E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
JCVI via Science/AAAS
Scientists took a type of bacteria known as Mycoplasma capricolum and transplanted a custom-written version of the genome from a different type of bacteria, Mycoplasma mycoides. The synthetic genome included coding for the production of a blue compound, which served here as a signal that the bacteria were "synthetic cells."
More than 100 environmental and social-action groups say synthetic organisms shouldn't be sent out into the world until governments create a new framework to regulate them. Their recommendations for such a framework are outlined in a statement of principles issued today.
Synthetic biology aims to create new genetic strains of microbes, such as algae that are tailor-made to produce biofuels, or bacteria that are engineered to fight medical maladies ranging from infections to cancer. Researchers estimate that the global market for synthetic biology was $1.1 billion in 2010, and is on track to increase to $10.8 billion in 2016.
Critics, however, say that the technology could lead to environmental hazards of Frankensteinian proportions, including new strains of unstoppable invasive species and unpredictable hazards to human health. The 111 groups behind today's statement, including Friends of the Earth, the International Center for Technology Assessment and the ETC Group, are on the critical side of the spectrum.
"We are calling for a global moratorium on the release and commercial use of synthetic organisms until we have established a public interest research agenda, examined alternatives, developed the proper regulations and put into place rigorous biosafety measures," Carolyn Raffensperger, executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, said in a news release. "It is our obligation to safeguard the future, to be wise in our development and use of technologies which could threaten humans and the Earth."
The groups call for an outright ban on the use of synthetic biology on the human genome, or on the human microbiome — that is, the wide assortment of microbes that are found inside us or on our skin. They say the current systems in place to regulate genetic engineering are inadequate for the task ahead.
"Self-regulation of the synthetic biology industry simply won't work. Current laws and regulations around biotechnology are outdated and inadequate to deal with the novel risks posed by synthetic biology technologies and their products," said Andy Kimbrell, executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment.
The debate over synthetic biology has intensified since geneticist J. Craig Venter and his colleagues announced the development of the "first synthetic cell" in 2010. In the wake of that announcement, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues said there was no need to halt research into synthetic biology or establish an entirely new regulatory framework. Instead, the commission called for a combination of industry self-regulation, closer coordination by existing regulatory agencies and further research into the potential for risk.
When that report was released, the ETC Group's Jim Thomas said it was "disappointingly empty and timid." Thomas' group is one of the principal backers of the proposed principles issued today.
A spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization told ScienceInsider's Elizabeth Pennisi that the principles issued today were not helpful to policymakers or the public, due to "the shrillness of its tone and its lack of objectivity." He said "there are a lot of safeguards in place" today, while acknowledging that the existing regulations may eventually need to be upgraded.
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has established its own project to study the policy implications of synthetic biology. One of the leaders of that project, senior research associate Todd Kuiken, told me that the principles issued today were "not that much different" from the presidential commission's recommendations, although he said the tone was a bit more strident. "The word 'moratorium' is a little strong," he said.
"There are potential risks there, and we need to look at these issues before we start putting these things out there," Kuiken said. "I don't think anything they said is that surprising to folks, nor is the response from industry that surprising."
The center's Synthetic Biology Project has voiced concern about the implications of genetic technology for the past 18 months. In a recent Nature commentary, Kuiken and four colleagues urged scientists and officials to take additional steps to avoid "a synthetic-biology disaster."
"Public agencies must link basic and environmental risk research by co-funding projects and requiring grant recipients to work with environmental agencies from the start," they wrote. "Given the complexity of the research questions, the economic and social value of successful synthetic-biology applications and the potential impact of errors, we think that a minimal investment of $20 million to $30 million over 10 years is appropriate."
Today, the Synthetic Biology Project is kicking off an online survey to gauge public opinion on the ethical, legal and social implications synthetic biology. The center said results from the survey would be compiled into a report to be released in May. To take the survey, click here. But first, register your opinion in our own unscientific poll at right.
More about synthetic biology:
- First synthetic life form holds promise and peril
- One-third of Americans back ban on synthetic biology
- Synthetic life could help humans colonize Mars
- DNA chip is 'printing press' for synthetic biology
- Yeast adds vitamins to bread
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
All this experimentation with altered life needs to take place on some laboratory built on an asteroid.
And if things get out of control we just send it plunging into the Sun.
.
That would be great... if we had a lab built on an asteroid.
This stuff scares me, but I can see the potential. Any new organism needs to be quarantined and tested before being released. I don't envy whoever has the task of setting up standards for that.
