Welcome to the Future
PRoSPER focuses on developing a modular biofilm-based bioreactor that uses engineered E. coli and Synechococcus to remove perchlorates and salts from Martian soil. By separating bacterial growth from treatment phases, we designed a flow-through system adaptable to extraterrestrial constraints.
Mars presents extreme challenges: radiation, low temperatures, limited water availability, and a toxic regolith rich in perchlorates. These conditions make conventional remediation technologies inefficient or unsustainable. Our purpose is to solve a central roadblock in space exploration: how to transform hostile local resources into usable inputs for life support. Rather than hauling soil inputs from Earth or relying on rather fragile infrastructure, we aim to show that living systems can achieve in-situ resource utilization more sustainably. Synthetic biology offers a more adaptive alternative, allowing us to engineer microbes with specific functions—E. coli for reducing perchlorates and Synechococcus for desalination and biofilm support. We create organisms with a defined role, building systems that are low-energy, regenerable, and robust. This choice reflects our value of sustainability: designing systems that can adapt and renew themselves, rather than depending on consumables that wear out.
Synthetic biology transforms the environment at its root, rather than working around it. We recognize this can raise ethical questions of planetary stewardship. While PRoSPER does not claim to fully resolve such ethical dilemmas, we deliberately take them into consideration throughout our interviews with experts, ensuring that ethics remain a core part of our design. Coming down to the technicality, while hydroponics bypasses soil entirely, it depends on large volumes of clean water, precise nutrient control, and energy-intensive infrastructure, making it better suited for short-term cultivation. Traditional filtration systems like reverse osmosis face similar limitations: they require specialized membranes, high energy input, and frequent maintenance, all of which are difficult to sustain on Mars.
In contrast, synthetic biology enables a living, scalable solution. Our engineered microbes detoxify perchlorates and reduce salinity in a single co-culture under a controlled environment. Microbes are lightweight. This approach represents a shift toward long-term sustainability, demonstrating that we can begin to rehabilitate hostile environments rather than merely survive them. It’s not just about filtering contaminants; it’s about building ecological foundations that support life.
Integrated Human Practices (IHP) helped us ask: why this system, and why now? It pushed us to question the purpose and real-world relevance of what we're building.
Early on, we spoke with experts across the fields of synthetic biology, environmental science, and space policy to understand the broader stakes (practical, ethical, regulatory) of using engineered microbes in extraterrestrial environments. These conversations pushed us to consider the tradeoffs of mechanical and biological approaches, highlighting the longer-term value of synthetic biology. They also prompted us to consider risk mitigation, safety, and dual-use concerns as part of our design process. For instance, after speaking with Dr. Helbling, we shifted from an open flow-through concept to a closed, modular bioreactor with separate growth and treatment phases. This adjustment directly addressed his concerns about biomass buildup and flow blockages, and it became a defining feature of PRoSPER’s technical design.
Just as IHP guided our technical design and decisioning, it also shaped how we engaged the world around us. We organized efforts to make synthetic biology and space farming more approachable and understandable across generations. Through a children's book, high school teaching sessions, and senior center discussions, we invited a range of audiences into our conversation. Younger students brought curiosity and questions we hadn’t considered, while older adults offered reflections rooted in lived experience with agriculture, environmental change, and technology. These exchanges highlighted how different perspectives can enrich scientific development—and reminded us that innovation is most meaningful when it invites public reflection, not just expert validation.
From the very start, PRoSPER was shaped by the values of environmental stewardship and sustainability. While hydroponics and reverse osmosis offered familiar alternatives, we chose synthetic biology because it is regenerative, multifunctional, and adaptable. Interviews with experts like Dr. Mason pushed us to reframe PRoSPER from a narrow agricultural tool into a modular platform for detoxification, desalination, and resource cycling—showing how our goals evolved with reflection and feedback.
We also recognized that synthetic biology carries risks. Following Dr. Hertzfeld's advice on planetary protection, we incorporated multi-barrier containment and effluent sterilization into our design, aligning with COSPAR guidelines to prevent microbial escape. Toxicologists such as Dr. Flaws reinforced this by urging us to confirm that perchlorate breakdown products were not more harmful than the original compound, ensuring PRoSPER’s safety for both space and Earth.
Our design choices were also responsive. After Dr. Helbling highlighted the risks of biomass buildup, we redesigned PRoSPER into a closed, modular reactor with separate growth and treatment phases, which became a defining feature of the system. Similarly, outreach with children, students, and seniors challenged us to adapt our framing, reminding us that technical solutions must also be inclusive and accessible to diverse communities.
These conversations challenged us to approach synthetic biology with inclusivity, safety, and long-term responsibility in mind. Ultimately, IHP encouraged us to view PRoSPER not just as a scientific solution, but also as something that should be built with intention.
Why Use Synthetic Biology?
We chose synthetic biology for Martian regolith remediation because Mars presents extreme challenges to growing desired plants and vegetables, including high radiation, low temperatures, scarce water, and dust storms. On a larger scale, the environment on Mars could pose hazards as there may be dust storms and an increase of radiation since the Martian atmosphere is very thin and it lacks a global magnetic field. This occasionally causes surface radiation levels on Mars to be 40 to 50 times higher than on Earth (Williams, 2016)[1]. Conventional remediation methods, such as external mechanical or chemical apparatus are impractical in this context because they demand constant maintenance as they could get destroyed by frequent dust storms varying in size and intensity (Lorenz, 2022)[2]. Transporting materials from Earth in order to replace these components is incredibly expensive, while in situ manufacturing will be limited in capability, especially in early missions.
Synthetic biology offers a powerful alternative. By engineering microbes, we can design targeted, self-propagating systems that minimizes the need for frequent human interceptions. Unlike traditional filtration methods such as reverse osmosis– which require high-pressure, high-energy systems and regular membrane replacement– synthetic biology allows this process to operate with minimal resources (Karki, 2021)[3].
Our engineered co-culture kills two birds with one stone by detoxifying perchlorates and reducing salinity simultaneously. The microbial-based system allows us to progress from short-term survival to long-term sustainability, demonstrating progress towards the idea that we can begin rehabilitating hostile environments rather than merely enduring them.
Perchlorates
Perchlorates occur naturally at trace levels in Earth's arid regions, and ppb in drinking water and food. However, perchlorate concentrations on Mars are between 0.4% and 1% by weight, or 4000 to 10,000 mg/kg in regolith samples collected by missions like Phoenix and Curiosity– up to two million times higher than Earth’s most perchlorate contaminated soils (Archer et al., 2019; Hecht et al., 2019)[1][2]. Perchlorates’ high solubility, oxidative potential, and environmental persistence also make them mobile contaminants that accumulate in groundwater, soil, and food crops (EPA, 2017)[3]. Perchlorates are generally non-toxic at trace levels on Earth due to natural microbial degradation and dietary iodide sufficiency, but their extreme abundance on Mars poses major risks to humans, plants, and microbial systems. These compounds interfere with thyroid function, disrupt nitrogen metabolism in plants, and challenge organic preservation, which makes perchlorate remediation a non-negotiable step for sustainable Martian agriculture.
