<p>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. </p>
<p>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, <strong>pollution from reactive nitrogen deposition is a major problem and immediate action is needed in the short and long term</strong> to restore nature and allow new economic activities to be pursued.<ahref="#cite2"style="color: #185A4F;">[2]</a> We felt an obligation to find a solution that could help local people and the agricultural sector, a driving sector of the Netherlands. <ahref="#cite3"style="color: #185A4F;">[3]</a> A sustainable solution for agriculture is not only important locally but globally as well. There is <strong>growing global food demand </strong>by rising populations where <strong>agricultural productivity must be doubled by 2050</strong> to feed the world.<ahref="#cite4"style="color: #185A4F;">[4]</a> However, since sustainability in agriculture is already a challenge, <strong>the question is how we can achieve a drastic increase in productivity sustainably?</strong></p>
<p>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 <strong>techno-fix</strong>? 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. </p>
<p>Done Scott describes philosophical and practical criticism of technological fixes in his article “ <strong> The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate </strong>”. [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. <strong>Britte Bouchaut </strong> – 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)<strong> it is okay to design a techno-fix, if we think about the impact and the consequences of our technology </strong>. This way we can better avoid creating new problems by our technology. </p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>We chose a <strong>synthetic biology approach</strong> 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 <strong>what if our idea is merely a techno-fix?</strong> This means that while a technology serves as a solution, it mostly addresses the (unwanted) effects, rather than the root of the problem. <ahref="#cite5"style="color: #185A4F;">[5]</a> This is the question where our Human Practices (HP) and Integrated Human Practices (IHP) journey started. </p>
<p>Done Scott describes philosophical and practical criticism of technological fixes in his article <strong>“The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate”.</strong><ahref="#cite5"style="color: #185A4F;">[5]</a> He summarizes that <i>“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”.</i> He lists <strong>three often brought up arguments against techno-fixes</strong> that are <strong>1)</strong> they don’t serve as a true solution <strong>2)</strong> they only create more problems and <strong>3)</strong> technological fixes preserve, or fix, systems that should be abandoned in favor of better alternatives. </p>
<p><strong>We are aware that our solution might not solve the social and political challenges underlying nitrogen pollution and food security.</strong> 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 <strong>Dr. Britte Bouchaut</strong> – who is an Assistant Professor at the Safety & Security Science group at TU Delft – mentioned in her presentation at the <strong>Dutch iGEM meet 2024</strong> (organized by The Centre for Living Technologies and supported by iGEM WUR and iGEM TU/e) <strong>it can be okay to design a techno-fix, as long as we are aware of such, and think about the impact and the consequences of our technology.</strong> This way we can respond to the three practical critiques listed. </p>
<p>Putting this into practice, <strong>we assessed the environmental and social impact of our synthetic biology idea,</strong> we <strong>talked with relevant stakeholders</strong> and <strong>implemented</strong> 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).</p>
<p><strong>Therefore, we believe that, although our idea can be regarded as a technological fix, it can serve as a great (temporal) solution that has been designed responsibly.</strong></p>
</div>
<!-- 3 -->
<divclass="h"id="three">
<divclass="h1">Value-Sensitive Design</div>
<p>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.</p>
<p>As mentioned in the <strong>Responsible Innovation section</strong>, we used the <strong>VSD (Value Sensitive Design) analysis</strong> as a <strong>tool to guide our design process,</strong> ensuring it is both responsible and centered on human values. This approach <strong>translates values into technological norms and design requirements.</strong> By creating value hierarchies, we make the decision-making process behind our design specifications more transparent, especially to external stakeholders. A </trong>value hierarchy (see Figure 2)</strong> consists of <strong>values</strong>—principles that promote the common good, such as freedom and sustainability—and <strong>norms</strong>, which are the rules for achieving those values. The most relevant norms are <strong>end-norms</strong>, which can also be viewed as objectives, goals, or constraints.</p>
<figcaption> Figure 2: The three basic layers of a values hierarchy. <ahref="#cite6"style="color: #185A4F;">[6]</a></figcaption>
</div>
<p><strong>In the conceptual phase (see Our responsible innovation section) of our VSD we thought how our nitrogen fixing plant would contribute to the problem.</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The engineered plant would <strong>require little to no nitrogen fertilizer,</strong> which would <strong>prevent soil acidification</strong> and <strong>reduce ammonia production</strong>, thereby lowering CO2 emissions. Additionally, there would be <strong>minimal or no reactive nitrate leakage into freshwater bodies and coastal regions</strong>, helping to protect the environment and biodiversity. <strong>Fewer nitrogen oxides</strong> would be emitted into the atmosphere, contributing to a <strong>reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.</strong></p>
<p>The reduced need for fertilizer would <strong>lower growing costs</strong> globally, especially given the dramatic rise in fertilizer prices in recent years. <ahref="#cite7"style="color: #185A4F;">[7]</a> This impact would be even <strong>more significant in countries with lower food security and limited access to mineral nitrogen fertilizers.</strong> 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.</p>
<p>Now we can briefly return to our question <strong>‘Is our idea a techno-fix?’</strong> and <strong>how we can respond to the practical criticism on techno-fixes</strong>. With the benefits listed above we thought a potential nitrogen-fixing crop could serve as a solution to the narrowed nitrogen pollution and sustainable agriculture problem described before. This answers to the <strong>first practical criticism</strong> listed in Scott D’s paper that says techno-fixes don’t serve as a solution.</p>
<divclass="h2">Actor map</div>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
