A taxonomic scale framing the two driving forces behind Biodesign for sustainability

The field of Biodesign is relatively young and rapidly evolving; as such, scholars and researchers have been actively working on taxonomies and categorisations to better understand and frame its different facets. These efforts aim to provide a structured framework for analysing and classifying the various aspects of Biodesign (Camere & Karana, Reference Camere and Karana2017; Carol, Reference Carol2013; Esat & Ahmed-Kristensen, Reference Esat and Ahmed-Kristensen2018; Lantada et al., Reference Lantada, Korvink and Islam2021; Rognoli et al., Reference Rognoli, Petreca, Pollini and Saito2022; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Barati, Wu, Scherer and Karana2021).

The taxonomy proposed hereFootnote ² aims to complement these previous studies by providing a comprehensive overview of the Biodesign phenomenon. In fact, it focuses on understanding the multifaceted nature of the field by observing recursive patterns in Biodesign case studies and aims in parallel with their analysis through an exploratory and broader approach based on three main factors:

Organism involvement: This factor assesses how deeply the organism is integrated into the design process. It considers whether the organism plays a central role in shaping the final design outcome or if it is a merely passive component.

Human/non-human interaction: This factor examines the degree of interaction and relational connection between the user/designer and the organism. This aspect defines whether there is a close, collaborative relationship or a more detached, directive one.

Predictability of results: This factor explores the degree to which the design outcomes are predictable, following linear processes or non-linear and less predictable ones, often influenced by the inherent characteristics and abilities of the living organism involved.

The main patterns observed in Biodesign’s case studies, which relate to two predominant driving forces visualised in divergent poles of significance, are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Biodesign taxonomic scale (Pollini, Reference Pollini, Pedgley, Rognoli and Karana2021, readapted in 2023).

The taxonomy presented here captures the multifaceted nature of Biodesign by mainly considering the role played by the organism involved. This diagram can serve as a valuable tool for researchers and Biodesign practitioners; it provides a broader perspective that considers the diversity and complexity of Biodesign projects, highlighting two fundamental driving forces within Biodesign, which can further help understanding the dynamics of the field and potential directions for future research and innovation.

Given the biological origin of biodesigned materials and artefacts, a fundamental aspect emphasised by the developed taxonomic scale is the management of organisms in the design process. Recognising that dualism can be misleading in promoting progress and social values (Jones, Reference Jones, Kitchen and Thrift2009), the one at the basis of this taxonomy is derived from the organism’s fundamental condition: on the one hand, it is alive and free to express itself; on the other, it is instead restricted or limited (either because of its death or by the lack of its free expression). This on/off organisms’ expressivity determines design processes and outcomes based on a variety of divergent design possibilities, affecting values, philosophical and ethical concepts and organisms, designers and users’ experiences.

The taxonomy proposed articulates between two extremities, further defined by opposed sub-features:

1. (Organism) Confined/inert

When a biomanufactured product wants to achieve industrial scalability, in most cases, the organisms are confined by a given space, time and function. Here, organisms are engineered and carefully directed during their growth phase, often stabilised at the end of the growth process for subsequent use; they have been programmed to yield highly predictable outcomes, for example, in making materials or serving a precise function connected to their aliveness. In this polarity, materials exhibit inertia as they lack vital expressiveness (by confinement or stabilisation processes, the latter usually resulting in the death of the organisms). This part of the scale defines projects where designers and biotechnologists predefine scales and shapes, leaving minimal decision-making to the organism. Still, they must deal with non-linearity, considered in biology as a characteristic of complex biological regulatory networks (Manicka et al., Reference Manicka, Johnson, Levin and Murrugarra2022). This makes the programmability of biotechnology face new challenges and continuous progress in controlling standardised outcomes. During the growth phase, strategies can be applied to guide the desired final form (e.g. mechanical constraints) or widen the available material qualities (e.g. densification and material composition strategies) (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Lim, Tasmim, Kalairaj, Rivera-Tarazona, Abdelrahman, Javed, George, Lee, Jawed and Ware2024; Rigobello and Ayres, Reference Rigobello, Ayres, Satyanarayana and Deshmukh2023). Consequently, the organism’s influence on the final performance or aesthetics of the object/materials is not significant from this perspective. As these biotechnologies approach scalability, the necessity for programmability often leads to a more standardised aesthetic.

It’s easy to imagine that the confinement of the organisms and their number in a process of scaled biofabrication influences the human/non-human relationship, too. To our knowledge, there are no studies on this topic yet; however, it may help to draw a parallel with comparative psychology, where the study of human–animal interactions highlights how companion animal literature tends to refer to human–animal ‘bonds’, but the interaction with laboratory or farm animals is addressed by the specific literature as ‘relationship’ (Hosey & Melfi, Reference Hosey and Melfi2014). If humans can express ambiguous and ubiquitous behaviours with other animals, shifting from friendship to exploitation (Maréchal & Zee, Reference Maréchal and Zee2024), this might also be the case with other non-human entities. Furthermore, it seems plausible to think that in large-scale biotechnological facilities, the high number of living beings within a production site necessitates maintenance (such as optimal temperature and humidity conditions) based on automation and functionality, which can limit the potential for a close and emotionally charged relationship with the organisms involved.

