The biodesign field

In this study, the argument advanced by Thomsen and Tamke (Reference Thomsen and Tamke2022) – that learning from nature alone is insufficient to achieve a genuine transition towards circular and regenerative systems – is explicitly adopted (Thomsen and Tamke Reference Thomsen and Tamke2022). Biodesign is therefore positioned not as an evolution of biomimicry that merely translates biological inspiration into existing industrial paradigms, nor as the commodification of natural resources, but as a design approach that actively collaborates with (once-)living biological systems. Rather than treating nature as a passive reference or extractable input, biodesign engages ecosystems as co-creative partners that sustain both human and non-human life (Kopnina Reference Kopnina2017; Shiva Reference Shiva2000). In this sense, it operates “beyond biomimicry,” as articulated by Myers (Reference Myers2018a), by embedding design practice within ecological processes rather than abstracting from them (Myers Reference Myers2018a).

The ethos of biodesign resonates with what has been described as “organic design”: an approach that involves “watching objects grow” and “letting nature, the best among all engineers and architects, run its course” (Antonelli Reference Antonelli2018, p. 7; Birch et al. Reference Birch, Bridgens, Zhang and Dade-Robertson2024). Within this study, biodesign is defined following the formulation proposed by Biofabricate as “Designing of, with, and for biology” (Antonelli Reference Antonelli2018; Birch et al. Reference Birch, Bridgens, Zhang and Dade-Robertson2024; Lee et al. Reference Lee, Congdon, Parker and Borst2020, p. 10). This concise definition captures the breadth of biodesign practice and foregrounds the varying roles that biology can assume within design processes.

Biodesign is not confined to a single industry but is increasingly applied across architecture, construction, cosmetics, fashion, fragrance, colouring, automotive design and other industries (Myers Reference Myers2018b). Across these domains, a defining characteristic is the integration of (once-)living organisms as active participants in design processes (Ginsberg and Chieza Reference Ginsberg and Chieza2018). Oxman (Reference Oxman2016) observes that contemporary design is increasingly incorporating biological processes not merely as sources of inspiration, but as contributors to utility and behavioural transformation (Oxman Reference Oxman2016). Yet, such integration introduces significant challenges for Industrial Design Engineering Technology. Biological systems are characterised by heightened variability, unpredictability and uncertainty, which often conflict with conventional expectations of control, standardisation and repeatability.

Although biodesign moves beyond conventional biomimicry, it still draws upon core biomimetic principles as methodological and evaluative foundations. In aligning with Life’s Principles and foundational biomimetics concepts, biodesign reframes design as life-centred rather than exclusively human-centred, applying biological forms, processes and ecosystem logics to address complex challenges (Stevens et al. Reference Stevens, Fehler, Bidwell, Singhal and Baumeister2022). Within material economies, biodesign contributes to regenerative practices in the Circular Economy (Cotsaftis et al. Reference Cotsaftis, Williams, Chyon, Sadar, Va Pesaran, Wines and Naarden2023). As du Plessis (Reference du Plessis2012) argues, regenerative paradigms emphasise co-creative partnerships with nature grounded in adaptation, resilience and regeneration (du Plessis Reference du Plessis2012). Biodesign thus mediates between material systems, living processes and socio-ecological contexts, positioning itself as an enabler of the regenerative transformation.

Rise of agency

The emergence of biodesign is closely linked to broader debates surrounding the Anthropocene – an epoch defined by the dominant influence of human activity on planetary systems (Crutzen Reference Crutzen2002, Reference Crutzen2022). As critiques of anthropocentrism have intensified, alternative framings such as bio- or symbiocentrism have been proposed, repositioning humanity as an integral participant within ecological systems rather than as an external controller (Albrecht and Van Horn Reference Albrecht and Van Horn2016; Pollini and Rognoli Reference Pollini and Rognoli2024). This shift carries profound implications for design.

Design has traditionally been described as a “human tradition of inquiry and action” concerned with intentionally creating preferred situations, the “ultimate particular” (Nelson and Stolterman Reference Nelson and Stolterman2014, pp. 1, 31). Implicit in this framing is the assumption that agency resides solely within human actors. The rise of More-Than-Human (MTH) thinking challenges this assumption. First articulated by Abram (Reference Abram1996), the MTH perspective decentres humanity and recognises ecosystems, plants, fungi, animals, soils, atmospheres and technological artefacts as active participants in design processes (Abram Reference Abram1996). Conventional paradigms often treated these entities as passive resources to be extracted, optimised or controlled – a reflection of a mechanistic worldview that separates humans from ecological systems (Cole Reference Cole2012; Pataranutaporn et al. Reference Pataranutaporn, Vujic, Kong, Maes and Sra2020). In contrast, MTH perspectives emphasise interdependence, recognising that agency is distributed across interconnected actors.

