Synthetic Biology

Social and Ethical Challenges

Andrew Balmer & Paul Martin

Institute for Science and Society

University of Nottingham

An independent review commissioned by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)

1
Table of contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................ 3

Synthetic Biology: social and ethical challenges ..................................................... 6

1. What is Synthetic Biology?.................................................................................. 6

2. Something Old, Something New ......................................................................... 7

3. Developing the Field of Synthetic Biology ......................................................... 10

4. Synthethics, or Synbioethics: the rise of concerns about Synthetic Biology...... 14

5. Uncontrolled Release........................................................................................ 15

6. Bioterrorism....................................................................................................... 18

7. Patenting and the Creation of Monopolies ........................................................ 23

8. Trade and Global Justice .................................................................................. 25

9. Creating Artificial Life ........................................................................................ 26

10. Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................ 29

References............................................................................................................ 33

Disclaimer and acknowledgments

This review was commissioned by a working group of the Bioscience for Society

Strategy (BSS) Panel of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research

Council (BBSRC). BBSRC is not responsible for the views expressed in the report or

the accuracy of its content. These are solely the responsibility of the authors.

We would like to thank the BBSRC BSS Panel, Brian Johnson, Ben Davis and other

members of the synthetic biology working group, and Sharon Fortune and Maggie

Leggett of BBSRC Office for their support, comments and advice in producing this

report. We would also like to thank Filippa Lentzos and Jane Calvert for their

valuable feedback and the comments from a number of anonymous reviewers.

Please address all correspondence to: [email protected]

Dr. Paul Martin

The Institute for Science and Society,

West Wing, Law and Social Sciences Building,

University Park, the University of Nottingham,

Nottingham, Nottinghamshire,

NG72RD

May 2008

2
 Executive Summary
1. What is Synthetic Biology?
There is no agreed definition of synthetic biology, but it is best understood as the
deliberate design of biological systems and living organisms using engineering
principles.

2. Something Old, Something New

The technological manipulation of life was first advocated at the turn of the last
century and was instrumental in shaping the rise of molecular biology. However, the
widespread use of the term has only occurred since the mid-2000s, as the field has
emerged owing to the falling cost of gene sequencing and synthesis. The aims of
synthetic biology include: 1) the production of minimal living genomes; 2) the design
of interchangeable parts that can be assembled into pathways for the fabrication of
novel components; 3) the construction of entirely artificial cells; and 4) the creation of
synthetic biomolecules.

3. Developing the Field of Synthetic Biology

The field of synthetic biology is still in its infancy, although there has been a rapid rise
in research activity. Public funding has come largely from the US with major
investment from the Departments of Defense and Energy. In addition, commercial
and charitable interest has come mostly from wealthy individuals and venture capital,
with much of this investment being made in companies founded by leading
academics. The EU’s New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST)
programme has provided early stage funding for 18 synthetic biology research and
policy projects. In the UK a series of Networks in Synthetic Biology have recently
been funded by BBSRC and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC), with additional support from the Arts and Humanities Research
Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)1.

4. Synthetics, or Synbioethics:
The rise of concerns about Synthetic Biology
Many parallels have been drawn between the early development of recombinant
DNA technology in the 1970s and synthetic biology. A number of key ethical and
social issues raised by the technology have been debated, including:

5. Uncontrolled Release
One of the main aims of synthetic biology is the creation of novel genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), which may have utility in the production of energy and
bioremediation. However, such a prospect raises concerns about their accidental
release into the environment, as by their very nature such biological machines could
evolve, proliferate and produce unexpected interactions that might alter the
ecosystem. A number of measures are being proposed or adopted to ensure
adequate biological control, including: engineering bacteria to be dependent on
nutrients with limited availability; and integration of self-destruct mechanisms that are
triggered should the population density become too great.

