# Addressing semantic ambiguity in biotechnology:
Proposals from the European research infrastructure
IBISBA

Marie Ancelin, Vitor a P Martins dos Santos, John P Morrissey, Michael J O'Donohue, Merja Penttilä, James C Philp

► To cite this version:

Marie Ancelin, Vitor a P Martins dos Santos, John P Morrissey, Michael J O'Donohue, Merja Penttilä, et al.. Addressing semantic ambiguity in biotechnology: Proposals from the European research infrastructure IBISBA. New Biotechnology, 2025, 88, pp.83 - 88. 10.1016/j.nbt.2025.04.010. hal-05053127

HAL Id: hal-05053127

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05053127v1

Submitted on 1 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Addressing semantic ambiguity in biotechnology: Proposals from the European research infrastructure IBISBA

Marie Ancelin<sup>a,b</sup>, Vitor A.P. Martins dos Santos<sup>c</sup>, John P. Morrissey<sup>d</sup>, Michael J. O'Donohue<sup>b,e,*</sup>, Merja Penttilä<sup>f</sup>, James C. Philp<sup>g</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

Keywords

Biotechnology

Biomanufacturing

Precision fermentation

Cellular agriculture

Synthetic biology

Engineering biology

Terminology

## ABSTRACT

Driven by numerous scientific discoveries in biology in the second half of the last century, biotechnology is now set to play an important role as a driver for advanced manufacturing, leveraging the power of living organisms to produce a range of goods and services. Considering this prospect, it is vital that terminology surrounding biotechnology is sufficiently clear to provide a basis for efficient regulation and public buy-in. Despite the apparent clarity of the term biotechnology, its definition is the subject of a longstanding debate and liberal interpretations. Likewise, other more recent terms such as biomanufacturing, synthetic biology and engineering biology also lack consensual definitions despite their use in both scientific and secular circles. Additionally, new terms such as precision fermentation and cellular agriculture, recently introduced in the framework of business-to-business exchanges, appear to call upon imaginaries rather than scientific facts. Herein, we examine the lexical complexity of the biotechnology field and argue that, for the sake of efficient policymaking, it is vital to harmonise the definitions of some core terms, including biotechnology, biomanufacturing, engineering biology and synthetic biology. With this aim in mind, this discussion paper is intended to be useful to policymakers and science communicators, whether in the media or in professional settings.

## Introduction

*The industrial potential of biotechnology is growing*

The significance of biotechnology has grown remarkably since the start of the new millennium, fuelled by scientific advancements, increasing interest from policymakers and steady industry adoption [1]. Recently, the acknowledgement of biotechnology's strategic importance has risen, particularly because of the speed at which biotechnology was able to create new vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, the U.S. Department of State introduced ambitious policy measures to enhance the country's domestic biomanufacturing sector [2]. Similarly, the European Commission, and multiple countries including India and China have announced policies to promote the use of biotechnology in

industry, elevating its status to a strategic science field [3–5]. These notable developments undoubtedly signal the dawn of a new era characterised by heightened global competition and rapid expansion of the biomanufacturing sector.

The array of tools now available to biotechnology includes cost-effective methods to sequence and synthesise DNA, perform large-scale genome editing and accurately predict protein structures [6,7]. Together with previous achievements, these new technologies provide the means to rapidly modify the biological functions of living systems, creating for example tailored microorganisms, or so-called ‘microbial cell factories’, whose functions are streamlined, adapted, and optimised for the industrial production of specific products.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> INRAE, Nouzilly 37380, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> IBISBA, 135 Avenue de Rangueil, Toulouse 31077, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Bioprocess Engineering Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen 6700 AA, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> School of Microbiology, SUSFERM Fermentation Centre, University College Cork, Cork T12 K8AF, Ireland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> TBI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INRAE, INSA, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, VTT, Espoo FI-02044, Finland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup> 48A Main Street, Douglas, Lanarkshire ML11 0QW, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence to: INSA Toulouse, 135 Avenue de Rangueil, Toulouse 31077 France.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: michael.odonohue@inrae.fr (M.J. O'Donohue).</footnote>
## The need for common semantic understanding of terms