In this part of the scale, we find startups and companies with strong investments in research and development whose aim is the feasibility and scalability of biotechnological productions (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Congdon, Parker and Borst2020). To make an example from one of the most tested organisms, the mycelium, we find in the literature feasibility studies in various specific sectors, from architecture (Almpani-Lekka et al., Reference Almpani-Lekka, Pfeiffer, Schmidts and Seo2021) to animal leather substitute (Amobonye et al., Reference Amobonye, Lalung, Awasthi and Pillai2023) and advanced functional materials (Elsacker et al., Reference Elsacker, Zhang and Dade-Robertson2023).

Feasibility, engineering and predictability also facilitate conventional sustainability studies of products and materials related to this part of the scale. Results from early LCAs in this field will be thoroughly investigated in a folowing paragraph dedicated to biomanufactured materials for conventional sustainability.

2. (Organism) Free/alive

The right extremity of the scale refers to those Biodesign case studies in which the organisms are maintained in a state of vitality, engaging in a collaborative co-design process driven by mutual interests. This polarity encompasses organisms and living materials that undergo changes, mutations and evolution throughout their life cycles. They freely express themselves in response to internal and external stimuli and while being influenced by the perceived environment. Biodesigners often perceive the organism’s agency, acknowledging their act of co-design; this also triggers feelings of care, affecting the perception and relationship with the organisms while designing (Camere & Karana, Reference Camere and Karana2018). If the organisms are left alive and free to express, as a consequence of the transitory nature of lifewe might also address open-ended design, described as an unfinished process where the final outcome of the project is left open and flexible (Ostuzzi, Reference Ostuzzi2017; Vuylsteke et al., Reference Vuylsteke, Ostuzzi, Saldien and Detand2022) – and therefore, in this case, also ready to be explored by non-human agencies. Here, the vitality and agency of the organisms become a desired and functional variable for design purposes (Karana et al., Reference Karana, Barati and Giaccardi2020). While ‘programmability’ aligns with the industry’s demand for scaled-up processes, it is ‘uncertainty’ that characterises processes that guarantee the organism a high degree of freedom and expression. A living aesthetic is an aesthetic of change, following the life stages of the organism and its responsiveness to the environment; this translates into imperfection and non-homogeneity of the final piece. The imperfect and transitory nature of Biodesign brings novelty on a material, aesthetical, sensorial and ethical level, leading to new material experiences (Karana et al., Reference Karana, Pedgley and Rognoli2013; Pedgley et al., Reference Pedgley, Rognoli and Karana2021). This polarity highlights how aesthetic values within Biodesign could capture the vitality of organisms and even contribute to the narrative of the very object/material (Pollini & Angelini, Reference Pollini and Angelini2021).

Design students have reported an emotional bond in free experimentations with living organisms such as mycelium and bacterial cellulose (Hirscher and Posch, Reference Hirscher and Posch2023). Moreover, small-scale experimental productions still maintain an intimate connection with the materials and organisms. These processes often involve meticulous daily observation and sense of genuine care that can nurture feelings of affection, fostering empathy and leading to a deeper understanding of the organism (Kim et al., Reference Kim, Zhou, Groutars and Karana2022). Exposing users to co-exist with unconventional living organisms pushes to relate to non-humans in unusual ways, acknowledging their presence, needs and beneficial activity towards our existence. This emotional connection helps increase awareness of how we perceive other living beings; in fact, within the Biodesign discourse, human–non-human interactions are often the basis of highly debated concepts, such as more-than-human (Tsing, Reference Tsing2013; Wakkary, Reference Wakkary2021; Camocini & Vergani, Reference Camocini and Vergani2021) and multispecies design (Gatto & McCardle, Reference Gatto and McCardle2019; Keune, Reference Keune2021; Veselova & Gaziulusoy, Reference Veselova, Gaziulusoy, Diehl, Tromp and van der Bijl-Brouwer2021).

Compared to the previously described extremity, in this part of the scale, we often find projects that take a more experimental and speculative approach to generate proof of concept or stimulate questions and critical thinking. A strong speculative element enhanced the fascination surrounding the emergence of the Biodesign approach (Ginsberg et al., Reference Ginsberg, Calvert, Schyfter, Elfick and Endy2017; Myers, Reference Myers2012). Consequently, the final diptych of the taxonomical scale embraces both feasible and speculative approaches, tracking the different natures of Biodesign projects. There is another category of projects in this part of the scale which is related to biodiversity enhancement and/or bioremediation activities. In this case, organisms are often supported by materials or surfaces/structures that can welcome them and make them thrive - such as bioreceptive materials, which will be explored in depth in the next paragraph.