PRoSPER addresses this using a modular bioreactor with engineered E. coli and Synechococcus. The E. coli is transformed with a plasmid containing the perchlorate reduction gene island which encodes a protein that converts perchlorates into chloride ions and oxygen. These microbes are immobilized on biofilm within the system that separates growth and treatment chambers.
In humans, perchlorates inhibit the sodium-iodide symporter (NIS), which prevents the thyroid from absorbing iodide, disrupting T3/T4 synthesis (Steinmaus, 2016)[4]. This can lead to hypothyroidism, developmental delays, and neurocognitive impairment in children. Dr. Elizabeth Pearce emphasized that prolonged exposure to perchlorates could subtly impair maternal-fetal health, particularly in iodine-deficient populations. The U.S. EPA sets a reference dose of 0.0007 mg/kg-day, equivalent to about 24 ppb in drinking water, but states like California and Massachusetts apply even stricter limits (EPA, 2017)[3]. This is especially important in Martian settings, where control systems may not match Earth’s redundancy and populations may be more vulnerable.

Dr. Jodi Flaws highlighted growing evidence that perchlorates can impact sex hormone regulation, ovary development, and fertility in animal models, suggesting that chronic exposure in closed-loop habitats could cause multi-system disruption.
In plants, perchlorates interfere with the ability to take up and metabolize nitrogen. Because of their structural similarity to nitrate, perchlorates are absorbed via nitrate transporters, disrupting chlorophyll production and protein synthesis. This can lead to reduced germination, stunted growth, and visible symptoms such as chlorosis. Studies confirm perchlorate accumulation in edible tissues of crops like spinach and lettuce, which raises major food safety concerns for any future agriculture on Mars (Ha et al., 2011, Sanchez et al., 2006)[5][6]. Dr. Robyn Tanguay, emphasized distinguishing between detectability and biological impact, reminding us that modern instrumentation can identify perchlorates at parts-per-trillion levels that may lack toxicological significance, informing our reactor’s sensing targets and flow rates.
Anaerobic bacteria like Dechloromonas and Azospira, naturally reduce perchlorate via respiratory pathways into chloride and oxygen, inspiring our genetic engineering strategy using perchlorate reductase plasmids in E. coli.
Interview Protocol
Timeline of Interviews
Stakeholder interviews are one of the most vital components to our IHP. Therefore, we adopted a protocol to ensure all interviews were properly conducted and cited. Before conducting interviews we sent out a consent form allowing interviewees to accept or deny having the information they share a part of our wiki and other promotion materials. We wanted to ensure that these interviews were done ethically, and this is one of the main components of making this true. During the interview, we tried our best to take notes verbatim in order to avoid miscommunications through paraphrasing. Finally, after each interview we sent a follow up to thank the interviewee for their time and insights.
Throughout our season we continuously revised our methodology to overcome issues we encountered. Many of our stakeholders greatly influenced our decisions and helped us fine tune our methodology. We completed a variety of interviews from comparing different model organisms to designing our modular bioreactor.
Damian Helbling - March 12, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We reached out to Dr. Damian Helbling, a Cornell Civil and Environmental Engineering professor who specializes in water quality and engineered aquatic systems. Together, we assessed the feasibility of our initial batch reactor design and discussed flow-related containment strategies.
What did we learn?
Dr. Helbling suggested design strategies for minimizing biomass accumulation and managing flow direction to prevent blockages. We also briefly talked about other bioreactor designs, such as a chemostat over a batch reactor, for better process control and easier modeling.
How did we implement this?
This conversation led us to move away from the open flow-through concept and instead design a closed, modular bioreactor with separate growth and treatment phases. This would maintain flow control while minimizing exposure risks. Dr. Helbling's insights were valuable in shaping our core reactor design, and they continued to inform our feasibility assessments and modeling parameters.
April Gu - March 14, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We reached out to Dr. April Gu, a professor of Environmental Engineering at Cornell, for her expertise in biological water treatment systems. We specifically sought her input on the feasibility of using Synechococcus for desalination and the challenges of maintaining a co-culture system.
What did we learn?
Dr. Gu raised concerns about the low salt uptake capacity of Synechococcus and questioned its effectiveness as a primary desalination strategy. She also highlighted the difficulties of maintaining pure, stable cultures in open systems, especially under variable conditions. As such, her feedback challenged us to think critically about long-term culture viability and system control.
How did we implement this?
In response to concerns raised by Dr. Gu, we transitioned to a fully closed-loop reactor system with separation between growth and treatment chambers. This change was reflected in following process flow diagram iterations. Ultimately, her insights shaped early stages of our technical design for Product Development.
Buz Barstow - March 28, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We spoke with Dr. Buz Barstow, a professor in Biological and Environmental Engineering, for his research focus on using synthetic biology to build sustainable energy technologies. We reached out to him following our conversation with Dr. Gu, aiming to clarify our modeling approach and better understand the practical constraints of using light-dependent microbes in our bioreactor design. His expertise in pathway engineering and biological design made our conversation key for shaping the strategic direction of our system.
What did we learn?
Dr. Barstow advised us to clearly define the goal of our modeling efforts before introducing complex variables. He emphasized that models should be built with specific questions in mind, such as system feasibility or performance constraints, rather than as open-ended simulations. He also encouraged us to explicitly consider light limitations when designing around Synechococcus.
How did we implement this?
Following Dr. Barstow's advice, we clarified our modeling objectives to ensure we were building toward specific system-level questions. His suggestion to focus on feasibility before complexity led us to prioritize specific types of modeling.
Lynn Rothschild and Garrett Roberts Kingman - April 3, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We spoke with Dr. Lynn Rothschild, a senior scientist at NASA Ames Research Center and an internationally recognized expert in astrobiology and synthetic biology. She has led numerous NASA projects focused on applying synthetic biology to space exploration, including BioNutrients and the Synthetic Biology for Space Exploration program. Dr. Rothschild has been a key voice in advancing the use of engineered organisms for in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) on Mars and beyond, with work spanning biological radiation protection, bio-based materials, and life support systems. We reached out to her to evaluate the feasibility of our PRoSPER system.
What did we learn?
Dr. Rothschild confirmed that our co-culture system was a promising and innovative direction, but she emphasized the need to analyze and balance the oxygen production and consumption within our system to avoid oxygen buildup. She strongly recommended using Dechloromonas aromatica over engineered E. coli due to the complexity of the perchlorate reductase system and challenges with cofactor assembly in heterologous hosts. We inquired about how to obtain D. aromatica in a cost effective way. She told us that there were no shortcuts to obtaining D. aromatica, stating that we would need to go through a culture collection, such as ATCC, to obtain a strain. This is due to the fact that labs would have to sign agreements stating that they would not distribute strains after purchase. Rothschild warned us that it will be costly – around $500 – but would end up being cheaper than just engineering E. coli to perform the same function. We were also advised to carefully consider media compatibility and competition dynamics between the two microbes in co-culture, and to plan how to maintain anaerobic conditions while supplying CO₂ for carbon fixation.
