At Northeastern iGEM, we believe that synthetic biology must be developed responsibly, ethically, and with community needs in mind. Our Human Practices team focuses on ensuring that every step of our project, FloraGuard, is guided not only by technical innovation but also by social, environmental, and ethical responsibility. That is why our focus was guided by three main criteria of reflectiveness, responsibility, and responsiveness.
The central goals of our Human Practices work this year were to:
Our Human Practices efforts ranged from technical discussions with experts in protein design, biotechnology, and immunology, to community collaborations with CitySprouts and the Jordan Boys and Girls Club of Boston. These interactions consistently reminded us that there are many complexities to our project, and it is essential to learn from the perspectives of individuals with diverse and varied backgrounds. Each individual, stakeholder, organization, and student we engaged with provided us with a new perspective on how we could better integrate our research to be more impactful, responsible, and ethical.
Human practices played a key role in understanding the applications of our FlourGuard. When we first brainstormed our project of a biological flame retardant that binds to cellulose, we had not considered applications beyond creating plants better suited to withstand wildfires. However, as human practices began to engage with our community and stakeholders, we learned about a wide range of applications our project could have. Why stop at binding flame retardant proteins to cellulose when there are so many other problems we could target? Our time spent in the CitySprouts school gardens helped us understand the varied challenges that gardeners in Boston face. Issues of pest control and keeping plants well watered were some of the greatest challenges. Which made us start thinking about further research we could to attach proteins that would enhance plants abilities to retain water or deter pests from consuming them. The backbone of our project, to bind proteins to cellulose, is incredibly versatile, and leaves room from endless possibilities. Through engagement with stakeholders we learned about an array of different properties that could be valuable to attach to plants or any material containing cellulose.
It was with the help of our stakeholders that we were able to think through meaningful and innovative applications of our project, but also the considerations, precautions, and steps we would have to take to achieve integrations of a biological flame retardant that binds to cellulose.
To further break down our project into the guiding principles of reflective, responsible, and responsive, these are the considerations we took into account at each stage:
We continually reflected on the inspirations, values, and trade-offs behind our project. Our starting point was the urgent problem of wildfires and the health and environmental hazards of chemical flame retardants. This inspired us to explore FloraGuard, a protein-based flame retardant that binds to cellulose as a potentially safer alternative.
Stakeholders encouraged us to consider:
Stakeholder engagement deepened this reflection. Dr. Lauren Cole-Osborn encouraged us to consider when and how to apply our flame retardant (during growth vs. post-processing). Dr. Zhilin Chen raised safety questions about allergens, inhalation, and toxic fumes that we had never considered. These interactions reminded us that reflection is not just among our team members, but it requires asking new perspectives for their honest feedback, concerns, and ideas and adapting our design accordingly.
Responsibility meant actively engaging with diverse perspectives, anticipating risks, and honestly evaluating the impact of our work. We consulted:
These conversations led to new ways of thinking about the integration, safety, and impact of our project. We were able to identify potential risks that FluorGuard could pose to the health of our community and environment:
While our stakeholders played a crucial role in understanding the risk and safety concerns with FloraGuard, they also highlighted new opportunities for responsible application: FloraGuard as a safer replacement for PFAS-based sprays, or integration into detergents that provide flame resistance without disrupting existing textile supply chains. By anticipating both positive and negative outcomes, we sought to design responsibly for the environments and communities our project aims to serve.
Responsiveness meant closing the loop between what we learned and how we shaped our project. Feedback from stakeholders and communities pushed us to:
Our collaborations with the Boys & Girls Club and CitySprouts also reinforced the need for accessibility. Explaining synthetic biology to children showed us where our language and ideas needed to be clearer. This experience reminded us that responsiveness means not only adapting science to technical needs but also to human understanding and trust.
Human Practices in iGEM is about more than outreach or ethics checklists, it is about embedding reflection, responsibility, and responsiveness into our project, to fully understand the importance of our research and the ways we can integrate FloraGuard.
Our HP journey helped us recognize that FloraGuard must be more than functional in the lab: it must be safe, scalable, and acceptable to society. By engaging stakeholders, educators, industry experts, and our community, we built a project shaped not only by science, but by the community it seeks to serve.