Momentum is thus gathering in the biotechnology field, with an increasing number of processes and products moving closer to the market. In turn, this progress is driving increasing political interest, and the belief that biotechnology is an enabler of economic transition and new growth. In Europe, biomanufacturing increasingly recognised as a key factor for economic security and has been classed among the top four critical technologies for the European Union [8]. The logic behind this derives from the crosscutting nature of biotechnology and its power to enable solutions addressing a vast array of societal and environmental challenges, including green transition and climate change mitigation and adaptation, access to and sustainable use of natural resources, restoration of vital systems, food supply and security, and human health. Indeed, like the digital sector, the potential of biotechnology to influence and shape future society is enormous.

As with digital technologies, modern biotechnology (which, notably, also makes ample use of digital technologies) is highly adaptable and thus holds the potential to impact a vast range of companies and market sectors. This broad applicability propels biotechnology into a rhetorical space that contains various claims that are intended to mobilise different audiences [9]. However, because of its wide applicability, the perception of biotechnology by citizens is not easy to analyse [10]. This difficulty is compounded when loosely defined terms, originally adopted for the purpose of business-to-business exchanges enter more general use.

The European Commission is in the process of preparing a range of policy measures designed to support the growth of biomanufacturing [11]. Therefore, it is particularly important to ensure that policymakers are provided with consistent and comprehensible terminology. Unfortunately, in this regard the field has a long history of fuzzy terms, starting with the term biotechnology itself [12]. Therefore, it is ever more essential for biotechnology professionals to aid in this understanding by providing scientifically sound terms and minimising the use of unnecessarily confusing scientific jargon in the public space.

This note explores the meanings of some of the important terms that form part of the biotechnology lexicon. In doing so, it addresses the question of semantic clarity within the broader context of responsible research and innovation. More practically, by proposing clarifications of the meanings of key terms and suggesting their appropriate use, the purpose of this discussion paper is to guide both policymakers and science communicators.

## Biotechnology and biomanufacturing

Biotechnology and biomanufacturing go hand in hand. Consequently, their definitions are often used interchangeably. While this is understandable it is unfortunate because the perfunctory use of these terms lays the foundations of more generalised misunderstanding. Therefore, it is useful to examine these terms in more detail to establish a basis for complementarity.

### Biotechnology

Of the two terms, **biotechnology** is by far the most well-established, being in use for over a century [13,14]. However, the meaning of this term has evolved significantly over time. Literally, the word is derived from the Greek terms “bios”, meaning life, and “tekhne”, meaning art, craft or skill. In modern language, biotechnology means the practical use of living organisms (or components and functions thereof) for human purposes, as well as the body of knowledge that pertains to this endeavour. In this regard, biotechnology describes a broad field that is unrelated to any specific application area. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adds to the basic definition, describing biotechnology as the application of science and technology to living organisms, as well as parts, products and models thereof, to alter living or non-living materials to produce knowledge,

goods and services [15]. While such attempts to enrich the definition of biotechnology are commendable, restraint is advisable to avoid lexical fuzziness. For instance, when biotechnology is specifically used to enable the industrial production of goods and services, it is more appropriate to use the term industrial biotechnology (i.e., biotechnology for industrial purposes), which to some extent is a synonym of biomanufacturing.

### Biomanufacturing

The history of the term **biomanufacturing** is relatively recent, occurring infrequently during the last two decades of the 20th century before gaining momentum in the 21st century. Its origins are difficult to pinpoint but is likely to have arisen in the pharmaceutical industry as a contraction of the phrase ‘biopharmaceutical manufacturing’ or ‘biologics manufacturing’. This is plausible because many early examples of biomanufacturing relate to the production of medically relevant compounds, such as proteins, enzymes, antibiotics and antibodies. Moreover, its occurrence is consistent with the practice of sensemaking for business marketing purposes, with biomanufacturing being both catchy and technical at the same time [16,17].