How did we implement this?
Ultimately, we rejected Dr. Rothschild’s suggestion to obtain D. aromatica instead of engineering E. coli. Logistically, Cornell iGEM has immediate access to E. coli without needing external approval, allowing quicker wet lab work initiation. We also had existing familiarity with E. coli engineering, whereas new bacteria require new reagents, protocols, and extensive trial-and-error. E. coli’s rapid growth and ease of use enabled quick scale-up, and past groups have had success at expressing perchlorate reductase operons in this organism (Leiden iGEM, 2018)[1] .However, we incorporated Dr. Rothschild’s feedback of needing some way to track our perchlorate reduction by investing in a sensor. This feedback helped us sharpen our wet lab plans and address key biological and engineering challenges early.
David Specht - April 11, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. David Specht, a research scientist in the Barstow Lab with expertise in metabolic engineering and fast-growing microbial chassis like Vibrio natriegens. We consulted him to explore whether V. natriegens might serve as a better chassis for perchlorate reduction than E. coli.
What did we learn?
Dr. Specht confirmed the advantages of fast-growing chassis like V. natriegens but emphasized the challenges of engineering perchlorate reduction into any host due to complex cofactor assembly and the need for strict anaerobic conditions. He noted neither V. natriegens nor E. coli is naturally equipped to handle this pathway without significant metabolic engineering. His insights deepened our understanding of the constraints involved in reconstituting perchlorate reductase function outside of native systems.
How did we implement this?
Dr. Specht’s input clarified the engineering risks involved in using E. coli, reinforcing the importance of designing around pathway compatibility and oxygen sensitivity. In contrast, Dr. Rothschild had recommended abandoning E. coli in favor of Dechloromonas aromatica, a native perchlorate reducer. After weighing both perspectives, we chose to continue with E. coli due to its well-characterized genetics, existing toolkits, and compatibility with our project scope and timeline. To address the challenges raised by both experts, we transparently documented these limitations and tradeoffs as part of our system evaluation by Wet Lab.
Meredith Silberstein - April 18, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We talked with Dr. Meredith Silberstein, a professor in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Cornell, whose research focuses on hybrid biological-material systems and environmental modeling. We reached out to her for advice on material compatibility in our bioreactor design and feedback on our proposed perchlorate and chloride sensing methods.
What did we learn?
Dr. Silberstein expressed concerns about the sensitivity of ion-specific sensors in environments with high background noise and suggested alternatives like fluorescence or pH-based indicators. She also emphasized the importance of designing mechanically compatible carriers to support stable biofilm formation. These insights encouraged us to assess both our sensing and reactor material.
How did we implement this?
While we ultimately chose to continue with a perchlorate-specific sensor, Dr. Silberstein’s feedback encouraged us to evaluate its long-term performance and environmental resilience. We explored alternatives like methylene blue and test strips but found them less accurate and impractical for scaling, especially in a resource-constrained setting like Mars. The sensor offers a reusable, low-waste option that aligns with our goals for sustainability and in-situ monitoring, without requiring repeated material shipments. Her insights also prompted us to investigate both fixed-bed and moving-bed biofilm reactors, helping us weigh tradeoffs in colonization, material compatibility, energy use, and mechanical support for microbial growth.
Adam Arkin - May 1, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We reached out to Dr. Adam Arkin, a leader in systems and synthetic biology and director of the Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), to gain insight into how synthetic biology can be practically applied in space-based systems, especially for co-cultures, perchlorate reduction, and reactor design. His expertise in space biotechnology and microbial engineering provided guidance on both technical design and broader strategic framing.
What did we learn?
Dr. Arkin reinforced the importance of separating microbial environments when growth conditions are incompatible, suggesting physical separation with selective diffusion for metabolite sharing. He offered practical advice on anaerobic culturing methods using Hungate tubes and optimizing light delivery for Synechococcus growth. On the genetic side, he recommended seeking high-transferability plasmids and using genome insertion or alternate microbes if large plasmids become problematic. He also encouraged realism about biological versus mechanical solutions, pointing out that biology’s strength lies in multifunctionality—offering perchlorate reduction, carbon fixation, and nitrogen cycling in a unified system. Finally, he highlighted the importance of building small-scale bioreactors for technical and economic validation and encouraged us to reach out to private space groups like Rhodium for potential support. This interview was particularly important because it directly informed both our technical system design and our strategic framing of PRoSPER’s role in space infrastructure– guidance that shaped multiple subsequent expert consultations and will be referenced throughout our IHP.
How did we implement this?
Based on Dr. Arkin’s input, we began redesigning our system architecture to accommodate compartmentalized microbial chambers. We also started sourcing Synechococcus strains with faster growth rates. In our framing, we began emphasizing the multifunctional advantage of synthetic biology in space environments, while also investigating non-biological control methods (like reverse osmosis filters) for benchmark comparisons.
Chris Mason - May 2, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We reached out to Dr. Christopher Mason, a genomicist and space biologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, to assess the biological and economic viability of our Mars agriculture project, and to seek advice on strain selection, culturing conditions, and long-term strategic framing.
What did we learn?
Dr. Mason emphasized the need to critically assess the technoeconomic feasibility of using synthetic biology for perchlorate reduction and Martian agriculture. He warned that hydroponics and aeroponics dominate space farming, not soil, and that chemical methods of perchlorate removal are currently cheaper and simpler than biological alternatives. This insight helped us realize that the strength of our system may not lie in replacing simpler tech, but in its multi-functionality and integrative potential. They also highlighted technical hurdles with Synechococcus, including slow growth and engineering difficulty, and recommended reaching out to experts and labs for support. Additionally, they shared practical tips on strain acquisition and stressed the importance of realistic framing in grant and partnership outreach.
How did we implement this?
We began reevaluating the scope of our system, expanding the narrative from a direct agricultural application and toward a broader multi-benefit bioprocessing platform for Mars. This also inspired our research into hydroponic systems where we learned that the types of plants that could be grown would be limited through this approach. We also initiated outreach to John Coates and his team who work with the perchlorate reduction pathway in Dechloromonas aromatica and started refining our organism choices and bioreactor design based on their feedback.
Sophia Windemuthn - May 2, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Sophia Windemuth is a Biomedical Engineering PhD candidate and NSF fellow at Columbia University. She is a previous Wet Lab lead on Cornell iGEM and has extensive experience trouble shooting issues in the Lab. We hoped to receive greater clarity on how we should navigate selecting a strain of E. coli.
What did we learn?
Windeminth recommended using a strain of E. coli with a lipoprotein knockout as this would be better for the secretion of PcrA into the periplasm. The knocking out of lipoproteins in the outer membrane make the membrane weaker allowing for a cleaner secretion. She also recommended looking into some type of secretion tag. She did warn that this strain has a lower transformation success rate but she believed it would be something worth using.
How did we implement this?
Ultimately, we decided to use the Nissle 1917 strain due to its increase in secretion efficiency. Windemunth graciously sent us some of her stock which we were able to utilize for some of our transformations. We also used the electroporation protocol she recommended.
