{% extends "layout.html" %} {% block title %}Project Description {% endblock %} {% block lead %} {% endblock %} {% block page_content %}
Human Practices
Introduction

In the Human Practises (HP) part of the project, our team aimed to assess the impact of our project on the world. We considered the environmental, social and economic impact. Since our idea is bold and revolutionary and uses synthetic biology in agriculture, it was very important to us to shape our design in a responsible way and think of all the potential risks in case our technology was to be implemented in society. Hence, we applied the notions of Value Sensitive Design and conducted stakeholder interviews.

Our Responsible Innovation Approach

We started by using the Value-Sensitive Design (VSD) approach. [1] We chose this approach because it helped us to identify our project in relationship to problems and values and build a discourse around what these values mean between team members and stakeholders, and how to carry out a responsible approach. [1]This entailed thoroughly anticipating both positive and negative impacts of our project and thinking of security or ethical, social and legal problems created by its potential application.

The steps of our HP and Integrated HP approach, based on the VSD analysis, is shown in Figure 1. The VSD consists of three main phases namely conceptual, empirical and technical part. We applied these stages in our HP work. In the conceptual part we assessed who are the stakeholders impacted by our idea and what values are at relevance. This way, we gained a better understanding of whom to engage with and what questions we wanted to ask The empirical part consisted of reaching out to some of these stakeholders with different backgrounds, and to experts that could help us think about the different fields of impacts mentioned before. During the technical part we integrated all gathered information from the conceptual and empirical parts to minimise potential risks associated with our project and to come up with alternative approaches. This also meant that we had to make compromises between conflicting design choices.

Understanding the Problem

As we learned from the conversations with different stakeholders, defining to what problem our idea serves as a solution is very important from the aspect of responsible innovation. It was also the first step of our VSD analysis. This way we can emphasise the benefits and better communicate it to different stakeholders but also identify potential risks.

We are a team from the Netherlands and even though many of us are international students, we care about the environment we live in. In the Netherlands, pollution from reactive nitrogen deposition is a major problem and immediate action is needed in the short and long term to restore nature and allow new economic activities to be pursued.[2] We felt an obligation to find a solution that could help local people and the agricultural sector, a driving sector of the Netherlands.[3] A sustainable solution for agriculture is not only important locally but globally as well. There is growing global food demand by rising populations where agricultural productivity must be doubled by 2050 to feed the world.[4] However, sustainability in agriculture is already a problem, so the question is how can we achieve a drastic productivity increase sustainably?

We chose a synthetic biology approach to answer this question. We were looking for a solution that is environmentally and socially sustainable, that helps solve food security problems, is accessible and of course safe. This is a big task and at the beginning of our project we were wondering what if our idea is merely a techno-fix? This means that while a technology serves as a solution, it mostly addresses the (unwanted) effects, rather than the root of the problem. [5] This is the question where our Human Practices (HP) and Integrated Human Practices (IHP) journey started.

Done Scott describes philosophical and practical criticism of technological fixes in his article “ The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate ”. [5] He summarizes that “The practical criticisms of technological fixes serve as a warning against the inherent dangers of addressing complex, multifaceted problems with narrowly conceived technological fixes. The philosophical criticisms seek to undermine a worldview that sees technological fixes as the primary means to advance civilization and social welfare”. To respond to the potential practical criticisms raised against our project, we clarify that we are aware that our solution might not solve the social and political challenges underlying nitrogen pollution and food security. But it can clearly serve as an extra option for different actors to use to tackle above mentioned challenges while giving more time to deal with the root problem. As Dr. Britte Bouchaut – who is an Assistant Professor at the Safety & Security Science group at TU Delft – mentioned in her presentation at the Dutch iGEM meet 2024 (organized by The Centre for Living Technologies and supported by iGEM WUR and iGEM TU/e) it is okay to design a techno-fix, if we think about the impact and the consequences of our technology . This way we can better avoid creating new problems by our technology.

Putting this into practice, we assessed the environmental and social impact of our synthetic biology idea, we talked with relevant stakeholders and implemented the information we learned in our project by making design choices based on the input we got and on our VSD analysis. (see IHP page).

Therefore, we believe that, although our idea can be regarded as a technological fix, it can serve as a great solution that was designed responsibly.

Value-Sensitive Design

As mentioned in the Responsible Innovation section, we used the VSD (Value Sensitive Design) analysis as a tool to guide our design process, ensuring it is both responsible and centered on human values. This approach translates values into technological norms and design requirements. By creating value hierarchies, we make the decision-making process behind our design specifications more transparent, especially to external stakeholders. A value hierarchy (see Figure 2) consists of values—principles that promote the common good, such as freedom and sustainability—and norms, which are the rules for achieving those values. The most relevant norms are end-norms, which can also be viewed as objectives, goals, or constraints.

In the conceptual phase (see Our responsible innovation section) of our VSD we thought how our nitrogen fixing plant would contribute to the problem.