Which potential? There should be a lab that has entire ecosystems in it to see what these things will do in a natural setting. Let all the participants build one big test chamber and sequester the stuff until it has demonstrated what it will do. Bacteria can transmit immunity to one another, how in the hell are you going to be certain of anything?
To do this experimentation anywhere on Earth is just insanity.
Everything escapes labs at one point or another.
Even deadly deadly anthrax managed to get out.
.
Silly regulations just increase costs and stop the job creators.
There needs to be extensive testing on any of these synthetic organisms before they are allowed out of a level 4 lab to ensure that they are not a threat to people or our ecosystem. The potential for a disaster is just too great. All you need to do is look at the impact that non-native invasive species of plants and animals have had on the environment to understand just how dangerous this can be. The accidental transplantation of marine organisms in ship's ballast water from one part of the world to another has already caused major environmental damage in places like the Everglades, parts of Chesapeake Bay, and elsewhere. If natural organism can cause these types of problems, imagine what a synthetic organism could do.
I fully support this type of research because the potential is just too great to ignore. However, we must take appropriate safety precautions in order to avoid the very real possibility of doing major damage to our ecosystem and endangering the the public's health and welfare.
AG99, you wrote "Any new organism needs to be quarantined and tested before being released." Even if it tests perfectly safe in a lab, only nature provides the wide variety of mutagenic factors that will really reveal what the organism is capable of.
You can control what goes on in a lab. You cannot control what will interact with and effect change in these franken-bugs. Bacteria exchange genes with other bacteria. The researchers need to study a little chaos theory, or at least watch Jurassic Park.
Yeah, the potential for great things here is fantastic. But so is the potential for it spiraling out of control. This is hubris.
Yeah, lab on an asteroid would be safer by far.
Is this more dangerous than bacteria that are found in nature? In nature we have bacteria that eat your skin, eat your blood, eat your kidneys, cause your brain to swell, invade your intestines, colonize your lungs, feed off your immune system, make the most lethal naturally occurring poison, and a host of other horrendous things. Oh and many of them are naturally immune to artificial antibiotics.
A lot of lab bacteria are actually pretty weak. They're engineered for a purpose and are poorly adapted for surviving outside the lab. The bacteria I grow die in a couple of hours if they encounter a common amino acid.
Anthrax occurrs naturally, we didn't create it. With this new stuff we will have to weigh the advantages. If we create a huge enough mess that we don't know how to fix without these little creatures than we need to roll the dice and go ahead. Or stop creating the mess.
I agree. This research just raises far too many concerns to be condoned outright. Genetic manipulation, synthetic life, suicide-genes, chimaera projects, etc. - just too many big issues with these things.
I can understand the upside, I get it. Sure, I'd like to see the day where we can alter genetic code versus prescribing tons of medications, or eliminate cancer. Or make it to where we can shoot laser beams out of our eyes.
But there has never been a scientist alive, or a university laboratory, that I would entrust the safety of the entire planet to. I can't even get my chemistry professor to stop spilling coffee all over my papers...
So, I agree with the idea of doing this off-world. Perfect solution to the problem. Dr. Tyson should've included that in his most recent book. lol
becoming-galactic: I know. It's why I said I don't envy whoever has to ensure this stuff is tested properly. I agree it can never be 100% safe, but if Pragmatic's comment is anything to go by, it may not be as apocalyptically dangerous as I'd first thought.
Steve-2352647 - lol
If you're being sarcastic, genius, if not, still funny anyone actually thinks that.
Regulation, like regulating who I can beat up, or regulating who can kill(cops, soldiers). Like regulating who can dump toxic chemicals(your neighbor can't thank god, large rich corporations, well that's a "grey" area). Regulation, like no insider trading, like no poison in baby food. If this kills jobs, then I'll just adjust my lifestyle to make do with less.
I thought lack of demand killed jobs. I mean, if all countries regulated everything with the same standards, and there was enough demand, then the regulations wouldn't matter. If there is money to be made, someone will come and take it.
But....since not all countries have the same regulations, jobs appear to get killed here. The jobs exist, just in a country with less, or no, regulation(see: China). Should we compromise our morals, for jobs now. Should be sacrifice good sense for jobs now?
I think no. I was under the impression that the defining characteristic of America, we the willingness to do what is right, regardless of how hard it is. I for one, refuse to sell my good sense and morals for a few crappy jobs in the here and now.
A lot of the rhetoric I hear these days, about too much American regulation, is just sad. Do people not see the types of money w hores we have running these giant multinational corporations. Apple thinks it is "great" to have workers get paid $17 a day to live in onsite dorms, so their product can be "reactive to the market place".