Sijin Li - May 6, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Professor Sijin Li is a chemical and biomolecular engineering professor at Cornell University who was contacted for her expertise in fermentation systems and immobilized microbial growth to improve the design of PRoSPER’s bioreactor for Martian soil remediation.
What did we learn?
Professor Li discussed oxygen exchange in immobilized systems to recommend Plug Flow Reactors which would help reduce contamination due to its flow pattern. According to her, this type of reactor would likely support the separation of growth and treatment phases, which lines up with Cornell iGEM’s initial goal. She advised on using hydrogel coatings for microbial adhesion, media optimization, and potential collaboration with 3D-printing expert Jenny Sabin.
How did we implement this?
Based on Professor Li's feedback, some research on fed-batch strategies for growth and hydrogel-coated carriers for biofilm formation was done. The primary vision of the project was refined to reduce contamination during bacterial transfer. Her suggestions informed bioreactor structure and led us to consider reaching out to Sabin’s team for design support.
Hans Carlson - May 6, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Dr. Hans Carlson is a research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with deep expertise in environmental microbiology and direct involvement with the discovery of the perchlorate reduction pathway in Dechloromonas aromatica. His insight helped us better understand the biochemical and synthetic biology challenges of engineering perchlorate-reducing pathways for use in PRoSPER.
What did we learn?
Dr. Carlson highlighted a number of co-culture compatibility challenges in our proposed system. Oxygen-producing cyanobacteria (Synechococcus) are incompatible with perchlorate-reducing bacteria, which require anaerobic conditions. A potential solution is to spatially separate these organisms in distinct reactor compartments, using the dead biomass or metabolic byproducts from Synechococcus to feed the perchlorate reducers. Regarding host selection for genetic engineering, we learned that while E. coli is a convenient chassis, it presents barriers in functional expression of large gene clusters like pcrABCD, due to cofactor limitations, chaperone availability, and post-translational modifications. The perchlorate reductase requires a molybdenum-based cofactor (molybdopterin), which is difficult to synthesize and insert correctly in E. coli. He noted that while E. coli can grow anaerobically and perform nitrate respiration, it has not successfully expressed a functional perchlorate reductase to date. He also proposed alternatives like Azospirillum, a strain that reduces perchlorate effectively, grows quickly, can be genetically manipulated aerobically, and uses organic electron donors like acetate and lactate. However, it is not salt-tolerant, which presents a trade-off in the context of Martian soil’s high salinity.
How did we implement this?
This conversation influenced several technical and design decisions in PRoSPER. First, we committed to designing physically separated but functionally linked bioreactor compartments for oxygenic phototrophs and anaerobic perchlorate reducers. Second, we began evaluating Azospirillum as a promising host strain, especially for Earth-based testing, while also noting the need to assess salt-tolerant marine perchlorate reducers for Mars applications. Third, we started exploring the expression of the molybdopterin biosynthetic pathway in E. coli as a potential workaround, should we need to stick with this chassis.
Bruce Rittmann - May 8, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Dr. Bruce Rittmann is the Director of the Swette Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Arizona State University and pioneered the use of biofilm-based processes to clean up pollutants, including co-developing the Membrane Biofilm Reactor (MBfR). MBfR is one of the processes that is used in our co-culture, and with some clarifying questions, we reached out to him.
What did we learn?
We asked Dr. Rittman questions about all aspects of the biofilm reactor. This includes the amount of time for the bioreactor to form, what it requires to set up, how to clean it up, potential issues that we may encounter, and the advantages and disadvantages of pairing certain electron donors with certain bacteria.
How did we implement this?
The provided information allowed us to finalize the design of our bioreactor, in which a membrane biofilm reactor is the main component. This sparked us to investigate a bioreactor design that included biofilms and interview biofilm experts like Dr Andrew Hay.
Anthony Hay - July 3, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Dr. Anthony Hay is a microbiology Professor at Cornell University. He has three major focuses in his lab including biodegradation, biofiltration, and biofilms. We were particularly interested in learning how to effectively grow bio films from our model organisms and modeling opportunities doing so could provide.
What did we learn?
Dr. Hay recommended developing our biofilm by utilizing glass wool and beakers. He also emphasized the use of the curli gene, which when expressed increases the microbes ability to create biofilms. Lastly, he explained that modeling the growth of biofilms could be very difficult due to the different metabolisms between cell types.
How did we implement this?
We applied Dr. Hay's advice when it came to expressing the curli gene in E. coli to promote biofilm formation. The conversation helped us further confirm that our modular bioreactor would require two chambers since E. coli and Syenochoccus require such different growing conditions. We also were sure to account for cell metabolism when looking at the possibility of biofilm modeling.
Brian Bishe - August 12, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Dr. Brian Bishe is a NASA postdoctoral fellow at the University of California San Diego. He works in the James Golden Lab where he conducts research on cyanobacterial genetics. His work involves the development of an improved broad host-range genetic tool to aid in cyanobacterial bioprospecting.
What did we learn?
We learned that cyanobacteria are not only tolerant of perchlorate stress but can also be leveraged as efficient biological platforms for both detoxification and resource generation in space. Their ability to use light energy to manage oxidative stress, tolerate saline and non-potable water sources, and outperform plants in photosynthetic efficiency makes them highly advantageous for bioreactors on Mars. Dr. Bishe confirmed that perchlorates can even be reframed from being just a hazard to being a resource, as they can be converted into oxygen and chloride—critical for life support and soil improvement. Beyond space, cyanobacteria have terrestrial applications in sustainable agriculture as biofertilizers and even as nutritional supplements– highlighting their versatility. The conversation emphasized the importance of system design (e.g., pressurized liquid environments for Mars, efficient gas exchange in photobioreactors) and scalability, reinforcing that cyanobacteria are uniquely positioned as both a life-support and bioremediation tool.
How did we implement this?
We implemented these insights by shaping PRoSPER's design philosophy to emphasize cyanobacteria as a central workhorse for perchlorate remediation while considering additional outputs like oxygen generation and biofertilizer production. Specifically, we integrated lessons on the need for pressurized and continuous culture systems for Martian conditions, ensuring our bioreactor design accounted for gas exchange, light access, and CO₂ uptake. The discussion also influenced our Earth-side applications: we expanded PRoSPER's scope to include bioremediation in saline or contaminated soils and the potential for producing sustainable fertilizers from cyanobacterial biomass. This broadened our vision from a Mars-only system to a dual-use technology that supports both space exploration and ecological restoration on Earth.
As we continued with PRoSPER we realized we needed to learn more about soil composition and how soil interacts with growing plants. This also helped us better understand how we would go about remediating the soil and different procedures we could deploy to make sure our remediation was efficient and feasible.
Johannes Lehmann - April 22, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We spoke with Dr. Johannes Lehmann, a Cornell professor of Soil Biogeometry and a leading expert in nutrient cycling and soil system modeling. We reached out to explore how microbial processes, like perchlorate reduction and salt uptake, could be better integrated into soil flow models and how to approach nutrient separation within our system design.
What did we learn?
