BEAMS: a workforce development program to bridge the gap between biologists and material scientists

Abstract

To maximize innovation in materials science and synthetic biology, it is critical to master interdisciplinary understanding and communication within an organization. Programming aimed at this juncture has the potential to bring members of the workforce together to frame new networks and spark collaboration. In this article, we recognize the potential synergy between materials and synthetic biology research and describe our approach to this challenge as a case study. A workforce development program was devised consisting of a lecture series, laboratory demonstrations and a hands-on laboratory competition to produce a bacterial cellulose material with the highest tensile strength. This program, combined with support for infrastructure and research, resulted in a significant return on investment with new externally funded synthetic biology for materials programs for our organization. The learning elements described here may be adapted by other institutions for a variety of settings and goals.

1. Introduction

The field of synthetic biology is inherently interdisciplinary, existing at the confluence of biology, computer science, chemistry, mathematics and engineering (1, 2). The concept of interdisciplinary research has motivated much thought for decades (3), including the promise and challenges (4, 5), increasing prevalence (6), best practices (7) and quantification of the benefits (6, 8). However, a critical aspect of success in interdisciplinary research is the challenge of communicating across disciplines, where limited technical knowledge and foreign technical jargon hamper exchanges (9). A second barrier is a lack of awareness of what other disciplines can offer, coupled with a lack of personal connections that are often the seeds of collaboration. These challenges can be overcome by targeted programmatic investments to incentivize interdisciplinary work, such as the US National Science Foundation’s inclusion of ‘Convergence Research’ in its ‘10 Big Ideas’ initiative since 2016. For synthetic biology, while the interdisciplinary field promises to impact application areas from energy to medicine to manufacturing (10), real progress beyond proof-of-principle requires active engagement with experts in those specific areas who may not have thought much about DNA since high school. As synthetic biology moves from laboratory demonstrations toward real-world applications (11), cross-discipline dialog becomes critical in order to identify the intersection between the biggest needs of an application area, the parameters that define success, and the strengths and limitations of a synthetic biology approach.

Education programs must be tailored to the appropriate audience, which has been the case for other synthetic biology education efforts described in the literature (12–17). One audience for such education is the research community within the US Department of Defense (DoD), where synthetic biology has become a focus area in recent years, both as an enabling technology and as a source of novel threats. Examples of this shift include studies by the National Academies commissioned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on the impact of synthetic biology on biodefense (18) and defense of the emerging bioeconomy (19), and steadily increasing funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as the Army, Navy and Air Force (2). Efforts to prepare defense personnel, such as future military officers (17) and security professionals (16), for the future impact of synthetic biology have been pursued.

One of the most promising application areas of synthetic biology, for defense or otherwise, is in materials, whether toward producing familiar materials more easily with decreased costs, or toward development of entirely novel materials (20). At our organization, the US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Chemical Biological Center (CBC), we identified this confluence of material science and biology as a growth area in terms of development of future military-relevant technologies. CBC has a strong contingent of more than 100 chemists, material scientists and physicists focused on research toward detection, protection, identification and decontamination of chemical and biological threats; meanwhile, CBC also has about 85 biologists focused on detection, identification and decontamination of biological threats, and more recently on synthetic biology. Historically, collaboration between these groups has been isolated to occasional, personality-driven joint projects. We therefore sought to encourage new avenues of investigation and potential funding opportunities at the intersection of these disciplines. To this end, we developed the Biological Engineering for Applied Materials Solutions (BEAMS) program. The program has three pillars: infrastructure, research and workforce development. In this article, we focus on the workforce development aspects of the program. We demonstrate success by presenting data on new externally funded research efforts involving cross-disciplinary collaborations built within BEAMS. We present the program as one successful example of an intra-organizational workforce development program to bridge interdisciplinary gaps, which could be developed holistically or in-part across any government, industrial or academic institution with similar goals.

2. Program description

Once the emerging field of synthetic biology for materials science was recognized and targeted for development by CBC leadership, we examined the task of integrating scientists from different disciplines across our organization. Our overarching objective was to establish a new capability area for CBC, as evidenced by generation of research funding from external agencies, which first and foremost necessitated cross-disciplinary training. The resulting approach combines a traditional lecture format and a laboratory component to develop scientists who could seamlessly communicate across the traditional barriers between disciplines. The effort was conducted on the CBC campus with internal investment. A timeline detailing programmatic stages is depicted in Figure 1. The three prongs of the BEAMS program are (i) two parallel lecture series taught at an advanced undergraduate level in biology and materials science, (ii) a laboratory practical competition combining biology and materials science elements and (iii) a 2-year sustainment investment, including a quarterly seminar series of invited speakers and small seed funding for preliminary research efforts.

