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.

Looking at the work of Long, B., Li, Q., Hu, C. et al. (1), I am interested in the use of genetically modified algae for the purpose of aggregation and removal of microplastics in a manner that allows for the upcycling of the then microplastic-enriched cyanobacteria for plastic composites. The algae in the study referenced (Synechococcus elongatus UTEX 2973) were modified to produce limonene to increase cell hydrophobicity, facilitating both the aggregation of microplastics with the cyanobacteria and the self-aggregation of the cyanobacteria in water. I would be interested to see if changing the terpene produced by the cyanobcterium changes the efficacy of the microplastic removal in an aqeuous environment. Further studies could include exploring more uses or alternative processing methodologies for the plastic composite materials produced from the co-aggregated cyanobacteria and microplastics.

(1) Long, B., Li, Q., Hu, C. et al. Remediation and upcycling of microplastics by algae with wastewater nutrient removal and bioproduction potential. Nat Commun 16, 11570 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-67543-5

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.

Policy goals may include:

A. Ensuring that the use of genetically modified cyanobacteria to remove microplastics from water does not harm the environment it is being deployed in, e.g.: -Can this method be used for ocean or other waterway clean up without negatively impacting these environments? -If this method is used by water treatment facilities, is there a way to ensure that the modified cyanobacteria does not escape into the environment? -Is it necessary to prevent the release of this organism from the environment? -To determine if the modified cyanobacteria is released into the environment from a water treatment facility, who is responsible for this monitoring? -Who is responsible for removing the modified organism from the environment if a release is found (if it is determined that this should be actively prevented)? -Should fines be levied towards companies that allow these organisms to escape into the environment? This alone will not be enough to ensure that this does not happen or that companies will be responsible for remediation (i.e. if there are only fines without specific regulation determining that companies must be responsible for remediation, then many companies may determine it is less expensive to pay fines than to fix the problem- already an issue with companies specifically as it relates to environmental impacts). -May necessitate further study to determine what happens when the cyanobacteria-microplastic composite plastic itself decomposes. If it decomposes back into microplastics that are released into the environment, is this solution viable long-term?

B. Biosecurity: Determining who has or should have access to these genetically modified bacteria for the purpose of microplastic remediation. If the end result is using the cyanobacteria-microplastic aggregate to form plastic composites which can then be used in industry to replace traditional plastics, should the modified bacteria or the resulting plastic composites be considered commodities that should be protected as intellectual property? How available should strains be? Making them more widely available allows equity in ability to remove plastic from water (most likely application being removal from water supplies at water treatment facility plants, though it could be possible to use in natural environment depending on what impact this could have on broader ecosystems). Not a good idea to allow anyone to have these organisms, however, if the consequences of releasing these organisms into ecosystems is unknown at this time. Restrict to industry and researchers? What process should be used to vet? Who should have the authority and responsibility to vet industry and researchers?

C. Encouraging industry to either adopt this method for microplastic remediation (e.g. for water treatment plants) or to use the composite plastic material for producing plastic consumable goods. Right now, these are two separate industries. Who would be responsible for the treatment of the cynobacteria-microplastic aggregates that allow these to be used to produce plastic good, the water treatment plants generating the aggregates or the manufacturers that would be producing the plastic goods? A third party dedicated to this process? Manufacturers right now have manufacturing plants dedicated to producing items in regular plastics- would switching to the cyanobacteria-plastic composite require reworking the entire current processing process? This would be expensive, would need an incentive such as government stipends or grants to make this adoption realistic. Newer companies could form dedicated to using these composite materials, but this would be counter to the broader adoption required to make a an upcycling circular economy viable. Most water treatment facilities are run at the state or county level; who should pay for the increased cost of adding in this kind of remediation step? Would this require raising taxes in areas implementing this or would grant programs or stipends allow for this adoption? Early adopters could be at the private industry level (e.g. bottled wter companies) because they could charge higher prices for their product, but this could mean that these companies could lobby against broader adoption of this method because it would remove the novelty that allows them to charge higher prices for their products.

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? A. Goverment/NGO Stipends/Grants: Likely needed for widespread industry adoption. Assumes that money is both available and that there is an appetite for this research to be implemented in the first place. NGOs may want to take up the mantle to support these efforts, but often have more limited funding (assuming that they even could fund these endeavors, which I am unsure about, espeically since water treatment is often a county or state effort). US federal funding would require approval by Congress at a time when environmental concerns are at a low. State funding may be easier to obtain, but could hinder more widespread adoption. Many companies may refuse to adopt if funding is not guaranteed for a certain number of years (no one wants to take on a project that could take 10 years with only 5 years of funding available). Government funding may increase distrust in communities since this affects their water supply.