Dr. Lehmann emphasized the importance of defining clear, quantifiable output metrics when working with biologically reactive systems. He also stressed that any modeling effort must account for the physical structure and movement of flow through porous media. While he did not directly engage with synthetic biology, his perspective encouraged us to think about how water and nutrient flows interact with microbial dynamics in complex environments.
How did we implement this?
His input helped us better understand the Earth-based parallels of our system, particularly how remediating perchlorates in dry, saline environments might have future applications on Earth. It also reinforced our move toward controlled, cyclical treatment design that could support more structured measurement and monitoring strategies. The conversation encouraged us to view PRoSPER not just as a space system, but as a platform with dual-use potential in addressing future soil toxicity and water treatment challenges on Earth.
Daniel Buckley - May 1, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Professor Dan Buckley, a microbial ecologist in the Soil and Crop Sciences Department of the School of Integrative Plant Science at Cornell. His research especially focuses on the soil microbiome and its impacts on ecosystem health, plants, water, and air, which is vital to PRoSPER. We wanted his insight to better evaluate the ecological feasibility of using engineered microbes for perchlorate remediation.
What did we learn?
Professor Buckley pointed out that bacterial evolution in perchlorate conditions is unavoidable and recommended tracking adaptations through evolution experiments. He also noted that E. coli is not suitable for growing in soil long-term, so instead suggested eventual use of native microbes like Bacillus or Streptomyces.
How did we implement this?
The wet lab subteam was informed of the benefits of phased evolution trials and genome sequencing to monitor adaptive mutations. E. coli was maintained with the end goal of treating soil flow through in opposition to releasing the microbe into contaminated soil. Co-culture assumptions were revised to focus on indirect carbon support from Synechococcus. Additionally, since PRoSPER does not rely on the growth of E. coli in the soil due to the use of a bioreactor this lessened the concerns of using E. coli.
Jonathan Russell-Anelli - June 26, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Professor Jonathan Russell-Anelli’s expertise in soil science and water movement in controlled environments stood out to us while we were looking for experts to interview. We thought that his work could provide us insight into how these factors could translate to agriculture in low-gravity settings.
What did we learn?
Professor Russell-Anelli taught us that water flow in low gravity is dominated by adhesion and matric potential, making porous substrates essential. He also discussed using basalt for soil amendments, nitrogen-fixing microbes, and techniques like kriging and hyperspectral imaging for assessing perchlorate distribution.
How did we implement this?
This interview guided the choice of porous substrates to improve aeration and drainage and informed nutrient management plans including nitrogen fixation as well. We raised more specific questions about plant nutrition to figure out which plants would be the best choice for managing crops and vegetation on Mars. We did research on plants that can tolerate high pH and salinity but still edible or useful for humans.
Nina Bassuk - June 26, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Nina Bassuk, Professor Emeritus at Cornell’s Urban Horticulture Institute, for her expertise in soil health, plant establishment, and soil modification in disturbed environments. Following Dr. Kate Scow’s emphasis on preserving soil aggregation and microbiomes, we sought Dr. Bassuk’s complementary perspective on physical soil restoration and strategies to transition remediated Martian soil back into a productive growing medium.
What did we learn?
Dr. Bassuk stressed that restoring soil aggregation is essential for long-term health, recommending compost to reduce compaction and support microbial communities. She noted biochar can improve structure and water retention but may raise pH, and suggested raised beds to avoid re-disturbing subsoil, though scalability is a concern. She also emphasized that successful bioremediation requires sufficient light, water, and CO2: basic conditions that will be absolutely crucial but challenging to get right on Mars, and recommended nitrogen fertilization if nitrates are depleted during perchlorate reduction.
How did we implement this?
While her insights did not change our wet lab plans, they provided valuable context on the physical challenges of post-remediation soil use. This perspective will help our Policy and Practices team communicate why soil structure and compaction are critical considerations alongside chemical detoxification, and inform future steps on how PRoSPER’s outputs could be adapted for productive agriculture on Mars or Earth.
Deborah Grantham - July 3, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Senior Extension Associate Deborah Grantham was interviewed for her holistic approach to environmental management and experience addressing complex agricultural challenges such as waste management. We heard from her mainly to better understand how lessons from Earth’s sustainability practices could inform agricultural planning in closed systems for space.
What did we learn?
Grantham suggested designing closed-loop systems that plan for waste from the outset and recommended drawing lessons from degraded soils as well as volcanic environments on Earth. She also urged us to look into integrating human factors into long-term agricultural systems.
How did we implement this?
Grantham’s perspective led to incorporating nutrient recycling loops into system designs, referencing analog soils like volcanic regions for regolith preparation. Our team also put into consideration maintenance and human interaction to include them as core components of sustainable Martian agriculture.
Morgan Irons - July 14, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Morgan Irons is a PhD candidate in Soil and Crop Sciences and Carl Sagan Institute fellow. They were interviewed because Cornell iGEM was impressed by their expertise in soil-microbe interactions, low-gravity soil dynamics, and sustainability ethics.
What did we learn?
Irons introduced the concept of how reduced gravity disrupts soil aggregation in detail. We also discussed some challenges in managing toxic regolith chemistry. They also stressed the importance of containment protocols and encouraged ethical language emphasizing stewardship over colonization.
How did we implement this?
Irons helped our team brainstorm water acquisition and delivery strategies as well as possible microbial containment plans. They helped us rethink the importance of purposefully integrating redundancy in system maintenance. Ethical framing influenced our overall project communication to address responsible exploration and ecological care.
Beth Ahner - August 5, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Professor Beth Ahner was interviewed because she has a solid background in biological and environmental engineering. Her expertise in cyanobacteria and their use in biotechnological applications drew us into having a conversation with her and gaining more knowledge on proper cyanobacteria growth.
What did we learn?
Professor Ahner recommended minimal media like BG11 for Synechococcus cultivation and she advised us on fixed carbon exchange within co-cultures. She pointed out the difficulty of chloride sequestration in prokaryotes, so she suggested solutions such as using electrolysis.
How did we implement this?
After having an interview with Professor Ahner, we reinforced our plan for possibly using carbon and nitrogen supplementation for co-cultures. We further investigated chloride regulation methods and tried to find ways to include molybdate supplementation for perchlorate reductase to carry out its main function within the system design.
Our project has the main focus of reducing perchlorates. As some say, you must keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. This was the exact sentiment we had surrounding perchlorates and we interviewed an array of people from doctors to environmentalists to learn just how much damage pesky little perchlorates can cause.
Kate Scow - June 25, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Kate Scow, Professor Emeritus of Soil Science at UC Davis, for her expertise in perchlorate and nitrate remediation. Our goal was to understand how these pollutants are addressed on Earth, identify challenges that space-focused experts might overlook, and assess whether synthetic biology offers advantages in efficiency, scalability, or terrestrial adaptability.
What did we learn?
Dr. Scow compared in situ systems, which use native soil bacteria, with bioreactor-based approaches. She favored in situ methods for their low maintenance and natural reintegration, but noted they are slower than bioreactors, which are better suited for Mars but more disruptive on Earth. She also warned that perchlorate-reducing microbes often deplete nitrates first, requiring nitrogen supplementation, and suggested raised beds to reduce soil disturbance related to extracting the soil for remediation in bioreactors.