1
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/opportunities/2007/synthetic_biology.html

3
6. Bioterrorism
The ability of synthetic biology to produce known, modified or new microorganisms
designed to be hostile to humans is a major concern, and has been demonstrated by
the synthesis of the polio virus and the pandemic Spanish Flu virus of 1918. A major
issue in this respect is the ready availability and poor control over commercial DNA
synthesis. Furthermore, in the future ‘garage biology’ (synthetic biology at home) may
be established as a hobby. However, most concern arises from state-level biological
warfare programmes. A number of proposals have been made by both scientific
groups and government agencies to address the dual use (military/civilian) nature of
synthetic genomics, including: controls over commercial DNA synthesis and public
research; and considering the impact of synthetic biology on international
bioweapons conventions. As yet there is no policy consensus on these issues.
Furthermore, there is an ongoing debate about whether improved biosecurity
measures should be achieved through professional self-regulation or formal statutory
oversight.

7. Patenting and the Creation of Monopolies

The drive to create a microorganism that can turn biomass into fuels such as ethanol
or hydrogen is a major focus of research, which has prompted a concern that
patenting may lead to the creation of commercial monopolies or inhibit basic
research. In response, there have been moves to develop an open-source movement
(based on so called BioBricks) involving creation of a ‘commons’ that will facilitate
open scientific research.

8. Trade and Global Justice

Perhaps the biggest success in synthetic biology to date has been in the production
of terpenoids for the manufacture of the antimalarial medicine artemisinin, a drug that
holds significant promise for worldwide malaria victims. However, there are concerns
that synthetic artemisinin would ensure that no local production of natural Artemisia
could be sustained in developing countries, thereby maintaining the discrepancy of
wealth and health between rich and poor nations.

9. Creating Artificial Life

One of the most potent promises of synthetic biology is the creation of ‘artificial life’.
This has provoked fears about scientists ‘playing God’ and raises philosophical and
religious concerns about the nature of life and the process of creation. It has been
suggested that a stable definition of ‘life’ is impossible and that synthetic biologists
are confused over what life is, where it begins and particularly, how complex it must
be. In response a number of scientists have proposed a modified version of Turing’s
test for life imitation. However, it is unclear whether these moves to undermine lay
concepts of life will ameliorate deeper fears about the blurring of the boundary
between the artificial and the natural world.

10. Conclusion and Recommendations

Synthetic biology should be understood in terms of both well established traditions
within molecular biology and as an emerging field in its own right. Whilst concerns
should be contextualised in this historical approach, it is important to recognise that
something new and important is happening. In part this represents a growing
confidence in the scientific community to undertake the project of engineering life, but
it also marks the maturity of a series of powerful technologies, which may be
converging with other developments in computing, materials science and

4
nanotechnology. However, whilst rapid scientific progress is possible, it must be
recognised that translating this knowledge into real world applications is often a slow
process requiring significant investment.

1. It is vital to recognise the importance of maintaining public legitimacy and support.

In order to achieve this, scientific research must not get too far ahead of public
attitudes and potential applications should demonstrate clear social benefits.
Furthermore, the potential benefits of the technology must not be overhyped for this
risks both creating excessive public anxiety and unrealistic hopes.

2. The scientific community must take, and be seen to be taking, a lead in debating
the implications of their research and engaging with broader society around the
issues raised by synthetic biology.

3. Partnership with civil society groups, social scientists and ethicists should be
pursued as a highly effective way of understanding critical issues, engaging with
publics and winning support for emerging scientific fields. Experiments in upstream
engagement and public consultation should be undertaken to provide a valuable
channel for helping negotiate the boundaries of what is socially acceptable science.

4. A robust governance framework must be in place before the applications of

synthetic biology are realised. This will require a thorough review of existing controls
and regulations, and the development of new measures, particularly relating to
biosafety, environmental release and biosecurity.

Research agencies, such as the BBSRC, have an important role, not only in terms of
funding the best science, but also in steering and shaping the field. Thus research
can be undertaken in a way that ensures ongoing public support and realises the
potential social and economic benefits of these powerful technologies, whilst
controlling risks in a way that reassures both the public and the scientific community.

