Other Case Studies and controversies

By: Natya Hans

With advent of synthetic biology, there have been controversies regarding the patenting of synthetic life forms or techniques to build it. It has impacted both the companies trying to patent, since the shares in market are affected. Following are the links to different cases.

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/genewatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=346

http://www.genomeweb.com/arrays/how-meeting-munich-and-recent-lawsuit-may-predict-synthetic-bio-market-shake-out

https://theconversation.com/inventing-life-patent-law-and-synthetic-biology-5178

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/22/suing-this-synthetic-biology-pioneer-is-silly.aspx

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/7/4/charest-royalties-lawsuit-dispute/

Sharing Genetic Resources and Nagoya Protocol

By:  Natya Hans

The Nagoya Protocol (on Convention of Biological Diversity) was a legal frame work adopted by the  United Nations (UN)  to ensure fair share of genetic resources and hence contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.  In the video, the scholars discuss how the protocol may affect researchers in the field of Synthetic Biology. Although US is not a signatory to the protocol, the scholars still put suggest the US researchers to  engage in these discussions regarding use of resources on synthetic biology, verify the source of the genetic material being used and to be compliant to the domestic laws of the country. 

The report discusses the  uncertainty regarding what sort of genetic material should be covered. Would it apply to the samples collected before the amendments to the treaty were made? What about the digital resources that are cshared through internet databases?  The whole report can be downloaded here: http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6672/_draft/nagoya_final.pdf

Opinions: Are intellectual freedom and innovation trump cards?

By: Veronique Etienne

Precautionary Principle 

In 2010, the presidential bioethics commission convened and made a report for dealing with synthetic biology.  The report specially stated that there should not be a moratorium on this kind of research and gave an 18 month deadline for key things to be accomplished.  However, not much has been accomplished; while several things are in the works, not recommendation as been achieved and several have not even been addressed.     
In 2012, with the government failing to accomplish things, others, including the UN and the ETC, started to lean on synthetic biology...or at least the lack of mandatory regulations regarding it. Over 100 organizations, including the ETC, IATP, and IRT, banned together and made a report, on similar to the Commission's  that suggested that encouraging innovation was not cause enough to allow synthetic biology research to continue.
The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology report suggests a moratorium on synthetic biology until regulations are set in place, in addition to a ban on using the human genome in this line of research.   Additionally, U.N officials havecalled for better monitoring of this type of research, as the potential for exploitation for use in bio-terrorism/ biological weapons is great.  
Furthermore, just this year, there was a call to prevent a synthetic biology project from being fundable on kickstarter-yes, they want to put it in the unfundable category, which includes porn and guns.  The project is aimed at developing and releasing a glowing plant from the laboratory.  The premise of the project is to help reduce the need for electricity and use plants as a more sustainable light resource.  *Note: this project was not banned by the U.S government and it obtained over 800 backers contributing a total of $484, 013 USD-this far surpassed their goal of $65,000.

But wait,... there's hope.  At least the NIH has guidelines in place that at least address the containment and proper use of synthetic biology (updated just this month).

Check out the glowing plants kickstarter video

Was Malthus wrong?

By: Veronique Etienne

A large global issue is simply feeding people.  Although we have GMO’s, humans still consistently fall short of ending world hunger.  Some will say that this is due to greed- the world has a surplus of food, that is unevenly distributed- but others will say that it is lack of infrastructure to provide everyone with food.   By utilizing synthetic biology, we can make crops that are better adapted to harsh conditions.  This would mean that either mode of production-subsistence or commercial- can be a more viable option for developing nations. 
Even in the U.S we have issues with monoculture.  This has had lots of negative, unforeseen impacts in nature.  If the crops experience adverse conditions including disease, they all have the same phenotypic response, which can wipe out whole crops, costing millions/billions.  The creative process of having tailor made food may (or may not) have some profound impacts on biodiversity.  In making more customizable plants, people can get more nourishment from their food and may, in fact, lend a hand in reversing desertification, which is a huge problem in certain areas of the world.   
Additionally, we can make crops that do not need as many pesticides,- by using sterile insects that prey on pests- which can also help the environment.  Synthetic biology can also be used to make more organisms that more efficiently produce medicinal compounds and can be used to better understand other genomes, to better combat disease.

