Heralded as having the potential of starting a new industrial revolution and criticised as overstating the potential benefits arising from it, the news that Dr. Craig Venter and his team have successfully developed the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA has understandably caught the headlines of news bulletins around the world.
But what exactly has been achieved? Has artificial life really been created? What is synthetic biology and what, if any, are the ethical implications?
This revolutionary advance, published in the widely respected journal Science, centres around the synthesising of genetic material. Only last August Dr. Craig Venter, biologist and entrepreneur probably best known for his role in sequencing one of the first human genomes, predicted that “artificial life is only months away” [1] . Eight months on and he is reporting the completion of a crucial step in the journey of reaching this goal.
What is synthetic biology?
Synthetic biology – also referred to by the media as “extreme engineering” and “biotechnology on steroids,” – represents a shift from merely seeking to understand biological systems to actually creating new ones.
In this recent breakthrough, Venter and his team have been able to construct a bacterium’s “genetic software” by way of synthesising genetic materials from basic chemicals. This ‘software’ was then transplanted into a host cell which went on to replicate – a sign of life.
Not quite synthetic life….
Without doubt this is quite an achievement but it is not quite synthetic life in its truest sense. It is synthetic in so far as the DNA has been synthesised, but not that a new synthetic or artificial life form has been created, as Jim Collins, Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Boston University has noted in the Nature commentary.
Venter has taken a copy of the DNA of a relatively simple and primitive organism that already exists in nature, carried out a number of tweaks on the DNA and then tested it to see if it still works. It does. This is no mean feat but the fact remains that the organism whose DNA was copied and synthesised is one of the simplest organisms on the earth and lacks many of the structures found in more complex organisms.
Nevertheless, the team were able to synthesise the genome perfectly which is not to be dismissed. Particularly so, given that on the first attempt the team got one letter wrong resulting in the bacterium failing to function.
Where to next?
Therefore, full blown artificial life may yet to be achieved but it does not take that much imagination to see that based on the results of this breakthrough the creation of brand new organisms may not be that far around the corner.
Being able to scale up the process, thereby creating more complex organisms will be the next challenge in order to realise the fulfilment of eco–friendly biofuels (designer microbes which can feed off carbon dioxide and excrete biofuels), bio–medical interventions and computing technology. It will be even more of a challenge should calls for a moratorium on synthetic biology be upheld; a position which looks set to be strongly challenged given the rate of progress shown by Venter’s team.
Consequently, what does remain crucial is engagement with the nexus of ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) which are presented by such a breakthrough and the developing field of synthetic biology.
The “original syn”?
As some have noted the homonym ‘syn (or sin) bio’ may well become an appendage to the synthetic biology industry in just the same way as ‘Frankenstein foods’ became notoriously associated with GM foods. Such is the possible reaction to horror stories of artificial life running amuck and out of control. In order to avoid a repeat of the GM debacle lessons must be learned. As with other emerging technologies, ‘upstream’, early stage public engagement with synthetic biology must take place in order to allow the public, informed by all the relevant stakeholders, to fully grasp the scale and magnitude of the issues involved. This is something that the UK’s Royal Society’s recent survey on synthetic biology highlighted as crucial to policy development in this area[2] .
One of the prime concerns that has been expressed and which has been the fuel behind many of the media headlines has been that this groundbreaking development constitutes humans ‘playing god’ in terms of creating life.
By its very nature synthetic biology treats biological organisms as nothing more than sophisticated machines, thereby causing life to be considered solely from a reductionist perspective, prevalent in contemporary science not least biology and specifically genetics. In brief, a reductionalist perspective seeks to take the complexity of any given system and understand it from the bottom up. The outcome is that a reductionalist methodology results in a reductionalist ontology; the system is explained wholly by the properties of its components parts. Therefore life is life, regardless of the means by which it has been created.
Therefore the significance of this latest advance is not necessarily what it demonstrates here and now but where it points to in terms of the future and where it may take us. Should further developments occur in synthetic biology which allow us to modify natural life forms into something radically different, then this does pose serious ethical questions. How would we begin to value different forms of ‘life’? To what extent would the application of synthetic biology result in new manipulative possibilities for the human project in terms of the design and creation of life? At this juncture, profound ethical boundaries clearly begin to be challenged.
Bioerror
Making alterations to natural life involves a certain degree of risk. At this time scientists do not yet understand how to synthesize organisms with predictable replication and mutation properties. However versatile microbes are in adapted to the alterations carried out by human interventions, if mistakes are made, then they will be replicated and may quickly become uncontrollable and unmanageable. What happens if redesigned bacteria and viruses are loosed into the environment? What would be the impact on the environment?