Agency, understood as the capacity to meaningfully influence outcomes, thus extends beyond human stakeholders. In biodesign, this expansion manifests as non-human biological agency: the active contribution of (once-)living organisms or biological materials to design processes. More-Than-Human Design has emerged as a field that intentionally creates space for such non-human agency to influence outcomes in mutually beneficial ways (Karana et al. Reference Karana, McQuillan, Rognoli and Giaccardi2023; Kim Reference Kim2021; Wakkary Reference Wakkary2021).

Theoretical grounding for MTH agency in biodesign is further articulated by Gough and colleagues, who draw from Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) to propose living computational systems (Gough et al. Reference Gough, Pschetz, Ahmadpour, Hepburn, Cooper, Ramirez-Figueroa and Catts2020, Reference Gough, Forman, Pataranutaporn, Hepburn, Ramirez-Figueroa, Cooper, Vujic, Kong, Kim, Maes, Ishii, Sra and Ahmadpour2021a, Reference Gough, Yoo, Tomitsch and Ahmadpour2021b). Rather than relying solely on digital computation, these approaches recognise biological organisms as contributors of bioaffordances – organism-specific capacities for action and interaction (Gough et al. Reference Gough, Yoo, Tomitsch and Ahmadpour2021b). Building on Gibson’s (Reference Gibson1977) concept of affordances and its adaptation by Norman (Reference Norman1988) to Industrial Design (Gibson Reference Gibson1977; Norman Reference Norman1988), bioaffordances describe the action possibilities offered by non-human biological agents. From this perspective, biodesign emerges as the application of bioaffordances, enabling symbiotic collaboration between biological and design entities (Gough et al. Reference Gough, Yoo, Tomitsch and Ahmadpour2021b).

The integration of MTH agency inevitably raises ethical considerations. Armstrong (Reference Armstrong2022) emphasises that when living agents are engaged in design processes, they must be appropriately supported, calling on designers to “step inside the skin” of the entities they work with (Armstrong Reference Armstrong2022, p. 5). Her principles advocate recognising microbes as foundational architects of the biosphere, shifting designers’ roles from sole authors to facilitators within multi-species collectives, fostering metabolic enlivening rather than extractive optimisation and integrating diverse knowledge systems beyond modern science (Armstrong Reference Armstrong2022). These principles foreground reciprocity, stewardship and dialogue with biological systems.

Taken together, the rise of expanded agency in biodesign is characterised by: explicit acknowledgement of agency beyond the human, commitment to reciprocity and stewardship, alignment of MTH lifecycles with product and system lifecycles and engagement with local ecologies through iterative, open-ended practices that embrace variability, unpredictability and uncertainty. In doing so, biodesign spans from translating nature into industrial forms to co-producing value with (once-)living ecosystems (Pollini and Rognoli Reference Pollini and Rognoli2024).

Changing role of designers

As agency expands beyond the human, the role of the designer undergoes a profound transformation too. Designers have shifted from being mere material applicators – selecting and specifying predefined materials – to material collaborators/orchestrators who coordinate complex material systems that include living and once-living entities (Gough et al. Reference Gough, Pschetz, Ahmadpour, Hepburn, Cooper, Ramirez-Figueroa and Catts2020; Vuylsteke et al. Reference Vuylsteke, Detand and Ostuzzi2023). This shift reflects an increasing engagement with processes of growth, transformation, decay and regeneration across extended temporal scales (Camere and Karana Reference Camere and Karana2018; Välk et al. Reference Välk, Chen, Dieckmann and Mougenot2023).

Recognising non-human biological agencies as stakeholders fundamentally alters the design landscape. Designers must navigate intricate networks of interdependent actors, increasing systemic complexity and requiring nuanced understanding of dynamic interactions between human and non-human agents (Camere and Karana Reference Camere and Karana2018; Dade-Robertson and Zhang Reference Dade-Robertson and Zhang2024; Karana et al. Reference Karana, McQuillan, Rognoli and Giaccardi2023). Agency no longer resides solely in human intention nor in autonomous biological processes, but emerges through their relational entanglement (Gough et al. Reference Gough, Forman, Pataranutaporn, Hepburn, Ramirez-Figueroa, Cooper, Vujic, Kong, Kim, Maes, Ishii, Sra and Ahmadpour2021a; Karana et al. Reference Karana, McQuillan, Rognoli and Giaccardi2023; Oxman Reference Oxman2016).

