cultured meat - iit institute of design · cultured meat mabel chan sarah ekblad rene loomis adam...

CULTURED MEAT Mabel Chan, Sarah Ekblad, Irene Loomis, Adam Panza

Cultured meatApplying speculative and participatory

design to an emerging technology

Mabel Chan, Sarah Ekblad, Irene Loomis, Adam Panza

2CULTURED MEAT Mabel Chan, Sarah Ekblad, Irene Loomis, Adam Panza

This document is a resource to be used by teams investigating the cultural impact of synthetic meat, also known as cultured meat, lab grown meat, and in vitro meat. It can also be used as a reference for those looking to explore the intersection of speculative design and participatory design. Our team generated this guide through the use of both methods. The speculative probes we created allowed our participants to gain a shared understanding of cultured meat and then consider possible outcomes of this new technology.

Included are an introduction to cultured meat, the discoveries we made, and a description of the process taken to gain these insights.


The teamWe are a team of four graduate students at the Illinois Institute of Technology Institute of Design studying how human centered design methods can be used for innovation. We used this lens when exploring cultured meat.

Team members: Mabel Chan, Sarah Ekblad, Irene Loomis, Adam Panza

ContentsIntroduction ............................................................4

Discoveries .............................................................9

Speculative prototypes ..........................................16

Process: how and why ............................................29

Reflections ...........................................................40

Additional photos ..................................................46


introduCtion


Currently, cultured meat is being grown on a very small scale, but with improved technology and interest, it could be scaled up considerably and potentially feed large populations.

introduction


IntroductIon

What is cultured meat?Cultured meat is created by taking stem cells from a farm animal and growing them using a protein serum. After the muscle tissue is grown, it is exercised to create a traditional meat texture. The process takes approximately nine weeks in total.

There are many reasons why cultured meat has been developed. These include increased demand for meat due to population increase and higher demand in developing countries, animal welfare concerns, the desire to create a healthier meat, and environmental impact concerns.

The first cultured meat hamburger was created and tasted in August of 2013 and gained considerable media attention. The press focused on questions like: How did it taste? Did it compare to the juiciness and texture of traditional meat? When it was discovered that Sergey Brin was the funder of the first burger, he was captured saying that he is concerned about issues like population increase and animal rights-these were his reasons for creating the burger. It is clear that motivations like this exist and that cultured meat can be created, but that does not answer other questions. Like: who will be the first adopters of this product? How will it be formulated-for health? For taste? For sustainable production? How will it impact our cultural traditions?


INTRODUCTION

Cultured meat and speculative designCultured meat is an example of a potentially significant emerging technology. Like other emerging technologies, it is unclear how significant of an impact it will have. Before cultured meat may become accessible to the public, it is useful to gain an understanding of the surrounding issues and cultural implications.

Our team focused specifically on the desirability component of cultured meat and aimed to discover how people might react to this new offering, what forms it may take, and what might be appealing and unappealing about it. We considered the processes of making, buying, and preparing it to think about how people might interact with and eventually consume it. To explore these topics, we developed a series of speculative prototypes intended to provoke and encourage discussion. The project culminated in an evening event called MeatUp, where we showcased our prototypes to a selected group of professionals, including farmers, innovators, nutritionists and foodies, and captured their reactions and impressions.


INTRODUCTION

The role of researching emerging technologiesBefore pouring money and resources into an emerging technology, it is valuable to understand the issues. Prediction of cultural implications and public reaction to a new product is almost impossible, especially when gauging a new technology that is not yet easily accessible for testing and prototyping. In the development of any new technology, there is a point at which it is still unclear what its role in society might be. As designers, we have a chance to shape this role. The process that we followed yielded valuable results and can be utilized to research other emerging technologies.


disCoveries


Five key issues emerged from our research, which we believe are

essential starting points for future investigations in cultured meat.

DISCOVERIES


Food is either emotional or functional

DISCOVERIES

“I could not imagine eating certain meals made with cultured meat because it wouldn’t be the way that Grandma made [it].” Julka

In addition to the obvious nutritional benefits it provides, participants had strong emotional connections with their food. One guest lamented that cultured meat “made her sad.” However, another participant with extreme dietary restrictions felt divorced from the emotional component of food. His interest in eating was purely to fuel his body and he was excited by the possibility of a meal customized exactly for his nutritional needs. The value of meat as functional versus emotional is a significant area to study.

