Biological materials have been used in construction for as long as we have used wood and limestone; however, biotechnologies seem to offer the potential to grow materials to our specifications and even to allow complex structures to be self-assembled through biological processes. Several promising materials have been identified, including microbially induced calcium carbonate as a cement or mycelium grown on waste materials, which has potential as a structural or insulation material. These developments run parallel to a speculative design discourse – in which features future cities are grown, kept living and self-adapt – as well as research into engineered living materials (ELMs), at the cutting edge of material science and synthetic biology research into ELMs. This question invites a wide range of research contributions in which we identify, evaluate and speculate on the role that grown materials and structures will have on the future of construction. We invite not only experimental work on the latest method in this area but also critique and reflection beyond the ‘hype’ of these, potentially transformative, technologies and approaches.

Biotechnology has the potential to solve some of the biggest problems that contribute to local and global inequalities. Thus, it is imperative to increase the participation of diverse communities in the development, implementation and adoption of biotechnology. Biotechnology has been applied as long as we have domesticated plants and animals, produced cheese, yogurt, bread and alcoholic drinks. Today, it is being used in numerous disciplines including medicine, bioremediation, agriculture, energy and material production. Artists and designers have had a role in challenging research and its societal questions. Education must prepare individuals for a future of complex challenges providing creative problem-solving and critical thinking skill as well as the ability to innovate in a technology-driven world. Furthermore, teacher pedagogies should allow students and teachers to critically debate the political, ethical and social issues from the practice of biotechnology. This question invites a wide range of research contributions in which we identify, evaluate and speculate on the role that multidisciplinary education has on the future of biotech. We invite both experimental works on the latest methodologies in this area but also critique and reflection beyond the ‘hype’ of these, potentially transformative pedagogical approaches.

Biological manufacturing platforms open exciting opportunities to generate new materials, replace extractive processes, and perform ecosystem services through the deployment of metabolic pathways that are both found in nature and engineered. Further possibilities are generated through inter-kingdom collaborations and consortia-based pathways for manufacturing or biodegradation. In tandem, bioreactor technologies to support biocatalysis or bioconversion through novel immobilisation techniques enable flexibility in deployment. The intersection of physical, chemical and biological parameters within a novel bioreactor design will influence performance and stability in contexts beyond the sterility of the production facility. The nature and scale of new applications may invite unconventional production systems, or even consider in situ manufacturing as a potential way of disrupting centralised manufacturing and distribution processes. We may also consider how new technologies underpinning this approach could help us move beyond linear supply chains towards an embodiment of industrial ecology principles. We invite contributions that go beyond optimisation of a single pathway for product formation under conventional homogeneous conditions. Responses to this question will explicitly challenge how we currently design bioreactors through aspects of spatial distribution, connected systems or facilitating novel metabolic assemblages for multi-functional biosynthetic outputs.

The form and function of human-made objects has borrowed extensively from the natural world. Living systems can serve as the departure point for biomimicry, or as part of the experience in the case of biophilic design. However, bio-inspired design approaches often focus on an idealised and perfected representation of biology. As we design as we integrate biology into products, infrastructure, our conventional thinking on aesthetics may need to change. Real biological systems are subject to imperfections and may be visceral in ways that are not compatible with common conceptions of taste and beauty.

“Biotechnology” is defined by the reputed journal Nature Biotech as “[the] technology/methodology of relevance to the biological, biomedical, agricultural and environmental sciences”. Most often, what are defined as biotechnologies are based on the utilisation of cellular or molecular mechanisms for industrial applications, i.e., specific to the recent developments of Western science and livelihoods defined in the capitalist context. However, societies have been using their understanding of biological organisms and systems (biotechnology) to meet various hierarchies of needs (livelihoods) long before western scientists have shaped the understanding of molecular mechanisms. This question invites a wide range of research contributions in which we identify, evaluate and speculate on “what are we missing” in the (western) mainstream definition of biotechnology and design? We invite contributions in “vernacular biotechnologies” that challenge the paradigm that biotechnology and design is a modern discipline practiced by engineers in a laboratory. Vernacular biotechnologies can be common objects that are designed to interface with a living component of everyday life or the environment, and can include work shaped by traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and/or performed by persons who do not identify as engineers, and/or taking place in non-lab locations such as the kitchen or the field. We also invite critiques of colonial practices in biotechnologies such as biomining or synthetic biology, and their applications.

Living textiles are evolving at the interface of textiles and biology. This emerging field proposes methods to design with, by, and for the growth of microorganisms using textiles thinking, textile materials and textile process. Textiles transform the microscale of fibres and biosynthesised polymers into high performance, environmentally responsive systems that function at a macroscale through the hierarchical structuring of constituent materials. As biotechnology looks for scalable solutions for diverse applications in the built environment and beyond, textiles offer a variety of strategies for bio-assembly and bio-fabrication.

