2025 "The Spirit of Asilomar and the Future of Biotechnology"

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1911/118546

“The Spirit of Asilomar and the Future of Biotechnology” summit occurred on the 50th anniversary of the 1975 international meeting on recombinant DNA molecules at the historic Asilomar Conference Grounds in Pacific Grove, California. Additional information about the program can be found on the summit website.

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 27

6.7 NGL Entreaty on Access and Equity
(Rice University, 2025) Sousa do Nascimento, Cibele Zolnier; Johnson, Alicia; Kato, Emma Sebunya; Vigar, Justin R.J.; Perez, Rolando; Kiattisewee, Cholpisit Ice; Molla, Kutubuddin
At the Spirit of Asilomar Summit, conversations about biotechnology’s future took center stage. One of the most important discussions was on Access and Equity, under the "Framing Biotechnology’s Future" theme - focusing on the barriers, needs, and opportunities for making science more accessible, especially for researchers from resource limited or low and middle-income countries. The original Asilomar Conference balanced innovation with responsibility, but failed to address equity. The 'Spirit of Asilomar' organizers were able to address that and position entreaties as a corrective to that oversight. As young leaders in biotech, we wanted to bring our experiences to the table - sharing the initiatives we’ve worked on, the challenges we’ve faced, and the opportunities we see to build a more inclusive and equitable field.
6.9 NGL Proposal for Spirit of Asilomar Fund
(Rice University, 2025) Perez, Rolando; Chappell, Callie; Flores, Wari Nkwi; Lopez, Andrea Isabel; Johnson, Alicia; Kiattisewee, Cholpisit; Zimmerman, Elise; Elcock, Leon B.; Emanuel, Kato Sebunya; Chavez, Maria; Rath, Shrestha; Lardner, Casey; Zolnier, Cibele; Palmer, Xavier-Lewis; Astolfi, Maria; Seah, Adeline
This entreaty is a call to ensure biotechnology is a tool for global flourishing by establishing the Spirit of Asilomar Fund. Fear caused the 1975 Asilomar meeting to build barriers that ultimately hindered the transformative potential of biotechnologies to enable global flourishing. The 2025 Spirit of Asilomar Summit emphasized that we are at a critical juncture for Biotechnology. The Summit revealed a continued fear of Biotechnology amongst the general public and a growing lack of trust between the public and biotechnologists. Biotechnology as a tool for global flourishing is only possible by considering its cultural, ecological, political, and historical contexts. The research enterprise must empower all people, not just some, to unlock Biotechnology's transformative power. To nurture these interdisciplinary biotechnological futures, we propose the establishment of a Spirit of Asilomar Fund. The Spirit of Asilomar Fund will support the transition to transform the Biotechnology enterprise towards rights- and community-based, interdisciplinary, and culturally-centered approaches to Biotechnology innovation and governance. Our overall goal is to foster the sustained, responsible and mindful development of biotechnologies for global benefit.
5.4 Letter to our relatives, ancestors, and future generations: A call to establish Indigenous Biotechnology
(Rice University, 2025) Flores, WarīNkwī; Astolfi, Maria C.T.; Perez, Rolando; Elcock, Leon B. III; Bonilla, Janeth; Rhyans, Steven; Kong, David
At the 50th anniversary of the Asilomar Summit, the Indigenous Biotechnology Working Group share this letter as a collective call to establish Indigenous Biotechnology as a distinct and self-determined field. Grounded in Indigenous Knowledge Systems, this emerging field reimagines biotechnology through the values of reciprocity, sovereignty, stewardship, and kinship with all life. In response to centuries of extractive science and ongoing colonialism, Indigenous Biotechnology centers the rights of Peoples and the rights of Nature in the design, governance, and development of biotechnology. This letter highlights foundations of the field, calls for global alliances, and invites to build the Principles of Indigenous Biotechnology by 2026. We write to our ancestors, relatives, and future generations to shape a future in which biotechnology safeguards the biodiversity, cultures, and Peoples that sustain our scientific innovations.
5.5 The Future of Biotechnology: A Show of Good Faith
(Rice University, 2025) Camenares, Devin; López, Andrea Isabel; Jannah, Roudlotul; Jibriel, Mohammed; Anjum, Bushra E.
Religion and biotechnology are often seen as being in conflict, but this narrow view can deepen divisions and alienate communities. Building biotechnology’s future requires learning from the past and understanding its cultural and religious contexts. We urge scientists to engage with other disciplines to grasp broader social issues and improve communication across divides. Envisioning responsible innovation means honoring history, fostering dialogue, and recognizing the diverse traditions that shape how biotechnology is received and applied.