When a function-based diet is imposed, emotion is stripped away. Some drivers of a function-based diet include health concerns, dietary restrictions and scarcity of options. On the other hand, the drivers of an emotion-based diet include association and context.

Cultured meat could be highlighted for its functional benefits, or emotions and narratives may need to be infused into the product.


Cultured meat decouples meat and death

DISCOVERIES

We discovered that thus far, death and meat have been inseparable. Meat is assumed to be from a formerly living animal. Because cultured meat comes from a new method of growth, it does not fit into this paradigm. The implications of this are unclear. For example, one of the cultural probes we used in our investigation created controversy by questioning whether or not meat needs to be associated with animals that actually exist.

“Some people might be more comfortable with [cultured meat]. That’s actually an interesting point. They don’t like to attach it [meat] to a living thing.” Linda


Tension between the visible and the obscured

DISCOVERIES

There is tension between the information we are comfortable being reminded of and the information we prefer to be obscured. People like the abstract idea that meat comes from an animal, but do not like seeing how it gets to our tables. They are generally disgusted by the thought of meat coming from a lab, but are also willing to accept ignorance of current meat production.

“I think people are already so freaked out about meat. That’s why people buy boneless, skinless, chicken breasts. They don’t want to see bones. They don’t want to see organs. You hear things like that. People are freaked out by thinking that their food comes from a live animal to begin with.” Kyleigh


People inherently understand new concepts based on existing reference points. It is difficult to imagine a new meat product without comparing it to the farmed meat we have today. In fact, the first cultured meat tasted was both shaped like and compared to a hamburger. According to Josh Schonwald: “It was okay. It was not bad. It was somewhere between a Boca burger and a turkey burger.”

Legacy versus the new

DISCOVERIES

“The thing kind of relies on a reference point. You have a burger, but because it is as good or better or worse than the burgers you are used to eating. So what happens when you eat a dodo bird?” Nilay

Cultured meat could continue the legacy of farmed meat, which might open up new opportunities for certain groups, like vegetarians who have given up meat but miss it. Or it could become an entirely new product, disassociated from its legacy and perhaps even the idea of “meat” all together. If cultured meat becomes its own new concept, it will be free from the mental models of existing products.


Market entry: premium or discounted?

Discoveries

Acceptance of a new product requires the benefits to drastically outweigh the perceived losses of the old.

Cultured meat could be introduced to the edges of the meat marketplace. These points could be the aspirational or accessible extremes, while the middle of this spectrum is flooded with existing products. The accessible marketplace can be described as low price and utilitarian, with the potential to feed many. The aspirational side is high end and more expensive, for foodies and culinary experimenters.

“It really becomes up to you, as the producer, whether you think this is a premium product or whether this is a discounted product.” Nilay


sPeCulative PrototYPes


These eleven prototypes are speculative, intended to highlight

issues to consider and further the discussion on cultured meat.

speculative prototypes


SPECULATIVE PROTOTYPES

These cultured meat cookbooks question what is “normal” for us to cook by introducing technological and scientific innovation into recipes.

Cultured Cooking



Musing on the culinary possibilities cultured meat may reveal, this set of ingredients pushes on the capabilities of food manipulation.

Manipulation Powders



The Meat Machine localizes production right in the kitchen. With the capability to generate meat at people’s fingertips, this type of seven week cooking appliance could facilitate a new culture of DIY and/or give new meaning to the slow food movement.

Meat Machine



This product speculates how the tradition of breaking wishbones will endure if the turkey no longer contains natural bones. Tug o’ Wish considers whether synthetically-produced traditions could be equally stimulating and provide the same value as the original.

Tug o’ Wish



Today we eat food not only for its nutrients, but for its sensory qualities and social context. Primo Bar provides a cultured meal that is optimized for nutrient and protein intake, and de-emphasizes sensory qualities and social context.

Primo Bar



Pushing the role of novelty in food, Bitebox speculates how entertainment companies might expand into food production, perhaps by patenting genetically modified meats.

Bitebox



These products recognize the impact of cost in purchase decisions. The Comparison speculates how cultured meat could eventually be competitively priced, perhaps through efficient production methods and/or government subsidies.

The Comparison



This product considers the sustainability of meat production. Do we need to rethink our production methods?