Human-designed objects have traditionally been constructed of relatively inert matter, and some recently examples been enhanced using stimuli-responsive ‘active matter’. Biotechnology offers the opportunity to consider living cells as constructional matter. However, living cells are distinct from familiar categories of matter because they were once independent organisms themselves. Construction with living cells involves cybernetic and behavioural concepts as well as the laws of mechanics: cells are ‘agential matter’. They make decisions and solve problems in ways that can be exploited by engineers, much as they have been exploited by evolution in creating multicellular organisms. Building with agential matter poses unique challenges, requiring the bioengineer to tame collective behaviours of cellular swarms by exploiting techniques of top-down control (behaviour-shaping signals) alongside bottom-up reconfiguration of molecular hardware. However, exploiting the multiscale competency of life offers unprecedented opportunities for engineering, regenerative medicine, and robotics. Agential materials have transformative potential but require complex design methods that go beyond our current methods of engineering and the reductionism present in biological research. We invite contributions that design, explain or test these methods.

How can biotechnologies and biomaterials shape and sustain habitats in extreme and space environments? Biotechnologies and biomaterials have been considered essential to the design of habitats in extreme environments such as outer space. Recent advancements in biotechnological research present novel ways in which materials, artefacts and architectural systems can be designed and developed to support life in extreme environments in space and on Earth. Different bioaspects are also researched to address the increasingly extreme environments on Earth due to climate change. Some of these innovations include the use of microbial ecologies and mycelium-based materials to grow radiation-resistant, self-healing and adaptable space architecture. Designing for extreme environments is a complex activity and benefits from an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research approach. We invite a diverse range of research contributions that explore, critically evaluate, and shape potential biotechnological futures in extreme and space environments. This includes innovative biomaterials and biodesign ranging from artefacts to habitats and systems that shape and sustain interactions between biological systems to enable advancement of space exploration.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced considerably, AlphaFold2 protein models are as good as X-ray results, language models like ChatGPT can pass MBA and medical exams, and deep learning models Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion can emulate artistic styles. Given current progress, could text-based inputs be used for the generative design of artificial proteins, pathways, or even organisms, with traits designed purely by AI? Existing strategies for biotechnology design are founded in knowledge-based approaches, such as rational enzyme engineering or whole pathway design using synthetic biology, often borrowing “parts” from other organisms. Alternatively, desired traits are achieved via random mutagenesis with iterative selection procedures. Both are costly in terms of acquiring knowledge and undertaking experimentation. Recently, advances in protein language models have allowed AI to implicitly “learn” properties that allow sequences to be folded alongside other embedded learning techniques for function prediction from primary sequences. Thus, AI offers varied routes to predicting biological outcomes from DNA sequences. However, AI has not yet been extensively used to design novel functions, despite the wealth of functionally annotated protein products at our fingertips. Thus, generative protein language models for biodesign represent a promising future. We seek to explore current technological limits and challenges, investigate new avenues and methodologies to make this possible and broach discussion around wider issues arising from AI-designed life.

Biodesign is a recent discipline broad in scale and scope, reaching towards solving complex ecological issues such as climate breakdown, pollution, biodiversity loss and social justice. Designers manipulate living matter and translate scientific discoveries and methods into real-world applications. Although some specialization and knowledge have emerged from working with specific organisms like algae, mycelium, bacteria, for example, the variety and vastness of the natural sciences require a greater understanding of the intricacies of the collaborative nature and interrelationships between lab protocols, scientific tools and methods and the tools and techniques for design production. As a result, the ingenuity of biodesigners to adapt, transform and invent new interdisciplinary methods is an emerging space. We are looking at presenting and discussing the invention of new technical skills, toolkits and machines that allow for the calibration and manipulation of living systems for the the advancement of the discipline of Biodesign.

Biosecurity is essential for safeguarding biological materials and technologies, but traditional approaches often lack the excitement and engagement needed for widespread adoption. This question seeks to explore innovative strategies that go beyond conventional methods, incorporating interdisciplinary collaboration, creative activism, and groundbreaking design to spark biosecurity socialization.

Biotechnology Design is a question-led journal. All our contributions should relate to and help answer one of our questions. But how do we know if we are asking the right questions? What if we are missing a new piece of science, new concept, new challenge, or a new biotechnology idea that does not match one of our questions. Could this new idea lead to new questions? This is the space for these new ideas. We especially welcome contributions from early-stage research which combines early experimentation and scientific data with a new idea, challenge of application domain. These papers may ultimately be seeds for new questions, contributions to our non-peer review ‘Community Section’ which will develop over time to become full papers. As with all contributions to Biotechnology Design these contributions should be question-led and, as contributions to our ‘New Seeds?’ theme do not connect to an existing question, the question being answered should be clearly stated.