Bioterror
Likewise, there is the obvious attraction to terrorists of being able to radically alter and modify viruses and bacteria given the fact that it is relatively inexpensive to do. Coupled with this is the fact that as synthetic biology develops calls are being made to make synthetic biology ‘open source’. This would effectively mean that instructions for creating synthetics would be available via the Internet. In turn this makes the potential for synthetic biology–enabled bioterrorism far more likely. This appears to be more than just hype, particularly when one considers the recent response by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The bureau has launched its Biological Sciences Outreach Program, with the aim of starting to bridge build and discuss with biologists the potential biosecurity risks from their science [3].
Intellectual property rights
As with many of the emerging technologies, the issue of intellectual property (IP) rights also affects the matter of synthetic biology. Whilst the UK may still be seriously considering joining in with developments in this field, the US are regarded as world leaders. Therefore, in order to consider the impact of patents and IP rights on this field, one needs to assess the situation in the US. As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision taken in 1980 in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, patent rights have been granted over biological materials and organisms and this kind of protection looks set to be afforded to many of the ‘building blocks’ behind synthetic biology’s development.
The trend however looks like one which will grant overly broad patents which cover not only the fundamental building blocks but also the synthetic systems that are responsible for creating that life, thus making the creation of powerful monopolies being highly probable. Robert H. Carlson describes this in his latest book, Biology is Technology: The Promise, Peril and New Business of Engineering Life , as the ‘Goliaths’ of the biotech industry towering over the smaller ‘Davids’ start–ups who may not the financial resources to go through the laborious process of filing for patents but are nevertheless driving the innovation of this sector. Consequently Carlson posits that if ongoing development and growth is to take a place, a new system and structure of operation is necessary involving less capital investment in turn for generation of new ideas.
Distributive Justice
Advances in synthetic biology also challenge the understanding of distributive justice and presents the possibility of widening the gap between rich and poor. Artemisinin is a precursor for anti–malarial drugs and is naturally produced from wormwood in China and south east Asia. Synthetic biology could produce artemisinin quite easily and see production shift from developing countries to developed countries thus having a profound and disastrous effect on local economies. Furthermore, with developing countries lacking the likely knowledge base and finance to invest in synthetic biology techniques it would effectively bar developing countries from even attempting to engage in this new field of technology and production.
Global pandemonium?
Given the revolutionary nature of Venter’s work and the fact that steps in this direction have never been taken before, there is a distinct lack of regulation globally yet alone on the national level. Many governments have expressed concern about developments in synthetic biology, illustrated by the talks in Nairobi of the meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (SBSTTA 14). The topic of synthetic biology was under discussion at SBSTTA 14 under an item concerning the biodiversity risks of next generation biofuels. Mundita Lim of the Philippines delegation expressed her country’s concerns “about the serious potential impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity… we believe that there should be no field release of synthetic life, cell or genome into the environment until thorough scientific assessments have been conducted in a transparent, open and participatory process involving all Parties, indigenous and local communities that will all be potentially affected by these synthetic life forms with unknown consequences on biodiversity, the environment and livelihoods.” [4]
Your chance to engage in public consultation
Within the last month, President Obama has asked the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to study the implications of the recent scientific accomplishment of Venter and his team. Before reaching any conclusions the Commission intends to consult with the broadest possible range of individuals and groups to find out their views on this topic. The Commission invites public commentary from any interested party – see below for details on how you can engage in the consultation process.
Therefore one can see that the landmark development Craig Venter and his team have been able to perform is one to be embraced with caution and with a pressing need to be aware of where it could take us into the future. For it is in what it promises as opposed to what it currently offers which is of most interest. Clearly the need for effective regulation and control is necessary in order to manage the risks involved but perhaps even more important than that is first determining the direction of where advances in this field will take us and whether we are ready to fully embrace and understand the consequences of such a decision.
––––––––
To participate in the US Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues public commentary. comments should be submitted to the Commission’s office by August 1, 2010. Comments may be sent via e–mail to Acting Executive Director Diane M. Gianelli at Diane.Gianelli@bioethics.gov who will collate and present all comments. The Commission will hold its first meeting on this topic on July 8–9, 2010, in Washington, DC. As soon as the agenda is finalized, it will be posted on the website: www.bioethics.gov
[1] Mark Henderson, “Artificial life is only months away, says biologist Craig Venter” 21st August 2009 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6804599.ece [accessed 2nd February 2010]
[2] The Royal Society, “Synthetic biology: policy issues”, http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=5989
[3] See D. Grushkin, “You may soon be visited by an FBI agent, or a scientist acting on behalf of one. Here’s why”, The Scientist, Volume 24, Issue 5, 1st May 2010,
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57355/#ixzz0oageN2gE
[4] ETC Group “Synthia is Alive…and Breeding Panacea or Pandora’s Box?”, ETC News Release 20th May 2010, http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5142
