Microsoft Word - Svetoslave-29-march-19


              Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2018; 9(2):1-5 

1 

 

Bioethical considerations for algal biotechnology 

Ivanina Vasileva, Juliana Ivanova, Svetoslav Alexandrov* 

Department of Experimental Algology, Institute of Plant Physiology and Genetics, BAS, Acad. G. 

Bonchev Str., bldg. 21, 1113, Sofia, Bulgaria 

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: saturn@gbg.bg  

 

ABSTRACT: In this manuscript we discuss different aspects and applications of algal 

biotechnology and how they are seen through the prism of bioethics. We review how algae have 

been considered to solve problems on Earth and to ease human suffering. We also take a look 

at the current state of the production of algal biomass and we offer our suggestions and 

considerations based on the fact that the biomass is an expensive product and yet its quality is 

very good.  

Keywords: microalgae, cultivation, biomass, bioethics, growth, biochemical composition 

INTRODUCTION: Although the term 

“bioethics” was first used by Potter in the 

early 1970s [1], long after the cultivation of 

microalgae became a common practice, we 

could argue that some of the driving 

principles of the use of algae in the 

biotechnological industries have been 

bioethical since the early beginning.   

It is undeniable that the ecological impact of 

people on nature has been huge since the 

start of the Industrial Revolution in the 

nineteenth century, with the human 

population increasing from 1 billion in 1835 

to 6 billion in just a little more than 150 

years [2]. This growth in population has been 

positively influenced by the so called Green 

Revolution – research and development in 

agriculture between the 1930s and the late 

1960s, which led to an increase in 

agricultural production worldwide [3]. Yet, 

in the 1950s, it was argued that the supply 

of food will not be enough, as the 

population was increasing more rapidly 

than the output of agriculture, and several 

alternatives were considered – one of which 

was the cultivation of green algae like 

Chlorella and Scenedesmus for food [4]. 

Such an argumentation could nowadays be 

considered as bioethical, as it touches many 

important issues related to the subject – the 

growth of the human population, its 

potential impact on nature, and the question 

of what the good things are that can be done 

in order to support the exponential growth 

of the population, without putting too much 

stress on nature and agricultural resources.  

Since the 1950s, the prospects of the 

cultivation of microalgae received support 

from many proponents with regards to their 

potential applications. With the coming of 

the space age in the 1960s and 1970s, it was 

considered that the algae could be used to 

feed cosmonauts, as well as to terraform 

planets of the Solar System [5]. These 

prospects have raised many bioethical 

issues on their own, such as whether it is 

good or bad to spread life beyond the cradle 

of the Earth, whether we have the right to 

endanger extraterrestrial species or whether 

human expansion to the Solar System is 

justified [6]. Another argument for the 

necessity of microalgae cultivation which 

was presented during the early years of algal 

biotechnology is that most of the studied 

algal species contain important biologically 

active substances and as such could be used 



              Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2018; 9(2):1-5 

2 

 

in medicine and pharmacy [7], which is 

undoubtedly bioethical as it is in favor of 

easing human suffering.   

During the last 15-20 years, microalgal 

cultivation once again received 

considerable public attention, because some 

supporters suggested that algal biomass 

could be used for the production of biofuels 
[8]. This idea has also been analyzed through 

the prism of bioethics. Certain researchers 

have claimed that developing biofuels could 

be treated as an ethical duty, and algae are 

one of the potential biofuel sources [9]. 

Algae biofuels have also been considered to 

be part of the second generation of biofuels 

because it is thought they do not compete 

with land and food resources and they do 

not negatively affect the environment and 

local populations, compared to 

conventionally produced biofuels [10]. 

Standard biofuels are often viewed as 

ethically controversial, because arable land 

instead of being used to grow food would be 

used to grow fuel [11]. The advantage of 

algae is that they are being grown in 

photobioreactors and thus could hopefully 

help to avoid the abovementioned dilemma 

and in the meantime, offer a viable solution. 

