What we wanted to learn from the meeting

We aimed to better understand the role of microbial engineering in sustainable polymer production and how our PHBV-based bioplastic and acetate production might fit into future materials science and industry trends. We also wanted to learn about challenges related to large-scale production, material properties (especially for 3D printing), and industry standards we would need to meet.

What we learned

Dr. Fan emphasized the potential of microbial systems as a green alternative to petroleum-based plastics. He expressed optimism about bio-based polymers but noted significant challenges, including molecular weight control, sequence tunability, and the need for rigorous regulatory considerations (especially concerning genetically engineered microbes and potential gene transfer to the environment).

On PHBV specifically, he noted challenges such as its lower molecular weight compared to conventional polymers and batch-to-batch variability, which can impact its physical properties and applications like 3D printing. Lower molecular weight generally leads to reduced tensile strength and flexibility, making the material more brittle, while variability between batches can result in inconsistent printability and mechanical performance of 3D-printed parts. Dr. Fan suggested potential material improvements, including increasing molecular weight to enhance strength and durability, and introducing side-chain modifications to diversify elasticity and thermal resistance, thereby broadening PHBV’s possible applications.

He also shared crucial insights on testing and standards, recommending GLP permission with GPC (Gel Permeation Chromatography) analysis for molecular weight characterization, DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimetry) for thermal properties, and NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) for chemical structure verification. These standards are important because they ensure that material properties are measured consistently and meet regulatory and industry requirements.

Finally, regarding space applications, he stressed considerations for system stability, extreme temperature and radiation resistance, and ensuring robust gene regulation outside controlled lab environments. By system stability he referred to the ability of our engineered microbes to maintain their performance over long durations without contamination or loss of productivity.

Implications for future project

This discussion highlighted key technical and safety barriers to scaling PHBV for real-world use, particularly for space and large-scale industrial applications. We realized that even though PHBV is biodegradable, careful engineering and thorough characterization are needed to match or exceed the performance of existing materials. His feedback also pointed out that controlling genetic stability and regulatory concerns must be addressed from the beginning when considering environmental or extraterrestrial release.

How did this feedback influence the project?

We plan to incorporate Dr. Fan’s recommendations into our design and testing strategy by prioritizing molecular weight optimization and exploring possible side-chain modifications to improve PHBV’s mechanical and thermal properties.

We will also emphasize thorough polymer characterization using GPC, DSC, and NMR analysis, leveraging available campus facilities. His advice on environmental safety and genetic stability reinforces the need to evaluate robust biocontainment strategies and careful risk assessments before proposing future release scenarios (e.g., in space or agricultural environments).

This feedback will be included in our Human Practices documentation and help us ensure that our system is not only innovative but also responsible and practically viable.

What we wanted to learn from the meeting

We aimed to understand the material and engineering considerations for PHBV as a bioplastic, especially regarding its physical and chemical properties, manufacturability at scale, and real-world usability. We also wanted to explore potential sector adoption and gather advice on demonstrating practical value and responsibility in our project.

What we learned

Dr. Tenhaeff highlighted that the molecular weight of a polymer is the single most important factor, as it dictates many physical properties, including stability, processability, and to some extent, biodegradability. He also emphasized the importance of mechanical properties such as semi-crystallinity and glass transition temperature, which control how the material softens and behaves under different environmental or processing conditions.

Regarding biodegradability, he clarified that having chemical bonds in the polymer backbone that can be biologically or chemically activated is essential for enabling breakdown within a reasonable human timescale. For example, polyethylene’s carbon-carbon backbone makes it nearly impossible to degrade practically, whereas ester linkages (as in PHBV) are more likely to biodegrade.

On scaling and manufacturability, Dr. Tenhaeff noted that high costs and limited production speed are the main challenges. While bioplastics can theoretically scale, they face stiff competition from highly optimized and cheap petroleum-based plastics like polyethylene. He mentioned the importance of techno-economic analysis to realistically assess if bioplastic production can be cost-effective at industrial scales.

When discussing real-world adoption, he pointed out that the packaging sector (e.g., food packaging) is likely the largest potential application, but he remained cautious about whether PHBV meets the necessary mechanical and barrier property standards for such use.

