Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T07:52:02.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2023

A response to the following question: Does biotech education need new teaching methodologies?

Callie R. Chappell*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford, CA, USA
Rolando Perez
Affiliation:
Xinampa, Salinas, CA, USA
Corinne Okada Takara
Affiliation:
Okada Design/Nest Makerspace, Honolulu, HI, USA
*
Corresponding author: Callie R. Chappell; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The biotechnology design (biodesign) enterprise is reshaping our relationship with nature and requires broad public engagement for innovative and ethical development. However, current biodesign programs are often limited to formal education settings such as universities, community colleges, and high schools. To grow deeper networks with and among communities that are often excluded, we need new approaches and learning spaces. These must expand the diversity of voices that frame biodesign questions and drive when, where, and how we practice biotechnology design. Through our work, we have found that community-based biodesign spaces (informal learning spaces) can empower multidirectional and multigenerational knowledge exchange and advance a more diverse, inclusive, and innovative biodesign enterprise. In this article, we illustrate the benefits of a biodesign education ecosystem through case studies of three learning spaces: (1) a community bio laboratory, (2) an educational summer camp, and (3) an art-based maker space. This informal educational ecosystem brings together artists, educators, activists, and researchers to elevate ancestral science knowledge, creativity, play, and storytelling as central to biodesign education. While each is important independently, emergent power comes from connections between community biotechnology design spaces. By highlighting successful approaches used across these spaces, our three case studies show how diverse community engagement can sustain a vibrant biodesign ecosystem. Our findings can inform existing biodesign approaches and broaden their impact to grow a more innovative, relevant, and accountable biodesign enterprise.

Type
Impact Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Biodesign can advance a more just and equitable world, socially, environmentally, and economically. For example, biotechnology innovation can address global challenges such as climate change (DeLisi et al., Reference DeLisi, Patrinos, MacCracken, Drell, Annas, Arkin, Church, Cook-Deegan, Jacoby, Lidstrom, Melillo, Milo, Paustian, Reilly, Roberts, Segrè, Solomon, Woolf, Wullschleger and Yang2020), global health (Douglas and Stemerding, Reference Douglas and Stemerding2013), and food production (Goold et al., Reference Goold, Wright and Hailstones2018; Wurtzel et al., Reference Wurtzel, Vickers, Hanson, Millar, Cooper, Voss-Fels, Nikel and Erb2019; Roell and Zurbriggen, Reference Roell and Zurbriggen2020). However, current policy discourse about biotechnology innovation is dominated by manufacturing, formal institutions of higher education, and major government entities (El-Chichakli et al., Reference El-Chichakli, von Braun, Lang, Barben and Philp2016). This can overlook the power of local communities and regional development in global biotechnology innovation (Shapira et al., Reference Shapira, Matthews, Cizauskas, Aurand, Friedman, Layton, Maxon, Palmer and Stamford2022). To advance a biotechnology enterprise that is just, equitable, and truly innovative, everyone must be involved.

Local knowledge, culture, and resources are key drivers of biotechnology innovation (Vossoughi et al., Reference Vossoughi, Hooper and Escudé2016). Ancestral biodesign practices, Reimagining cultural practices, such as fermenting foods or gardening, as biotechnology design can empower everyone to see themselves as biodesigners and overcome barriers to engagement in biotechnology design (Chappell et al., Reference Chappell, Perez and Corinne2022). For example, Indigenous and ancestral knowledge can support planetary flourishing (Kimmerer, Reference Kimmerer2002; Meissner, Reference Meissner2022; Watson et al., Reference Watson and Studio2019). Technology design by and for communities, using local resources and knowledge, can improve design circularity and lead to more environmentally sustainable practices (Parsons et al., Reference Parsons, Fisher and Nalau2016; Lam et al., Reference Lam, Zamenopoulos, Kelemen and Hoo Na2017). Centering technology workflows, manufacturing, and deployment all within local communities can sustain local economies and improve regional self-determination (De Silva et al., Reference De Silva, Khan, Vorley and Zeng2020; Jagtap, Reference Jagtap2022a, Reference Jagtap2022b).

Existing support for local and regional biotechnology development rely primarily on institutions of formal education such as schools, colleges, universities, and government-funded institutes. While these formal education and research spaces are beneficial, they also have limitations. Economic inequality influences which schools and universities have access to biodesign programming. Even for schools with resources, implementing biodesign programming is difficult due to the cost of teacher training, fitting within already cramped curricula and class schedules, and building out lab spaces (Lui et al., Reference Lui, Kafai, Walker, Hanna, Hogan and Telhan2019). Similarly, engagement in scientific research, particularly in synthetic biology and bioengineering, are extremely limited (“The next 25 years,” 2021). Few universities offer programs in biotechnology design, and those are often “elite” and largely inaccessible (Mercer, Reference Mercer2015). Reliance on graduate training in biotechnology is a huge barrier to participation. To overcome these limitations, biotechnology design must also include community-based approaches that expand beyond formal settings (Sacchi et al., Reference Sacchi, Lotti and Branduardi2021).

Biodesign spaces can thrive in informal community spaces such as gardens, libraries, art spaces, and even at home. A community-based approach to biodesign education that uses these informal learning spaces can broaden participation in biodesign, foster community building, and serve as unexpected sites of innovation (Schoenberg, Reference Schoenberg2022). Examples of community-based biotechnology design spaces include community biology laboratories, educational programming outside of schools, colleges, and universities, and biodesign integrated into art spaces (Figure 1). These biotechnology design spaces can exist in partnership with formal institutions or exist independently as community organizations, nonprofits, or informal gatherings.