Bioreceptive design: the role of life-enabling materials in Biodesign

Bioreceptive materials play an important role within Biodesign, supporting living organisms often placed on the right side of the scale. Bioreceptivity is a crucial material feature that enhances biotic and abiotic relationships. It was defined in 1995 by Guillitte as ‘the aptitude of a material (or any other inanimate object) to be colonised by one or several groups of living organisms without necessarily undergoing any biodeterioration’ (Guillitte, Reference Guillitte1995). The concept of Bioreceptive Design (BD) (Cruz & Beckett, Reference Cruz and Beckett2016) has been expanded by the authors with a focus on Material Design (Pollini & Rognoli, Reference Pollini and Rognoli2021), highlighting how, in the field of Biodesign, the colonisation of surfaces by living organisms can be a deliberate condition that serves a design purpose. Bioreceptive design can be defined as the intentional design of material features that foster life’s flourishing on material surfaces; in fact, ‘colors, porosity, and shape, among other features, can be designed to meet the requirements of organisms to thrive, thus promoting inert-living assemblages with distinct design and environmental purposes’ (Pollini & Rognoli, Reference Pollini and Rognoli2021). Bioreceptive materials can also be addressed as ‘life-enabling materials’, stimulating biological colonisation and multispecies design (Ibid.). As for Biodesign, the nature of the projects in BD can change drastically from speculative to feasible: the attraction of life forms can be used as a key element to stimulate critical thinking (although the requirement for the organism’s survival makes the projects quite feasible), nevertheless most BD projects seek effective biodiversity enhancement (Ibid.). Here, key aspects are multispecies design, bioremediation abilities and the aim for greater integration of natural elements into the human built environments. In these cases, designed bioreceptivity has the potential to support nature-based solution, defined as solutions that involve working with and enhancing nature to help address societal challenges (Seddon et al., Reference Seddon, Chausson, Berry, Girardin, Smith and Turner2020); in fact, many colonised artefacts can provide low-maintenance systems for biodiversity, heat and pollution mitigation in different areas. Bioreceptive materials possess remarkable potential, encompassing areas such as biophilia, biodiversity promotion, urban microbiome enhancement, air bioremediation in urban settings and the revitalisation of degraded and polluted environments (Beckett, Reference Beckett2021; Cruz & Beckett, Reference Cruz and Beckett2016; Pollini et al., Reference Pollini, Contardo, Paciotti and Rognoli2023; Pollini & Rognoli, Reference Pollini and Rognoli2021; Watkins et al., Reference Watkins, Robinson, Breed, Parker and Weinstein2020). A notable example of Bioreceptive Design is the project M.A.R.S., by Alex Goad, which aims to rebuild the coral reef environment by providing a similar infrastructure to support underwater fauna.Footnote ³ Bioreceptive materials are predominantly inert (a characteristic observed in most case studies, although the concept of hybrid materials capable of being bioreceptive for one organism while serving as a substrate is also possibleFootnote ⁴). This inertness must not complicate their positioning on the taxonomic scale; if we consider the abiotic and biotic amalgamation resulting from the colonisation of bioreceptive materials, viewing it as a semi-living composite material, it may be aptly situated from the middle to the right side of the taxonomic scale (since bioreceptivity always foresee a living counterpart). Bioreceptive materials inherently anticipate the strong agency of living organisms, which, by colonising the designed material, also influence its future aesthetics through spontaneous expression, co-design and open-ended design.

Clarifying polarities in Biodesign

The extremes of the taxonomic scale represent two different approaches to creating materials and artefacts using living organisms. On the left, there’s a focus on industrialisation, scalability and biotechnological implants. On the right, there’s an emphasis on experimental and speculative approaches and the intentional use of living organisms in built and non-built environments for their biological enrichment and restoration. Given these findings, and for the purposes of this taxonomic study, it is important to clarify the reference glossary around these two polarities (exemplified in Figure 2).

Figure 2. Glossary clarification, as intended in this study.

The terms ‘biomanufactured’ and ‘biogenerated’ both refer to materials and products of biological origin but come with significant distinctions in their approach to production processes. With the term ‘biomanufactured’, we address all the materials and objects obtained from the use of living organisms within industrial processes aimed at scalability.Footnote ⁵ The biomanufacturing industry foresees the use of biological systems (e.g. living microorganisms) for the production of commercially relevant biomolecules, food, energy and materials (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Sun and Ma2016). These materials are produced in a controlled and targeted manner through laboratory or biotechnological processes, often aiming for practical responses to the quest for sustainable material alternatives.

If the term biomanufacturing is well consolidated for industrial scalability, it is not representative of non-industrial processes that leave more expressive space to the organism. For this reason, we address the case studies in the right part of the taxonomy as ‘biogenerated’,Footnote ⁶ highlighting the degree of co-design with the living organisms and the freedom granted to them. This side of the taxonomic scale concerns the collaborative and uncertain agency of the organism, experienced through a more iterative and DIY design approach.

As reflected by the taxonomy, the substantial distinction between biological industrialised processes and more intimate and experimental ones is mainly based on the scale of operation and on the degree of freedom granted to the organism during the design process. Both conditions can significantly modify the project results, meanings, values and narratives. The next two images aim to visually clarify this concept through case studies.

Figure 3 illustrates this duality in terms of human/non-human interaction. On the left, it depicts how the automation of production processes leads to a functional relationship, often driven by practical considerations of biosecurity and maintenance practicalities. On the right, we see designer Diana Scherer tending to one of her living creations during the New Material Awards exhibition and award ceremony at Milan Design Week in 2016. In this image, the designer is touching the roots of the plants that constitute her Biodesign work, assessing their health and moisture levels. This intimate interaction reflects a profound connection and an understanding of the living material that arises from senses (touch in this case), relational experience and observation. This duality is underpinned by scale (standardised or experimental productions) and the consequent condition for empathy. It parallels human relationships with plants and animals, such as large-scale cultivations and breeding on one side and the care for houseplants and pets on the other.

