‘Super Cells – Building With Biology’ – The Hope (And Hype) of Bio-Design
[Book Review]
April 15th, 2014 by Michael Ricciardi
Part ‘history of’, part ‘how to’, and a good portion hype, Super Cells ~ Building With
Biology, by Nina Tandon and Mitchell Joachim, is a fascinating, inspiring, and notinfrequently self-promoting/congratulating celebration of the “collision of Biology,
Design and Digital Fabrication.”
The book heralds a new movement referred to as bio-design (or biodesign) in which
diverse designers appropriate the tools and methods of bio-engineering as well as a
relatively new scientific discipline called synthetic biology (note: synthetic biology seeks
to synthetically replicate cellular and biological processes and mechanisms for human
ends) to ostensibly “transform” the whole of modern society and culture.
Biodesign, according to co-author and architect Mitchell Joachim, is the “cure for
affluenza” and, in the long evolutionary path of human society, “is the next step toward a
resilient harmony where human kind and Nature seamlessly blend.”
Taking us from Medicine (focusing on tissue engineering — the most practical and
valuable use for such super cells) and Architecture to Fashion, Food and
Art/Entertainment, Super Cells — a TED Book — is replete with momentous
declarations like “The time of building with living cells has arrived”(!) and generous
pepperings of techno-hep buzz phrases like “disruptive technology” and “paradigm
shift”, along with a plethora of bio-techno neologisms and eco-ethical sentiments.
For those living without the Internet for the past half dozen years, the annual TED (which
stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design) conference has spawned innumerable
‘TED talk” videos – known for their provocative topics, cool visuals, and often overhyped achievements and speculative predictions – and, more recently, TED Books.
Super Cells, at a mere 72 pages in length, is none-the-less rich with “super”
cellular experiments and explorations inspired by this new bio-aesthetic. The book is
comprised of six chapters covering the spectrum of biodesign endeavors and innovations:
1] Medicine: Living Devices, 2] Architecture: Grow a Home, 3] Fashion: Cellular
Atelier, 4] Food: Ranch in a Lab, 5] Art: Cellular Muses, 6] Entertainment: Biotic
Games.
Chapters 2 and 5 are written by Joachim, the remainder by Tandon. The two styles of
writing generally work well enough (like inter-woven branches, one being a bit thicker)
with Tandon’s writing being a more technical and serious sounding, and Joachim’s
writing being a bit more fluid and “arty”. The ebook’s introduction is a tad unpolished
but manages to lay out the basic ideas of the book – enjoining the reader to “imagine the
possibilities”…and lists ”self-healing bridges, plentiful human body parts, high-tech
fabrics…” as just a sampling of the marvels awaiting us in this brave, new, bio-designed
world. It almost sounds utopian. Indeed, a barely restrained eco-techno-utopianism
pervades most of the content of the book.
Those Marvelous Bio-Designers and Their Cellular Dreams
In the opening chapter, Tandon takes us on a speedy tour of tissue engineering advances
and innovative technology (including 3D printing of cells/tissue), while earnestly
declaring her vision of a world which embraces “biology as a perfect technological
partner.”
Although quite idealistic in spirit, it is an appropriate idealism (for the purposes of the
book) and sets the aesthetic and technical stages for the more fanciful and conceptual
applications of biodesign technology to come. Tandon, a bioengineer, uses a bio-reactor
as her primary tool (others use a “perfusion chamber” which serves a similar function) for
generating species of “super cell”, with a focus on generating structural tissue cells such
as bone, cartilage and muscle cells.
This chapter also introduces us to the “work horse” super cell of this nascent movement:
Acetobacter xylinum. The aerobic, rod-shaped bacterium — not to be confused with
species of Acetobacterium — is renowned for its synthesis of cellulose (a useful and
“plastic” structural material produced usually/only by plants). Apparently, one of the
research labs collaborating with the designers bio-engineered a strain of the bug to
produce much more cellulose than normal, thus helpfully industrializing its own natural
function. In doing so, a new (or derivative) life form (a new genotype and phenotype) has
been created here and is introduced to the bioengineering laboratory ecosystem (and the
world).
Apart from her tissue engineering experiments — primarily to provide transplantable
tissue and organs (Tandon doesn’t see anything resembling “the ‘body shop’ of
replacement parts” any time soon) — Tandon seeks a broader experimental and
ethical goal: replacing murine models (“mouse avatars”) used in laboratory testing with
purely cellular models derived from the patients themselves. Presumably, she is referring
here to forms of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) though the term ‘iPS cells’
does not occur until several chapters later. This is a laudable goal — and one that
resonates with this author’s own bio-tech/design efforts — but not one to be
realized anytime soon, as there are various technical obstacles to making this a standard
practice.