Figure 1. Like la Milpa, a Mesoamerican social and agricultural practice (pictured), the biodesign ecosystem is supported by three sisters: community bio labs, bio-art spaces, and STEAM education. These spaces are nurtured by approaches such as social awareness, activism, generative learning, culturally responsive teaching, and others. Together, the ecosystem supports processes such as social change, environmental sustainability, technology development, and worker justice.

One example of community-organized biotechnology design spaces are community biology laboratories (community bio labs) (Scheifele and Burkett, Reference Scheifele and Burkett2016; de Lange et al., Reference de Lange, Dunn and Peek2022). Community bio labs, which exist across the globe, are typically nonprofits that have a physical lab space used for experimentation and education. For the most part, community bio labs operate independently, are supported by local members, and are driven by local needs and interests (de Lange et al., Reference de Lange, Youngflesh, Ibarra, Perez and Kaplan2021; Jorgensen and Grushkin, Reference Jorgensen and Grushkin2011; Grushkin et al., Reference Grushkin, Kuiken and Millet2013).

Biotechnology design education can also occur outside labs in maker spaces, libraries, community gardens, museums, town centers, farmers markets, art spaces, and more (Barton et al., Reference Barton, Tan and Greenberg2017). These spaces can host educational programs such as after school/summer programming and workshops that focus on biotechnology design (Walker and Kafai, Reference Walker and Kafai2021). Such programs can combine teaching strategies such as culturally relevant pedagogy (Brown, Reference Brown2019) and community co-design (Aksela, Reference Aksela2019; Peurach et al., Reference Peurach, Russell, Cohen-Vogel and Penuel2022) with “on the street” programming to inspire students to become biodesigners (Chappell et al., Reference Chappell, Perez and Corinne2022). Such programming can provide a range of low-floor (not requiring advanced knowledge) and high-ceiling (enabling open-ended learning) activities that engage the broader public and build awareness of biodesign as a potential career path early in students’ academic careers (Balmer and Bulpin, Reference Balmer and Bulpin2013; Roberts et al., Reference Roberts, Jackson, Mohr-Schroeder, Bush, Maiorca, Cavalcanti, Craig Schroeder, Delaney, Putnam and Cremeans2018; Walker, Reference Walker2021).

As a field, bio-art exists at the intersection of biotechnology and design (Bureaud et al., Reference Bureaud, Malina and Whiteley2014; Melkozernov and Sorensen, Reference Melkozernov and Sorensen2021). However, art and design spaces are often overlooked sources of bioengineering innovation by scientists. Artist studios and maker spaces already support creative making and design. Collaborations between artists and bioengineers can start in art spaces such as studios, galleries, and museums (Chappell and Muglia, Reference Chappell and Muglia2023). These art spaces can generate speculative design, serve as technology incubators, and shift cultural awareness toward biodesign (Idema, Reference Idema2012; Romanyuk et al., Reference Romanyuk, Романюк and Pavlov2021).

Here, we give three examples of community biodesign spaces focused on the agricultural community of Salinas, California (USA) (Figure 2). After sharing their individual missions, we will describe how the three organizations work together to support a local community biodesign ecosystem, analogous to the so-called, “three sisters,” the corn, bean, and squash of the sociocultural practice practiced throughout the Americas, sometimes referred to as la Milpa (Figures 1 and 3). Finally, we will share practices we learned for growing similar programming and connections (Table 1). By taking this holistic approach, growing local biodesign ecosystems can address systems-level challenges (Farrell et al., Reference Farrell, Penuel, Allen, Anderson, Bohannon, Coburn and Brown2022). Community-based biodesign can increase interest in (and reduce fear of) biology. By promoting public involvement, we can increase engagement by historically underrepresented communities in biodesign and inspire a love of biology broadly.

Figure 2. Three case studies of interrelated community biodesign spaces, including (A) Xinampa, a community bio lab, (B) BioJam, a STEAM education program, and (C) the Nest Makerspace, a bio-art studio.

Figure 3. Community biodesign spaces can connect through (A) participants and instructors, (B) curricula, (C) materials, and (D) connections and spaces.

Table 1. Examples of community biodesign activities for each tool

Community-based biodesign spaces: Three case studies

A community focus in biotechnology design requires a sense of place, generational connections, and trust between organizations, individuals, and actors within the community. Three organizations focused on Salinas, CA (USA) are case studies for local, community-based biotechnology design (Figure 2). We will provide a brief overview of each space, their interrelated missions, and how each collaborates to collectively strengthen the local biodesign ecosystem.

Salinas, located in the Salinas Valley of Monterey County (USA), sits on the unceded lands of the Rumsen, Mutsun, and Ohlone peoples. The Salinas Valley’s Mediterranean climate sustains a significant agricultural industry with deep historical and political significance. Salinas has a population of 162,791 residents, 79% are of Hispanic or Latino heritage, 30% are under the age of 18, only 16% have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 14% live in poverty, a rate 10% higher than the national average (U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, 2020). The Salinas area, known as the “salad bowl of the world,” is widely recognized as a global hub for agricultural technology, despite greater than 34% of Monterey County residents reporting that they cannot afford enough food (County of Monterey, 2019). Despite its proximity to the Bay Area of California, one of the biotechnology hubs of the United States, Salinas residents are largely absent from biodesign conversations, which currently center on elite and often exclusionary spaces such as universities, companies, and art schools.

Xinampa: a community bioscience laboratory in Salinas, California.

