Exploring the intersection of Design and Biology in today’s industry.

This article examines the intersection of design and biology in today’s industry. The study is divided into two stages, with the first stage exploring the terminology and definitions associated with the commonly used term ‘biomaterial’ through a comprehensive search and qualitative analysis. The results suggest the need to reconsider the labelling of materials, moving away from the generic term ‘biomaterial’ towards more specific descriptors such as ‘biobased’, ‘biodegradable’, or ‘biomanufactured’. By enhancing the understanding and communication surrounding biological material streams, this study contributes to the field. Additionally, the study identifies that the focus lies more in the design process associated with these materials rather than their materiality alone, as exemplified by the four identified lenses: ‘origin’, ‘production’, ‘use’, and ‘end-of-life’. This aligns with the concept of ‘biodesign’, which aims to reestablish a synergistic relationship between mankind and nature. This resulted in the suggestion of a new biodesign model comprised of these four lenses. The findings of the first stage prompted the initiation of the ongoing second stage, which aims to uncover the motives and design processes underlying biodesign practices by conducting extensive expert interviews and qualitative analysis. The ultimate objective is to identify the gaps that impede the professional implementation of biodesign in today’s industry. The authors plan to publish the findings of this ongoing research in a future academic publication.


Introduction
Across the globe, environmental awareness is gaining the attention it deserves, highlighting the critical state of the unbalanced synergy between humankind and nature [1].Academic discourse, general press, and social media emphasize the urgent need to utilize our limited resources more sustainably in order to meet the needs of current and future generations, whilst searching for potential regenerative processes that support and strengthen our current societal and natural state [2], [3].Consequently, research and development efforts from diverse disciplines are dedicated to fostering a more sustainable foundation for our society [4].In this pursuit, various perspectives delve into the impacts stemming from industries.This includes activities ranging from material extraction and utilization, to the methodologies employed in product creation and manufacturing, to eventually the processes developed for the end-of-life.Additionally, attention is directed towards the economic models sustaining these exchanges and the behaviors of users during consumption [5], [6].All these facets encompass the broad realm of design, understood as the act of creating what does not yet exist but ought to be [7].Design for Sustainability (D4S) emerges as a comprehensive set of disciplines with accompanied frameworks and tools, that focus on redirecting design efforts toward more sustainable 2 futures.It transcends the mere application of alternative materials or technologies, adopting a sociotechnical system-level view [8].
Sustainable development compiles potential pathways towards the desired future objective of sustainability, exemplified by the formulation of 17 global goals encompassing the triple bottom line of economy, society, and environment [9]- [11].These interconnected areas are nested within one another, with sustainability serving as a decision-guiding objective for multiple actors and a system property emerging from the interaction of different elements such as rules, technologies, and infrastructures [12], [13].Within this context, the role of design and technology becomes critical, as does the role of the designer itself.On one hand, design is acknowledged as a multidisciplinary field that possesses the capacity to provide support in tackling intricate, unstable, uncertain, and frequently conflicting realities, often referred to as wicked problems [14]- [16].On the other hand, industrial design faces scrutiny for its role in facilitating the creation and dissemination of unsustainable production-consumption patterns.It has been suggested that "there are professions more harmful than industrial design, but only a very few of them" [17], [18].Meaning that the designer has the critical role in deciding the way its interventions will be manufactured, used and decommissioned.With this regard, the European Commission states in its Sustainable Product Policy that 80% of a products environmental impact is determined at the design stage [19].Knowing these facts, the role of designers from a material perspective has been continually evolving.Starting form an era shortly after the industrial revolutions, where mankind seems to have harnessed and created god-like knowledge and technologies, that are the cause to the Anthropocene era [20].After which ethical issues and questions arise from utilizing and applying this knowledge to our own benefit (i.e.why does mankind get to decide the future of other species on earth through overconsumption and depletion of limited and natural resources?)