In this manuscript we will discuss the 

current state of the production of algal 

biomass in the light of its bioethical 

implications.  

DISCUSSION: No matter how algae are 

considered to help humanity or are involved 

in solving ethically controversial issues, 

there is one simple fact that defines the 

current state of algal biotechnology – it is 

the truth that the algal biomass remains an 

expensive product. Cultivation of 

microalgae is a challenging process – they 

need to be provided with a suitable nutrition 

medium, CO2 also ought to be ensured, 

cultures need to be stirred and, in the end, 

water must be evaporated if we want to 

obtain dry biomass. The high cost has dire 

consequences on certain algal applications 

and most notable of these is biofuels. It is 

calculated that a kilogram of biodiesel is 

obtained from 12 kg of microalgal biomass, 

and just for producing this quantity 2kg 

urea, 0.530 kg KH2PO4, 0.370 kg MgSO4 

and some other micronutrients are needed – 

the overall cost of these salts is close to the 

cost of 1 kg of conventional diesel [12]. Back 

in 2017, the price of wheat on the market in 

Chicago was estimated to be $151.90 per 

ton and for corn – $134.48 [13]. It is difficult 

to calculate the exact production cost of 

algal biomass, as projected economics from 

public literature range from $270-$2450 per 

ton [14]. But even if we take the lowest value, 

which is hardly achievable, produced algal 

biomass would still have a very high price 

compared to most commonly used crops 

worldwide. 

It would only be ethical and morally right to 

present this fact, rather than give false hopes 

about certain prospects. Is it feasible to 

replace conventional food and biodiesel 

with algae? No, it is not yet possible 

according to the current state of 

technological development, and the price of 

algal biomass has always been high even 

though the technology for algal cultivation 

has existed for decades.  

Stating this fact does not mean that the 

application of microagal biotechnology has 

no ethical basis at all. In order to provide a 

sound ethical justification, however, the 

focus ought to be shifted. Algal biomass, 

while being expensive, is a product of high 

quality. As such, the priorities are altering 

as well – in the food industry, the asset of 

algal biomass is not as a basic product, but 

rather as a supplement [15]. Here we ought to 



              Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2018; 9(2):1-5 

3 

 

stress that the food supplement industry is 

well developed and dates back to the 1960s, 

starting in Japan, USA, Taiwan, Australia, 

and China [16]. It is well known, for 

example, that Spirulina as a food 

supplement contains a variable combination 

of substances, including ones that are absent 

in common food, and dry biomass of this 

alga has 60-70% protein, 10-20% 

carbohydrates, 1-14% lipids, 4% nucleic 

acids and 4-6% minerals [17]. The high 

protein content is well-balanced in amino 

acids and this alga is also a source of beta 

carotene and iron, and it is thought to be the 

world’s richest natural source of vitamin B-

12 and essential fatty acids [18]. These 

qualities cannot be underestimated and they 

are what makes algal biomass such an 

important product in the food industry, even 

if it is expensive. 

The high quality of biomass makes it 

applicable in other biotechnological fields 

as well. Certain species are able to 

accumulate highly valuable compounds – 

for example – Dunaliella salina produces 

beta carotene, Hematococcus pluvialis 

produces astaxanthin, Porphyridium 

cruentum – polysaccharides, Lyngbya 

majuscule – immunomodulators [19]. The 

fact that the biomass is a costly product does 

not disprove the fact that it is a good source 

of these products, and, as such, does not 

downplay the critical role of algae in 

medicine, pharmacy and cosmetics. 

Moreover, even if those valuable 

compounds are contained in other species, 

algae are still the primary natural source of 

these compounds in many food chains. A 

very good example can be given with long-

chain PUFAs. PUFAs can be obtained from 

fish and fish oil, yet, safety issues have been 

raised because of the possible accumulation 

of toxins in fish. There are also problems 

with unpleasant taste, fishy smell and poor 

oxidative stability, and that is why algae are 

considered to be a promising and 

advantageous source [20]. Once again, the 

focus is on quality of the algal biomass as a 

justification for its use. 

