Team:UNSW Australia/IHP

1. Understanding The Problem & Empathise

Overview of the Problem

Australia’s global identity is hallmarked by the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), a biologically diverse ecosystem located off the coast of Queensland, Australia. Its coral reef is the largest in the world, containing over 600 coral species, and accounting for three-quarters of the world’s coral population. (1)

The UNSW iGEM team is made up of young people who call Australia home, and for whom the GBR is a national treasure. The reef is steeped in a history and culture which runs deep in our communities, with approximately 70 Traditional Owner groups’ sacred connections spanning back tens of thousands of years. (2) For many of us, the reef has taught us about the deep connection between human and land, and the vast complexities found within ecosystems. It has been a muse for art and stories; provided thousands of Australians identity and livelihood; acted as a holiday destination for many Australian and non-Australian families; and imparted inspiration for thousands of school-science projects. It has left its mark on our parents, our grandparents and our great-grandparents, and has ingrained in us a passion to carry this legacy on to future generations.

And yet, it is with great sadness that we face the reality: our beloved Great Barrier Reef is dying.

The GBR is currently experiencing its third coral bleaching event in just five short years; a devastating result of rising ocean temperatures and climate change. (3) February 2020 marked the highest monthly ocean temperatures recorded in history, signifying the most severe and widespread coral bleaching event the GBR has seen. (4, 5) As a result, 50% of the reef has been declared dead, with 60% of the remaining coral bleached (5). This devastating reality has the potential to impact everyone from local residents to Australia’s entire economy, and all in between. To say coral bleaching is a problem is a profound understatement.

With all its history in our foundations, we face our dying GBR with one primal instinct: to want to protect our home. We believe ignoring it would be a great disservice to the generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who spent thousands of years protecting it before us. So, when given an opportunity to focus on one problem this year, we could think no further than the one happening in our own backyard.

Exploring Conservation Perspectives

It was clear from the beginning that we wanted to do a conservation project to protect a precious part of our Australian marine environment, and our identity: the coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. But we needed to find out more about conservation. In order to work out how to begin, we decided to consult a conservation expert, Revive & Restore.

Revive & Restore

Revive & Restore is an organisation with a mission to enhance biodiversity by incorporating biotechnologies into standard conservation practice. (6) Our partnership with them provided us early inspiration into the potential of using synthetic biology approaches towards conservation on the Great Barrier Reef. Revive & Restore communicated the importance of developing a project that was responsible and good for the world. And part of this meant seeing our solution as our contribution to a shared, worldwide effort to protect species and environments. Revive & Restore also urged us to consider the social attitudes towards synthetic biology, and encouraged us to take up this exploration in our Australian context.

Applying Revive & Restore’s advice, we went on and reached out to Australian ethicists and social scientists.

Approaching Social Attitudes To Science

We also recognised that science serves the good of the people. But, a human-centred design is much more than just reaching out to people. It is understanding the social landscape. It is knowing how to ask the right questions. In order to develop a solution that was responsible and good for the world, we wanted to explore the social climate in which we were developing our synthetic biology solution. As the effects of climate change have ravaged the Australian environment in the last 10 years, public attitudes towards synthetic biology have shifted considerably.

Our question at this stage was directed at this nexus of people and science: how could we as scientists engage best with society’s concerns and incorporate their values into our proposed solution?

Opening conversations with ethicists and social scientists greatly informed the initial development of our project - they taught us how to frame the problem amidst the, often difficult, conversations that already exist between society and synthetic biology in conservation issues. These conversations informed the way in which we listened to and involved people throughout the development of our project, in a considered and meaningful way. These conversations ensured that our project originated from a careful consideration of three key things:

  1. Who we spoke to
  2. How we framed our questions for them
  3. The values that flowed on from their responses

This helped us shape the foundation of our human-centred design.

Professor Matthew Kearnes

The nature of the problem is climate change - is your synthetic biology solution a mitigation or adaptation effort?

Professor Matthew Kearnes is a member of the Environment & Society Group, based in the School of Humanities and Languages at the University of New South Wales. As a social scientist, he works at the interface between science and society, amidst evolving contemporary technological and environmental change.

Our discussion with Professor Kearnes was incredibly helpful in allowing us to frame our synthetic biological solution within current efforts to solve coral bleaching. We knew we wanted to develop a synthetic biological solution, but our conversation helped us reframe the question: is the nature of the problem of coral bleaching one which synthetic biology has an answer? He encouraged us to look at the core of the issue: climate change. We discussed how current efforts to combat conservation issues brought about by climate change are approached by two alternatives: mitigation or adaptation.

In taking a realistic view of the world, we knew that climate change was not going anywhere. Even if all emissions were stopped tomorrow, the Earth would still warm by a total of 1.1° Celsius. (7) Therefore, we came to the conclusion that an adaptive approach was a good one- it would allow us to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. We briefly discussed some Australian adaptive approaches, such as coral nurseries and directed evolution. However, we also began to see how coral algae synthetic biology may be a novel technology that, although largely unexplored, presents a whole new realm of possibility for coral conservation through adaptation. At this point, using synthetic biology to adapt our corals to deal with the ever-increasing ocean temperature, to us, seemed a good and responsible solution to a climate change problem with no end in sight.

In order to develop meaningful integrated human practices, Professor Kearnes advised that the “social” part of science should sit early within the research trajectory, referencing the ‘mutualistic relationship between science and people’. As a result, we resolved to involve our stakeholders as early as possible in our development process, and sustain these relationships throughout.

Professor Kearnes highlighted that public acceptance of technology, such as synthetic biology, is always conditional. In other words, we had to frame nuanced questions towards our stakeholders to ask what were their “requirements” for what they considered a good solution. This informed the way we approached our stakeholders and experts for the rest of the IHP journey.

Finally, we wanted to ask Professor Kearnes about the public discourse surrounding synthetic biology in Australia. He told us that the ‘technology out of control’ narrative is frequent in public context, suggesting that there is still a degree of public fear attached to synthetic biology or ‘geoengineering’. We wanted to explore this further. In taking Professor Kearnes’ kind advice, we sought further contacts with people who had experience and understanding in preventing coral bleaching, and the social landscape that was attached to it. This led us to Associate Professor David Suggett.

Associate Professor David Suggett

- Social licensing is just as, or even more, important than any other type of license - think broadly and inclusively about your stakeholders.

Associate Professor David Suggett is a marine biologist, a core member of The Climate Change Cluster (C3), and leads initiatives such as the Coral Nurture Program. He provided our team with an insightful perspective into coral bleaching and the attached social landscape. This led to our realisation into the importance of stakeholder input in developing a solution to coral bleaching.

Associate Professor Suggett discussed how ‘social licensing’ may be equally important, or perhaps even more so, than any other type of license or permit. He spoke to us about the disconnect that is often present between scientists and people, as scientists may define the problem without engaging in stakeholder consultations. He encouraged us to ask a broad range of stakeholders explicitly about “why” coral bleaching was a problem for them, early in our research. He encouraged us to engage with stakeholder values and needs in order to develop a good solution. We implemented his advice by adding the Part 2 “Defining A Good Solution” phase in our IHP framework.

At this point, it became a great priority for our team, through our project, to ensure the closing of the loop between the scientist’s solution and the stakeholders who need a solution. This conversation led us to think deeply about the type of stakeholders that are affected by the problem. This informed our team to engage in considered and extended research about these stakeholders.

Associate Professor Suggett, in echoing the sentiments of Professor Kearnes, encouraged us to talk to stakeholders as early on in the process as possible, as it “very quickly changes your optics on how you look at the problem”. We ended the call with Associate Professor Suggett’s encouragement to “keep thinking differently”.

Therefore, a good and responsible project was one that thought broadly about our stakeholders, and identified those who have, and will be, most impacted. We were determined to reflect a diverse range of voices in our project. This would place us on the path towards achieving ‘social licensing’ that Associate Professor Suggett mentioned. This process was the foundation to how we established our core stakeholders: Traditional Owners, biodiversity, coastal management, bioprospecting and tourism and fishing.

Dr. Aditi Mankad

- Synthetic biology is a novel technology in our toolbox. Given the national significance of the Great Barrier Reef, the majority of Australians see the potential of synthetic biology in saving our coral reef.

