Synthetic Biology!

Scientific American reported last week that 'The first microbe to live entirely by genetic code synthesized by humans has started proliferating at a lab in the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI). Venter and his colleagues used a synthetic genome—the genetic instruction set for life—to build and operate a new, synthetic strain of Mycoplasma mycoides bacteria...' (Bello, 2010) What they omitted to tell the general public is that Mycoplasma mycoides is a parasite that lives in ruminants (cattle and goats) causing lung disease.

This is not the first time scientists have created synthetic viruses. David Whitehouse reported on the BBC News in 2002 that scientists had created a synthetic polio virus and although smallpox has been eradicated, specimens of it are held in laboratories in the United States and Russia. Theoretically, it could be recreated and used as a biological weapon. However, since only a few scientists have the skills to create synthetic organisms, one imagines that they would never be involved in undertaking anything that would jeopardise human life. To produce a biological weapon, one not only requires skill to create the virus, the ability to store and preserve them, but also to disperse them efficiently for a successful terrorist attack. Tucker and Zilinkas, (2006) argue that synthetic biology itself will not lead to an increase in terrorism, but they do identity 'lone operators' and 'bio-hackers' as individuals likely to present real problems. They identify a 'lone operator' as a highly skilled biologist who may have a grudge against an individual or government and a 'bio-hacker' is someone who may attempt to make a synthetic virus to show his prowess!

Indeed, it may not be rogue individuals or countries that we need worry about. There is some concern that the reasons given for creating synthetic biological agents may in fact be masking the real agenda, which is to create organisms/agents that have a dual use - some that are beneficial to mankind, others which are not.

There will be ongoing debates as to whether these synthetic organisms may be considered as living and whether those creating them are tampering with nature ~ I think, that whilst this may be interesting on a number of levels, perhaps, rather than being concerned about these questions, we might instead ask: Who will benefit in the long term from this technology? Will it end up benefiting only those in the West, but be inhibiting for poorer countries? What safeguards are in place during the experimental phase of the technology that will ensure that microbes, such as Mycoplasma mycoides don't proliferate and escape from the laboratory environment? What might the outcomes be if a synthetic biological organism infiltrates a 'natural' one? Many questions need to be answered. In the meantime scientists continue to create clones, genetically engineer organisms and transplant organs and other genetic material from animal to humans. Much of what they are undertaking cannot be understood by the general public, that is why it's important that we have experts who understand the science and technology and endeavour to impart it in very clear terms to the ordinary person.

Tucker, J.B., Zilinskas, R.A., (2006), 'The promise and perils of synthetic biology', The Atlantis news, Spring, 2006.

Whitehouse David , 'First Synthetic Virus Created, BBC News, 11 July, 2002.