Theory and design in the biotechnical age: A schematic understanding of bio design and synthetic biology practice

Abstract

Bio Design represents a new approach to integrating biological systems and processes into design, challenging traditional boundaries between the natural and artificial. Despite its potential, Bio Design has received little attention within design studies. This paper focuses on synthetic biology’s role in Bio Design, applying engineering principles to biology. It critiques the limited framework provided by traditional design methodologies for engaging with biological systems’ unique characteristics. Utilizing Oxman’s digital design framework, we propose a schematic conceptual model for Bio Design. This model emphasizes the collaborative interplay between genetic and environmental factors and acknowledges the inherent agency within biological systems. Through this, we argue for a re-evaluation of design processes that respects the complex, emergent nature of biology as a design medium.

Keywords:

• Bio design
• synthetic biology
• design theory
• design frameworks

Interest in biological systems and processes as technology is growing. Contemporary design practices, often described as Bio Design, see biology as more than inspiration but as integrated into designed materials, products, and environments Myers (2012) and Gough et al. (2021). This new perspective challenges conventional dichotomies between natural and artificial. Joi Ito’s notion of the "End of the Artificial" highlights the blending of natural and artificial realms, indicating a significant shift in our understanding and utilization of biological principles (Ito 2016). This reconceptualization aligns with Herbert Simon’s views in "The Sciences of the Artificial," questioning the clear-cut separation between 'natural’ and 'artificial’ in design disciplines (Simon 1996; Dade-Robertson 2021). However, we still lack systematic frameworks to understand bio design practice with biology acknowledged, through the publications and initiatives cited above, as a fundamentally different medium.

For clarity and consistency, this paper will use "Bio Design" to refer to the practice of integrating biology designed objects and in the design process. This approach diverges from traditional biomimicry, focusing instead on the creation of innovative products and solutions through the direct application of biological systems. The concept is increasingly acknowledged across various design fields, including architecture, interaction design, and fashion, underscoring a growing consensus on the definition and scope of Bio Design (Armstrong 2015; Benjamin 2018; Cruz and Pike 2008; Dade-Robertson 2021; Imhof and Gruber 2015; Joachim and Tandon 2014; Kim et al. 2021; Kuznetsov et al. 2012; Merritt et al. 2020; Parkes and Dickie 2013; Pataranutaporn, Ingalls, and Finn 2018; Collet 2017). Bio Design’s theoretical underpinnings are not ignored, with critical, speculative, and ethical explorations by figures like Oron Catts and collaborations within the Synthetic Aesthetics initiative (Catts and Zurr 2014). The Design and Science Journal, although short-lived, provided a platform for dialogues integrating cultural theory and synthetic biology, furthering the discourse between different fields (Ginsberg and Chieza 2018; Haraway and Endy 2019). A common feature of this work has been the concept of collaborating of co-creating with nature through the design process which challenges anthropocentric methods of design.

Despite this growing interest, academic engagement with Bio Design in design studies remains sparse, with minimal references in key journals (with some exceptions for example Kapsali 2022; Benony and Maudet 2020, Attias et al. 2019 in the Design Journal), indicating a gap between emerging practices and academic design research. This means that the idea of nature of biology as a co-designer is not necessarily expressed in terms of actual practices and processes of design.

Synthetic biology as bio design

Bio Design, with a diverse community of practitioners and approaches, is too varied for a singular encompassing theory. This paper, therefore, narrows its focus to Synthetic Biology, a subset of Bio Design known for its structured design methods and significant impact on simplifying biological concepts for wider interdisciplinary application, as noted by Benony and Maudet (2020).

Synthetic Biology borrows from engineering, drawing parallels with electronic and software fields to develop systematic design approaches. As defined by the European Commission (2005), it aims to create biologically based systems exhibiting new functions, applying engineering principles across biological hierarchies. This field emphasizes a methodical approach which utilizes the engineering design cycle from computational models to real-world applications and conceptualizing biological systems as modular genetic parts which are used to construct complex functionalities (Endy 2005; Cheng and Lu 2012; Kelwick et al. 2014).

Textbooks and initiatives like the International Competition for Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) have democratized Synthetic Biology, making it accessible beyond traditional biological experts and fostering a global community (Kuldell et al. 2015; IGEM n.d.).