Figure 1.

Timeline of BEAMS program.

An important distinction for the approach outlined here is that while a core BEAMS leadership group from CBC organized this approach, all of the instructors were internal staff scientists who were also ‘students’ for other aspects of the program. Furthermore, all of the teaching and student efforts were voluntary, and all BEAMS activities were open to anyone at CBC who was interested. A two-semester approach was undertaken where the lecture and the laboratory sections were implemented independently of one another, to avoid overloading the participants on top of their day-to-day job. Yet, the two components were close enough chronologically so as not to lose the educational gains from one component to another.

2.1 Lecture series and seminars

It was necessary to find engaging ways to excite the workforce about this area and give them the opportunity to invest in their knowledge gaps. Once we came up with the concept of having classroom-type teaching as a cross-disciplinary learning component, four main questions needed to be answered:

1. What topics should be taught?

2. At what level would these lectures be most useful to meet our goals?

3. How many lectures should be taught?

4. Who would be the instructors?

Two topic pathways for these lectures were developed, one in materials science and the other in biology. Even though people who were already experts in these areas may be interested in attending the lectures, it was determined that the content needed to be geared toward the non-expert in the field. This meant that an undergraduate in any scientific field would be able to understand the lecture, and hopefully participate in discussion. Six lectures were developed in each path, with one lecture in each path taught per week. Finally, having a workforce that was well-versed in both materials science and biology lent itself well to using internal experts as the instructors.

Since there were two clear tracks of lectures, they were treated independently, with a leader in charge of coordinating the topics and instructors. The topics were selected with consideration of the expertise available at CBC. In particular, with materials science being a more applied field, topics of interest to the CBC were identified. With the biology track, a more traditional approach was taken with identifying a well-rounded set of topics. Lectures were typically 45–60 min in length and were taught by one or two instructors. A finalized schedule of topics can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Schedule of lectures in materials science and biological sciences

Week	Materials science (Tuesday)	Biological sciences (Thursday)
1	Introduction	Introduction
2	Optical properties	Microbiology
3	Surface science	Working with microbes
4	Porous materials	Characterization of microbes
5	Engineering polymers	Genomics/proteomics
6	Additive manufacturing	Synthetic biology applications
7	Capstone—synthetic biology toward materials

In all, 15 subject matter experts participated as instructors for the 13 lectures. Instructors were given freedom to choose the lesson format; we found this appealed to the subject matter experts and encouraged their participation. While some instructors were more comfortable with standing behind a podium or showing relevant videos, others were more engaging and encouraged audience participation. Even though it was on a voluntary basis, the typical lecture had in-person attendance between 30 and 70 participants. In all, the total attendance across all lectures was greater than 500, including more than 100 unique individuals. Due to the modular nature of the BEAMS Lecture Series, individuals were able to attend just a single track or even just specific lectures that piqued their interest. Furthermore, to maximize current and future participation, all of the lectures were recorded and archived along with teaching materials to a shared site that everyone at CBC can access.

The Week 7 capstone on Synthetic Biology toward Materials was an open discussion about the topic of materials from synthetic biology, but it was framed to highlight early projects pursued by CBC within the BEAMS. A prime example is the biomanufacturing of novel porphyrins of interest for the decontamination of the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard (21). This open discussion further drove the development of a hands-on experience that crossed synthetic biology with materials science, which ultimately became the biomaterial competition.

2.2 Biomaterial competition

Seeking to combine hands-on learning and networking, we staged a team competition where both biology and materials science skills were necessary to reach an objective. We chose this format to engage the workforce because small interdisciplinary teams create an environment where members can more easily share knowledge, as well as expand their network outside of their niche area. A clear predefined goal allowed the team to focus on acquiring basic laboratory techniques and core concepts in both synthetic biology and materials science. To introduce all participants to relevant laboratory basics, two sessions of laboratory demonstrations were configured to introduce the prerequisite techniques and available equipment, such as culturing Komagataeibacter xylinus, microcopy and tensile strength testing. The sessions were divided between synthetic biology and materials characterization subject areas.