5
Synthetic Biology: social and ethical challenges
Synthetic biology is an exciting multidisciplinary field that promises many benefits,
whilst at the same time raising important social and ethical issues. Yet although it is a
rapidly emerging field, it must be stressed that work on synthetic biology is still at a
very early stage with relatively few UK researchers choosing to call themselves
synthetic biologists and no dedicated funding stream supporting these activities.
However, this looks set to change in the near future, with funding agencies such as
the BBSRC, EPSRC and the Medical Research Council (MRC) playing a key role in
creating this new area of investigation. This report has been commissioned as part of
the activities of a BBSRC Strategy Panel working group that has been considering
the main social and ethical issues that might be of concern to the public as regards
synthetic biology. It is hoped that it will help inform debate in both the scientific
community and the wider public more generally, so that some of the sensitive issues
that might arise as the field advances can be taken into account at an early stage.

This report therefore aims to briefly review the main social and ethical issues raised
in public debates about synthetic biology. In particular, it draws on media reports,
academic publications and grey literature mostly published in the last five years. The
first two sections provide some definitions of synthetic biology and summarise the
central areas of scientific research. This is followed by a description of how the
science and technology has developed in recent years, the emergence of public
debate about its implications and the policy response to these concerns in a number
of key areas. Finally, some reflections on the lessons that might be learnt from the
earlier debates over genetic engineering and recommendations for policy are offered
in the conclusion.

1. What is Synthetic Biology?

Synthetic biologists have been debating their neologism for years. Rob Carlson, an
early advocate of the subject, recalls the various appellations of ‘Intentional Biology’,
‘Constructive Biology’, ‘Natural Engineering’, ‘Synthetic Genomics’ and ‘Biological
Engineering’2. Quoting ‘Making Sense of Life’ by Evelyn Fox Keller in his forthcoming
book ‘Learning to Fly: the past, present and future of Biological Technology’ Carlson
suggests that the term ‘Synthetic Biology’ has been in use for over a century and as
such its continued employ is somewhat inevitable3. Though some of these varied
terms are deployed simultaneously, it does appear from reviews of the literature that
‘Synthetic Biology’ is becoming the dominant term describing this new field.

What seems to be at stake in this struggle for nomenclature is not only the
establishment of a disjunction, the drawing up of boundaries for a new field, but also
the weight of social implications and public (mis)understandings of what it promises
to achieve. Indeed, due to internal fears over possible incitement of anti-recombinant-
DNA riots the proposed title of Steven Benner’s 1988 conference in Switzerland,
‘Redesigning Life’, had to be renamed [Ball 2004]. There seems to be a fear that the
single word synthetic connotes negative images of monstrous life forms let loose by
maniacal scientists. However, it is certain that whilst terminology plays a role in
perception, the fears for and about synthetic biology will not be allayed by simply
changing its name.
2
Rob Carlson’s Blog http://synthesis.typepad.com/synthesis/2006/05/synthetic_biolo_1.html
3
Pages from his book available at: http://www.biologyistechnology.com/

6
Whatever umbrella term is placed over the research the goals are broadly similar and
can be summarised thus:

[synthetic biology] attempts to recreate in unnatural chemical systems the

emergent properties of living systems … [the] engineering community has
given further meaning to the title…to extract from living systems
interchangeable parts that might be tested, validated as construction units,
and reassembled to create devices that might (or might not) have analogues
in living systems. - Benner and Sismour 2005

The development of well characterized biological components that can be

easily assembled into larger functioning devices and systems to accomplish
many particular goals - Jay Keasling speaking at the Synthetic Biology 2.0
conference at Haas Business School UC Berkeley 4

However, a questionnaire from SYNBIOLOGY5 indicates that key stakeholders in the

field can’t agree on exactly what synthetic biology is [SYNBIOLOGY 2006], but at
heart synthetic biology is the deliberate design of biological systems and living
organisms using engineering principles. This idea has a long history that can be
traced to the foundation of modern biology at the outset of the 20th century.