Dr. Tenhaeff was excited by the societal need for scalable biodegradable plastics, describing it as an “open game” with enormous potential, but he expressed skepticism about whether any bioplastic could truly compete with petroleum-based plastics without policy or market incentives.

Lastly, he emphasized the importance of demonstrating not just lab-scale success but also the feasibility of distributed or large-scale synthesis, and considering energy and material balances, particularly relevant for Earth applications, though potentially less critical in niche settings like Mars.

Implications for the future project

This interview underlined that polymer characterization (molecular weight, crystallinity, thermal properties) needs to be a central part of our project validation. We must ensure our PHBV meets or exceeds baseline material performance standards before proposing large-scale or critical use.

It also revealed the importance of being transparent about cost and scalability challenges in our outreach and Policy & Practice work, rather than presenting bioplastics as simple drop-in replacements.

How this feedback could influence the project

We will incorporate more material testing and characterization (e.g., GPC for molecular weight, DSC for glass transition and melting points, mechanical property testing). We will also build techno-economic and energy balance considerations into our future implementation plans.

In our communication, we will emphasize niche or specialized applications where PHBV may first succeed (e.g., medical devices or specific reusable items) before generalizing to high-volume packaging.

What we wanted to learn from the meeting

We aimed to gain an ethical perspective on our project design and explore deeper considerations beyond technical feasibility, particularly regarding justice, safety, and the framing of our goals. We also wanted to understand how best to justify our project’s impact on society and ensure it aligns with bioethical principles.

What we learned

Dr. Herington emphasized that in addition to “do no harm,” a core ethical principle for our system should include robust safety measures, such as kill switches to prevent environmental escape or horizontal gene transfer. He suggested designing nutrient-dependent kill switches to ensure bacteria only thrive under controlled conditions, strengthening both safety and containment.

He encouraged us to focus on justice, arguing that technological projects should prioritize solving urgent problems that significantly improve the lives of vulnerable populations, rather than primarily benefiting already well-off groups or speculative future scenarios like Martian colonization. Dr. Herington recommended reframing our project to emphasize present-day Earth applications , such as addressing plastic pollution and carbon mitigation , as more ethically justifiable than hypothetical space uses.

He shared cautionary examples, such as dynamite (originally invented for mining but later weaponized) and recreational drones now used in warfare, to highlight the importance of designing for potential misuse and unforeseen consequences. He noted that technology developers have a responsibility to anticipate and mitigate risks, using safeguards like kill switches and strict containment mechanisms.

Regarding end-users, he pointed out that industries often prioritize cost reduction first and environmental sustainability second. Thus, framing our system in a way that aligns with these real-world motivators will be key for adoption.

Lastly, he reassured us that using E. coli is ethically acceptable in this context, as they lack sentience or welfare concerns. However, he emphasized that all projects must ensure no harm is caused to the environment or other living systems through unintended effects.

Implications

This discussion made us realize that we should consider focusing our justification on urgent, current environmental problems (e.g., plastic pollution, CO₂ capture) along with future applications like Mars colonization. We should explicitly demonstrate how our system can help improve lives today and reduce environmental harm.

It also reinforced the importance of building strong safety mechanisms into our design, such as kill switches and strict biocontainment strategies, to prevent gene transfer and ecological disruption. We must be prepared to explain these design decisions transparently and ethically.

How did this feedback influence the project?

Based on Dr. Herington’s feedback, we adjusted our communication strategy to highlight Earth-focused impacts as one of our justification along with space applications.

We will incorporate nutrient-dependent kill switches and evaluate other self-limiting features to mitigate escape risks. His emphasis on justice and responsibility will guide our Human Practices narrative and policy framing, helping us articulate clear evidence that our project is designed to do good for the world.

His insights will directly inform our iGEM wiki content and strengthen our case for ethical, responsible innovation.

What we wanted to learn from the meeting

We aimed to understand the environmental and health implications of bioplastics like PHBV from an expert in microplastics and environmental health. We sought guidance on whether PHA-based materials are genuinely beneficial in real-world settings and how to responsibly communicate claims around biodegradability and sustainability.

What we learned

Dr. Romanick, a researcher focused on microplastics exposure and health impacts, shared her skepticism about current “biodegradable” claims. She clarified that PHA materials, including PHBV, do not fully biodegrade in all environments but ratherdepolymerize into monomers whose fate is uncertain and context-dependent.