Even though a survey of the literature fails to reveal consensual definitions for biotechnology and biomanufacturing, it is significant that these terms are frequently employed in the same document, implicitly suggesting that they mean different things. In the foreword of conference proceedings published in 1987, the term biomanufacturing is used in a phrase referring to facility design [18]. This infers that while biotechnology refers to the art of using living organisms for human purposes, biomanufacturing is about embedding biotechnology in a process (i.e., what is also known as bioprocessing). More recently, EuropaBio, Europe’s largest biotechnology industry group, defined the term biomanufacturing as the use of biological mechanisms to i) synthesise products ii) act as tools or iii) undertake processes, at a scale required for commercial use. Therefore, we propose that biomanufacturing should be understood as the commercial scale, industrial production of goods using biotechnology as the core component enabling the production process. Moreover, since biomanufacturing refers to the overall process, one can consider that this term includes the upstream and downstream operations (i.e., preparation of feedstocks for product manufacturing and post-production purification and formulation of products suitable for commercialisation respectively) that lead to the production of marketable goods and services [19].

Owing to the wide applicability of biotechnology, biomanufacturing is relevant to a vast array of market sectors. These include the production of fuels (e.g., ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, hydrogen, sustainable aircraft fuels, etc.), industrial enzymes, bulk and fine chemicals for industrial and agri-industrial applications, materials such as engineered silk, bioplastics, medical constituents, alternatives to PFAS, food ingredients, fragrances, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Regarding the latter, while the production of antibiotics using filamentous fungi is an early example of biomanufacturing in the health sector, the term now increasingly describes the commercial production of advanced therapeutic agents, such as enzymes, monoclonal antibodies and vaccines [20].

As mentioned above, biomanufacturing is performed in industrial environments where the biological component (frequently a living microorganism) is usually contained within a closed bioreactor. These are industrial scale vessels that provide the conditions (i.e., in terms of sterility, temperature, pH, oxygenation etc.) required to ensure finely controlled growth of the microorganism, steering its metabolism towards the production of target products. Further advantages of containing microorganisms in closed bioreactors are twofold. First, a closed system provides the means to maintain a certain degree of sterility. This is important to avoid invasion of the bioreactor by unwanted microorganisms or viruses (bacteriophage) present in the surrounding environment that can cause process failure. Second, process containment is
## From beer to bioethanol

As a family of enabling technologies, biotechnology is applicable to all living systems, from enzymes, relatively simple microorganisms, such as bacteria and yeasts, to higher organisms such as plants and animals (including human beings). However, in the context of biomanufacturing for fuels and chemicals, the biotechnological component is frequently (but not exclusively) a microorganism deployed within a contained or semi-contained production environment. The alcoholic fermentation of sugars to ethanol by yeast is a useful example to illustrate the differences between biotechnology and biomanufacturing. This is a multi-reaction metabolic pathway occurring within yeast cells requiring several enzymes, each one catalysing a specific reaction. While being ignorant of this fact, human beings have utilised this pathway for millennia to produce fermented beverages. It is only since the 19th century that it was adopted to produce ethanol as a fuel. In the 1970's fuel ethanol was branded as bioethanol to emphasise the fact that transportation fuels can be made from renewable resources instead of fossil oil. So-called first-generation bioethanol production from sugarcane, wheat or corn largely used non-modified yeast strains, whereas more advanced processes now use strains that are genetically engineered to secrete specific enzymes or to metabolise additional sugars like xylose. The process of constructing, evaluating and optimising these new strains is biotechnology. For these strains to be used commercially to produce bioethanol, however, it requires the implementation of large-scale systems that include pretreatment of feedstocks, fermentation in very large vessels, and distillation to recover the bioethanol. Bioprocess technology (bioprocess engineering) is a discipline that studies and optimises the overall process. This integrated end-end process at commercial scale is biomanufacturing.

an excellent way to ensure process safety, notably by limiting the risk of dispersal of engineered microorganisms into the environment. Despite this advantage, there are numerous examples of the use of open bio-reactors in biomanufacturing. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the safety track record of biomanufacturing is excellent, since no significant industrial accidents have been recorded.