Xinampa is a community bio lab that empowers individuals to activate, create, and innovate with biology (Figure 2A). Xinampa’s members are largely from Salinas or have kinship roots in agricultural labor. Xinampa offers workshops in the lab, at local schools, and public events. These workshops are designed to facilitate ways for community members to develop culturally relevant pedagogies, public interest technology and, ultimately, community-based wealth, self-sufficiency, and control of modern technology.

BioJam: a community bioscience educational project anchored in the greater San Francisco Bay Area of California.

BioJam is a summer camp where research scientists and artists collaborate with local high school students, now primarily migrant students from Salinas (Figure 2B). BioJam’s mission is to re-envision the future of bioengineering and biodesign through education. By centering biodesign programming on cultural knowledge and art, the program reframes who is a scientist and what science can be. In addition to serving youth, the program engages Stanford students, artists, and community educators in biodesign education as co-learners and practitioners. Through this program, teens (middle and high school-aged community members) develop and conduct workshops for their communities, sharing what they have learned as experts.

Nest Makerspace: an R&D garage makerspace in Hawai’i, formerly in the Bay Area of California.

The Nest Makerspace is a garage makerspace of artist Corinne Takara that focuses on playful and accessible biomaking explorations (Figure 2C). It has served as the research and development space for curricula created for BioJam Camp and Xinampa, as well as many other organizations. The Nest Makerspace brings decades of art activism, community pop-up street STEM workshops, lesson plans, program development, as well as connections to an international network of community biolabs.

Connecting community biodesign spaces

While each space leads its own set of programming, connections between each group result in deeper engagement and exploration of biodesign concepts. Collaborations can amplify and elevate biodesign explorations at the intersection of art, sustainability, ethics, and civic engagement. Here, we highlight how multiple organizations with different, but interrelated missions can collaborate to advance biotechnology design (Figure 3).

First, each organization worked together by sharing instructors and participants (Figure 3A). Xinampa, BioJam, and Nest Makerspace collaborated to develop biodesign programming for a core group of teens based in Salinas, CA. Teens who first participated in activities in one space, for example, an aquaponics workshop with Xinampa, could enroll in BioJam’s summer camp, or the Biodesign Challenge team with Nest Makerspace. Similarly, facilitators at BioJam were also involved in Nest Makerspace and Xinampa. One collaboration between the three organizations that shared instructors and participants focused on a local science museum in San Francisco, CA. The museum was hosting a Latinx Engineering Day and collaborated with Xinampa to host two biodesign workshops. At this event, BioJam teens led both biodesign workshops and helped revise hands-on activities developed in the Nest Makerspace. The activities invited participants to make root observation tools made from small clear plastic containers using culturally relevant seeds from la Milpa, an Indigenous agricultural co-cultivation practice that includes the “three sisters:” corn, squash, and beans (illustrated in Figure 1). La Milpa is familiar to many Salinas residents; many teens cultivate their own Milpa in their gardens at home or with family members in Mexico. Participants planted these seeds in agar-based hydrogel beads, which can function as a clear soil replacement. These beads, which are familiar to the teens as the toy Orbeez, were saturated with banana, seaweed, and eggshell liquid fertilizers and grown in a clear tic tac container. Over time, teens could observe the roots of la Milpa growing through the clear container and soil. This activity highlighted the ecological benefits of ancestral permaculture techniques and natural fertilizers on plant growth. The root study tools, developed at the Nest Makerspace for a Salinas Biodesign Challenge team in 2021, were adapted by Xinampa for workshops at a local park and a science museum in San Francisco, CA (USA). The seeds of squash, beans, and corn were passed among the organizations to nurture conversations centered on the importance of ancestral knowledge (Milpa and fertilizers) in contemporary root research. These events grew connections with other community organizations as well. Xinampa invited a local theater group in Salinas, Baktun12, to develop and perform a live stage performance about biotechnology called The History of Shaping BIology, which was spoken in a mix of Spanish and English.

Second, curricula were shared and prototyped between BioJam, Xinampa, and Nest Makerspace (Figure 3B). Since curriculum design is an interactive process, projects that start in one space can be shared and prototyped for new groups and audiences across multiple organizations. For example, a cyanotype self portrait activity was designed at the Nest Makerspace for the Xinampa-led Opentrons Lab Automation workshop series. Cyanotypes are a chemical-based photographic technique that requires chemical washes similar to that used to wash lettuce in produce processing facilities. This exercise was meant to use art to highlight chemical use in agriculture. Teen participants combined local plants, their silhouettes, sunlight, and chemicals to create art. Although the original workshop was canceled due to the onset of COVID-19, the project was iterated upon and became part of BioJam Camp. A dual silhouette version was used to explore connections between nature and community. The next year, BioJam incorporated a new element: a poem about teen’s identity and culture.

The efficacy of curricula was evaluated using qualitative assessment tools such as teen-designed sticker surveys. In the BioJam pilot year, participants were asked to assess their perceptions of themselves and of their family/community as science knowledge bearers, as well as their interest in STEM, on a daily basis. Each day, participants placed a unique sticker each day on sheet to represent their self-assessment. Watching the stickers change, students were surprised to see their confidence as science knowledge bearers rise early in the week, fall midweek as they became aware of new domains of science, and then rise again as they began to plan for the workshops they would design and lead about these new domains. In discussions about how they were feeling about the process of their knowledge sharing and gaining, participants grew with the ebb and flow of confidence in these learning spaces. Overall, their interest in STEM rose over the course of the camp and they shared that the culturally focused bio-art components were their favorite parts of the day. These surveys and discussions emphasized the importance of weaving culture and existing knowledge into all segments of the programming and a key insight was that they regained confidence as they started designing community workshops.

