Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T08:37:09.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2025

Giovanna Danies*
Affiliation:
School of Architecture and Design, Department of Design, Universidad de los Andes , Bogotá, Colombia
Carolina Obregón
Affiliation:
School of Fashion, Parsons School of Design, The New School, New York, NY, USA
Santiago Ojeda-Ramírez
Affiliation:
School of Education, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
Andrés Burbano
Affiliation:
School of Arts and Humanities, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya , Barcelona, Spain
*
Corresponding author: Giovanna Danies; Email: g-danies@uniandes.edu.co

Abstract

This perspective paper examines biodesign pedagogy in higher education, focusing on the integration of plant sciences with design and technology. We propose a dual framework for teaching biodesign: nature-driven and socially driven approaches. The nature-driven approach draws inspiration from biological strategies or biotechnologies to address environmental and societal challenges, while the socially driven approach begins with identifying societal problems and exploring biological solutions. Drawing on seven years of teaching experience, we highlight student-led projects that illustrate each approach, including eco-friendly textiles derived from plant fibres and genetically engineered crops designed for sustainable urban agriculture. Our findings underscore the potential of biodesign to bridge STEM and creative disciplines, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, enhancing scientific literacy and equipping students to tackle complex real-world challenges.

Information

Type
Perspective
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 (https://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), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Table 1 Biodesign projects from Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia, which are publicly available on the Biodesign Challenge website.

Figure 1

Figure 1. RootKnit (Molina et al., 2017). (a) Shape-shifting surface that reacts to the plants’ conditions and then translates that data into surface movements and shapes, (b) connected to a water FloraPulse sensor, multispectral infragram camera, photosynthesis CL-340 sensor and capacitive sensor.

Figure 2

Figure 2. SauColors (Echeverry et al., 2019). Natural dyes derived from the anthocyanin content found in elderberries fruits produced on the Sambucus nigra tree. When mixed with an alkaline solution, under specific pH, temperature, time and mordant, a range of colours that range from blue and purple to beige and green can be generated.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Filling Green (Cardona et al., 2019). A plant-based alternative to down and polyester feathers, using a blend of bioproducts from corn silk (Zea mays), pineapple leaves (Ananas comosus) and tururi sacs (Manicaria saccifera).

Author comment: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R0/PR1

Comments

Dr. Oliver Hamant Editor-in-Chief Quantitative Plant Biology

July 22, 2022

Dear Dr. Hamant,

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Biodesign and Plant Sciences: Evolving STEAM Pedagogies in Higher Education” by Giovanna Danies, Santiago Ojeda-Ramírez, Carolina Obregón and Andrés Burbano.

The present manuscript explores the pivotal role of designers and artists in challenging societal questions through research. It also investigates how combining strategies from nature and knowledge in plant science with creative thinking processes yields innovative solutions. The challenges of teaching an interdisciplinary audience, including both science and non-science majors, are discussed alongside guidelines for approaching biodesign projects. Biodesign integrates design thinking with biotechnology to address complex problems and envision solutions in our technology-driven world. Collaboration between designers, artists, and biologists prompts continual exploration of disciplinary boundaries, encouraging solutions oriented towards a better, fairer, more resilient, and sustainable future.

Our study involved an inductive examination led by the Biodesign course instructor, focusing on the impact of biodesign projects on young adults' everyday lives. This initial step was grounded in the instructor’s experiences and the observable effects on students, providing a foundational understanding through direct observation and interaction.

Through this inductive process, we identified themes and patterns reflecting how projects resonated with undergraduate students personally and academically. These findings underscored biodesign’s intrinsic value in engaging students with real-world applications and challenges, offering a richer, more contextualized learning experience. Subsequently, we connected these emergent themes with established knowledge about the benefits of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) learning and epistemic intersections, refining our analysis and situating the Biodesign Challenge as an educational endeavor that supports broader pedagogical goals.

Our methodology diverges from traditional predefined coding by emphasizing a dynamic, iterative approach to theme development and theoretical integration. This reflects our commitment to capturing the complexity of how biodesign projects influence and are influenced by participants, learning environments, and societal contexts. Focusing on higher education settings, our study contributes to a deeper understanding of biodesign’s pedagogical potential in fostering innovation, engagement, and learning beyond the pre-collegiate level.

This manuscript is an original submission and has not been previously published or considered by any other journal. Initially drafted for the “TBC – special collection on Art and Science and Society,” it underwent revisions based on reviewer feedback. The first reviewer appreciated the paper’s argument and suggested enhancements for clarity and strength, while the second reviewer recommended restructuring to include background, methods, and analysis/discussion sections. The current submission addresses both reviewers' comments.There are no financial obligations with governmental or private organizations that can affect the content, results or conclusions of the present manuscript.