## Lexical complexity in the biotechnology field

Acceleration of technological developments in the biotechnology space has engendered an increasingly profuse terminology and, consequently, lexical complexity. The reasons to differentiate terminology, or on the contrary, treat terms as synonyms are numerous. As mentioned, the most frequent one is the fast evolution of biosciences and biotechnology, which means that the vocabulary also undergoes constant evolution. Scientists create new terms to reflect evolving concepts, integrate new knowledge and tackle the challenge of interlinking research questions within interdisciplinary frameworks [21]. Other reasons include the marketing of advanced technologies in a business-to-business context in which science sellers are dialoguing with science buyers. In this case, it is possible that terms result from a compromise between the exchange of scientific facts and shared imaginaries [17]. Finally, terminology sometimes evolves as a result of efforts to pre-emptively address public perception issues or align with current political trends.

## Unravelling synthetic biology and engineering biology

The terms synthetic biology and engineering biology provide an excellent illustration of lexical complexity. Increasingly, these terms are creating confusion among both laypeople and scientists alike. This is illustrated by definitions provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, USA)[22]. According to NIST, the terms engineering biology and synthetic biology are synonyms that refer to 'the design, construction, and/or assembly of the components of living systems (including genetic circuits, enzymes, metabolic pathways, etc.) to achieve an intended function or outcome'. On the other hand, NIST states that the terms bioengineering and biological engineering (considered as synonyms), refer to the application of engineering principles and practices (including from chemical, mechanical, and electrical engineering disciplines) to the life sciences. This profusion of terms is confusing, especially for policymakers and science communicators, and fundamentally unnecessary. Indeed, the terms bioengineering, or biological engineering are to many intents and purposes synonyms of engineering biology. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the term bioengineering can engender a verb, (to) bioengineer, and a noun, a bioengineer, describing a person working in the field of biotechnology.

The use of the term 'engineering' assumes that the purpose is the

creation of something using rigorous design methods that stem from the understanding of the (physical, chemical, and biological) rules that govern the system and the use of standards to achieve reproducibility and quality by design. Bearing this in mind, engineering biology refers to the application of engineering practice to biology. In this respect, at the turn of the 20th century biotechnology pioneers, such as Chaim Weizmann, were already performing an early form of engineering biology [23]. Later, the introduction of the terms genetic engineering and gene technology, involving the purposeful and rational modification of DNA, and metabolic engineering, entailing the targeted modification of the genes affecting metabolic pathways of living organisms for specific purposes, reinforced this trend. However, nowadays engineering biology is increasingly used as a synonym for synthetic biology [24,25]. At least in some cases, this substitution of terms is probably motivated by a desire to present synthetic biology as something different [26,27].

The usage of the term synthetic biology in scientific literature has flourished since the beginning of the 21st century. It was first adopted in bottom-up manner by the scientific community and then disseminated beyond academic circles, reaching industry [28]. However, quite rapidly synthetic biology became the subject of debate, with issues ranging from safety to ethical justification. So, where is the dividing line between synthetic biology and engineering biology? We propose that the term synthetic biology should be used specifically for instances where engineering principles are systematically applied to design or significantly redesign biological systems. In this case, these systems are endowed with functions that are either inaccessible, or entirely new to Nature, when using conventional genetic engineering, which characterizes engineering biology. Synthetic biology relies on multi-scale understanding of biological systems and integrates computer sciences at all levels, borrowing, in many instances, the design-build-test-learn paradigm from engineering. Synthetic biology also strongly focuses on mathematical modelling, abstraction and automation as integral parts of its toolbox [29]. In this respect, synthetic biology really began at the beginning of the present millennium once sufficient progress in the sequencing and synthesis of DNA was made and when tools powerful enough to extensively modify DNA and other nucleic acids became available. Accordingly, the first commercial production of human insulin (1982) in bacterial cells should not be described as synthetic biology [30]. This watershed exploit was achieved with more simple approaches, using methods that, though cutting edge at the time, are now mainstream. On the contrary, an increasingly large part of engineering biology now uses synthetic biology; for example, to create microorganisms that rely on unnatural nucleic acids, or microbes that can produce proteins or chemicals that are not normally found in Nature.
## Engineering biology or synthetic biology?