Dr. Aditi Mankad is a senior research scientist at CSIRO, Australia’s national scientific research agency. She leads the “Maximising Impact” Application Domain within the CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform. Her research experience in public social behaviours and psychologies in response to new biotechnologies, helped us further understand the Australian public attitude towards synthetic biology. The CSIRO recently conducted a National Survey to understand just this, using genetically modified heat-tolerant corals on the Great Barrier Reef, as a case study. Dr. Mankad was kind enough to send us this data.

Approximately 90% of participants were comfortable with the introduction of genetically modified coral to the Great Barrier Reef. When asked to select at what point they would support this introduction, the answer was when only 50-70% of the reef remained intact.(8) We were quite surprised by the level of support, and Dr. Mankad attributed this statistic to the national significance of the Great Barrier Reef, leading to a more risk positive general public.

However, our initial research indicated that climate change in the past 30 years have already culminated in the loss of more than 50% of the Great Barrier Reef. Firstly, this represented a large gap between public perception of the Great Barrier Reef, and the actuality of the damage done. Secondly, and crucially, it highlighted a shift towards greater acceptance of synthetic biology solutions, in order to adapt our coral reefs to climate change.

In exploring synthetic biology further, Dr. Mankad discussed the great potential of synthetic biology as a scalable and “novel technology in our toolbox”. The use of synthetic biology solutions to engineer a thermo-tolerant coral offers a cutting-edge and fascinating approach to a solution that is responsible and good for the world. Dr. Mankad suggested that synthetic biology solutions should be used alongside traditional conservation methods, such as coral nurseries, to form a holistic approach to protecting our reefs.

Finally, Dr. Mankad, like Professor Kearnes and Associate Professor Suggett, encouraged us to research the ‘whole social ecosystem’ around the problem and solution, including the ‘economic drivers’. This would lead us to consider the key employing industries dependent on a healthy coral reef, adding depth to values and needs reflected in our solution.

From our conversations with Professor Kearnes, Associate Professor Suggett and Dr. Mankad, our team gained greater understanding about the social landscape in Australia regarding society and synthetic biology. From these conversations, we realised two things:

  1. That synthetic biology is not only an exciting and feasible approach to solving coral bleaching, but it is necessary given climate change progression.

    While there seems to be a distrust surrounding invasive technologies on conservation problems, the majority of the Australian public are supportive of its use to save coral of the Great Barrier Reef. Professor Kearnes discussed how ‘geoengineering should be a last resort’. We have now reached that line, having lost 50% of the Great Barrier Reef. Synthetic biology, from an adaptation approach, offers a potential to do good and be responsible in the preservation of coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef, and possibly worldwide.

  2. That the next step in our development was to research and reach out to a diverse range of stakeholders, and ask them nuanced questions in a respectful manner.

    By approaching these conversations with the considered questioning as advised by Professor Kearnes, Associate Professor Suggett and Dr. Mankad, these stakeholders would give us insight into their values and needs. These would be instrumental in shaping the development of our solution at every stage of our project. This communication would be a form of ‘social licensing’ for our synthetic biological solution and ensured that our project would always be people and values driven.

Engaging With Those Affected

Having identified the social landscape surrounding synthetic biology solutions to conservation problems in Australia, our team undertook research into a diverse range of stakeholders who were most affected by coral bleaching. Their values and needs were instrumental in defining and informing our solution. After our initial consultations with Revive & Restore, ethicists and social scientists, we were enabled to ask nuanced questions to draw out the reasons why coral bleaching is such a devastating problem to these stakeholders.

In particular, Professor Kearnes’ discussion about public acceptance of emerging technologies being ‘conditional’, shaped the way in which we framed questions to our stakeholders. We wanted to see, at its core, what people valued and needed in a solution. This informed what made for a ‘good’ solution.

Through our research, we identified 5 major stakeholders: Traditional Owners, Biodiversity, Bioprospecting, Coastal Protection, and Tourism & Commercial and Recreational Fishing. These stakeholders formed a major part of our human-centred design. They also represented the wide reach of the devastating impacts of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. The values and needs that our stakeholders found in a healthy coral reef, became the values upon which our designed solution was based.

These are the stakeholders of Australia’s coral reef.

Traditional Owners

About The Stakeholder

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the Traditional Owners of the land, with over 70 distinct groups connected to the Great Barrier Reef and surrounding lands. (9,10) Despite displacement and disadvantage, Traditional Owners have the longest relationship with the Great Barrier Reef. Their deep and sacred connection to the land has existed since time immemorial. (9,10) The Great Barrier Reef is therefore a central component of the history and culture of Traditional Owners. (9-11) In addition to this, the connection has equipped Traditional Owners with an extensive and rich knowledge of the Great Barrier Reef. Subsequently, Traditional Owners play a vital role in the management and long-term sustainability of the reef. (12)

About Elle Davidson

Elle Davidson is a Balanggarra woman from the East Kimberley region. She is an Indigenous Planning lecturer at the University of Sydney. Davidson is also a qualified town planner and runs her own consulting planning, engagement and training business to help clients work with Country, community and culture. Her deep connection and custodial responsibility in caring for Country motivates her to use her voice and influence to seek culturally informed change for environmental causes.

“I am devastated that I haven’t had the opportunity to experience the Great Barrier Reef before these impacts occurred. I deeply grieve the degradation of this beauty in Country because I know mob up that way would be culturally connected to the coral.”

Speaking with Davidson gave us insight to the deep emotional and spiritual connections that Traditional Owners share with the land. Our conversations showed us the value of the Great Barrier Reef was found much greater than simply the beauty of the reef, but in a connection that is steeped in the history and culture belonging to Traditional Owners.

Why Is Coral Bleaching A Real Problem To Traditional Owners?

Traditional Owners have a sacred and enduring connection to the Great Barrier Reef and the marine ecosystem it supports. The Great Barrier Reef subsequently plays an essential role in their culture and livelihoods. In addition to this, various cultural activities and practices such as hunting, fishing and visiting important cultural sites take place on the reef, which contributes to the cultural significance of the Great Barrier Reef. (9-12)

Coral bleaching presents a real problem to Traditional Owners because it represents a decline or “death” of an environment that has held significance since time immemorial. The death of corals and the degradation of the Great Barrier Reef symbolises a devastating severance of valuable history and culture to Traditional Owners today. Through our discussions with Davidson, we also recognised the role of Traditional Owners as custodians of the land and sea. This cultural responsibility to care for the land is endangered by the continuation of coral bleaching.

How Do Traditional Owners’ Values And Needs Inform What They “Require” In A Good Solution?

Our research and conversations with Davidson highlighted the sacred cultural value that Traditional Owners place on the Great Barrier Reef. Davidson discussed how humans have caused irreversible damage on the natural environment. The preservation of the natural environment allows for the continuation of an enduring culture. Therefore, a good solution “requires” firstly that humans take responsibility to propose solutions to conservation problems. Given the coral damage on the Great Barrier Reef, and the value of the culture at stake, synthetic biology methods may be appropriate:

“My perspective is that we need to attempt to reverse our impact on Country. It is not ideal to need to address these impacts synthetically but in some circumstances I don’t think we have much choice.”

Davidson also highlighted the strong cultural value that Traditional Owners place on the Great Barrier Reef also lies in the surrounding environment. The coral reef is part of a greater environment to which Traditional Owners owe a custodial responsibility to protect. Therefore, Traditional Owners recognise that a good solution requires an assurance of safety, for the coral, as well as the surrounding biodiversity, land and sea.

Traditional Owners also place value in the preservation and communication of their culture in contemporary society to promote understanding and reconciliation. Davidson spoke about the lack of voices being heard in current conservation efforts. Thus, a “good” solution must be reflective of Traditional Owner voices and values.

Biodiversity

About The Stakeholder

Biodiversity refers to the variety of life that can be found in a particular place. (13) For coral reefs, the rich range of life that coexists in the marine ecosystem, is central to its survival. Biodiversity is not only dependent on the number of species, but includes the variation in genetic differences within one species. (14) Coral reefs are believed to have the highest biodiversity of any ecosystem on the planet.

Our Great Barrier Reef- the world’s largest coral reef system extending over 14 degrees of latitudinal range, and including more than 2900 separate coral reefs- is recognised as a world-heritage site for its biodiversity. (14) Biodiversity helps the Great Barrier Reef exist in the technicoloured and fascinating way that we know it.