[21].In this respect, the role of designers is termed as material 'applicators'.Today, this role model is on the verge of extinction and is moving towards the designers as material 'selectors' and beyond.Here, the designers have power to decide which material properties matter most to their applications.This in turn results in industries adapting their material technologies to their demand.Nevertheless, the designers still have little power over the material creation (from extraction to production), which is the next role of designers as material technology 'creators'.Where, for the first time, designers meet material scientists and experts in order to develop or change material technologies.Here the designers are the target audience of these material experts.Following on this evolution from designers as being a target audience, to designers as being co-creating partners in the material development process.This can be termed as designers as material 'designers', where designers are equally involved in the process as material scientists and experts.Ultimately, the last resort today is the shift from designers as material 'designers' to designers as material technology 'collaborators'.Where designers and material scientists design with natural resources and view these resources as non-human living entities of their own, with which to collaborate [22], [23].This evolutionary overview (figure 1) shows the potential to reinstate a balanced synergy between mankind and nature, where the complexity to deal with and the amount of stakeholders involved increases as the roles are shifting.
With this emerging evolution in mind, designers nowadays are redirecting their material 'selection', 'creation' and even 'design' more and more towards materials that are more nature friendly and by times have an identity and agency of their own.This is already done by working with either bio-based or biodegradable materials, which are respectively partially or in whole derived from natural resources or can degrade through natural processes.In turn, this means that those material technologies have processes connected to the pace of nature.It has been acknowledged that nature is in fact the authority on material and energy circulation [24].Nature knows no waste, all materiality is circulated and repurposed, no energy ever goes lost and its technologies have been refined and reiterated over millions of years [25].As Antonelli further states "it goes without saying that when materials or design are not plastics, wood, ceramics, or glass, but rather living beings or living tissues, the implications of every project reach far beyond the form/ function equation and any idea of comfort, modernity, or progress" [25].Therefore, as designers, we should recognize these natural technologies (which are most often researched in the life sciences) and take inspiration and advantage from their processes, without destructing its core underlying self-sustaining structures.In this way, the DIY-biology movement and bioart, as well as some conceptual designers express their interest in designing of, with and for natural processes.A recent study explored the similarities and dissimilarities of such design processes at a level of educational projects, in this case three Master Thesis dissertations [26].The purpose of the study was to observe how the design process of design students spontaneously looks like when designing of, with and for nature.Having compared the mechanics of these three design processes, the study outcome was a suggested pathway to design with nature on a professional level.This pathway encompasses material design, meanings of materials and experiential properties, application design, impact assessment, flourishing business model integration, iterative and evolutionary design and systems thinking through archetypes [27]- [33].Following on this pathway did another research look into the necessary facilities to set-up a space in educational design workshops that allows for designing of, with and for nature, termed a 'bio-makerspace'.This study moreover highlights the accompanying barriers and enablers other institutions might encounter when installing a similar bio-makerspace [34].
As is shown, many educational institutions as well as established start-ups have gained an increasing momentum in design of, with and for nature.Nevertheless, this is an emerging field of which many facets yet have to be uncovered (i.e.professional implementation, bio-ethics, etc.).With this respect this study aims to answer on the following questions; (1) What are the so-called 'biomaterials'?and (2) How are these 'biomaterials' used today and in future realities?The first research question has been split into the history of 'biomaterials', how to define them and if they can be categorized.The second research question will depict and discuss the preparation of a follow-up extensive study on the motives and design processes of professional designers who are experts in working of, with and for nature in their industry.

Methodology
The present study, just like the outlined research questions, is structured into two stages.Stage one focuses on the terminology centred around the term 'biomaterials', while the second stage investigates how contemporary experts in the field of "designing of, with and for nature" design on a professional and or industrial level.Both stages use qualitative data, of which the first stage is based on academic literature, web sources and databases and the second stage on qualitative expert interviews.