Figure 3. Visualising Biodesign polarities part 1: comparing human/non-human interactions. On the left, Mycelium FoundriesFootnote ²⁶, representative of the industrial processes; on the right, Diana Scherer watering her living artefact during an exhibit, representative of an experimental and relational design approach.Footnote ²⁷

Figure 4 highlights the aesthetics of the two distinct approaches. On the left, we have scalability: the mycelium packaging maintains an organic texture and is never identical to itself on the microscale, but the general dimensions on the macroscale are respected in their industrial replicability. On the other side, the uncertainty of an experimental and DIY-Bio approach grants the mycelium with the freedom to generate unexpected, always different finishings and shapes of a lampshade. Such vital aesthetics can generate fascination, wonder and surprise (Parisi and Shetty, Reference Parisi and Shetty2020), clearly showing the concept of co-design with the living and the possibility of an open-ended design.

Figure 4. Visualising Biodesign polarities part 2: comparing design approaches and the resulting aesthetics. On the left, Ecovative Packaging,Footnote ²⁸ representative of the industrial approach; on the right Myx lamp by Jonas Edvard,Footnote ²⁹ representative of an experimental Biodesign approach.

The taxonomic scale can also be a useful tool to evaluate how a category of organisms can be approached differently, giving rise to multiple application possibilities. Figure 5 showcases three projects reliant on algae, displaying them at different positions on the scale.

Figure 5. Visualising materials and projects relying on algae, from feasible to speculative solutions.

On the left there’s an industrial solution by Evoware, an Indonesian company currently producing seaweed bioplastic for packaging.Footnote ⁷ In the middle, the project Indus - a bioreactor wall system based on modular tiles for bioremediation, whereFootnote modules are an example of bioreceptive design, accommodating a seaweed-based hydrogel to clean heavy wastewater materials: here, the algae grow in a given shape and are embedded in the hydrogel. On the right, the project Biogarmentry shows the possibility of creating biodegradable living textiles capable of photosynthesis:Footnote ⁹ the designer Roya Aghighi and a group of scientists at the University of British Columbia developed the first proof of concept for the survival of photosynthetic living cells on natural fabrics;ince the life cycle of the living photosynthetic textile is directly dependent on the user’s attention, ‘the work challenges users’ relationship to clothing while acting as a catalyst for behavioural change’.Footnote ¹⁰ Biogarments are thus conceived to come with care instructions to help the user keep their Biogarment alive; according to the designer, this might encourage a shift in our current perceptions of fashion, assuming that in a world where garments are dependent living beings, we might build a more intimate relationship with our clothes through caring. This project recalls the importance of care (Reference Camere and KaranaPuig de la Bellacasa, Reference Puig de la Bellacasa2017), focusing on the relationship between users and products and how this might affect users’ feelings and worldviews, also resulting in behavioural changes.

As shown, the proposed taxonomy can serve as a framework to examine how Biodesign approaches living organisms, spanning from feasibility to speculation. It can also provide insights into how designers navigate the scale, transitioning from one side to another. In fact, it’s not unusual for speculative concepts to evolve into the actual market in just a few years (Rognoli et al., Reference Rognoli, Pollini, Alessandrini, Camocini and Vergani2021). This highlights how the two ends of the spectrum can influence each other through recurring feedback loops:his dynamic process is indeed driving both desirable visions of the future and market developments.

Inner and outer sustainability: Biodesign’s feedback loops among speculation and feasibility

The dichotomy of the taxonomic scale highlights two of Biodesign’s key aspects of sustainability that can be further linked to inner and outer sustainability (Ives et al., Reference Ives, Freeth and Fischer2020). Outer (or external) sustainability is a practical form of sustainability, defined by feasible solutions to environmental issues. Outer sustainability stands for those broader socio-economic structures, governance dynamics and technology changes, constituting the external world on which most of the sustainability science has been focusing so far (Ives et al., Reference Ives, Freeth and Fischer2020; Wamsler et al., Reference Wamsler, Osberg, Osika, Herndersson and Mundaca2021). In the biotechnology field, feasible material solutions scalable in the short term fall into the left side of the taxonomy, referring to the realm of practical solutions for outer sustainability. The inner dimension of sustainability is described by Horlings as ‘an individual process of change from the inside out, based on a person’s values, beliefs, and attitudes’ needed for the transformation to sustainability (Horlings, Reference Horlings2015). Inner sustainability refers to the inner dimension of the individual, also addressing consciousness, worldviews, spirituality and human–nature connectedness (Woiwode et al., Reference Woiwode, Schäpke, Bina, Veciana, Kunze, Parodi, Schweizer-Ries and Wamsler2021), potentially influencing a change in behaviour. The need for more integrative approaches that link inner and outer dimensions of sustainability to support transformation across individual, collective and system levels has also been recognised at intergovernmental levels (Ives et al., Reference Ives, Schäpke, Woiwode and Wamsler2023). Moreover, scholars agree that behavioural change would have an undisputed benefit for the success of biomanufacturing sustainability, declaring that without such perspective shift, even the most sustainable production processes will not fit with the limits of the planet (Ginsberg & Chieza, Reference Ginsberg and Chieza2018; Hildebrandt et al., Reference Hildebrandt, Thrän and Bezama2021).

