- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Synthetic Biology News Roundup
The J. Craig Venter Institute is on a synthetic biology roll. Researchers there announced last summer that they had removed the original genome of a living cell and replaced it with a new one, effectively changing the species of the cell. Last week they announced assembly of the first synthetic genome, taking the next major step towards creating synthetic life. The lab-made genome is virtually identical to that of bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium. They hope, however, to eventually design their own genomes, swap them into living cells, and grow bugs with industrially valuable applications like the ability to metabolize raw materials into fuels or capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Those applications were the focus of much of the mainstream press attention after last week’s announcement.
Reuters’s coverage concentrated exclusively on fuel and tied the story to an earlier announcement by General Motors that it had partnered with bioenergy company Coskata, a developer of industrial biotechnologies that employ cellular metabolisms. The Wall Street Journal likewise briefly mentioned producing clean fuels and sequestering carbon.
The BBC focused on the same potential uses of synthetic organisms while incorporating perspectives of scientists and ethicists. Hamilton Smith, a researcher who was part of the Science study, said the research team prefers the word “synthetic” rather than “artificial.” He explained: “With synthetic life, we’re re-designing the cell chromosomes; we’re not creating a whole new artificial life system.” Drew Endy of the Department of Biological Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was not directly involved in the research, said he is optimistic about being able to “routinely design and construct the genomes of any bacteria or single celled eukaryote” within five years. Simon Woods, a bioethicist at the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre at the University of Newcastle, UK, worried that scientists were acting in the complete absence of formal government regulations.
National Human Genome Research Institute director Francis Collins, as reported in Wired Science, called the new study a “methodological tour-de-force,” but cautioned that industrial applications will have to wait years while biologists learn more about what functions specific genes actually perform.
Other news reports raised questions about possible risks of synthetic biological research and even challenged Venter’s intentions.
Rick Weiss in the Washington Post framed the story as a debate between people like Venter who emphasize the benefits of the research, like biofuel production, and critics who emphasize the risks, like biological weapons and unintended environmental damage. In the same article, Harvard Medical School geneticist George Church criticized Venter for conspicuously ignoring or downplaying economic issues, such as the actual financial cost of performing the procedure, which Venter did not disclose.
The New York Times mentioned the same risks as the Post article: human pathogens and ecosystem destruction. In the Times, Jeremy Minshull, chief executive of DNA 2.0, a company that supplied some the nucleic acids used by the research team, was quoted surmising about Venter’s intention: “To some extent, it’s something that was driven by ‘I want to be the first person to do it.’” Also, Jim Thomas, a program manager at the ETC Group, a technology-focused NGO based in Canada, echoed Simon Woods by expressing concern for both the lack of regulation for synthetic biology research and Venter’s broad patent applications covering the Institute’s genetic work. The ETC Group is calling for a moratorium on synthetic biology research so stakeholders can debate its ethical, legal, and social ramifications.
Leo Hickman in Guardian Unlimited invoked Frankenstein, popular science fiction, and the fear of “playing God” to endorse the proposed ban on synthetic biology. The Creation Museum went a step further and claimed that the creation of synthetic life is simply not possible.
Comments on this article



Interesting post. I would like to add that there is a synthetic biology project out there already, it was mentioned on MAKE the other day http://makezine.com/ and the address is http://biohack.sf.net/ .. So. Things are going to become much, much more interesting really fast.
- Bryan
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 am