Stage 1 -What are 'biomaterials'
The first stage of the study is focused on exploring the term 'biomaterials' as this is an often recurring term used to describe materials with some relation to biology.As noted by D'itria and Colombi (2022) it becomes evident that the dimension of the term 'biomaterials' knows a complex nature, and that straightforward terminology fails to explicitly encompass their production, life cycle, and, consequently, their level of sustainability [35].Since this term is used so often, its origin and reason for existence is questioned at first, after which a broad search is performed on its application-context, both within and outside of the design field.Eventually insights from this broad search are summarized in a table format together with its sources.This summary is then taken through a process of thematic qualitative analysis, with the aim of capturing the themes associated with the term 'biomaterial'.

Data acquisition.
The starting point for performing the broad search on the term 'biomaterial' was the web platform called 'Prototypingcirculair.be'(prototyping circular).This platform hosts knowledge around implementing bio-based and circular materials in the prototyping phase of design processes.From here the snowball method (cascading effect of research) is applied to gain momentum in the data-acquisition.The following list shows all the data types and formats which were eligible for this acquisition: This snowballing method rapidly evolved in many different directions and a parallel branch structure emerged.In this parallel research structure, a first endeavor was undertaken to define the word 'biomaterial'.Here the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was consulted and hosted a definition for this term.However, as a definition is built upon other words who have a meaning of their own, did some words used in the definition of 'biomaterials' also need more clarification (i.e.organic, bio, biobased, etc.).Looking into these definitions cascaded into an etymological research path of definitions of words used to define one another.The terms that were found and needed defining were called the 'bioterms'.Sources used to search for their definitions are listed below.
It goes without saying that academic articles (especially peer-reviewed) were prioritized in this research.In order to find articles that support this terminology research, the following academic research databases have been consulted.
However, the term 'biomaterial' seems to have ambiguous meanings, such as in the medical sciences, which is out of scope.While the application in design engineering technology was within the scope of this study.Therefore an iterative approach with keyword search strings and boolean operators was a necessity.Nevertheless, the search results on the academic article search engines were still not desirable, because many search results were still related to the medical sciences.A second search strategy was implemented where the Elsevier web platform was consulted to list all the journals related to the keywords 'design', 'material', 'bio' or 'sustainability'.This resulted in a list of selected journals, which was then filtered on the following search string with boolean operators applied on the articles' abstract: 'material AND design AND (biobased OR biodegradable OR bioplastic OR biotic)'.Of the resulting articles the abstracts and their bibliographies were read to filter out or find new related articles.Ultimately, all the data from all the different data types was documented and structured linearly in a MS word file and multidimensionally in an online Miro board.In the multidimensional Miro board, the data was assigned to the research question dimension which it was most related to (e.g.'biomaterial definition', 'biomaterial history', 'biomaterial categorization').

Data processing.
In the multidimensional Miro board was all the data first thoroughly read, during which take-aways and interesting sections that answer to one of the dimensions was documented.This process took place in three 'layers of discovery', of which each subsequent layer was more processed, detailed, interpretative and open for discussion.The three layers of discovery read: (1) Raw data and Objectives, (2) Processing and Intermediate results and (3) Model.After this process of familiarizing with the data, all the acquired data is entered into the NVIVO software package in order to conduct a thematic qualitative analysis.The purpose of the qualitative analysis is to find common themes that appeared in each one of the identified definitions for the term 'biomaterial'.As mentioned before, some definitions for this term used other terms that also needed defining, which were called the bioterms.Consequently, the definitions found for these bioterms had been documented as well.

