Team:MichiganState/Human Practices/Integrated

Integrated Human Practices

Summary

Throughout the summer, we reached out to experts ranging from synthetic biologists to professional beekeepers for feedback on Project BeeTox. Talking to experts helped us ensure BeeTox could be implemented responsibly and have a positive impact on the environment. Feedback from these individuals allowed us to hone and modify our project design and target our audience. Below, we have broken down our meetings with each expert. Click on each box to see our meeting takeaways and project modifications.

Interview date: 2/26/2020
Summary/takeaways:
  • We met with Dr. Ellsworth as we were just beginning to flesh out our project ideas. We were initially thinking of using an aldehyde oxidase enzyme as the means for detoxifying imidacloprid. Not much is known about the metabolites that are produced from this pathway (nitrosoguanidine and aminoguanidine). Dr. Ellsworth told us, from looking at their structures, that these molecules would be toxic to mammals. This raised concerns about using this enzyme.
  • Dr. Ellsworth also raised the concern of human safety - although our product is aimed for use in bees, metabolites of the imidacloprid detoxification pathway we use could very easily make their way into honey for human consumption or even crops pollinated by bees inoculated with our probiotic. Because of the risk of contamination, it is critical that the metabolites involved in the imidacloprid detoxification pathway we choose are not harmful to humans or bees.

Project modifications:
  • We ultimately decided to not pursue using the aldehyde oxidase enzyme for our project, due to its metabolites’ toxicity, as well as concerns about its ability to be expressed in bacteria.
Interview date: 3/11/20
Summary:
  • As one of our first interviews -- and our very first interview with someone involved with beekeeping -- Dr. Thorp was immensely helpful with clarifying the needs of our target population and the concerns we should address as we progress through the design process.
  • Dr. Thorp emphasized the importance of public understanding of how essential pollinators are, as well as the threats they are currently facing. She suggested it may be helpful to try to heighten the public’s general awareness of neonicotinoids through outreach.
  • Dr. Thorp also recommended we reach out to Dr. Huang for a more technical discussion of other project specifics.
  • A primary concern for Dr. Thorp was how the public would react to synthetic biology being used in nature, particularly on an organism used to produce food for human consumption. She noted GMOs will be an issue with environmental conservationists, and if we are using honey bees, the perception of the honey as “safe” may be altered, damaging the beekeepers’ profits.

Project modifications:
  • Dr. Thorp’s interview made us realize we needed to explore the relationship between environmentalism and synthetic biology more to determine whether some beekeepers would be interested in our product. We began searching for interviews with beekeepers, such as Brian Peterson, to get a better understanding of their opinion.
  • We also reached out to Dr. Huang upon Dr. Thorp’s suggestion.
  • Finally, we decided that evaluating public perception of GMOs and working on education in this area would be an important part of our project. After this interview, we did background research on public perceptions of GMOs in the U.S. We then began conceptualizing our survey and our educational YouTube series.
Interview date: 4/9/2020
Summary/takeaways:
  • Dr. Barrick answered our questions about their experimental procedure and provided us with details about working with S. alvi and honeybees. For example, we were able to confirm that their lab saw transmission and colonization of the modified S. alvi to new bees when co-housed with colonized bees.
  • He also warned us that, if our modified S. alvi was to successfully colonize a bee that was not newly emerged, we may need to treat bees with an antibiotic that our S. alvi was resistant to.
  • As a whole, Dr. Barrick helped us understand the current research concerning the bee gut microbiome, and we were able to determine the feasibility of future experiments.

Project modifications:
  • Due to this interview, we decided to use S. alvi as our chassis, since we learned from Dr. Barrick’s work that it is feasible and fairly straightforward to use for genetic engineering.
  • We also modified our plan to incorporate the addition of an antibiotic, such as ampicillin, to our probiotic mixture. This would allow our probiotic, with an antibiotic resistance gene encoded, to establish in the gut of bees that were not newly emerged.
Interview date: 7/1/2020
Summary/takeaways:
  • Brian emphasized how difficult winter can be for beekeeping. 10 years ago, average winter losses were approximately 14%. In the last 5 years, losses have averaged between 40 and 60%. It’s become very expensive and difficult to be a beekeeper, so lots of beekeepers have started abandoning it, but Brian said there has been a surge of hobbyist or “backyard” beekeepers.
  • Brian felt that the hobbyist beekeeping community would generally be open to a project like ours that introduces synthetic biology to the world of beekeeping. Some beekeepers may be worried about “naturalness,” but Brian felt similar projects have shown promising results, such as how genetically advantaged bees can defend themselves against Varroa mites. He acknowledged there are a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to GMOs, so he can’t speak for the entire beekeeping community. But he says if we can contribute to helping our bees, then “I’m all for it. Would you rather have no bees? I would rather we step in because humans have wonderful ways of helping out that maybe aren’t the most natural.”
  • In terms of biocontainment, Brian mentioned that, if this were to be used solely for honey bees, the hive itself would act as a biocontainment measure. Honeybees are very defensive of their hives, he noted, so other pests probably would not get in.
  • Brian also helped us identify questions beekeepers may want answered before considering using our product, including:
    • Usage instructions
    • Information about what is actually in the product
    • More information about whether it’s continuous treatment or one-and-done
    • Convenience (easy application is preferred especially for larger beekeepers)
    • How much time will it take? What is the expense? What is the time expense? Does the expense outweigh having to replace bees?
  • In general, Brian was very optimistic about the future of beekeeping - not just because of the adults, but because of children. He recently placed hives at a school and was impressed by how the students were interested, engaged, and asking questions. He also emphasized he definitely believes science and technology have a place in the future of beekeeping. Many beekeepers already implement technology in their practice, such as digital scales and hive tracking apps like HiveTracks.

