability (Biosafety): To guarantee that the interaction between the public and the “living touch” interface is 100% safe, reliable and follows predictable patterns. This could be achieved with the help of:

1. Interaction Safety Protocols: Establishing clear “bio-etiquette” protocols and adding physical boundaries to prevent accidental ingestion, skin irritation from undesired contact, or environmental transfer during public exhibitions. Also, establishing risk protocols and measures for any accidents or incidents that could happen.

2. Contamination Control: Implementing a strategy to ensure that the emergent bacteria patterns are not contaminated by other wild-type bacteria from the users’ hands, which could ruin the artistic expression, 3D bio-art sculpture, and the biosafety protocols.

3. Real-time Stability Monitoring: Integrating “self-reporting” circuits and sensors where bacteria change to a “warning color” (like a bright red or yellow) if the population begins to mutate or if the containment is failing.

4. Next, describe at least three different potential governance “actions” by considering the four aspects below (Purpose, Design, Assumptions, Risks of Failure & “Success”).

Action 1: Multi-Layered Kill Switches (Technical Strategy that can be applied through international organization like WHO, ASM, etc)

1. Purpose: Currently, containment is mostly physical. In this strategy, all interactive bio-art must use a “dead-end” genetic design.
2. Design: Using nutritionally dependent strains that require a synthetic, non-canonical nutrient embedded in the agar. Without this “artificial food,” the bacteria degrades immediately.
3. Assumptions: We assume that horizontal gene transfer in the environment won’t provide the bacteria a way to bypass this dependency.
4. Risks: A “success” might make the biology too fragile for long exhibitions but in a controlled manner, while a failure would be the organism finding a natural substitute for the synthetic nutrient, which could lead to unwavering growth.

Action 2: Public Interaction “Bio-Etiquette” Certification (New Requirement that is applied by the responsible company)

1. Purpose: To change how the public views OGM interaction from “dangerous” or “uncertain” to “responsible” and “reliable.”
2. Design: Any gallery exhibiting the 3d bio-art sculptures must implement a mandatory hand-sanitizing and briefing station. The actors here are the gallery owner and the artist.
3. Assumptions: We assume that the public will follow all instructions and not try to “vandalize” the sculpture by introducing outside contaminants.
4. Risks: Success creates a safe, educated public; failure is a “success” where the art becomes so popular that the safety protocols are ignored due to high traffic.

Action 3: Peer-Led Biosecurity Audit (Community Strategy that involves the public and synbio community, the artists and the responsible company)

1. Purpose: To move away from slow federal oversight and use the agility of the SynBio community locally and globally.

2. Design: A “Safety Buddy” system where a fellow scientist must audit the genetic circuits and the physical mold design before it leaves the lab.

3. Assumptions: We assume peers will be rigorous and not just let their friends’ projects go on without revising them.

4. Risks: Success builds a strong self-regulating culture. Failure is a lapse in judgment that leads to a public health scare, potentially getting bio-art banned or detained.

5. 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:

5. 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.

Based on the scored framework, I recommend that we prioritize action 1 (Technical Multi-Layered Kill Switches) as the foundation, supported by action 3 (Community Peer Led Biosecurity Audit).

The technical multi-layered kill switches are the only way to ensure the biology is ethical by design; if the bacteria can’t survive outside the mold, the “risk” is effectively zero. However, I’m trading off some technical simplicity for absolute peace of mind. On the other hand, the peer led biosecurity audit is important because it builds the “social tissue” of responsibility among us students. We don’t need more laws; we need better engineers and technicians who check each other’s work. Lastly, my biggest uncertainty is the mutation rate of the kill switches, which is why the community audit must be a recurring process, with constant feedback loops and not a one-time thing.

Reflecting on what you learned and did in class this week, outline any ethical concerns that arose, especially any that were new to you. Then propose any governance actions you think might be appropriate to address those issues. This should be included on your class page for this week.

This project made me realize that when we make biology “interactive” and “eye-catching,” we might lower people’s guard. However, a concern that arose was about the ethical autonomy of the biological parts of 3d bio-art: are we just “enslaving” these bacteria for a 3-second glow? Or are we letting them decide what is best for them? By using Action 3, we ensure that as artists and scientists, we are also managers of the life we modify, treating it with the respect and conscience it deserves.