Third, shared use of biodesign materials can connect organizations and groups (Figure 3C). Because biomaterials can be challenging to grow, collaborative networks are often formed. These networks, for example, share starter cultures and knowledge about how to grow materials. The use of mycelium as a biomaterial has been a connector between the Nest Makerspace, Xinampa, and BioJam. In the Nest Makerspace, a team of teen biodesigners conducted experiments growing mycelium in a range of feedstocks and geometries. Next, BioJam Camp teens explored new processes for mycelium grown assemblies as quilt squares and presented this work at an academic conference on additive manufacturing. These explorations were co-designed with teens and informed Xinampa’s biomaterials programming. Xinampa now involves local businesses, such as a brewery, which provides feedstock to grow mycelium materials. Focusing on the teens’ existing cultural knowledge anchored all of these journeys. Participants were invited to bring in their own locally sourced feedstocks and to design culturally relevant forms.

Fourth, organizations can share community connections and spaces to expand the impact of programming (Figure 3D). Connections in one organization, when shared with others, can help their programming grow and new relationships form. For example, the Nest Makerspace and BioJam expanded programming about mealworms that spanned community colleges, summer camps, workforce development spaces, and museums. Nest Makerspace originally developed curricula showing how mealworms digest plastics for local community colleges. Later, at BioJam Camp, teens developed a hands-on activity where participants became “mealworm chefs,” donning chef’s hats and preparing tiny pizzas and sushi made of polystyrene for the worms. Teens led these activities at a local science museum in San Jose, CA and workforce development center in Salinas, CA.

Toolbox of approaches

Together, these three spaces have developed educational strategies to engage their local communities. These focus on multidirectional and multigenerational knowledge exchange through culture and ancestral knowledge. We present a summary of some approaches developed through these collaborations, with examples highlighted in Table 1.

Generative learning

Generative learning, a practice of multidirectional sharing and growing vocabulary together, draws in collaborators’ existing cultural knowledge and lived experience (Osborne and Wittrock, Reference Osborne and Wittrock2008; Edwards, Reference Edwards2011; Eglash et al., Reference Eglash, Lachney, Babbitt, Bennett, Reinhardt and Davis2020). One generative learning approach is inviting communities to redefine terms and approaches through their culture, storytelling, and science knowledge (Rosebery et al., Reference Rosebery, Ogonowski, DiSchino and Warren2010; Barajas-López and Bang, Reference Barajas-López and Bang2018). For example, asking participants to bring in materials from their kitchen, a garden, or local surroundings can be a generative learning practice to explore biomaterials. This approach empowers participant’s cultural expertise and place-based knowledge and encourages students to dually serve in an educator role.

Playful learning

Playful learning through exploration and creativity cultivates a sense of control and ownership, helping to reduce anxiety associated with assessment and expectations to perform well. Biodesign is well suited to playful learning. Play builds trusted spaces where judgment is suspended and questions can be asked. Knowledge can be collaboratively grown together. Playful learning invites curiosity, imagination, and iteration in ways that are often absent in formal learning environments, and yet are crucial for bio innovation. Additionally, play frameworks can be malleable in serving participants’ needs for a sense of connection, expression, healing, and escape (Hunter-Doniger, Reference Hunter-Doniger2021).

Reflection and rituals

To compliment building and learning time, we also incorporate time for reflection and rituals. Time for reflection on provenance of cultural heritage, genealogy, and land is often taken at the beginning of meetings. For example, participants can share their personal and cultural histories during an opening conocimiento (Mendez-Negrete, Reference Mendez-Negrete2013; Jaime-Diaz and Méndez-Negrete, Reference Jaime-Diaz, Méndez-Negrete and Hernández-Serrano2021). To close workshops or meetings, we create time to share gratitude and thanks.

Storytelling of, for, and by

Storytelling is a powerful tool for broadening conceptions of STEAM and inviting exploration (Hunter-Doniger et al., Reference Hunter-Doniger, Howard, Harris and Hall2018; Will Wieder, Reference Wieder2006). Empowering participants to share their stories in a biodesign context position them and their culture knowledge as central to the educational process (Tzou et al., Reference Tzou, Suárez, Bell, LaBonte, Starks and Bang2019). Youth participating in Salinas-based programming with Nest Makerspace, Xinampa, and BioJam often have a deep knowledge of agricultural systems. Cultivating spaces where they could share their stories, experiences, and cultural narratives on these topics highlighted them as experts on biodesign to themselves, their peers, families, and other audiences.

Frugal design tools

To improve accessibility to biodesign, we use frugal science tools, scientific tools composed of repurposed common objects (Reardon, Reference Reardon2013; Byagathvalli et al., Reference Byagathvalli, Challita and Bhamla2021). In low-resource settings, sharing make-and-take tools made of low-cost materials can extend learning and play beyond individual workshops or programs. Not only can participants use what they made at home, they can also easily acquire the same materials to share what they learned with friends and family. This encourages scientific discussions at home and helps expand equitable access to biodesign.

Social awareness, critical thought, and action

Focusing programming on social awareness and community activism is essential for transformational change. Biodesign must expand beyond a single workshop or program; participants can continue to engage with their neighbors and family by sharing new skills and co-designing solutions. By contextualizing biodesign concepts into broader social frameworks, such as environmental and racial justice, biodesign programming can empower structural change.