Working with Genentech, Eli Lilly was the first company to launch commercial production of insulin using a bacterium (Escherichia coli) bearing a gene encoding the two protein domains that make up insulin. In the early 1980s, the systemic, multi-scale study of living organisms was not yet a reality and the ability to engineer metabolic pathways had not been acquired. By today's standards, the technical challenge was rather rudimentary but was nevertheless powerful enough to produce biologically active insulin to treat diabetes and was a seminal moment in the development of modern biotechnology. In comparison, the more recent engineering of yeast cells to produce artemisinic acid, a precursor of the anti-malaria drug Artemisinin, was achieved by altering and aligning the expression of multiple genes to radically reprogramme endogenous metabolism to produce precursors and by introducing several plant genes into the cell to direct synthesis of the novel product [31]. Thus, while both are examples of engineering biology, only the second (artemisinic acid) required the use of the broad toolbox of synthetic biology.

## Commercial influence on the lexical landscape

Some relatively recent terms in biotechnology include precision fermentation and cellular agriculture. Interestingly, these terms did not originate in scientific circles. A group associated with New Harvest is credited with coining cellular agriculture (2015), while precision fermentation was first used in a report from the ReThinkX foundation (2019) [32,33]. Both terms currently have limited usage in scientific literature and are closely associated with business-to-business discourse in the food industry, reflecting recent trends [34]. One might speculate that the word "precision" has been employed to accentuate the sense of advanced technology compared to traditional fermentation, which has been utilised for thousands of years to produce foods and beverages. While more detailed explanations suggest that "precision" pertains to the specific microorganism and its product rather than the production process, this might not be the immediate interpretation for policymakers first encountering the term. Therefore, while the use of the adjective "precision" is understandable from a marketing perspective, is it judicious? Heterologous proteins (i.e., proteins originating from a species other than the production organism itself) have been produced for decades in a controlled (precise) manner, so there is no real scientific justification for this terminological evolution. Moreover, despite tremendous progress in our understanding of biological systems, the use of phrases like precision biology or precision fermentation can be seen as presumptuous. A further problem is that loosely crafted definitions get amended by others to suit specific purposes. This fact is illustrated by a recent attempt to clarify the description of Precision Fermentation (https://www.pfalliance.org/what-is-precision-fermentation/).

Although intended to provide clarity, the resulting definition and its explanation is potentially problematic from both scientific and regulatory standpoints. Therefore, the more specific and accurate definition as the use of engineered microorganisms to produce specific components should be used.

It is noteworthy, that the term fermentation has a specific scientific origin. This term refers to the "fermentative metabolism" of organisms, which occurs in anaerobic conditions with no or little oxygen. In these conditions the feedstock sugar is converted to small molecules such as ethanol or organic acids. These fermentative processes have prevailed in biomanufacturing, and the term fermentation has thus stayed in use and is often used for bioprocess cultivations even if they are aerobic (i.e., requires oxygen to succeed). Likewise, the vessel used for cultivation has

been called a fermentor, which is currently replaced by a more general and technically correct term, a bioreactor. A typical example of an aerobic (oxygen requiring) process is protein production, in which the metabolism of the organism is respiratory, not fermentative. Thus, strictly speaking, both words in the term "precision fermentation" are incorrect, although even in professional circles the use of the word "fermentation" is widespread.