This shift challenges the conventional pursuit of control, predictability and optimisation. Instead, designers are called to cultivate acceptance of open-endedness and uncertainty, embracing the variability inherent in ecological systems (Karana et al. Reference Karana, McQuillan, Rognoli and Giaccardi2023; Kim Reference Kim2021; Ostuzzi Reference Ostuzzi2017). The designer’s role becomes less about prescribing fixed outcomes and more about initiating conditions for interactions to unfold (Dubberly and Pangaro Reference Dubberly and Pangaro2015; Myers Reference Myers2018a).

To engage meaningfully with MTH agents, designers must adopt transdisciplinary approaches, integrating knowledge from biology, biotechnology, biochemistry, ecology, botany and related life sciences (Bandoni et al. Reference Bandoni, Almendra and Forman2022; Camere and Karana Reference Camere and Karana2018; Chen et al. Reference Chen, Cai, Jiang, Long, Sun, Childs and Zuo2023; Kääriäinen et al. Reference Kääriäinen, Tervinen, Vuorinen and Riutta2020; Myers Reference Myers2018c; Pollini and Rognoli Reference Pollini and Rognoli2024). In this expanded role, designers move from controlling matter to co-evolving with (once-)living systems.

This transformation – from human-centred problem solver to systems initiator and orchestrator within multi-species collectives – forms a critical theoretical foundation for understanding biodesign. It situates design not as an external force imposed upon nature, but as a relational practice embedded within living ecologies.

System-oriented perspectives and systemic design

As is illustrated with the broad and ever-emerging academic and industrial discourse in biodesign, its complexity is rising with the increased understanding. In order to address this complexity of the field and its practice in Industrial Design Engineering Technology, approaches are employed that are specifically well suited to handle this wicked context (Vandenbroeck Reference Vandenbroeck2012).

Therefore, this study aligns with and extends prior research that recommends systems thinking and systemic design to handle complexity (Vandenbroeck Reference Vandenbroeck2012). Dubberly and Pangaro (Reference Dubberly and Pangaro2023), for instance, recently present multiple recommendations for scholars working with systems, supported by practical examples (Dubberly and Pangaro Reference Dubberly and Pangaro2023). Similarly, Dumon and Ostuzzi (Reference Dumon and Ostuzzi2021) reports the use of systemic design in design education through practice-based assignments, providing empirical evidence of systemic design being integrated into academic curricula and offering a robust platform that resonates with such recommendations (Dumon and Ostuzzi Reference Dumon and Ostuzzi2021). Wiek et al. (Reference Wiek, Withycombe and Redman2011) further argues that systems thinking and systemic interventions are among the key competencies in sustainability (Wiek et al. Reference Wiek, Withycombe and Redman2011). McMahon and Hadfield (Reference McMahon and Hadfield2007) likewise advocate systems thinking as a pathway towards sustainable design solutions by proposing a taxonomy for systemic design and testing their assumptions with professional designers, challenging them to think in systems when addressing a given problem (McMahon and Hadfield Reference McMahon and Hadfield2007).

Across these contributions, a core lesson emerges that motivates this study: through systemic design – spanning across design fields – designers can push projects beyond symptomatic solutions that remain confined to isolated products and instead intervene in the interconnected conditions that shape practice and its outcomes.

Furthermore, does the Law of Requisite Variety in Cybernetics tell us that “only variety can destroy variety” (Ashby Reference Ashby1956, p. 207). Following this law, two strategies arise to address the increased experienced variability, unpredictability and uncertainty when biodesigning: (1) reducing the variety of the system to be controlled by simplifying it, something that we have done by refraining from biodesign principles over the last decades, (2) increasing the variety of the designer (controller) rather than reducing the variety of the system, thereby increasing the adaptive capacity of the designer through a meaningful support system. Of course, before this second strategy can be implemented we need to identify what hinders advancement to date.

Ultimately, this study is guided by the following research question: “What systemic structures hinder advancement of biodesign?.”