Conclusions and perspectives

In this paper, we have demonstrated the benefits of a biodesign ecosystem that focuses on supporting local communities. Specifically, we have shown how community-based learning spaces can collaborate, resulting in increased interest in biodesign. Through our three case studies, we have shown how our biodesign ecosystem has engaged a diversity of underserved communities to expand culturally relevant biodesign conversations and cultivate new career pathways. We hope that in sharing frameworks from our community biomaking spaces, we can expand our work into new communities.

In order to grow communities empowered to make with biology, we need community-based biomaking ecosystems across the globe. In communities where the nucleating sites and critical mass of people necessary for cultivating a biodesign ecosystem do not exist, existing sites of cultural exchange, such as local parks, block parties, farmers markets, county fairs, spiritual or religious gatherings, and municipal civic events, might serve as places to get started. Key characteristics that communities might look for are multigenerational, culturally vibrant, and emphasize mutual care. For example, after working in the Salinas Valley ecosystem, the Nest Makerspace moved to Hawai’i where it is now growing new biomaking collaborations through conversations with an Indigenous environmental nonprofit, scholars from the University of Hawai’i at Manoa Center for Indigenous Innovation and Health Equity, rural community centers, and a tool lending library. These initial collaborations center on locally important anchoring themes such as clean water or food sovereignty.

Seeding biotechnology conversations in new types of multigenerational spaces can broaden the notion of what biodesign is and who participates in it. This expansion will drive innovation. For example, agricultural communities have cultural knowledge and lived experience that, if amplified in biodesign conversations at the onset, can add perspectives that can translate into more innovative and meaningful biotechnologies. When we elevate the wisdom and perspectives of ancestral cultures, we can form new tools and systems to address climate change and reshape our place on earth. A biodesign ecosystem can be more resilient than a large centralized institution, more creative and innovative, more personal and local. Ecosystems of community biodesign spaces can facilitate the interweaving of knowledge and perspectives across generations, cultures, and species to imagine a sustainable future for all.

Data availability statement

No data was analyzed in the creation of this work.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to our communities, composed of human and non-human biology. We would like to thank many colleagues, mentors, and friends who have shaped this piece, especially David Kong, Justice Walker, Leon Elcock III, and Drew Endy. We especially appreciate feedback on this manuscript by two anonymous reviewers. CRC acknowledges collaborative support from Nixon Arauz, Megan Palmer, Samantha Zyontz, Sam Weiss Evans, and Peter Pellitier. RCP and COT thank Ana Ibarra, Leo Tejeda, Omar Perez, Steven Rhyans, and Matias Kaplan. RCP thanks MILPA Collective and TechActivist.org for inspiration. COT thanks Melissa Ortiz, Leticia Hernandez, and Emily Takara for collaboration and inspiration. The milpa imagery in Figure 1 was inspired by Ilda, a migrant BioJam teen.

Financial support

This work was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE 1656518) and a Stanford Graduate Fellowship (CRC). Xinampa received funding from the California Endowment, the James Irvine Foundation, the Latino Community Foundation, the Arts Council for Monterey County, the Tanimura Family Foundation, and Digital NEST. The Nest Makerspace received funding from the SV Creates XFactor for the Arts Grant, San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs Public Art Program, the Knight Foundation, a Science Sandbox Biodesign Challenge grant, and funding from the Biodesign Challenge. BioJam has been supported by the Migrant Education Program of California (Region XVI) and the Ethics, Society, and Technology Hub (Stanford University), and individual donors.

Competing interests

We have no competing interests to declare.