Biomanufactured materials for conventional sustainability

Biomanufacturing is seen as a key technology that replaces conventional materials with more sustainable, biocompatible, rapidly renewable and biodegradable derivatives from nature (Mironov et al., Reference Mironov, Trusk, Kasyanov, Little, Swaja and Markwald2009a, Reference Mironov, Trusk, Kasyanov, Little, Swaja and Markwald2009b; Myers, Reference Myers2012). LCA is a trusted tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of materials and products (Pollini & Rognoli, Reference Pollini and Rognoli2021). The first LCA evaluations of biomanufactured products confirm the hypothesised advantages of adopting biological processes but also reveal some trade-offs related to industrialisation, which are detectable only through in-depth analysis. Although these materials’ production processes are biology-driven, achieving the scalability and efficiency required by industrial reproducibility can still have environmental impacts.

For example, the first LCA studies on fermentation-based biomanufacturing (from bioengineered bacteria to bacterial cellulose) outline the importance of organizing the activities around agro-industry waste to limit the impacts otherwise present in such an industrial process; moreover, they highlight that electricity consumption during the manufacturing process is one of the major environmental impacts (Lips, Reference Lips2021; Narodoslawsky et al., Reference Narodoslawsky, Shazad, Kollmann and Schnitzer2015; Bardone et al., Reference Bardone, Marzocchella, Bravi, Aragão, Costa, Gilson, Silva, Silva, Macêdo, Galdino, Milanez and Sarubbo2020), together similar ones related to fresh water and wastewater (Forte et al., Reference Forte, Dourado, Mota, Neto, Gama and Ferreira2021; Chen & Liu, Reference Chen and Liu2021). Also regarding mycelium, the energy used for sterilisation, incubation, production and drying phase to obtain mycelium-based materials or products can be significant (Jones et al., Reference Jones, Gandia, John and Bismarck2021; Silverman, Reference Silverman2018; Volk et al., Reference Volk, Schröter, Saeidi, Steffl, Javadian, Hebel and Schultmann2024). Comparative LCA studies confirm the overall lower environmental impact of mycelium compared with conventional expanded polystyrene materials in the packaging sector (Enarevba & Haapala, Reference Enarevba and Haapala2023); also in the insulating sector, mycelium shows better environmental features when compared to traditional plastic insulation (Alaux et al., Reference Alaux, Vašatko, Maierhofer, Saade, Stavric and Passer2024). In a study analysing the sustainability of novel textile materials through a comparative LCA between (I) animal leather, (II) bacterial cellulose leather-like material and (III) a bio-based leather-like material derived from pineapple, feedstock circularity was highlighted as very important in reducing overall production’s impacts; moreover, this study was one of the first pointing out that, to reach bovine leather performances and durability, leather substitutes often rely on non-biodegradable finishings (such as PU), with a consequent negative impact on the production phase and the end-of-life of the material (Hildebrandt et al., Reference Hildebrandt, Thrän and Bezama2021). The literature identifies the potential of biomanufacturing for the circular economy, where the organisms used can be connectors between one production system and another, thanks to their ability to transform agro-industry waste into valuable materials and products (Devadas et al., Reference Devadas, Khoo, Chia, Chew, Munawaroh, Lam, Lim, Ho, Lee and Show2021; Jang et al., Reference Jang, Hwang, Kim, Ryu and Lee2017; Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, Basenko, Benz, Braus, Caddick, Csukai, de Vries, Endy, Frisvad, Gunde-Cimerman, Haarmann, Hadar, Hansen, Johnson, Keller, Kraševec, Mortensen, Perez, Ram and Wösten2020; Ubando et al., Reference Ubando, Felix and Chen2020). Even in this case, however, some aspects must be considered to guarantee the sustainability conditions for biomanufactured materials. For example, to ensure sustainable feedstock sourcing for fermentation and biomanufacturing processes it is important to rely on first-generation biomass grown sustainably and possibly derived from wastes (Lips, Reference Lips2021; Ubando et al., Reference Ubando, Felix and Chen2020).

This brief overview shows the potential of LCAs in identifying the advantages and current drawbacks of biomanufacturing processes. It also highlights recursive environmental issues, such as the need for water and electricity containment and the necessity to integrate these processes within circular economy material flows to fully express the sustainable potential of such bio-based productions. Despite the potential for sustainability in the field, there is limited quantitative data available due to the novelty of the biomanufactured materials. Most startups, companies and labs tend to prioritise material development over predictive LCA studies during the research and development phase. This is because the research phase is mostly focused on producing proofs of concept, with the intention of making them more efficient for scalability at a later time (Bak-Andersen, Reference Bak-Andersen2021; BIOFABRICATE 2022 Summit Report). However, conducting LCAs of the first biomanufactured products entering the market and partial LCAs of processes still in the research phase is a necessary step to gain a more realistic understanding of the ecological potential of biotechnologies. As noted by Raman, ‘environmental impacts must be predicted and weighted into our collective decision-making on the growth and evolution of this field’ (Raman, Reference Raman2021). Many authors in the field highlight the importance of predictive LCA to foresee ecological hot spots and improve processes starting from preventive assessments (to name a few: de Araújo e Silva et al., Reference de Araújo e Silva, Santa Brígida, de Freitas Rosa, da Silva Neto, Spinosa, Benício de Sá Filho and Brito de Figueirêdo2020; Lynch & Pierrehumbert, Reference Lynch and Pierrehumbert2019; Mattick et al., Reference Mattick, Landis, Allenby and Genovese2015; Narodoslawsky et al., Reference Narodoslawsky, Shazad, Kollmann and Schnitzer2015; Raman, Reference Raman2021; Saavedra del Oso et al., Reference Saavedra del Oso, Mauricio-Iglesias, Hospido and Steubing2023).