As a main example, there is a pervasive problem in bio-tech: results of in vitro models
commonly fail in predicting in vivo/clinical effects (this is possibly due to the unique
“microenvironment” of in vivo cells and also crucial signaling from the extracellular
matrix). Patient-specific cell models (as with iPS cells) are a big step in that direction, but
a superior platform technology (utilizing said cells as, for example, drug testing
models) has not quite arrived, yet. But, insofar as this is “a brief history of” type ebook, and a cell-ebration (couldn’t resist that one) we are offered but the scantest hints of
these challenges.
Nonetheless, Tandon is a committed believer in the transformative power of this
technology, which will usher in “a more efficient, more natural technological revolution”.
Like many of the sentiments expressed herein, Tandon’s are grand, if not grandiose; we
learn of her vision “to show what the world might look like if more of our technology
were to be grown from living cells”, the purpose of which is to “to change the way we
live and how we think about life itself.”
[image insert, right] Medicine – scaffolds Scientists at the Wake Forest Institute for
Regenerative Medicine are using 3-D printing technology to build organ and tissue
scaffolds. Living cells added to the scaffolds then grow into their forms. The scaffolds
made of synthetic polymers or hydrogels then biodegrade, leaving just the living
material behind. Shown here are scaffolds for prototypes of a finger bone, an ear, and a
kidney. All are experimental and not yet ready for patients. Image: Courtesy of Wake
Forest University
If this isn’t high-minded enough for you, there are more such sentiments to come.
The book’s second chapter, Architecture: Grow a Home, written by architect Mitchell
Joaquim, is a natural/logical bridge from the first chapter; we move from physiological
architecture (bone, muscle, cartilage) to environmental/structural architecture meant to
house the human animal. Joachim focuses on three of his conceptual architectural works:
FabTreeHab, Gen2Seat, and a project prosaically titled “meat house.”
Joachim’s asserts that his architectural aesthetic derives from the likes of Thoreau,
Emerson and Tolkien and is infused with an expressed desire to go beyond mere solar
panels on rooftops to “redefine sustainable building”. In FAbTreeHAb, a post-doc project
exploiting the construction technique of pleaching (in which branches, vines, etc. are
interwoven or grafted on to each other; note: tree species like elm, oak, and dogwood are
self-grafting), Joachim comes close to realizing the penultimate manifestation of his (“not
built, but grown”) aesthetic: in constructing a habitat made almost completely from
natural living matter (the trees having been grown for the project and never chopped or
cut, the pleaching covered with a “protective layer of fast-growing vines, interspersed
with soil pockets and additional plants”) the entirety of which, he claims, is edible at
some point in the respective life cycles of the materials (note: except for the clay used to
support and texture the structure).
I say “close” to his expressed aesthetic, because he does include reference to the creation
and use of “hydrocarbon bonded polymers” that were apparently introduced during the
construction process. Presumably, these might take longer to digest (and could be
naturally derived, or synthetic). Still, Joachim’s efforts here were mostly successful and a
laudable response to his eco-conscious rhetorical question: “Why not grow part of your
home instead of extracting vital planetary resources?” Indeed — assuming enough
resources (e.g., trees) and space for everyone to do this — why not?
His Gen2Seat effort, though, would seem to be the most “pure” and practical of
Joachim’s cellular creations; made almost entirely of cellulose, the chair, when past its
prime, is “compostable in a garden – not thrown into a landfill like an IKEA product.”
Joachim here describes a construction process and Acetobacter-derived material that is
comprised of “mycelium blocks combined with a modified new bio-polymer”. I will note
that here Joachim uses the term “bio-polymer”, not simply “polymer”; it is not clear if the
new bio-polymer was made — or just renamed — to justify the use of a synthetic
bonding substance in these eco-conscious creations. The architect is not afraid of
engaging in a bit of bio-engineering whimsy either; Joachim expresses his desire to some
day create “a novel strain that secretes chitin” (the structural protein that forms the
exoskeletons of arthropods, like insects, crustaceans).
Joachim tells us that the ultimate goal of his architectural experimentation is to “create
products more organically with minimal waste and energy expenditure.” It is not clear if
Joachim considers the bacterium itself as one of these products and if he has ever
conducted an energy budget analysis for their production in quantity.
It is at this point that Joachim takes a qualitative conceptual leap, by asking: “Why limit
living organic homes to only materials made of plant life?” And so, we get Joachim’s
more “controversial” cellular creation: the “meat house”, or, as he describes it, an “in
vitro meat habitat” (made in collaboration with two spin-off/start-up bio-design labs).
The habitat — made from cultured pig muscle cells — was apparently a proof of
principle for Jaochim, and is actually a “non-perishable prototype” (actual dimensions are
just 11 x 3 x 7 inches). According to Joachim, it was “not meant to be an actualized as a
full house, but it serves as a highly informed case study for growing large volume of in
vitro material (meat) en masse.” Joachim emphasizes — just in case the meaning of the
phrase in vitro escapes the reader — that no harm came to any animal (it is a “victimless
shelter”, which is a perhaps a riff on the pioneering “victimless leather” artwork noted in
Chapter 5) and asserts his motive not to grow a full size house but to test the “potential
architectural implications.” But, if not to grow a full-sized house, or structure, what
would these other “architectural implications” be?