I thought the whole human condition, goal, is to reduce the amount of time we spend on surviving, so we can live life. From hunters and gathers, freeing up time via farming, which lead to culture, art, and technology. Why is it now, everyone thinks it is a great idea to take a step back, into indentured servitude.
You guys watch WAY too many movies. The potential for this type of research is astronomical. Most of you assume that most bacteria are there to hurt and kill us. You're wrong. Just because it's "bacteria" doesn't mean it can hurt us. It's not going to "magically evolve" to be dangerous to us. Bacteria only evolve when there is an evolutionary pressure forcing it that way.
Get your head out of the clouds. This research is taking place here, on earth, whether you like it or not, and you will most likely be better off because of it.
Kuatomonk: As a Libertarian I believe that the best government is the least government; but this does not mean no government. Just as we have checks and balances in the government, we need checks and balances in the economy to minimize excesses by any party ... such as regulating areas where we have had abuses.
Yh, we need to take a step back and think of the risks. Yh it's a got good promise, but the danger could be to high,
what r we willing to risk?I just think taking a step back b4 we head off in the wrond direction might be a good idea xxxxLets not forget the T-virus and potential Zombies! .. Seriously, I agree that some things should be fully reviewed because these things could evolve and even potentially become hazardous to other species or to ourselves.
But wouldn't it be cool to have all those targets around.
Who knows, then some pharmaceutical company can create a tyrant. Then we can send Tyrants in Afghanistan, the Taliban would not stand a chance.
I love science and invention and am the last person you would consider a Luddite.
BUT...you couldn't pursue a more reckless or dangerous path than this article portends.
All synthetic organisms should at least have a death/shutoff switch added to their genome, either time-based and/or trigger-able by human intervention.
No matter how extensively testing is done prior to release of any such organisms into the "wild", intentional or not, there is no way to account for potential interactions with mutagens or other natural organisms of which we have zero awareness...all sorts of species are still being discovered after all.
All synthetic organisms should at least have a death/shutoff switch added to their genome, either time-based and/or trigger-able by human intervention.
And really no matter how many safeguards we think we can put in place, the reality is that life, natural or synthesized by humans, will find a way.
And in the end, end came not with a bang or a whimper, but by way of grey goo suffocation.
A funny thing happens when you place an enormous evolutionary pressure on life such as this. It evolves a way around it. A self-destruct would be of little comfort to me. And I am a microbiologist.
It is certainly worth examining the implications of such research. When PCR (one of the fundamental DNA manipulation techniques) was invented, there was a similar bioethical conference. It was decided that the potential for harm was small and the technique was too useful to be considered unethical. It has enabled many of the technologies around today and massive advancements in medicine. A similar thing occurred for the discovery of a "super flu" virus. In that case, a moratorium was suggested because the harm outweighed the benefit.
In this case, I can't conceive of a doomsday scenario. The genome for the synthetic organism was all borrowed from naturally occurring genes. The organism itself was naturally occurring. The artificial portion was the selection of genes, which isn't too fundamentally different from other kinds of genetic engineering. There is great potential for benefit, such as designing an organism from the ground up to only survive under lab conditions but do its job extremely well, while there is little potential for harm. It is still "all natural."
Where I can see a bigger potential for harm is the creation of a species completely from scratch using genes designed completely from scratch with no analogue in nature. This type of organism would be completely alien to all life forms on Earth and it would be impossible to predict how they would interact. It would be even more difficult to predict if the life form uses compounds and genetics different from life as we know it.
Two words: "Andromeda Strain"
It's too late, Santorum has already gotten out and is on the loose!
NOOO! Not that!
LOL !!
.
You mean to tell me the one who believes in creationism is actually made by man??!!!
Yeah, like God would author something as clunky as creationism.
There are some horrific events promised to occur upon this earth world from
long days past. I do not wish to see them in my time. Forgive me fellow
Earthlings for I want to leave this mad world behind.
I have some work here I must do first.
Wisdom would be best to leave alone the uncontrollable untamable things we
only partially comprehend and can only guess paths of mutation.
God given gifts are to be used, among them the wisdom to choose, and intelligence to choose correctly, driven only by the consequences. We will leave the world unfinished, but not for want of trying.
The piper awaits!
What to do about synthetic life?
First a definition synthetic vs. artificial; in brief synthetic is indistinguishable from the real thing, artificial is always so.
Take a tour of the link below, is has some important remarks about costs, and think about bacteria being of 10 billion different types?