Phase 1 – Participant selection and recruitment

A systematic digital search (using Google search engine and LinkedIn post search) was conducted to identify projects and organisations operating within the field of biodesign. To ensure the relevance of the sample, three inclusion criteria were applied:

1. 1. The core activity of the project or company engages with biodesign, verified by the presence of multiple key descriptors – as illustrated in the Biodesign Model – on their digital platforms (bioart, bioeconomy, bioassembly, biobased, biobased economy, biocomposite, biodegradable, bioderived, biodesign, biofabrication, biogenic, bioinspired, biological, biomanufacturing, biomass, biomaterial, biomimicry, biophilia, bioplastic, bioreceptivity, biorefinery, biosynthesis, biosynthetic, biotic, bodily material, compostable, ecosystem, green economy, growing design, marine degradable, material ecology, microorganism, natural, organic, regenerative design, renewable material, synthetic biology), which were studied in a prior study on terminology (Vuylsteke et al. Reference Vuylsteke, Detand and Ostuzzi2023);

2. 2. The prospective participant had to hold an active or leadership role in the biodesign process; and

3. 3. A willingness to participate in the study.

70 candidates were identified and contacted to participate. Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached, defined as the point at which no new themes or insights emerged in subsequent interviews. The final sample – constituting 21 expert participants (n = 21) – was deemed sufficient given the depth of the interviews and the strong thematic convergence observed across the data, which indicated that significant and diverse insights could be derived from participants’ reported experiences. Table 1 provides an overview of these biodesign expert participants, highlighting a diverse range of professional backgrounds and geographical locations.

Table 1.

Overview of biodesign expert participants

Table 1. Long description

Tabular overview of the 21 biodesign expert participants and their professional, and geographical background information. The columns contain information about the interviewee acronym, job title, target audience they belong to, expertise, country of origin, country based, and biodesign projects they worked on.

To ensure relevance across the contexts in which biodesign is enacted, the studies defined and targeted four distinct audience groups that biodesign on different scales and with different purposes: academia, individual designers, design agencies and industry with R&D departments.

• • Academia is defined here as the collective world of higher education, research and scholarship, encompassing professors, researchers and students who are dedicated to the pursuit and preservation of knowledge in Industrial Design Engineering Technology.

• • Individual designers are defined as freelance professionals who are self-employed and work in service of a larger company or project.

• • Design agencies are defined as collectives or teams of designers with specific specialisations working in service of larger companies or projects.

• • Industry with R&D departments is defined as companies that have specialised departments of designers, architects, engineers and/or bioengineers who pursue novelty within the company’s niche.

These four target audiences were also made explicit in the tabular overview of the biodesign expert participants. Some participants were attributed to multiple target audiences. Of all participants, 28% were involved in academia, 57% as individual designers, 10% in design agencies and 38% in industry with R&D departments.

Phase 2 – data collection

An interview protocol was established and validated (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26206817) (Vuylsteke et al. Reference Vuylsteke, Ostuzzi and Detand2022a), consisting of three distinct phases:

1. 1. 4 opening questions to establish rapport;

2. 2. 10 questions providing insight into the participants’ specific work; and

3. 3. 10 closing questions designed to broaden the scope of the discussion and facilitate a synthesis of the interview.

All interviews were conducted in English by the lead researcher via video conferencing (using MS Teams), with durations ranging from 32 to 93 minutes. Audio recordings were transcribed automatically and subsequently refined manually to ensure accuracy.

Phase 3 – qualitative data analysis

The study employed the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) methodology to ensure a rigorous and transparent interpretive process (Dierckx de Casterle et al. Reference Dierckx de Casterle, Gastmans, Bryon and Denier2012). The method entails a, preparatory phase followed by an actual coding phase. In the preparatory phase, all transcripts were subjected to thorough re-reading. Reliability was supported through two specific measures: first, each interview was randomly assigned and reviewed by at least two researchers to ensure overlap and verify consistency in interpretation; and second all researchers reviewed the interview once within-case (interview by interview) and once cross-case (question by question) to mitigate order bias. Each researcher produced narrative interview reports that captured the participant’s storyline and key meaning and created a conceptual interview scheme containing preliminary concepts and their relationships (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Narrative interview reports as conceptual interview schemes of concepts of the four researchers (access to original file through https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26206883).

The team subsequently compared and synthesised individual schemes, resulting in a joint conceptual scheme that established seven overarching codes and associated subcodes (Figure 3) (Vuylsteke et al. Reference Vuylsteke, Ostuzzi and Detand2022b).