2. Something Old, Something New

The scientifically compelling idea of the technological manipulation of life was first
advocated by Jacques Loeb at the turn of the last century. In particular, he
elaborated a materialistic and mechanistic view of living things which would allow
them to be engineered [Pauly, 1987]. This 'engineering principle' in biology directly
influenced many of the early leaders in genetics, including both Morgan and Muller,
the latter testifying that after he read Loeb's work in 1911, his major scientific goal
was to control evolution [Ibid., p177]. This objective played a key role in Muller's
search for a means of artificially creating mutations and eventually led him to
successfully experiment with X-rays [Ibid., p179]. Muller's work was fundamentally
important as it was the first demonstration that heredity could be artificially
manipulated by means other than selective breeding.

The aim of engineering life was also instrumental in shaping the development of what
became known as molecular biology during the 1930s. A key factor in the emergence
of this new science and the realisation of what Kay has called the 'molecular vision of
life' was the role of the Rockefeller Foundation in sponsoring a very large programme
of research into the physical and chemical basis of life [Kay, 1993]. Before the war
the Foundation was the largest source of funding for basic research in biology, with
Federal government support only becoming significant after 1945. Between 1932­
1959 it invested over $25 million in molecular biology in the USA [Ibid., p6].

The concept of living things as having machine-like properties that can be

deliberately altered became institutionalised in the rise of post-war molecular biology
and was clearly articulated by pioneer researchers such as Monod, Rostand and
Tatum. Despite this, it was only in 1974 that the Polish geneticist Waclaw Szybalski
introduced the term "synthetic biology" at the birth of the recombinant DNA era:

4
Video available at: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=15766
5
One of the programmes funded by NEST – more detail can be found below.

7
 Let me now comment on the question "what next". Up to now we are working
on the descriptive phase of molecular biology. ... But the real challenge will
start when we enter the synthetic biology phase of research in our field. We
will then devise new control elements and add these new modules to the
existing genomes or build up wholly new genomes. This would be a field with
the unlimited expansion potential and hardly any limitations to building "new
better control circuits" and .... finally other "synthetic” organisms, like a "new
better mouse". ... I am not concerned that we will run out of exciting and novel
ideas, ... in the synthetic biology, in general. [Szybalski, 1974].

However, the widespread use of the term synthetic biology has only occurred since
the mid-2000s. The reasons for this are complex, but the resurgence of interest in the
idea of using engineering principles to create artificial life is largely down to the falling
cost of gene sequencing and synthesis following the completion of the human
genome project and the development of high speed automation. In this sense,
advances in the speed and scale of existing technologies, rather than the arrival of
new ones, have enabled the realisation of one of the longest held promises of
modern biology.

2.1 The Scope of Synthetic Biology

Research within synthetic biology can be explored through one of two approaches:
top-down, or bottom-up. The top-down approach attempts to eliminate the problem of
natural complexity by removing it, e.g. by stripping a genome of all genetic material
that is not absolutely essential for replication and functionality. The bottom-up
approach uses naturally occurring organisms that appear to have little complexity
and adds the required functions by engineering them into the existing genome. There
are a number of major areas of research that constitute the field of synthetic biology.
These can crudely be broken down under the following headings: making minimal
genomes; designing modular components; pathway engineering; expanding the
genetic pool; production of artificial cells; and creation of synthetic biomolecules.

a) Minimal Genomes
The production of minimal genome microbes entails experiments designed to
determine the smallest number of genes required for a bacterium to survive and
follows the top-down approach to synthetic biology. Craig Venter’s team at the
Institute for Genomic Research began to experiment with the bacterium Mycoplasma
genitalium in the 1990s. This research built on a survey of the M. genitalium genome
using random sequencing [Peterson 1993] and resulted in the estimation of a gene
complement of 470 coding regions for such things as DNA repair, energy metabolism
and other essential processes [Fraser et al 1995]. This figure was reduced to 386
essential genes by 20056. The production of minimal living genomes is undertaken to
produce a ‘chassis’ that can have other synthetic pathways added [ETC 2007],
thereby enabling various products to be made from the same basic organism. It is
hoped that these basic cells could be utilised for such things as producing efficient
fuel alternatives or as a means to slow climate change. Though the basic science
involved in the production of these minimal genomes, predominantly gene knockout
technology, has been utilised for some time, the outcome of such experimentation in
the production of minimal genomes is relatively new. Furthermore, the development