Add to that request (think big number) the idea that since the time of Earth’s existence ten to 60th power (a million times million six ten times over) combinations of bacterial could have met face to face, giving Earth 10 billion today and uncountable billions over time to create a new or altered form of bacterial. Now that’s big number, and is more important than any assumption that might be made to get it (mine).
One conclusion could be that all the parts (DNA etal) of existing bacteria have already met in the past, and have done their darndest to survive, it they could.
One conclusion that could not be made is that only one survived (the fittest) this implies that they all in some way get along.
Those conclusions together indicate that they form a solution to some problem (survival), and that they reform solutions to solve some other problem, the problem in word is some form is stress.
Of those stressful concerns the important ones may be multiple resistant bacteria, like multiple resistant tuberculosis, or the latest gotyanowous.
Important: since if you going to do some of immediate good, make a bacterial harmnoone, that out competes the resistant variety, not insitu, in the body, but in the environment to remove the resistant strain and its ability to propagate.
Remember the sobering fact that restraint strains arise when given the opportunity to do so, for instance missing the one that got away.
The indirect effect, of my (speculations=conclusions), would be to learn by comparisons, what it is that needs to be remove from the insitu genetic material to render it harmless.
The hidden objective is to recognize that we need to attempt to kill the bacterial by changing the game plan, closing the environmental path and developing treatment for the patient, leaving no resistant survivors.
The success of this strategy lies in the fact that a newly resistant strain may always develop, and if so we have the tools to deal with it.
Please go solve this problem, do not let die here.
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-many-species-of-bacteria-are-there.htm
Interesting but i bet these numbers are WAY too small relative to the true numbers of populations.
Scientists took a type of bacteria known as Mycoplasma capricolum and transplanted a custom-written version of the genome from a different type of bacteria, Mycoplasma mycoides. The synthetic genome included coding for the production of a blue compound, which served here as a signal that the bacteria were "synthetic cells." Umm no, they took a genome and changed the sequencing. They used natural materials nothing was actually fabricated and as such it is not a "synthetic" life form.
The first step to being able to do it all from scratch is being able to do part of it.
"custom-written version of the genome" = partially synthetic
I suffer from horrible chronic pain caused by internal scar tissue that cant be surgically removed cause it grows back worse than before. So if scientist could make a bacteria that could eat away the scar tissue, and eat it every time it grew back then i have no problem with this line of research. If however the bacteria ate my healthy tissue then i would sue the fudge out of the company that made it.
Get a job! Take mine, clone slave, while I work at nothing at all. Can I get a plug in model to save food costs?
Brave new world had life genetically engineered for specific jobs before they were just tossed out---- like cleaning out nuclear reactors
I think there is some in the back of my fridge if some biologist wants to come check it out. If so, I get the patent though
How would you stop synthetic life from mutating if it is allowed to replicate. And then you have who knows what
Will madmen and kooks go extinct once this technology goes mainstream?
It's like saying nuclear power plants are perfectly safe-- except for when war breaks out
I’m all for updated regulations because I’d hate to live in a world like The Walking Dead.
This is how disaster movies start...
well, we dont need god to destroy the world. we seem fully capable of doing it ourselves
We can't even stop the contamination of drugs and the food supply. How are we going to do this safely?
Its scary stuff,but its scary precisely because the of its potential. This could lead to amazing advances. One of the biggest advances will be in chemistry. These custom organisms will be able to manufacture even the most complex molecules in quantities as large as you need.
Heres where its going. There will eventually be software packages that will be able to create a gene in a custom chemical synthesizing bacteria. Some will be easy,if they are similar to known compounds. Proteins will be trivial and you will be able to make any protein you want by just specifying the primary sequence in the computer program. Other molecules that are similar to things that are made by living things will also be very easy to make and the computer program will be able to design an organism that will manufacture them easily. Most drugs will fall into one of those catagories.
Chemists will have a whole new skill set. They will have to understand a lot more biochemistry and biology. Sometimes the compound your synthesizing will be toxic to the organism. If you cant find a biochemistry that is resistant to your chemical, you will need to design custom biochemistry to be resistant to your chemical. This will use simulation software and bio-CAD software to design the new organism.
This is in the near term. In the far term it goes much farther. If you think about it,this is nanotech. Nano machines will be more like bacteria than tiny machines with gears and pulleys. Colonies of single cell organisms can and do make macroscopic structures.
