Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices
1. A biological engineering application: A biological tool I would like to develop is a sensor for detecting banned pesticides in agriculture. This tool would be low-cost and affordable, readily deployable in the field, and capable of providing reliable results. The sensor would be highly sensitive, able to detect trace levels of pesticides, and would serve as a first-line screening tool to monitor a large number of agricultural plots.
2. Governance/policy goals: This sensor would contribute to the implementation of Peru’s National Policy on Sustainable and Safe Agricultural Production and to efforts to monitor and regulate the use of agricultural pesticides.
3. Potential governance “actions” (AI assistance was used to organize governance concepts)
Governance Action 1: Regulatory Screening Requirement There is insufficient monitoring for banned pesticides. A regulatory approach would require field-level screening using low-cost sensors. This assumes that sensors are reliable for screening purposes. Risks include false positives or, if successful, excessive reliance on sensors instead of laboratory verification.
Governance Action 2: Application of Reasonable Fines Monitoring and enforcement would discourage farmers from using banned pesticides. This would involve continuous deployment of field monitoring and targeted detection in crops more likely to involve banned pesticide use. The approach assumes farmers respond to avoid penalties. Risks include farmers stopping the cultivation of certain crops if they become economically unprofitable.
Governance Action 3: Technical Standardization There is a need to establish standards and validation protocols for pesticide sensors, led by academia, industry, and regulators. This requires testing trials and regulatory approval. It assumes that standardization increases trust and usability. Risks include slowing innovation or concentrating the market around a small number of certified technologies.
4. Score of your governance actions
| Does the option: | Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enhance Biosecurity | |||
| • By preventing incidents | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| • By helping respond | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Foster Lab Safety | |||
| • By preventing incident | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| • By helping respond | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Protect the environment | |||
| • By preventing incidents | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| • By helping respond | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Other considerations | |||
| • Minimizing costs and burdens to stakeholders | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| • Feasibility? | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| • Not impede research | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| • Promote constructive applications | 1 | 3 | 2 |
5. Governance Action prioritization and trade offs (AI assistance was used to organize governance concepts)
I would prioritize the regulatory screening requirement using low-cost field sensors as the primary governance action. This option scores highly on feasibility because it builds on existing regulatory structures while expanding monitoring coverage.
The main trade-off considered is the risk of false positives, which can be mitigated through visual inspection and on-site verification of evidence of banned pesticide use, such as containers or application equipment. This recommendation assumes that sensors are used strictly as a first-line screening tool and that regulators maintain laboratory capacity. This recommendation is directed to national agricultural regulators responsible for pesticide control and food safety.