How did we implement this?
While her insights did not directly change our wet lab plans, they informed our understanding of tradeoffs between Earth and Mars applications. This perspective will help us justify PRoSPER’s bioreactor-based design for Mars while recognizing nutrient management needs for potential Earth applications.
Elizabeth Pearce - June 27, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Elizabeth Pearce, a professor of medicine at the Boston Medical Center and a global leader in thyroid health and environmental endocrine disruption. We sought her insight into the human health risks of perchlorate exposure, especially regarding thyroid function and fetal development.
What did we learn?
Dr. Pearce explained how perchlorate inhibits iodine uptake, leading to thyroid hormone disruption, with disproportionate effects on pregnant individuals and fetal neurodevelopment. Even low levels of exposure can result in cognitive impairments and increase the risk of disorders like ADHD or autism. She also highlighted regulatory gaps in US standards compared to stricter European approaches.
How did we implement this?
Her interview deepened our understanding of why perchlorate matters for human health, grounding our technical work in public health outcomes. It informed how we framed the urgency of perchlorate removal during outreach and LinkedIn posts, and her insights also supported our decision to explicitly address sensitive populations in our outreach materials.
Jodi Flaws - June 30, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Jodi Flaws, a professor of Comparative Biosciences at UIUC and a nationally recognized expert in reproductive toxicology and environmental health. She directs the Interdisciplinary Environmental Toxicology Program and has served on scientific advisory boards for the National Academies, Society of Toxicology, and multiple federal health panels. We reached out to her over email to better understand how low-dose perchlorate exposure might impact vulnerable populations and long-term hormonal health.
What did we learn?
Dr. Flaws explained that stages involving hormonal development or transition, such as fetal, pubertal, and perimenopausal, are most vulnerable to endocrine disruption—reinforcing what Dr. Elizabeth Pearce had told us. She emphasized that prenatal exposure was the most critical and that damage during gestation is often irreversible. She also discussed pairing environmental cleanup (by removing these endocrine disruptors) with nutritional interventions and exposure monitoring, while cautioning that we often lack data on effective supplements. Additionally, she advised ensuring that perchlorate degradation byproducts are not more toxic than the parent compound.
How did we implement this?
Her input prompted us to consider not only perchlorate removal, but also the broader public health implications, especially for pregnant populations. We incorporated her recommendation to test for potential toxicity of byproducts by ensuring that the reduced chlorates were benign.
Robyn Tanguay - July 11, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Robyn Tanguay, a professor at Oregon State University specializing in developmental toxicity and environmental chemical safety, particularly using zebrafish models. We approached her due to her expertise in perchlorate toxicology and high-throughput screening of environmental contaminants.
What did we learn?
Dr. Tanguay advised caution when interpreting perchlorate exposure data, as some tools detect concentrations too low to pose real risks. She emphasized testing within biologically and environmentally relevant ranges and recommended working with exposure scientists to avoid unrealistic parameters. She noted that perchlorate breakdown products do not appear to be more toxic. However, she highlighted that media components in microbial systems might affect toxicity assessments, stressing the need for pre- and pos-assessment to confirm that treatment does not introduce new risks.
How did we implement this?
Her recommendations influenced how we shaped our safety assessments of microbial co-culture systems. We also applied her advice when framing toxicological risk in our technical documentation, ensuring that our bioremediation strategy accounted for both efficacy and potential unintended effects.
The space village comes with a whole realm of unexplored questions and policies. In order to complete a proper ethical examination of our project we wanted to talk with experts who already had a deep understanding of current space policies and possible ethical concerns.
Henry Hertzfeld - April 2, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Dr. Hertzfeld is a professor at George Washington University and has held influential positions including Director of the Space Policy Institute and Senior Economist and Policy Analyst at NASA and the NSF. We reached out to him because he is a leading expert in space policy, and we were seeking guidance on the legal, ethical, and regulatory dimensions of interplanetary exploration. We wanted to better understand the broader implications of deploying biological systems beyond Earth. In particular, we hoped to explore how space colonization intersects with questions of planetary protection, equity, environmental stewardship, and the controversies surrounding the use of extraterrestrial resources.
What did we learn?
Unfortunately, due to the sheer complexity of space colonization and the disunity of countries attempting to explore space for their own benefits, the amount of official legislation regarding space exploration is very limited. Dr. Hertzfeld explained that while the Outer Space Treaty (OST) prohibits national ownership of celestial bodies and promotes peaceful exploration, it remains vague on key issues like resource use and settlement governance. The later Moon Agreement tried to address this but was never signed by major spacefaring nations. We also learned about COSPAR (Committee on Space Research), which offers planetary protection guidelines to prevent biological contamination during space missions. While countries like the U.S. and Japan often follow these standards, they are non-binding and inconsistently applied. Our discussion emphasized the urgent need for clearer, cooperative policies as space exploration becomes increasingly global and commercially driven.
How did we implement this?
Our conversation inspired us to create a space policy handbook to gather all of this information in one place for future iGEM teams to utilize. We also proposed recommendations for policies we could implement to protect Mars. Additionally, we created infographics for our LinkedIn that outlined different space policies.
Brian Green - April 9, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Brian Patrick Green, Director of Technology Ethics at the Markkula Center at Santa Clara University, is an expert on emerging technologies and their societal impacts. He authored Space Ethics, a foundational book exploring the moral implications of space exploration. His work bridges ethics, biotechnology, and space policy, making him a valuable voice in evaluating synthetic biology beyond Earth. We reached out to him to better understand the responsibilities and ethical considerations of deploying engineered organisms in space.
What did we learn?
Green emphasized the importance of planetary protection, the effort to prevent biological contamination of celestial bodies by Earth organisms and to protect Earth from potentially harmful biological material originating from other worlds. He cautioned against forward contamination and underscored the ethical obligation to follow the precautionary principle in environments like Mars, where native life may exist. This means if there’s a chance of serious harm, precautionary steps should be taken, even if the science isn’t fully certain yet. He also discussed the moral tension between innovation and conservation (especially concerning limited resources like water), dual-use risks, the possibility of misuse, and the need for long-term governance, given that no clear regulatory authority exists for synthetic biology in extraterrestrial settings.
How did we implement this?
His insights prompted us to strengthen our project's biocontainment strategies, prioritize closed-loop water use, and design protocols for earth-based simulation testing before deployment. We also began drafting our ethical framework, EUDI, with international cooperation principles outlined in the Outer Space Treaty. This was also a big motivation for hosting our ethical conversation at the Longview Senior Center and creating an ethics infographic for our LinkedIn.
Robert Zubrin - April 28, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Robert Zubrin, an astronautical engineer, founder of the Mars Society, and author of The Case for Mars and The New World on Mars, to gain insights into the broader context of Mars settlement and its connection to innovation, governance, and in-situ resource utilization. His long-standing advocacy for practical, technology-ready pathways to Mars and his philosophical framing of exploration as civilization-building aligned closely with the goals of PRoSPER.