6.2 Accessible Biotech Education
(Rice University, 2025) Kiattisewee, Cholpisit Ice; do Nascimento, Cibele Zolnier Sousa; Elcock, Leon B. III; Seah, Adeline; Mitra, Aishwarya Sparky; Neira, Diego Muñoz; Kato, Sebunya Emmanuel; Lindner, Ariel; Thaweechuen, Jirapat; Vigar, Justin R.J.; Kong, David
This Entreaty is developed in response to the discussion in “Essential education for the Biotechnologists of 2075” as part of “Framing Biotechnology’s Future” theme at the Spirit of Asilomar conference. This session is the only technical session with “Education” keyword ties to the secession name with 1 hour budgeted time. Even though the topic appeared much less frequent in the program, conversations centered on education had been touched as much as other topics during the meeting.
6.6 On Trust
(Rice University, 2025) Kong, David
5.2 Solidarity Bioeconomy
(Rice University, 2025) Elcock, Leon B. III; Perez, Rolando; Chappell, Callie R.; Lardner, Casey; Camenares, Devin; Thaweechuen, Jirapat; Munoz, Diego
6.5 Public Engagement
(Rice University, 2025) Lovell-Badge, Robin; Camenares, Devin; Baylis, Francoise
6.3 Community biology: Advancing responsible biotech innovation
(Rice University, 2025) Jannah, Roudlotul; Anjum, Bushra E.; Lardner, Casey; Chappell, Callie R.; Palmer, Xavier-Lewis; Perez, Rolando; Mitra, Aishwarya Sparky; Camenares, Devin; Seah, Adeline; Kong, David; Elcock, Leon B.; Flores, WariNkwi; Thaweechuen, Jirapat
Community biology is a grassroots movement that can empower individuals and communities outside the traditional academic and industrial silos. It can offer local solutions to global challenges through community engagement and empowerment by establishing “third spaces” like community labs. These more accessible spaces can improve equity, resilience, and innovation with biotechnology that has already existed in local communities across the globe. To further illustrate its potential, compelling case studies of the diverse impact of community biology initiatives globally are provided. In this entreaty, we provide a call to action to support community biology globally by forging new partnerships, building needed infrastructure, and securing sources of funding. Recognizing community biology as essential infrastructure is paramount to ensuring that the benefits of biotechnology are realized by all.
5.3 Broadening Science Education within Existing Structures
(Rice University, 2025) Zimmerman, Elise H.; Johnson, Alicia; Elcock, Leon B. III; George, Dalton R.; Kiattisewee, Cholpisit Ice; Lardner, Casey; Palmer, Xavier-Lewis; Seah, Adeline; Silberg, Jonathan J.
The social, ethical, and political problems we are facing are not merely an interdisciplinary exercise, but a fundamental component of biotechnology. Scientists are increasingly needed to also act in roles as policy advisors, advocates, participants in diverse conversations, and active community members. Expanding science education to meaningfully incorporate the knowledge and skills needed to effectively engage in these roles is necessary. This entreaty serves as a concrete, non-exhaustive list of some examples, resources, evaluations, and ideas for implementing interdisciplinary learning and equity-minded science into existing science education structures. This document includes five categories of educational structures with an introduction, examples, pros, cons, and ideas to expand for each category. We hope it acts as a resource for people to begin implementing interdisciplinary education at their own institutions.
6.4 A Statement of Shared Stewardship (Video)
(Rice University, 2025) Lee, Zoe; Chen, Annie; Kong, David
6.8 NGL Reflection Anthology
(Rice University, 2025) Johnson, Alicia; Perez, Rolando; Anjum, Bushra; Adefolalu, Adedotun; Jannah,Roudlotul; Jibriel, Mohammed; Zolnier, Cibele; Camenares, Devin; Flores, Alonso; Kato, Sebunya Emmanuel; Chappell, Callie; Abugu, Modesta; Kosmehl, Naomi; Thaweechuen, Jirapat; Palmer, Xavier-Lewis; Kiattisewee,Cholpisit Ice; Neira, Diego Muñoz; Gonzalez, Joel Andres Rojas; López, Andrea Isabel; Molla, Kutubuddin; Zimmerman, Elise; Elcock, Leon B.; Lardner, Casey; Prakash, Gayathri; Syberg-Olsen, Mitchell; Takemura, Masato
One outcome of the 2025 Spirit of Asilomar and the Future of Biotechnology Summit was affirming the next generation of leaders in biotechnology. The Next Generation Leaders (NGL) program supported young- to mid-career leaders seeking to contribute to and lead towards better biotic futures. Our cohort of Summit attendees voiced their visions for the future of biotechnology – many of which are reflected in this Entreaty. This Entreaty is an anthology of voices, reflections, poetry, prose, and original artwork from Next Generation Leaders. We choose not to write a consensus statement, instead supporting each individual voice and vision stand on its own through an anthology entreaty.