A healthy coral reef relies not only on the diversity of coral species, but also the greater biodiversity of species that depend on corals. The Great Barrier Reef includes one of the world’s most important dugong populations, and 6 of the world’s 7 species of marine turtles. Some 1625 species of fish swim among more than 450 species of hard coral. (13) These complex natural systems also sustain human use of the Great Barrier Reef- such as through tourism, fishing and bioprospecting, thus directly contributing to the livelihoods and ways of life of Australian people.

About Lawrence Menz

Lawrence Menz is a marine biologist, conservationist and science communicator. As a member of the Maldives Underwater Initiative (MUI), a marine conservation initiative, Lawrence’s experience lies in protecting coral reefs through research, education and community. In our discussions, Menz spoke about how biodiversity concerns are at the forefront of any coral restoration project.

“Biodiversity is just about the most important thing for ecosystems and particularly for coral reefs (and all the animals that use them).”

Why Is Coral Bleaching A Real Problem To The Biodiversity Of The Great Barrier Reef?

In our discussions, Menz explained to us how the biodiversity of a reef contributes directly to its resilience to stressors such as coral bleaching events. Therefore, coral bleaching is a major problem to the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef, and coral reefs around the world, because it weakens the reef’s defence against the worsening coral bleaching events.

So far, the Great Barrier Reef has experienced 5 mass bleaching events- 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017, and just recently in February 2020. These events have culminated in the loss of more than 50% of the coral reef, directly impacting the long-term diversity of coral and marine species. As coral reefs provide the habitat backbone of the reef, it’s degradation is also harmful to other marine species that coexist symbiotically with it.

The impacts that coral bleaching presents on biodiversity also have far-reaching implications on Australian livelihoods that rely on the use of the Great Barrier Reef. The biodiversity of the coral reef and the variety of marine species it contains, contributes simply to the visuality of the Great Barrier Reef, upon which the tourism industry is dependent. A reef that has been bleached white due to coral bleaching no longer retains this unique economic appeal. Similarly, the loss of greater marine biodiversity such as fish and crustacean species, directly impact fisheries both at a commercial and recreational level. Further, marine medicinal resources that sustain the bioprospecting industry are also depleted. Thus, the loss of biodiversity also represents the loss in Australian livelihoods.

How Do Values And Needs In Biodiversity Inform What Is “Required” In A Good Solution?

The value of sustaining the rich biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef informed that a “good” solution must be safe and responsible. Due to the fragility and complexity of the remaining coral reef, considerations must be had towards not only the corals that are to undergo genetic modification, but also the effects of our proposed solution on the greater marine biodiversity.

Bioprospecting

About The Stakeholder

Bioprospecting is the search for novel compounds, such as new antibiotics, from natural sources. It is invaluable to the progress of medicine. The coral reefs play a vital role in this area of research as they provide a home for, and mediate important interactions for organisms of bioprospecting interest, thus keeping them alive.

About Associate Professor Suhelen Egan

Associate Professor Suhelen Egan has expertise in the prevention of marine biofouling, through the use of new bioactive compounds bioprospected from marine host-associated bacteria. Her research is largely on the microbial diversity of marine environments and the traits that are important for host-associated life, these being the source of novel bioprospected compounds. In our conversations, Associate Professor Egan discussed the importance of these microbial interactions on the Great Barrier Reef, and the bioprospecting methods attached to it.

Why Is Coral Bleaching A Real Problem To The Bioprospecting Industry?

Bioprospecting is an industry that relies heavily on the biodiversity of the reef. Without the protection of the coral reefs and their biodiversity, the opportunity to discover novel and valuable compounds would be lost forever. In turn, the potential to develop therapeutics to treat presently incurable diseases and increase quality of life, may also be lost. (15) Similarly, the economic value generated from these bioprospected resources, and their societal applications, may never be realised.

“In the absence of effective management of coral reefs and the resources they contain, many species that are promising as new sources of biochemical materials for pharmaceuticals and other products may be lost before scientists have the opportunity to evaluate them” - Andrew W. Bruckner (16)

How Does The Bioprospecting Industry’s Values Inform What They “Require” In A Good Solution?

The continued protection of the reef and its biodiversity are the crucial ‘requirements’ that bioprospectors value in a solution. In our consultation with Professor Egan, we discussed the importance of maintaining the complex microbial interactions which sustain microbial life within the coral reef. Professor Egan challenged us to consider the question “how would our solution affect these interactions?” and whether our solution “would do more damage to the reef, than be beneficial”.

Therefore, a “good” and responsible solution must take into account considerations that revolve around the protection of the reef, and the safety of its biodiversity. By doing so, the potential of discovering novel medicinal compounds in order to treat diseases, and the industry’s source of revenue will be maintained, fulfilling both social and economic values.

Coastal Protection

About The Stakeholder

The coral reefs are the natural protectors of our shorelines from coastal erosion. Ocean waves carry a great amount of wave energy, and the hydraulic force of their impact against the shore slowly but surely erodes away the land. (17) However, the coral reefs are an excellent dissipator of wave energy, shielding the coast and thereby reducing erosion. (18)

With coral reefs gradually being lost to climate change, coastal communities are losing their protection from coastal erosion. We wanted to understand how this impacts our coastal communities, so we reached out to a local government on the Queensland coast.

About The Local Council

Local councils in Australia provide services and amenities to the local community. They listen to the concerns of the people and act on these to maintain and improve the locality.

“We are deeply concerned about the coastal hazards that climate change is bringing to our coast. We need to adapt for the future so that we can protect our home and the things we love about it.”

The council is one of 31 local councils who have partnered with the Queensland State government on the “QCoast2100” project to combat coastal hazards with adaptation strategies. To learn more about the coastal community’s concerns and values, the council highly recommended the Community Engagement Findings 2019 report produced by the Cairns Regional Council as part of “QCoast2100”. (19)

Why Is Coral Bleaching A Real Problem For Coastal Communities?

Our team was informed that the Queensland coastal regions are vulnerable to coastal erosion, as well as storm tide inundation. The coral reefs play a significant role in reducing the wave energy from ocean waves, particularly high-energy storm waves, thus shielding the coast. The depletion of coral reefs by bleaching, results in coastal communities experiencing coastal hazards such as erosion and flooding with greater intensity.

Erosion combined with rising sea levels means that the shoreline is gradually moving closer towards coastal infrastructure. Homes, shops and roads by the ocean and rivers are at an increasingly greater risk of storm flooding. If this persists, high-risk areas will need to be abandoned to keep people safe. This will greatly impact property values. Homeowners or business owners with land in high-risk areas stand to face a terrible financial loss, and be left without a place to live or work.

Additionally, the coral reef and tropical landscape has made the Queensland coast a prime tourist destination. Over 50% of local businesses stated that the coast and the tourism it attracts are essential to their job. Increased erosion and storm flooding harms the natural landscape. The coral reefs being bleached and the consequential coastal hazards mark the degradation of the natural environment which the community depends on to survive. Coastal communities have a great appreciation for the nature of their home, and overwhelmingly expressed a deep sorrow at the harm it is currently experiencing.

The coral reefs are essential to coastal communities’ way of life. In addition to bringing tourists, they provide protection to coastal land so that they may live safely and have the means to support themselves.

How Do Values And Needs Of Coastal Communities Inform What Is “Required” In A Good Solution?

The preservation of the natural environment was most highly valued by the community. The wellbeing of the environment ensures that their homes are safe, and that they have a sustainable source of income. The first two requirements for a good solution were articulated by the council to be: “good for the coast” and “good for our communities”.

Expanding on this, when locals were surveyed on potential adaptation methods, they preferred ‘natural’ solutions such as mangrove and coral replanting over ‘engineered’ solutions such as seawalls.

“We can’t lose our beaches to rock walls, or we lose our unique tropical status”. “Rock walls everywhere are not a good look”.

A good solution for coastal communities is thus one that preserves the natural state of the environment whilst bolstering coastal protection.

Finally, the council offered their own perspective about what makes a solution ‘good’. The council needs to have the financial means to implement a solution that may help their locality. As such, a good solution needs to be “financially viable”

Tourism & Commercial and Recreational Fishing

About The Stakeholder

As key employing industries on the Great Barrier Reef, the tourism industry, as well as commercial and recreational fishing represents the livelihoods and the ways of life of many Queenslanders who live and work in the region.