Overcoming conventional sustainability: connections between Biodesign and Regenerative Design

In contrast to the left side of the taxonomic scale, projects on the right side of the scale aren’t so easy to be assessed through conventional sustainability metrics. Speculative projects often envision an interaction with living organisms, pushing for inner sustainability through critical thinking. Latro Lamp by Mike ThompsonFootnote ¹¹ is a living lamp based on algae’s bioelectricity, which needs to be fed by the user, asked to provide carbon dioxide by breathing through a hole in the handle; this way, such lighting system is asking for a constant relationship of care. Another lamp, this time powered by bioluminescent bacteria, is Ambio Light by Teresa van DongenFootnote ¹²; in this case, the user is asked to swing the object to stimulate the bacteria to emit light. The user engagement leads to a constant observation of the organisms’ reaction, taking care of them and interacting with in order to make the objects work. In both cases, a reconsideration of the relationship with the non-human and a critical reasoning is implied and thus encouraged.

Livingness brings into the design discourse many new features peculiar to the emerging Biodesign materialities, such as self-growing, self-assembly and self-healing abilities. Sensitivity and responsiveness to external stimuli are game-changer features for biodesigned materials and artefacts aiming at embedding living interactions in the design process and fruition (Adamatzky et al., Reference Adamatzky, Nikolaidou, Gandia and Chiolerio2021; Adamatzky & Gandia, Reference Adamatzky and Gandia2021; Albergati, Reference Albergati2021; Dade-Robertson, Reference Dade-Robertson2020; Gilbert et al., Reference Gilbert, Tang, Ott, Dorr, Shaw, Sun, Lu and Ellis2021). Moreover, many case studies in this category concern bioremediation, bioreceptivity, biophilia and biodiversity enhancement. Some representative case studies can be the living root bridges in the state of Meghalaya, in northeastern India (Shankar, Reference Shankar2015), where Ficus elastica trees are used for the construction of bridges; these structures are living architectures that at the same time continue to perform as ecological agents in the forest ecosystem. Many other case studies in this category are related to Bioreceptive Design, as in the case of artecology,Footnote ¹³ a studio focusing on the creation of ‘intentional habitat’ designed specifically for building biodiversity and bio-abundance in different environments and ecosystems. Another example is NOTBAD (Niches for Organic Territories in Bio-Augmented Design),Footnote ¹⁴ a project by Richard Beckett and Sean Nair that explores the integration of beneficial microbes into building materials through bioreceptive surfaces as a novel approach to prevent the spread of antimicrobial resistance in the built environment (Beckett, Reference Beckett2021).

Unlike the left side of the scale, it is not easy for these case studies to be assessed with conventional sustainability parameters (e.g. LCA). Here, the potential of the living qualities of the organisms involved in the Biodesign process pushes conventional sustainability based on limiting the environmental impacts of production with the ability to interact, restore, remediate and regenerate the environment. These aspects are hardly analysed through conventional sustainability metrics, and there are no clear shared metrics to date to evaluate these projects in terms of their positive impact- if not based on the observation of their effectiveness over time. The impossibility of fitting in conventional sustainability metrics can be discussed in reference to the fundamental theory of Regenerative Design (Reed, Reference Reed2007), which sees the limits of ‘sustainability’ as currently intended and promotes its overcoming through regenerative, resilient and adaptive cultures. Instead of focusing on less impacting productions, Regenerative Design claims that ‘it is necessary to learn how one can participate with the environment by using the health of ecological systems as a basis for design’, thus moving from a fragmented vision to a system-based approach focused on mutually beneficial relationships (Reed, Reference Reed2007). If Regenerative Design refers to a system of technologies and strategies aimed at supporting the evolutionary health of social and environmental systems, Regenerative Development is a system of developmental technologies and strategies that works to enhance the ability of living beings to co-exist, supporting biodiversity, complexity and co-evolution among species (Mang and Reed, Reference Mang and Reed2017). Accordingly, Regenerative Sustainability focuses on transforming worldviews and paradigms addressing ‘post-sustainability scenarios’ (Gibbons, Reference Gibbons2020) with clear reference to the values of inner sustainability, thus reflecting part of the findings emerged from the taxonomical scale.

Regenerative Design offers a reading lens for those case studies that are not quantifiable from the point of view of sustainability as currently understood but aim to design human systems and built environments capable of co-evolving with natural ones (Mang, Reference Mang2001; Mang et al., Reference Mang and Haggard2016). There are important connections between Regenerative Design and Biodesign, overcoming the more simplistic association based on the biological regenerative process. Three concepts, in particular, resonate among the two disciplines, such as the importance of understanding the place/system and its potential, the idea of humans taking a new co-creative participatory role in the system and their co-evolution with the system itself. These guiding principle at the core of Regenerative Design somehow resonate with the ideas of ‘symbiotic relationships’, ‘more-than-human’, ‘multispecies’ and ‘co-creation’, often addressed in Biodesign to highlight the (re)discovery of human-nature relationship through its practice.

