<p>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</strong> 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.</strong> Hence, we applied the notions of Value Sensitive Design through stakeholder interviews.</p>
<p>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<strong> environmental, social and economic impact.</strong> Since our idea is bold and revolutionary and uses synthetic biology in agriculture, it was important to us to<strong> shape our design in a responsible way</strong> and <strong> think of all the potential risks</strong> in case our technology was to be implemented in society. Hence, we applied the notions of Value Sensitive Design through stakeholder interviews.</p>
<p>We started by using the</strong> Value-Sensitive Design (VSD)</strong> approach because it helped us identify our project in relation to problems and values. It also facilitated a discourse between team members and stakeholders about the meaning of these values in our project and how to carry out a responsible approach.[1] This entailed thoroughly anticipating both positive and negative impacts of our project and thinking of safety and security and the ethical and social problems created by its potential application. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>We started by using the<strong> Value-Sensitive Design (VSD)</strong> approach because it helped us identify our project in relation to problems and values. It also facilitated a discourse between team members and stakeholders about the meaning of these values in our project and how to carry out a responsible approach.<ahref="#cite1"style="color: #185A4F;">[1]</a> This entailed thoroughly anticipating both positive and negative impacts of our project and thinking of safety and security and the ethical and social problems created by its potential application. </p>
<p>The steps of our <strong>HP</strong> and <strong>Integrated HP approach</strong>, based on the <strong>VSD analysis</strong>, are shown in <strong>Figure 1.</strong> The VSD consists of three main phases namely the conceptual, empirical and technical part. We applied these stages in our HP work. In the <strong>conceptual part</strong>, 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 <strong>empirical part</strong> 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 <strong>technical part</strong> 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. </p>
<figcaption>Figure 1: The map of our HP steps <br>The steps are the following: Identify the problem → Come up with solution and benefits→ Identify values and stakeholders→ Assess impact through talking to stakeholders: environmental, social and economic impact→ Implement: mitigate risks, think of alternative approaches </figcaption>
</div>
<divclass="h2">Understanding the Problem</div>
<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. This way we can emphasise the benefits and better communicate it to different stakeholders but also identify potential risks.</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, 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 <strong>how can we achieve a drastic productivity increase sustainably?</strong></p>
<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>