The Great Barrier Reef is the destination for more than 2 million tourists a year, having an international reputation synonymous with the natural beauty of the Australian land and sea environment. Marine tourism from reef-dependent activities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park alone, contribute $5.4 billion a year to the Australian economy. Tourism also supports more than 69,000 jobs. (20)

Commercial fishing on the Great Barrier Reef is also economically important, generating approximately $143 million annually for Australia’s seafood industry. (21) Recreational fishing is also a popular Australian pastime enjoyed by people who live on and travel to the Great Barrier Reef. (22)

About The The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) manages the Great Barrier Reef region under the guidance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. In partnership with Australian and Queensland government agencies, and various stakeholders including tourism and fishing industries, the GBRMPA stewards the reef by using the ‘best available science’ to protect the environment and dependent communities. Local Marine Advisory Committees, such as the “Tourism Reef Advisory Committee” are vital in ensuring the stakeholders, such as the tourism industry, have their voices heard in issues involving coral and marine conservation.

Why Is Coral Bleaching A Real Problem To The Tourism And Fishing Industries?

The success of the tourism industry, as well as commercial and recreational fishing activities are highly dependent on a healthy coral reef. Coral bleaching presents a real and devastating impact on the revenue generated from reef-related tourism, and on the Australian economy. Coral bleaching directly causes a decline in the visual appeal of the reef, including the number of species that make it a rich and vibrant ecosystem. Given the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on tourism and travel, the Australian economy will suffer more blows should efforts not be taken to prevent coral bleaching. Coral bleaching therefore presents a real problem to the livelihoods of 69,000 people employed on the Great Barrier Reef.

Australian livelihoods dependent on commercial fishing is also affected by coral bleaching. Fluctuations in marine species, due to the decline of coral reefs may lead to constant rezoning and uncertainty for fishers. Further, rezoning may place greater environmental stress on alternative regions. Coral bleaching may also lead to a loss of local fresh seafood. In turn the seafood industry would likely suffer, with smaller, independent fish markets the first to be unable to maintain their business. Finally, those who engage in recreational fishing may find their way of life significantly disrupted.

How Do Tourism And Fishing Industries’ Values Inform What They “Require” In A Good Solution?

The value that tourism and fishing industries find in a healthy Great Barrier Reef lies in a rich biodiversity of not only coral, but dependent marine species, as part of a natural, functioning ecosystem. Therefore, this informs the “requirement” that a good solution must firstly be safe and responsible for corals, the greater environment, and the surrounding species. For example, a good solution must preserve the edibility of seafood caught from the region.

The deep economic value that both industries link to the visual beauty of the reef also inform that a good solution must correspond to a method that is less outwardly artificial or unsightly. A “good” solution would also ideally be as natural and non-invasive as possible. Finally, due to the vastness of the Marine Park region, a “good” solution must also be effectively scalable.

2. Define A Good Solution

From our research and conversations with those most affected by coral bleaching, we could only come to the conclusion that this was a serious and multifaceted problem. Our aim was thus: to design an equally multifaceted solution to coral bleaching by incorporating stakeholder voices. This is what the UNSW iGEM team defined as a ‘good’ solution.

From listening to the experiences and concerns of stakeholders, we returned with many different needs and values to incorporate into our project.

Incorporating these needs and values into our project was very important to us. However, time and resources were limited. We recognised that we could not realistically reach every requirement within the first year of our two phase project. We thus had to prioritise the values and needs that we would focus on this year.

Prioritising Values

While each stakeholder expressed their own unique concerns, the common denominator and the aspect of most importance to everyone was the continued survival of the coral reefs. Each person, community and industry stands to face incredible loss should the coral reefs perish to climate change.

Our first priority was thus to design a solution which would increase the thermo-tolerance of corals, so that they may survive the warming ocean temperatures. Ensuring the survival of the coral reefs was also the logistical highest priority. In order to plan for the safety, optimise for financial viability and communicate to ensure cultural respect, we needed to first have a solution to apply these towards.

Wet lab and dry lab efforts on developing a thermo-tolerant coral demonstrates this prioritisation. To read more, please see our Experiment and Modelling page.

Respectfully Engage With Those Impacted

Our conversations with social scientists, ethicists and stakeholders solidified the importance of maintaining open empathetic dialogue with stakeholders. These are the people impacted by coral bleaching, and naturally will be the ones affected by any solution to this problem. A solution must consistently consult stakeholders and integrate their voices, so that a respectful and responsible solution can be developed. This is the path towards social licensing, so that people are satisfied by and may accept our solution.

This was the Human Practices Team’s highest priority. Our work this year is presented on this Integrated Human Practices page.

Be Safe For The Surrounding Ecosystem And People

The safety of our solution is of great importance to us and our stakeholders. The biodiverse ecosystem which the coral reefs support, and the health of people living on the coast must not be negatively impacted by our solution.

Reflecting this importance, our wet lab team designed a novel biocontainment system specifically for Symbiodinium; the organism which we ultimately aim to genetically modify. To read more about this system, please see our Proposed Implementation.

However, given the limitations on time, and the greater priority of creating a solution conferring heat-tolerance to corals, we have not yet tested this system. We aim to do so in Phase II of our project.

Additional to technical application of safety, we considered that an apprehension towards the safety of a synthetic biology solution may be born from a lack of understanding. Acting on this, our Science Communication team produced multiple educational packages and presented them. We aim to continue this education campaign throughout Phase II of the project. To read more, please see our Science Communication.

Maintain The Appearance Of The Natural Landscape

Maintaining the appearance of the natural landscape was crucial to the livelihood of two major stakeholders: coastal communities and the tourism industry. Both greatly rely on the tropical beauty of the coast to attract tourists, whose activities support the local economy.

A solution which spoils nature’s beauty, is one which coastal communities and the tourism industry cannot accept. Our project aimed to help these stakeholders, so it was important to us that we designed a solution that would not harm their way of living.

PROTECC Coral’s synthetic biology solution is a thermo-tolerant coral, reflecting our stakeholders’ fundamental needs. Not only will this potentially alleviate the issues of coral bleaching and the consequential impacts, but it will maintain the reef’s outward appearance.

Be Financially Viable And Scalable

Our final identified value to prioritise was the ease and cost of implementation. For each community which needed this solution, was it financially viable and scalable? This is always a key factor when determining whether a solution can realistically be applied into the real world and make the positive impact it intends.

Not yet having a developed solution to optimise cost-wise and scale-wise, this value was our lowest priority in Phase I. However, from Dr. Mankad, we were delighted to learn that the field of synthetic biology leans itself towards scalability and experiences rapid decreases in the cost of production with the development of new technologies. (23) UNSW iGEM looks forward to exploring this further in Phase II of PROTECC Coral.

Synthetic Biology As A Solution

A synthetic biology solution is an appropriate solution to coral bleaching in this present state of climate change. There are perspectives which range from being always supportive of synthetic biology, to those who believe synthetic biology is a technology of last resort. We explored these views with Dr. Mankad and Professor Kearnes, as well as through our stakeholder discussions.

Currently, 50% of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost since the 1990s, and 60% of the remaining reef was bleached this year. Climate change progression is unlikely to cease in the near future, and it is our responsibility as humanity to protect the environment from the harm we have caused. A responsible approach to this is to begin developing diverse adaptation strategies for coral reefs today.

Synthetic biology is a novel tool in our scientific toolbox, and holds great potential to do good in the world. Engineering Symbiodinium to create a thermo-tolerant coral reef is no longer just a dream; it is very likely achievable with enough resources and dedication. Furthermore Dr. Mankad informed us of the scalable nature of synthetic biology solutions. Finally synthetic biology allows us to meet the stakeholder needs, such as maintaining the coast’s natural appearance whilst combating coral bleaching and its consequential coastal hazards.

With a vast majority of stakeholder needs being effectively met by a synthetic biology solution, and the CSIRO survey showing public attitudes shifting towards broader acceptance, this potential should, at the very least, be explored.

However, we must recognise the risks which accompany the use of genetic engineering solutions for conservation problems. The unintentional transfer of genes to another organism within the environment could lead to the creation of highly adapted pests for example, upsetting the ecosystem’s balance. Our consultation with Revive & Restore was incredibly useful in addressing this risk, introducing to us the concept of a “kill switch” to serve as a biocontainment method. This introduces a greater level of safety to a synthetic biology solution.

