They can't sequester any more carbon than was in the feed stock. And when you're trying to sell a biodegradable thing (which I think is laudable), this would have a minimal net effect on carbon for a material that is readily disposed and biodegrades within a few weeks. The benefits of reducing plastic waste, landfill, and pollution are obvious. The carbon benefits are less clear. Paper packaging from pulp waste comes directly from a photosynthetic resource, and may be found to be equivalent materials. So the argument for mushrooms as an intermediate seems like it needs more explanation -- to me anyway. Obviously, a bioplastic that never degrades is a far better carbon sink than a material that degrades readily, but then you are generating waste that must be stored somewhere indefinitely. Not a problem for a building material, but obviously not great for packaging. But I don't see how a building material made from mushrooms could ever sequester more carbon than, you know, wood.

Mushrooms are not plants. They don't photosynthesize and fix carbon dioxide from the air. Growing mushrooms is still carbon positive. It's important to understand that this is an organism that respires, so these generic claims about a carbon benefit need much more analysis to understand whether there is in fact a benefit at scale.

As far as "research outcome value," unfortunately this is notoriously difficult to quantify for all aspects of the research enterprise. Most of the metrics typically used are abysmal for any serious utilitarian analysis (e.g. publication count, references to those publications, patents approved, funding raised, etc.). And you would not be surprised to hear stories very similar to this one quietly passed around in both academic and industry contexts, where consequences are few if any. It makes many people uncomfortable, but the power dynamics are such that they continue so long as they continue to support career advancement and continue to be approved by IRBs and funding agencies. That's not to justify what's being reported here-- far from it. If anything, I would support a broad ban on primate experimentation with few exceptions.