6.1 Establishing the Global Network for Organisms and Multi-disciplinary Exchange (GNOME)
(Rice University, 2025) Seah, Adeline; Flores, WariNkwi; Perez, Rolando; Palmer, Xavier-Lewis; Elcock, Leon; George, Dalton; Johnson, Alicia; Kiattisewee, Cholpisit Ice; Chappell, Callie R.; Vigar, Justin R.J.; Almeida, Catarina; Jannah, Roudlotul; Molla, Kutubuddin
This entreaty focuses on the necessary elements to broaden and diversify engagement beyond the Spirit of Asilomar conference community through the creation of a Global Network for Organisms and Multi-disciplinary Exchange (GNOME). The network would build a broader coalition of expertise, experience, perspectives and cultural knowledge to decide on how to use biotechnology to address the biodiversity crisis, and foster collaborative decision-making on the ethical, legal, cultural, and social implications of emerging biotechnologies, especially engaging South-South and South-North stakeholders in connections. GNOME has three key goals - the first is to build and strengthen trust — the most important takeaway from the Spirit of Asilomar meeting — between communities, biotechnologists, conservationists, ecologists, ethicists, and other stakeholders, particularly with the Global South. The second goal is to foster the exchange of technical, cultural values, and local knowledge and perspectives to inform/evolve existing decision-making and operational frameworks for the use of biotech in conservation and the environment. Our final goal is to build responsible and accountable biotech innovation reaffirming local community values, priority needs, the right to withhold consent, self-determination, and the rights of nature. We invite you to join our efforts to design the network, its structure, governance and activities.
5.1 Biotechnology for a Sustainable & Equitable Global Bioeconomy
(Rice University, 2025) Chang, Matthew Wook; Anta, Rafael; de Carvalho Bittencourt, Daniela Matias; Carlson, Rob; Chieza, Natsai Audrey; Federici, Fernán; Freemont, Paul; Haileselassie, Teklehaimanot; Kantola, Jukka; Karembu, Margaret; Khan, Faisal; Kong, David S.; Matsuo, Makiko; Maxon, Mary; Mizunashi, Wataru; Molloy, Jennifer C.; Mwambingu, Bupe; Park, Buhm Soon; Roca, Maria Mercedes; Speight, Robert; Tesfaye, Kassahun; Wu, Chen
Biotechnology is key to a sustainable, equitable global future. This entreaty calls for international cooperation, inclusive capacity-building, responsible governance, and resilient financing to unlock its full potential. By valuing biodiversity, aligning global standards, and promoting ethical innovation, biotechnology can foster shared prosperity, environmental stewardship, and long-term economic resilience across all regions.
1.5 Identifying and Addressing the Risk of the Environmental Release of Organisms — Engineered or Natural
(Rice University, 2025) Chemla, Yonatan; Alexanian, Tessa; Barrios, Felix Moronta; Demirer, Gozde; Flores, Alonso; Karthikeyan, Smruthi; Lindner, Ariel B.; Mackelprang, Becky; Marken, John; Mitra, Aishwarya Sparky; Molla, Kutubuddin A.; Rudenko, Larisa; Syberg-Olsen, Mitchell J.; Wu, Felicia; Silberg, Jonathan (Joff); Voigt, Christopher A.
The environmental release of both engineered and non-engineered organisms for Biotechnologies Beyond Conventional Containment (BBCC) offers unique solutions to pressing global challenges, including the prevention of soil degradation, the attenuation of nitrogen pollution, the replacement of harmful pesticides and herbicides, the remediation of anthropogenic contaminants and ‘forever chemicals’ mitigation. An evaluation of impacts, both positive and negative, rather than arbitrary prohibitions, is crucial for advancing the responsible use of organisms intentionally released into the environment. The history of biological interventions demonstrates that organisms have successfully contributed to agriculture, pollution remediation, ecosystem restoration, waste upcycling, and pest control, yet their full potential remains constrained by regulatory hurdles that do not fully account for modern scientific advancements. At the same time, some releases serve as cautionary tales, having caused harm due to a lack of regulation and monitoring. Unlike chemicals released to the environment, organisms — particularly those designed or selected for specific functions — can be managed with built-in safeguards, ranging from physical and genetic containment strategies to controlled ecological interactions to mitigate risks while maximizing benefits. Advancements in precision engineering, computational modeling, and real-time monitoring technologies now allow for unprecedented accuracy in tracking, assessing, and controlling the environmental impact of released organisms — capabilities inaccessible when recombinant DNA technology first emerged 50 years ago. Many regulatory structures were developed decades before today’s explosion of biological knowledge and insight was even imaginable. This resulted in our current policies that have become restrictive, limiting the deployment of innovative and promising biological solutions. A new approach to risk analysis is now needed that accounts for changes in science, and in society, which assesses the environmental release of natural, evolved, and engineered organisms based on their functions rather than their origin or how they were developed. By modernizing these frameworks to emphasize continuous assessment, real-world data collection, and adaptive risk assessment and management, stakeholders can create a regulatory pathway for the sustainable, responsible, and evidence-based integration of environmental biological technologies.