Overall, a synthetic biology adaptive solution to coral bleaching has the potential to preserve the coral reefs while meeting each of our stakeholders’ needs. It is values-driven, and people-centered. The current coral bleaching situation is dire, and synthetic biology for adaptation presents the possibility for a solution which is responsible and good for the world. This was a possibility which we had to explore.

Given this resolution, our next step in the journey was to begin ideating and designing our synthetic biology solution.

3. Ideate And Design Our Solution

Throughout the ideation and design phases of our solution, we made sure to consult wet and dry lab experts. This was to ensure our solution addressed their advice and aligned with stakeholder values.

Integrating Advice: Wet Lab Experts

Ideation & Design

For our iGEM 2020 project, we aimed to provide a synthetic biological solution which could alleviate the state of our Great Barrier Reef. To guide our project, we contacted a range of wet lab experts to help inform our decision-making.

As a team, we first discussed the logistics of working with corals and examined whether it would be a feasible choice. From a project viewpoint, Jess Bergmen, a PhD student studying the physiology and microbial ecology of coral bleaching, highlighted how using corals would be advantageous. One reason was because invertebrates, such as corals, are exempt from certain ethics paperwork. Our initial idea was to travel to the Great Barrier Reef (pre-COVID) and obtain direct coral samples to cultivate in a bioreactor. However, we learned this was not possible due to various ethical and environmental reasons, and would first require authorisation from the government. Bergmen instead noted that it is possible to obtain coral samples from commercial aquaria facilities which would circumvent the need for a permit. As such, we began to search for other possible coral sources, and decided to contact internal researchers to see if they would share resources with us.

One of our earliest ideas was to incorporate coral probiotics into our solution. Recent studies have shown that manipulation of the coral microbiome can result in beneficial outcomes, such as improved resistance to heat stress. (24-26) However, Melissa Katon, an Honours student whose project focused on coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef, had some practical concerns about adopting this idea for our project. She mentioned that although coral probiotics would be less opposed by the Department of Primary Industries, there is too little known about the coral microbiome, and it would therefore be challenging to model. This was confirmed by Prof. David Suggett, a marine biologist whose work focuses on the effects of climate change on corals, who explained it would be difficult to isolate the microorganisms, among other obstacles. After considering this and further affirming their claims with our own research, the team decided to instead focus on a project that is less discovery-based and more definitive.

With all the advice we had received so far, we came up with a concrete project idea: to transform select proteins and enzymes into corals, in order to promote heat tolerance and decrease the likelihood of coral bleaching events.

Research

After researching the logistics of coral bleaching, it appeared the best approach would be to introduce appropriate enzymes into the symbiotic algae (Symbiodinium spp.), an algae that is present within coral hosts. We initially chose to work with Symbiodinium Microadriaticum (Clade A) as they were easy to grow with high thermotolerance, but decided to consult several coral experts on the matter before moving forward.

To discuss the choice of S. microadriaticum, we consulted Prof. Suggett, who highlighted the importance of considering impacts to biodiversity when working with engineered coral in an earlier meeting. He noted it was important to consider working on common, local symbiodinium strains rather than non-native species. We realised this would be essential in instigating an environmentally-friendly solution, as the introduction of such species could have severe and undesirable implications. Prof. Suggett also mentioned that when regarding ethics, the Marine Parks Authorities would be more open to work with native species. So, we decided Clade C and D would be more suitable than S. microadriaticum, more specifically, Symbiodinium goreaui (Clade C1), as they were more abundant in the Great Barrier Reef and therefore more common and local. (27, 28)

We then began researching the symbiodinium transformation process. Several ideas were proposed, such electroporation, biolistics, glass beads agitation and mediation with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. (29) However, Prof. Madeleine Van Oppen, an ecological geneticist working on the climate change adaptation of coral reefs, explained that, “No one has succeeded in developing stable transformants for the Symbiodiniaceae, with the exception of the work published in the 1998 paper by Michael ten Lohuis and David Miller.” The team realised that this challenge would be critical to address. So, instead of choosing one method of transformation, we took Prof. Suggett’s advice of combining transformation techniques, such as protoplasts and electroporation, and decided to screen them through a Fast-Fail approach in order to find the most successful combination.

Josh McCluskey, a PhD candidate in synthetic biology with expertise in cyanobacteria, emphasised the practicality of beginning transformations in a more well-studied, but relevant, model organism. Due to our previous research efforts, we understood that Symbiodinium was not a well researched species. Therefore, it was agreed transformations into Symbiodinium would likely be a distant goal, and we decided to change our approach and focus on seeking more realistic options. McCluskey suggested transforming Synechocystis spp. PCC 6803 as a starting point due to it being the model organism for photosynthetic organisms.

As for protein selections, we decided heat shock proteins (HSPs) (HSP22E and HSP22F from C. reinhardtii) were a promising option. HSPs are molecular chaperones that work to prevent the misfolding of proteins during heat denaturation. (30) However, these proteins alone would not address the core of the issue: the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by coral endosymbionts during heat stress. (31) Therefore, we knew we needed to also introduce enzymes that could address this.

Glutathione (GSH) was selected as a possible enzyme candidate due to the nature of it being one of the most important antioxidant peptides that neutralise ROS. (32) To express this, genes gshA and gshB were chosen to produce the two proteins (Glutamate-cysteine ligase and GSH synthetase) needed for GSH synthesis. However, after consultation with Prof. Wallace Bridge, an expert on antioxidants and glutathione, we were informed that gshA and gshB were not the best option due to their complex product inhibition feedback system. This was an important factor to consider as our goal was to have a simple system that would produce GSH at a certain level of ROS. As a result, we decided on Bifunctional glutathione synthase (gshF).The gshF protein lacked this feedback system, and possessed an active domain likened to a combination of gshA and gshB, which increased overall GSH production efficiency. Our choice was affirmed by Prof. Bridge.

In addition, Prof. Bridge emphasised that it was necessary to “ensure that [we] have sufficient glutathione reductase/NADPH to recycle oxidised glutathione”. This concern was shared by Dr. Owain Edwards, who mentioned that “adding more glutathione only allows you to increase ROS sequestration arithmetically”.Therefore, to secure an efficient antioxidant system, we plan to introduce the enzyme glutathione reductase along with the gshF gene in our project’s Phase II, 2021. This will ensure oxidised glutathione is efficiently recycled, thus increasing the antioxidant capacity of the cell.

Building & Testing

When we consulted Dr. Dominic Glover, our project supervisor about using Synechocystis as our model organism, he was concerned about time-management. Although we did have a supply of Synechocystis accessible to us, culturing algae would require substantial time, and we were short on time due to limited lab access. In light of this, our solution was to use E.coli in favour of their fast-growing nature and cost-effectiveness. Transformations into Synechocystis or Symbiodinium goreaui will likely be performed during Phase II of our project in 2021.

Furthermore, during our experimentation phase, Dr. Glover, who is also an expert in synthetic biology, provided extensive guidance with his expertise in HSPs. Due to the nature of our project, Dr. Glover highlighted the importance of prioritizing our protein functioning over factors such as purity. Initially, our plasmid design for HSP included a 8x His-tag for purification. This decision was revised over concerns that the additional histidine residues could interfere with protein activity. With the expertise of Dr. Glover, this design was changed into a 6x His-tag.

Although purity was less of a priority than activity, Dr. Glover advised that it was still an important factor to consider. During our purification stage, we had some problems with obtaining high quantities of HSP due to their adhesive nature. We soon realised that even if we had functional HSPs, inadequate amounts of the proteins would significantly affect testing. With the guidance of Dr. Glover, our purification protocol was adjusted and improved to ensure maximum elution from the apparatus. After successfully obtaining HSP samples, we proceeded to measure its concentration by a Bradford assay and test its chaperone activity by the chaperone activity assay.

Due to the lack of previous experimentation with recombinant HSP22E and HSP22F, much of the expression and purification process required optimisation. For this, Dr Glover provided invaluable advice on improving our yields by adjusting and testing the concentrations of reagents. After testing the redesigned protocol, we established that concentration gradients from 50-500uM imidazole elution buffer were optimal for obtaining pure fractions of proteins.As mentioned previously, to test the ability of our HSPs in mitigating protein aggregation, we used the chaperone activity assay previously conducted by Dr. Glover. After explaining our approach, Dr. Glover cautioned us against using the elution buffer that contained our HSP, as the presence of imidazole and concentrated salts may prevent proteins from aggregating. This was imperative to address, as it would have impacted our chaperone activity assay results.