When we discuss biotechnology and 

bioethics, it is also important to consider the 

public awareness of the subject. People in 

developed countries, an example of which 

is Japan, have been strongly influenced by 

the usage of the prefix “bio” in the industry, 

government and marketing [21]. The so-

called “bio”- products have gained extreme 

popularity, because they are considered to 

be healthier, safer and ecologically clean. 

The high quality of the compounds 

produced by algae, which have applications 

in cosmetic, food production and 

pharmacology can be described with the 

term “bioproducts” [22]. To sum it up, 

microalgae can not only be useful and 

practical in certain biotechnological fields, 

but they can be attractive as well.  

CONCLUSIONS: An ethical dilemma, or 

an ethical paradox, is defined as having to 

choose between two possible moral 

imperatives. Choosing either one of these 

would breach a moral principle. In the case 

of algal biotechnology, the dilemma is 

between quality and quantity. Should we 

pursue production of large quantities of 

algal biomass, or rather we should focus on 

the quality of the product? Choosing the 

first one is a requirement if we want to feed 

the hungry or save the world from the 

eventual depletion of fossil fuels, but that 

would mean ignoring more realistic and 

economically feasible applications. 

Choosing the second one means that we will 

give up on solving the problem of poverty 

or obtaining biofuels, but instead we can 

pursue new opportunities in medicine and 



              Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2018; 9(2):1-5 

4 

 

pharmacology, which, however, will be 

sustainable.  

Our solution to the ethical dilemma is: 

pursue quality over quantity. This is the 

driving ethical principle which should push 

the algal biotechnology and production in 

the days ahead. Our review of the scientific 

literature, which we have done in the 

previous chapter, shows that algae are not a 

sustainable way to feed the hungry, because 

the biomass is expensive. Neither will they 

fuel our transport for the same reason. This 

could change if there is a major 

breakthrough leads to a drastic decrease of 

the biomass cost, but the current prospects 

for this continue to be very slim [23]. The 

ethically right decision in this case would be 

to re-evaluate our priorities about the 

prospects of algal biotechnology and to 

acknowledge that certain efforts during the 

past 10-15 years have failed. It was reported 

in 2016 that algae biofuels programs, such 

as the one run by Exxon Mobil Corp., fell 

flat due to their lack of success to achieve 

economically viable results [24]. It is not to 

say that such programs have been 

scientifically useless. Quite the opposite, 

many important scientific papers have been 

written in the pursuit for a better, 

ecologically cleaner world. But the 

expected practical results have not come. It 

is high time the world faced the truth. We 

suggest that the focus that should drive 

fundamental research is to work on new 

ways to lower the cost of the biomass – this 

is a noble and ethical goal that is worth 

pursuing in the years and decades to come. 

This does not justify investing in unrealistic 

and futile projects and constructing large 

facilities just to meet certain aims, while we 

are still waiting for the future.  

Meanwhile microalgae are finding their 

realistic application in healthcare, medicine 

and cosmetics, where they are already 

helping to make our world better. 

Microalgal cultivation is a promising 

branch of biotechnology and the benefits 

are already in use.  

Contributions: All authors have 

contributed equally to the birth of the idea 

and conception of the manuscript. Ivanina 

Vasileva is the lead author, she checked the 

whole manuscript meticulously, corrected 

critical errors and greatly improved the 

written language. Juliana Ivanova checked 

the whole manuscript meticulously and 

reviewed the application of algae in 

medicine and cosmetics. Svetoslav 

Alexandrov guided the writing of the 

manuscript and is the corresponding author.  

Conflict of interests: None  

REFERENCES  

1. Potter VR. Bioethics, the science of 

survival. Perspectives in biology and medicine 1970; 

14(1) : 127-153. 

2. Chiarelli B. Man, nature and ethics: global 

bioethics. Global Bioethics 1992; 5(1): 13-20. 

3. Hazell PB. The Asian green revolution. Intl Food 

Policy Res Inst; 2009. 