Data analysis.
Having familiarized with the collected data and having the data entered into qualitative analysis software, the data was coded according to the following criteria.(1) First, what type of data is it (i.e.academic article, database, non-academic article, etc.)?. (2) Second, what bioterms were defined?Since the central research question for this first stage is finding a consensus for an appropriate definition for the term 'biomaterial', the focus is mainly put on the dimension of biomaterial-and bioterm-definitions.This process of coding the data resulted in a list of bioterm codes for which the amount they have been defined is listed.For each bioterm code was its respective identified definitions listed in a spreadsheet file (available upon request).Unlike with thematic analysis, where the themes arise from the codes itself, did the themes in this study arise from the definitions of each identified bioterm code.Those themes ultimately give perspective to each of the bioterms.In such, bioterms can be allocated to a multiple of those themes.Each of these themes were also defined to delineate their scope.After having identified the themes of the bioterms, a thematic map was generated to see how each bioterm relates to one another.Each theme is now taken for as a 'lens', used to take on different perspectives when analyzing various biodesign projects.Using this approach, researchers have been able to categorize and allocate biodesign projects according to a multiple of subdomains, through the perspective of a set of different lenses [36].In addition, it was iteratively attempted to define the term 'biomaterial' through all the gathered insights, knowledge, etymological relations and themes, by compiling the data from different sources and the themes each definition encompasses.These definitions and the discussions that arose from them are clarified and elaborated on in the Results and discussions section.Lastly, on the third layer of discovery, a new model was suggested to support the field of biodesign in logically categorizing its subdomains (i.e.biobased, biodegradable, growing design, bioart, bioreceptivity, etc.) based on the four identified lenses.This model is later to be used to identify case studies and experts for stage two.

Stage 2 -How are 'biomaterials' used today and in future realities
In advance of aiming to answer this question, the results and discussions of stage one are most relevant.Nevertheless, the objective of this stage remains to uncover how and why professional designers (want to) engage 'of', 'with' and 'for' biology in their design practices.In order to do so, the suggested biodesign model that helps categorizing, is applied on case studies from around the world.This exercise helped in identifying and shortlisting experts in this field to ask for their voluntary participation in an extensive expert interview.These extensive interviews are organized over the course of four months with experts from fields within and closely related to design engineering (i.e.industrial design, architecture, material engineering, fashion design, etc.).The interviews will be conducted through video call and will be recorded on audio and video.After that, a thorough qualitative analysis will be applied to uncover the motives, design processes, and future perspectives to the field of biodesign through the point of view of experts in the field.The aim is to develop a scheme of defined concepts that attempt to depict the current reality of biodesign, narrated by experts in the field.All of this with the ultimate objective to disclose gaps that hold a causal relationship with the complexity of "professionalizing" the field of biodesign.This part is an ongoing study, that builds on the knowledge of stage one, and plans on disseminating its results, insights and discussions in a subsequent publication.

Results and discussions
The outcomes of the present study are both intermediate and final and are used to underpin the research process, as well as the significant insights that can be derived from them.These are again clarified into the two stages.

Data acquisition.
As is pointed out in the methodology section, all the acquired data from the broad search into definitions for the term 'biomaterial' and the related 'bioterms' had been documented in a multidimensional Miro-board.This in three subsequent layers of discovery.The first layer of discovery is named 'Raw data and Objectives'.
As mentioned in literature, the study by D'itria and Colombi (2022) highlights the intricate nature of the term 'biomaterial' and emphasizes that conventional terminology inadequately captures the comprehensive understanding of their production, life cycle, and ultimately, their sustainability level.As this is the case, the methodology applied in this study is hard to replicate, which is in contrast with conventional (semi-)systematic reviewing methods [35].Nevertheless, all the sources used to draw insights from in this study are disclosed in detail and are available upon request.
Zooming in onto the second layer of discovery named 'Processing and Intermediate results', the intermediate outcome of the data acquisition and processing is a table.Table 1 below summarizes all the data types and the amount of references consulted (references itself are available upon request).Ultimately, every definition of all the bioterm codes are summarized in a subsequent table (available upon request) together with its source and its identified theme.What matters most are the definitions especially for the term 'biomaterial' and the themes each definition encompasses (table 2).The themes identified in this thematic analysis are: (1) Origin -material resources, (2) Productionmanufacturing processes, (3) Use -product development, (4) End-of-life -way of decommissioning.
Table 2. Biomaterial definitions, their sources and their allocated themes (full database available upon request).