Our correspondence with wet lab experts greatly assisted the ideation and design phases of our project. They informed our decision-making for enzyme and model organism selection, and supplemented our research with their insight and experience with coral engineering. Without the guidance of these experts, our project would not have evolved to what it is currently. We sincerely thank all those who took the time to consider all aspects of our project and provided thoughtful feedback and advice.

Integrating Advice: Dry Lab Experts

Science literature’s understanding of the algal response system to thermal and oxidative stress has largely been through in-vitro assays and conservational population studies. As such, the central value that guided our modelling choices was one of sheer necessity: the necessity of creating a robust foundational understanding of algae systems to begin to understand if our engineered Symbiodinium would be heat tolerant. We sought out interdisciplinary experts to meet the absence of substantive work on protein structure modelling and metabolic modelling, which bordered on physics and mathematics respectively.

Structural Modelling

Existing literature could only grant evidence of inferred homology of HSP22E/F to other heat shock proteins and nothing about the mechanisms behind the chaperone function. This fell short of the structural and functional understanding HSP22E/F needed to have confidence in this complex truly being a protective force in our engineered Symbiodinium. As such, we needed to create original structural models. With structural understanding, comes functional understanding. The guiding questions that directed our modelling were “How does our heat shock protein complex’s ‘holdase’ function enable it to associate with denaturing proteins, especially those protective against reactive oxygen species?” and “Would our heat shock complex be functional at Great Barrier Reef temperatures?”

To learn how to answer these questions, we reached out to Brian Ee, a research assistant and expert in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations (Lawrence Lee lab, Single Molecule Sciences, UNSW), as well as a former iGEM 2018 leader. Initially we planned to run molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to see how exactly a dimer or complex of heat-shock proteins would interact with denatured proteins and at what temperatures they interacted. After our first meeting, Brian helped us realise that it would be too ambitious to answer these questions in Phase I of our project. He explained it would take too long to run these simulations due to the large molecular weight of the heat-shock protein 12-mer complex and a denatured protein, given our time constraints. Instead he suggested we first create foundational models. In our successive meetings with him, we were also able to tweak the technical constraints, without which our models would be much poorer. For example, the docking of our dimers unexpectedly did not conform to our template. On our own we would have stopped there, however Brian explained to us a fundamental assumption of how the software we used to dock our monomers together (rigid body modelling) was an assumption we could manually override, and gave us resources on how to do so (manual alignment and de novo loop modelling). Furthermore, he gave us technical guidance, sample scripts and helped us to interpret MD results. In our final meeting with Brian, he used his past experience as an iGEMer and gave us advice on how to best convey our modelling, which can be quite opaque to someone who is not versed in the particularities of molecular dynamics.

Mathematical Modelling

The main motivation for our mathematical modelling work was to verify the effectiveness of our proposed implementation. Modelling can step in for some physical experiments especially when COVID-19 restrictions limited lab time and access. The main questions we wanted to answer were “How effective will the introduction of HSP22E/HSP22F be?”, “What are the best conditions to activate the production of HSP22E/HSP22F/Glutathione?”, and “Would a Symbiodinium cell be more heat resistant if it was regulated by temperature or intracellular ROS (reactive oxygen species) concentration?”

With no background in mathematically modelling we had to research, experiment and consult experts in order to find out what approach and tooling was most suitable for our task. In order to validate our approach and clarify some questions we had, we exchanged emails and organised a meeting with Professor Mark Tanaka, a mathematical modelling expert at UNSW. Professor Tanaka gave a general overview and set of best practices for mathematical modelling. He helped us validate our specific approach of using both deterministic and stochastic models and then applying sensitivity analysis to each. Deterministic modelling is generally quicker and represents a specific but rigid approximation of the system. Conversely, stochastic modelling can be much slower, but may be better at covering irregularities or rare events due to the presence of randomness. Professor Tanaka helped clarify the background on the Adaptive τ variant of the stochastic Gillepsie algorithm used by BioNetGen, which is faster than the direct Gillespie method. This was particularly helpful in giving us confidence to proceed with our modelling work. We decided to compare both stochastic and deterministic and test a range of possible temperature effects (mainly due to a lack of literature about how temperature would affect the system) as a result of Professor Tanaka’s advice.

Due to time pressure and inexperience, it was necessary to narrow the initial scope of our questions. After consulting Professor Tanaka, we chose to focus on verifying the effectiveness of the proposed implementation rather than the optimal triggering conditions.

4. Implementation & Evalutation

Our Proposed Implementation

Integrating Stakeholder & Expert Advice

Having ideated and designed a solution that was developed from the advice and insight of wet and dry lab experts, and born from the values of our stakeholders, our team looked towards proposed implementation. Proposed implementation is the most visible of all the scientific processes. The devastating impacts of climate change, particularly on the Great Barrier Reef and reefs worldwide have seen a shift in public attitudes towards greater acceptance of synthetic biology solutions.

Nevertheless, there are concerns that must be addressed when proposing to implement a genetically modified solution into a natural environment. It was important to our team that we considered all technical, safety, ethical and socio-cultural concerns. To ensure that a meaningful and considered approach was taken, our team has decided to implement a two-phase project.

We have devoted Phase I to solidifying the foundations of our project. For wet and dry lab, this has involved working with a model organism, E. Coli, as opposed to Symbiodinium. This was a decision we made early on, because we believed it was important to get the basic design of our solution right, before moving onto algae. This was complemented by consulting wet and dry lab experts, as well as stakeholders, to make sure our solution aligned with stakeholder values and needs. In contrast, Phase II will expand on this knowledge learned in build and test phases, and aims to apply them to systems within Symbiodinium sp. Hypothetically, this brings us a step closer to implementation, and it was therefore vital to begin considering our proposed implementation.

From the beginning, our IHP journey was one that was deeply faithful to a human-centred approach. From social scientists, to stakeholders, to coral experts, the people who we reached out to, and the conversations that flowed from our meetings, have made meaningful impacts that have driven our project.

We knew that proposed implementation- a decisive rung in the scientific trajectory, and the most visible to the public - would be no different. In our approach to proposed implementation, we needed to go back to the people who had driven our project- whose values have given your project meaning. In this stage of the project, these conversations informed the ethical, technical, safety and communication decisions. It helped us close the loop, to ensure that our end-solution was responsible and good for the world.

Firstly, we approached the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (‘OGTR’) to ensure that our implementation approach would comply with risk standards. We were informed about the significance that genetically modified organisms were safe for human health and the environment. This aligned with the values of our stakeholders, which informed that safety was a vital component of proposed implementation. While also having re-consulted with Revive & Restore about biocontainment, our team decided to research and design a kill switch. This safety and technical decision would ensure that potential negative impacts of our implementation would be mitigated.

Further, in re-connecting with Lawrence Menz, our team’s focus was greatly steered towards the impacts of implemented synthetic biology solutions on greater biodiversity. As such, he encouraged us to implement our solutions in locations that have zero, or close to zero, reef, in order to mitigate potential negative impacts on biodiversity. This was important to us because many of our stakeholders placed value on the greater biodiversity of the coral reef. This would go on to inform the risk-averse three-stage approach of our proposed implementation.

At the beginning of our project, Professor Matthew Kearnes gave us much guidance into how we framed our project in light of people and the social climate. And as we neared the end of our project in considering proposed implementation, Professor Kearnes again encouraged us to think deeply about the proposed end users of our project. We discussed the open source approach that our team valued from the beginning. Similarly, the end user’s incentive should not be for profit, but a desire to protect the coral reefs from climate change. As a result of this conversation, we identified two groups as potential end-users: the Australian government, and non-government organisations (NGOs). This affirmed our ethical approach that nature, and coral reefs, belong to everyone.

The concept of “social licensing”, which was introduced to us by Associate Professor David Suggett at the beginning of our journey, became a major part of our IHP story. Again, Associate Professor Suggett reinforced the importance of reaching out to stakeholders, especially at this part of the research trajectory, amidst the existence of some public distrust towards novel technologies on a fragile coral reef. This was instrumental in informing our communication decisions, in order to educate the public about the dying coral reefs, and the synthetic biology solutions that have much potential to save it.