Several factors influenced the choice of competition objective and format. The size and skillset of the group were important factors. The cohort of participants in the competition included 23 scientists and engineers who were split between five teams. The teams were selected by the organizers to evenly distribute skillsets. A survey of participants captured the range of experience and expertise in the group (Figure 2). It was not surprising to see a large degree of participation from those with expertise in biology, as they would have a natural predisposition toward the topic.

Figure 2.

Competition participant demographics. Data on (A) education, (B) years of work experience and (C) field of expertise were collected for the pool of participants.

Another important factor is the amount of time allocated for the competition. A timeline of 4 months was chosen, estimating each team should spend around 200 h (40–50 h per individual) on competition activities. Taking these parameters into account, a relatively simple, biomaterials-oriented objective was needed. We decided to base the competition on a material called bacterial nanocellulose. This material is a mat of interlocked cellulose fibrils, called a pellicle, which is natively produced by the bacterium K. xylinus (22) (Figure 3). Nanocellulose may be processed into paper-like sheets with high tensile strength (23). The objective chosen for the competition was to obtain samples of nanocellulose material with the greatest tensile strength relative to the other teams.

Figure 3.

Celluose materials. (A) Cellulose polymer structure, (B) cellulose pellicles in K. xylinus culture with insets depicting SEM image of cellulose fibers and microscopy image of K. xylinus and (C) dried bacterial nanocellulose pellicle.

Bacterial cellulose is a material that has been studied for some time and is already used in a variety of applications including acoustic speakers, papers, foods, wound dressings and even wearable electronics (24–28). The relatively mature body of work about this material and the organisms that produce it make this an ideal teaching example. In addition, culturing these bacteria to produce the basic pellicle starting point is not a major technical challenge, making this task more accessible to beginners. There are many ways to modify the organism, culture conditions and postprocessing steps to change the material properties of the nanocellulose. Each team was able to think through all of these options, combining their range of perspectives to choose a strategy. Another attractive factor is that tensile strength is both an easy-to-understand and easy-to-measure materials property. Thus, the groups were allowed to focus on creative solutions to increase tensile strength rather than becoming mired trying to get a baseline material measurement.

The biology in-lab demonstration was an important opportunity to introduce the skills necessary to culture K. xylinus. Topics included microbial cell culture in various formats, autoclaving and aseptic technique, and the necessary treatments to sanitize the nanocellulose material after harvesting it from the culture vessel. A complete set of instructions specific to producing nanocellulose from K. xylinus was provided to participants and is included in the Supplementary information. A discussion was initiated on the ways synthetic biology techniques are used to alter and control strain genetics to engineer better strains. Resources such as sequencing, mass spectroscopy and microscopy were introduced. There are a few examples in the literature of gene disruptions or overexpression in K. xylinus (29). However, due to the constraints for the competition, all teams focused mainly on engineering external factors like culture conditions and postprocessing to yield improved tensile strength.

The materials science in-lab demonstration included an introduction to several instruments important for making or characterizing materials. These included an electrospinning cabinet, a scanning electron microscope (SEM), a powder X-ray diffractometer (PXRD), an Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectrometer and the Instron used for evaluating tensile strength. During the demonstration, the SEM was used to show images of the native cellulose pellicle, highlighting the interwoven fibers. FTIR and PXRD spectra were observed for cellulose samples and a tensile test was performed on a dried native cellulose pellicle. Potential material characteristics that could lead to altered tensile strength were discussed, including aligning the cellulose fibers (observable by SEM) or cross-linking the polymer (potentially observable by FTIR or PXRD).

The full rules and guidelines for the nanocellulose competition are included in the Supplementary information. All teams were given the same K. xylinus strain as a starting point. A minimum nanocellulose sheet size of 1″by 4″ was required for the final tests to ensure good Instron tensile measurements. In addition, all samples were dried, then held at 25°C and 90% humidity for a minimum of 12 h to avoid both overly wet samples and overly dry and brittle samples. This improved the probability that samples could be gripped by the Instron clamps without slipping or tearing prematurely. Teams were allowed to produce three samples to test that could either be replicate outcomes from the same treatment or each the result of different strategies. Each sample was elongated at a rate of 5 cm per minute until the break point. The maximum load was output by the Instron and converted to maximum stress using the measured dimensions of the nanocellulose sample (Figure 4). Length and width were measured with a ruler. Thickness was measured with digital calipers. At the end of the competition, all teams presented their intended strategies and the resulting tensile strength measurements (Figure 5) to an open forum at CBC. Diverse strategies were attempted, including supplementing the K. xylinus growth media with fruit juice or kombucha ingredients, scaffolding the cellulose to force pellicles to grow into particular shapes, lamination of cellulose pellicles and chemically cross-linking the cellulose. Team #2 was awarded first place with a winning tensile strength of 120 MPa.