Definition Themes
A term used to indicate materials that have non-specific biological association [37] Origin, Production Biomaterials can offer a promising alternative to mainstream building products, because they are made from renewable resources, which generally emit less carbon dioxide in their production and processing while also being easier to recycle or biodegrade.[38] Origin, Use, End-oflife The term biomaterials is used to describe building materials derived from living organisms including plants, animals and fungi.[39] Origin The definition of biomaterial on which the broadest consensus currently exists is the one established during the II International consensus conference on biomaterials, held in Chester (England) in 1991: "A biomaterial is defined as a material designed to interface with biological systems in order to evaluate, support or replace any tissue, organ or function of the body".It should be noted that such a limited interpretation is not generally accepted in the global scientific community.A broader understanding extends the concept of biomaterial to soluble polymers, which can be used as molecular support for biologically active substances.The term includes all synthetic (metals, ceramics, polymers, composites, ...) and natural (silk, cotton, collagen, hyaluronic acid, ...) materials.As reported, the terminology has been adapted from the field of biomedical research, but the paper will consider an interpretation that fits the fashion industry better.For this reason, the authors have chosen to adopt the definition proposed by Biofabricate and Fashion for Good in their last report, "Understanding 'bio' material innovation", which considers everything falling under the umbrella term 'biomaterial'.[35] Origin, Production Biomaterial: A substance that is based on naturally produced raw materials by living organisms.[40] Origin, Production In medicine 'biomaterial' means a substance that has been engineered to interact with biological systems for a medical purpose, either a therapeutic or a diagnostic one.In design its meaning is still loose, it may refer to "a substance that is naturally produced, for example by plants or insects, and can be used as a material for making things or as fuel" [41]; In Biodesign, this definition may be a synonym of "bio-based material" or may refer also to materials made "of, with, or from biology" [42].In the context of Circular Economy and Bioeconomy 'biomaterials' are meant as "materials made of biological resources [43].[44] Origin, Production A biological or synthetic substance which can be introduced into body tissue as part of an implanted medical device or used to replace an organ, bodily function, etc. [45] Origin, Use Bio-based materials or biomaterials fall under the broader category of bioproducts or bio-based products which includes materials, chemicals and energy derived from renewable biological resources.[46] Origin From this overview of 'biomaterial' definitions the following successive reasoning could be traced back.First of all, 'biomaterial' is a term that originates from the biomedical sciences, where it means "a material that can interact with biological systems (like human tissue, organs, etc.)".This would mean that titanium as a material would function according to the biomedical sciences as a 'biomaterial'.Correspondingly, a 'biomaterial' is also used for materials that can degrade through organic processes.This would mean that PBS plastics (Polybutylene Succinate), which are oil-based and biodegradable are 'biomaterials'.These two examples show how thin lined the current definitions for a 'biomaterial' are, and why one should be cautious in its use.As is shown, many have tried to give a more clear definition and context of use for this term.In recent years it found also its vernacular use in the design engineering field as a material which has some biological relation.In addition, many sources are currently also using it synonymous with 'biobased material'.