Finally, we reached out to Melissa Katon, who advised us about the potential of ex-situ farming of our modified Symbiodinium model. Melissa discussed with us the use of research tanks at the Sydney Institute of Marine Science (SIMS) to allow for ex-situ coral rehabilitation. The University of New South Wales is fortunate enough to have access to these research tanks. With ethical, technical, safety and communication values in mind from these conversations, we felt that ex-situ practices were a good and responsible approach. So, we designed our risk-sensitive, three-stage proposed implementation.

1. Ex-Situ Testing: Long-term observation of modified Symbiodinium impacts on the coral and greater biodiversity, within a controlled and contained environment simulating ocean conditions.

2. In-Situ Testing In Multiple Areas of Low Biodiversity: Long-term observation of modified Symbiodinium impacts on coral in a natural yet depleted coral environment. This reduces the risk of negative impacts on other coral species and surrounding biodiversity.

3. In-Situ Release In Area of Normal Biodiversity: If both previous stages are successful, then the genetically modified Symbiodinium-coral system may be released in the natural environment with standard biodiversity conditions. Continual observation of the environment would be necessary.

Evaluation Of Our Project's Guiding Values

Closing the Loop

Communicating with our stakeholders helped us identify and prioritise five main values we needed to incorporate into our solution. These values, from highest priority to lowest priority, defined our solution as one that: (1) protects the coral reefs from climate change; (2) involves respectfully engaging with those impacted; (3) is safe for surrounding ecosystems and people; (4) maintains the appearance of a natural landscape, therefore upholding tourism practices; and (5) is financially viable and scalable.

In order to close the loop and make sure our solution aligns with stakeholder needs, we made sure to evaluate our project in light of these values at each step of its development.

1. Protecting Coral Reefs from Climate Change

Climate change is an issue that cannot be resolved overnight. It requires a major and effective international social and political effort, and a complete upheaval to the attitudes of millions of people and industries worldwide. Nonetheless, studies suggest the increased occurrence and severity of coral bleaching events are proving current strategies to be ineffective at protecting coral. (33) Therefore, we believe creating a solution which uses new scientific approaches, such as synthetic biology, contributes to potentially effective global effort to protect coral reefs from climate change.

Our solution uses synthetic biology to engineer thermo-tolerant Symbiodinium to be capable of neutralising toxic ROS. While this does not solve the problem of climate change, it helps coral adapt to the effects of climate change, and therefore aligns with this stakeholder value.

2. Respectfully Engaging with Those Impacted

In order to engage respectfully with stakeholders during the development of our solution, we sought to learn about their contexts and hear from a range of voices within each stakeholder group. For example, it was important to us to hear from our Traditional Owners’, who have looked after the GBR for tens of thousands of years before us. In order to respectfully engage with them, it was important we didn’t pursue a solution without their input.

When researching the preferred methods of communicating with Traditional Owners, however, it became apparent that in-person oral communication was preferred. (12,34) Furthermore, the development of meaningful, long-term relationships built over time seem to be the most effective and valued communication method by Traditional Owners. (12,35) Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 travel restrictions, in-person contact was prevented and our team found it difficult to get in contact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders during our project’s process. Moreover, as implementation is seen as only hypothetical at this point, we were wary of wasting their time.

Elle Davidson, a Balanggarra woman and lecturer in Aboriginal Planning at Sydney University, and she explained to us that while a synthetic solution is not ideal, under these circumstances, it is our only option. While we knew opinions regarding engineered solutions are vastly different among the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, Davidson’s words helped us feel justified in pursuing a synthetic biological solution respectfully. However, before any kind of implementation, we believe it is vital to consult a range of different Aboirignal and Torres Strait Islander voices, including those in government, local councils and marine science, in order to respectfully engage with them as a stakeholder group. Therefore, Phase II of our project (assuming COVID-19 restrictions are eased) will focus on forming in-person relationships with our Traditional Owner stakeholders.

3. Producing a Safe Solution

Lawrence Menz, who represented our biodiversity stakeholder, urged us to take into account how our solution impacts the biodiversity of a reef. He explained that giving one coral species an advantage over another would result in a lack of biodiversity, and therefore damage the surrounding ecosystem. Hence, it was important in our designs that we use only native species to prevent the introduction of nonnative algae/ coral constructs. To monitor any damaging effects, such as our Symbiodinium favouring some coral species over another, we have proposed implementing our engineered system in-situ into an area with low-biodiversity first. This means if we pick up on any damage to the surrounding ecosystem, there will be less overall effects to biodiversity than if we were to implement it straight into a highly biodiverse area first.

Associate Professor Suehelen Egan, who represented our bioprospecting stakeholder, explained that complex microbial interactions on coral are vital for bioprospecting practices, and therefore the health of humans. While she noted these interactions are not totally understood yet, she noted a safe solution must protect them. Therefore, when we begin to work with Symbiodinium in Phase II of our project, we believe it is vital to study the effects of our engineered system on these interactions in order to prevent negative impacts during implementation.

In light of both these safety concerns, we have also designed a kill switch, which has the potential to act as a biocontainment system in our engineered Symbiodinium. When exposed to certain environmental conditions, our kill switch triggers cell death within the algae, preventing integration into any other species. In Phase II of our project, we will explore the applications of our kill switch in light of biodiversity and microbial interactions, with the aim to produce a solution that is both safe for the surrounding ecosystem of the GBR, as well as people who depend on it. Further, by implementing a synthetic biological approach, we have enabled an ‘adaptive’ solution to coral bleaching, which creates space for learning, risk management and staged implementation; processes which can help safeguard our solution. (33)

4. Maintaining the Appearance of the Natural Landscape

A council survey surveying 1000 residents showed residents prioritize ‘natural’ coastal protection over engineered solutions. (36) Not only do residents prefer a natural appearance, but tourism industries and other businesses dependent on the reef depend on appearance. Therefore, it was important for us to create a solution that would not disturb this appearance, and thus the livelihoods of our stakeholders.

PROTECC Coral’s synthetic biology solution is to engineer a naturally-occuring microalgae Symbiodinium, to provide coral with an increased therm-tolerance. Not only will this potentially alleviate the issues of coral bleaching and the consequential impacts, it will also maintain the reef’s outward appearance. By engineering a natural species of coral that already exists, we maintain the appearance of naturality of the reef and uphold our stakeholders’ needs.

5. Creating a Solution that is Financially Viable and Scalable

While being financially viable and scalable was our lowest priority in a solution, we believe it is important in determining whether a solution can be realistically applied to the real world to make a positive impact. Throughout our project, we made decisions to keep our solution low in cost, which, in turn, increases its potential scalability.

For example, by working with E. coli for the majority of our the designing, building and testing phases of our project, we saved both time and costs. If we had begun experimenting on Symbiodinium earlier in our project, we would have increased costs dramatically, and progress required for our solution would not be financially viable. In addition, when implementing our solution in Phase II, we have the opportunity to access tanks from the Sydney Institute of Marine Science for our ex-situ coral rehabilitation and testing. With access to shared resources, our solution is more financially viable during implementation and therefore more scalable.

Resolving The Disconnect Between Science and Society

Encouraging Bilateral Conversations

We began our IHP journey with an exploration into the complex and dynamic relationship between people and science. Since the beginning, our approach to our project has been defined by one thing: that science serves the good of the people. Our research and consultations with ethicists and social scientists like Professor Matthew Kearnes, Associate Professor David Sugget, and Dr. Aditi Mankad, shaped the way in which our synthetic biology project interacted with people, community, and our stakeholders. These conversations allowed us to explore the social climate in which we were developing our synthetic biology solution, amidst major shifts in public attitudes towards novel technologies and climate change.

To our team, coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef provided the perfect nexus between science and society. The Great Barrier Reef is a treasure that holds much national identity for Australians. Yet, the coral reefs are facing a destruction, to which synthetic biology is able to provide a solution. However, as we brought together science and people throughout the different stages of our project, we noticed that there was an inherent disconnect between society and science.

This disconnect was one which was characterised by an underlying degree of public fear surrounding intervening “Frankenstein” synthetic biology technologies, as jokingly coined by Professor Kearnes. Associate Professor Suggett expanded on this disconnect, discussing how scientists may define the “problem” without engaging in stakeholder consultations. The untransparent nature of these processes more likely than not result in outcomes that are unfavourable, and rejected by the general public.

Therefore, it was important in our project that we took action to close the loop between this obvious disconnect between science and society. It was one of our project’s aims to encourage bilateral conversations, in the spirit of real and meaningful scientific and social collaboration. This is the “mutualistic relationship” between science and society that Professor Kearnes discussed with us.