However, Synthetic Biology is not without criticism. Scholars argue that equating biological systems with human-engineered systems is flawed, highlighting the discrepancy between idealized design processes and the unpredictable nature of biological experimentation (Boudry and Pigliucci 2013; Hellsten and Nerlich 2011; Soto and Sonnenschein 2020; Davies 2019; Szymanski and Henriksen 2022; Frow and Calvert 2013; O’Malley 2009). Synthetic Biology also clashes with narratives of Bio Design which emphasise biology as a collaborator. Synthetic Biology instrumentalises biology and presents biological systems as akin to computing systems with programmable interfaces. Despite these criticisms, its influential projects and frameworks make Synthetic Biology a useful lens for exploring Bio Design, offering insights into the broader field and its challenges. Synthetic Biology is also associated with a well described set of design methods which provide context for this discussion.

Framing synthetic biology through the discourse on digital design

Rivka Oxman’s seminal work ‘Theory and design in the first digital age’ (Oxman 2006) (from which we borrow the title of this paper) delineates digital technology’s role in design, particularly in architecture, differentiating between tools and mediums. This distinction parallels the evolution from traditional analogue practices to digital practices, such as CAD to Generative and Parametric Design, marking a shift in how design processes are conceptualized and implemented. Oxman aimed to identify digital media’s unique characteristics to form a comprehensive, analytical, and generative theory of digital design.

We propose that schematic model is useful in understanding Bio Design as an emerging design practice for a number of reasons:

1. Oxmans model is a generally useful thinking tool in considering the design process as it encompasses key aspects of design decision making (and has been influential as such). This allows us to use it here as a form of diagrammatic reasoning to identify key aspects of interaction between different guiding processes in design.

2. Oxman recognized that, for all the diversities of approach and outcomes of Digital Design, there were certain practices which are common and distinctive when designing with digital tools. She suggested therefore that computation could be seen as a medium. We suggest that the same may be true in Bio Design and we introduce the Biological Medium as a term here.

3. The Digital Design methods described by Oxman require thinking of computational systems, not as having a singular interactive interface between the designer and the design representation, as is the case of paper on a drawing board, but rather as having more than one layer. In her model these layers consist of the computational environment in which a design process takes place and the process itself. The model illustrates how agency is shifted as the designer relinquishes direct control of design representations in favor of control of, or influence over, the computational environments of the design representations. We see parallels here in Bio Design where questions of agency are paramount for biological systems where the designer has only partial influence or control and access through, we will argue, more than one interface.

4. As we have described a dominant metaphor in Synthetic Biology is of biological systems as equivalent to human engineered systems. A common idea is to consider biological system as an information technology with computational hardware of the cell running on the software of DNA (Soto and Sonnenschein 2020). Oxman’s framework, based on information technology seems, at first sight therefore, to be especially adaptable to Bio Design. However, in making this comparison differences emerge. By applying Oxman’s schema to Bio Design we will also reveal the inherent limitations of this framework. We do not, therefore, propose a straightforward update to Oxman’s model for a new Biological Media. By following the logic of Oxman’s schema we will show key and critical differences which make biology a distinctive medium and require new ways of thinking about design methods in biology.

5. Finally it is worth noting that Oxman’s paper does make explicit reference to biology and, in the tradition of generative and parametric design (where the paper has had most influence) the adoption of biological forms and generative design methods (including Genetic Algorithms, Generative Morphogenesis etc.). Rivka Oxman’s daughter Neri Oxman is a leading practitioner in Bio Design with work which extends across computation and biology. A revisiting of this model, therefore, is timely.

Oxman’s original discourse highlighted a gap in the understanding of digital design methods in architecture, leading to her development of a new framework. Similarly, by applying her methodology to Bio Design, we uncover the need for distinct theories that address the specifics of designing with biology. This paper argues for the development of new Bio Design theories, reflecting on how biological media reformulates design relationships, processes, and methodologies. Through this, we aim to suggest a new agenda for Bio Design, acknowledging its potential while recognizing its challenges and the need for new theoretical underpinnings.

Oxman’s taxonomy

The taxonomy Oxman presents comprises five interconnected boxes (Figure 1). At the diagram’s centre is the designer, who engages with different tasks in the design process, namely representation (representing design concepts through, for example, drawings and models), generation (generating design concepts), evaluation (analytical and critical judgment), and performance (based on reading and assessing contextual and performance factors). In traditional design practices, the designer has a direct, explicit, and interactive relationship with the design representation (e.g. design drawings and models). Conversely, the other processes are implicit cognitive activities occurring in the designer’s mind, as indicated in Oxman’s diagram with dotted arrows from the designer to the boxes. These relationships are part of the cognitive process of design, associated with creativity and intuition.