**Cellular agriculture** involves producing food through *in vitro* cell culture methods, including microbial production, as an alternative to conventional plant-based agriculture, animal rearing or aquaculture and fisheries. Cellular agriculture encompasses a broader range of production systems than precision fermentation, including key components of cultured meat, such as haem or muscle proteins [35-37]. While the term cellular agriculture fosters a novel perspective on food production, it diverges from the traditional meaning of "agriculture" (i.e., from an etymological standpoint it means land-based cultivation). This necessitates explanation to ensure clarity. Amongst industry users, there is a clear momentum towards the use of cellular agriculture to describe the cultivation of animal (including fish) cells, whereas precision fermentation has become the preferred term when microbial hosts are used.

## Conclusions

For over a decade, European policy has recognised and promoted the importance of biotechnology as an enabler of the circular bioeconomy and more generally biomanufacturing. Presently the European Commission is planning to deliver a range of new policy measures designed to boost the development of biomanufacturing in Europe. For this reason, it is crucial that it is properly communicated and understood by all stakeholders, especially those who will hold the responsibility of writing consistent policy measures to implement Europe's Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing initiative.

Considering that biotechnology and biomanufacturing hold the potential to extensively affect daily lives, they require strong, efficient policy support. Therefore, it is vital that both policymakers and regulators are well-informed and able to appraise the merits and risks of these developments. For this, it is crucial that biotechnology's lexicon provides clarity, avoiding ambiguous terms. Although the general adoption of image provoking terms that serve commercial purposes might appear to be benign, it is hazardous because such terms can obscure rather than clarify the underpinning meaning. From a

## From recombinant food proteins to "precision fermentation"

Biotechnology has delivered high-quality, reproducible processes for several decades, including the production of food enzymes like chymosin. In this respect, precision in biotechnology refers to the ability to precisely control and manipulate biological processes. Chymosin, an enzyme that curdles milk, is a vital component of cheesemaking. While traditionally extracted from calf stomachs, most chymosin used today is produced using genetically modified microorganisms containing the calf chymosin gene. Opinions in the "food field" differ on whether such straightforward engineering methodologies should be considered precision fermentation, as their inclusion implies a history of at least forty years
### *In vitro* cultivation of animal flesh for food applications

Cellular agriculture, coined in 2015, refers to the production of foods or food components using any cell type, although it mostly refers to the cultivation of animal cells to produce so-called 'cultured meat,' 'cultivated meat,' 'cell-based meat,' or various combinations [38]. To produce cultivated meat, animal cell growth is embedded in an overall process that attempts to generate a food product that resembles those containing animal flesh (e.g., meat- or seafood-like products). In some cases, this process involves the use of scaffolds and may include the addition of components, like lipids, derived from precision fermentation. Recently, in July 2024, a cultivated meat product grown by the company Meatly, pet received approval for use as a pet food from UK regulatory authorities [39]. While this marks a significant step forward for the technology in Europe, it is important to acknowledge that some negative sentiment toward cultured meat remains. In some countries, the prevailing circumspection regarding cellular agriculture is grounded in ethical and social concerns, which may hinder its wider adoption.

regulatory viewpoint this is damaging because poorly defined terms can lead to inefficient policy, or to regulations with unintended consequences because benign technological developments are inappropriately conflated with those carrying higher risk.

Ultimately, it is crucial to remember that the scientific community holds a key responsibility in ensuring that the terminology used in biotechnology is both clear and as precise as current knowledge allows. Moreover, it is important that researchers recognise the way in which business-to-business exchanges influence lexical evolution. In an age of overwhelming communication, scientists should avoid terms that do not stem from new insights or lack conceptual significance. Those familiar with the history of poorly executed public engagement around issues like genetically modified organisms can easily recognise this risk. While we cannot eliminate terms that have become part of everyday language, we can work towards fostering a mutual understanding of the language we use and aim to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of terms that contribute nothing new.