Our human-centred project has informed the way that we connect people with science. However, closing the loop requires more effort than simply engaging in consultations, no matter how frequent or meaningful they are. Closing the loop between science and society means drawing out and empathising with people, and their needs and values. We have designed our IHP framework, so that an analysis of people’s needs and values (Part 2), follows directly from our understanding and empathising with their problems (Part 1).

Proposed implementation is also another area in which science and society can close the loop. This year, we listened as stakeholders expressed the value they find in ‘safety’ considerations. Moving forward into Phase II of our project, we have researched and designed a kill switch that ensures that this value is protected. Not only do we want to make our science safe, but we want people to know that it is safe, because we heard their concerns.

Finally, our project has shown us the power of science communication and education in closing the loop between science and society. This year, we have aimed to open and communicate your science in public forums, symposiums, children's books, educational packages, and much more, to reach a diverse range of the Australian community. Our team has learnt the value of active efforts such as this in opening conversations about the potential of synthetic biology. Click this link to explore our work in science communication.

As climate change continues to ravage the Australian, and global, natural environments, it is vital that science and society are connected, rather than not. In our conversations with Dr. Aditi Mankad, we discussed data which showed a shift in Australian public attitudes towards acceptance of synthetic biology. For the rich and wonderful, but dying, corals of our Great Barrier Reef, this is one positive step that has potential for change.

This year, the UNSW iGEM 2020 team has had the pleasure of observing, analysing and engaging with this complex dynamic of science and society. Through our human-centred design, we have learnt that truly good and responsible things can be achieved when people and science come together - good things, such as healthy and thriving coral reefs.

REFERENCES

  1. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority [Internet]. Reef facts. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 27]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-facts
  2. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority [Internet]. Traditional Owners. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 21]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners
  3. Great Barrier Reef’s third mass bleaching in five years the most widespread yet | Environment | The Guardian [Internet]. [cited 2020 Oct 27]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/07/great-barrier-reefs-third-mass-bleaching-in-five-years-the-most-widespread-ever
  4. Bureau of Meteorology. 2020 marine heatwave on the Great Barrier Reef. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 18]. Available from: http://www.bom.gov.au/environment/doc/2020-GBR-marine-heatwave-factsheet.pdf
  5. Dietzel A, Bode M, Connolly SR, Hughes TP. Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef. Proc Biol Sci. 2020;287(1936):20201432.
  6. Revive and Restore [Internet]. What we do. [place unknown]: Revive and Restore ; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 21]. Available from: https://reviverestore.org/what-we-do/
  7. Kehse, U. Global warming doesn’t stop when the emissions stop [Internet]. [place unknown]: Science X Network; 2017 [cited 2020 Oct 19]. Available from: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-global-doesnt-emissions.html
  8. Hobman, EV., Mankad, A., and Carter, L. Public perceptions and understanding of synthetic biology. Restoring the Great Barrier Reef. Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform. Forthcoming.
  9. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Traditional Owners of the Great Barrier Reef [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-owners-of-the-great-barrier-reef
  10. Dale A, Wren L, Fraser D, Talbot L, Hill R, Evans-Illidge L, Forester T, Winer M, George M, Gooch M, Hale L, Morris S, Carmody J. Traditional Owners of the Great Barrier Reef: The Next Generation of Reef 2050 Actions [Internet]. [place unknown]: Department of Environment and Energy; 2018 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. 145p. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7b495328-8097-4aab-84aa-67b2a9e789fb/files/reef-2050-traditional-owner-aspirations-report.pdf
  11. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Traditional use of the Marine Park [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-use-of-the-marine-park
  12. Dale A, George M, Hill R, Fraser D. Traditional Owners and Sea Country in the Southern Great Barrier Reef – Which Way Forward? [Internet]. [place unknown]: National Environmental Science Program; 2016 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. 51p. Available from: https://nesptropical.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NESP-TWQ-3.9-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
  13. Coral Reef Alliance. Coral Reef Biodiversity [Internet]. California: Coral Reef Alliance; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 21]. Available from: https://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/coral-reef-ecology/coral-reef-biodiversity/
  14. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Biodiversity [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 21]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/biodiversity
  15. Cooper EL, Hirabayashi K, Strychar KB, Sammarco PW. Corals and Their Potential Applications to Integrative Medicine [Internet]. Vol. 2014, Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Hindawi; 2014 [cited 2020 Sep 30]. p. e184959. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2014/184959/
  16. Andrew W. Bruckner. Life-Saving Products from Coral Reefs [Internet]. Issues in Science and Technology. 1970 [cited 2020 Sep 30]. Available from: https://issues.org/p_bruckner/
  17. Sunamura T. A Relationship between Wave-Induced Cliff Erosion and Erosive Force of Waves. The Journal of Geology. 1977; 85(5).
  18. Lowe RJ. et.al. Spectral wave dissipation over a barrier reef. J of Geophysical research. 2005, Apr; 110(C4).
  19. Cairns Regional Council. Community engagement findings - 2019 [Internet]. Cairns: Cairns Regional Council; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.cairns.qld.gov.au/community-environment/sustainability/our-cairns-coast/community-engagement-2019
  20. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Tourism on the Great Barrier Reef [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/Managing-multiple-uses/tourism-on-the-great-barrier-reef
  21. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Commercial fishing industry [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/commercial-fishing-industry
  22. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Recreational fishing [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. Available from: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/access-and-use/responsible-reef-practices/recreationalfishing
  23. Manyika J, Chui M, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrsc A. Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform life, business and the global economy [Internet]. [place unknown]: McKinsey Global Institute; 2013 [cited 2020 Oct 22].
  24. Damjanovic K, van Oppen MJH, Menendez P, Blackall LL. Experimental Inoculation of Coral Recruits With Marine Bacteria Indicates Scope for Microbiome Manipulation in Acropora tenuis and Platygyra daedalea. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1702.
  25. Rosado PM, Leite DCA, Duarte GAS, Chaloub RM, Jospin G, Nunes da Rocha U, et al. Marine probiotics: increasing coral resistance to bleaching through microbiome manipulation. ISME J. 2019;13(4):921-36.
  26. Peixoto RS, Rosado PM, Leite DC, Rosado AS, Bourne DG. Beneficial Microorganisms for Corals (BMC): Proposed Mechanisms for Coral Health and Resilience. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:341.
  27. Liu H, Stephens TG, Gonzalez-Pech RA, Beltran VH, Lapeyre B, Bongaerts P, et al. Symbiodinium genomes reveal adaptive evolution of functions related to coral-dinoflagellate symbiosis. Commun Biol. 2018;1:95.
  28. Tonk L, Sampayo EM, Weeks S, Magno-Canto M, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Host-specific interactions with environmental factors shape the distribution of symbiodinium across the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68533.
  29. Chen JE, Barbrook AC, Cui G, Howe CJ, Aranda M. The genetic intractability of Symbiodinium microadriaticum to standard algal transformation methods. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0211936.
  30. Mogk A, Ruger-Herreros C, Bukau B. Cellular Functions and Mechanisms of Action of Small Heat Shock Proteins. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2019;73:89-110.
  31. Nielsen DA, Petrou K, Gates RD. Coral bleaching from a single cell perspective. ISME J. 2018;12(6):1558-67.
  32. Forman HJ, Zhang H, Rinna A. Glutathione: overview of its protective roles, measurement, and biosynthesis. Mol Aspects Med. 2009;30(1-2):1-12.
  33. Anthony K, Bay LK, Costanza R, Firn J, Gunn J, Harrison P, et al. New interventions are needed to save coral reefs. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2017 Oct;1(10):1420–2.
  34. Department of Finance. Media consumption and communication preferences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander audiences- Qualitative Research [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Government; 2014 [cited 2020 Oct 24]. 85p. Available from: https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/quantitative-indigenous-research-report-2014.pdf
  35. Queensland Health. Communicating effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people [Internet]. [place unknown]: Queensland Government; 2015 [cited 2020 Oct 24] 2p. Available from: https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/151923/communicating.pdf
  36. Cairns Regional Council. Engagement summary _ location feedback [Internet]. [place unknown]: Queensland Government; [cited 2020 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.cairns.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/337376/LIVE-6331397-v1-Engagement_summary_-_location_feedback.pdf