Figure 1. Diagram based on Oxman’s ‘generic schema’ (Oxman 2006) for analogue design showing tasks/stages in the design process including representation (R), Evaluation (E), Defining Performance (P) and Generation (G). Dotted lines represent implicit relationship, while the solid line labelled ‘i’ represents an explicit and interactive relationship.

In developing the framework to include schemas representing Digital Design, Oxman suggests that formally implicit cognitive tasks (such as evaluation and generation) can be externalized as computational representations. For this transition, formally implicit processes (represented as dotted lines), such as design generation and evaluation, are made explicit (represented as solid lines) as new types of representation in the computer and as flows of information in computational software (Figure 2). Consequently, the designer may no longer interact directly with these design representations but, instead, engage with the computational environment through which the design is generated, evaluated, etc. She depicts this separation of environment and representation type as boxes within boxes. Using this generic schema, Oxman proposes various models describing different types of digital design processes, including traditional CAD, Generative Design, etc.

Figure 2. Diagrams based on Oxman’s ‘generic schema’ (Oxman 2006) for Digital Design. Solid lines and boxes indicate a shift from implicit to explicit knowledge. Boxes within boxes represent the task/design stage in terms of an explicit representation and the computational environment in which the representation is created. The designer may access representations of these tasks directly or the environment tasks.

Figure 3. Bio Design Schema 1 showing a direct relationship to the biological media.

Schemas for bio design

Here, we will adapt Oxman’s schematic approach. Rather than focusing on Digital Design, we will concentrate on Biological Systems or what we are describing here as Biological Media represented in the diagrams as BM. Biological Media is used describe a broad range of biological entities, from single-celled microorganisms to multicellular organisms such as plants or animals. Biological Media must contain living cells and meet the definition of life, which includes containing DNA, having the capacity to self-replicate, and metabolize. Unlike Oxman’s method, however, we will not start with a 'generic schema’ but will build the notation through a series of diagrams.

Bio design as craft

Our examination begins with delineating the simplest scenario in Bio Design: a designer directly manipulating a Biological Media (Figure 3). In our diagrams, Biological Media are distinguished by rounded corners. This fundamental illustration serves to elucidate three core principles essential to understanding Bio Design’s.

The first principle acknowledges that Biological Media typically pre-exist; they are not wholly conceived by designers but are found in nature. This characteristic contrasts with other design domains, where artifacts are initially conceptualized through representations which act as mediating artifacts to enable the construction of the designed object (blueprints schematics etc). However, even in Bio Design’s most radical instances, such as the synthetic creation of bacterial genomes by Craig Venter’s laboratory team, the foundational elements stem from existing biological entities. Their work, which synthesized the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium, represents a landmark in combining chemical processes and computational mediation to replicate DNA sequences found in nature, despite the novelty of creating what was touted as "the world’s first synthetic cell" (Gibson et al. 2010; Researchers Create the World’s First Fully Synthetic and Self-Replicating Living Cell 2010). Critics like Wade (2010) have noted that despite the synthetic process, the operation required a pre-existing cell structure and utilized a naturally occurring DNA sequence, albeit with minor edits.

The second principle expands the definition of a 'designer’ beyond traditional confines to encompass a broader array of practitioners, such as scientists and agriculturists, who interact with and modify biological entities. Although these individuals might not self-identify as designers in the conventional sense, their work aligns with design principles as they aim to transform existing biological conditions into preferred states for human applications. This redefinition broadens the scope of design to include various forms of biological intervention and manipulation, acknowledging the design aspects inherent in scientific and agricultural endeavours.

The third principle addresses the unique status of representations in Bio Design. Unlike other fields where design begins with abstract concepts, Bio Design often starts with existing biological components. Designers employ a range of representations, from agricultural crop mapping to genetic circuit diagrams, as seen in Synthetic Biology Modelling Language (SBOL) Visual (Quinn et al. 2015). Despite advancements, the representation of biological systems, particularly through computational simulations, confronts limitations in capturing the full spectrum of genetic, phenotypic, and metabolic complexities (Ahn-Horst et al. 2022; Covert et al. 2001; Karr et al. 2012). These models, while increasingly sophisticated, often encompass only a fraction of a system’s processes and are restricted by specific environmental and developmental conditions. The discrepancies between computational models and experimental realities underscore the challenges in Bio Design (Cvijovic et al. 2014), illustrating that significant design work involves hands-on, empirical engagement with the biological material itself, often through iterative trial and error.

