Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-rxvq6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T22:40:27.377Z 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: calliech@stanford.edu
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.

Information

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
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.