Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

Symbiotic Interface Bioreactor: Engineering Human–Cellulose Microbial Hybridization

Biological Engineering Application

For more than six years, I have cultivated bacterial cellulose in my studio through sustained, direct contact with microbial communities. I handle these cultures with bare hands, without gloves, sharing the same air and environment over long periods of time. My artistic practice is therefore already a form of embodied cohabitation with microorganisms. This long-term collaboration motivates my proposed biological engineering project. Within the scope of HTGAA, I propose to develop a small-scale, proof-of-concept relational microbiome assay designed to explore whether direct human touch measurably alters the microbial composition of bacterial cellulose cultures. The project would compare parallel cultures grown under identical conditions, one handled with bare hands according to a standardized contact protocol, the other manipulated only with sterile tools. The goal is not to engineer permanent biological transformation, but to observe whether consistent ecological shifts can be detected between these conditions. In the context of a semester-long course without dedicated funding, the project would focus on feasible methods such as swab sampling, colony growth assays, CFU counts, pH monitoring, and basic community comparison techniques. If access to 16S rRNA sequencing is available within the course infrastructure, a limited comparative analysis could be conducted. If not, the study would remain at the level of culture-based profiling and observable material differences. This would still allow meaningful insight into ecological dynamics without requiring high-cost genomic analysis. More ambitious aspects, such as long-term stabilization of body-associated microbes within the cellulose consortium or advanced sequencing-based mapping of relational signatures, would be framed as future research directions beyond the HTGAA timeframe. In this sense, the course project would function as a pilot study testing the permeability of the system and establishing whether further investigation is warranted. The project therefore remains realistic within HTGAA, focusing on measurable ecological interaction under BSL-1 conditions, while acknowledging that deeper hybridization analysis would require extended funding, additional sequencing capacity, and longer-term monitoring.

Governance and Policy Goals

Because this project intentionally stages human–microbial interaction, it raises governance questions related to biosafety, data responsibility, and proportional oversight. My first goal is to ensure non-maleficence, meaning that no harm is produced either to the individual researcher or to the surrounding environment. This requires maintaining the system strictly within BSL-1 conditions, avoiding antibiotic pressure or environmental stress that could select for opportunistic pathogens, and implementing clear sterilization and waste disposal protocols.

A second goal concerns microbiome data responsibility. Even though the project focuses on ecological dynamics rather than identity, sequencing data derived from a personal microbiome can constitute sensitive biological information. Data should therefore be handled in a de-identified manner, stored securely, and not repurposed for biometric tracing or profiling.

A third governance goal is relational accountability. The tool should not normalize extractive biological practices or frame the body as a resource to be mined. Instead, its framing must emphasize cohabitation and ecological inquiry, clearly communicating methodological limits and safety boundaries in any public presentation or dissemination.

Governance Actions

One governance action I would support is the implementation of lightweight institutional registration for experiments involving intentional human–microbe transfer, even under BSL-1 conditions. Currently, such experiments may fall under minimal oversight. A simple reporting mechanism through Institutional Biosafety Committees would increase transparency and reinforce safety norms without imposing excessive barriers. This approach assumes that awareness strengthens safety culture, yet it risks becoming bureaucratic or pushing experimentation into informal spaces if applied too rigidly.

A second action involves embedding technical constraints directly into the design of the tool. The system should prioritize ecological comparison rather than high-resolution strain-level identification, use relative abundance analysis, and incorporate de-identification protocols at the data collection stage. By limiting the granularity of sequencing and avoiding unnecessary depth, the tool reduces the risk of microbiome-based fingerprinting. This strategy assumes that reduced data resolution lowers misuse potential, though it may also limit scientific precision. A third action could involve funding bodies and academic programs requiring short ethical impact reflections for projects that involve human biological materials. This would not function as heavy regulation but as norm-building, encouraging researchers to articulate safety practices, potential misuse, and conceptual framing. The risk here is that such statements become symbolic compliance rather than meaningful reflection.

Prioritization, Trade-offs, Assumptions and Uncertainties

In prioritizing governance options for this project within the context of HTGAA, I would focus on proportionate and practical measures rather than institutional reform. Given that this is a small-scale exploratory study conducted under BSL-1 conditions, the most realistic governance approach involves strict adherence to existing biosafety norms, transparent communication with course supervisors, and careful handling of any microbiome-derived data.

At present, BSL-1 microbial work in academic settings is typically governed by established laboratory safety procedures, and microbiome sequencing, when conducted, follows institutional data management protocols. I am not proposing to create new regulatory structures, but rather to operate consciously within these frameworks. The primary change I propose is intentional awareness, explicitly framing the experiment as a human–microbial interface study and ensuring that supervisors or course leadership are informed of the design. For the governance approach to function, it requires opt-in from the researcher, transparency with instructors or lab managers, and compliance with existing sterilization and disposal standards. If sequencing is performed, data would be stored securely, anonymized where appropriate, and not retained beyond the scope of the project. No attempt would be made to perform strain-level identity tracking or biometric inference. This approach assumes that BSL-1 containment and standard laboratory practice are sufficient for the level of risk involved. It also assumes that limited sequencing resolution reduces privacy concerns. These assumptions may not fully capture future scenarios in which microbiome data becomes more sensitive or commercially valuable. The risks of failure include overestimating the sensitivity of the assays, resulting in inconclusive data, or underestimating ecological variability between cultures. The project may reveal no measurable difference between touch and no-touch conditions, which would still be a valid result but would limit claims about relational inscription. A further risk is that even small-scale sequencing could be interpreted as normalizing routine microbiome monitoring practices. There are also risks associated with success. If the project demonstrates measurable and reproducible microbial shifts due to touch, it may suggest that human–microbial blending in open systems is more controllable than assumed. In a broader context, this could unintentionally contribute to the normalization of microbiome manipulation in commercial or biomedical domains. For this reason, I frame the HTGAA version of the project as exploratory and ecological rather than transformative or enhancement-driven. The trade-off I accept is between ambition and feasibility. While a fully developed Symbiotic Interface Bioreactor would require extended funding, advanced sequencing, and longitudinal study, the HTGAA iteration remains intentionally modest. It prioritizes proof-of-concept evidence and biosafety clarity over technical escalation. This keeps the project realistic within the pedagogical framework of the course while still opening a pathway for more ambitious future research.

)

Week 1 Lab: Pipetting

Individual Final Project

Group Final Project