I’ve been interested in myco-materials after having seen them used in several human-computer interaction and design applications. I think they have a lot of potential as a way to design interfaces with novel sustainable materials. They can be grown around electronics, and different strains appear to have different material properties (flexible/rigid, ability to provide sound and heat insulation, texture, colour and appearance). I am also interested in light as an interaction modality.
Bringing these two interests together, I am tentatively considering modifying fungal strains to create living bioluminescent displays that could respond to environmental conditions or human interaction patterns. Other promising bioluminescent organisms that have been used in HCI include dinoflagellates, which illuminate when agitated by movement. Aside from mechanical agitation, I am curious what other inputs living displays could be programmed to respond to — perhaps things like temperature changes or even chemical signals in the air?
Some relevant policy goals might be:
A strategy that could be used by academic researchers is to engineer the organisms or fungal strains used with some kind of kill switch or containment mechanisms to arrest proliferation in the wild. To minimise the risk that an individual mechanism fails, multiple independent mechanisms could be used.
Organizations could implement rules requiring researchers or employees to use low-risk microbes that pose little risk to human health or the environment without strong justification. To my knowledge, many best practices are already covered by CAB/ESCRO and the biosafety program at MIT, in addition to NIH guidance.
Various stakeholders could be consulted about their potential benefits and concerns stemming from living bioluminescent interfaces, as they may provide insights and challenge assumptions that are otherwise difficult to identify from a top-down perspective.
| Does the option: | Option 1 (kill switch/containment) | Option 2 Regulations | Option 3 Stakeholder consultation | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1. Protect the environment | | | | | - By creating more knowledge about the design and fabrication of interfaces using sustainable materials | 2 | 3 | 1 | | - By ensuring that engineered organisms or fungal strains won’t be harmful to the ecosystem | 1 | 2 | 3 | | 2. Ensure that the technology is not harmful to users | | | | | - By using appropriate organisms or fungal strains with minimal pathogenic/allergenic risks to human health | 2 | 1 | 3 | | - By using caution if performing genetic engineering on organisms or fungal strains | 2 | 1 | 3 |
I would prioritize complying with regulations and implementing kill switch/containment strategies into the design of the interface, as they are practical (some mandatory) and probably have greater utility in protecting the environment and ensuring that the technology is safe for human use.