All of this is great, we can use novel techniques in agriculture to help with several human plights; however, we cannot be SURE how synthetic biology will impact biodiversity.  We also have to consider how much this will impact the growth rate of humans (and others) and if the increase in biodiversity will really be artificial due to fact that these organisms will mostly be made in a consumerist construct.  How will capitalism factor into the use of synthetic biology in agriculture? Will it lead us to over-use lands and further decimate our resources? Will we just be delaying our (inevitable) collapse?


A video on ending world hunger (TED talk)

Haute Cuisine: Redefining playing with your food

By: Veronique Etienne

Although making a funny face with your food or the some intro credits may be fun, would you eat food that could actually interact with you?  Artists in haute cuisine are trying to make this happen by utilizing synthetic biology.  The principle is simple, by inserting genes, we can make food that is sensitive to touch, but does not process the pain of being eaten.  But is this maybe taking eating “raw” a little too far.  How can we guarantee that the organisms do not process the pain, plus will this further desensitize us from the gruesome reality that our mass produced food endure.  Or can we simply negate this as something that will only be served in specialty restaurants?

Source

Synthetic Vanilla: Are you going to eat that?

By: Natya Hans

image source: http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/case4.png

Synthetic Vanilla or Vanillin has been produced by  Switzerland based company called Evola and it is being claimed as a substitute for natural vanilla. The cause of concern among the public in general has been the lack of labeling the synthetic Vanilla. 

Vanillin is  made by  adding genes to yeast to produce new enzymes, which, along with  the yeast’s own enzymes,  enables it  to convert a compound like glucose into the desired product. They say they have developed an economically feasible and environmentally friendly method of product vanillin via fermentation. Researchers have studied three potential approaches: a genomic approach, a biochemical approach and a proteomic approach. 

How have they done it? Read the complete article here: http://aem.asm.org/content/75/9/2765.short

Evola has acquired facilities in United States, Denmark and India and has become a public company since 2009 .The Evola claims it to be" natural vanilla product with a superior taste, great naturalness".

Synthetic biology vanillin has caused several human health, environmental and economic concerns for consumers. food companies and other stake holders. With its potential role in destruction of the rainforest, farmers and the otherpoor communities across the globe are likely to be affected.  The farmers are concened that the synbio vanilla disguised as "natural" could easily displace the demand of natural vanilla and they won;t have a way to protect the rainforest from being utilized for other commercial crops. 

image source:http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/1a/4/3131/vanilla-fb-graphic-06_copy.jpg

A campaign by an organization called "Friends of the Earth" has been going on against the use of synthetic vanilla in ice creams which can be accessed here:   http://action.foe.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=14160.  The campaign is to protest that the ice cream giants should not use synthetic vanilla as it is not labelled and cannot be distinguished from the natural vanilla. 

The livelihood of Madagascar farmer's largely depends upon the cultivation of the vanilla pods.

source: 1. http://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/emergingissues-2013-07-WilsonCenter-SynbioApplicationsInventory-en.pdf
2. http://organicmattersblog.com/2013/09/24/synthetic-biology-the-next-generation-of-genetic-engineering/
3. http://vanilla.com/?s=synthetic%20biology
4. http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/67/3/3132/1/synbio_vanillin_fact_sheet.pdf
5. http://www.evolva.com/products/vanilla