This may have been a post-facto, “art-speak” rationalization
for the diminutive dimensions of the model habitat resulting from the realization (early
on) that it would take an enormous quantity of pig cells (and that equals lab time, money,
and resources) to make an actual meat house. In this, we have just one of many cool and
cutting edge ideas and projects, enumerated in the pages of Super Cells, that, in practice,
do not quite live up to their promise, yet; they are impractical for every-day applications,
insofar as they require access to bioreactors and/or other high-tech bio-lab equipment
(and large volumes of cells).
[image insert, above right] Architecture – Meat house – Pig skin cells, grown into this
shape in Terreform ONE’s lab, make up the walls, floor, and ceiling of this prototype
home. The model is non-perishable and measures 11 inches long. Image: Courtesy of
Mitchell Joachim, Terreform ONE
I should note here that most of these cellular creations were accomplished via
collaborations with small, independent, commercial labs (e.g. FabTreeHab was made in
collaboration with TERRAFORM 1), or academic-affiliated labs (such as the oft-cited
University of Australia-based lab SymbioticA).
The chapter on fashion (Fashion: Cellular Atelier) begins with a critique of what clothing
designer Suzanne Lee calls “fast fashion” where the time to market for fashion products
has gone from months to weeks to even twice weekly. Clothing is discarded at an
“alarming rate” (the book notes that 13 million tons of clothing are disposed of each year
in the US). Lee notes that much of our contemporary clothing is composed of polyesters
(oil-based end-products) which are hazardous to the ecology, and so, the chapter details
Lee’s efforts to develop a new fabric, and in particular, one made from a concoction of
green tea, sugar (food source for the microbes), acetic acid (from apples; vinegar) and a
culture of bacteria and yeast. The result of this new alchemy is the production of
cellulosic nanofibrils (“strong as titanium and aluminum”) with the goal of replacing said
polyesters and, ultimately, replacing cotton (an extremely water-intensive crop) and,
eventually, even wood. Here, Lee is thinking decades down the road — borrowing the
current science and tools pioneered by biologist and materials scientist David Hepworth.
This is certainly a noble and worthwhile, eco-minded goal, even if the initial products are
a bit less than optimal. Lee critiques her own work by noting that her first foray with the
new fabric (a jacket) was not a total success: it was “imperfectly composed” but still
wearable and notable for its dramatic decrease in water usage (by a factor of 10). The
jacket, as it turned out, responded to the ambient atmosphere (humid or dry) by
expanding or shrinking, thus the material itself would be best used to make outerwear (a
rather humorous observation when one contemplates shrinking/expanding underwear) as
it more closely acted like a “super absorbent sponge”. Lee’s forthright attitude towards
her own work is refreshing, and, this accidental property of the material may have utility
beyond clothing, thus also showing that there is value in pure experimentation (even
amongst non-scientists).
Looking forward, Lee seeks to develop a “hydrophobic cellulose” (to alleviate the
shrinking/expanding underwear effect) and even what she terms “cosmeceuticals” — a
hybrid of cosmetics and apparel (and presumably pharmaceuticals {?} as the term would
seem to convey, or perhaps the phoneme/morpheme “ceut” is a play on “suit”?). It is not
clear from the writing just how these cosmeceuticals will function in real-life.
[image insert, lower right] Fashion – jacket – Biodesigner Suzanne Lee grew the allnatural fabric for this BioRuff jacket from cellulose-producing bacteria. The jacket was
commissioned to Lee and her company, Biocouture, by the Science Museum London for
its exhibition “Trash Fashion: Designing Out Waste,” in collaboration with Imperial
College London. Image ©Biocouture Ltd. 2014, photo by Santiago Arribas
The remaining chapters continue and expand on the super cell theme and medium
and make for some interesting reading. The chapter called Food: Ranch in a Lab details
what is perhaps the most obvious use for super cells (next to tissue engineering):
making/synthesizing food, in particular, meat, or meat (high protein) substitutes. Much of
this work has been covered in the popular scientific press in just the past year. For the
sake of a slightly shorter review, I will skip over this chapter (important as it is) and
encourage folks to read up on this topic; a good place to start is my older PS article: The
Race to Make Fake Meat – Saving Animals and the Planet (and Disrupting the Meat
Industry).
The final two chapters bring the super cell movement and medium fully into the realm of
human culture (if you pardon the unintentional pun) as we are given a fairly decent
summary and history of recent experiments – from the mid 1990′s forward — in “bioart”, and, more recently, “biotic games.”
In the chapter titled Art: Cellular Muses we encounter another grandiose, and admittedly
provocative proclamation: “The old adage that art imitates life has been officially
subverted. Now art literally is life.” Well some of it is, anyway. This is a slight
exaggeration; it is true — in the context of super cells — if we discount the great many
past “natural” and/or living art works (produced by eco-artists since at least the late
1960′s), and, those works made from (uncultured or un-engineered) cells that are no
longer living. But, the reader understands what is meant, presumably, and, by now, has
likewise come to expect such statements.