The engineered plant would require little to no nitrogen fertilizer, which would prevent soil acidification and reduce ammonia production, thereby lowering CO2 emissions. Additionally, there would be minimal or no reactive nitrate leakage into freshwater bodies and coastal regions, helping to protect the environment and biodiversity. Fewer nitrogen oxides would be emitted into the atmosphere, contributing to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The reduced need for fertilizer would lower growing costs globally, especially given the dramatic rise in fertilizer prices in recent years. [7]This impact would be even more significant in countries with lower food security and limited access to mineral nitrogen fertilizers. At the same time, theoretically, crop yields would remain high compared to conventional fertilizer use, allowing for more sustainable food production to meet the demands of a growing population.

Actor map

Stakeholders are all individuals or institutions that have an interest connected to our self-fertilizing plant technology. Below is a power-interest grid with the most important identified stakeholders associated with our project in the Netherlands.

Values

The identified/relevant values were food security, accessibility, social/environmental sustainability, safety. The value hierarchy of the two most important values safety and accessibility can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5 as an example.

Safety

Safety was found to be an important value for the European Union but also to the Dutch Government and the public. Safety can be divided into environmental and food safety. During our HP work we mostly dived deeper into the question of environmental safety related to our idea. Figure 3 shows how norms such as ‘No risk for the environment derives from the value safety and what are the certain design requirements such as ‘the genetically modified (GM) plant shouldn’t outcompete native species’ to satisfy those norms in our design. We later rediscussed these design requirements and modified them according to the information we gathered from interviews we conducted. Making design choices related to safety were difficult. The design requirements for safety often clashed with the ones derived from accessibility. This is discussed later.

Accessibility

Accessibility was an important value identified related to farmers and NGOs. NGOs like Greenpeace argue that the Agro and Seed industries main priority is profit (by patents and seeds that need to be rebought every year) rather than to make their technology and products accessible for all farmers and serve their local needs.[8] The design requirements shown in Figure 4 are interesting ones related to patenting and ownership, but also touching the core of our whole design. Other important questions for farmers are how expensive the GM seeds are. Is it affordable or cheaper compared to the non-GM type that needs fertilizer? Will the farmers have to buy the seeds every year? These questions related to accessibility touch the question of ownership and safety which are discussed in the IHP part.

See what design adjustments we made regarding these questions after interviews.

Stakeholders we Talked to

When our team came up with our initial approach and design, it was very exciting and seemed like a great solution that the Netherlands and the world could hugely benefit from. Talking with Tyler Coal and Jonathan P. Zehr helped us with our first design idea. First a big question was the feasibility of the project. Therefore, we thought of a roadmap what essential steps would be needed to make a crop plant successfully incorporate the nitroplast organelle and fix nitrogen from the air. To discuss our approach and receive a critical view we talked with scientists from seed companies like KWS seeds. Then our concern became that we are creating a GM plant by means of synthetic biology, and whether that would really be a great solution or a techno fix? (see the teams view on this at Our responsible innovation approach ) To answer this question, first, we talked to Martijn Schaap from TNO to learn more about the nitrogen problem/pollution in the Netherlands. Then we contacted RIVM and Max van Hooren from COGEM to talk about environmental safety and what measures could be applied to our project. We also discussed aspects of risk assessment. Then we had a discussion with Amrit Nanda, who is the Executive Manager of Plants for the Future ETP on how our idea could be applied in Europe and how to communicate our project since GMOs are not popular in Europe currently. Meanwhile with talked with dr. Zoë Robaey (WUR) about responsible innovation and the social impact of our project.

KWS SAAT

We had the opportunity (with the kind help of TU Delft AgTech Institute) to have a critical discussion with four scientists from KWS SAAT SE & Co. KGaA about our idea and experimental approach. KWS is an international seed company. We thought it is relevant to talk about the feasibility of our idea and approach with experienced scientist from a company that is relevant to seed development.

During our talk with the scientists we discussed additional aspects that are important to test for our idea in the early phases. Therefore, we included additional experiments and approaches for the fusion experiments but also for characterising our uTP peptide. More details can be found on the Future wet-lab experiments page. Additionally, they raised their concerns about the feasibility of our idea. They highlighted that it is important to think of alternative approaches and how our idea could compliment already existing solutions for improving nitrogen-fixation in plants. Reflecting to this we discuss these possibilities under Alternative approaches.

Reaching Out to Stakeholders
Integrated Human Practices

Final Implementation

Techno-moral Scenarios
  • 3D Printed Animal Cell Puzzle: A fun and educational puzzle that allowed kids to assemble and learn about the different parts of an animal cell.
  • Candy DNA Models: Children crafted their own double-stranded DNA molecules using candy, making biology both fun and delicious.
  • Microscope Exploration: We brought two microscopes—one that we built ourselves using LEGO, and a professional microscope provided by the Leiden team. The kids were especially fascinated by these, eagerly bringing their own samples from around the farm, such as flower petals, blades of grass, and leaves, to examine under the microscope.
{% endblock %}