Drew Endy: Snythetic biology is sort of focused for me on how you make the process of engineering biology easier, quicker, and cheaper, more reliable.
Drew Endy is an assistant professor in the Department of Bioengineering at Stanford University. He spoke with EarthSky about an emerging field of science called synthetic biology. It relies in part, he said, on new biotechnology tools.
Drew Endy: A tool that allows you to, instead of cutting and pasting pieces of DNA – genetic material that already exists – to build new genetic material from scratch. People are constructing cells, and circuits within cells – genetic circuits, not electronic circuits.
Dr. Endy pointed to the development of an antimalarial drug called artemisinin as a successful product of synthetic biology. In this case, the technique was used to construct a new strain of bacteria to produce the drug. He also talked about future goals of synthetic biology, for example engineering more nitrogen-fixing capacity into plants.
Drew Endy: Imagine if you had a grass that could emit light at night so you didn’t need to wire up some little electric light bulbs.
Endy also acknowledged the risks.
Drew Eddy: If I could try and communicate one idea, it’s that because the field is so new, the tools are going to change a lot over time. And that means that we need to learn enough and prepare to have conversations that we just don’t happen once, but conversations that are ongoing conversations.
Dr. Endy answered the question of what synthetic biology is, and whether scientists are actually creating life with it.
Drew Endy: If you go into the dictionary and you just think about what those two words mean – construction or creation – creation implies that you’re a God. You have unlimited power. You have an ability to manipulate the universe and matter that’s unlimited. You don’t have a budget. You’re infinitely powerful. You have a perfect understanding. You’re all-knowing. That’s not who I am. That’s not who we are as people, as human beings. We have a budget, we have a very crude understanding of how the universe works, we have a limited ability to change and manipulate materials.
Endy said he and his colleagues prefer to say they are ‘constructing’ things:
Drew Endy: Now constructing things doesn’t mean that it’s not impressive. And it doesn’t mean that the things that get made don’t help us ask questions or better understand ourselves. So if you could construct an entire living organism from scratch, as others are trying to work on, what we most stand to gain from that, I would argue, is an unbelievably improved understanding of how life works.
Open program platforms to advocate inovation through the sharing of knowledge…WOW! That would require data sets and basing to the moon (extreme amount of work)! Very true though security and safety should remain in focus. I would love to help with the bio-IT portion some day!
Yep research is already going this way. I believe too there is research ongoing torward making type O- blood in a test tube so that it can be available on demand from no donor – just made from scratch. For example, I have type O- blood it is a universal donor type, all can receive, and if it can be synthesized then that could be an option for all without the need for donors. Thanks Earthsky and Dr. Endy for the post!
Thanks for your comments, Shelly. The emerging science of synthetic biology has many dimensions, including both technical and ethical.
I just got word on twitter (I’m @jorge_salazar) from @InterfaceSynBio of a public meeting this November called, “Creating the organisms that evolution forgot – An ‘Any Questions?’ debate on synthetic biology” http://bit.ly/AzPE6 . Check it out.
Alright, will do Jorge Salazar. Great to hear of the tip! Also, I\’ll try to look of the @InterfaceSynBio on Twitter.
Thank you, Shelley.
Wow, this field of science is quite interesting, no, I’d say fascinating! There might be some moral issues involved for some people but this science could really create extraordinary things.
You mention “Imagine if you had a grass that could emit light at night” Boy, I hope you do research before you go creating stuff like that! As it is now, birds in migration are suffering the effects of light pollution…imagine what it could be like if the lawns glowed, too. Sheeshhhhhhhhhhh!
While I understand how much good SOME of this science could be, I wish we’d pay attention to the repercussions before we go setting new ‘creatures’ loose. Would grass that glowed at night still feed the worms? What might glowing grass do to the dirt underneath it? I just hope this kind of science gets run by others before its let loose in the real world.
I can see incredible good that come out of creating a library, if you will, of genetic codes. I think as long as we focus on being cure-ors and not creators, humanity will be well served. When we cross the line to creating new life forms or “tweaking” existing forms we step onto dangerous ground, fraught with unknown perils borne out of unintended consequences.
Nature spent billions of years perfecting its designs. There is something very counter intuitive to me in believing we have a sufficiently complete understanding of nature’s designs to throw biological wrenches into such a perfectly tuned system with the unreasonable expectation of a favorable outcome in all cases. There will be successes but it is the failures that are of grave concern.
Much good can come out of understanding genetic codes and building blocks. We can find cures to genetic diseases like cancer, improve genetic testing (like emerging gene SNIPs protein code mass spectrometry detection), create new methods of drug delivery, even save endangered species weakened by the loss of genetic diversity. But to play “what if” with mother nature out of scientific curiosity is begging to be taught a most unpleasant lesson – one which I hope we survive. Let us not forget the old saying “curiosity killed the cat.”
People, don’t worry. It doesn’t work.