Opinions: Playing the Devil's Advocate

By: Natya Hans


It was not very long ago that Einstein coined a very famous phrase- “God does not play dice” to which Niels Bohr, his lifelong rival in Quantum Theory replied- “Einstein, please stop telling God what to do”. It’s no hidden fact that even Laplace and Newton could not disassociate themselves from the “God, with a capital G, angle” and even Stephen Hawking has to give a lecture or two to clarify the position of theoretical physicist being distinct from God theorists. Case in point- science and God often cross their paths, at least in theoretical debates.  I aim to tackle the playing God argument (while God is allowed to play or not play dice depending on his wish) and the Frankenstein motif that’s frequently levied on synthetic biologists and approach the whole subject matter from a philosophical standpoint rather than that of a biologist.

image source: http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Chair-groups/Agrotechnology-and-Food-Sciences/Laboratory-of-Systems-and-Synthetic-Biology/Research/Synthetic-Biology-1/Synthetic-Biology-Mark-van-Passel.htm

I shall call the starting point  the “knowing and making” theory. Immanuel Kant was one of the chief proponents of this and to quote him- “reason has insight only into what it itself produces according to its own plan”. The idea that there is a very close connection between knowing and making, between understanding an object and the ability to create or (re-)assemble it, is not at all foreign to the tradition of western science and philosophy. In several respects, synthetic chemistry is indeed a historical precursor to present-day synthetic biology; no wonder some contemporary practitioners attempt to draw heuristic lessons from this example. Synthetic biology may also have inherited some of the cultural ambivalences and reservations pertaining to the ‘natural-versus-artificial’ dichotomy from synthetic chemistry. The ability to design new life forms based on writing and rewriting quaternary codes of DNA nucleotides makes synthetic biologists closer in analogy to software designers rather than God, unless one is ready to draw an analogy between software designers and God as well! However, the root of the ethical problem lies not within the design of life form but in an apparent loss in the special meaning of life because of the juxtaposition of a seemingly reductionist view that synthetic biology casts on its cursory examination. The important thing to keep in mind is that life is not DNA, and with utmost certainty, life is not explained or understood in totality by the identification or synthesis of genomes. The fact remains that life is not a solitary phenomenon as cells come together in colonies and organisms in ecosystems hence making the understanding of a single life dependent on understanding its relationship with matter, energy and other lives. Engineering new forms of life starts with setting up a biological assembly line, the living equivalent of a transportation innovation. Synthetic biologists aim to reinvent biology in the same way Henry Ford revolutionized automobile manufacturing. Instead of installing standardized spark plugs or carburetors as a car moves down the line, the scientists tuck brand-new biological parts into the body of a bacterium. Born as an offshoot of genetic engineering, synthetic biology differs from it because unlike genetic engineering it does not work backwards to identify a cell with a desirable trait but rather designing new ones by taking a cue from electrical engineers and making synthetic genetic circuits with biological parts acting as transistors, resistors and capacitors.

Right throughout are lives we see two sets of people clashing with each other- one who believe in Creationism and the other who cites Evolution. Although most scientists are quick to deny that they are attempting to play God or following in Frankenstein’s footsteps, sometimes the more intrepid among them adopt a more defiant attitude. We have seen that at one point Craig Venter invited a comparison of his team’s work with that of Frankenstein by claiming ‘Shelley would have loved this!’. And James Watson’s famous retort ‘If scientists don’t play God, who else is going to?’ Among the believers in Creationism, there are two sets- strong and weak believers. Weak believers assign synthetic biology its unethical position by proclaiming that genetic manipulation is an interference with the nature while strong believers cite the synthetic approach as an encroachment in the work that has usually been assigned to be a divine prerogative.

With these two views in mind, the debate boils down to whether we are ready to endorse synthetic biology for its purported (some achieved) benefits, such as

a)      Tweaking photosynthesis for better crop yield- One idea is that new enzymes could boost the amount of energy that plants can extract from the sun. Another suggests there might be a totally different way to pull usable carbon from the atmosphere.

b)      Energy- Since 2000, the U.S. Department of Energy has poured millions of dollars into funding synthetic biology biofuels research, such as new types of algae to secrete biodiesel or other engineered fuels that don’t have to be pumped from the ground.

c)       Treatments- Researchers managed to engineer a species of yeast to produce large amounts of a chemical precursor to the anti­malarial drug artemisinin, typically harvested from the wormwood tree of east Asia. The pharmaceutical company Sanofi is now working to bring the process to market.

d)      Cleaning up- Microbes are already used at oil spill sites, eating petroleum components and converting them into less hazardous by-products. Designing synthetic versions that can do the job quicker, and perhaps break down more stubborn pollutants such as pesticides and radioactive waste, would be a logical next step.