She highlighted that while PHA shows promise in certain controlled settings, its effectiveness and true degradability in natural environments like freshwater systems (e.g., Lake Ontario) remain unproven. Dr. Romanick pointed out that major sources of microplastic pollution, such as synthetic textile fibers and tire wear, would not be addressed by simply switching to PHA, indicating the overall environmental impact might be smaller than often portrayed.

She also discussed consumer confusion around terms like “biodegradable,” “compostable,” and “eco-friendly.” Many people incorrectly assume that these materials will break down easily in any environment, reinforcing single-use, disposable behaviors. Instead, she advocated for systems that prioritize reusability over disposability, coupled with public education on proper disposal and realistic expectations.

She mentioned the 5 Gyres report (which she recommended we review), showing that many bioplastics labeled as “compostable” failed to degrade in soil or marine environments over extended periods.

Implications for the future project

This conversation emphasized the importance of rigorously validating our degradation claims in real environmental conditions rather than relying on lab or industrial compost data alone. It highlighted that even biodegradable materials can contribute to microplastic pollution if not properly managed or if public behavior does not change.

Dr. Romanick’s insights pushed us to think beyond materials alone and consider systemic solutions (e.g., reusable systems, better waste infrastructure) to achieve meaningful environmental impact.

What we wanted to learn from the meeting

We wanted to learn more about the safety, health, and exposure aspects of bioplastics like PHBV, particularly given Dr. DeLouise’s expertise in microplastics, exposure science, and dermatology. Our goal was to better understand both occupational safety concerns in the manufacturing process and consumer health risks when plastics degrade into smaller particles.

What we learned

Dr. DeLouise emphasized that manufacturing safety is a primary concern, especially regarding aerosols or contaminants generated during production. For consumers, she explained that as plastics break down into smaller fragments, they often become more harmful. This is not necessarily due to the polymer itself, but because small plastics can pick up toxins and heavy metals from the environment.

She noted that testing priorities should include stability against UV and mechanical forces, outgassing, and checking for bacterial contaminants (such as residual E. coli components or toxins). While PHAs that biodegrade to CO₂ and water are preferable to conventional plastics, careful monitoring is needed to ensure no harmful byproducts remain.

Dr. DeLouise pointed out that the field of microplastics and health impacts is still very new, with little standardization. It is extremely difficult to directly link microplastic exposure to disease because plastics are so varied, widespread, and hard to measure reliably. She described this research area as the “wild west,” where methods for detection, enumeration, and health assays are still being developed.

She also raised concerns about bacterial DNA or RNA contamination from engineered microbes and the importance of strict containment to prevent unintended release. On a broader note, she reminded us that cost and communication are critical. New materials must be affordable and outreach should inform without exaggerating risks or creating fear.

Implications for the future project

This discussion highlighted the importance of comprehensive safety testing for PHBV, both during production and in end-use. We need to build protocols for testing UV stability, mechanical durability, outgassing, and microbial contamination into our project.

It also reminded us that our project exists in a very uncertain research space where the health impacts of plastics (especially microplastics) are not fully understood. Therefore, we must frame our claims cautiously, emphasize transparency, and support ongoing public health research rather than overselling “safe” or “green” outcomes.

Finally, her emphasis on cost and outreach reinforced the need to position our solution as responsible and practical, balancing safety with affordability, and engaging the public in ways that inspire action without causing undue alarm.

How did this feedback influence the project?

Following Dr. DeLouise’s input, we plan to:

• Prioritize mechanical, UV resistance measured by molecular weight retention using Gel Permeation Chromatography, and outgassing tests to check for volatile organic compounds that might be released during production for PHBV as part of our validation strategy.
• Incorporate screening for microbial contamination to ensure biosafety.
• Frame our outreach around balanced communication, avoiding overstatements about biodegradability or safety, while highlighting both the promise and limitations of PHBV.
• Stay aligned with the emerging microplastics and health field by tracking new methods of detection and toxicity testing.

What we wanted to learn

We wanted to understand the potential health and safety risks related to combining PHA with strengthening fibers for 3D printing. Our focus was on identifying whether these materials could generate particles or fibers that might pose risks to human health during manufacturing, use, or recycling.