This is not to discredit at all the artists who are working specifically with the products
and tools of the new technology, and truly, the artistic works described herein are
intriguing, scientifically cutting-edge, and conceptually potent.
As recently as 2013, a trio of “bio-artists” (Guy Ben-Ary, Kirsten Hudson, and Mark
Lawson) working out of the (previously noted) SymbioticA lab at the University of
Western Australia, created a work entitled ‘In Potentia’ that utilized cutting edge,
induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell science — specifically, a technique known as cell
reprogramming* — to transform foreskin cells into neurons and then into a larger mass
of neural tissue (in fact, any cell type, save for placental cells, can be reprogrammed this
way). Though not actually a brain, the mass of cultured neural tissue was able to generate
electrical impulses and was here described (somewhat redundantly) as a “biological
brain”. At that point, out intrepid bio-artists encased the tissue in a “custom sculptural
incubator” which included “a life-support system, an electrophysiological device, and a
custom-made electrophysiological recording setup consisting of an array of microelectrodes that measured neural activity.” This neural activity was them digitally
converted into a “haunting soundscape” (note: this artwork was a collaboration with
Backyard Brains, co-founded by TED alumnus Greg Gage).
And, of course, what high concept art work would be complete without a high-blown
artistic rationale, which has something to do with challenging “Western culture’s
fetishisation of consciousness.” Now, possibly, the artists mean sexual fetishization, and
hence the choice to reprogram foreskin cells into brain cells, or, maybe they mean the
strictest sense of fetish: a potent object of psychic fixation. But a concise explanation or
even deconstruction of this terminology is not to be found here.
Other cellular artworks are noted here. Of particular note is Andre Brodyk’s work with a
genetically “transformed” strain of bacteria, using it to draw red, luminescent images that
slowly fade and vanish over time, in an provocative paralleling of the deterioration of
memory seen in Alzheimer’s Disease (although it is not clear the precise connection
between the bacterium and the disease, other than its utility for the concept).
Additionally, SymbioticA lab founder/director Oron Catts and his artist collaborator (and
wife), Ionat Zurr, are given ample space for their nearly two decade’s worth of bio-art
experimentation — beginning with their Tissue Culture and Art Project of 1996, which
ultimately gave birth to SymbioticA. This seminal project produced numerous
provocative works, including ‘Pig Wings’ which consisted of “three tiny sets of wings
grown from pig-bone-marrow stem cells.” (the association of pigs and wings perhaps
reflecting the initial reactions to these early cellular art visions by the public, i.e., “when
pigs fly”).
As for their motive and aesthetic philosophy, artists Catts and Zurr claim to be
addressing a widening gap “between our cultural perceptions of life and what we are able
to do to it through technology.” And, it is this “gap that makes most of us uneasy” (as in
that famous image of a mouse with a human ear growing out of its back) into which Catts
and Zurr step with their fantastical, flesh-based artworks, desiring the public to
be “confronted and challenged.” The use of cells (whether reprogrammed,
“transformed”, or bio-engineered) raises a host of ethical questions — many of which
(both serious and trivial) are raised and addressed in the final sections of each chapter.
However, in “confronting and challenging” the public via the ethically murky use of
cellular life forms, one first has to do the ethically challenging (or questionable) thing,
i.e., make stuff with bio-engineered super cells. As such, these ethical issues become
secondary (and symbolic) considerations, if not complete afterthoughts. I will return to
this point in my concluding critique.
In the final chapter of Super Cells (Entertainment: Biotic Games) we are presented with
the most recent (apparently) of super-cellular applications: “living video games”.
Pioneered primarily by a bioengineering group from Stanford University led by
bioengineer Ingmar Riedel-Kruse, these undeniably curious efforts sprung from RiedelKruse — in one of those legendary”aha!” moments — one day asking himself: Why
can’t we make video games using modern biotechnology? Indeed, it would not be the first
time that mastery of a technology has led to the creation of a game or sport.
In these biotic games, the “pieces” are microbes (contained in a game console) which
respond to commands (e.g., when in contact with a local electric field) manipulated via a
standard game controller. The mechanism of response here is described as the
galvanotactic response (note: “galvanic” refers to an electrical potential, after the
discoverer of the bio-electrical response, Galvani, in the late 18th Century). In an
alternative form of control, the chemotactic response is exploited in order to control the
movement of the unicellular organisms, where the microbial response is to a shifting
gradient of nutrient chemicals, enabled by the controller. All of this biotic gaming
occurs through real-time imaging (via a microscopic camera) of paramecia superimposed
upon a virtual game scape.
All the entertaining elements of a mainstream video game are present; Riedel-Kruse’s
bio-engineering group has so far produced several cute-sounding microbial games such
as Ciliaball (a soccer-like game using paramecia to “kick” a ball into one of two
goals), PAC-mecium, (paramecia forage for virtual food while trying to escape hungry
zebrafish larva), Microbash (the microbes must destroy virtual bricks to free a
fellow cartoon paramecium), and POND PONG (inspired by PONG, players use
chemicals to push paramecia toward the other player’s side).