6
http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/pubs/2005abstracts/html/file42.shtml

8
of those minimal genome microbes into working systems for the production of fuels
or clean up of environmental contaminants is still at a very early stage.

b) Modular Components, Pathway Engineering and the Expanded Gene Pool

Whereas other disciplines in biology are seen to struggle with modelling and
describing the complexity of systems, the engineering perspective strips the system
to its bare bones and then develops a ‘limited number of well characterized,
standardized objects’ [Pleiss 2006], which can be modelled using present computing
capacity. These standardized objects, or interchangeable parts [Benner and Sismour
2005], represent a top-down approach to synthetic biology and can be built from first
principles, in a hierarchical manner, into complex systems, in which each component
and its interactions are known. This predictability means that at every level in the
hierarchy in a system the details of how the components are constructed from parts
is irrelevant. Thereby the abstraction of design and fabrication can be accomplished,
meaning that complex machines can be developed from a small number of basic
modular elements7.

To achieve this engineering abstraction research is intensively focused both on the

standardization of these interchangeable parts and the decoupling of complex
systems into more manageable components [Endy 2005]. This allows for researchers
dispersed across the world to collaborate independently. A registry of these
standardized parts is being developed at MIT8, where they are increasingly known as
BioBricks. MIT also runs an annual international competition for undergraduate
students to design a system using BioBricks called iGEM9.

Benner and Sismour [2005] outline the two types of interchangeable parts being
developed by the synthetic biology community: DNA and proteins. Deoxyribonucleic
acid has proven to be an excellent structure for modification since the backbone that
supports the base pairs is relatively stable, even when entirely synthetic nucleic acids
are added to the sequence. Slight modifications to the DNA polymerase enzyme
allow for normal ‘reading’ of a DNA sequence that contains nucleotides other than
AGCT [Benner and Sismour 2005]. The two artificial nucleotides produced by
Benner’s team are K and X, forming what he calls AEGIS (An Expanded Genetic
Information System).

In contrast, the search for protein-based interchangeable parts has proven more
difficult. Engineering proteins by modifying the amino acid sequence in a predictable
fashion is a highly complex process due to the secondary and tertiary structures that
proteins arrange themselves into. Amino acids interact with each other causing the
chain to fold and bend into a three dimensional structure that is hard to anticipate
from sequence data alone. As such, attempts to engineer interchangeable parts have
so far been successful mostly by DNA modification.

The production of pathways made up of these interchangeable parts is the ultimate

goal and progress has been made along those lines by the Gate’s Foundation-
backed Berkeley team. In collaboration with Amyris Biotechnologies they have been
developing a synthetic pathway for the production of naturally occurring compounds
known as isoprenoids. This is explored further in Section 8 below.

7
See: http://openwetware.org/wiki/Image:AbstractionHierarchy.jpg for a visual explanation
8
The MIT BioBricks Project is a Wiki of standard biological parts that have been designed with standard prefix and suffix
sequences such that they can be assembled using well known cloning techniques.
9
International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Main_Page

9
c) Artificial Cells
The creation of artificial cells operates through a bottom-up process, as opposed to
the top-down strategies so far described [ETC 2007]. Scientists such as Steen
Rasmussen, who was awarded a $5m grant from the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, are attempting to build life-like cells from scratch [ETC 2007]. They place
three components at the centre of that project: a system of metabolism; an
information-storing molecule; and a membrane to hold it together. Rasmussen’s team
is developing a ‘protocell’10. The protocell is different from naturally occurring cells,
or minimal living organisms, perhaps most evidently in the use of Peptide Nucleic
Acid (PNA) in place of DNA. PNA uses peptides in place of the DNA sugar-
phosphate backbone. Rasmussen’s lab is just one of the 13 partners in the PACE
(Programmable Artificial Cell Evolution) consortium11. This research network aims to
produce self-organising, evolvable, life-like systems to make the next generation of
self-repairing computer and robotics technologies and to ‘direct all kinds of complex
production and remediation on the nanoscale’12.