Importance of Fibers

A key challenge with PHBV is that, while it is biodegradable and biocompatible, its mechanical strength and thermal stability are weaker than conventional engineering plastics (Rivera-Briso & Serrano-Aroca, 2018). This limits its use for 3D printing structural tools or replacement parts, especially in demanding environments like Mars. By reinforcing PHBV with strengthening fibers, the material could achieve greater tensile strength and durability, making it suitable for 3D-printing on Mars.

What we learned

Dr. Elder explained that the health risks of bioplastics are not just about the inherent properties of the material but also about exposure pathways. Fibers and particles can become concerning if they are:

• poorly soluble (making them hard for the body to clear)
• very rigid
• within a certain size/shape ratio that allows them to lodge in the lungs.

She noted that exposure depends on whether these particles can become airborne during production or recycling. In off-world manufacturing, protective suits and sealed environments may reduce risk, but the full life cycle of the material from synthesis to recycling still matters.

Dr. Elder also stressed that engineering controls (like enclosed systems) are far more effective at preventing hazardous particle exposure than relying on personal protective equipment. She emphasized the need for rigorous biological testing to assess safety, including effects on the immune system, osteoblast/osteoclast function (if used in medical devices), and the potential for chronic inflammation.

Implications for our project

This conversation highlighted blind spots in assuming bioplastics are automatically safe or “non-toxic.” It underscored the need to:

• design our project with exposure prevention in mind
• monitor both inherent hazards and real-world exposure
• plan for safety considerations across the full life cycle (production, use, recycling, disposal)

It also reminded us that innovation must be balanced with precaution, since many new materials fail to advance once health risks become apparent.

How this feedback will influence the project

• Building exposure assessment and engineering controls into our safety planning.
• Prioritizing biological safety testing to assess immune response and degradation.
• Communicating clearly that “bioplastic” does not automatically mean “safe” or “risk-free.”

What we learned

Mr. Barry talked extensively about the major challenges that plastic pollution poses for Green Visions. Since the ground they’re working on are vacant lots, not farmland, the debris from demolished houses presents a significant barrier to their work. To combat this, Mr. Barry and his workers have to carry out sweeps of the areas they work on, preventing further progress from being made in both the beautification and workforce development goals of the project.

Throughout the conversation, Mr. Barry stressed that it is “inauthentic” to say that the population of these neighborhoods directly contribute to the waste pileup. Mr. Barry said that someone can drop off their tires in a neighborhood such as JOSANA and not feel any guilt about it because of the already decrepit state of the neighborhood. This implies there is a “vicious cycle” at play between the poor perception and mistreatment of these neighborhoods. He also said that as a consequence of this cycle, it’s hard for the residents of these neighborhoods to be prideful of where they live, which hinders improvement. Mr. Barry stressed that efforts such as Green Visions, are, as he says, “very prideful, and people are supportive of great efforts.”

The final topic we discussed was the ways in which our project might positively impact Mr. Barry’s work, were it to be broadly implemented and replace the single-use, petroleum-based plastics that currently plague his work. After discussing the project, it became clear that a plastic that can quickly assimilate into the soil without a major negative impact to soil health would radically improve his and his team’s ability to carry out their urban agriculture projects.

Implications for the future of the project

This interview heavily influenced our decision to make the final plastic product biodegradable. If it could reduce the “pile-up” of plastic waste in Rochester’s underserved communities, beautification projects such as Green Visions could work more efficiently. We hope that this would motivate pride in the community, cultivate greater respect, and inspire more neighborhood improvement projects.

The interview changed the way in which the team thought about plastic waste. We tend to think about plastic waste accumulation in places like landfills, but by accumulating in our neighborhoods it also appears in our daily lives. As Mr. Barry mentioned, the already relatively decrepit nature of some of these neighborhoods invites more people to throw trash out of their car windows, contributing to the vicious cycle of disrespect to these neighborhoods. Furthermore, we realized we need to recognize how our plastics will be used and what long-term consequences they can have, beyond our communities.

What we learned

Mrs. Baron started by discussing a way plastic pollution was potentially beneficial to the community. In Rochester, it is common practice for residents to pick up returnable bottles to turn them into a local bottle drop-off facility to make some extra money. They are supposed to be recycled, but often are not. China has stopped importing almost all plastic to be recycled, whereas it used to be the largest importer of used plastic in the world. This has caused much more plastic to be dumped in landfills or incinerated, even if it was brought to a bottle redemption center such as the one by the High Falls neighborhood.

