4 minute read
Biodesign: definition and entanglements
The term biodesign commonly to the subfield of design studies that comprises the design “of, with or from biology” (Ginsberg & Chieza, 2018). Paradoxically, this seemingly precise definition also frames biodesign as an umbrella term for all disciplines that develop solutions within the overlaps of biology, art, and technology, such as biotechnology, synthetic biology, biomedical engineering, etc., as they “integrate organic processes and materials into the creation of (…) products” by “incorporating or imitating living organisms into design as material sources” (Omuus, 2018).
Fundamentally, biodesign envisions a historical change of paradigm in our relation as a species with the fabrication of products and goods to meet material demand (Benjamin, 2011), thus embodying a transition from industrial manufacturing techniques towards a horizon of biofabrication, with profound systemic implications in the world economy.
Advertisement
With every radical change of technological paradigm come new challenges and uncertainties and, in context of biodesign, one of the major obstacles to overcome is the current lack of sufficient
Figure 1. Alba (2002), a genetically modified glow-in-thedark rabbit creted by bio-artist Eduardo Kac as an essay on nature, technology and ethics.
interconnection between those disciplines focused on experimental biology research and the design practice as a whole.
A convergence of both fields is, however, necessary for the emergence of these transformative new hybrid disciplines between biology and design, and that requires not only an alignment of objectives and strategies, but also the construction of a common framework of methodologies that enable for joint projects both scientifically backed advancements in understanding
(Acosta & Romeva, 2010)
biological processes for metabolism, molecular synthesis and techniques like gene editing, and provided with the scope of implementation and communication that the more explorative and speculative practices of design bring to the table (Chieza et al., 2019).
The idea of understanding biology (or traditionally, nature), design and technology as a continuum is, however, not new: “Descartes was the first who […] ventured to think of the animal as a machine” (Nietzsche, 1918, as cited in Lemm, 2020, p. 87). Even earlier, circa 1510, Da Vinci’s studies of human anatomy show a mechanistic interest in the natural sciences a source of inspiration and understanding for design but, also, as a subject of design.
We also find this dichotomy present in Binswanger interpretation of Freud’s conception of human nature, that comprises “first, a rigorous-scientific deconstruction of human nature, and second, a creative-interpretativeinterpretative reconstruction of human nature […] that belongs to a larger project of cultural renewal” (Binswanger, 1947, as cited in Lemm, 2020, p. 81). In a more contemporary approach, posthumanist philosopher Rossi Braidotti defends the idea that “the possibility of a community between human and nonhuman life is ultimately based on […] ‘the ubiquity of technological mediation’” (Braidotti, 2016, as cited in Lemm, 2020, p. 171). Altering her notion of “technology as second nature” (ibid.), we find biodesign as the result of a radically transformative consideration of nature as second technology.
It is precisely within this philosophical framework1 that the topic of biodesign reaches its uttermost relevance, and perhaps even urgence, to provide substantial transformation of the way we, as a planetary species, think of our relationship with the very materials we assume as our technology, as our means for further survival, transformation, and evolution.
As the conception of material reality evolves from a structuralist viewpoint of the object as contained entity towards a broader poststructuralist understanding, in which the object becomes a series of entangled material, energetic, ecosystemic and ontological
relationships (i. e., a “hyperobject” (Morton, 2013)), it becomes more obvious that there is an inseparable agency in the way we choose to materialize our technology.
This means that the way in which we think and speculate about our objects is, more than ever, able to create an impact in larger scale systems. At the same time, these objects must embody this systemic complexity by integrating a conception of processuality (Tonuk & Fisher, 2020) that goes beyond manufacturing, and extends into material sourcing (non-extractivism (Acosta, 2017)), disposal (waste reduction), degradation (environmental impacts and carbon cycle analysis), social impact (decolonization, accessibility, security, food, water and energy supply), etc. In the context of ecosystemic and climatic collapse, the idea that design means addressing these issues becomes crucial. If, according to the definition of Herbert Simon, “to design is to devise courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones”, then design becomes an essential tool for humanity to steer away of the current trend, and into other possible, more promising futures.
Provided that the nature of the issue is, inherently, an organic one, this design process must be guided and informed at all times by the biological sciences (ecology, biotechnology, synthetic biology), which create the scaffolding for solid speculation and later implementation of design solutions.