Now, this use of living cells raises more obvious ethical questions, such as the ethics of
exploiting living cell behavior for entertainment purposes. But Riedel-Kruse is prepared
for these and offers a compelling and convincing rationale: science education. RiedelKruse suggests that such biotic diversions could captivate youngsters and stimulate
interest in biology through “interacting with biological processes, without dealing with
the rigor of conducting a formal experiment.” Ah yes, Science without the
science…captive cells as educational aid, quite clever. The team’s research has been
published under open access conventions but the author also notes that Riedel-Kruse
has filed for a patent on the basic bio-game technology.
With the acknowledgement that the organisms inhabiting these game consoles need to be
cared for (and kept alive, for at least some reasonable period of time), the author
(Tandon) notes that such biotic games have generated a “vigorous bioethics debate”, and
offers us questions like: Are the organisms harmed? What kinds of interactions with
organisms are considered positive, acceptable, or negative? The author even goes so far
as to bring “free will” into question; when responding to the manipulated energy field, do
the microbes “lose their freedom of choice?” This last question seems a bit of an ethical
over-reach. Such “gamer” cells can be viewed simply as pets — to be cared for as any
other for the duration of its normal life span. They may live shorter lives, and certainly
they can be inadvertently harmed (maybe even abused) — and we certainly use other pets
for our enjoyment — but they are in these respects the same; no one seriously asks if a
domesticated dog, tethered to a leash, or fenced in a yard, loses it “freedom of choice”.
That said, placing microbes in the path of a hungry zebrafish larvae would seem to be the
microscopic analog of the human expression “throwing a babe to the wolves” (or
similar). Perhaps for this reason, Riedel-Krusee espouses game designs that are “pleasant,
purposeful, and generating positive perspective versus scary scenarios.”
But these broader questions or observations concerning the attitude of the biotic game
players are certainly interesting, culturally and psychologically speaking. For example, as
entertainment, one might quickly develop a sense of mastery over Nature, or even of
“playing god.” This may be less of an ethical issue than a human ego issue and may
well have bearing on societal attitudes towards non-human life forms.
The final chapter finishes up with an interview with software engineer and mobile apps
developer Keith Comito, who sees greater import and grander creative possibilities (of
course) in these biotic diversions, including “massively multiplayer online games in
which people communicate with each other via other living creatures, self-reflexive
systems in which organisms control themselves in ways they never have before, or
generative musical applications in which the composers are single cells.” Wow…but
there’s more: Comito ends with what is perhaps the grandest super-cellular vision in the
entire book (no easy feat, that), inviting us all “…to consider a future where we find a
way to cooperate with organisms of every scale. Such an approach, characterized by
partnership with, rather than subjugation and destruction of, nature has the potential to
foster the sustainable future all of us want, and can achieve.”
Who could not be seduced by such grandiloquence?
*The cell reprogramming (to generate iPS cells) technique is more recent and advanced
and much less controversial as it does not require destruction of embryonic stem cells as
earlier techniques did.
Further Ethical Considerations and Concluding Critique ~ The Vision and the Reality
To the authors’ credit, they duly anticipate many of the ethical questions that this type of
work raises (and several that seem rather forced or contrived). But one cannot help but
feel that these questions are raised mostly as after thoughts, for, were they truly of
paramount (non trivial) importance to the diverse designers featured here, it would seem
that some of these cellular design experiments would not have been undertaken in the
first place. No, the main motive that comes through here is to do something really cool
and cutting edge in the realm of Art & Science (or simply new technology). Once one has
done so, one is free to raise or anticipate any number of ethical questions or criticisms
(indeed, it would seem that such bio-designers must do so, to cover themselves, as it
were) and thus placing themselves within the dialogue — the ethical debate — that has
only been raised (outside of some medical science uses) by these very same biodesign
efforts.
I suspect that this TED book will prove to be of fairly wide public interest, and perhaps
even spark some of the societal debate (over using living cells in these new ways) that the
authors seem to want to encourage. However, I also feel that some of this ethical
questioning is symbolic or token…some even seem a bit naïve of over-blown. Some are
just fuzzy, like Tandon’s question: “In the future of brain-tissue engineering, could we
potentially engineer truly sentient beings in the dish?” Well, given that all cells must
sense their environments to survive and grow and even ward off attacks from other cells,
they would already seem to be sentient. Tandon uses the word “sentient”, seemingly, to
indicate a “new” or emergent state beyond the actual sentient state of these cells (yet not
quite a fully-grown being in the conventional sense). However, it is not clear how distinct
this state would be from what already occurs in labs all over the world. Perhaps she refers
here to the so-called “mini-organs” (e.g., brain tissue structures) recently reported in the
popular science news. This is not explained further. To answer this question may mean
redefining what it is “to be sentient” (there is yet a role for the philosopher here!).