### Key definitions

**Bioengineering and Biological Engineering:** these are de facto synonyms of engineering biology.

**Biomanufacturing:** the commercial scale industrial production of goods using biotechnology as a core process component.

**Biotechnology:** the practical use of living organisms, as well as parts, products and models thereof, for human purposes, and the body of knowledge that pertains to this endeavour.

**Cellular Agriculture:** the growth of cells in contained and defined culture conditions for use in or as foods. It mostly applies to the *in vitro* cultivation of animal cells to generate products such as cultured meat and fish.

**Engineering Biology:** the design, construction, and/or assembly of the components of living systems to achieve an intended function or outcome. It includes the use of approaches such as genetic engineering and metabolic engineering.

**Precision fermentation:** A term used in food biotechnology, relating to the use of engineered microorganisms to produce specific target molecules of interest to the food industry.

**Synthetic Biology:** the systematic deployment of engineering principles to design (or profoundly redesign) biological systems, endowing these with novel biological functions that are inaccessible when using conventional genetic engineering methods, or even creating new-to-nature functions.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Ancelin Marie:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. **Martins dos Santos Vitor A. P.:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, investigation, Funding acquisition. **Morrissey John P.:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **O'Donohue Michael J.:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,

Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Penttilä Merja:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Investigation, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition. **Philp James C.:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Conceptualization.

### Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Michael O'Donohue reports financial support was provided by European Commission and John Morrissey reports financial support from Irish government authorities. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper

### Acknowledgements

This work was performed within the framework of the IBISBA-DIALS Project (Grant agreement ID: 101131085) cofunded by the European Union. JM's contributions are also supported by the FEDERI project funded by the Irish Department of Food Agriculture and the Marine (Project reference 2023RP982). The authors are grateful to all members of IBISBA for fruitful discussions. The graphical abstract was prepared using the online design tool Canva (www.canva.com).

### References

[1] The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Bold goals for U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing. Washington DC: State Department of the USA; 2023.

[2] Borzova E. Global biotechnology leapfrogging during the COVID-19 pandemic: a trend to stay? Trends Biotechnol 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2024.05.007.

[3] European Commission (EC). Building the future with nature: boosting biotechnology and biomanufacturing in the EU 2024. COM 2024;137:1–20.

[4] Department of Biotechnology. Ministry of Science and Technology G of I. BioE3 policy: biotechnology for the economy. New Delhi, India: Environment and Employment; 2024.

[5] Zhang X, Zhao C, Shao M, Chen Y, Liu P, Chen G. The roadmap of bioeconomy in China. Eng Biol 2022;6:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1049/enb.120206.

[6] Hsu P, Lander ES, Zhang F. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 2014;157:1262–78.

[7] Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 2021;596(7873): 583–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2.

[8] European Commission. Commission Recommendation 2023/2113 (EU) on critical technology areas for the EU's economic security for further risk assessment with Member States. Official Journal of the European Union, 6; 2023. p. 1–6.

[9] Van Lente H, Rip A. The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality. Source: Soc Stud Sci 1998;28:221–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631298028002002.

[10] Pardo R, Midden C, Miller JD. Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. J Biotechnol, 98. Elsevier; 2002. p. 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(02)00082-2.

[11] Actions to boost biotechnology and biomanufacturing in EU 2024. Available from: (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1570) [Accessed 1 April 2025] 2025.

[12] Miller HJ. Biotech's defining moments. Trends Biotechnol 2006;25:56–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.12.001.
[13] Bud R. History of Biotechnology. Nature 1989;337:10. https://doi.org/10.1038/npg.els.0003086.

[14] Verma AS, Agrahari S, Rastogi S, Singh A. Biotechnology in the realm of history. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2011;3:321–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.84430.

[15] OECD Factbook 2013. OECD; 2018. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2013-en.

[16] Henneberg SC, Naudé P, Mouzas S. Sense-making and management in business networks — some observations, considerations, and a research agenda. Ind Mark Manag 2010;39:355–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.INDMARMAN.2009.03.011.