Sustainability education is a major goal of the state park. Mrs. Baron said that having an urban state park is a “threshold experience” for the community, since many of the poorer residents of the city would have never been to a state park. Many of the residents of the city close to the park lack a car, and can’t feasibly reach a state park unless it’s in the city. Secondly, Mrs. Baron brought up that when people are struggling to meet their basic needs they tend to have little bandwidth for issues of public policy. The creation of an urban state park significantly reduces the barriers for people living in these poorer neighborhoods to appreciate nature, which helps raise interest in and support for sustainability efforts. As Mrs. Baron says, “And so having people rally around the cause of sustainability [and] mitigating climate change effects becomes easier because they understand and appreciate nature and want to protect it, right? So it's a virtuous cycle.”

Implications for the future of the project

Mrs. Baron’s discussion of plastic pollution was a major factor in the decision to make the final plastic product biodegradable. However, more broadly, it encouraged the Policy and Practices team to consider ways in which global politics and the local community interact. For example, this discussion of global commerce was an inspiration for us to seek funding internationally, as discussed in the reflection from the Tracy Haddock interview.

Mrs. Baron’s educational missions with respect to the High Falls state park significantly informed our Education & Outreach work. Her points of the importance of lower barriers to access for education efforts and her point that exposure to nature can encourage people to “rally” around sustainability efforts were both informative for our Outreach work. However, this interview brought to our attention that simply exposing people to an extremely broad concept (such as the beauty of nature, in Mrs. Baron’s case) can be a powerful tool in convincing people that our work is relevant and important. This thinking was applied to the design of several Outreach events, including our visit to RMSC. For this event, much less focus was put on the finer details of synthetic biology and more effort was placed in relating the fundamentals of our research to the lives of the participants.

What we learned

Dr. Rothschild and her team provided an expert perspective on key considerations on the logistics of our project operating in space. A central theme discussed was sustainability— specifically how its definition and execution differ vastly on Earth versus in space.

On Earth, sustainability revolves around reducing emissions and pollution. Carbon dioxide is a waste product that has to be captured or mitigated in some way. As humans produce more waste products, CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, causing increased global temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and widespread disruption to Earth ecosystems. Our project as an autotrophic system on Earth provides the clear benefit as a net-negative Carbon system, transforming CO2 into a biodegradable plastic. In space sustainability requires a different approach. Closed-loop systems aim to minimize waste generation altogether. The phrase “yesterday’s coffee is today’s coffee” captures the principle of continual recycling. For example, the Water Recovery System on the International Space Station filters wastewater—including urine and sweat— into drinkable water. The Sabatier reaction removes CO2 from cabin air, reacting with hydrogen to produce water and methane (Hintze, et al.). The water is reused and the methane is vented out. With 93 to98% of water being reused, it illustrates how extensive their mechanism for tracking and reusing waste products is. Our project needs to follow similar logic.

This shift in perspective prompted us to reconsider how our system could be integrated into a space mission. The team had to consider our project with end-to-end function in mind; emphasizing a circular model that accounted for inputs and outputs. We had to consider whether the plastic produced could be broken down and reused, and if the energy requirements were feasible in an environment of limited resources.

Dr. Rothschild also prompted us to consider constraints specific to Mars. Mars’ atmosphere is 95% CO2 which is ideal for our strain, however, the atmospheric pressure is roughly 1/100th that of Earth This poses a challenge for gas extraction and compression. Since our project falls under In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), this creates an additional obstacle of optimizing our hardware to make our system worth the payload. For our system to be viable, it has to be efficient and lightweight.

Our discussion then explored our idea of PHB. While biodegradable, it is a brittle polymer and not well-suited for 3D printing. Our team had already planned to use PHBV—a copolymer of PHB and PHV—to improve stability and tensile strength. Dr. Rothschild prompted further consideration of whether we could extract PHBV without lysing cells, providing a strategy that could reduce processing steps and energy consumption.