Eco Beef



This dodo bird meat challenges the limited range of animals that is commonly available for consumption today (cow, chicken, pig, turkey, etc) and suggests potential for cultured meat to expand this selection.

Dodo Bird



Thinking about today’s meats and the animals they originate from, Primal Hunt explores how a desire to control nature might play out if meat is no longer raised as a living animal.

Primal Hunt



This hybrid turkey explores what Thanksgiving might be like if extreme customization becomes achievable. This shared, but heterogeneous meat questions the social and cultural value of the meat itself within the larger custom.

Multi-Meat Turkey


ProCess: how and whY


Like many design processes, our approach included a series of

divergent and convergent steps.

process: how and why



Secondary research and expert interviewsThrough secondary research, we gained an understanding of how cultured meat is developed, its potential benefits and the controversies surrounding it. Historic precursors of “unnatural” products, such as artificial sweeteners and margarine, that were initially rejected but eventually adopted by the mainstream were also considered.

After gaining this foundation, we reached out to experts in the field, including Josh Schonwald, the food journalist who tasted the first cultured burger, and Chef Homaro Cantu, one of the leading experimental chefs in the country.



Generating ideasWe continued on a divergent path and began to explore early ideas for speculative prototypes, or hypothetical objects that we could use to explore cultured meat with others. During our brainstorming session, any idea for a product that could theoretically exist in the future was accepted. Soon, we had filled an entire wall with sketches. From Noah’s Nuggets to Eco Meat, the ideas were diverse in their level of irony, likelihood to exist and creativity.



We filtered the concepts down to those that would create a common understanding and shared language about the topic for all research participants. We strove to choose boundary objects that would provoke a visceral response, inspire new questions and stimulate rich conversation. Using this critical lens, we transformed eleven concept sketches into high-fidelity prototypes.

Narrowing ideas and construction



Early in the project, we sought the best vehicle for showcasing our prototypes and gauging reactions. Taking inspiration from speculative design’s ability to provoke rich conversation, the concept for a thoughtfully choreographed speculative event called MeatUp was developed. The goal of MeatUp was to host a small group of hand-picked guests and encourage discussion around our hypothetical objects.

MeatUp: a cultured evening



We invited individuals with a variety of perspectives on food and innovation, including farmers, researchers, marketers, nutritionists, and chefs. In preparation for the event, attendees were asked to photograph their meat and protein sources in their homes. These photos would be used during an introductory activity called “Fridge Confessions”. The subsequent activities during MeatUp were orchestrated to gradually build up to the group discussion we originally aimed for.

To this end, the space for MeatUp was designed with distinct areas for the fridge confessions, cocktails, the gallery, and the dinner discussion. Temporary walls were used to define the space and keep participants from viewing the speculative prototypes before they had been primed.

The intimate size of the spaces encouraged interaction among guests.

Choreography and space design



Upon arriving at MeatUp, each guest was given a personalized workbook that included a short survey on their food habits and behaviors, questions about each prototype and space for other freeform notes. We created the workbook as a place to capture individual reactions to and opinions about the prototypes. Printouts of each guest’s meat and protein photos were also included in their workbooks. During cocktails, they were asked to visit “Fridge Confessions” where they would use these photos.

Fridge Confessions was a private space secluded from the main event with a single seat, a short set of questions and a camera rolling. Guests were instructed to tell the camera about their photos and talk for as long or as short as they wished. The confessions provided us with insight into the daily life of each participant, but more importantly, it forced them to reflect on their own relationship to meat and primed them for the rest of MeatUp.

Cocktails and confessions



After cocktails, a brief primer on speculative design and cultured meat was given in order to frame the next phase of MeatUp: exploring and responding to the speculative prototypes. General guidelines were given to participants, encouraging them to think about “the concept, not the craft” and to record their honest reactions and thoughts in their workbooks.

Unveiling the prototypes



Guests were given 45 minutes to explore the prototypes. Afterwards, everyone sat together for dinner and a group discussion. Our role during this discussion was limited to moderating only when necessary and steering the conversation towards certain topics if they did not come up naturally. Luckily, all of the topics that we wanted to discuss were covered with a minimal amount of moderating.

While it would take time later to analyze the recordings, it was immediately clear from the level of enthusiasm and healthy balance of opposing perspectives, that we were very successful in selecting the right participants and curating this participatory event.