Perhaps that was her point, I don’t know, as the question is asked, but no attempt at
an answer is really put forth.
But the questioning does bring one unmentioned ethical distinction into focus: the
distinction between a living unicellular organism (e.g. a bacterium) and a living human or
animal cell. Both types of cells start out alive, then are variously exploited, and then die.
Does our concern for their fates vary depending on their animal origin? Curiously, this
question or distinction is never raised.
This question of sentience can be carried through to its logical end with the (possible) de
novo creation of a living “being” or entity. When that happens, the ethical question will
have more import and cogency. In any case, laboratories (in Japan) will soon be
permitted to “grow” pigs from transplanted embryos with transfected human genes for
growing (within the body of the animal) various extra organs intended for
human transplants (these animals are known generally as chimeras). At some point in its
laboratory lifespan, of course, the chimera will die. It would seem that the ethical rules
that apply here would certainly also apply in Tandon’s questioned case, if not more so.
[image insert, right] Medicine – ghost heart – This
decellularized “ghost heart” can serve as a scaffold upon which to grow a working heart
from human stem cells. Researchers at the Texas Heart Institute created it by stripping
all the living cells from a pig heart with a soap solution, which bursts the cells and leaves
only the protein structure behind. The scientists have successfully implanted tissueengineered hearts into rats and pigs so far. They hope ultimately to create personalized
human hearts and thus relieve the shortage of donor organs. Image: Courtesy of RMR
Labs, Texas Heart Institute
For myself, the primary ecological and ethical concerns underlying biodesign are 1]
engineering new strains of microbial life to serve the purposes of the designers (which
raises ecological and biological “tampering” concerns), and, 2] living up to the ecological
aesthetic (and standard) propounded by these various designers.
In regards to the former concern, we learn of an altered (bioengineered) and improved
form of bacteria that Tandon (and Lee, presumably) use in their experiments , and later,
Joachim mentions his desire to create a novel microbe that secrets the protein chitin
(normally produced by arthropods), while bio-artist Brodyk uses a “transformed” (i.e.,
genetically altered) bacterium . From the remainder of the text, we easily infer that other
such engineered improvements (to microbes) are to come in the near future. I am not
necessarily opposed to this in all cases (in fact, it’s done rather routinely in bio-tech
research labs). However, many might have reservations about DIY genomic tampering of
this kind (imagine the creative possibilities: basement ‘citizen biologists’ engineering
new strains of bacteria). Although the authors do question the use and exploitation (as
with Riedel-Kruse’s patent) of super cells, there is nary a mention of any ethical concern
with the genetic and genomic tampering (by non-scientists especially) used to acquire
them. If Joachim’s vision of a chitin-producing bacterium were achieved, it would be,
technically, a transgenic life form, for although bacteria do indeed “swap” genes, they
generally do not do so with different phyla or taxonomic domains (i.e., a bacteria
incorporating chitin-producing genes from arthropoda), with the possible exception of
some gut microbiota. The ethical justifications for these new cellular creations is not
addressed.
In regards to the latter concern, designer Suzanne Lee claims a ”reduced ecological
footprint” in her cellular designs — which I do not reject entirely – if one is
comparing her technique with conventional fashion design processes – but to be rigorous
and thorough (and conduct due diligence), one must include the sourcing of every
component in one’s supply chain, and that must include the tech used to make or facilitate
these bio-designed fashions. This is not a trivial thing, for often (as noted earlier with
Joachim’s creations) non-sustainable or ecologically harmful lurk hidden even in the
most high-minded and eco-conscious efforts. And while Lee asserts the non-necessity of
having a lab (to produce the cell by-products), many of these experiments are the result or
product of bio-laboratory operations and technologies (bio-reactors, perfusion chambers,
etc.). At one point, Joachim actually refers to the need to acquire “machine parts” and lab
equipment to achieve a certain experimental end product. Such machines and equipment,
and their construction materials and waste products, are the result of manufacturing
processes that are far from environmentally friendly (even with standards and
regulations). These materials are apparently not included in the ecological calculus
of these biodesign efforts.
In conventional commercial industries, such things are known as “externalities” as they
are “external” to the profit-loss calculations of the industry (note: pollution and waste are
the primary externalities, unaccounted for, in most heavy industries). For example, were
these materials “sourced” for minimal ecological impact? Metals (for machine parts) can
be acquired through recycling technology, or, in their ore form from mining, which then
must be refined considerably (a highly-polluting process). Also, lab equipment often
involves plastics and silicon, both of which pose various environmental hazards. And,
lastly, perhaps most fundamental to the cells’ existence in the first place, there is the
sugar upon which our super cells must feed (is its source a sugarcane plantation that
replaced a forest?). I do not mean to nit pick, but if one’s goal is a “new harmony with
Nature”, and, if one is going to refer to one’s creation (as Joachim does with the meat
house) as “unsullied Nature itself”, then one must account for such things, if one wishes
to be taken seriously (and serve as a guide for future, sustainable, cellular creations).