In the defense of synthetic biology, I would like to cite Richard Feynman’s quote “What I cannot see, I cannot understand”. Rather than sticking to the criticism of what are just assumed dangers, a much more logical step would be to progress in a direction that reaps benefits and leads life to even more vitality.

Synthetic biology and man made life

TO CREATE life is the prerogative of gods.  Yet it may come as a shock, then, that mere mortals have now made artificial life -- through synthetic genetic engineering.

……, but what if a home-brew synthetic-biology club were accidentally to launch a real virus or bacterium? What if a terrorist were to do the same deliberately? The Economist magazine has something to say on synthetic biology.

http://www.economist.com/node/16163154 

Latest Research

1. Mutated Virus Helps to Build a Better Battery

Nov. 14, 2013

By spreading a genetically modified virus onto microscopic electrode wires, MIT's researchers have shown that the performance of lithium-air batteries can be significantly improved -- a remarkable breakthrough that could revolutionize the way our electric devices are powered, according to a research published in Nature.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/mutated-virus-helps-builds-a-better-battery-131114.htm

2. Scientists Recode Genome to Boost Virus Resistance 

Oct. 18, 2013

In a potentially far reaching breakthrough, Yale and Harvard scientists have recoded the E. coli's genome to improve its resistance to viruses by replacing all UAG stop codons with synonymous UAA codons as well as consigning nonstandard amino acids for UAG's translation, according to a new paper published in Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/357.full

3. Synthetic Biology Could Speed Flu Vaccine Production

May 14, 2013

              

Synthetic biologists have revolutionized conventional vaccine production, so that manufacturers could release vaccine more quickly when outbreaks, like the bird flu, occur.  Moreover, synthetic biology could also be a source of new medical treatments for conditions including things like diabetes..

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514661/synthetic-biology-could-speed-flu-vaccine-production/

4.  Cornell iGEM 2013- Fungal Biomaterials

Aug. 19, 2013

The International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition is a worldwide synthetic biology competition that was initially aimed at undergraduate university students. This year, Cornell iGEM is developing a toolkit of genetic parts for engineering fungi, which will improve the use of fungi in developing sustainable and eco-friendly technologies.

http://2013.igem.org/Team:Cornell 

Introduction: What is Synthetic Biology

By: Veronique Etienne

Well, synthetic biology covers a broad array of subjects so here are three major concepts of syn bio*: 

● “the design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and systems and the re-design of existing, natural biological systems for useful purposes”
● “a scientific discipline that relies on chemically synthesized DNA, along with standardized and automatable processes, to address human needs by the creation of organisms with novel or enhanced characteristics or traits”
● a scientific focus on the design and fabrication of biological components and systems that do not already exist in the natural world, and on the re-design and fabrication of existing biological systems

Potential applications*:

● bioenergy: synthetic fuels, biofuels, electricity, hydrogen, etc.
● agriculture and food production: engineered crops, pest control, fertilizers, etc.
● environmental protection and remediation: restoration, monitoring, detection, etc.
● consumer products: computers, sporting goods, cosmetics, etc.
● chemical production: industrial compounds, high-value compounds, plastics, chemical synthesis, etc.
● human health: medical drugs and devices, over-the-counter medicine, clinical therapies, etc.

These lists were taken from a framing paper: How will synthetic biology and conservation shape the future of nature? Source

So a few questions for you:

Is this worth the risk? 

We've seen lots failures in the scientific world to properly inform and protect the public.  Do you think this new technology- with its potential benefit/harm- is really necessary?