The Field, Object Or Artifact Of Bioengineering Or Biodesign

To explain why biodesign is the now for designers and is now even more relevant, and why designers should all have at least an awareness of it. It is partly due to the reason that by some biodesign being is being viewed as an industrial revolution or revolutionizer and therefore designers can be seen to be in an exceptional and possibly an enviable position.

As Bio designing is gaining greater importance for everyone now and into the future as with the current and latest advances in human created and manipulated biodiversity and its newly associated custom designing of organisms or parts of organisms into industrial processes, agriculture or pharmacology as well its ingress into other associated services which are rapidly growing with their associated developing markets which are all expected to grow into billions of dollars. “Fast company. (2017, Mar 2)”

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

It can be seen Industrial designers will be swapping plastic, metal, wood, and other materials that take energy to produce products with living materials, like fungi or bacteria.

Biodesign can be seen as a new wave order to be added to the designer’s arsenal in that with the current and latest advances in human modified or created and manipulated organisms and its new associated custom designing of these organisms or parts of organisms to achieve synthesized meats, flavors, cosmetic ingredients, and other products by tweaking and manipulating DNA sequences. It is well to note that co-occurring with these events and its rising growth and rising development and acceptance is the use of super computers that can write DNA code as easy as computer code, scientists now have the ability to design and iterate through processes that look similar to the one’s that web designers use. In this sense, biologists have become a new type of designer, working with a very powerful substrate: life. The exciting thing about the emerging field of biodesign is that it is made up of both scientists and designers, and often the most significant projects are the ones that see the two disciplines partnering up.

For artists and designers to succeed in this field they need the have scientific know-how of biologists, whilst biologists will benefit from the artists and designers big-picture thinking and outside perspective. It is equally as important; artists and designers be informed of the vision that synthetic biology will have on many major implications for our future— addressing such issues as malnutrition, famine, medicine to manufacturing—and will need artists and designers to help communicate that to the broader public.

The beginnings of biotechnology can be solidly traced back to the times when humans first carried out cultivation and this can then be traced further through our ancestors learning how to domesticate then carry out the manipulation of breeding animals for food or work. Later to

zymotechnology “Bud, R. (1992)”. Where manipulation of organisms for fermentation, this then led to the development of drugs with the term Biotechnology first appeared in writing in 1919. “Wikipedia contributors. (2018, May 7)”

Society is divided between good or trusting and bad and mistrusting of living organism manipulations, economy can vary greatly between costly failures and impressive returns on success’s, environment can be extremely positive or detrimental, client/designer Huge costly augments on IP and what scientists and designers what to achieve and what is achieved, philosophy immense legal and ethically issues with each development, technology Huge and vast leaps taking advantage of new developments in computing, 3D printing and every other area biotechnology touches as it is becoming easier to manipulate.

With the huge opportunities that were perceived and coming into existence in this field, there was also a growing and mounting of evidence identifying the pitfalls that were being discovered in many of the commercialization of these products. This then provided a reality that developing innovative device’s, diagnostic tests or revolutionary drug delivery concepts and then being able to convert these into viable products were soon found to be extremely difficult tasks to get done.

To add to this difficulty and provide further complications there was a known fierce competition between developers and scientists. This increase in competition drove the need to reduce time to commercialization. In noting this, it can then be seen the cost of failure could be great leading to large losses showing up in actual wasted R&D effort, but also the loss of potential income and further development finance.

This identified one area that wasn’t thought to be important until recently and that main cause of this developmental and commercialization failure is often not the technology itself, but the final stages of product development; So, in designing an end product that will deliver the biotechnology product in a form that customers want and in a package that is easy to manufacture.

Hence the development involved in trying to achieve this biotechnology, companies are increasingly accessing the services of industrial and product designers to give a better and wider vision.