Figure 3.

Joint scheme of concepts through consensus building amongst the four researchers, resulting as the preliminary codebook (access to original file through https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26206883).

The actual coding phase was supported by NVivo software (Lumivero 2022). The seven overarching codes and their respective subcodes were imported as a preliminary codebook. The relevant interview fragments were linked to the appropriate codes, introducing emergent subcodes where novel commonalities appeared, and concepts were analysed in detail.

This study adopted a systems-oriented research approach in order to analyse the response specific for the following three interview questions:

• • What are the challenges and opportunities of biological elements and its accompanying design practice?

• • Which obstacles or barriers do you encounter in your design process when designing with biological elements?

• • Which advantages or enablers do you identify when designing with biological elements?

From the responses of these three questions, the challenges, obstacles and barriers, as well as the opportunities, advantages and enablers were coded together with interview excerpts for empirical grounding under the overarching codes Challenges and Opportunities and Obstacles/Barriers & Advantages/Enablers. In this way, this study specifically focused on two of the seven overarching codes. Table 2 holds the subcodes for which each has one or multiple interview excerpts attached to it, ranked from most to least attached excerpts.

Table 2.

The subcodes identified for the overarching codes Challenges and opportunities and obstacles/barriers & advantages/enablers after qualitative analysis of the expert interviews

Table 2 Long description

A table categorizing subcodes for challenges, opportunities, obstacles, and advantages in expert interviews. The table has two main sections: Challenges and opportunities, and Obstacles/barriers & Advantages/enablers. Each section lists subcodes with the amount of interview excerpts attached to it. Challenges include Making the desired material properties to be functional (10), Collaboration (9), Knowledge, financial and technological resources (7), Professionalisation today (6), Time consuming (5), No fixed process or methodology (3), Communication (3), Documentation (3), Gaining social acceptance (2), Transparency (2), Cost of materials (1), Specialised equipment (1), and Pragmatism (1). Opportunities include Sustainable innovation (4), Awareness of waste streams and the biobased movement (2), Practical experience (2), Thinking local (2), Collaboration (2), Scaling up (1), Satisfaction that comes with biodesign projects (1), Inspiration across disciplines (1), and Failures (1). Obstacles/barriers include Predictability and control over the material properties (over time) (9), Lacking knowledge, finances and technological resources (6), Collaboration between different fields of study (6), Material development involves a lot of failure (4), Industrialisation as a goal can be experienced as an obstacle (3), Material durability whilst still maintaining the biodegradability (2), Sharing failed experiments with the community (2), and Material certification (1). Advantages/enablers include Collaboration (4), The innovation part (3), Designing of, with and/or for nature (2), Sustainable alternatives (2), Access to knowledge (2), Designing both the material and the product (1), More autonomy and creative freedom (1), Laboratory environment (1), and Experimenting (1).

Phase 4 – systems thinking

Through the interview excerpts attached to the codes, logical patterns emerged as systemic structures. Accordingly, these codes became either the stock or the flow elements of the system of biodesign which was represented through use of a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) (Forrester Reference Forrester1997; Senge Reference Senge1990). In systems thinking – especially in its visual representations with CLDs – stock are the elements that can be added or subtracted from a system over time, while the flow are the actions of processes that increase or decrease (transform) this stock in a system represented by arrows.

The opportunities, advantages and enablers were representing the current biodesign systemic structures (= current state of stock and flow), while the challenges, obstacles and barriers were the hindering systemic structures (= root causes to advancement of the field). In this way a contemporary system of biodesign was identified with its hindering systemic structures. Some of the systemic structures that emerged, aligned with recognisable System Archetypes which describe common patterns in complex systems (Braun Reference Braun2002). In this way the hindering structures could be explained through these known archetypes and their established Behaviour Over time plotted in a Graph (BOTG) (Braun Reference Braun2002).

Thus, through Causal Loop Diagrams (= containing stock and flow), System Archetypes (= recognisable patterns) and Behaviour Over Time Graphs (= behavioural cause and effect diagrams plotted over time) the system of biodesign was identified and analysed to highlight the current systemic structures that might hinder the advancement of biodesign in Industrial Design Engineering Technology contexts (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

System CLD, Archetype, and BOTG demonstration.

Validation of these CLDs, BOTGs has happened by two systems thinking expert researchers.