Furthermore, the narrative of Synthetic Biology aims to transition from the 'artisanal craft’ associated with early genetic engineering to a more 'rational design’ approach. However, this idealized notion faces the practical reality of design in biology, characterized by an iterative cycle of trial, error, debugging, retrofitting, and tuning (O’Malley 2009; Calvert 2013). This echoes traditional craft practices, where the creation process is deeply intertwined with the material, requiring intensive, skilful engagement and a profound understanding of the medium. Bio Design, in this light, parallels these craft practices, involving both tacit and explicit knowledge where the designer’s interaction with biological materials transcends mere theoretical planning (Camere and Karana 2018; Karana et al. 2018).

The concept of craft in Bio Design extends to the intricate balance of knowledge and experience. Anthropological studies, such as those by Polanyi (1962) and further explored by Hannah Sophia Roosth (2010), highlight the significant yet often undervalued role of tacit knowledge in laboratory work and scientific discovery. This form of knowledge, characterized by an intimate understanding that is difficult to articulate, is crucial in experimental science and Bio Design. It encompasses the sensory and physical experiences, the hands-on skills, and the intuitive judgment developed through direct engagement with biological media.

Schema 2: Genotype, phenotype and environment

Imagine cultivating a bonsai tree that glows in the dark due to bioluminescent protein-expressing leaves. This involves two distinct processes: cultivation, which includes nutrient control and pruning to shape the tree (Korner, Pelaez, and John 1989), and genetic modification, where genes from luminescent jellyfish are integrated into the tree’s genome for functionality testing and refinement, similar to techniques applied in other plants (Reuter, Stewart, and Lenaghan 2020). These practices materially differ: one manipulates the organism’s environment to influence growth, while the other alters its genetic code.

In Synthetic Biology, a prevalent model suggests a singular interface between designer and Biological Media, primarily focusing on genetic modification. However, this overlooks the multifaceted nature of design, particularly the complex interaction between DNA, environment, and organism traits. Describing DNA as the 'blueprint for life’ oversimplifies the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Projects in Synthetic Biology often rely on this direct mapping, like protein production (Paddon and Keasling 2014) or constructing genetic circuits such as the lac-operon for bacterial oscillators (Elowitz and Leibler 2000). These experiments typically succeed under stringent lab conditions, highlighting controlled environments as crucial for Synthetic Biology applications (Brooks and Alper 2021).

Consequently, we propose two revised schemas illustrating additional interfaces between the designer and the Biological Media, reflecting environmental and genetic modifications’ roles. In these diagrams, an outer box represents the surrounding environment, an inner box denotes the cell’s interior altered through genetic engineering, and a third, dotted line box indicates the organism’s phenotype, a result of gene-environment interactions (Figure 4). These adaptations challenge the single-interface model and underscore the complexity of designing with Biological Media

Figure 4. Schema 2 representing the designers engagement with (a) the environment of the biological media to influence the outcoming and (b) a combination of the biological media itself (through genetic manipulation) and the environment to influence the outcoming.

Using this diagram, we can identify two types of design. In the first example (Figure 4(a)), the designer influences the Biological Media by controlling the environment. This environmental change, in turn, affects the phenotype of the Biological Media through epigenetics, altering gene expression by intervening in the system’s physical and chemical environment. In the second example (Figure 4(b)), the designer modifies the cell itself through genetic manipulation, as indicated by an arrow pointing to the inner box of our Biological Media. However, we also suggest that cultivating the environment is an essential aspect of the design process. In the case of our glowing bonsai tree, we can alter the 'inside’ of the Biological Medium by introducing genes coding for bioluminescent proteins, but we must also consider the cultivation processes involved in growing miniature trees, which include environmental control. Both layers are accessed in this process.

The inner dotted line, representing the phenotype, is never directly accessed, as we suggest. There is never a direct line between the designer and this phenotypic layer. While the goal of a Bio Design method is to change the organism’s phenotype, the phenotype itself is the product of the interaction between the environment and the cells.