4. Geoghegan MJ. Unicellular algae as a source of 

food. Nature 1951; 168(4271): 426. 

5. Alexandrov SD. Algal research in space: history, 

current status and future prospects. Innovare J Life 

Sci 2016; 1: 1-4. 

6. Alexandrov S. Planetary Protection for Mars: 

Time for Reconsideration. Bangladesh Journal of 

Bioethics 2016; 7(2): 31-34. 

7. Borowitzka MA. Microalgae as sources of 

pharmaceuticals and other biologically active 

compounds. Journal of Applied Phycology 

1995; 7(1): 3-15. 

8. Chisti Y. Biodiesel from 

microalgae. Biotechnology advances 2007; 25(3): 

294-306.  

9. Buyx A, Tait J. Ethical framework for 

biofuels. Science 2011; 332(6029): 540-541.  

10. Buyx AM, Tait J. Biofuels: ethics and policy‐

making. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 

2011; 5(6): 631-639. 



              Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2018; 9(2):1-5 

5 

 

11. Gui MM, Lee KT, Bhatia S. Feasibility of edible 

oil vs. non-edible oil vs. waste edible oil as biodiesel 

feedstock. Energy 2008; 33(11): 1646-1653. 

12. Petkov G, Ivanova A, Iliev I, Vaseva, I. A critical 

look at the microalgae biodiesel. European Journal 

of Lipid Science and Technology 2012; 114(2): 103-

111. 

13.FERMER.bg.2017. 

https://fermer.bg/novini/kakvi-sa-tsenite-na-

osnovnite-zarneni-kulturi-po-svetovnite-borsi 

14.Davis R, Markham J, Kinchin C, Grundl N, Tan 

EC, Humbird D. Process design and economics for 

the production of algal biomass: algal biomass 

production in open pond systems and processing 

through dewatering for downstream 

conversion. Technical Report NREL/TP-5100-

64772, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Golden; 2016. 

15. Ivanova J, Kabaivanova L, Petrov P, Yankova S. 

Optimization strategies for improved growth, 

polysaccharide production and storage of the red 

microalga Rhodella reticulata. Bulg Chem Commun 

2015; 47(1): 167-174. 

16. Thomsen L. How ‘green’are algae farms for 

biofuel production? Biofuels 2010; 1(4): 515-517.  

17. Milasius K, Malickaite R, Dadeliene R. Effect of 

Spirulina food supplement on blood morphological 

parameters, biochemical composition and on the 

immune function of sportsmen. Biology of Sport 

2009; 26(2): 157. 

18. Mosulishvili LM, Kirkesali YI, Belokobylsky 

AI, Khizanishvili AI, Frontasyeva MV, Gundorina 

SF et al. Epithermal neutron activation analysis of 

blue-green algae Spirulina platensis as a matrix for 

selenium-containing pharmaceuticals. Journal of 

radioanalytical and nuclear chemistry 2002; 252(1) 

15-20. 

19. Pulz O, Gross W. Valuable products from 

biotechnology of microalgae. Applied microbiology 

and biotechnology 2004; 65(6): 635-648. 

20. Spolaore P, Joannis-Cassan C, Duran E, Isambert 

A. Commercial applications of microalgae. Journal 

of bioscience and bioengineering 2006; 101(2): 87-

96.  

21. Macer D. Bioethics: Perceptions of 

biotechnology and policyimplications. International 

Journal of Biotechnology 2001; 3(1-2): 116-133. 

22. Yu X, Chen L, Zhangw W. Chemicals to enhance 

microalgal growth and accumulation of high-value 

bioproducts. Frontiers in microbiology 2015; 6: 56. 

23. Alexandrov S, Iliev I, Gacheva G, Krоumov A, 

Pilarski P, Petkov G. Could algae be a real source of 

fuel. Genetics and Plant Physiology 2015; 5(2): 105-

122. 

24. Aghbashlo M, Demirbas A. Biodiesel: hopes and 

dreads. Biofuel Research Journal 2016; 3(2): 379-

379.