Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

Week 1 Lab: Pipetting

Individual Final Project

Group Final Project

Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

‘Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices’

1.Describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why.

One biological engineering application I am interested in developing is a cell-based or fermentation-derived platform for producing cosmetic active ingredients, specifically targeted for sensitive skin. The idea is to use microbial fermentation or cultured cells to produce bioactive compounds (such as antioxidants, soothing agents, barrier-supporting peptides, or postbiotic metabolites) that are traditionally extracted from plants or chemically synthesized.

This tool would combine biotechnology, formulation science, and consumer needs, allowing for:

• More consistent ingredient quality
• Reduced reliance on overharvested botanical sources
• Improved traceability and safety, which is especially important for people with sensitive skin This interest aligns with my curiosity about how biotechnology can be applied outside of traditional research settings and instead be used in industry, entrepreneurship, and ethical consumer products, particularly in cosmetics and personal care.

Rather than developing a single ingredient, the tool would be a modular production platform that could be adapted to produce different actives depending on market and regulatory needs.

2.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.

To ensure this application contributes to an ethical future, I would focus on the broader goal of non-malfeasance and responsible innovation, particularly in consumer-facing biotechnology. Ensure that biotech-derived cosmetic ingredients are safe, transparent, and equitably beneficial to consumers and society.

This can be broken down into the following sub-goals:

1. Safety and non-malfeasance

   • Prevent harmful or insufficiently tested bioengineered ingredients from entering the market
   • Ensure products marketed as “gentle” or “for sensitive skin” are supported by real data

2. Transparency and informed consumer choice

   • Ensure consumers understand what “biotechnology-derived” or “fermented” actually means
   • Avoid misleading “greenwashing” or pseudoscientific claims

3. Equity and accessibility

   • Prevent biotech cosmetics from becoming exclusive luxury products
   • Ensure benefits are not limited to high-income consumers or large corporations

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

Action 1: Mandatory pre-market safety and functionality validation for biotech-derived cosmetic actives

Purpose

• What is done now: Cosmetic ingredients often rely on historical use or limited safety data, especially for “natural” or fermented ingredients.
• Proposed change: Require standardized safety and skin-compatibility testing for biotech-derived actives, especially those marketed for sensitive skin.

Design

• Actors: Cosmetic companies, regulatory agencies, third-party testing labs

• Requirements:

  • In vitro skin irritation/sensitization tests
  • Clear documentation of production methods (e.g., fermentation organism, purification steps)

• Regulators would approve frameworks, while companies fund and submit testing.

Assumptions

• Assumes standardized tests can capture real-world skin responses
• Assumes companies will comply rather than avoid biotech approaches

Risks of Failure & “Success”

• Failure risk: Smaller startups may struggle with costs
• Success risk: Over-regulation could slow innovation or favor large corporations
• Unintended consequence: Companies may rebrand biotech actives as “traditional” to avoid scrutiny

Action 2: Transparent labeling and communication standards for biotech cosmetic ingredients

Purpose

• What is done now: Labels like “fermented,” “bio-based,” or “natural” are often vague or misleading
• Proposed change: Create clear labeling standards that explain biotech origins in accessible language

Design

• Actors: Regulators, industry associations, consumer advocacy groups

• Requirements:

  • Plain-language explanations (e.g., “produced using fermentation, not extracted from plants”)
  • Optional QR codes linking to deeper explanations

• Participation could begin as voluntary, then become standardized.

Assumptions

• Assumes consumers want more information and will engage with it
• Assumes transparency increases trust rather than fear

Risks of Failure & “Success”

• Failure risk: Information overload or misunderstanding
• Success risk: Consumers may reject biotech due to fear, even if products are safe
• Unintended consequence: “Clean beauty” marketing could weaponize transparency against science-based products

(Analogy: similar issues have appeared with GM food labeling and financial risk disclosures.)

Action 3: Incentives for sustainable and ethical biotech production methods

Purpose

• What is done now: Sustainability claims are often self-reported and inconsistent
• Proposed change: Offer regulatory or economic incentives for biotech platforms that reduce environmental impact and improve sourcing ethics

Design

• Actors: Governments, certification bodies, funding agencies

• Incentives could include:

  • Tax benefits or grants for low-impact fermentation systems
  • Fast-track approvals for sustainably produced actives

• Certification systems similar to “organic” or “fair trade,” but biotech-specific.

Assumptions

• Assumes incentives are strong enough to influence company behavior
• Assumes sustainability metrics can be accurately measured

Risks of Failure & “Success”

• Failure risk: Companies game the system with minimal improvements
• Success risk: Certification becomes a marketing tool rather than a meaningful standard
• Unintended consequence: Smaller producers may be excluded due to certification costs

4. Next, score (from 1-3 with, 1 as the best, or n/a) each of your governance actions against your rubric of policy goals.

5. 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.

Option 2 scores best on:

• Feasibility
• Low burden on stakeholders
• Not impeding innovation It creates a shared language around biotechnology, which is crucial in a consumer-facing field like cosmetics where misunderstanding can lead to fear or backlash (similar to GMOs). Transparency builds trust without immediately restricting innovation.

Option 3 is the strongest for:

• Environmental protection
• Promoting constructive applications
• Aligning industry behavior with ethical goals Incentives encourage companies to want to do the right thing, rather than comply minimally. This fits well with biotech cosmetics, where sustainability and ethics are already part of branding and consumer demand.

Option 1, while strong for safety, carries higher risks:

• Higher costs
• Potential exclusion of startups
• Risk of slowing innovation That’s why I would not apply it universally, but instead target:
• Novel biotech actives
• Products making strong clinical or “sensitive skin” claims
• High-volume or global-market products

Trade-offs considered

• Safety vs. accessibility: Strong regulation improves safety but may centralize power among large firms.
• Transparency vs. fear: Clear labeling can educate, but also unintentionally alarm consumers unfamiliar with biotechnology.
• Incentives vs. enforcement: Incentives rely on good faith and monitoring, and can be gamed if poorly designed.

Assumptions and uncertainties

• Assumes consumers are willing to engage with transparent information.
• Assumes sustainability metrics can be meaningfully standardized.
• Uncertainty around how global cosmetic markets would harmonize these governance approaches.

Ethical reflections from this week

One ethical concern that stood out to me—more than I initially expected—was how easily “ethical” biotechnology can become a branding tool rather than a substantive practice.

I also became more aware of:

• The power imbalance between consumers and biotech producers
• The risk of greenwashing and scientized language
• How governance meant to “protect” can unintentionally exclude smaller or more diverse innovators

These concerns were new to me in the sense that I previously thought of ethics mainly as safety, not as communication, access, and power.

Closing thought

This exercise reinforced for me that ethical governance in biological engineering is not just about preventing harm, but aboutshaping who benefits, who decides, and who understands what is being built. Especially in areas like cosmetics—where science directly meets everyday life—good governance must balance safety, trust, innovation, and equity.