d) Synthetic Biomolecules
As earlier indicated the search for interchangeable parts through protein modification
has proven complex due to the secondary and tertiary structural features of these
molecules. The modification of amino acid sequences after they have been
transcribed from genes in the cell can greatly alter the functionality of the sequence,
offering some explanation for the observed discrepancy between low gene number
and increased complexity in the higher animals. British scientists [van Kasteren et al.
2007] have recently developed a chemical tagging system that utilises established
GM techniques (the LacZ reporter enzyme scaffold) to attach post-translation
modifications to amino acid sequences, thereby producing proteins that have
functions such as detecting mammalian brain inflammation and disease. Other
examples of protein modification are detailed in a Science perspectives article [Davis
2004], and include such things as the construction of a synthetic mimic of
erythropoietin that has a prolonged circulation time in the body [Kochendoerfer et al
2003].

3. Developing the Field of Synthetic Biology

A major conference, Synthetic Biology 1.0 convened at MIT in June 2004 announced
the world’s first synthetic biology department. The follow-up event Synthetic Biology
2.0 was held at Berkeley in 2006, and SB 3.0 in Zurich 200713. In the UK the major
synthetic biology conference BioSysBio was inaugurated in 2007 at the University of
Manchester and continues at Imperial College London in 200814. Synthetic biology
has been particularly successful at encouraging young engineers to actively
participate in the field through the International Genetically Engineered Machine
(iGEM) competition15 that has run annually since 2006. In 2007 some 56 university or
national teams took part, coming from twenty countries, including four from the UK.
Journals specifically devoted to the field have begun to emerge, with the most recent
being ‘Systems and Synthetic Biology’ published by Springer Netherlands, which put

10
http://protocells.lanl.gov/
11
http://www.istpace.org/index.html
12
http://www.istpace.org/research_overview/index.html
13
http://syntheticbiology.org/Conferences.html
14
http://conferences.theiet.org/biosysbio/
15
http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Main_Page

10
out its first issue in March 200716. BioMed Central publishes the open-access journal
Systems Biology, which includes much scope for synthetic biology and has been
publishing articles since January 200717. Key reviews of the field were published in
2005 [Benner and Sismour 2005] and 2006 [Heinemann and Panke 2006].

Bhutkar [2005] briefly outlines the status of funding for synthetic biology in the US
and Europe. Significant amounts of money are being injected into the field by the US
government Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the
Departments of Defense (DoD) and Energy (DoE). DARPA is interested in DNA
computing and the DoD has allocated $3m to Craig Venter’s not-for-profit Institute for
Biological Energy Alternatives. A new research centre at UC, Berkeley was opened
in 2006 by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant of $16m, to be spent over five
years18.

In addition, over the last couple of years, there has been a wave of commercial
interest and investment in synthetic biology coming from wealthy individuals and
venture capitalists. Such individuals, including Craig Venter and Bill Gates, have
developed particular interests within synthetic biology. In 2006 Microsoft awarded
$570,000 to six projects with the aim of stimulating basic research in synthetic
biology and DNA nanotechnology19. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated
$42.6m over five years (beginning 2004) to a collaboration between the Institute for
OneWorld Health, UC Berkeley and Amyris Biotechnologies to develop a synthetic
form of artemisinin, an anti-malarial drug20. Amyris was also awarded $70m by a
consortium of venture capitalists to use the same technology platform to develop bio­
fuels21. Amyris Biotechnologies was founded by well known synthetic biologist Jay
Keasling at UCB and its CEO is presently John G. Melo, previously president of U.S.
Fuels operations for BP22.

Codon Devices23, founded by synthetic biologists Drew Endy, George Church, Jay
Keasling and Ron Weiss, has 35 US patent applications and 10 issued US patents,
28 foreign applications and 12 issued and describes itself as a Constructive Biology
Company. They claim their BioFab technology is the most advanced genetic
construction platform in the world. In 2005 Codon’s first funding round collected
$13m in capital24 and in 2006 the second round brought in $20m25.