Thank you for considering our submission.

Sincerely,

Giovanna Danies, PhD

Associate Professor

School of Architecture and Design, Department of Design

Universidad de los Andes

Review: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Personal and professional relationship with Giovanna Danies Turano and Carolina Obregon.

Comments

Thoroughly researched and evidence-based paper. Appreciate the succinct way the authors define the two current pathways into Biodesign. Solid case studies of their students' projects to illustrate these pathways.

One small edit: there isn’t uniformity between Biodesign, BioDesign, and biodesign. This might be intentional on the authors' part - if so, there may need to be a small section distinguishing the three spellings.

Review: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

There is no competing interests.

Comments

This perspective piece describes the authors’ pedogeological learning and observations from their experience supervising student-led biotechnology products. The students are from the arts and design backgrounds. The manuscript details two general directions in which the students tend to develop their project ideas (challenge-led or biology/nature-led). Using the examples from the authors’ students, they explain how each direction could work in retrospection. This manuscript is clearly written, with appealing visuals, and provides unique insights into how collaboration with art and design could aid innovation and education in plant science. Below, I suggest several revision points for further improvement.

Major points:

1) The structure is such that the manuscript feels repetitive (two courses of ideation are mentioned many times in parallel; you could consider discussing each in depth instead.

2) Currently, it is not so clear there are two major ways students develop their projects (it sounds like these fit a few of them). Consider specifying which was employed in the past project examples in Table 1. Is one way more popularly used than the other?

3) The authors’ teams have had exceptional success developing projects (consistently high quality recognized by awards), which should be emphasized in the text. They have a brilliant track record in this space, which is why we want to read and learn about their pedagogical philosophy and methods.

4) Biodesign Challenge was the platform for which most (all?) projects in Table 1 were developed. It is also mentioned that they offer a pedagogical framework. Can you explain this program so readers can appreciate the boundaries and freedom placed on the projects?

5) The figures are fine, but it may be more helpful if the projects more majorly mentioned in the text are featured (e.g., PseudoFreeze).

6) Plant science relevance—Plant science is disproportionately represented in past projects as the biological basis and inspiration. Why is plant science particularly relevant to biodesign? This point is implied at the very beginning of the manuscript, but it is worth expanding on. For example, is it because plant-driven or plant-based biotechnology tends to be more sustainable?

Minor points:

1) More references are needed in some places, e.g., Line 32-34: “Plant biotechnology and soil…. concerns.”; Line 45-47: “thus grounding students… participate”; and Line 60-62 “BioMaker projects…. role of design.”

2) Define specific terms/programs/projects, such as the Biodesign Challenge, BioMaker Project, and BioArcDisLab. They are explained, but it is not entirely clear for a complete novice to understand them.

3) Line 80-81: “three coded categories” – what are they?

4) Table 1: “How is this project connected to youth and their everyday life? What motivated youth in this project?” – can this be summarized, e.g., “student motivation and connection”?

Recommendation: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear authors,

As you can see the reviewers are positive about your manuscript, and praise the original angle. Reviewer 2 has several insightful suggestions for improvements, which I invite you to consider. Regarding one of their points about the plant focus (apart from the journal name), one factor you might consider is socio-ecological robustness (when compared to other source of inspiration: 82% of Earth biomass is plant-based).

An additional point to consider is the quasi absence of quantitative statements in the text. It would be good to mention at least a few indicators. For instance, line 214:

“Similarly, Filling Green designed eco-friendly insulative materials from plant-based fibers such as corn silk, pineapple leaves, and tururi sacs. These fibers, which are byproducts of agricultural processes, were rigorously tested for their thermal and antimicrobial properties, positioning them as viable alternatives to down and polyester in apparel (Cardona et al., 2019; Figure 3).” You could add a few indicators of thermal and antimicrobial enhanced property assessment (from the original research) to strengthen this statement. This applies to other statements too (of course, you cannot be exhaustive in this perspective, but some quantitative assessment would make your conclusions stronger)

Decision: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R1/PR6

Comments

Dr. Oliver Hamant Editor-in-Chief Quantitative Plant Biology

March 20, 2025

Dear Dr. Hamant,

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript entitled “Biodesign and Plant Sciences: Evolving STEAM Pedagogies in Higher Education” by Giovanna Danies, Santiago Ojeda-Ramírez, Carolina Obregón and Andrés Burbano. We appreciate yours and the reviewer’s time for revising our manuscript.

We have included quantitative indicators for the enhanced thermal and antimicrobial property assessment conducted based on the quantitative data obtained by the Filling Green team. The text now addresses this in pg 17 line 330.

Reviewer 1:

Comments to the Author

Thoroughly researched and evidence-based paper. Appreciate the succinct way the authors define the two current pathways into Biodesign. Solid case studies of their students' projects to illustrate these pathways.