[17] Dean AK, Ellis N, Wells VK. Science ‘fact’ and science ‘fiction’? Homophilous communication in high-technology B2B selling. J Mark Manag 2017;33:764–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1324895.

[18] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Bioprocess engineering colloquium: COE Task Force on Biotechnology & Human Engineering. Bioprocess engineering colloquium. Boston (MA): ASME; 1987.

[19] Europabio. Biomanufacturing definition 101 2023. Available from: (https://www.europabio.org/europabio-biomanufacturing-definition-101-what-is-biomanufacturing-and-how-does-it-play-a-role-in-our-lives/) [Accessed 21 September 2024].

[20] Zhang YHP, Sun J, Ma Y. Biomanufacturing: history and perspective. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2017;44:773–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-016-1863-2.

[21] Neto C. When imprecision is a good thing, or how imprecise concepts facilitate integration in biology. Biol Philos 2020;35:58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09774-y.

[22] NIST. NIST Bioeconomy Lexicon. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2022. (https://www.nist.gov/bioscience/nist-bioeconomy-lexicon).

[23] Moon HG, Jang YS, Cho C, Lee J, Binkley R, Lee SY. One hundred years of clostridial butanol fermentation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2016;363:1. https://doi.org/10.1093/FEMSLE/FNW001.

[24] Garner KL. Principles of synthetic biology. Essays Biochem 2021;65:791–811. https://doi.org/10.1042/EBC20200059.

[25] Philp JC, Ritchie RJ, Allan JEM. Synthetic biology, the bioeconomy, and a societal quandary. Trends Biotechnol 2013;31:269–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIBTECH.2013.01.011.

[26] Pauwels E. Public understanding of synthetic biology. Bioscience 2013;63:79–89. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.4.

[27] Porcar M, Latorre-Pérez A, Molina-Menor E, Domínguez M. Words, images and gender. EMBO Rep 2019;20. https://doi.org/10.15252/EMBR.201948401.

[28] Raimbault B, Cointet JP, Joly PB. Mapping the emergence of synthetic biology. PLoS One 2016;11:e0161522. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0161522.

[29] Kitano S, Lin C, Foo JL, Chang MW. Synthetic biology: learning the way toward high-precision biological design. PLoS Biol 2023;21. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3002116.

[30] Ladisch MR, Kohlmann KL. Recombinant human insulin. Biotechnol Prog 1992;8:469–78. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp00018a001.

[31] Ro DK, Paradise EM, Quellet M, Fisher KJ, Newman KL, Ndungu JM, et al. Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast. Nature 2006;440:940–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04640.

[32] Tubb C, Seba T. Rethinking food and agriculture 2020-2030 2019;17. https://doi.org/10.61322/IJIP9096.

[33] Zassenhaus M, New H. How the New Harvest community coined the term cellular agriculture 2021:1.

[34] Battle M, Carter M, Colley Clarke J, Eastham L, Fathman L, Gertner D, et al. State of the Industry Report / Fermentation: meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy 2024.

[35] Dupuis JH, Cheung LKY, Newman L, Dee DR, Yada RY. Precision cellular agriculture: the future role of recombinantly expressed protein as food. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2023;22:882–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13094.

[36] Mattick CS. Cellular agriculture: the coming revolution in food production. Bull Sci 2018;74:32–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1413059.

[37] Stephens N, Di Silvio L, Dunsford I, Ellis M, Glencross A, Sexton A. Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci Technol 2018;78:155–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010.

[38] Piantino M, Muller Q, Nakadozono C, Yamada A, Matsusaki M. Towards more realistic cultivated meat by rethinking bioengineering approaches. Trends Biotechnol 2024;43(2):364–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2024.08.008.

[39] Press Release. World-first regulatory approval. 2024. (https://meatly pet/meatly-approval/) (accessed November 3, 2024).