Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices
Project Proposal: “The Living Iris” - Smart Probiotic Contact Lenses
1. Application Description
I propose developing “The Living Iris,” a bio-integrated contact lens that functions as a non-invasive, continuous glucose monitor. This project leverages the ocular microbiome by encapsulating engineered probiotics, such as Staphylococcus epidermidis (a common ocular commensal), within a specialized annular hydrogel.
Using synthetic genetic circuits, these bacteria sense glucose levels in the tear film and respond via fluorescence (e.g., GFP or RFP). This transforms medical monitoring into a seamless “bio-wearable.”
Novelty and Justification
- Why Living Cells? Unlike electronic smart lenses (e.g., Google’s project), living sensors require no external power source or battery, as they scavenge nutrients from tears.
- Visual Feedback & Accessibility: The fluorescent output is detectable by a smartphone app or visible to caregivers in emergencies. This eliminates the need for painful daily finger-pricking for diabetic patients.
- Aesthetic Integration: Merging health with fashion and cosmetics, the sensors are placed in the limbal ring (annular design) to ensure central vision remains unobstructed while providing a “glowing” aesthetic effect.
2. Governance Policy Goals
To ensure an ethical future, I aim for:
- Ensuring Safety & Security: Preventing environmental leakage and horizontal gene transfer with the native eye microbiome.
- Promoting Autonomy: Empowering patients with real-time, non-invasive data access.
- Promoting Equity: Ensuring the “living” nature of the product keeps production costs low for global accessibility.
3. Proposed Governance Actions
- Action 1 (Technical): Genetic Kill-switches. * Purpose: Biological containment.
- Design: Engineering auxotrophy where bacteria require a synthetic nutrient only present in the lens storage solution.
- Risks: Bacteria might scavenge nutrients or evolve resistance to the switch.
- Action 2 (Digital): Diagnostic Smartphone App. * Purpose: Accurate data interpretation.
- Design: An app that quantifies fluorescence intensity and corrects for ambient light.
- Risks: False negatives due to low battery or camera malfunction.
- Action 3 (Regulatory): Ocular Microbiome Registry. * Purpose: Long-term monitoring.
- Design: A global database for users to report any changes in ocular health.
- Risks: Data privacy concerns and administrative overhead.
4. Scoring Rubric (1 = Best, 3 = Least effective)
| Does the option: | Option 1 (Kill-switch) | Option 2 (App) | Option 3 (Registry) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enhance Biosecurity | |||
| • By preventing incidents | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| • By helping respond | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Foster Lab Safety | |||
| • By preventing incident | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| • By helping respond | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Protect the environment | |||
| • By preventing incidents | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| • By helping respond | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Other considerations | |||
| • Minimizing costs and burdens | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| • Feasibility? | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| • Not impede research | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| • Promote constructive applications | 1 | 1 | 2 |
5. Prioritization & Analysis
I prioritize Option 1 (Genetic Kill-switches) combined with Option 2 (Digital App). In bio-engineering, “safety-by-design” is non-negotiable. While the app ensures the tool is useful (Autonomy), the kill-switch ensures the technology does not harm the biosphere (Safety). The trade-off is a slightly higher technical complexity, but it provides the most robust ethical framework for “living medicine.”
7. Pre-lecture Questions (Week 2: DNA Read, Write, Edit)
1. How many base pairs (bp) are in the human genome? There are approximately 3 billion (3 x 10^9) base pairs in a haploid human genome.
2. What is the current cost to “Read” (sequence) a human genome? As of 2026, the cost has dropped significantly, approaching the $100 mark or even less for high-throughput sequencing.
3. What is the current cost to “Write” (synthesize) a human genome? Writing DNA is still far more expensive, costing roughly $0.10 per base pair for standard synthesis. Synthesizing a full human genome would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, making it currently infeasible for individual projects.
4. What is the implication for the “Living Iris” project? The vast gap between reading and writing costs means that for my project, it is much more feasible to “Read” and “Edit” existing microbial genomes (like S. epidermidis) using tools like CRISPR, rather than trying to “Write” a completely new synthetic genome from scratch.
8. AI Assistance & Documentation
In accordance with the course ethics policy, I acknowledge the use of **Gemini ** as an adaptive collaborator in the development of this assignment.
How AI was used:
- Formatting: Helped structure the Policy Goals Rubric and troubleshoot Markdown rendering issues in the student template.
Prompts Used:
- “How can I link synthetic biology to smart contact lenses for diabetic monitoring?”
- “Explain the ‘mirror challenge’ for a color-changing lens and suggest technical mitigations for iris color interference.”
- “Draft a Governance Policy Rubric comparing a genetic kill-switch, a digital app, and a regulatory registry.”