What did we learn?
Dr. Zubrin emphasized that exploration and settlement are distinct—while exploration uses existing tools, settlement requires innovation under constraint. He believes Mars can catalyze entirely new branches of civilization, driven by social and technological experimentation. He underscored the importance of in-situ resource utilization, especially for fuel and soil production, which deeply resonated with PRoSPER’s bioremediation goals. We also learned that governance systems on Mars will likely evolve through a kind of natural selection, favoring those that offer the best quality of life and voluntary immigration. He critiqued traditional space agency structures as inefficient and vendor-driven, advocating instead for lean, mission-oriented design.
How did we implement this?
Dr. Zubrin’s insights helped us reframe PRoSPER not just as a soil remediation tool, but as a foundational technology for enabling long-term Martian settlement. His emphasis on minimalism and practical use of Martian resources led us to simplify and optimize our system design, inspiring our product development team to create a low-maintenance, efficient bioreactor, a streamlined, low-maintenance bioreactor with modular magnetic components. This allows us to easily attach or remove parts and adjust key conditions such as temperature and light through in-app integration, reducing reliance on Earth-supplied consumables. We also began thinking more broadly about the social implications of technologies like PRoSPER, such as how they might support more democratic, sustainable colonies by ensuring food security and resource autonomy. This perspective led us to conduct more interviews to investigate the ethics of long-term space colonization and explore public perceptions of the ethics.
Kelly Smith - July 3, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Kelly Smith, a professor emeritus at Clemson University with a unique area of expertise in the intersection of philosophy and biological sciences. Dr. Smith’s research also delves into space exploration, making him exceptionally well-suited to assist in addressing our ethical queries.
What did we learn?
Our discussion primarily centered on the conversation of risk-assessment. Since there are so many unknown variables, even assuming rigorous testing in the future, every step of our project requires some level of risk. This starts with the use of a recombinant organism; there comes some level of unknown even if we do our best to only introduce specific genes. This framework can be further generalized to our project as a whole, as there is a chance we are unable to detect a variable that would affect the remediation process. Furthermore, because the hypothetical consequences have no ceiling, ethical discussions can become tricky.
How did we implement this?
The concept of risk assessment is relevant to all areas of innovation, but is especially important in fields with less research such as synthetic biology and space exploration. Dr. Smith emphasized that ethicists are broadly ignored in the realm of STEM exploration due to a perceived inferiority, and as such, are only included in the conversation as an afterthought. This influenced us to reach out to a broad audience during our outreach efforts, from those at the Sciencenter to Longview. It also emboldened us to talk more about both the ethical concerns and success of our project with participants. There is no single correct answer for how much risk we should be willing to take, but we have opened a discussion to weigh the pros and cons of each decision in pursuit of scientific advancement.
Margaret Race - July 7, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Dr. Margaret Race is a retired Senior Research Scientist at the SETI Institute who holds a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of California Berkeley. Her work centers around planetary exploration and protection, as one of her most notable works was contributing with NASA to prevent contamination during extra-planetary missions.
What did we learn?
Dr. Race spoke to the fact that many of the complex ethical questions we face with PRoSPER have no one correct answer. Further, she highlighted how legislation, especially relating to space exploration, contained generality and variability. She also brought up a question often asked by critics about space exploration and experimentation: why should we expend resources on space when there are more pressing issues on Earth?
How did we implement this?
Our conversation sparked our deep dive into space policy, ultimately leading to the creation of a policy handbook for future iGEM teams to expand upon. Dr. Race’s probing questions challenged us to explore how reaching for space often leads to breakthroughs that benefit life on Earth. One powerful example is the SMAP satellite—originally engineered for space missions, yet now essential for predicting global crop yields. Examples like this reinforced our commitment to advocating for forward-thinking policies that help protect and preserve our planet.
Bruce Lewenstein - July 10, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Bruce Lewenstein, a professor of science communication at Cornell and leading expert in public understanding of science. We sought his advice on structuring our outreach materials for diverse audiences, especially in moving beyond simply delivering information.
What did we learn?
Dr. Lewenstein encouraged us to think beyond the deficit model of science communication. He stressed the need to identify specific goals, such as education, curiosity, or trust-building, and tailor language and tone to the audience’s background and expectations. He also spoke on the value of explaining how we know what we know, especially to audiences unfamiliar with or skeptical of synthetic biology. Finally, he urged us to consider that distrust may not stem from misunderstanding, but rather from concerns about who controls development and whether it serves community values.
How did we implement this?
His guidance informed our outreach strategy by pushing us to articulate the goals of each communication effort as well as broaden our strategy. This included turning our social media efforts to be more light hearted, as well as various approaches to adapt to different age groups, including children and elderly audiences.
Timiebi Aganaba - July 15, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
We interviewed Dr. Timiebi Aganaba, a space law and governance scholar who leads the Space Governance Lab at Arizona State University. Her international work spans law, policy, and ethics related to space activity, and she is currently focused on planetary protection and sustainability.
What did we learn?
Dr. Aganaba emphasized the importance of evaluating the quality and equity of space access. She discussed how national security concerns limit co-governance and advocated for interdisciplinary, inclusive planetary protection policies. She highlighted the legal ambiguity surrounding synthetic biology in space and discussed the lack of mechanisms to assign responsibility for ecological harm. She proposed the idea of a Global Registry of Space Harms to track and address intergenerational environmental impacts. She also stressed the role of soft law and ethical frameworks like planetary jurisprudence and transplanetary governance in guiding responsible behavior.
How did we implement this?
Her ideas informed our framing of planetary governance and protection in both our outreach handbook and space policy section. We referenced the gap in governance for synthetic biology and included possible approaches to strengthen accountability.
Chelsea Haramia - August 4, 2025
Who did we reach out to and why?
Dr. Chelsea Haramia is a senior Research fellow at the Center for Science and Thought at the University of Bonn. She earned her PhD in philosophy and works at the crossroads of science, technology, and morality, especially as it pertains to space. We hoped to hear her opinions on the ethical bounds of planetary colonization.
What did we learn?
Dr. Haramia spoke about the need for a new ethical compass when it comes to space exploration. She emphasized that just because a planet might not have life does not mean we are absolved of all morality when interacting with it. We should still do our due diligence to preserve the natural environment. She also told us that since the idea of planetary colonization is fairly new we do not need to establish a full framework of ethical codes, rather beginning the conversations is just as important. She also warned us that many times companies can find loopholes around specific policies and policies without hard rules, like the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, can easily fall subject to this.
How did we implement this?
After our conversation with Longview, we initially felt pressure to resolve every ethical dilemma surrounding PRoSPER. However, the interview reassured us that our role could simply be to start the conversation about the ethical implications of space exploration and propose potential solutions. It also became clear that the policies we include in our handbook must be airtight to prevent companies from finding ways to circumvent them.
As we progressed with PRoSPER we kept stakeholders in the loop. Here we have highlighted some of their major contributions and responses to our final project proposition.