But I don t wish to harp on this point excessively. The artists and designers we are
introduced to here appear to have a clear ethos and eco-consciousness (if rather utopian at
times) and I have little doubt that this mindfulness (and perhaps this review) will guide
their future efforts in this realm. Further, I could not honestly review this book and
not admit my belief in the intrinsic value and validity of most of these experiments in
biodesign.
As to the limited access to synthetic biology tools (and labs), the authors are looking
beyond this limitation and envision the tools of synthetic biology and bio design
becoming available, in some form, to the masses. And this is indeed happening with the
emerging DIY Bio movement. But, as featured apparel designer Suzanne Lee states:
“You don’t need a bio lab. You don’t need to be a scientist.” Perhaps not, but it helps if
one has friends with a lab, or, are real scientists (and if the would-be bio-designer has
some working knowledge of biology and bio-chemistry).
There is one other major challenge facing a potential bio-designed future — if one truly
believes this technology can/will “transform” the whole of modern society and culture —
and that is scalability. This expansion of the scale of production (even for individuals
seeking practical uses) would seem to be a prerequisite for such a grand societal impact.
This, of course, means actualizing some type of mass production, and this, in turn, means
commercialization (whether for everyday consumer or industrial usage). These factors
will need to be addressed, or completely circumvented/superseded (e.g., through adoption
solely by individuals for their own practical living purposes, via 3D printing tech), in
order to bring us closer to the harmonious partnership and relationship with Technology
and Nature envisioned by our intrepid bio-designers.
Super Cells ends with an Afterword that seeks to tie together the various creative efforts
described in the chapters and ground the book’s content in an ethical framework. As
noted earlier in the book, our two authors are “both in the business of designing
environments that are meant to protect and nurture living things” and certainly, this
“business” endeavor manages to come through, though sometimes, it struggles to do so; it
is not always clear how this protection and nurturing is fulfilled or effected through these
(admittedly) fascinating applications of cellular “technology”. My impression as to the
point of this afterword (reflecting the overall content) is to solidify the territorial claims
of the noted cellular pioneers (the two authors included), cross promote each other’s
science-biodesign social networks, and suggest future collaborative possibilities amongst
these same “players”.
Perhaps to off-set this motive, the authors eventually assert their ultimate purpose here,
which is to “cause an explosion of innovation around grown materials”. And with that,
there is what seems to be a final “handing over of the torch” to those — yet to arrive on
the scene – who will further usher us into this wondrous future world of biodesign.
Thank you, oh marvelous biodesign pioneers!
Here’s a link to the TED Books webpage for Super Cells: Building With Biolog
===============================================================
Book Review EXTRACT:
‘Building With Biology – The Hope (and Hype) Of Biodesign’ {A TED eBook review by
Michael Ricciardi}
Part 'history of', part ‘how to’, and a good portion hype, Super Cells ~ Building With Biology,
by Nina Tandon and Mitchell Joachim, is a fascinating, inspiring, and not-infrequently selfpromoting/congratulating celebration of the “collision of Biology, Design and Digital
Fabrication."
The book heralds a new movement referred to as bio-design, in which diverse designers
appropriate the tools and methods of bio-engineering as well as a relatively new scientific
discipline called synthetic biology (note: synthetic biology seeks to synthetically replicate
cellular and biological processes and mechanisms for human ends) to ostensibly "transform"
the whole of modern society and culture.
Bio-design, according to co-author and architect Mitchell Joachim, is the "cure for
affluenza” and, in the long evolutionary path of human society, “is the next step toward a
resilient harmony where human kind and Nature seamlessly blend.”
Taking us from Medicine (focusing on tissue engineering) and Architecture to Fashion, Food
and Art/Entertainment, Super Cells -- a TED eBook -- is replete with momentous
declarations like “The time of building with living cells has arrived”(!) and generous
pepperings of techno-hep buzz phrases like "disruptive technology" and "paradigm shift",
along with a plethora of bio-techno neologisms and eco-ethical sentiments.
For those living without the Internet for the past half dozen years, the annual TED
(Technology, Entertainment, and Design) conference has spawned innumerable 'TED talk"
videos -- known for their provocative topics, cool visuals, and often over-hyped achievements
and speculative predictions -- and, more recently, TED Books.
Super Cells, at a mere 72 pages in length, is none-the-less rich with
cellular experiments and explorations inspired by this new bio-aesthetic. The book is
comprised of six chapters covering the spectrum of biodesign endeavors and innovations: 1]
Medicine: Living Devices, 2] Architecture: Grow a Home, 3] Fashion: Cellular Atelier, 4]
Food: Ranch in a Lab, 5] Art: Cellular Muses, 6] Entertainment: Biotic Games.