Finally, our discussion addressed safety and feasibility where Dr. Rothschild’s advice greatly influenced the direction of our project. We were encouraged to more thoroughly consider cost-benefit analysis of in-situ manufacturing versus bringing stock materials from Earth as to quantitatively demonstrate the advantage of our system. We also recognized the need to evaluate potential environmental complications of our biodegradable plastic, such as the implications of plastic waste and introducing a new bacterial strain onto Mars. As such, we were encouraged to seek input from specialists in various fields to ensure safety in a practical setting.

Implications for the future of the project

Dr. Rothschild’s guidance ultimately steered us away from an Earth based system with a start and end point, but rather towards a space-adapted, circular system. For a synthetic biological system to succeed in space, it must be well integrated into greater space mission goals and work with the constraints of equipment that may be brought. These lessons have significantly shaped our project design as we aim to apply it into Earth and space settings.

Dr. Rothschild inspired our design for a copolymer of PHB and PHV to make PHBV, prompting further research and consideration on what types of tools we anticipate our plastic will be used for.

Furthermore, we were prompted to think about our filament extruder and the future of its design. While we planned on using fused deposition modelling for our project due to the accessibility, it was suggested that we consider if our project was developed further, we explore the prospect of selective laser sintering, which may be optimal for our end-use product.

The Ain Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of Rochester supports students, faculty, and staff in transforming ideas into ventures through education, mentoring, and experiential programs. It offers resources such as the Foundry incubator, competitions, workshops, and one-on-one mentorship, helping innovators develop entrepreneurial mindsets and business models that create real-world impact.

What we wanted to learn

We wanted structured mentorship on how to think about our project from an entrepreneurial perspective. Our goal was to learn how to identify potential customers and users, design a strong business model, and practice effectively communicating our value to different stakeholders.

What we learned

Through the Foundry Program led by Roberto Colangelo and the Ain Center, we attended classes and workshops on key entrepreneurial skills, including:

• Entrepreneurial Mindset – approaching our project like a startup, focusing on problem–solution fit.
• Customers & Users – clarifying who would use our technology on Earth and in space, and how their needs differ.
• Business Model & Legal Structure – mapping our cost structure, revenue streams, and potential organizational forms.
• Value Proposition – sharpening the way we frame our impact for different audiences.
• Pitching Skills – learning how to present our project clearly and persuasively to investors, mentors, and judges.

How our perspective shifted

• Our Business Model Canvas changed as we clarified the difference between customers (space agencies, industry partners) and end users (astronauts, engineers).
• We learned to frame our value proposition not only in terms of scientific novelty, but also cost reduction, adaptability, and mission reliability.
• Thinking about legal structures made us recognize the importance of IP protection and university licensing early in development.
• The pitching workshop helped us distill complex biology into a clear narrative, shifting how we communicate with non-scientific audiences.

Implications for our project

This mentorship helped us build a stronger Business Model Canvas, refine our value proposition, and improve how we communicate our project in entrepreneurial settings. It also gave us the tools to evaluate the legal and organizational pathways for future commercialization, while practicing the pitching skills needed to inspire stakeholders and funders.

Future implications

Looking ahead, we plan to further test and refine our business plan by participating in business pitch competitions, both within the University of Rochester ecosystem and beyond. Competitions such as the Mark Ain Business Model Competition and other programs associated with the Ain Center’s Foundry will provide valuable opportunities to present our project to judges, entrepreneurs, and potential investors. These events will not only give us critical feedback on our business model but also help us practice pitching, strengthen our value proposition, and explore broader commercialization pathways. Expanding into external competitions will allow us to benchmark our project against other innovative ventures, gain exposure to diverse perspectives, and continue developing our entrepreneurial mindset.

What we wanted to learn from the meeting

We aimed to understand how to position our PHBV/acetate system for SBIR Phase I → II, decide whether the innovation should be licensed, sold, or spun out, and clarify what we are actually offering (capability, product, or IP rights). We also wanted guidance on IP strategy (patent vs. trade secret; university vs. team ownership), how to partner with hardware companies (e.g., Redwire/Tethers), and which techno-economic questions determine whether on-site manufacturing is preferable to Earth resupply.

What we learned

Tracy emphasized framing our work as a platform technology that enables many applications (CO₂-to-PHBV for diverse 3D-printing needs) rather than a single use case. On commercialization, she advised identifying the hardest-to-replicate component—the engineered E. coli strain and operational know-how—as the centerpiece for deals. She outlined two routes: tech-out licensing (partners get rights to use our strain/know-how under defined terms) and a service model (we retain the strain and deliver material/results).