Additionally there are things that living things can do that we cant do nearly as well with gears and circuits. For instance,solar power. Plants take in CO2,and absorb sun light and create sugar. Yeast take sugar and make alcohol, or oils,which can be used readily as fuels. Custom organisms could potentially take in sunlight and CO2 and create that fuel directly. Other possibilities are cars,with a biological fuel cell,that breaks down something like high fructose corn syrup that is produced by synthetic phototrophs ,and produce electricity directly from it,or then again,perhaps not. Perhaps the sugar might be burned and turned directly into mechanical energy in some sort of biochemical motor analogous to an animals muscles.
Yes, all lovely considerations. I'm sure the generals of the world would love to see if these excellent new "plows" could be somehow reshaped into swords. Duty calls.
A 'Twofer'!! It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
A 100 Years ago
Yah see that thar automobile over thar, it aint natural like this here horse Im here a ridin'. Seems dangerous too, I don't trust no new fangeled technology cause its too complex and I'm afraid of what I don't understand. Besides thinkin about that science stuff it makes my head hurt.. Best not to take any chances.
True...what a perfect world has been created by the automobile and need for endless concrete, asphalt, and wars to guarantee it's food supply.
I have zero fear of science or technological progress, I do however have fear of short-sighted, greedy men who always to use it for their own ends at the expense of everyone and everything else.
Greed, at the expense of everyone else, goes hand in hand with science for the most part, because the end result of science in our time often equals "commodity". Scientists will invent anything, or do anything, because they "can". If benefits to society stem from this, wonderful, but if problems arise, it's up to the rest of us to try to clean up their mess. I have no doubt that many scientists truly do care about exploration and investigation for their own sakes, and care also for the human race, but I have no doubt that the people who package and market the end result of science, or who fund it in the beginning, are driven by something else - profit. In this sense I DO have some fear of science and technological progress. It isn't always "needed", and it isn't always "progress", just because it's being sold to a gullible public as such. "Now, we can give you a gazillion television channels! All you have to do is attach this radioactive box of possible death to your TV! The benefits outweigh the risks! Get yours today!"
Nikolaus20 - If it were up to you we would still be banging rocks together. It sickens me to see a person whos entire life, your life span, food, clean water, medicine and all the convince that science has brought turn around and p_ss in the fountain of knowledge. Science answers questions and creates. Its up to the rest of us to control and guide the products that are the result. Think about it.
Chris-5thape. I do, I have, and you obviously didn't read my comment very well. I am not anti-science. I am against the greed-based forces which sometimes drive science and reap profits from it, consumers be damned. If you equate this to my thinking that we'd be better off banging rocks together, than it is you who are short sighted. I and many believe that scientists have an obligation to protect society from possible negative consequences of their work. I no more trust scientists to do the right thing, just because they're scientists, than I do priests. It shouldn't be up to the rest of us to protect ourselves from what science gone wrong can do.
And while I embrace the good things that science has brought us, I stand firmly in the conviction that some of our "gadgets" - tweaked, hyped, made obsolete, or downright unnecessary and harmful to the environment, and are sold to us in the name of profit. Profit may be a reasonable outcome of science, but profit doesn't EQUAL science. It can bastardize it and cheapen it.
Not every negative comment about science is an attack on science or reason. If that's how you react, then you are no different than uber-religious types who treat every question or criticism re: religion as an attack on God.
Much of the discovery-based science is done in academic labs by hard working nerds who just want to learn something interesting. The funding for this comes from government and philanthropy. Discovery-based science drives innovation. Discovery-based science is risky, from a business perspective. Corporations don't do discovery-based science, because they want something they can monetize at minimal risk.
When you say
It's hard to see it from the context of
It sounds like you tie science to greed. I encourage you to make the separation. The scientific process not glamorous and there isn't a lot of fortune to be had doing it. Being a hot-shot CEO selling the masses a phone that is 10% faster than what came before it is a different story.
This is not science. There is no scientific innovation in more TV channels. What you have there is business and marketing innovations.
Ahh I see the luddites are popping out of their caves to rant on their high tech computers again. You know there are still places on earth where there is no concrete, asphalt, and a where the food supply does not depend on modern transportation. I'm sure there are lots of people living there that would LOVE to trade places with you. If you were to go live in those places I wonder how long it would take until your romantic illusions about the past were destroyed? A few hours perhaps?
Pragmatic-3918582 - these days, those students' programs are corporate funded.
Recently saw how nanotubes can act like asbestos, no doubt some bio engineered device could open these tubes into small carbon flakes and make sheets of single layer carbon. Then with some oxidation these sheets could be used as a filter for water, then any sort of moisture (even sea water ) pure water could be the product. See the potential?