Recently, the academic discourse on Biodesign is starting to consider the fundamental principles of Regenerative Design (Karana et al., Reference Karana, McQuillan, Rognoli and Giaccardi2023; Pollini, Reference Pollini2023; Williams & Collet, Reference Williams and Collet2020). Moreover, some Biodesign case studies started to be associated with Regenerative Design. The living root bridges have been defined as an example of Regenerative Design (Middleton et al., Reference Middleton, Habibi, Shankar and Ludwig2020). Mycelium bricks for architecture, described as a soft (non-linear) and regenerative system, have been depicted as ‘an alternate future in which regenerative architectural materials transform over their lifetime, adapting to change and serving needs that are simultaneously structural, aesthetic, and visceral’ (Dahmen, Reference Dahmen2017). To deepen this discussion, the next paragraph will analyse Biodesign case studies by crossing the findings of the taxonomic scale and the Regenerative Design framework.

Analysing biodesigned artefacts in the Regenerative Design framework

Regenerative Design is conceived as ‘a system of technologies and strategies, based on the understanding of the inner working of ecosystems that generates designs that regenerate socio-ecological wholes (i.e. generate anew their inherent capacity for vitality, viability, and evolution) rather than deplete their underlying life support systems and resources’ (Mang and Reed, Reference Mang and Reed2017). Regenerative Design is a systemic approach; therefore, biodesigned living or non-living artefacts might be part of a regenerative system, but they can hardly be addressed as regenerative by themselves. A fruitful interview with Bill Reed (2022) helped the authors clarify this concept,Footnote ¹⁵ further drawing parallels between the taxonomic scale and the Ecological Strategies for Regenerative Design (Regenesis 2000–2024). Figure 6 is the result of a discussion between the first author and Bill Reed on the possibility of positioning biomanufactured, biogenerated and bioreceptive design case studies within the Regenerative Design framework (diagram by Pollini and Reed, 2022, reported in Pollini, Reference Pollini2023).

Figure 6. Comparison between the taxonomic scale and the Regenerative Design framework (Regenesis 2000–2024) with case studies positioning.

In the following subsections, several case studies are discussed based on their position on the taxonomy proposed here by the authors in resonance with the Regenerative Design scale (Figure 6), which progresses from anthropocentric to biocentric through different Levels of Ecological Strategies for Sustainability (Mang & Reed, Reference Mang and Reed2017).

Stabilised biofabricated materials

Most of the biomanufactured materials match the level of conventional sustainability in the Regenerative Design framework. Here are stabilised materials created by living organisms and later made inert to reach the market as alternative sustainable materials. As shown by the diagram, we find here for example bacteria-based dyeing for fabrics by Chieza (from 2017),Footnote ¹⁶ and the products of two of the best-known biotech industries: the American Modern MeadowFootnote ¹⁷ and the European Mogu.Footnote ¹⁸ This level corresponds to the extreme left polarity on the taxonomical scale, meaning biofabrication processes aimed at control and scalability.

Bioreceptive/living materials or artefacts unable to self-sustain

At a subsequent level are bioreceptive or living materials/artefacts unable to self-sustain; here the organism has a limited lifespan and requires human care/maintenance while alive. Among the case studies cited here are the European project Fungar (EU H2020),Footnote ¹⁹ a research that hypothesises mycelium in its living state for the creation of living architectures and biosensors, and the hydroponic textiles of J. Olmedo (2016)Footnote ²⁰ and Latro Lamp (2017).Footnote ²¹ All these case studies identify systems that are alive in their use phase, requiring constant care for surviving (and functioning) in the given timeframe. This level describes living artefacts embedding biological materials, mimicking nature’s way of building things, but not its ability to regenerate life with independent self-propagating processes.

Bioreceptive/living materials or artefacts with restorative abilities but unable to self-sustain

For Regenerative Design, the restorative level describes a more biocentric approach (Mang & Reed, Reference Mang and Reed2017). Here are bioreceptive or living materials/artefacts with restorative abilities but unable to regenerate without further human maintenance. Once the design is installed/planned, it needs continuous adjustments by humans, who act like ‘gardeners’ (Collet Carol, Reference Carol2013; Mang & Reed, Reference Mang and Reed2017). The main difference from the previous level is that the livingness of the organisms not only serves a designed function, but it also contribute to restore the environment. For example, the living root bridges (Watson, Reference Watson2021) serve as bridges; however, as living plants, they also contribute to photosynthesis or sheltering animals in the first place. Their function as bridges can only be perpetuated thanks to continuous human maintenance. Pnat (2019) created an indoor greenhouse capable of purifying the air through phytoremediationFootnote ²²; however, it is a closed system that requires maintenance and technology. Biogarmentry (2019) purifies the air while serving as a fashion item; however, its purifying action depends on the user’s maintenance actions in keeping the algae alive.

