Few people are even aware what the concept
synthetic biology represents, and yet it has already become a cutting-edge
focus of major research
efforts and teaching. Synthetic biology purports, in essence, to create
useful creatures through engineering methods. It uses multi-purpose
components taken from nature’s building blocks. Organisms not heretofore
seen in nature may be capable of producing fuels, complex
chemicals, or novel pharmaceuticals, but also computer circuits based on biological structures. Can we
out-nature nature and surpass evolution? Impressive steps in that direction
have been made already. Optimization and fine-tuning of naturally occurring
enzymes no longer makes front-page news.
In fact, synthetic biology’s visions open
Pandora’s box of unlimited possibilities pointing to the big bang of a
multi-trillion-dollar industry: tailor-made bacteria that identify and destroy
toxins, produce fuels formerly known as fossil, render planets like Mars or
Venus suitable for human habitation, let tables and chairs grow out of the soil
without needing humans to manufacture them from timber wood. The starting point
of synthetic biology is the identification of “bio bricks” and a
three-dimensional “DNA printer” transforming a customized genome sequence into
a new and reprogrammed bacterium or complex organism. Harvard researcher George
Church has already presented a prototype he called MAGE (Multiplex
Automated Genome Engineering), a device that indeed translates relatively short
DNA sequences via several intermediary steps into molecules that it inserts
directly into monocellular organisms.
Our competition with nature may be won by
sidestepping considerations that would play a central role in evolution, which
is, after all, a contest for survival of the fittest. But what if the effort required to produce a
substance is in no relation to the survival of the individual of the species
producing it? Natural organisms need to observe a balance of priorities and
interests, but synthetically engineered life does not.
As of today, synthetic biology is not yet
dominated by any given technology. But a major leap lies straight ahead as the
introduction of entire artificially manufactured genomes into living cells
becomes increasingly feasible. Already now, DNA synthesis is cheap, a trend that will continue and
accelerate. What still needs to improve geometrically, though, is the accuracy
of chromosomal replication. What is no problem for 10,000 base pairs remains a
serious challenge for 10 million base pairs.
Chromosomes are long, string-shaped molecules
encoding genetic information, and they are 2,000 to 10,000 times longer than
the cell they inhabit. That string needs to be folded in order to fit into the
cell, in an orderly three-dimensional structure to keep the chromosome
available for a multitude of processes in the cell. This defined structure is
maintained by SMC proteins so as to avoid the occurrence of randomness. Only 50
molecules are ultimately responsible for maintaining chromosomal structure in a
bacterial cell, of which 20 percent are static and tied to the chromosome at
two centers. The majority of 80% of SMC molecules is dynamic in nature and
migrates across the entire length of a chromosome, effectively organizing it. The
discovery of dynamic SMC proteins explained how just a few protein molecules
manage to create and maintain a three-dimensional shape of a chromosome
consisting of more than four million nucleotide building blocks. Only dynamic SMC molecules interact directly with the genetic
code; static ones have no such ability. The ability to alter their design will
therefore lead to another expectable quantum leap in synthetic biology.
Naturally, this poses difficult questions for
technology assessment. Already in 2008, Craig Venter’s creation of a first
cell with synthetic genome provoked strong reactions in many quarters. Socio-political conflicts resulting from potential risks
and ethics concerns are likely to arise quickly and trigger intense debate
across societies of any level of sophistication and industrial development.
Scientists examine the subject matter of their research from a vantage point of
pure cognition. Value judgments usually do not occur at this stage that is concerned
solely with understanding the mechanism and potential of a groundbreaking
discovery. Hence, it is very difficult for scientists to conceive of different
views with regard to a given object of research.
Torgersen and Schmidt argue that comparisons have a significant
influence on the public discourse on scientific innovation. They posit that
acceptance of synthetic biology by society may ultimately depend on whether it
is compared with genetic biotechnology, with nanotechnology, or with information
technology.
These three areas of innovation carry
altogether different images in public connotation. Biotechnology has long
suffered from a negative "frankenfoods" image prompted by gene modifications
in agricultural
products, while information technology is embraced by an overwhelming
majority and perceived as a sign of progress. With regard to nanotechnology,
society appears to rely to a substantial extent on experts and legislative or
regulatory controls to anticipate and curtail potential risks emerging from
this field. But while it may seem obvious to expect comparison of synthetic
biology to biotechnology, that need not necessarily turn into the dominant
perception. Because of its extensive computational prerequisites for processing
and interpreting fundamental data and for development of novel systems, the
field is largely dominated by IT professionals.
Accordingly, jargon and optimistic research
culture characteristic of the information technology industry have spread to
synthetic biology, and this could have significant consequences for public
perception. Whether intentional or not, this association of perceptions is
ultimately the functional equivalent of a successful sales strategy. But conscious
exploitation of the enthusiasm surrounding information technology is not
observable in synthetic biology to date, likely because most research
scientists are genuinely convinced that their work entails enormous potential
utility. Major social conflicts such as those that affected the discourse on Genetically Modified Organisms may be
sidestepped, because the modalities of manufacture of products thus far
considered to be likely targets of synthetic biology research, such as fuels,
chemicals, or pharmaceuticals – as opposed to foodstuffs or human cells –
remain below the radar of people’s concerns. This state of affairs is likely to
remain unchanged, unless a major scandal occurs with direct impact on more
sensitive areas and issues. Not least, democratic interdiction of scientific
research shows a record of all-out failure. As stem cell research has shown,
the prohibition of scientific developments for irrational reasons only results
in forum shopping, and the value creation associated with it, including but
not limited to its economic benefits, tends to migrate accordingly.
The problem here, as with every technology,
lies in its advanced potential for criminal abuse and for resulting threats not
only to national, but also global security. The more advanced and cheaper
technology for the creation and redesign of living organisms becomes, the more
security concerns move suddenly within close reach. They will, with near
absolute certainty, require far closer monitoring and emergency measures, and
likely also preventative measures, than our current legal and constitutional
order is comfortable and capable of addressing. Still, one certainty exists: if
you can build it, they will come...
No comments:
Post a Comment