Schema 3 and 4: Natural and artificial selection

Having established the fundamental relationship between designers and Biological Media we can now broaden the diagram to include Oxman’s other categories of performance, function, and evaluation. To do this it is worth taking out the designer entirely to recognise that, in nature, Biological Media are ‘designed’ (and we now use this term with caution) by the invisible hand of evolution through natural selection. Figure 5(a) illustrates the evolution through natural selection using Oxman’s diagram.

Figure 5. Schema 3 representing the evolution through natural selection. ‘Designs’ are generated (G) through random mutations which alter the biological function and thus performance (P). This performance is evaluated (E), such that the ‘fittest survive’ (indicated by the tick mark) to reproduce. These activities all take place within specific environments and, thus, the environment box is redrawn to enclose all activities rather than the biological system (BS). (b) Schema 4 representing the evolution through selective breeding and directed evolution. Both approaches utilise the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection but introduce explicit, designer (D) controlled, evaluation of performance based on the desired trait and, in the case of directed evolution, accelerating the generation (G) of variations through the introduction of mutations.

Variation is generated through random mutations in the genome, leading to phenotypic differences and potential adaptations to the environment. This is depicted in the diagram within the environmental box, highlighting that natural selection occurs within an environmental context. Mutations, influenced by environmental mutagens, and fitness are evaluated in the context of competing species and environmental compatibility. Generation is an observable, measurable process (solid arrow), whereas performance evaluation is implicit, influenced by various contextual factors over time (dotted lines).

Figure 5 extends the concept, illustrating evolution as a design process without representations or prototypes, where designs are evaluated post-implementation. When reintroducing the designer in Figure 5(b), we describe selective breeding, a traditional Bio Design method where variation arises naturally but performance is assessed against the designer’s specific criteria. The designer influences reproduction based on desired traits, often through crossbreeding over generations, making selection criteria explicit.

Directed evolution, a modern variation, accelerates mutation rates beyond natural occurrences, fostering maximum diversity through methods like chemical mutagenesis. This approach allows for the targeted selection of preferred traits, streamlining the evolutionary process in a goal directed manor (Wang et al. 2021). This method demonstrates how contemporary Bio Design adapts and accelerates natural selection processes for targeted outcomes.

Bio design as a wicked problem: Decoupling performance and evaluation

In both selective breeding and directed evolution, there is an explicit link between function and evaluation. Biology has long used the language of functional adaptation, borrowed from human-made artifacts, to describe an organism’s fitness (Tim Lewens, 2005). This has led to the misconception that evolution is an optimizing process, whereas it is more accurately described as a satisficing process, utilizing available resources (Boudry and Pigliucci 2013). Although an organism may survive and outcompete others in its environment, this does not necessarily mean it is 'optimized’ for those conditions.

Biological organisms, including humans, contend with 'Wicked Problems’ as articulated by Rittel (Protzen and Harris 2010) as complex issues not reducible to optimizable parameters. Instead, they involve trade-offs between competing needs and requirements. We must acknowledge the duality between the functional requirements of design and the survival needs of the organism. This distinction necessitates a decoupling of performance (measured in functional terms) from evaluation, requiring a broader set of criteria for evaluating biological designs. Biological Media possess a 'life’ independent of human-assigned functions, and the imperatives of survival and reproduction may not align with human design objectives. The complexity of Biological Media, even in simpler organisms like bacteria, means that prediction and control are challenging, particularly when contemporary design methods treat Biological Media as if they were human-engineered (Szymanski and Henriksen 2022). Therefore, we need to move beyond current methods, metaphors, and approaches.

Biology, information technology and agency

Oxman highlighted a key aspect of digital media: the transformation of implicit cognitive design processes into explicit information flows and representations in computers. Conversely, in Bio Design, we might need to acknowledge implicit cognitive information inherent not only in the designer’s mind but also within the Biological Media themselves.