Bioreceptive/living materials or artefacts with restorative abilities, able to regenerate the system

The final level on the scale of Regenerative Design corresponds to bioreceptive and living materials/artefacts with restorative abilities but also able to regenerate their system. This means that once the design is installed, it will be colonised (or replicate itself) to the point that it will evolve in relationship with its own environment in a regenerative way. Only within this last levelwe may find case studies where the organism kept alive is not only able to regenerate independently but can actively regenerate its system, integrating itself and contributing to the well-being of other species as well – for example, by purifying water as in the case of mussels bioremediation (Sicuro et al., Reference Sicuro, Castelar, Mugetti, Pastorino, Chiarandon, Menconi, Galloni and Prearo2020). When it comes to bioreceptive materials, we can say that they are regenerative systems whenever they can provide a welcoming space for vital systems to evolve and thrive on their surface with no further human maintenance – for example, by creating green surfaces capable of increasing urban biodiversity as in the case of bioreceptive concrete (Manso, Reference Manso2014) or offering shelter and foothold for life in coral reefs, as in the case of M.A.R.S.Footnote ²³

As shown by Figure 6, not all Biodesign projects are sustainable in a radical and post-anthropocentric way in reference to the Regenerative Design framework; only a part of them manages to cross the threshold of conventional sustainability, tending towards restorative and regenerative processes. This higher level coincides with the artefact’s ability to create a system able to regenerate. To evaluate this possibility, we can say that if a system can evolve, self-organise and propagate, it can be addressed as an example of Regenerative Design (Pollini, Reference Pollini2022). No artefacts alone can reach the Regenerative Development level (the last and most virtuous of the Regenerative Design framework), but Regenerative Design solutions can be a significant part of it. This level supports co-development where autonomous regenerative systems co-exist: they can infact be simply experienced, enhance biophilic environments, restore depleted habitats and ultimately co-evolve with human beings. For instance, we can affirm that the ongoing development of a biotic and abiotic system, created through designed bioreceptivity, will occur in co-evolution with humans (Figure 7).

Figure 7. The dual nature of Biodesign through the Healing Materialities conceptual framework highlights the feedback loop between the two polarities.

Healing materialities: an overarching conceptual framework defining the inner and outer sustainable nature of Biodesign

In line with the framework of Regenerative Design, some Biodesign case studies seem to have the right features to be framed as restorative and regenerative solutions. In the attempt to frame biodesigned materials and artefacts for conventional and regenerative sustainability, the concept of Healing MaterialitiesFootnote ²⁴ inscribes both practical solutions enabled by biotechnologies, as well as the restorative and regenerative features of more experimental biodesign explorations. The word ‘healing’ has biological and socio-symbolic meanings; in Biodesign, this concept is strongly emphasised. First, the etymology of the word ‘healing’ is also related to the concept of wholeness, derived from the ancient English root, hǣlan (restore to sound health), and to the condition or state of being ‘whole’ – a concept extremely resonating with the ‘state of co-evolution’ addressed in the Regenerative Development theory (Mang and Reed, Reference Mang and Reed2017). Secondly, the concept of regeneration in biology is related to a healing process through which living beings restore organisms’ injured body parts, and its broader interpretation can be applied to the ability of species and biosystems to recover their own. Self-healing and biocompatibility are material features that can become design abilities to fit human existence in ecological systems. Biophilic Design (Söderlund, Reference Söderlund2019) has been related to a ‘healing’ power, referring to the beneficial influence of a biophilic approach in architecture on the human body and mind (Salingaros, Reference Salingaros2015). The need for a ‘healing culture’ is also felt in the design community: the exhibition Broken Nature, curated by Paola Antonelli in 2019, proposes design as a ‘repair strategy’, advocating for restorative and ‘allocentric design’, an approach able to act on the multiple bonds that connect human beings to their environments and other species, in every order of magnitude and systemFootnote ²⁵ (Antonelli & Tannir, Reference Antonelli and Tannir2019).

In this study, the adjective ‘healing’ assumes both the polarities of the taxonomical scale, suggesting that Biodesign has a dual nature in fostering a more aware and respectful ecological turn, acting both through practical solutions (enhancing current outer sustainability targets) and as a cultural mediator, fostering inner sustainability and more regenerative paths. Healing Materialities is the conceptual framework connected to the Biodesign taxonomic scale and its inner and outer sustainable nature; it arose from the need to describe the variety of sustainable possibilities offered by Biodesign and to highlight the feedback loop between the two polarities of the scale – among applied research and speculation, material possibilities and visions. These polarities nurture each other. In fact, it is not unusual for speculative projects to become feasible after a few years, starting as a diegetic prototype and ending up in the market.

The concept of Regenerative Design, based on the idea that sustainability should not only avoid harm to the environment but actively participate in its restoration, has significantly influenced this conceptual framework. Healing Materialities also foresees designed human systems that can co-evolve with natural ones through participation and design actions. The comparison made between the taxonomic scale and the Regenerative Design framework further validates the affinities between the two approaches, broadening the possibilities offered by biodesigned materials and artefacts- from sustainability to its overcoming, towards a more regenerative attitude.

To conclude, the adjective ‘healing’ assumes both a philosophical and concrete meaning, suggesting that Biodesign has a dual nature in fostering a more aware and respectful environmental adaptation: Healing Materials are biodesigned solutions that propose technical and/or philosophical responses to human-nature disconnectedness.

Sustainability remains an elusive and evolving concept, often promoted within the field and sparking the engagement of biodesigners. The Biodesign taxonomic scale and the Healing Materialities framework presented here reflect the Regenerative Design idea of sustainability as evolutionary health, supporting life through a diversity of species and relationships. This contribution aims to clarify Biodesign’s role in achieving new sustainable models of production and co-existence.