References

Connection references

Danies, G (2023) Does biotech education need new teaching methodologies? Research Directions: Biotechnology Design, 13. https://doi.org/10.1017/btd.2022.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Aksela, M (2019) Towards student-centred solutions and pedagogical innovations in science education through co-design approach within design-based research. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education 7, 3, 113139. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1240051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balmer, AS and Bulpin, KJ (2013) Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition. Biosocieties 8, 3, 311335. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.13 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barajas-López, F and Bang, M (2018) Indigenous making and sharing: Claywork in an indigenous STEAM program. Equity & Excellence in Education 51, 1, 720. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1437847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, A, Tan, E and Greenberg, D (2017) The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record 119, 6, 144. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=21785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, BA (2019) Science in the City: Culturally Relevant STEM Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Available at https://www.amazon.com/Science-City-Culturally-Relevant-Education/dp/1682533743 Google Scholar
Bureaud, A, Malina, RF and Whiteley, L (eds.) (2014) Meta-Life: Biotechnologies, Synthetic Biology, ALife and the Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Byagathvalli, G, Challita, EJ and Bhamla, MS (2021) Frugal science powered by curiosity. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 60, 44, 1587415884. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c02868 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappell, CR and Muglia, LJ (2023) Fostering science-art collaborations: A toolbox of resources. PLOS Biology 21, 2, e3001992. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001992 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappell, C, Perez, R and Corinne, T (2022) Bioengineering everywhere, for everyone. Issues in Science and Technology 38, 3, 8890. https://issues.org/biojam/ Google Scholar
Cybulski, JS, Clements, J and Prakash, M (2014) Foldscope: Origami-based paper microscope. PLOS ONE 9, 6, e98781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098781 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lange, O, Dunn, K and Peek, N (2022) “Short on time and big on ideas”: Perspectives from Lab Members on DIYBio Work in Community Biolabs (arXiv:2205.00079). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.00079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lange, O, Youngflesh, C, Ibarra, A, Perez, R and Kaplan, M (2021) Broadening participation: 21st century opportunities for amateurs in biology research. Integrative and Comparative Biology 61, 6, 22942305. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Silva, M, Khan, Z, Vorley, T and Zeng, J (2020) Transcending the pyramid: Opportunity co-creation for social innovation. Industrial Marketing Management 89, 471486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLisi, C, Patrinos, A, MacCracken, M, Drell, D, Annas, G, Arkin, A, Church, G, Cook-Deegan, R, Jacoby, H, Lidstrom, M, Melillo, J, Milo, R, Paustian, K, Reilly, J, Roberts, RJ, Segrè, D, Solomon, S, Woolf, D, Wullschleger, SD and Yang, X (2020) The role of synthetic biology in atmospheric greenhouse gas reduction: Prospects and challenges. BioDesign Research 2020. https://doi.org/10.34133/2020/1016207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, CMW and Stemerding, D (2013) Special issue editorial: Synthetic biology, global health, and its global governance. Systems and Synthetic Biology 7, 3, 6366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-013-9120-8 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, A (2011) Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research 50, 1, 3339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eglash, R, Lachney, M, Babbitt, W, Bennett, A, Reinhardt, M and Davis, J (2020) Decolonizing education with Anishinaabe arcs: Generative STEM as a path to indigenous futurity. Educational Technology Research and Development 68, 3, 15691593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09728-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Chichakli, B, von Braun, J, Lang, C, Barben, D and Philp, J (2016) Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy. Nature 535, 7611, 221223. https://doi.org/10.1038/535221a CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrell, CC, Penuel, WR, Allen, A, Anderson, ER, Bohannon, AX, Coburn, CE and Brown, SL (2022) Learning at the boundaries of research and practice: A framework for understanding research-practice partnerships. Educational Researcher 51, 3, 197208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211069073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goold, HD, Wright, P and Hailstones, D (2018) Emerging opportunities for synthetic biology in agriculture. Genes 9, 7, 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes9070341 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grushkin, D, Kuiken, T and Millet, P (2013) Seven Myths and Realities about Do-It-Yourself Biology (SYNBIO 5). https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/seven-myths-and-realities-about-do-it-yourself-biology-0.Google Scholar
Hunter-Doniger, T (2021) Early childhood STEAM education: The joy of creativity, autonomy, and play. Art Education 74, 4, 2227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2021.1905419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter-Doniger, T, Howard, C, Harris, R and Hall, C (2018) STEAM through culturally relevant teaching and storytelling. Art Education 71, 1, 4651. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1389593 Google Scholar
Idema, T (2012) Art come to life: The specificity and significance of bioart. BioSocieties 7, 2, 213219. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2012.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagtap, S (2022a) Codesign in resource-limited societies: Theoretical perspectives, inputs, outputs and influencing factors. Research in Engineering Design 33, 2, 191211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-022-00384-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagtap, S (2022b) Co-design with marginalised people: Designers’ perceptions of barriers and enablers. CoDesign 18, 3, 279302. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.1883065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaime-Diaz, J and Méndez-Negrete, J (2021) A guide for deconstructing social reproduction: Pedagogical conocimientos within the context of teacher education. In Hernández-Serrano, MJ (ed.), Teacher Education in the 21st Century, Chapter 17. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96213 Google Scholar
Jorgensen, ED and Grushkin, D (2011) Engage with, don’t fear, community labs. Nature Medicine 17, 4, 411. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0411-411 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimmerer, RW (2002) Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to action. BioScience 52, 5, 432438. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, B, Zamenopoulos, T, Kelemen, M and Hoo Na, J (2017) Unearth hidden assets through community co-design and co-production. The Design Journal 20, sup1, S3601S3610. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352863 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lui, D, Kafai, YB, Walker, JT, Hanna, S, Hogan, K and Telhan, O (2019) A revaluation of how we think about making: Examining assembly practices and artifact imagination in biomaking. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, pp. 3441. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, SN (2022) Teaching reciprocity: Gifting and land-based ethics in indigenous philosophy. Teaching Ethics 22, 1, 1737. https://doi.org/10.5840/tej2022221118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melkozernov, AN and Sorensen, V (2021) What drives bio-art in the twenty-first century? Sources of innovations and cultural implications in bio-art/biodesign and biotechnology. AI & SOCIETY 36, 4, 13131321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00940-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendez-Negrete, J (2013) Pedagogical conocimientos: Self and other in interaction. In NACCS Annual Conference Proceedings, p. 14. Available at https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1146&context=naccs Google Scholar
Mercer, D (2015) “iDentity” and governance in synthetic biology: Norms and counter norms in the, international genetically engineered machine, (iGEM) competition. In Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers (Archive), pp. 83103. https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/2073 Google Scholar
Osborne, R and Wittrock, M (2008) The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education 12, 1, 5987. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268508559923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, M, Fisher, K and Nalau, J (2016) Alternative approaches to co-design: Insights from indigenous/academic research collaborations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 20, 99105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peurach, DJ, Russell, JL, Cohen-Vogel, L and Penuel, W (2022) Solidarity-driven codesign: Evolving methdologies for expanding engagement with familial and community expertise. In The Foundational Handbook on Improvement Research in Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 383402.Google Scholar
Reardon, S (2013) Frugal science gets DIY diagnostics to world’s poorest. New Scientist 219, 2933, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(13)62184-3 Google Scholar
Roberts, T, Jackson, C, Mohr-Schroeder, MJ, Bush, SB, Maiorca, C, Cavalcanti, M, Craig Schroeder, D, Delaney, A, Putnam, L and Cremeans, C (2018) Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education 5, 1, 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roell, M-S and Zurbriggen, MD (2020) The impact of synthetic biology for future agriculture and nutrition. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 61, 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.10.004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romanyuk, O, Романюк, О and Pavlov, S (2021) Teaching and Subjects on Bio-medical Engineering. Approaches and Experiences from the BIOART-Project. Leuven (Belgium). Available at http://ir.lib.vntu.edu.ua//handle/123456789/34383 Google Scholar
Rosebery, AS, Ogonowski, M, DiSchino, M and Warren, B (2010) “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 19, 3, 322357. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20799331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacchi, S, Lotti, M and Branduardi, P (2021) Education for a biobased economy: Integrating life and social sciences in flexible short courses accessible from different backgrounds. New Biotechnology 60, 7275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheifele, LZ and Burkett, T (2016) The first three years of a community lab: Lessons learned and ways forward. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 17, 1, 8185. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoenberg, K (2022) Creating a science-eEngaged public. Issues in Science and Technology. Available at https://issues.org/creating-science-engaged-public-renoe-nelson/ Google Scholar
Shapira, P, Matthews, NE, Cizauskas, CE, Aurand, ER, Friedman, DA, Layton, DS, Maxon, ME, Palmer, MJ and Stamford, L (2022) Building a bottom-up bioeconomy. Issues in Science and Technology 38, 3. Available at https://issues.org/building-bioeconomy-engineering-biology-shapira/ Google Scholar
The next 25 years (2021) Nature Biotechnology 39, 3, 249249. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00872-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzou, C, Suárez, E, Bell, P, LaBonte, D, Starks, E and Bang, M (2019) Storywork in STEM-art: Making, materiality and robotics within everyday acts of indigenous presence and resurgence. Cognition and Instruction 37, 3, 306326. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau (2020) QuickFacts: Salinas, California. Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/salinascitycalifornia/INC110220 Google Scholar
Vossoughi, S, Hooper, PK and Escudé, M (2016) Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review 86, 2, 206232. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.86.2.206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, JT (2021) Middle school student knowledge of and attitudes toward synthetic biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology 30, 6, 791802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09919-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, JT and Kafai, YB (2021) The biodesign studio: Constructions and reflections of high school youth on making with living media. British Journal of Educational Technology 52, 3, 11161129. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J, Studio, W-E and TASCHEN (2019) Julia Watson. Lo―TEK. Design by Radical Indigenism. TASCHEN.Google Scholar
Wieder, W (2006) Science as story: Communicating the nature of science through historical perspectives of science. The American Biology Teacher 68, 4, 200205. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451967 Google Scholar
Wurtzel, ET, Vickers, CE, Hanson, AD, Millar, AH, Cooper, M, Voss-Fels, KP, Nikel, PI and Erb, TJ (2019) Revolutionizing agriculture with synthetic biology. Nature Plants 5, 12, 12071210. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0539-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Like la Milpa, a Mesoamerican social and agricultural practice (pictured), the biodesign ecosystem is supported by three sisters: community bio labs, bio-art spaces, and STEAM education. These spaces are nurtured by approaches such as social awareness, activism, generative learning, culturally responsive teaching, and others. Together, the ecosystem supports processes such as social change, environmental sustainability, technology development, and worker justice.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Three case studies of interrelated community biodesign spaces, including (A) Xinampa, a community bio lab, (B) BioJam, a STEAM education program, and (C) the Nest Makerspace, a bio-art studio.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Community biodesign spaces can connect through (A) participants and instructors, (B) curricula, (C) materials, and (D) connections and spaces.