Some examples:
• "A substance that is based on naturally produced raw materials by living organisms" [40] • "Bio-based materials or biomaterials fall under the broader category of bioproducts or biobased products which includes materials, chemicals and energy derived from renewable biological resources" [46] However Biofabricate (which is a think tank with expertise in biomaterials), states in their 2020 report a clear definition for the term 'biomaterial', reading; "Biomaterials are materials that have nonspecific biological association".In conjunction with this definition does Biofabricate provide a definitional model (Figure 2) that identifies what 'biomaterials' encapsulate and how they intersect with other bioterms [37].Interesting to note in their model is the fact that they only regard for the material 'origin' and the way it is 'produced' (production) and thus completely disregard the 'use' (design activity) and 'end-of-life'.As designers, we must be aware of this neglect in their terminology and be critical towards such perspectives.If their definition would include the 'use' and the 'end-of-life', let's see how well it holds up.Their definition includes the terms "non-specific biological association", with 'biological' meaning "connected with the natural processes of living (micro-)organisms" [40].This means that even from an 'end-of-life' point of view a material can still be termed a 'biomaterial' if for example (micro-)organisms support the biodegradation of that material.Nevertheless as previously mentioned, there are in fact non-biobased (fossil based) materials that can biodegrade by micro-organisms.For example PBS plastics.This demonstrates that although PBS is not biobased but can biodegrade, it has some association with biology, meaning that it should be included in the definitional model of Biofabricate and thus also in the definition of a 'biomaterial'.But if we have a look at their definitional model, it encapsulates only biobased materials, which PBS is clearly not.
Although, including the 'use' and 'end-of-life' is not sufficient to provide a clearer conception of the term 'biomaterial', since this is commonly used synonymous with 'biobased material'.In addition, it is recognized that the term 'biomaterial' is today associated with the negative connotation of green washing purposes.Meaning applying the term to purposefully make untrue claims about the positive impact a material or product has on the environment.These insights were unexpected and suggest to move beyond the mere materiality of engaging with the term 'biomaterial'.Hence it is advised and argued to be cautious with the term 'biomaterial' and be more specific when talking about materials which are either biobased, biodegradable or both.Furthermore, provided the four identified themes, it makes more sense to elaborate about a process than a materiality.In this respect the term 'biodesign' is introduced in this study.As a result, this study agrees to the definition of 'biodesign' by Biofabricate, reading "A term used to indicate design 'of', 'with' and 'for' biology" [37].
This definition confirms this study's four identified themes as follows.
• Design 'of' biology matches with the material 'origin' and 'production'.
• Design 'with' biology matches with the material 'production' and 'use'.
• Design 'for' biology matches with the material 'use' and 'end-of-life'.
In this way, biodesign utilizes living materials, like plants or cultured tissues, to achieve the goal of organic design, where objects can grow and nature is allowed to take over a portion of the designer's control.In biodesign, nature is often seen as the most powerful, ingenious and scalable technology there is.It has known more iterations to perfect itself, than we can imagine.It recognizes that every aspect inherent to nature lives in a system of its own [47].As designers we are familiar with the model of Ashby, which depicts the interactions between function, material, process and shape in material selection [48].However, this study proposes that biodesign goes beyond Ashby's model, as the materials being used are living entities that have an agency and purpose of their own, leading to broader implications (Figure 3).The idea of full control, speed, and repeatability must be revised in biodesign.The central aspect of biodesign is the interplay between human and biological entities, with the latter having some control in the design process.This leads to unpredictability and imperfection, key features of nature that biodesign aims to replicate through collaboration between designers and biologists.This implies that biodesigners are in fact in the last evolutionary role as material 'collaborators'.Collaboration and facilitation between the field of design and the life-sciences, whilst simultaneously collaboration between mankind and nature.
Ultimately, as previously mentioned in the methodology section, a new model to biodesign is suggested that supports categorizing and allocating projects (figure 4) through four lenses; 'origin', 'production', 'use' and 'end-of-life'.Each of these lenses on its own consist of multiple subdomains as categorization criteria (i.e.biobased, biodegradable, biofabrication, bioart, bioreceptivity, biophilia, growing design, and others).It is important to note that the four lenses of biodesign are not restricted to a fixed number of subdomains.Moreover does each subdomain have a definition of its own.This model becomes particularly interesting when trying to assign case-studies to the subdomains of the model.This will often result in having to assign one case-study to multiple biodesign lenses and subdomains.In this way, this model supports in looking at biodesign projects from four different perspectives, but also reflect on each of these lenses how projects impact or disrupt their contextual bio-ecosystems in which they behave.As was stated in the introduction, this contextual reflection is a necessity in order to avoid destructing the bio-ecosystems' core underlying self-sustaining structures.