Dinner discussion



Analysis and synthesisDuring MeatUp, we captured great volumes of data, including individual workbook comments, video fridge confessions, audio from the dinner discussion, and photographs and video of the entire event.

In order to make all of this data usable and useful, initial digital processing was needed to transcribe it and learn the scope of what we had captured. From there, we debriefed as a group and transitioned our data and thinking to a whiteboard so that we could view all of the data at once. Continuing to work from this tangible surface, we used affinity diagramming to relate and organize the data. Using this process, the key themes that are described in this document arose.


refleCtions


ReFLeCTIONS

Although we had never tried this combination of speculative and participatory design before,

it worked well in studying a technology in its infancy. By grounding our participatory

research session in speculative, but tangible objects, we were able to guide our participants to a shared understanding of the technology and then let their imaginations and logic run

wild conceiving the implications of it.


REFLECTIONS

By forcing attendees to reflect on images of their own fridges, this video diary activity grounded guests in their own behaviors and helped them disconnect from their idealized selves in favor of their more realistic selves. Additionally, fridge confessions encouraged people to relate the speculative prototypes to their own lives and habits.

Remember realityFor MeatUp, we purposefully withheld our points of view about the topic to limit the influence our biases might have on attendees. We were also intentionally vague about what they would encounter during the event, which helped it surpass guests’ preconceived notions of the project’s depth. One expectation that we were very clear to set was that we were interested in guests’ honest opinions, that they should share what they truly think and feel.

Conceal and revealThe workbook that we created for attendees to capture their individual thoughts worked well and helped bring relevant issues to the forefront, surface people’s emotions, and prepare them for the group dinner discussion.

Build up to discussion


REFLECTIONS

When selecting speculations to construct, we targeted a set of ideas that would represent a wide range of issues associated with cultured meat. The prototypes provided participants with a broad, shared understanding of cultured meat that they could add their personal points of view. However, left to explore the prototypes on their own, guests defaulted to comparing them with current products and thinking mostly in the short term of 5-10 years. It was hard for them to imagine the far future and new traditions that these generations might enjoy.

Choose wiselyWhile planning MeatUp, our aim was to have eight guests participate in our event and we ended up having eleven. It was great that there was so much interest in MeatUp, however a smaller group would have allowed each person to speak more during the dinner discussion.

Keep the group smallAs one might expect, we found that controversy stimulates group dialogue. The prototype that generated the strongest reactions and conversation was Bitebox. The concept that meat could be movie characters we know and love was alarming for some while others thought it could probably be a commercial success.

Don’t fear controversy


ReFLeCTIONS

“I have not been able to quit thinking about all the issues that were raised and how this issue will change our food supply as we know it...The

conversation was so engaging.” Linda, reflecting on MeatUp


additional Photos


ADDITIONAL PHOTOS


Bartholet, J. (2011). When Will Scientists Grow Meat in a Petri Dish. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/ sciammag/?contents=2011-06

Bijker, W., Latour, B., Law, J. (1992). Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Bijker, W., Pinch, T. (1984).The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science, 14 (3), 399-441.

Carey, J. (1989). Communication as Culture. London: Routledge.

DiSalvo, C. (2012). Speculative Design and Contemporary Food Cultures. The Fibreculture Journal, 20, 109-122.

Fountain, H. (2013). A Lab-Grown Burger Gets a Taste Test. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/science/a-lab- grown-burger-gets-a-taste-test.html?_r=0

Henig, S. (2011). Lab Meat, Rebranded. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http:// www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/rebranding-lab- meat.html#slide_ss_2=1

Jha, A. (2013). Google’s Sergey Brin Bankrolled World’s First Synthetic Hamburger. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/ aug/05/google-sergey-brin-synthetic-beef-hamburger

Schonwald, J. (2012). The Taste of Tomorrow: Dispatches from the Future of Food. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Sources

Thank youProfessor Laura Forlano

MeatUp participants Susie Allen Julka Almquist Nilay Gandhi Avril Greenberg Todd Jones Ana Myriam Enriquez Olea Raina Russ Josh Schonwald Linda Somers Kyleigh Wawak Peter Zapf

Photographers Thomas Harris Matthew Messner

cultured meat - iit institute of design · cultured meat mabel chan sarah ekblad rene loomis adam...

Documents