Search for: All records

Microbial products are becoming common alternatives for pesticides and fertilizers in light of the unsustainability of chemical products. What the microbes in these products are, though—that is, how they are enacted—varies across regulatory, research and development, and growing spaces, and that variation matters to how they are regulated. From document analyses, interviews, and ethnographic work with scientists, growers, and policy actors, we find that these microbes are epistemically uneven, sometimes with pinned-down identities, and sometimes with loosely woven textures with holes. Amid calls to tailor regulations specifically for these products, we suggest that regulations predicated on discrete identities and predictable and controllable functions will fail to account for all users’ experiences, and that regulation may need to learn to live with the lacy texture of microbes across contexts. 

Abstract Single engineered microbial species cannot always conduct complex transformations, while complex, incompletely defined microbial consortia have heretofore been suited to a limited range of tasks. As biodesigners bridge this gap with intentionally designed microbial communities, they will, intentionally or otherwise, build communities that embody particular ideas about what microbial communities can and should be. Here, we suggest that metaphors—ideas about what microbial communities arelike—are therefore important tools for designing synthetic consortia‐based bioreactors. We identify a range of metaphors currently employed in peer‐reviewed microbiome research articles, characterizing each through its potential structural implications and distinctive imagery. We present this metaphor catalogue in the interest of, first, making metaphors visible as design choices, second, enabling deliberate experimentation with them towards expanding the potential design space of the field, and third, encouraging reflection on the goals and values they embed.