Biological Media are structured and not random. They can be seen as information systems, with genome information quantifiable as 'bits’. This parallels Shannon’s information theory (Shannon 1948) but, unlike in human communication systems, this framework falls short in biology, where the concept of information remains loosely defined (Sarkar 1996; Adami 2004). Biological Media are thermodynamically open, exchanging energy and matter with their surroundings, challenging the concept of information as part of a closed system, as suggested by the 'Central Dogma’ (Prigogine and Stengers 2018; Crick 1958). Oyama, in "The Ontogeny of Information," critiques the separation of Biological Media into matter, energy, and information, suggesting that information results from the interaction between energy and matter, challenging traditional metaphors like the DNA blueprint (Oyama 2000). This concept, 'information for free’, sees form as emergent from interactions between the cell and its environment, an idea extending to the phenomena of emergence where properties at different biological levels interrelate, influencing actions biological actions across scales (Dennet 2017; Dade-Robertson 2021).

In Bio Design, similar to Oxman’s differentiation between implicit and explicit information, Biological Media exhibit a form of creativity through emergence, seen in phenomena like slime moulds solving computational problems or the development of biological robots (Adamatzky et al. 2013; Blackiston et al. 2021). This suggests Biological Media possess agency, performing beyond the designer’s intentions.

Hence, we propose two schemas: Creodes and Agents, to articulate different approaches in Bio Design. These frameworks help understand Biological Media’ inherent creativity and agency, offering new perspectives on the interplay between design and biology.

Creodes and the necessary path

A useful metaphor to describe the interaction between genes and environment originates from early studies in developmental biology, specifically Waddington’s concept of the 'epigenetic landscape’ (Waddington 2014). In multicellular organisms, cells specialize by following a developmental pathway leading to their eventual destiny. For example, a cell in the human body starts as an undifferentiated stem cell and, through a series of transformations, specializes to form specific tissues (such as a heart cell or brain cell). While its genes remain unchanged, gene expression varies based on environmental signals and interactions with other cells. This developmental destiny is influenced by a range of chemical and physical factors.

Waddington illustrates this process with the metaphor of an undulating landscape, where a ball, representing the cell’s developmental state, rolls down to its eventual specialized destination (depicted in Figure 6 as numbers 1-4). The landscape’s structure is partially determined by gene 'stakes’, fixed elements beneath the surface. Although the arrangement of these genes may evolve over generations, they typically do not change within an organism except through random mutations. These stakes, consistent across all cells, are linked to 'guide ropes’ connected to the landscape’s surface. These ropes are adjusted as the corresponding genes are expressed or silenced through epigenetic changes. The epigenetic alterations modify the landscape’s topography, creating channels that guide the cell’s developmental destiny, symbolized by the path the ball takes.

Figure 6. Diagram redrawn from Waddington’s Epigenetic landscape (Waddington 2014) showing the a) necessary path (Creode) for a cells specialisation as a landscape articulated by b) gene stakes. This model implies that the phenotypic layer altered by is altered through a combination of environment and genes.

Building on the epigenetic landscape concept, its topography can be viewed in terms of rigidities and flexibilities (Dade-Robertson 2021). Certain aspects of cell development or whole organism growth are fixed and rigid, leading to phenotypic consistency. Conversely, other parts of the landscape are malleable, associated with phenotypic variability, where the environment significantly influences landscape shaping. In our model, this landscape is shaped not only by epigenetic 'guide ropes’ but also by environmental forces 'from the top’, meaning that the environment itself can design changes. This allows for the alteration of the Epigenetic Landscape, thus modifying a cell’s destiny towards fulfilling human-desired functions.

The landscape’s responsiveness to change is associated with the concept of developmental plasticity (Skipper, Weiss, and Gray 2010) (Figure 7). This plasticity is evident in nature; for instance, mammals typically have consistent body plans within species with minor variations, whereas many plants, developing outside controlled environments and, unable to move, must adapt to their local conditions and therefore display significant variations.

Figure 7. Modification of Waddington’s epigenic landscape showing a) the landscapes surface as heterogeneous and b-c and d-e under the influences of environmental factors ‘from the top’. The heterogeneous nature of the landscape means that parts of it are amenable (plasticity) to change while other parts are not.

Agential materials

The Creodic model, while a simplification, represents the biological landscape as a multidimensional membrane, defining a cell or organism’s position through numerous parameters. In our schema diagrams, the phenotypic layer, depicted as a dotted line, acts as a complex interface between the external environment and the internal cellular structure. This model suggests that the phenotypic layer has its own constraints and capabilities; it is not an infinitely adjustable surface but possesses its own form of agency. This might be more accurately described as comprising several layers rather than a single uniform surface.