B. Federal Monitoring for Release: Would need to determine who has authority (EPA, perhaps?). Federal agencies are already strained in terms of resources, both funding and personnel, and further requirements would strain this further. Would need a system in place to monitor water, requiring decisions as to where water should be collected and tested and what lab should be doing the testing. Would need to determine next steps (is the federal government only monitoring, or is there responsibility to also assist in remediation if a leak is found? If assisting with response, who pays the bill? American tax payers on the hook for assisting or fully the responsibility of the company? Depending on where the organism is found, what happens if it cannot be definitively determined which company is responsible?) If only monitoring, then this does not assist in response.

C. Laws for Industry Monitoring/Response Responsibility: Laws requiring industry using these organisms to monitor for and remediate an environmental release would be likely the only way to ensure that this happens. Traditionally, the use of fines for release of anything that may potentially harm the environment results in companies paying the fines without remediation, as this is generally cheaper than paying for the actual remediation. This also shifts the burden to the industry rather than forcing government agencies to pay for monitoring and response (although would likely still need independent government monitoring, otherwise you are relying fully on industry essentially self-reporting problems, a conflict of interest). Requirements such as these, however, my prevent adoption of these methods if the perceived industry risk is higher than potential reward.

D.IP Protections/Organism Use Restriction: Organism use restriction could prevent accidental release into the environment without proper determinination of how this would impact the environment, but does not entirely eliminate this risk. Restriction of use of organism would require some agency or company screening customers (unlikely that a DNA synthesis company would stop an order for limonene or other terpene-production gene, so would not get caught here if someone were to try to modify this organism themselves). IP protection for a modified organism via patent seems possible, but this is controversial and I am making assumptions about the feasbility here (unsure how feasible given how easy it generally is to modify these orgnanisms). Federal restriction of agents at the moment is limited primarily to the Select Agent program, which only covers highly pathogenic organisms, would need some other mechanism to restrict usage of an organism like this based upon industry usefulness/claims to it as intellectual property. Intellectual property protections would likely increase industry odds of adoption.

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:

RUMBA: Remediation and Upcycling of Microplastics by Algae

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. Based upon the above layout of possible governance mechanisms, I would suggest that water treatment plants utilizing genetically engineered algae for the purpose of sequestering and removing microplastics have a legal requirement to self-monitor and report any possible leaks of the genetically modified organisms (assuming that there is a lack of large amounts of data over time demonstrating that these organisms would not cause ecosystem damage) with the ultimate responsibility of remediating any detected leaks. I recognize that this may dissuade industry from taking up this methodology, but to not have something in place like this would be irresponsible, as there is a possibility that an unintentional release could have broad, long-term impacts in the environment (cannot know without further testing). There would also be a need, then, to have independent monitoring and testing from a (likely federal) agency to ensure that there are no leaks and to ensure that we are not fully depending on industry self-reporting. I would also suggest that if there is a widespread desire for industry to take up this endeavor, there would need to be incentives, such as grants or stipends, to allow this. The best governance strategy, I think, would be a layered one that involves industry buy-in, federal oversight to ensure biosecurity and environmental protections are in place, and government financial support for this industry. There could also be information campaigns and industry outreach to educate consumers about the process to increase not only awareness, but drive demand either for this process to be put into place (in which case, constituents could, for example, write to members of Congress to voice support for the industry to increase odds of funding being made available to support these programs) or for the products produced through this method.

Ethical issues that arose during this thought experiment mainly were centered around equity versus biosecurity, i.e. restricting access to genetically modified organisms that could potentially have negative ecosystem impact would be a good biosecurity practice, but could prevent access to a potentially cost effective way to reduce microplastics in drinking water and produce composite plastics in areas of the globe (such as the global south) where it could do the most good. Additionally, the solution of allowing companies to patent either the modified organism itself or the production method for turning the aggregated cyanobacteria-microplastic into composite materials in order to protect intellectual property and incentivize the uptake of this idea could lead to one company holding a monopoly on this method. There is also the possibility that someone could purchase the patents in order to prevent them from being used by anyone, if they wanted to uphold the status quo for using conventional plastics.