Figure 3

Table 1. Examples of community biodesign activities for each tool

Author comment: Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation - R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Dr. Moniz,

Thank you for the invitation to submit an Impact Paper in your journal, Biotechnology Design.

In response to the invitation, we are pleased to submit a manuscript entitled “Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation.”

In this manuscript, we present a framework for community-based biotechnology design using three organizations collaborating in Salinas, California (USA) as case studies. First, we describe how the three organizations work together to form a community-based biodesign “ecosystem.” Second, we outline a toolbox of approaches that others can use to cultivate similar ecosystems in their communities. We believe our community-based approach that spans science, art, and education spaces will be of broad interest to your readership.

Thank you for considering our manuscript and look forward to hearing back in due course.

Sincerely,

Corinne Okada Takara, Rolando Cruz Perez, and Callie Chappell

Review: Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation - R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Summary:

This impact paper presents a vision for a biotechnology learning ecosystem that is equitable, community-engaged, holistic, and creative. The authors address pressing issues in biotechnology education such as the need to attend to the critical, political, and ethical implications of biotechnology innovation – however, the authors press beyond this noting that the design of biotechnology learning experiences and learning environments themselves must attend to critical and political dimensions of learning. They ask critical questions such as “who gets access to biodesign education?”, “what counts as biotechnical innovation?”, and “Whose perspectives and histories are being marginalized in current paradigms of biotechnology innovation and education?”. They note that currently, innovative biodesign education is often made inaccessible, particularly to marginalized communities, through a variety of intersecting factors such as lack of curricular flexibility in formal school settings or lack of resources and infrastructure in less affluent educational spaces. One significant contribution this paper makes is positioning informal learning spaces such as community centers, libraries, museums, etc. as sites that have potential to engage diverse learners in biodesign education in ways that complement existing approaches or address troubling gaps in formal education spaces. In fact, this contribution resonates with and complements findings from researchers of informal making and tinkering spaces who find that informal learning spaces have unique potential to engage learners from marginalized communities in transformative STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) learning experiences. (Calabrese Barton et al., 2017)

Next, the authors artfully articulate a unique vision for the future of biotechnology education –biodesign education ecosystems– and they illustrate an example from their own experiences of what this might look like, and what this approach affords for learners. They share rich stories from a network of community organizations that are connected by their shared values around designing and implementing community-engaged, culturally relevant, and interdisciplinary biodesign learning experiences. One unique aspect of this learning ecosystem is the way that educators and learners travel between the community organizations. This struck me as being particularly innovative and aligned with learning sciences research that finds that it’s often necessary to create conditions for individuals to “cross-pollinate” and share their expertise in order to bring about transformation and educational improvement (Edwards, 2011; Farrell et al., 2022). I was also struck by the ways that non-human elements played roles in this “cross-pollination” as the authors described the ways that materials such as starter cultures facilitate connections between community sites and I see this as another interesting contribution to understanding how the biodesign education ecosystem approach can facilitate innovative biodesign learning.