Levin and Davies expand on this by distinguishing between inert matter and what they refer to as 'agential matter’—matter endowed with agency (Davies and Levin 2022). For example, Levin, in a conversation with Lex Fridman, contrasts the stacking of inert materials, such as Lego bricks, with agential materials, likening the latter to stacking dogs, which theoretically could self-assemble into structures but are complicated by their individual wills and agendas (Fridman, n.d.). While dogs could, in theory, be trained to stack, their inherent agency presents significant challenges, unlike the predictability of inanimate Lego bricks.

Conclusion

In this paper, we redefine biology as a medium within the emerging field of Bio Design, drawing from Oxman’s influential 2006 work, "Theory and Design in the First Digital Age." Biological Media, distinct from human-made systems, are defined by inherent characteristics that necessitate unique design approaches:

1. Biological Media are pre-existing biological materials or information patterns.

2. Lack of complete design representations necessitates direct, craft-like engagement with Biological Media, especially in Synthetic Biology.

3. Access to living cells is indirect, through 'control interfaces’—the cell’s internal genetics and external environment.

4. Biological Media possess independent agency, affecting design outcomes.

We critique the use of traditional engineering metaphors in biology, highlighted by Davies’s concept of biology as "Alien Technology" (Davies 2014, 2019), urging a re-evaluation to better encapsulate biological agency. Applying Oxman’s schema exposes the limits of viewing biology as information technology, emphasizing the need for new metaphors and models.

If we put the two models together we have a complex picture of Bio Design in which, we need to take into account implicit forms of information. This is, interestingly, an inversion of the observation made my Oxman that Digital Design made, previously implicit, in terms of intuitive cognitive forms of design knowledge, explicit i.e. through the computational methods including generative design etc. In Bio Design, however, explicit processes are made implicit as biological processes exhibit their own cognition.

We may need to redraw the diagram (as we have in Figure 8) to represent two independent design systems, one centred around human cognitive processes, the other around biological cognitive processes. Design in this context becomes matching, for example, human functional requirements and biological functional needs, the generation of possibilities and the generation of biological variation etc. The diagram has ceased, at this point, to be a useful reasoning tool but we use it here to illustrate the additional interfaces between human design processes and biological life. We note that, this will also require the development of many, yet unknown, design representation systems.

Figure 8. Diagram to illustrate the duality of designing with Biological Media where the needs of the media are matched with the objectives of the human designer with (R?) indicating interfaces where new forms of representation need to be developed.

The model is, necessarily, unfinished. Where Oxman was able to identify a well bounded set of design practices in her discussion of digital technologies and architectural design this paper is necessarily broad in scope. Whilst focusing on Synthetic Biology as an example of a contemporary Bio Design practice we have attempted to cite other types of design practice and theory while emphasising Biology as media with unique characteristics. We believe the observations made through this paper have connected contemporary thinking in biology and design and provide an approach for the development of Bio Design theories.

We suggest revising the diagram to reflect dual independent systems: human cognitive processes and biological cognitive processes. This approach aligns human needs with biological capabilities, exploring the intersection of human and biological design. This paper lays the groundwork for developing Bio Design theories, bridging contemporary biology and design despite its broad scope and the inherent complexities of treating biology as a design medium.

Acknowledgements

AI (GPT 4) has been used in the editing of this paper in terms of spelling, syntax and grammar correction and shortening certain section including generating an initial abstract.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; Research England.

Notes on contributors

Martyn Dade-Robertson

Martyn Dade-Robertson is a Professor of Emerging Technology at Northumbria University and founder of. He also serves as the Hub for Biotechnology in the Built Environment (HBBE) and co-lead for the Research Group Living Construction. His expertise spans across Architectural Design, Computation, and Synthetic Biology. Dade-Robertson has published over 50 journal and conference papers. He has also authored two books in his field: “The Architecture of Information” and “Living Construction”. He is the Editor in Chief for ‘Biotechnology Design’ journal, published by Cambridge University Press, and edits the Routledge Book Series ‘Bio Design’.

Meng Zhang

Meng Zhang is a Professor of Microbial Biotechnology at Northumbria University. She co-leads the Living Construction research group in the HBBE. Her research focuses on applying microbial biotechnology to the built environment, particularly in living construction, which aim to develop design methods and processes which embrace the complexity of biological systems and digital fabrication. The key to her research is seeing growth as a manufacturing process, producing materials' properties which are enhanced as a result of the use of these biological systems through sensing the responsiveness of living cells.