Jonathan Russell-Anelli - July 30, 2025
Later in the season we reached back out to thank Russell-Anelli for leading our productive discussion on low-gravity water dynamics, soil saturation, and nutrient management for Martian systems. Mentioned that his insights on water movement under reduced gravity has helped our team select coarse, porous substrates for our flow-through system. He asked to receive continual updates as we furthered PRoSPER!
Beth Ahner - July 30, 2025
We contacted Dr. Ahner to thank her for insights and update her on our trial and error with utilizing various types of microbial growth media was only possible with Professor Ahner’s recommendation to try out minimal medium such as BG11 and compare growth results to our typical LB medium. She requested we keep her posted on further developments!
Buz Barstow - September 4, 2025
When we followed up with Dr. Barstow we thanked him for his advice on computational modeling for our project. He requested us to send our completed wiki page to him once it was posted.
Kate Scow - September 7, 2025
Thanked her for her advice to consider broader environmental impacts and implications, pushing us to think more critically about the scope of our design. She was in support of our final decision to use E. coli and was happy we continued to keep her updated throughout the project.
Christopher Mason - September 25, 2025
Thanked him for his insights, guidance, and generous offer of mentorship. The referrals and references he provided were incredibly informative to our project. He also offered to sequence our organisms as a future step for our work.
The age old question: E. coli or D. aromatica
One issue we consistently encountered was the contrasting and limited information surrounding the decision of which model organisms we should utilize in our coculture. We confirmed our use of Synechococcus early on due to its chloride sequestration capability which would be difficult to transform into another organism, as it involves not only the active uptake of chloride but also a high tolerance. Thus, we had to decide between engineered E. coli and D. aromatica for our perchlorate reducer.

After a comprehensive review of the feedback from our stakeholders and the available literature, we decided to use E. coli as our perchlorate reducing agent with the pcr pathway from D. aromatica. We believed that it was overall more feasible for our team but also recognized the challenges that we would face.
Inclusivity
PRoSPER integrates inclusivity into the structure of our project design, outreach, and framing of synthetic biology's role in space exploration. While only a select few may ever set foot on Mars, the systems we create and the decisions we make today must reflect the diverse communities on Earth who will be affected by biotechnological advancement. From science communication to stakeholder engagement, we have prioritized accessibility, equity, and global representation throughout our work.
We conducted interviews across a wide range of disciplines: researchers, soil scientists, space engineers, medical professionals, ethicists. This is not just to inform technical design for Wet Lab and Product Development, but to ensure that we were incorporating insights from people of different cultural, professional, and geographical backgrounds. Notably we interviewed Dr. Timiebi Aganaba, a space governance expert who has worked on international policy in both developed and developing countries. Her experience helped us understand the nuances of global access to space technologies, especially from the perspective of countries with emerging space programs.
Inclusivity for us also meant examining space colonization. We discussed planetary ethics and asked participants of our interviews on how we should approach interplanetary settlement. We spoke with Professor Bruce Lewenstein, a leader in public understanding of science, about how to communicate uncertain and ethically loaded ideas in ways that resonate across age, education, and cultural backgrounds.
This approach extended into our educational outreach as well. Our children's book simplifies complex ideas in synthetic biology, while our policy handbook foregrounds the contributions and aspirations of developing nations. In talking to children at space centers and to elderly populations at senior living, we reached out to a wide array of people with diverse perspectives and learned experiences. It was important for us to ensure that we could represent our whole community, rather than only a small fraction of it. We covered countries like Brazil, which has a robust bioeconomy and growing interest in space research, to show how space policy can be shaped outside of traditional power centers. Our goal is to reflect a broader, more pluralistic future for space exploration. One that doesn’t replicate past exclusions.
Inclusivity with PRoSPER means engaging with the intersections of geopolitics, social equity, and scientific advancement. It's an ongoing process of asking: who gets to participate? Who is affected? And how can we design for a future that reflects not only technical excellence, but collective responsibility?
Education
This year, our education efforts worked to explain the science behind our methods while also creating understanding and fostering dialogues with those in our community, and beyond. Our biggest goal was to make our education efforts as widespread and inclusive as possible, while still ensuring we made a true impact within our community. This year we focused on four age groups: children, teenagers, adults, and seniors. Each of these groups provided valuable feedback that we integrated back into our project. Whether it be questions posed by middle schoolers making us do more through background research or the ethical concerns held by seniors in our community, we integrate much of the feedback back into PRoSPER.
Activities ranged from stationed activities at our local science center focusing on the core of synthetic biology by taking a deep dive into plasmids to creating a class specially designed for high school students to learn more about synthetic biology outside of school. Each of these events were carefully crafted by our members to maximize the interest of our community members while still helping to educate the public on synthetic biology and PRoSPER. Our efforts this season were deeply personal as we involved ourselves with our community with the goal of fostering faith in the potential of synthetic biology, curiosity, and hope for humanity's future. Please read more about our education efforts on our “Education” page!
Policy + Ethics Concerns
Ethics are always complicated, because there is never a single, correct answer. Similar to many scientific endeavors, the primary ethical consideration of our project is risk assessment– having to balance the possibility of unknown consequences with the benefits of scientific advancement. PRoSPER’s use of synthetic biology to bioremediate Martian regolith raises critical ethical questions surrounding planetary protection, responsible innovation, and governance. Professor Brian Patrick Green, a leading voice in space ethics, helped us understand that the primary concern with planetary colonization is forward contamination: introducing engineered microbes risks interfering with potential native ecosystems or obscuring detection of indigenous life. Following the precautionary principle, we acknowledge that we lack sufficient understanding of Martian biology to fully anticipate the consequences of releasing Earth-based organisms. Although we do not have all the answers due to many unknown variables in space, we can still consider how we can minimize these ethical concerns. These insights lead us to prioritize biocontainment strategies, for example this was a driving factor in treating the soil flow through rather than the soil itself. Using this method we can contain the bacteria ensuring the soil stays organism free. As a further next step, we would deploy an additional camber into our bioreactor for all soil flow through to be treated with UV lights to kill any escaped organisms. Additional precautions can be taken by housing plants in a green house and in a raised bed system further mitigating possible contamination.
Dr. Green also emphasized the long term ethical obligations that humanity holds when initiating biological interventions beyond Earth, particularly regarding stewardship of resources and dual use risks. His reflections helped shape our approach to biosecurity, leading us to incorporate stronger design constraints to prevent our engineered organisms from being repurposed for harmful applications if reintroduced to Earth.
Similarly, space policy expert at George Washington University, Henry Hertzfeld, highlighted the importance of international frameworks, reminding us that although the Outer Space Treaty (1967) sets boundaries on sovereignty, questions about enforcement and ethical compliance remain unanswered. In response, we created a space ethics and policy handbook compiling all current space policies to propose our own set of universal guidelines. This helped us further understand how PRoSPER will interact with current laws and regulations while also providing a framework for future teams to build upon.
We were also inspired to call our elected officials to action, and urged them to take interest in the Quad Space Act, which would encourage the Secretary of Defense to open discussions with other nations regarding the future of space travel and future industrial policies surrounding space. Many of our members sent letters to their local officials asking for them to consider voting in favor of the act.