Inclusive Perspective

Communities are a mosaic of different beliefs, opinions and thoughts. We strive to engage with different members of our community to ensure all perspectives are considered in our project, ranging from environmental to societal conversations.

Overview + Purpose

Based on the design of the iGEM competition, iGEM shows it inherently cares for teams to explore the social and ethical impacts of their synthetic biology projects. This is critical to ensure that the science that is being explored actually helps improve the world and humanity. However, it is easy to misbelieve there are no social or ethical concerns if only a singular group is asked about their thoughts. Additionally, marginalized voices may have different perspectives to these concerns, so ensuring that there voices are heard is essential in creating an ethical project. Therefore, we wanted to explore the different lenses/focuses that our project could be evalutated in it’s ethics. We wanted to hear the opinions of individuals in different communities and hear whether they believe our project proposal is ethical and if there are areas in which we must be cautious in how we proceed.

However we do want to emphasize that hearing the voice of one member of a group does not equate the voice of the entire group. Communities are a mosaic of different beliefs, opinions and thoughts, regardless of what unites the community. Therefore, our goal was not to document the complete opinions within a group, but rather actively engage with the people that we meet with, documenting what we learned, best practices for other iGEM teams, as well inform the direction that our team and other teams can can take when determining the ethical and social considerations of the project.

Does our project align with Indigenous communities?

UBC iGEM operates within the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver campus, which is situated on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) First Nation, along with the territories of the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) and səl̓ilwətaɁɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations ([1]). This is not our land and has never been our land, therefore if our project aims to improve the bioremediation of mine tailings, we must ensure that it is done with the informed consent and approval of the community in which the mine is found on. So, we must know the perspectives of Indigenous communities to determine if our project aligns with Indigenous ideas of sustainability. We hope to make advancements in MICP technologies, and must ensure that Indigenous Peoples perspectives are included from these initial stages of the research so that the technology centers the needs of Indigenous Peoples rather then the needs of a mining company.

However, we do recognize some limitations to connecting with Indigenous communities in regards to the structure of the iGEM competition. Connection and collaboration with Indigenous communities takes time to build trust, based on conversations with Sam Filipenko.

According to the Tri-Council Policy Statement (2022) ([2]), which is the Government of Canada’s official statement on conducting research involving humans, it states “[to] benefit the participating community, a research project should be relevant to community priorities and have the potential to produce valued outcomes from the perspective of the community and its members.” Mine tails are a massive issue for Indigenous communities ultimately it will still be many years before there is a completed project. As well, since teams change the area of their project from year to year depending on the individuals on the projects, Indigenous communities that do collaborate with a team wouldn’t have the chance to benefit from a complete product that would help their community, rather the final project of iGEM tends to be a proof of concept. Due to the reasons stated iGEM competition structure isn’t the best aligned with working for the needs of Indigenous Peoples. A suggestion Mr. Filipenko made was to build a relationship with a community partner first, then see what problems that they are facing as a starting place for a project idea. We share this in the hopes that other teams may choose to implement this structure.

Regardless of these limitations, we created a OCAP ([3]) informed protocol as to how we will incorporate Indigenous ways of knowing.

1. Interviews
   1. During an in-person meeting, HP members will ask questions shared ahead of time to obtain feedback for our work.
   2. For future reference and documentation, our conversation will be transcribed and stored on our private notion page consisting of UBC iGEM members.
2. Incorporating Feedback
   1. The data/input gathered will be shared with our wet lab and dry lab team (or other relevant subteams) so that we can enhance our project with the valuable input given to us by Indigenous leaders.
3. Presenting our Work
   1. At the very end of our project, we make our newly-gained knowledge available for the public to use on our wiki so that the positive learning cycle continues through the iGEM community and beyond
   2. Once we put our project together and build our wiki, we will email you the finished product before making it publicly available to make adjustments to the content as you see fit.
   3. All interview notes and pre-interview preparations are embedded within the agenda sent prior to our meeting.

Before conducting interviews, we wanted to minimize our bias by doing a thorough literature search of what we know so far about Indigenous values regarding our project, synthetic biology and beyond so that we can identify where our knowledge gap lies. Based on past literature, we came across free, prior and informed consent which is important for the future implementation of our project. However, past literature ([4]) has shown that Indigenous peoples have not been involved through this informed consent process in ecological genetic engineering, making it ever more important to discuss the implication of our project with Indigenous leaders in our community as it involves the introduction of a genetically-engineered organism into the traditional lands of Indigenous peoples as well as Mars.