One small edit: there isn’t uniformity between Biodesign, BioDesign, and biodesign. This might be intentional on the authors' part - if so, there may need to be a small section distinguishing the three spellings.

Response: We have reviewed the document and made the necessary revisions to ensure uniformity in the use of “Biodesign” throughout.

Reviewer 2:

Comments to the Author

This perspective piece describes the authors’ pedogeological learning and observations from their experience supervising student-led biotechnology products. The students are from the arts and design backgrounds. The manuscript details two general directions in which the students tend to develop their project ideas (challenge-led or biology/nature-led). Using the examples from the authors’ students, they explain how each direction could work in retrospection. This manuscript is clearly written, with appealing visuals, and provides unique insights into how collaboration with art and design could aid innovation and education in plant science. Below, I suggest several revision points for further improvement.

Major points:

The structure is such that the manuscript feels repetitive (two courses of ideation are mentioned many times in parallel; you could consider discussing each in depth instead.

Response: We have revised the whole text and made a clearer introduction to our two approaches followed by an in-depth analyses. We have eliminated redundancies to make the text clearer.

2) Currently, it is not so clear there are two major ways students develop their projects (it sounds like these fit a few of them). Consider specifying which was employed in the past project examples in Table 1. Is one way more popularly used than the other?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. In page 12 line 221 and other mentions of the approaches throughout the text, we explicitly added that all successful projects followed one of two distinct approaches: nature-driven or socially-driven bio design. We consider that for our argument, we want to frame this a as two approaches that are equally important, so we won’t explicitly determine which one was more frequent.

3) The authors’ teams have had exceptional success developing projects (consistently high quality recognized by awards), which should be emphasized in the text. They have a brilliant track record in this space, which is why we want to read and learn about their pedagogical philosophy and methods.

Response: Thank you for this comment. To address this, we have included in our introduction the following lines: “Our teaching approach has consistently produced exceptional student-led projects that have received prestigious international recognition, including the Biodesign Challenge Overall Prize and the PETA Prize for Animal-Free Wool. These achievements underscore the effectiveness of our pedagogical methods and the potential of biodesign to inspire innovation and address complex real-world challenges.”

4) Biodesign Challenge was the platform for which most (all?) projects in Table 1 were developed. It is also mentioned that they offer a pedagogical framework. Can you explain this program so readers can appreciate the boundaries and freedom placed on the projects?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The biodesign challenge program is now explained in both the introduction, line 54, and on the beginning of the methodology section, line 143, more in detail.

5) The figures are fine, but it may be more helpful if the projects more majorly mentioned in the text are featured (e.g., PseudoFreeze).

6) Plant science relevance—Plant science is disproportionately represented in past projects as the biological basis and inspiration. Why is plant science particularly relevant to biodesign? This point is implied at the very beginning of the manuscript, but it is worth expanding on. For example, is it because plant-driven or plant-based biotechnology tends to be more sustainable?

Response: Thank you for this observation. The relevance of plant science is stated both in the introduction and in the conclusion, we emphasize that plants dominate Earth’s biomass and sustain ecosystems, with Colombia’s rich botanical heritage and biodiversity offering ecological and cultural significance for plant sciences and sustainable biotechnologies, (Lines 33 and 264).

Minor points:

1) More references are needed in some places, e.g., Line 32-34: “Plant biotechnology and soil…. concerns.”; Line 45-47: “thus grounding students… participate”; and Line 60-62 “BioMaker projects…. role of design.”

Response: Thank you. We added references to support these claims.

2) Define specific terms/programs/projects, such as the Biodesign Challenge, BioMaker Project, and BioArcDisLab. They are explained, but it is not entirely clear for a complete novice to understand them.

Response: Thank you. This definitions have been added for a non-expert to understand them.

3) Line 80-81: “three coded categories” – what are they?

Response: Thank you for suggesting this clarification. These three coded categories referred to the one used on the study that inspired this methodology, now we specify that we used two and state that they are conceptual groupings developed systematically from project data and observations.

4) Table 1: “How is this project connected to youth and their everyday life? What motivated youth in this project?” – can this be summarized, e.g., “student motivation and connection”?

Response: ‘Student motivation and connection’ was added.

Thank you for considering our submission.

Sincerely,

Giovanna Danies, PhD

Associate Professor

School of Architecture and Design, Department of Design

Universidad de los Andes

Recommendation: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R1/PR7

Comments

Sorry for the very long delay in our response. We had issues finding new reviewers for the revision. As the new version properly addresses the remaining (minor) points from reviewer 2, I’m happy to accept this revision.

Decision: Biodesign and plant sciences: Evolving STEAM pedagogies in higher education — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.