Figure 4.

Example nanocellulose tensile strength measurement (A) and image of Instron setup (B).

Figure 5.

Summary of competition results. Up to three samples were tested for each team. Each sample is represented by a blue, orange or gray bar.

2.3 Sustainment of investment

It was important to maintain momentum gained from the lecture series and biomaterials competition with a variety of research and scholarly activities to maximize the intellectual and monetary return on investment (ROI). In order to maintain the intellectual stimulus gained through these activities, a seminar series was developed to bring in external experts to speak about their research at the interface of synthetic biology and materials science. Aligned with our specific needs for military applications, guest speakers were invited from the other military labs, as well as academic collaborators on a quarterly basis. The final important aspect of the program was providing seed funding for BEAMS participants to explore new ideas in the field. These small projects endeavored to both allow participants to get additional hands-on experience with this type of research, as well as collect preliminary data in order to develop larger proposals. Topics included electrospinning of biological materials, biomanufacturing of various chemicals and materials relevant to the DoD, harvesting of magnetic particles from magnetosomes and testing of biologically templated carbons for virucidal response, ranging in investment from $10 to 100k. In total, we funded projects involving 12 BEAMS participants during the program, which included sending a scientist to work and receive training in a collaborator’s laboratory for approximately 3 months.

2.4 Return on investment

The most tangible example of the effect of the efforts can be seen in the BEAMS ROI based on funding obtained for new projects at the intersection of synthetic biology and material science. For our organization, the ROI of BEAMS has been more than 25-fold to date across eight newly funded projects in <2 years (Figure 6). Of course, it is impossible to disentangle the role of BEAMS from other factors in obtaining these projects; however, in all eight cases, the principal investigator participated in the BEAMS program, and each program involved CBC personnel from both biological sciences and material science, spanning at least 14 individual BEAMS participants. Seven out of eight of the programs involved at least one external collaborator, four of which were guest speakers from the seminar series. Overall, there has been a significant effect in generation of new programs of various size and scope at the center. A clear connection can be made in each program to the BEAMS effort to foster developing programs at CBC in the interface of synthetic biology and materials science.

Figure 6.

Summary of ROI of BEAMS effort, including eight interdisciplinary CBC programs and their breakdown of internal personnel and external Principal Investigators. Note: Graphic includes three programs scheduled to begin in the next year.

3. Discussion

At CCDC CBC, we undertook the daunting challenge of utilizing unique skillsets in order to increase our ability to work in the emerging field of materials from synthetic biology. We targeted knowledge exchange programs in which our existing skillsets were leveraged to collaborate in new and innovative ways. In particular, a lecture series was used for traditional learning activities, a biomaterials laboratory competition provided hands-on learning, and a seminar series was leveraged for continuous learning opportunities. At CBC, we had a relatively experienced workforce partaking in the activities, which made it important to have credible experts to lead each activity. There was neither sufficient time nor resources to fully retrain scientists on all the pertinent laboratory techniques; however, conversations were still initiated to bring the experts on these topics together to form functional teams. The resulting ROI involving collaborative proposals between members of the program serves as strong evidence that the approach successfully bridged the disciplinary divide.

After completion of the BEAMS lecture series and team competition, many ideas on how the program could have been improved have been discussed. Depending on the organization that is executing such a program, it is possible to implement the lecture series and the laboratory competition concurrently, similar to an introductory chemistry or biology class at a university. Also, the laboratory competition may have seen better results if we had instituted a mandatory mid-point testing and sharing of the results, as a way to motivate the teams earlier in the competition. As the end date of the competition drew near, teams were scrambling to finish their projects, which do not necessarily provide the best final results.

This program can serve as a model for how to introduce the subject of synthetic biology for materials, or any other emerging field, to any group of researchers whether it be in government, industry or academia. At our institution, we are fortunate to have a diverse set of skills that could lead this interdisciplinary venture; however, we recognize many other institutions may not have this ability. The educational portion of BEAMS certainly could be addressed in many different ways, such as through collaboration with another institution, virtual lectures, classes at a university, etc., while keeping in mind that designing the content for the individual needs of your institution is paramount. No two institutions have the same goals, but a program like BEAMS could be implemented anywhere and achieve successful results.