As supported by Ulah and Taitingfong ([5]), releasing genetically engineered organisms into the wild can have unknown and adverse effects on the ecosystem in which Indigenous peoples reside. Moreover, Indigenous ways of knowing and carrying on the legacy of knowledge that are different from the Western scientific method, and we hoped to learn from the centuries of rich knowledge Indigenous peoples hold. Similarly, Indigenous communities are affected by mine tailing and may have a synonymous strategy to preserve their habitat against mine tailings and rising $CO_2$ levels that, merged with synthetic biology, could create a multifacetedly unique solution to the problems we are trying to tackle at UBC iGEM. A Canadian oil sand mining site is in proximity of 39 Indigenous communities, and in Alberta alone, 8 oil sand mines ([6]) stored 1.3 billion m³ of mine tailings in 2021. Considering that many of these mine sites are close to Indigenous peoples, the Canadian government has called for research into ways through which the ecosystem can be restored. Our project aims to address this pertinent issue by using mine tails and the MICP sequestration of $CO_2$ to produce biocement, we hoped to converse with Indigenous peoples to benefit from their valuable knowledge while improving our project for the benefit of the greater Canadian society and beyond.

We also wanted to gauge the history of Indigenous peoples with space, and we realized that there are many ancient Indigenous stories passed down through generations about our galaxy and constellations. For centuries, Indigenous peoples carefully tracked and studied celestial bodies ([7]) such as the circumpolar stars that helped them navigate and build various forms of mythologies and ancient stories. The métis people, for example, used the positioning of stars, the sun and the moon to guide them through the ocean as they performed fur trading. The gap however, still lies in knowing what the perception of Indigenous peoples is with regards to martian exploration and research. But with the aforementioned points, it can be seen that Indigenous peoples’ openness to exploring space through their traditional ways of knowing can be paralleled with our project, where by cultivating living building materials on Mars, mankind could move past Mars’ harsh atmosphere and conduct a larger horizon of research.

We also learned about biocultural labels. Biocultural labels ([8]) are a way to fill the gap between copyright and community values. Traditional copyright laws consider the monetary means of information disclosure and do not sufficiently address how information collected from Indigenous peoples is going to be used, keeping their cultural values in mind. There are different types ([9]): provenance labels which indicate the “primary cultural authority” of the materials used, protocol labels which underscore the specific community-informed methods with which information is collected and accessed and permission labels for what activities the cultural community at hand has approved of. It is up to the indigenous community to determine what the biocultural labels are used, furthering Indigenous agency

Although we reached out, we did not manage to find an individual or community who wanted to work with us. It was a failure on our part not to have worked with an Indigenous community from the beginning to ensure our project is truly beneficial for that community. For their effort in aiding us, they should have been properly compensated in a way that they believe to be fair, especially considering that the end of our project would likely not produce a finished product that would be useable by the community. We hope that in the future, the iGEM community can learn from our mistake, and work towards fully incorporating marginalized voices, especially indigenous communities, throughout their project.

Does our project align with environmental concerns?

Although our project aims to improve the bioremediation of mine tails, we must ensure that our proposed project development would actually lead to improved environmental conditions, and that there are no unaccounted for environmental drawbacks to our proposed project. That is why we spoke to a sustainability analyst (who wishes to remain an anonymous iHP contact) to ensure we account for all environmental aspects of our project.

Some of the negative environmental impacts of mine tails affects biodiversity, energy use and climate change, water waste, air quality, and poor management of mine tailings. She emphasizes how if proper management fails it will have an impact all around, causing long term pollution such as leeching into ground water. We also learned about current traditional management of mine tailings: one is the use of tailings ponds, a leftover slurry pond which takes up a lot of land space, and second is dry stack tailing, extracting liquid from the tailings to be treated and remediating the leftover tailing solid. Dry stacking has seen increased implementation due to an emphasis on a circular economic practice, but is a more expensive method than tailings ponds.

From our analyst’s viewpoint, our project would be accepted in terms of safety and cost-efficiency, and contributes towards a circular economy. The idea of a circular economy, how can we take something that was once considered waste and put it back into the value chain, was especially emphasized by our analyst as something we should strive to use as a framework for our project.

Currently, our earthly application is on track to align very well with a circular economy framework, as it recycles mining waste into a useable material.

There may be resistance around risk, significant cost barriers, and skill set required to implement our project on a wide scale, yet by engaging local workforces and remote communities, our project may be better accepted. Additionally, it is important we evaluate how our use of Cyanobacteria can propose risks if implemented, such as how water and grounds would be affected if the bacteria leeched. We continue to evaluate the likelihood of this occurring, and hope to speak to microbiology experts to better understand and quantify this. Furthermore, we hope to connect with environmental groups and mining communities to ensure we cover all possibilities.

Looking into the societal aspects of our project, our conversation also highlighted the overlap of space exploration from an environmental standpoint. Our conversation highlighted the importance of finding a balance between space exploration as a genuine scientific pursuit, versus considering space exploration only as a last resort to climate change. Ultimately, we do not foresee any significant resistance from any particular groups in our community, but we will continue to strive to include all voices, especially those from our Indigenous communities. Our conversation ended on a lasting note: cultural changes, fear, and humanity’s discomfort is not a sustainable source of change. It comes from a passion of wanting to save the Earth and create a more sustainable future.