In addressing this issue, biological businesses are increasingly turning towards consultancies for industrial and product design to provide quick access to the necessary resources and abilities to produce manufacturable alternatives. In theory, this outsourcing should, unfortunately, offer a feasible strategy, but the findings of these links are often insufficient, leading once again to the waste of wonderful ideas.

Whereas life sciences, combined with all the other sciences and with industrial design offers a way forward for fast commercialization of biotechnology, there are certain important problems to be resolved to ensure that this strategy works efficiently. Especially on either side of the agreement there is often a significant absence of comprehension.

While scientists are beginning to now recognize the significance of product design and the relation to production development processes. It is still not correctly taken into account until very late in the process. In general, scientists will follow a long product development process-often well past laboratory testing and development and even to working and operating chemicals and systems-prior to the introduction of a product or industrial design team to make the product more manufacturable and marketable. At this point, however, this working idea may well incorporate a bad user implementation and have significant production problems.

At this point no innovative design can eliminate user problems from the final product, and it can be highly hard and expensive to accomplish the advances necessary for production. The ideas being considered, on the other side, are often extremely varied and technically sophisticated, and therefore transforming them into a product calls for an innovation and engagement point which the products development teams often underestimate.

To design and know the choice of products and the appropriate inclusion of chemistries and biologicals involve a wide range of abilities based both on the science’s and evolving technologies, although the initial inventor knows biochemistry, most developers work in an unrelated CAD and fast prototyping field. “Gross, B., Erkal, J., Lockwood, S., Chen, C., & Spence, D. (2014)”. So, designers may not have the specific knowledge, training or experience in the complicated demands of biological or chemical systems.

The resulting confrontation of thoughts and attitudes and the great absence of knowledge at the interface of the distinct sets of skills is often sufficient to significantly disrupt a marketing project.

The challenge of product design requires to be approached from a very distinct angle to address these two barriers and enable design consultancies to transform science or medical ideas more effectively and more swiftly into creative, manufacturable, and sustainable products.

Firstly, it is necessary that the design process is based on the much previous participation of the product designers, perhaps from the evidence of principle. From this point of view, the product design team can be much more engaged in the development phase, with a much better knowledge of the idea and the goals of researchers, in so far as product engineering and biology can take shape together-each affecting the other before concepts are resolved. Designers will thus have the greatest chance of creating efficient and innovative products on the market.

However, to be able to work with researchers efficiently, these teams must use technologists and developers who understand both sides of the process from a much previous stage in the biochemistry development process. The interface between the consultations and original concept inventors can be avoided by providing the multidisciplinary basis, which involves, for example, bioscience individuals who comprehend the process of transforming ideas into marketable products and designers immersed in biotech expertise.

But while there are enormous possibilities, the commercialization pitfalls are also growing. The facts are that it is highly hard to develop and convert innovative medical devices, diagnostic tests or ideas of drug delivery into feasible products. The fierce rivalry and the need for quick marketing are complicating this progressively. In addition, not only the real waste of R&D effort, but the loss of prospective revenue can be huge in costs of failure.

Critically, the primary cause of marketing failure often lies in the design of an end product that provides bioscience in such a way as clients want and, in a package, simple to produce. The technology itself is often the final phase of product growth. To address this issue, biotechnology businesses have increasingly recourse to consultancies from industry and product design in order to provide immediate access for manufacturable alternatives to the necessary resources and abilities.

Although this externalization should lead to a workable strategy theoretically, the findings are often unsatisfactory – leading to wonderful ideas being lost again. Whereas the idea of the science’s and evolving technologies with industrial design provides a means to fast bioscience marketing, certain important problems need to be resolved in order to function efficiently. Particularly on both parties there is often a significant absence of comprehension.

For example, while researchers now acknowledge the significance of product design and manufacture, the development process is not yet correctly taken into account until very late. Scientists typically follow the marketing route of product development-often past laboratory testing and growth and up to working chemistry or systems-until the product and industry design team is introduced to make the product productive and marketable.