Stage 2 -How are 'biomaterials' used today and in future realities
As has been put forward in the methodology section, is stage two an ongoing research of extensive expert interviews and qualitative analysis to highlight the gaps that currently restricts biodesign from being implemented more in professional design practices.This study would like to stress the importance of performing these dialogues with global experts who are proficient in the field of biodesign.The knowledge, tools, and mindset changes brought about by these individuals' insights, design processes, and experience can hold significant value in spreading awareness about biodesign practices.Therefore, this still ongoing study is a natural consequence of the findings from stage one and previous peer research [26], [34].
While in previous (peer) studies the 'materiality' often dominated the (non-)academic discourse, it is now recognized that actually the 'process' was always the crucial aspect that was at the centre of all discussions.With this rationale, this study hopes to open up the debate on: (1) being more specific in labelling materials (exemplified by ceasing to apply the term 'biomaterial') and ( 2) talking more about the 'design process' associated with these biological material streams.All of this, originating from this study and the knowledge which is being gained from experts in the field of biodesign.

Conclusions
This study set out to explore the intersection of design and biology in today's industry, starting from the ideology behind the continuous evolution of the role of the designer from a materials perspective.The study itself is subdivided into two stages of which the first built upon peer research in this field (such as the suggested pathway to design 'of', 'with' and 'for' biology in an educational context or the implementation of a bio-makerspace in an educational design workspace) by questioning the terminology of and related with the commonly applied term 'biomaterial'.This first stage conducted a broad search over a diverse set of data types with the purpose of documenting bioterms and their definitions.Thereafter the application of a qualitative methodology allowed for comparing and exploring common themes over all the definitions of the bioterms and more specifically for the term 'biomaterial'.The results from stage one suggest to open up the debate about labelling materials, beginning with ceasing the use of the word 'biomaterial' in future studies and thus being more specific about its real properties (i.e.biobased, or biodegradable, or biomanufactured, etc.).In such, this study contributes to enhancing the general understanding of and communication around the biological material streams.A second conclusion that was drawn from stage one, is the recognition of the fact that we are more talking about the 'design process' associated with these biological material streams rather than the pure 'materiality', exemplified by the four identified lenses ('origin', 'production', 'use' and 'end-of-life') in a newly suggested biodesign model.This design process ultimately aligned with the definition of 'biodesign' defined by Biofabricate.Biodesign means to design 'of', 'with' and 'for' biology, aiming at reestablishing a synergetic relationship between mankind and nature.These findings called for stage two, which is still an ongoing research, that aims at uncovering the motives and design processes underlying the biodesign practices of global experts in this field.All of this, with the objective to disclose the gaps which currently restricts biodesign from being implemented in the industry on a professional basis.This ongoing research is performed through conducting extensive expert interviews, a subsequent qualitative analysis and the development of a scheme of concepts that tries to depict the reality of biodesign processes, narrated by experts in the field.The authors of this study plan to disseminate the findings of this ongoing study in a future academic publication.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Evolutionary overview of the role of the designer (in blue) from a material applicator to, aselector, a -creator, a -designer and ultimately a -collaborator and its changing complexity.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Model of Ashby [48] adapted to the field of biodesign.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. New suggested Biodesign Model comprised of four lenses; origin, production, use and endof-life.This model supports in looking from different perspectives (lenses) to biodesign projects, including the subdomains it contains (i.e.biobased, biodegradable, bioassembly, and many more open for expansion).

Table 1 .
Data acquisition and processing overview (full database available upon request).
(15)2.Data analysis.The outcome from the qualitative analysis in the NVIVO software package is a table (available upon request) which summarizes all the identified codes (bioterms) and the amount of references defining them.What stands out in this table is the fact that 11 out of the 41 sources attempt to define 'biomaterial'.Also 'biobased'(25)and 'biodegradable'(15)are often recurring terms that needed defining.This could indicate that those terms (especially 'biomaterial', due to the discrepancy in the identified definitions) are ambiguously used in research.However, it should be noted that the terms are also more frequently recurring because of the nature of this research question.