Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices
1.First, describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why. This could be inspired by an idea for your HTGAA class project and/or something for which you are already doing in your research, or something you are just curious about.
I aim to develop extremophile bacteria specialized in surviving environments with extreme living conditions beyond Earth’s atmosphere, such as the Moon and Mars. This proposal is based on the study of extremophile bacterial colonies from Bolivian deserts that exhibit extreme environmental conditions, such as the Salar de Uyuni. Additionally, the development of this project would be supported by previous research conducted both locally and in other countries with analogous environments, such as Chile and the Atacama Desert, using these findings as a foundation for the design and biological engineering of these microorganisms. The objective of this project is to support future research by providing the scientific community with the capacity to develop and manage this technology, as well as its possible variants, for applications in biomining studies on the Moon or Mars, astrobiology research, and space sample collection. In this way, the project seeks to reduce the time required to explore alternative data collection methods and to overcome the limitations associated with the inability of conventional bacterial colonies to survive in extreme space environments.
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. Below is one example framework (developed in the context of synthetic genomics) you can choose to use or adapt, or you can develop your own. The example was developed to consider policy goals of ensuring safety and security, alongside other goals, like promoting constructive uses, but you could propose other goals for example, those relating to equity or autonomy.
This project would include governance measures to ensure ethical and safe use of extremophile bacteria in space research. First, controlled scientific use and safety protocols would require researchers to submit experimental plans with containment strategies and activation controls before deploying bacteria, ensuring they are used only for biomining, astrobiology, and space sample collection. Second, ethical oversight and data sharing guidelines would promote responsible collaboration by establishing rules for proper attribution, controlled access to sensitive biological information, and compliance with international research standards. These measures aim to reduce risks of misuse while supporting scientific progress.
3.Next, describe at least three different potential governance “actions” by considering the four aspects below (Purpose, Design, Assumptions, Risks of Failure & “Success”). Try to outline a mix of actions (e.g. a new requirement/rule, incentive, or technical strategy) pursued by different “actors” (e.g. academic researchers, companies, federal regulators, law enforcement, etc). Draw upon your existing knowledge and a little additional digging, and feel free to use analogies to other domains (e.g. 3D printing, drones, financial systems, etc.).
Purpose: What is done now and what changes are you proposing?
Design: What is needed to make it “work”? (including the actor(s) involved - who must opt-in, fund, approve, or implement, etc)
Assumptions: What could you have wrong (incorrect assumptions, uncertainties)?
Risks of Failure & “Success”: How might this fail, including any unintended consequences of the “success” of your proposed actions?
Governance Action 1:
Mandatory International Regulations for the Use of Space Biotechnology. Purpose: Currently, space agencies like NASA have planetary protection standards, but these do not fully cover synthetic bacteria for use on non-terrestrial celestial bodies. I propose new global standards to ensure that these colonies are used only for beneficial research, such as terraforming and biomining, and to prevent harm such as contamination. Design: Actors: UN (e.g., UNOOSA), NASA, ESA, and national space agencies. They create a committee to approve projects; researchers must submit plans with safety tests (e.g., kill-switches in the bacteria). Assumptions: Countries will cooperate, and the standards will not stifle innovation. Risks of Failure and “Success”: Failure: Excessive bureaucracy slows down research, or if other research organizations do not respect this committee. Unintended Consequences of Success: The rules could exclude small countries like Bolivia from participating.
Governance Action 2:
Grants and Incentives for Ethical Space Microbiology Projects. Purpose: Currently, space biotechnology is dominated by large countries; I propose incentives to support researchers in developing countries, such as those in South America, Eastern Europe, or Asia, to develop these bacteria safely. Design: Actors: International funds (e.g., World Bank, NASA grants), universities, and biotechnology companies. They offer funding for projects that include ethical reviews and data sharing; Bolivia could get special funding for the Uyuni samples. Assumptions: The money will incentivize good behavior, and the funds will be distributed fairly. Risks of Failure and “Success”: Failure: Corruption or false “ethical” claims. Unintended consequences of success: Over-funding could lead to rushed experiments with risks.
Governance Action 3:
Secure Global Database for Extremophile Bacteria Data. Purpose: Currently, data on bacteria like those from the Uyuni is scattered; I propose a shared platform to promote beneficial research while controlling access to prevent misuse. Design: Actors: Academic researchers, the UN, and technology companies (e.g., Google for AI security). They build an online database with password-protected access for verified users; include tools to detect dual-use risks. Assumptions: People will share data honestly, and technology can prevent cyberattacks. Risks of Failure and “Success”: Failure: Low participation if it is difficult to use. Unintended consequences of success: Hackers could steal data for malicious purposes.
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. The following is one framework but feel free to make your own:
| Does the option: | Option 1: Mandatory International Regulations | Option 2: Grants and Incentives for Ethical Projects | Option 3: Secure Global Database for Bacteria Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enhance Biosecurity | |||
| • By preventing incidents | 1 (Strong rules prevent contamination) | 2 (Incentives encourage safety but not enforce) | 2 (Controls access but depends on users) |
| • By helping respond | 2 (Committee can react to issues) | 3 (No direct response mechanism) | 1 (Data tools detect risks early) |
| Foster Lab Safety | |||
| • By preventing incident | 1 (Requires safety tests) | 2 (Ethical reviews help indirectly) | 2 (Tools check dual-use |
| • By helping respond | 2 (Standards guide responses) | 3 (Funding not for emergencies) | 1 (Shared data aids quick fixes) |
| Protect the environment | |||
| • By preventing incidents | 1 (Prevents space contamination) | 2 (Promotes safe development) | 2 (Controls misuse of data) |
| • By helping respond | 2 (Global oversight) | 3 (No response focus) | 1 (Platform for monitoring) |
| Other considerations | |||
| • Minimizing costs and burdens to stakeholders | 1 (Funding reduces burdens) | 1 (Funding reduces burdens) | 2 (Platform is low-cost to use) |
| • Feasibility? | 2 (Needs international agreement) | 1 (Grants are easy to implement) | 2 (Tech exists but needs security) |
| • Not impede research | 3 (Rules can slow progress) | 1 (Incentives speed it up) | 2 (Access control may delay sharing) |
| • Promote constructive applications | 2 (Ensures beneficial use) | 1 (Funds ethical projects) | 1 (Platform fosters collaboration |
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. For this, you can choose one or more relevant audiences for your recommendation, which could range from the very local (e.g. to MIT leadership or Cambridge Mayoral Office) to the national (e.g. to President Biden or the head of a Federal Agency) to the international (e.g. to the United Nations Office of the Secretary-General, or the leadership of a multinational firm or industry consortia). These could also be one of the “actor” groups in your matrix}
Based on the scoring results, I would prioritize a combination of Option 1: Mandatory International Regulations and Option 2: Grants and Incentives for Ethical Projects. Option 1 provides the strongest protection for biosecurity, laboratory safety, and environmental protection, ensuring that extremophile bacteria are used responsibly and reducing the risk of contamination or misuse. Option 2 complements this by facilitating research through funding and ethical incentives, especially for developing countries such as Bolivia, making participation feasible and equitable.
The main trade-off is that Option 1 may slow research due to strict international standards, whereas Option 2 accelerates innovation but is less enforceable. By combining them, we balance safety and biosecurity with research efficiency and inclusivity. Key assumptions include international cooperation on regulations, fair distribution of funding, and researchers’ adherence to ethical standards.
The recommended audience for this combined governance approach includes international scientific governance bodies, such as the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), and national space agencies, ensuring broad compliance while supporting global collaboration in space biotechnology.