I'm 16 and Trying to Save Coral Reefs with Open-Source Symbiotic Biotech
Most existing solutions focus on reducing CO₂ or replanting corals — but what if we could go deeper? What if we could rethink coral biology from the ground up?
---
## The Problem
Corals are not just pretty rocks. They are complex *symbiotic ecosystems*, especially with tiny algae called *zooxanthellae*. These algae live inside coral tissue and provide nutrients through photosynthesis. When oceans overheat or acidify, these algae die or flee — and the coral "bleaches" and dies.
Despite billions spent on reef conservation, *we haven’t solved the root issue*: the symbiotic breakdown under stress.
---
## The Idea
What if we could engineer a synthetic symbiosis?
- I explored *marine fungi and mycelium* as potential scaffolds. - Then I imagined embedding engineered *photosynthetic bacteria* that mimic zooxanthellae. - These microbes could be protected inside mycelial structures, allowing *enhanced heat resistance*, *nutrient sharing*, and potentially *reef recolonization* even in hostile waters.
---
## What I Built
This is not just an idea. I: - Wrote [an open-source article on Medium](https://medium.com/@riskulovakorpus/the-heart-of-the-planet-bc8a504bca85) - Designed a [GitHub repo with visual diagrams, hypotheses, and implementation scenarios](https://github.com/riskulovakorpus/TheHeartOfThePlanet) - Posted in /r/SyntheticBiology and got feedback about ecological risks, saltwater challenges, gene containment — and I’m working on those in version 2.
---
## I Know It's Not Simple
Releasing GMOs into the ocean is risky. Mycelium may not behave in water like in soil. There are biocontainment issues and unknowns.
But what I want to do is *spark conversations* and *connect with experts* who could shape, redirect or improve this idea.
---
## My Goal
I want this to become: - A real citizen-science research initiative - A collaborative open-source biotech concept - Maybe something bigger — because if not us, who?
---
## Want to Join or Give Feedback?
All the links are here: - Medium article: https://medium.com/@riskulovakorpus/the-heart-of-the-planet-bc8a504bca85 - GitHub project: https://github.com/riskulovakorpus/TheHeartOfThePlanet - Cover Image: [download](https://chat.openai.com/share/file/0000000020b061fbaded398f5f5802d7)
If you're a synthetic biologist, coral researcher, or just someone who cares — I'd love your thoughts. Tear it apart, remix it, or help build the next draft.
Thanks for reading this far
As you have pointed out, this proposal carries significant risks. Ignoring the GMO aspect, introducing foreign species into the coral ecosystem could superficially appear to be successful in that some of the corals on the reefs might be revived. But what exactly is the measure of success here? Reefs are richly biodiverse so which corals will be affected and what other species might be affected? This might be impossible to predict until the experiment is released into nature and in a marine environment I doubt containment is possible. Humans have some form when it comes to translocating species and the costs incurred trying to revert can be significant.
There are lots of potential unintended consequences some of which might be foreseeable and others which are not. For example, what if the causes of bleaching in a locality do reverse? Will the GMO species out-compete the natural ones and prevent re-establishing the ecosystem?
Plus, of course, the worst aspect of layering more human interference into ecosystems is that it supports (and is often financially supported by) those who want to continue with all the damaging processes that have got us to this point – hey, we don’t have to worry about fertiliser run-off/ocean acidification/ocean warming because look, we ‘fixed’ the coral reef!
I’m not saying that we can’t do both things – reduce future impacts and try to fix past ones – but history has shown that solutions for a genuinely more sustainable future (for humans and the ecosystem that supports us) are harder so they get watered down or kicked down the road, when we actually need them to work even better than originally envisaged and be implemented faster.
You should not lose your passion for nature but perhaps direct it at solving problematic human activities, replacing current systems, processes and products with better ones. People are convinced we can’t do without all the things/choices we have today, so if consumers don’t want to change then we have to focus on transforming products and production. And we have to do it in a world where population has doubled in the last 50 years and is still growing, and if we expect per capita GDP also to grow – apparently our principal measure of success as a species – then overall human consumption will have to grow even faster.
Plenty to get yours and the best minds of your generation working on!
A lot of us care about climate change and coral reefs and the planet. The problem is that the biggest damage is often caused by large systems — like industries and governments — that prioritize profit over the planet. Even when regular people try to make eco-friendly choices, it’s really hard to make a big difference alone when the rules and incentives still let pollution and destruction keep happening on a huge scale. That’s why we also need collective action, policy changes, and accountability at the top.
Your voice matters though, and speaking up like you are is part of how change starts. Keep going. But keep in mind that people problems cannot be solved by technology alone. Even if you are able to develop technology to help coral reefs survive, you need massive funding and buy-in from various people and orgs with power to implement it in practice. That's way harder than coming up with the tech.
Also, food for thought: should we really be trying to genetically modify other organisms to be compatible with pollution or should we be reducing pollution in the first place?
https://thielfellowship.org/faq
[1]How the roots of the ‘PayPal mafia’ extend to apartheid South Africa https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/26/elon-musk...
Everything else is ChatGPT slop.
You are dangerous [3] (to the coral and the ocean).
Don't mess with the planet until you are qualified and have the consent of the mayority of the planet.
Start with learning ethics. And become a scientist, at 16 years old you have not yet learned to think properly [1,2].
You are from Kazakhstan, not know for its rigorous science process for the last 100 years.
> connect with experts
Only science is the expert. Individual scientists are not.
>who could shape, redirect or improve this idea.
Publish your scientific results in a paper and have them reproduced, peer reviewed and debated
[1] Alan Kay Sustainable Thinking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R0tAOf7KI
[2] The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It. But Is It Already Too Late? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPI6wh-Lr0
[3] Geoengineering carries ‘large risks’ for the natural world, studies show https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-carries-large-ris...