Andrea Ling

Q1. You have a unique combination of design, architecture, and biology, and you define yourself as a “biodesigner”?

Yes, although my background might be becoming less unique, as several schools now offer biodesign programs. Nevertheless, this is a relatively new field, and I initially got into it after I had been working as an architect but still maintaining my interest in biological sciences. In my undergrad, I studied human physiology and medical research with the intent of becoming a doctor in Canada. But my interest shifted, drawing me towards design, prompting a switch to architecture. I still liked my science education though, and even during my architecture degree I continued taking science electives in biology and embryology.

After working as an architect for several years, my love of research pulled me away from traditional architectural practice. I had the opportunity to collaborate with my former thesis supervisor, Philip Beesley, and I was able to once again incorporate my science knowledge into our work on “near-living architecture” and responsive environments. These concepts were closely related to my architecture thesis where I worked on responsive skins, which while are not living, maintain physical responsivity to the wearer’s movements.

After that, following a brief period as an architect for the University of Toronto and my own practice, my interest in research led me to apply for schooling in the US. I was accepted at the MIT Media Lab, in the Mediated Matter Group led by Neri Oxman. The interdisciplinary environment at the lab was really exciting for me, offering a range of collaborations not confined to any specific category, and with people with very diverse educational backgrounds and skill sets. This extreme interdisciplinarity was precisely what I sought, and what led me to embark on a PhD journey.

Q2. From MIT Media Lab to the Institute of Technology in Architecture, why here?

One of the main reasons I chose to come to ITA was my desire to create work that delivered on its promises. I knew that here I would have access to some of the best people and infrastructure that would allow me to reach my goal. For me, it was crucial to conduct research that resulted in concrete outcomes that could be tested, measured, and supported by evidence. I aimed to adopt more of an engineer’s approach, focusing less on design speculation and more on creating proof of concept prototypes, so that the discourse around the work could be about something more than the idea of the thing. So here at ITA, my goal is not merely to create something aesthetically novel or digitally complex. Instead, I strive to show how biologically based processes can create tangible benefits for architecture and climate. More specifically, I am trying to develop a living material that can effectively sequester carbon and remain viable as a building component, and even if I only create a small piece of it, I want to ensure it performs as intended.

Q3. You are interested in making something that you can prove, but also in making something that is useful or relevant to the practice of architecture?

I am interested in changing the practice. Currently, what I am doing may not have direct applicability in the way people practice architecture or construction. However, I firmly believe that it holds immense potential for the future, possibly in another 20 or 30 years. I acknowledge that it will demand significant will, time and effort to transition this research into real-world applications. Construction moves slowly, and many factors hold us back, not just technology but also economic and societal matters, so these are all challenges for implementation.

Q4. And are you ok with that fact that it may take as long as 30 years before what you are doing becomes impactful?

I think that is just how technology development works. Take machine learning, for instance; it took over 60 years of research before it became the ubiquitous tool it is now. When it comes to biological systems, the pace of research is even slower due to the complexities we still do not fully comprehend. Living systems operate like intricate networks, not just simple input-output models. In the end though, this should not deter us from pushing further with biodesign research, especially since the big hope is that it will play a significant role in addressing our pressing climate issues.

Q5. And is ITA really the right place for your research work, or are you in effect pushing the boundaries of what ITA can do?

The answer to that question is: both. I was among the first PhD students at ITA to work with biology, but now there are about three of us in the Digital Building Technologies (DBT) research group. It is exciting to be pioneers in this field because we have the opportunity to build our own labs. The DBT group recently completed the construction of the mycelium lab, with 2 sterile and climate controlled clean rooms for architectural scale bio-fabrication. We will soon complete our bacteria lab as part of the ALIVE consortium, an interdisciplinary research cluster focused on living materials that includes labs in material science, process engineering, architecture, structural engineering, and other fields. Since there are no other chemists or biologists at ITA, we also have the flexibility to forge our own collaborations. For example, I work 50% of the time in a different lab on the central ETH campus. So yes, you could say I have pushed the boundaries here.

On the other hand, ITA has pushed me. ITA has encouraged me to think big about real applications, and it has made me more rigorous. One of the key factors that contributed to my progress thus far is the rigorous scientific approach demanded by the research process here. My focus is on conducting experiments that provide substantive evidence for publication, and the aim is to disseminate knowledge that can be utilized by fellow academics and industry professionals, enhancing the overall impact of the research done here.

Q6. So far, what have been the magical moments in your research?

Well, most recently, with 2 of my students, we have successfully scaled up my processes and printed large scale structures that include cyanobacteria (which gives them a green appearance) and can be kept alive to sequester CO2. I have previously successfully printed centimeter scaled structures with this cyanobacteria and observed them generating calcium carbonate precipitate, which hardens the structures we are printing and acts as method of permanent CO2 storage. This achievement has been immensely exciting for me. Using the SEM microscope, I can observe my research at up to 20,000 magnification, providing visible proof that it performs as intended. I can see the crystals formed by my bacteria and even spot the bacteria inside those crystals, confirming their role in the process.

Despite the artificial nature of the structures created through a 3D printer, this experience has been thrilling because I have realized my ability to fabricate environments where organisms can thrive. It offers new opportunities for both us and them, as we can design built environments that not only accommodate but benefit from microbial activity and that in turn facilitate the health of the other organism.

Q7. What happens post-PhD? Will you work for an industry or stay in academia? And if in industry then what kind?

I do want to continue working in research, but whether that is in academia or industry, I am not sure. Currently, companies seeking to hire biodesigners tend to be in the fashion and textile industries, where new biologically based materials are being developed. For instance, companies like Nike and Adidas have started hiring biodesigners with computational skills and expertise in biological processes and biofabrication. These designers will be instrumental in transforming product manufacturing on a larger scale.

In architecture, the application of biodesign is evident in material based startups like BioMason, which uses bacterial bio-cementation processes to make bricks, and Mogu, that grows mycelium panels. Developing commercial materials with living organisms presents unique challenges, as scale and standardization may not be attainable in the same way as with traditional materials. For example, mycelium panels may not achieve perfect straightness due to the way they were grown, and leathers made by yeast and bacteria are challenging to grow in large quantities. This dynamic relationship with living organisms can also alter the aesthetics of space and the comfort level of users, and it alters the control that architects ultimately have over their designs.

Q8. Are you saying that architects will have to give up control, or the profession will change?

The profession is already changing. You can really see it when you attend crits (critiques) of undergraduate students in our department. Students are taking a more responsible and sensitive approach to their designs. For example, some of them prefer to work with existing structures rather than starting from scratch. It is quite different from when I was an architecture undergrad, back then it was all about big and bold transformations, and leaving a personal mark.

Q9. So, architects must give up their egos too?

I guess, and I think we will also have to give up the idea of permanence. After all, when buildings are made from living components, then nothing remains as is, as living things die and decompose before being regenerated. Instead of designing buildings to last in a static form, for say a hundred years, we will have to “program” buildings to go through their own cycles of transformation and self-regeneration. This is radical thinking, I know, but this thinking is about us needing to adapt to our environment and designing in response to it.

Q10. You are somewhat of a futurist, are all ITA fellows like this?

I would say so, because I think that all ITA fellows bring their own unique outlier research topics, and that is why they have such genuine and deep passion for what they do, and that is why being here is so special for me.

Interview by Ewa Maciejewski, 18 July 2023.