MIT's Bioeconomy Course: Whose Future Are We Building?

While MIT celebrates its new interdisciplinary bioeconomy course as a model for holistic education, critical questions emerge about who benefits from this supposedly revolutionary approach to biological resource extraction and whose voices remain marginalised in shaping our biotechnological future.

Deconstructing the Bioeconomy Narrative

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's latest offering, STS.059 (The Bioeconomy and Society), represents what Professor Robin Wolfe Scheffler describes as an attempt to bridge "abstract, past facets of the bioeconomy into a modern, measurable, and concrete light." Co-taught with biological engineering Professor Mark Bathe, the course promises to address the "biggest cross-disciplinary challenges related to the bioeconomy."

Yet this framing immediately raises concerns about whose knowledge systems are being privileged. The bioeconomy, presented as humanity's "collective advancement," continues colonial patterns of resource extraction, now rebranded through the lens of sustainability and innovation.

Systemic Exclusions in Academic Discourse

The course structure reveals troubling patterns of exclusion. While students from "various disciplines" participate, there is no mention of incorporating Indigenous knowledge systems, despite Indigenous communities being the original stewards of biological resources now being commodified through biotechnology.

Student Dominique Dang, studying computer science and molecular biology, notes discovering "many more actors in science than I previously understood." However, the curriculum appears to maintain traditional academic hierarchies, failing to centre the voices of communities most impacted by bioeconomic extraction.

The absence of perspectives from environmental justice advocates, Indigenous scholars, or representatives from the Global South is particularly concerning given the bioeconomy's reliance on biological resources often extracted from these communities.

Reproducing Extractive Capitalism

Despite claims of addressing "social equity," the course fundamentally operates within capitalist frameworks that prioritise "investment strategy" and "workforce development" over community sovereignty and ecological justice. The emphasis on making biotechnology "economically viable" perpetuates systems that have historically marginalised BIPOC communities and exploited their traditional knowledge.

Professor Bathe's focus on "commercialising several discoveries from his lab" exemplifies how academic institutions continue to profit from biological resources while communities who stewarded these resources for generations receive no compensation or recognition.

The Accessibility Question

While the course addresses "public awareness and acceptance of bio-based products," it fails to interrogate who has access to these innovations. Biotechnological solutions often remain inaccessible to marginalised communities, including disabled individuals, migrants, and those experiencing economic oppression.

The guest speakers, including experts in medicine, agriculture, and materials, represent predominantly institutional perspectives rather than community-based knowledge holders or grassroots activists working on biotechnology justice.

Towards Genuine Intersectional Bioeconomy Education

A truly transformative approach to bioeconomy education would centre Indigenous sovereignty, environmental justice, and community self-determination. It would interrogate how biotechnology can perpetuate or dismantle existing systems of oppression.

Such education would include voices from environmental racism survivors, Indigenous knowledge keepers, and activists from the Global South. It would examine how biotechnology intersects with issues of food sovereignty, land rights, and climate justice.

Student Heather Jensen's interest in bioremediation represents potential for more justice-oriented applications, but without critical frameworks examining power structures, these technologies risk reproducing existing inequalities.

Reimagining Biotechnological Futures

The bioeconomy's potential for transformation remains significant, but only if we fundamentally restructure who controls these technologies and how they are developed. This requires moving beyond interdisciplinary collaboration within existing academic structures towards genuine community partnership and Indigenous leadership.

As institutions like MIT continue developing bioeconomy curricula, they must confront their complicity in systems of extraction and commit to decolonising their approaches to biological innovation. The future of biotechnology depends not on academic collaboration alone, but on dismantling the very systems of privilege and oppression that current bioeconomy models perpetuate.