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 Current laws and regulations around biotechnology are outdated and inadequate to deal with the novel risks posed by synthetic biology technologies and their products," said Andy Kimbrell, executive director of the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:
hope for the best...assume the worst
Sure - and a lot of deadly ones too.
The best route is to require the synthetic organisms to be incapable of surviving except in very specialized synthetic environments that cannot be found occurring naturally.
Trust the corporations! They have their CEO's best interest at heart. Trust the corporations!
What amazes me about this article is that people are still promoting a concept of self-regulation. If this economy has proven anything it's that self-regulation doesn't work. We're too greedy and selfish. There has to be an outside body of regulators, as distant from the people they're regulating as possible (and closer to the public good as possible).
To late, humans have already escaped out of the test tubes heh heh
If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territories, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, ah, well, there it is.
let you guys come up what movie this quote comes from.
It takes millions of years for life to evolve ... and for other organisms to evolve along side to adapt.
Unleashing a multitude of new organisms that life on earth has not had time to adapt too is sheer lunacy.
Without an absolute understanding on how life evolves, they have no idea of the future impact of these creations.
This is astonishingly amazing and powerful science.
We are no longer necessarily talking about simply modifying existing organisms, but rather about crafting custom-made ones from the ground up.
Fear is the mind killer.
I say let fly with synthetic life.
Stagnation is a death inglorious. How can we strengthen our species if we are unwilling to push it beyond its limits? We must put aside our fears of zombies, and superviruses, and atomic supermen, and strange mutated barbarians hunting us for our bone marrow.
We must create the dragons that will later facilitate the growth of our strength from having slain them.
Our technological accomplishments have far outpaced the evolution of our society. Instead of chaining the progress of science to stay within reach of the least common denominator of the species, we should be accelerating our own personal intellectual evolution to catch up with our science. That means accepting that our ability to create becomes our license and our right to create - whether it be for good or bad, right or wrong, for expansion or destruction.
To think that we can somehow throw the entire universe out of balance by mimicking the forces of nature is to think that we are universally and unilaterally important. We are not - yet. Our ability to create synthetic and artificial life - to play god - is part of our universal purpose.
IF we somehow tip the balance, events will be put into motion to right that balance - naturally.
Man was meant to slay the dragons he creates to slay himself.
There is already growing evidence that we are being overwhelmed by the sensory stimuli coming from our 'advancing' cultures. I'd hate to think of the harm adding synthetic organisms to the mix could do.
And this different from all our GM modified crops that we can never 'recall' from nature how?
We're not talking about throwing "the entire universe out of balance". Just the possible risk of throwing a monkey wrench in the natural homeostasis of organisms here on Earth by engineering something brand new, which then might possibly mutate and become dangerous in unexpected ways. If in a hypothetical worst case scenario, we create something completely toxic to humanity, whether it's a 'zombie' virus or the Andromeda Strain, which instead of killing us completely alters the environment in some sort of irreparable way, this not something which could be 'righted' naturally. Hence, we must proceed extremely carefully in this research rather than with cavalier hubris and disregard for possibly disastrous consequences.
Brian, this is fundamentally different from simple genetic engineering. We're not taking an existing form of life and sticking in DNA from something else. We're not mixing matching. We're building new life forms from the ground up that have never existed in ANY form in nature before. They have no ancestry. They have no origin other than us. We are their creators, their progenitors. Were they to evolve and become sentient, we would be their gods in a very literal way. They exist because we chose to create them for a specific purpose. And when that purpose is fulfilled, we will feel not the slightest bit of pity or remorse simply letting them die.
Sure, they're just single-celled organisms... for now. There are all kinds of questions about what this means for complex life forms, should we craft them.
The point was whether your taking 'off the self' parts or designing them yourself it's still a dangerous proposition and we've already done the one and released them on nature. We've already seen the dangers of modifying existing organisms, never mind creating new ones. I understood the difference. And I wouldn't worry about creating anything sentient anytime soon since it took nature about 3 billion years on this planet (opinions vary on when life first popped up). I'd worry more about crafting an organism that's completely incompatibly with existing life and causing a man made plague or something.
Four words for thought. Steven King's "The Stand"
Here's four more: Michael Crichton's "Andromeda Strain"
I think the Andromeda Strain was a 'space bug'. Just saying....
Well were humans, right? So we will either eat it or die from it. Or both!
If the truth be known, Earth may just be such a laboratory/experiment. And look at what a hell-of-a-mess it is.
Eventually, gene coding will advance to the point where the synthetic cells can be tailored to only stay alive under certain conditions that occur in the lab, greenhouse, etc. where they're being used but don't occur in nature. For example, they can be made to depend on a wavelength of UV light that's not found in sunlight, or depend on a 15% or less oxygen environment instead of the 21% in Earth's air, etc.
Until that occurs, chemists and biologists need to tread very carefully. My 1970 sophomore year organic chemistry teacher has spent many years working on using algae and bacteria to manufacture chemical compounds, but most of his early work was done by selective breeding of "natural" organisms. The idea to splice genes of other natural creatures into those organisms was the next step - and it was there that possible problems begin to arise.
"What to do about synthetic life?" ----- Shed synthetic tears
Sounds like a line for a new song.
Who's the 71 percent that think this is too promising not to do? This idea sounds like it has all the makings of Resident Evil coming to life. I totally agree that this kind of research should be done out in space on an asteroid someplace and not on Earth. Even then there would be the problem of any researchers coming back to earth and bringing some deadly artificial pathogen with them. Mans wanting to play God will most likely eventually lead to his own extinction, it's not nice to fool mother nature.
One reason we may not be encountering aliens from other planets could be that when a species gets advanced enough to travel to other planets with life they may wind up bringing pathogens back which wipe out their species. The sad thing about intelligent life is that it probably eventually leads to it's own destruction and extinction.Then again that may be in the cards no matter what we do, what has happened before will most likely happen again.
Audrey Junior, Little Shop of Horrors....."FEED me I'm Starving"....."I need MEAT". Watch how you play children.