CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS

Level 4: Genetic-Social

​

As humans, we prefer simple communication.  However, our preference for simplicity can also lead to the propagation of erroneous understanding.  Before we explain scientifically, let us explain philosophically. 

If one hears the statement: "Mary is a happy person," all we know is that Mary is female and perceived to have a content disposition.  We do not know Mary's age, height, family relationships, profession, and we certainly do not know if the statement was intended to mean Mary is always happy or there was a particular situation that caused Mary to be happy.  A lot of information is left out of the sentence and it is best not to assume we know the information that is missing.

​

Now let us go into a science example.  A common phrase across all cultures is "we breathe in oxygen and we breathe out carbon dioxide."  Reality is more complex.  In what we consider to be normal, unpolluted air, we humans only breathe in 21% oxygen.  Most of the air we breathe in is nitrogen (78%), 1% is inert gas (e.g. argon), there is a little carbon dioxide (0.04%), and also water vapour aka humidity.  You can read more about the air we breathe in this wikibook.  Many people are surprised to learn that breathing too much oxygen can be harmful to humans.  The ratios of different gases in what we call air need to remain proportional so that humans can breathe healthily. 

Most people would agree automotive transport is a benefit.  A 30 minute walk is a 5 minute drive without traffic congestion and the 15 minutes of time saved can be used to finish an errand before going into a meeting.  Unfortunately, automobiles also emit a lot of carbon dioxide which changes the ratio of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe (remember, we are only supposed to breathe in 0.04%).  Even more alarming, if gasoline has additives to increase fuel efficiency, some of these additives can cause brain damage because we are not supposed to breathe them at all.  Lead is one such additive that is highly toxic.  When Kenyan news media report findings of lead particulates in Nairobi air, we should start focusing on changes to our gasoline and transportation behaviour so that we reduce the risks to our health. 

Automobile use is not the only human activity we need to monitor.  We started with air to make you aware of the pollution we do not see (e.g. lead particles in the air) and how the negative impacts on human health.  Hopefully this has helped increase your awareness of the linkages between social (human) activity and genetic activity.  Industrial activity other than transportation also has genetic health impacts.  Decomposing organic matter increases methane emissions.  Although there are some simple steps that can reduce methane emissions on farms, the steps are not so simple when it comes to garbage dumpsites and landfills.  Landfills contain a mixed accumulation of garbage that produces both visible problems (dead sea animals caught in plastic debris that flies off landfill heaps) and not so visible problems (birth defects from chemicals that leach into water and soil).  You can read more about the health problems caused by landfill waste.  The goal of the circular economy approach goes beyond recycling and returning used products to the manufacturer (closed-loop systems).  The goal of the circular economy approach is to design products in a way that their production, use and disposal is beneficial to both the environment and human health regardless of where the product is used in a forward-loop system (the traditional supply chain systems we are used to).  You can read more about the evolution of circular economy material flow analysis and "sound material societies) in this book chapter. 

One tool that helps us increase our awareness on the pollution we create is Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).  Life Cycle Analysis includes an examination of raw material costs versus availability, energy consumption, and how long a product will last after it has served its commercial purpose. Take a look at how LCA is used to measure the environmental impact of buildings.  Now take a look at an LCA analysis of landfills.  Think of a commercial product you enjoy using.  How many years do you use the product?  Now think of the number of years needed to produce the raw material, including the energy.   If the product has a petroleum component (very likely if electricity was used to make your product), the fossil residue from which the petroleum was extracted took millions of years (as in before dinosaurs roamed the Earth) to create.  If you are concerned about a natural balance in human systems, you want the time nature needs to make the raw materials to be relatively equivalent to the time you will use the materials (this is what we referring to in the Bio-X video above when we talk about keeping production within planetary boundaries and the need to avoid materials scarcity reducing our wasteful use of natural resources).  Have you used any of your commercial products for millions of years?  What is the value of a raw material (petroleum) that began its formation before humans existed?  Is 20Ksh an adequate financial measure?  Should we be using raw materials that are closer in value to the time nature took to produce them?

Now let us better understand Kenya's ban on single use plastic bags.   Keep the sound material society concept foremost in your mind.  We know petroleum based plastics will take hundreds of years to fully decompose (the product life cycle exceeds the human life cycle of multiple generations of humans and yet only one generation at a time uses the products).  We also know that when plastic patches float in water the plastics are exposed to ultraviolet light and release chemicals that cause cancer and/or genetic mutations (endocrine disruptors) into the water, fish absorb these chemicals, then we eat the fish.  Yes plastics have simplified our lives and have many benefits from storage to medical devices to mobile phones.  However, using Life Cycle Analysis and toxicity analysis as the evaluation lens, are the plastics we have been using a sound material that benefits society?

Before we switch to a different type of plastic (e.g. bioplastic) there are several questions we need to explore:

​

1. Does the new raw material offer the same benefits as the plastic we are used to (can it be used the same way)? 

2. Does the new raw material solve the problems we are having (can it decompose quickly and does it reduce toxicity)?

3. Is the new raw material available in enough quantities to supply our demand for plastics over the current and future generations?

4. How will consumers be able to easily distinguish the new improved plastic from the previous plastic?

​

CSTI is one of many global research institutions examining the formulation of bioplastics.  We share the belief of our research counterparts that a safe solution can be developed for bioplastics that do not compromise food security.  The challenge is to use raw material sources that are abundant in Kenya as well as to develop bioplastic formulations that are optimized for Kenya's industrial supply chains.  We want to make sure we reduce the human and ecological genetic problems caused by the social need to use plastic products.  Our bioplastic research has begun with the examination of invasive plant species, in particular, the ecological plague we know as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and the invasive species we have become accustomed to known as elephant grass/ napier grass/Uganda grass/giant king grass (African Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) .   Our applied use case is food packaging.  We will explore the development of biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA is easier to remember and pronounce) plastic derived from the  baccillus subtilis bacteria (see above reading materials on enzymatic chemical reactions).  Our Life Cycle Analysis begins with finding alternative applications for the extracted cellulose, in this case we examine cellulose water purification.  The reason for examining alternative applications is a supply chain integration justification - for a circular bio-economy to flourish we want to have multiple suppliers and industries exchange material by-products.  Our initial results confirm both species can be used.  Invasive plant species are often difficult to eradicate.  CSTI is not advocating the deliberate growth of invasive plant species.  Instead, our position is that the industrial use of invasive plant species is a more cost effective mitigation strategy when compared to current mitigation efforts because: (1) industrial can consume raw material as fast as invasive species grow, and, (2) a portion of financial revenues from commercial activities can be set aside through the use of harvest permits and other license fees in order to establish a bioprotocol for benefit sharing.  Extensive ecological impact assessments will be needed before our position can be confirmed. 

In the interim, you can see some of our laboratory analytical capabilities thanks to the diligence of University of Nairobi Chemistry student Anjia Steven Mbae.   Click here for a full copy of the presentation

​

​