On IP, Tracy noted that patents are typically stronger than trade secrets for biology that must be physically transferred. While grants take years, a filed patent still underpins negotiations. Because university resources were used, UR may own the IP, so engaging Tech Transfer early is essential.

For SBIR Phase I, she stressed clear, measurable milestones and end-to-end proof: engineered strain → PHBV production → successful printing on commercial 3D printers, with targets for yield, molecular weight/quality, contamination controls, and print performance.

She also highlighted the need for structured partner evaluations with hardware companies: agree in advance on timeline, compatibility tests, safety/contamination checks, and mechanical benchmarks for printed parts.

Finally, Tracy urged us to lead with techno-economics: assume the biology works and model bioreactor scale, batch/uptime, mass-power-volume, feedstock needs, and the break-even printed mass where in-situ production beats resupply. She also flagged chassis/scale realities E. coli is fine for proof-of-concept, but we should justify it versus yeast (common in large-scale biomanufacturing) or present a path to scale.

Implications for future project

This discussion sharpened our commercialization path: present PHAntom as a platform with a licensable core strain + SOPs + QC, and, in parallel, a services option for partners. Our funding and partner outreach must include a TEA that quantifies when in-situ PHBV is superior to resupply. Any hardware collaboration should include a formal evaluation protocol with predefined metrics for safety and printability. Our SBIR plan must be milestone-driven and explicitly connect Phase I outputs to a credible Phase II scale-up. We also need to engage Tech Transfer now to clarify ownership and filing timelines.

Implementation in the future:

• Design & offering: We narrowed to two offerings—Option A (IP-first): provisional patent(s) + reference strains + protocols/QC for licensing or sale; Option B (system-first): a pilot bioreactor module with starter culture (higher TRL/value, harder).
• SBIR Phase I plan: We rewrote aims to deliver end-to-end proof on commercial printers with specific targets (strain titer & PHBV molecular weight, contamination-free extraction/QC, printed-part mechanical benchmarks).
• Partner readiness: We drafted a partner evaluation checklist (compatibility tests, biosafety gates, success criteria, data-sharing).
• TEA workstream: We initiated modeling for break-even mass, bioreactor size, mass/power/volume, and feedstock budgets.
• IP governance: Meetings scheduled with UR Tech Transfer to confirm ownership and provisional filing strategy; we added a brief on chassis justification and potential yeast scale-up pathway.

What we wanted to learn from the meeting

We wanted to learn how to position our PHBV/acetate project for commercialization and funding opportunities such as the NASA SBIR program. Specifically, we asked whether our system should be framed as a product, service, or platform; which components are best to license versus keep internal; what risks to consider when partnering with hardware companies; and what credibility or milestones are needed before applying for SBIR funding.

What we learned

Dr. Jake Beal advised us to frame our project as a platform technology rather than a single product. The engineered strain and associated know-how are the most difficult-to-replicate elements, making them our strongest candidates for licensing or protected IP. He outlined two main business models: tech-out licensing, where partners gain access to the strain under agreement, or an in-house service model, where we deliver results without transferring the strain.

He emphasized that any hardware partnership (e.g., with Redwire or Tethers Unlimited) should include a formal evaluation period, with defined success metrics for biosafety, compatibility with printers, and mechanical performance of the printed material. For funding, SBIR Phase I requires an end-to-end proof of concept: engineered cells producing PHBV that can be successfully 3D-printed. He highlighted the importance of techno-economic analysis (TEA) to prove when in-situ production is more cost-effective than resupply from Earth. Finally, he noted that E. coli is suitable for proof-of-concept, but we should justify our chassis choice and consider scalability in the future (e.g., moving to yeast).

Implications for our project:

This advice sharpened our commercialization and funding strategy. We will position PHAntom as a platform technology with a licensable microbial core and optional service model. Our SBIR Phase I plan now centers on demonstrating end-to-end functionality and quantifiable milestones. We are also prioritizing a TEA workstream to show cost advantages for in-situ manufacturing and drafting a partner evaluation checklist for hardware companies. Finally, we will engage University of Rochester Tech Transfer to confirm IP ownership and explore provisional patent filing before outreach.