Chapters 2 and 5 are written by Joachim, the remainder by Tandon. The two styles of writing
generally work well enough (like inter-woven branches) with Tandon's writing being a bit
more technical and serious sounding, and Joachim's writing being a bit more fluid and
"arty". The ebook's introduction manages to lay out the basic ideas of the book and enjoins
the reader to "imagine the possibilities"and lists ”self-healing bridges, plentiful human body
parts, high-tech fabrics..." as just a sampling of the marvels awaiting us in this brave, new,
bio-designed world. It almost sounds utopian. Indeed, a barely restrained eco-technoutopianism pervades many of the chapters in the book.
For myself, the primary ecological and ethical concerns underlying biodesign are 1]
engineering new strains of bacteria to serve the purposes of the designers (which raises
several ecological concerns), and, 2] living up to the high ecological aesthetic /standard
propounded by these various designers.
In regards to the former concern, we learn of an altered (bioengineered) and improved form
of bacteria that Tandon (and Lee, presumably) use in their experiments, and later, Joachim
mentions his desire to create a novel microbe that secrets the protein chitin (normally
produced by arthropods), while bio-artist Brodyk uses a "transformed" (i.e., genetically
altered) bacterium . From the remainder of the text, we easily infer that other such
engineered improvements (to microbes) are to come in the near future. I am not necessarily
opposed to this in all cases (it's done rather routinely in bio-tech research labs). However,
many might have reservations about DIY genomic tampering of this kind (imagine the
creative possibilities: basement 'citizen biologists' engineering new strains of bacteria).
Although the authors do question the use and exploitation of super cells (as with RiedelKruse's patent), there is nary a mention of any ethical concern with the genetic and genomic
tampering used to produce them.
In regards to the latter concern, designer Suzanne Lee claims a ”reduced ecological footprint”
in her cellular designs -- which I do not reject entirely -- if one is comparing her technique
with conventional fashion design processes -- but to be rigorous and thorough, one must
include the sourcing of every component in one's supply chain, and that must include the
tech used to make or facilitate these bio-designed fashions. This is not a trivial thing, for
often non-sustainable or ecologically harmful materials lurk hidden even in the most highminded and eco-conscious efforts. And while Lee asserts the non-necessity of having a lab (to
produce cell tissues and by-products), many of these experiments are the result or product of
bio-laboratory operations and equipment/technologies. [wc: 737]
At one point, co-author Joachim actually refers to the need to acquire "machine parts" and
lab equipment to achieve a certain experimental end product. Such machines and equipment,
and their construction materials and waste products, are the result of manufacturing
processes that are far from environmentally friendly (even with standards and regulations).
These materials are apparently not included in the ecological calculus of these biodesign
efforts.
In conventional commercial industries, such things are known as "externalities" as they are
"external" to the profit-loss calculations of the industry (note: pollution and waste are the
primary externalities, unaccounted for, in most heavy industries). For example, were these
materials "sourced" for minimal ecological impact? Metals (for machine parts) can be
acquired through recycling technology, or, in their ore form from mining, which then must
be refined considerably (a highly-polluting process). Also, lab equipment often involves
plastics and silicon, both of which pose various environmental hazards. And, lastly, perhaps
most fundamental to the cells' existence in the first place, there is the sugar upon which our
super cells must feed (is its source a sugarcane plantation that replaced a forest?). I do not
mean to nit pick, but if one's goal is a "new harmony with Nature", and, if one is going to
refer to one's creation (as Joachim does with the meat house) as "unsullied Nature itself",
then one must account for such things, if one wishes to be taken seriously (and serve as a
guide for future, sustainable, cellular creations).
But I don t wish to harp on this point excessively. The authors, artists and designers we are
introduced to here certainly appear to have a clear ethos and eco-consciousness (if rather
utopian at times) and I have little doubt that this mindfulness (and perhaps this review) will
guide their future efforts in this realm. Further, I could not honestly review this book and
not admit my belief in the intrinsic value and validity of these experiments in biodesign.
As to the limited access to synthetic biology tools (and labs), the authors are looking beyond
this limitation and envision the tools of synthetic biology and bio design becoming available,
in some form, to the masses. And this is indeed happening. The nascent "DIY bio" movement
(i.e., improvised bio-labs set up in garages and basements by entrepreneurial scientists and
citizens) lends some support to his vision. That said, as featured apparel designer Suzanne
Lee states in the chapter Fashion: cellular atelier: “you don’t need a bio lab. You don’t need
to be a scientist.” No, but it helps if one has friends who do, or are (and if the would-be biodesigner has some working knowledge of biology and bio-chemistry).
There is one other major challenge facing a potential bio-designed future -- if one truly
believes this technology can/will "transform" the whole of modern society and culture -- and
that is scalability. This expansion of the scale of production (even for individuals seeking
practical uses) would seem to be a prerequisite for such a grand societal impact. This, of
course, means actualizing some type of mass production, and this, in turn, means
commercialization (whether for everyday consumer or industrial usage). These factors will
need to be addressed, or completely circumvented/superseded (e.g., through adoption solely
by lone individuals for their own practical living purposes), in order to bring us closer to the
harmonious partnership and relationship with technology and Nature envisioned by our
intrepid bio-designers.
Wc: 1364