By this point, however, this operating idea may well include a bad user implementation and significant manufacturing problems. No quantity of innovative design can solve user problems from the final product, and it can prove highly hard and expensive to accomplish the advances required for production.

On the other side, the ideas taken into account are frequently extremely varied and technically sophisticated, making them a product needs an innovative and engagement level that the product development teams often underestimate. The design and choice of products and the addition of chemicals and biological products involve significantly different competences, drawn from science and technological backgrounds.

While the inventors of biochemistry products know it, most developers are in an unrelated CAD and fast prototype field. Special and complicated demands of biological and chemical systems are often not known. The resulting conflict of thoughts and attitudes and the great absence of comprehension at the interface between the distinct skill sets is often sufficient to de-track a marketing project.

The challenge for product design must be addressed from a very distinct view, hence in order to overcome both these obstacles and allow design consultations to more effectively and quickly turn scientific or medical ideas into creative, manufacturing and feasible goods.

The method of growth must first be based on the much previous participation, potentially from the fundamental testing point, by product designers. From this vantage point, and with a much clearer understanding of the concept and the aims of the scientists, the product design team can become much more involved in the overall development process, to the extent that the product engineering and biology can be shaped in tandem-each influencing the other before ideas become fixed. This allows developers to produce efficient and innovative goods on the marketplace.

But in order to work efficiently with researchers, these teams have to work with the technologists and designers who have a stronger knowledge on both sides of the system since much previously in the development phase of biochemistry. The interface between advisors and original concept inventors can also be avoided by having a multi-disciplinary base of abilities that involves individuals in biotechnology, for example, who know the process of transforming ideas into marketable and designers immersed in biotechnology expertise. “Judge, L. R. (2003, November)”.

References

1. Bud, R. (1992). The Zymotechnic Roots of Biotechnology. The British Journal for the History of Science, 25(1), 127-144. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/4027008
2. Wikipedia contributors. (2019, July 11). Zymology. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 06:11, August 11, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zymology&oldid=905750261
3. Wikipedia contributors. (2019, July 9). Applied science. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 06:18, August 11, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Applied_science&oldid=905495128
4. Wikipedia contributors. (2019, April 21). History of biotechnology. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 06:10, August 11, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_biotechnology&oldid=893484594
5. Myshak, H. (2018). DEFINITION OF THE TERM “BIOTECHNOLOGY.” Cogito, 10(4), 142–149. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2171582711/
6. Macquarie Dictionary Publishers, 2019
7. Judge, L. R. (2003, November). Biotechnology: highlights of the science and law shaping the industry. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 20(1), 79. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/apps/doc/A119388282/LT?u=qut&sid=LT&xid=132839f7
8. Kasprzak, L. (2018). Consider a career in biotech. Chemical Engineering Progress, 114(6), 20. Retrieved from https://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/2061877817?accountid=13380
9. Biotechnology. (2019). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://academic-eb-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/levels/collegiate/article/biotechnology/79278
10. Wikipedia contributors. (2019, August 9). History of nanotechnology. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:11, August 11, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_nanotechnology&oldid=910004037
11. Wikipedia contributors. (2018, May 7). EcuRed. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 06:59, September 4, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EcuRed&oldid=840124602
12. Fast company. (2017, Mar 2). Boston, MA: Gruner & Jahr USA Pub. on behalf of Fast Co. Magazine.
13. https://www.fastcompany.com/3067449/a-guide-to-the-134-billion-biodesign-industry
14. Fusing biotechnology and product innovation. (2002). Strategic Direction, 18(5), 25-27. Retrieved from https://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/218614970?accountid=13380
15. Gross, B., Erkal, J., Lockwood, S., Chen, C., & Spence, D. (2014). Evaluation of 3D Printing and Its Potential Impact on Biotechnology and the Chemical Sciences. Analytical Chemistry, 86(7), 3240–3253. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac403397r