We also met with Harley Green, an associate scientist from Pioneer Labs([10]), which is non-profit startup engineering microbes for Mars. Harley’s research background is in synthetic biology and is a biomanufacturing scientist. Our wet lab team wanted to inquired about the feasibility of the mars engineering aspect of meduCA, and we wanted to know their ethical considerations of their project. We were most curious if there were environmental concerns regarding Martian exploration.

Does our project conflict with any religious beliefs?

We want to ensure that our team has a two way conversation and with a broad range of beliefs to ensure that everyone is included. Although 34.6% of Canadians are non-religious, it still means that 65.4% of the Canadian population have religious affiliations ([11]) which are tied to their values and ethical beliefs. Therefore, by understanding the opinions of different religions regarding the broad topics of our project, we can understand whether any community may have reoccurring opinions of our project. Of course, not every person within a religion would have the same beliefs regarding what entails within their religion, yet it is important to engage with different ideas to acknowledge differences in belief and mitigate conflict, so that we may accurately comment on the full range of concerns, regardless of our own affiliations or beliefs. We hope by examining different religious lenses, we will be able to find an overlapping consensus and have our project work within that framework to maintain inclusivity of other opinions.

We looked at statistics about what proportion of the Canadian population falls under different religions. The main religions reported by the Canadian government ([11]) are as follows; 53% Christian (29.9% of entire population is Catholic), 5% Muslim (1 in 20), 2.3% Hinduism, 0.9% Sikhism and 1% Buddhism. Before we conversed with these individuals, it was important that we researched their root values about space exploration and genetic modification (ie. bacteria) of an organism and exposing it to the environment. When determining the ethical implications of space exploration through a religious lens, some religions tend not to have any concerns ([12]), while other religions tend to have more opposing opinions ([13]).

Starting with Christianity, we came across a Christian ([14]) individual stating that scientific advancements are accepted in Christianity as God’s allowance for the knowledge to develop technology and beneficial processes to make life easier and safer. Using space instruments such as the ISS allows for further understanding of God’s creation in deep space. “We can confidently view space exploration as an exciting scientific venture that will expand our knowledge of God’s creation.”

Many Muslim countries have developed their own space programs and instruments. Some scholars argue “space exploration is permissible as long as it does not harm God’s creation or violate Islamic principles” while others believe “certain space activities are prohibited”, and that “space travel is equivalent to self-harm” as it involves unnecessary risk and extravagance. One Islamic scholar ([15]) expressed that space travel “violates the sanctity of life and wastes resources that could be better used for the benefit of humanity”. However, the word of Allah as accepted by all muslims encourages individuals to research new things, explore the world, and increase their knowledge. Many muslims take pleasure in studying scientific allusions in the Quran, not limited to the Quran’s accounts of an expanding universe which is an example of space-related surahs that instill curiosity in many science-loving muslims. There is emphasis on the necessity of acting within the confines of what is allowed ([15]) according to Islamic beliefs while simultaneously embracing the quest for scientific and technical development. However, the Quran could have different interpretations and scholars who actively conduct religious research may have more to say about the ethics behind space exploration and genetic engineering of bacteria, hence we hope to conduct an interview with an Islamic scholar.

Hinduism offers a framework that embraces the exploration of the cosmos. They believe in interconnectedness and cyclical time, suggesting that venturing into space can be seen as an extension of humanity’s quest for understanding and transcendence ([16]). In fact, time dilation, parallel universes, and wormholes have their roots in Hindu mythology, which can be seen as poetic symbolism as well as ancient attempts to describe phenomena ([16]). With their long history in astronomical knowledge, it is reasonable to presume that space exploration is accepted in Hinduism.

As for Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib states that, “There are planets, solar systems and galaxies. If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end”. The Guru also says that the Lord is found within the universe and that “the limits of the created universe cannot be perceived”. It suggests that the more we learn about the universe, the more we will realize is still unknown. Sikhism teachings can be seen to to encourage the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the cosmos, and views scientific exploration as a means of of appreciating this creation ([17]).

On a Buddhist View on Terraforming Mars thread, one individual argues: “From the perspective of Buddhist effective action (kamma), if life is harmed without us knowing and intending to, there should not be any material kammic effect to worry about” ([18]). Meanwhile another Buddhist shares that terraforming would be a huge ethical question if alien life existed. It raises a question of what the Buddhist injunction against harm perceives life as, and to what extent can humans take over inhabiting Mars while still within moral beliefs ([18]). Overall, most arguments seem to share the common-ground of considering whether life would be harmed in the endeavors of space travel, and to what moral extent space travel should be pursued.

The key point that comes up is that although there is much diversity of opinions even within a religious group, genetic engineering must be used solely for improving humanity, and caution must be applied when using it. What matters are the actual benefits and consequences for humanity ([19]). This matches with the points discussed in our conversation with Dr. Nasir Zaidi, Ph.D, who is a Spiritual Health Practitioner at Fraser health, a Muslim Chaplain at UBC and a Sessional Lecturer at Vancouver School of Theology.