{% extends "layout.html" %} {% block title %}Project Description {% endblock %} {% block lead %} {% endblock %} {% block page_content %}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Through Instagram, our most frequently used social media platform, we have promoted science education in various ways. Not only through our posts and stories that promote iGEM and explain our project, but also through a collaboration with the Dutch science museum NEMO. This collaboration allowed us to distribute a selected few of our followers free museum ticket. Through this, they had the opportunity to continue learning by visiting the museum. The lucky winners were selected through a giveaway on an Instagram post and a cellular biology quiz in our stories, which featured 10 questions of varying difficulty levels. The winner was chosen for being the first person to correctly answer all ten questions. After announcing the winner, we also shared the correct answers, providing brief explanations for each one. For questions where the majority chose an incorrect answer, we explained why that option was incorrect and clarified the differences with the correct answer.
In June, our team attended the SynBIONL event in Wageningen. This event, aimed at fostering synthetic biology collaborations in the Netherlands, provided us with a platform to pitch our project to a panel of experts, and listen to insightful talks about various synthetic biology initiatives in the Netherlands. This was followed by an engaging networking session
In July, we attended the Dutch iGEM meetup hosted by Utrecht University. Here, we got a chance to present our own project as well as listen to the presentation of the projects of all other teams in the Netherlands as well as Belgium. This was a good opportunity for all the teams to meet each other, connect, and share our experiences working on our respective iGEM projects. Finally we also listened to talks from the Dutch Patent office on Intellectual Property, as well as from one of our own supervisors for Human Practices, Britte Bouchaut, on responsible innovation.
In late August, we also attended the Activity Market organized by the Opening Week (OWee) and Introduction Programme (IP), the introductory week for new students at TU Delft. This Activity market allowed a lot of TU Delft Student Teams, DreamTeams, sports and student associations to advertise their team or association to invite interested students to join them. Through our stand at this market, we were able to gather the interest of several freshers from different studies, ranging from Aerospace Engineering, Industrial Design, Life Sciences and Technology, Molecular Sciences and Technology, Nanobiology, and others. We explained the concept of the iGEM competition, and a bit about our own project, and past projects in the TU Delft. Several interested students shared their e-mail IDs, through which we will contact them during recruitment for the next iGEM season.