First, describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why.

Building a house the traditional way is circuitously inefficient: you have to grow a tree, chop it down, then rearrange the wood into the shape of a house. In the first class, we heard that biologists are now able to control the growth patterns of multicellular systems. So wouldn’t it be cool if you could program a tree seed to grow in the shape of a house instead, perhaps through some extremely clever biological engineering to control its morphogenesis?

Next, describe one or more governance/policy goals related to ensuring that this application or tool contributes to an “ethical” future, like ensuring non-malfeasance (preventing harm).

• We need to ensure the tree-houses are fit for habitation. For traditional houses, we have centuries of experience ensuring that houses are safe, culminating in building codes and construction standards, but we don’t have any of that experience for tree-houses. And for traditional houses, there are many civil engineers who can look at its blueprints and determine if the design is sound, but there isn’t anyone who can look at, say, the proposed DNA sequence for a genetically engineered tree and determine if it will grow as intended.
• The tree-houses are genetically modified organisms that will grow “in the wild.” We need to ensure that they do not cause ecological damage. For example, if our genetically engineered trees were to cross with wild trees, their descendents would probably be grotesquely misshapen trees.

Next, describe at least three different potential governance actions by considering the four aspects below (purpose, design, assumptions, risks of failure and “success”).

1. Make tree-houses sterile to prevent cross-breeding with wild trees.
   • Purpose: Prevent our genetically engineered trees from mixing with other trees, which would probably create franken-trees.
   • Design: Would probably need to be enforced by regulation, and implemented by biological engineers.
   • Assumptions: That we have reliable pathways to make trees sterile.
   • Risks of failure: Nature often finds a way, in this case to reproduce. Despite our best efforts, our trees might produce viable pollen, or a piece might break off and propagate somewhere unintended.
2. Only grow tree-houses in urban areas far away from forests or large parks.
   • Purpose: Reduce the risk of our genetically modified trees from crossing with wild trees. Also, a misshapen tree growing in the middle of the city is easily spotted, whereas a genetically modified tree that has spread to the middle of a forest where it shouldn’t be might not be noticed for years.
   • Design: Enforced by environmental regulations. We would also want trained arborists who can identify and destroy any tree-houses growing where they shouldn’t.
   • Assumptions: That there are areas where it’s desirable to grow tree-houses that are far enough away from populations of wild trees.
   • Risks of failure: Pollen or seeds from our genetically modified trees may spread farther than we expect — e.g., a speck of it might get stuck on someone’s clothes and be carried out of the designated area. Limiting tree-houses to urban areas will reduce the number of people who can benefit from this technology.
3. Reviews before a proposed tree-house can be planted, and periodic inspections during its growth.
   • Purpose: To assure that the proposed tree-house will grow into its intended shape, and that the intended shape is structurally sound and suitable for occupation.
   • Design: This would be similar to how plans for a traditional building need to be approved before construction can begin, and how each step of traditional construction requires permitting and inspections. The proposed genetic sequence for the tree-house should be publicly published and available for anyone to evaluate.
   • Assumptions: We would need biologists who are able to evaluate the proposed genetic sequence and determine if it would actually grow into the intended shape, as well as verifying the requirements above like sterility.
   • Risks of failure: There might not be anyone with the combination of skills in biology, modeling, and structural engineering who can say for sure what a proposed tree-house will do when planted. Mistakes could be extremely harmful to the inhabitants of the tree-houses and their neighbors. Also, these regulations would probably preclude amateur hobbyists at community biolabs from experimenting with growing their own tree-houses, just like we do not allow amateurs to build their own houses today, especially in urban areas.
4. Education for owners and occupants of tree-houses.
   • Purpose: Caring for a house made from living trees requires knowledge that traditional homeowners don’t have. Also, since tree-houses are a biological experiment, occupants should give informed consent before they move in.
   • Design: The process could be modeled after the educational and licensing schemes for other potentially dangerous activities, like driving a motor vehicle or piloting an airplane. And the process for informed consent from the people who wish to live in tree-houses could be modeled after the consent process for human participants in other biological experiments.
   • Assumptions: We’re assuming that the risks and maintenance routines for tree-houses are known ahead of time, so that we can develop the educational materials and tests for people who will live in the tree-houses. Also, for tree-houses to be successful, we’re assuming that people with ordinary skill can learn what they need to safely live in and care for tree-houses.
   • Risks of failure: We might not be able to fully educate people on what it takes to live safely in a tree-house, creating the risks of injury to the occupants or damage to the tree or to the environment. Or the licensing might be too restrictive, and only a handful of specialists can qualify to live in tree-houses, which would be a failure of making tree-houses available to all.

Next, score (from 1-3 with, 1 as the best) each of your governance actions against your rubric of policy goals.

Last, drawing upon this scoring, describe which governance option, or combination of options, you would prioritize, and why.

I would prioritize making the tree-houses sterile and inspections and review as the tree-house is being grown.

In terms of feasibility, we do have some experience with making plants sterile, and it is likely to be more effective than other measures like trying to predict how far an organism might spread in an uncontrolled environment. And the relevant “actor” with the responsibility for this would be the labs engineering the tree-houses.

Once tree-houses are available to the public, reviews and inspections are the most plausible way to keep the public safe, similar to how we rely on governmental agencies to inspect and monitor agricultural and pharmaceutical products. However, I worry that it is much easier to perform genetic engineering than to predict what the outcome will be, so reviews might not be able to give us much confidence that a tree-house will be safe.