4.1 Safeguarding the Benefits of Synthetic Cell Engineering
(Rice University, 2025) Smith, James A.; Wagstaff, James; Glass, John; de C. Bittencourt, Daniela Matias; Mitra, Aishwarya Sparky; Chitayat, Liyam; Adamala, Katarzyna P.
The report outlines the transformative potential of synthetic cells in addressing global challenges through innovation in fields like medicine, energy, and education, while emphasizing their role as safe, accessible models for biological research. It advocates for responsible development through global collaboration, inclusive education, open science practices, and harmonized international governance to ensure equitable and secure deployment.
1.6 Identifying intersections between BBCC and ecology and conservation
(Rice University, 2025) Kiattisewee, Cholpisit Ice; Seah, Adeline; George, Dalton R.; Barnhill, S. Kathleen; Barrios, Felix Moronta
This Entreaty summarizes the key discussion points identified from a “Identifying intersections between BBCC and ecology/conservation” working group as one of the technical sessions under the “Biotechnologies Beyond Conventional Containment (BBCC)” theme at the Spirit of Asilomar and The future of Biotechnology summit. The session aimed to explore the intersection of biotechnology application in the environmental set-up for ecology and conservation purposes.
1.1 Towards frameworks for evaluation and governance of Biotechnologies Beyond Conventional Containment
(Rice University, 2025) Marken, John
At the Spirit of Asilomar meeting, one working group met to discuss whether a consistent framework for categorizing and providing guidance for the use of Biotechnologies Beyond Conventional Containment (BBCCs), similar to how the Biosafety Level framework operates for the laboratory use of biological agents, could be developed. This document presents some of the major conclusions from these discussions, outlines the general structure of what a framework might look like, and states some open questions that still need to be addressed to develop any concrete implmeentation of such a framework.
1.2 Risk-benefit analysis worksheet for biotechnology beyond conventional containment
(Rice University, 2025) Abbott, Zack; Flores, Alonso; Murray, Richard
This report presents a structured risk-benefit analysis framework developed through discussions at the Spirit of Asilomar summit under the Biotechnologies Beyond Conventional Containment (BBCC) theme. As biotechnologies increasingly move beyond traditional laboratory and industrial confinement into open environmental applications, novel risks, ethical considerations, and societal implications arise. Recognizing the limitations of defining universal "safe design guidelines”, this report focuses instead on creating a practical, context-sensitive worksheet to guide scientists in early-stage project development. The worksheet prompts users to evaluate potential benefits—environmental, health, economic, and societal—against biological, ecological, health, regulatory, and security risks, while acknowledging the inevitability of residual risks. It encourages interdisciplinary consultation, highlighting the importance of engaging with experts and stakeholders to ensure responsible innovation. Serving as a preliminary self-assessment tool, the worksheet is designed to complement, not replace, formal regulatory processes. It aims to foster more thoughtful and transparent biotechnology design decisions and to evolve over time through broader community input.
3.1 Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Biotechnology
(Rice University, 2025) Bromberg, Yana; Altman, Russ; Imperiale, Michael; Horvitz, Eric; Dus, Monica; Townshend, Raphael; Yao, Vicky; Treangen, Todd; Alexanian, Tessa; Szymanski, Erika; Yassif, Jaime; Anta, Rafael; Lindner, Ariel B.; Schmidt, Markus; Diggans, James; Esvelt, Kevin M.; Molla, Kutubuddin A.; Phelan, Ryan; Wang, Mengdi; Wu, Felicia; de Carvalho Bittencourt, Daniela Matias
Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnology (AIxBio) creates revolutionary opportunities for progress in advancing the bioeconomy and addressing health concerns. AI advances promise to greatly accelerate beneficial biological discoveries and innovation and will undoubtedly be one of the deepest contributions of AI to people and society. However, AI methods can also increase risks of accidents and enable malevolent activities aimed at deliberately harmful applications such as bioweapons development. Effective AIxBio governance requires frameworks that enable the great rewards expected from AI in biosciences but that also consider more costly outcomes made possible by AI advances. Recent literature on AIxBio risk management highlights strategies that include tiered access controls, AI auditing mechanisms, and mandatory biological molecule synthesis screening and monitoring. However, many of these potential guardrails have yet to be developed and/or adequately evaluated. In addition to developing practical, technical solutions, it will also be important to develop guidelines and regulations, as well as incentives to follow these, to drive broad implementation of effective risk reduction solutions at the national and international level. Such policies can address significant gaps in national and global governance, but it will also be important to harmonize these approaches to address any regulatory divergence and inconsistencies in risk management across key world players.

Browse

Recent Submissions