British scientists are taking part in a global effort to build the first synthetic life form whose cell structure resembles that of plants, animals and humans.
The researchers have been given almost STG1 million ($A1.67 million) in government funding to help them construct one of the organism's 16 chromosomes.
They are part of an international consortium committed to creating an artificial version of yeast by 2017.
It will be the first time scientists have built the whole genome, or genetic code blueprint, of a "eukaryotic" organism whose DNA is stored within a nucleus.
All animals and plants fall into this category. Bacteria and blue-green algae are examples of more primitive organisms that lack nuclei.
Three years ago a team led by American geneticist
Craig Venter created a synthetic bacterium genome from scratch in what was described as a landmark achievement.
The new project takes the creation of artificial life to the next level by making the jump to a eukaryotic organism.
But he made it very clear this was not a first step towards attempting to build Frankenstein-like human life in a lab.
The Imperial College site for the Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation notes:
Synthetic Biology is the
engineering of biology. It is an exciting new area of research combining
science and engineering to design and build new biological functions
and systems, and to understand existing biological life through its
rational re-design.
Is there any cause for larger moral concern, or concern about weaponized synthetic biology?
Scientific American mulled these questions over vaguely in a 2010 article. While the writer,
Lawrence M. Krauss, felt there were things to worry about there, they were not imperiling us - just yet.
Excerpt from Adventures in Synthetic Biology (2007). Image Source: MIT/Nature via h+ magazine.
In 2007,
Wired reported on a bit of MIT publicity outreach, published through
Nature, which was designed to make synthetic biology more friendly and accessible to the public, and especially to children interested in studying science: "MIT’s Synthetic Biology Working Group partnered with cartoonist
Chuck Wadey, to create a comic book,
Adventures in Synthetic Biology, to showcase the principles of the field." You can see the whole comic, starring
Bacteria Buddy,
Device Dude, and
System Sally,
here.
In 2007-2008, a project,
Synbiosafe, won 236,000 euros to explore the ethical and safety issues associated with synthetic biology. The grant came from an EU program,
New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST). The Synbiosafe project was coordinated by Austrian scientist
Dr. Markus Schmidt. Just his affiliation - with the
Organisation for Internal Dialogue and Conflict Management (IDC) - should clarify where researchers think synthetic biology could go.
Schmidt's personal site notes that he works
in the area of technology assessment of novel bio-, nano- and
converging technologies (such as synthetic biology); [he] explores the
interface between science, society and art; and [he] engages in documentary
film production and art-science exhibitions. Schmidt is founder of Biofaction and co-founder of IDC.
IDC's project list shows the spheres which synthetic biology touches: environmental pollution; a sustainable energy policy for Africa; promoting biodiversity conservation in Cambodia; improved agricultural portfolios in Europe and Asia; biosafety and genetically modified crops in South Africa.
That's comforting: "Survival of the fittest – the constant battle for resources, the dynamic
equilibrium between growth & decline, survival & adaption - is
as valid at a human scale as at a microscopic scale." Yeast Pixels 1.0 art installation by pavillon 35/ Silvia Hüttner. Image Source: Pavillon 35.
Biofaction's work tends to concern the 'softer' impacts of synthetic biology, such as
an exhibition this summer on how artists understand this technology, or this artistic collective,
Pavillon 35 [sic: this is German for 'pavilion']. You can see
Pavillon 35's bioart projects
here. They have also launched a video game,
Synmod, which teaches synthetic biology through science gamification
. You can download the
Synmod app
here.
It looks like the limitations on the burgeoning merger of biology and engineering may not come from ethical considerations, but simply from
patents. Like many aspects of today's exploding Tech Revolution,
property rights exert a drag and pull effect. They slow things down. That might be a good thing, in some cases, because deeper thinking about what is going on during the tech boom can be thin on the ground in places.
Nevertheless, patents also worryingly corner the market for big players.
The question that comes up behind all our new, shiny tech, again and again, is energy, and who controls it. In this case, biofuels are a central focus of this research. The promise of biofuels awakes competition and power grabs just as ruthless as any in the petroleum or nuclear industries. From
The Council for Responsible Genetics:
[I]n
2007 the J. Craig Venter Institute applied for a frighteningly broad
patent of its "minimal bacterial genome" called Mycoplasma laboratorium.
This organism was an attempt to create life with the minimum number of
genes by cutting out as many DNA sequences as possible without removing
its ability to reproduce or survive. U.S. patent numbers US2007 0264688
and US2007 0269862 describes creation of the first-ever, entirely
synthetic living organism-a novel bacterium whose entire genetic
information is constructed from synthesized DNA (but whose genome is a
near-replica of a naturally occurring genome).
This patent claims exclusive monopoly on the genes in the minimal
bacterial genome, the entire organism made from these genes, a digital
version of the organism's genome, any version of that organism that
could make fuels such as ethanol or hydrogen, any method of producing
those fuels that uses the organism, the process of testing a gene's
function by inserting other genes into the synthetic organism, and a set
of non-essential genes. These patents are not restricted to any
specific cell type-it currently applies to prokaryotes and eukaryotes -
or size of a synthetic genome.
While these patents have yet to be granted, the claim shows the
extent to which some synthetic biologists are testing the limits in the
battle to control the fundamental building blocks of life and actual
living organisms. While it is likely this specific patent application's
scope will be limited to cover only bacterial cells, such a patent would
still grant Venter and company an exclusive license to create synthetic
fuel-producing bacteria and the tools to create such organisms.
Conveniently, Venter's company, Synthetic Genomics, has contracts with
both Exxon Mobile and BP to produce "next-generation" biofuels from
synthetic cells (or at least genetically engineered cells that contain
synthetic DNA sequences).
Amyris Biotechnologies is a synthetic biology company that used
genetically engineered yeasts that contain synthetic DNA to break down
sugarcane to produce isoprenoids-which are then being converted to
biofuels, industrial chemicals, among other products. Patent US
7,659,097, granted to Amyris in February 2010, covers the production of
many different isoprenoids created though a number of different
microbes. Amyris already has deals with major oil and chemical companies
to turn Brazilian sugarcane into high-value commodities. Again, Amyris'
"biosynthetic pathways" are near-copies of metabolic pathways found in
nature with some "tweaking" of the DNA pathways to allow the yeast to do
some things that traditional genetic engineering could not accomplish.
The novel challenge created by the emerging field of synthetic
biology is that not only can natural or synthesized DNA be patented, but
the processes used to synthesize DNA and create synthetic organisms can
also be patented. Furthermore, the living organisms created with
synthetic DNA are covered in these patents, as are the products they are
engineered to produce. ...
What must be done
While it is clear to us that current court rulings would likely
support the patenting of synthetic genomes as developed by Venter's lab
and other researchers, Congress should prevent the patenting of DNA
sequences that simply copy naturally occurring DNA. To do otherwise
would in effect allow another way to patent natural occurring organisms
and their DNA-just make synthetic copies of them. That is in no one's
interest but the patent holders'.
See the videos below the jump which promote and debate various synthetic biology concepts. There is also a
Youtube playlist of 2011 talks delivered at the Royal Academy of Engineering
here; the first video in that playlist is below the jump.