Project modifications:
  • Originally, we had planned on simply suspending our probiotic in sugar water which could be used in feeders. Brian’s discussion about convenience, however, made us consider alternative forms of administration, such as pollen patties, or powdered sugar that could be stored in bulk and dissolved in liquid before treatment.
  • Brian also recommended we reach out to Dr. Milbrath at MSU, since she would have more insight into commercial beekeeping.
Interview date: 7/7/2020
Summary/takeaways:
  • If we were to commercialize this product, Dr. Huang emphasized that we should first have data showing that pesticide levels in honey remain similar or lower in the treated bees, in addition to demonstrating our probiotic’s positive effects on bee health.
  • We also asked Dr. Huang if there would be any side effects of feeding sugar water to bees who were being used for honey, but he said there should be minimal effects if the treatment only needed to be administered once.
  • Since our final feeding device is going to be enclosed, we also discussed with Dr. Huang the possibility of our device becoming too hot for bees when in direct sunlight. Dr. Huang said this would most likely not be a serious problem as bees can forage comfortably into the 90s (degF).
  • As a whole, Dr. Huang said he felt that science and technology will play a role in the future of beekeeping, but in many ways, beekeeping has not drastically changed in the last 50 years. In a way, he said, the beekeeping trade has been resistant to change. There have been some areas of technological improvements within beekeeping, though, such as:
    • Scales to watch and monitor honey production
    • Census methods to monitor bee population
    • Beneficial bacteria in the feed

Project modifications:
  • Based on Dr. Huang's reassurances, we decided to focus solely on using sugar water to administer the probiotic. Since there were no apparent health concerns for the bees, sugar water will be the simplest medium and will make it easier to implement our biocontainment measures.
Interview date: 4/9/2020
Summary/takeaways:
  • As many of our interviewees have before, Dr. Milbrath observed that we are dipping into two controversial topics -- pesticides and GMOs -- and would most likely receive some pushback from different groups.
    • She clarified the difference between hobbyist beekeepers (less than 50 hives, not concerned with making money) and commercial beekeepers (over 300 colonies and a full-time business) and noted that commercial beekeepers may see our research in a more favorable light.
    • Commercial beekeepers often work very closely with the agriculture industry since they rent their bees out to them as pollinators; as a result, they are very familiar with both the need for pesticides and the detrimental effects they can have on their hives.
    • While some hobbyist beekeepers may support our research as well (as evidenced by Brian Peterson’s interview), there is also a push to go “treatment-free,” meaning some hobbyist beekeepers will not medicate hives when they are sick or even supplement hives with sugar water. Therefore, it is likely our research would be more accepted - and needed - in the commercial beekeeping industry, according to Dr. Milbrath.
  • Dr. Milbrath also emphasized that neonicotinoids were not the only challenge facing modern-day bees and beekeepers. Varroa mites, fungicides, or even other pesticides also play a role in the bee decline. We acknowledge this research can by no means be a “cure-all” for bee problems; however, her note about other pesticides and fungicides inspired us to consider expanding the scope of our probiotic to enhance the breakdown of these substances as well.
  • Dr. Milbrath also spoke about the drastic changes that have taken place for beekeepers just in the past few decades. She noted that it used to be “easy” to keep bees, but now just keeping them alive is a struggle. Systems that have worked for decades, Dr. Milbrath said, have begun to fail.
  • When asked whether science and technology would play a role in the future of beekeeping, Dr. Milbrath said she hoped so. “My hope for bees is that they begin to get the same respect as other elements of agriculture - they’re non-native agricultural livestock.” She said we know very little in terms of the basic science behind bees, despite their incredible importance on their nutrition and toxicology. It would be wonderful if our knowledge of bees was brought up to the level of precision and knowledge we have for other livestock. Right now is a very strange time for bees, and they play an integral role in our agricultural system that cannot be replaced.

Project modifications:
  • Dr. Milbrath truly opened our eyes to the wide variety of environmental stressors bees are now exposed to. As a result, we decided to keep a more open mind with the types of pesticides our probiotic could help break down. The gene engineering team decided to take a closer look at GSTs, a broader class of enzymes that promotes overall metabolism in bees.
  • This meeting was also incredibly helpful because it helped us narrow down our target audience. Although this product could certainly be useful for all beekeepers, it appears it would be most welcome and beneficial in commercial beekeeping.