Overall, I found this paper to be incredibly innovative in multiple domains from biotechnology to design to education. The authors thoroughly described how this approach to biodesign education can help address gaps in participation in biotechnology amongst underrepresented communities and has the potential to address broader goals such as “inspiring love” for and increasing interest in biology, and broadening the impact of existing community biotechnology and biodesign organizations. This paper opens up a rich topic of interest for the biotechnology education community– how informal learning environments, particularly those that are connected in a local community context and already focused on biodesign topics, can support innovative biodesign learning experiences.

Feedback:

The authors speak to the application of this research stating that they hope that their frameworks might be adapted to facilitate the growth of community-based biomaking ecosystems “across the globe”. Given this emphasis on spread and scale, I wondered what advice the authors might offer to communities that do not already have biodesign-oriented organizations within their communities. For example, bio-art spaces and community bio labs are highlighted as essential components of this ecosystem, but these types of spaces might not be available in all communities. Are there qualities of these spaces that could appear in other sites that might not explicitly call themselves “bio-art spaces” that community organizers could look for? Articulating these qualities to look for might align well with the authors’ emphasis on revealing the wealth of knowledge and resources that already exist in communities.

The authors highlighted increased learner interest in STEM topics like biology as an outcome of their work. I understand that tracking interest and identity development can be complex and is likely out-of-scope for this paper, but I wonder if there are short anecdotes or survey responses that the authors could include to illustrate their observations of increased learner interest, or impact on learners' perceptions of STEM and creativity more broadly. For example, I read that teens implemented a creative, sticker-based assessment activity. Were there insights from their assessment that could be shared here?

There are a few relevant articles from the learning sciences in particular that could complement the authors’ existing citations and strengthen the papers connections to learning sciences and education research if the authors have not yet already considered them. For example the authors discussion of valuing learners’ cultural knowledge and existing resources could be supported by Rosebery et al., ‘s descriptions of “heterogeneity” in cultural practices as an asset for learning (2010). Given the authors’ interest in social change and justice and generative learning within STEM learning experiences, “Indigenous Making and Sharing: Claywork in an Indigenous STEAM Program” (Barajas-López & Bang, 2018) may be relevant. Building off the authors’ emphasis on storytelling, they may consider Tzou et al.,’s explorations of storytelling, or “storywork” in creative, intergenerational STEM learning environments (2017).

Barajas-López, F., & Bang, M. (2018). Indigenous Making and Sharing: Claywork in an Indigenous STEAM Program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1437847

Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The Makerspace Movement: Sites of Possibilities for Equitable Opportunities to Engage Underrepresented Youth in STEM. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 119(6), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900608

Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.007

Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Anderson, E. R., Bohannon, A. X., Coburn, C. E., & Brown, S. L. (2022). Learning at the Boundaries of Research and Practice: A Framework for Understanding Research–Practice Partnerships. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211069073

Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The Coat Traps All Your Body Heat”: Heterogeneity as Fundamental to Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.491752

Tzou, C., Meixi, Suárez, E., Bell, P., LaBonte, D., Starks, E., & Bang, M. (2019). Storywork in STEM-Art: Making, Materiality and Robotics within Everyday Acts of Indigenous Presence and Resurgence. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624547

Review: Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation - R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This paper is a really useful insight into how bio-design can be applied and explored in non-traditional and non-accademic settings. There are a few different things that I would really appreciate some clarity on. Throughout the text, the term "teen" is used, often in regard to the BioJam, which according to page 6, lines 135-143, is specifically for high schoolers. Simply defining teens may be useful in establishing whom these protocols are used for. The imagery of the milpa confused me slightly, as it was highlighted in figure 1, but was only mentioned directly in the text one time (page 7, line 174); Figure 1 seems to be a focal point of the text, but this analogy is not established in a meaningful way. I appreciate the cultural context, but the analogy needs to be fleshed out to be established. There are several terms that are undefined in the text, such as teatro play (line 174), hydrogel (line 175), and plastivore (line 209). While many of these may not be a huge issue, as this paper argues that these activities can be conducted at non-academic institutions, definitions may be essential for clarity. Line 125 is frustratingly vague; when it is stated, "Salinas residents are largely absent from biodesign education", it appears to imply that the residents are not part of biodesign education, but does not clarify why, if the education is not available regionally, if the residents are purposely excluded, or if access to such education at the previously stated institutions is cost prohibitive, geographically exclusionary, etc. Figure 4 and Table 1 seem somewhat unnecessary as separate entities; the images in figure 4 seem like they could be put in the second column; there is a huge amount of overlap between the figure and table, and it's unclear if both are needed.

Recommendation: Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation - R0/PR4

Comments

The reviewers have agreed that this is an excellent paper and subject to a few quires and minor revisions is ready to publish. Congratulations on being one of the first accepted papers to our journal!

Author comment: Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation - R1/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Growing biodesign ecosystems: Community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation - R1/PR2

Comments

No accompanying comment.