EraGen Biosciences26, founded by Steven Benner uses his expanded genetic

alphabet and holds multiple patents related to synthetic biology including a number
with broad claims covering non-standard oligonucleotides27. In 2006 EraGen closed
a funding round with $12m bringing their total capital raised to ~$21m28.

Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith’s company Synthetic Genomics29 is developing

minimal genome living organisms as a basis for multiple applications in global energy

16
http://www.springer.com/west/home/biomed?SGWID=4-124-70-173669004-0
17
http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcsystbiol/
18
http://www.Berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/08/03_SynBerc.shtml
19
http://research.microsoft.com/ur/us/fundingopps/RFPs/Synthetic_Biology_Awards_2006.aspx
20
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases/Malaria/Announcements/Announce-041213.htm
21
http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/projects_biofuels.html
22
http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/management.html
23
http://www.codondevices.com/
24
http://masshightech.bizjournals.com/masshightech/stories/2005/05/30/daily39.html
25
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/biotechnology/articles/2006/12/18/dna_builder_closes_20m_in_financing/
26
http://www.eragen.com/
27
http://www.eragen.com/contentPage.cfm?ID=375
28
http://eragen.senscia.com/UploadedImg/Press%20Releases/PR0601EraGen.pdf
29
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/

11
and environmental challenges. In particular, they aim to develop an efficient fuel.
Synthetic Genomics has received at least $30m from venture capital firms30.

Another biotechnology company Ambrx31 is incorporating unnatural amino acids into

its protein-based products and secured $55m in financing in 200632. It has been
issued US Patent No. 7,045,337 entitled ‘In vivo incorporation of unnatural amino
acids’33. In March 2007 synthetic biofuels company LS934, whose founders include
George Church, announced it had raised $5m in its first round of venture seeking and
a subsequent $15m in financing35. Furthermore, April 2007 saw the firm Agrivida
announce receipt of a Small Business Innovation Research Grant from the NSF to
help fund their screening of biomass degrading enzymes in corn. In August the
same year Agrivida announced a collaboration with Codon Devices to develop
engineered proteins for biofuel development based in corn36.

Other firms working on synthetic biology either as developers or suppliers include:

Mascoma, Sangamo Biosciences, Genomatica, Genencor, Firebird Biomolecular
Sciences, EngeneOS, Diversa, DuPont and Egea Biosciences [ETC Group 2007].
Several of these companies are working on the engineering of enzymes.

Across the Atlantic, firms in the UK include Glycoform37 which has developed a
synthetic glycoprotein designed to treat anaemia. They received £960,000 in a 2004
funding round with contributions from the ISIS College Fund managed by Quester
Capital Management Limited and other share holders38. A further $1.1m was raised
in 2006 from existing investors following completion of several milestones39.

The EU’s New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) programme provided
early stage funding during 2003/04 and 04/05. Synthetic Biology featured as a case-
study at the NEST 2005 conference and a fact sheet under the 6th Framework
Programme 05/06 called for research proposals for:

…design and construction of new biologically based (or inspired) parts or

systems, which involve a high level of internal complexity and which show
logical or complex dynamical behaviour. The engineered parts or systems
should show a tangible and useful standardised function or functionality with
substantially different characteristics from natural systems.
NEST Pathfinder Initiative Fact Sheet 200640

The factsheet on synthetic biology [NEST, 2006], produced by an expert working

group, outlines a number of the potential applications that are promised by the new
methodology under the heading, ‘The Vision of Synthetic Biology’. These are listed
under the following headings:

30
http://venturebeat.com/2005/12/30/synthetic-genomics-to-create-new-forms-of-life/
31
www.ambrx.com
32
http://www.ambrx.com/wt/page/pr_1152200371 and http://www.ambrx.com/wt/page/pr_1153528812
33
http://www.ambrx.com/wt/page/pr_1148420952
34
http://www.ls9.com/
35
http://www.ls9.com/pr100907.htm
36
http://www.agrivida.com/news.html
37
http://www.glycoform.co.uk/
38
http://www.glycoform.co.uk/documents/glycoform-april-news.pdf
39
http://www.glycoform.co.uk/documents/Press%20release%201st%20in%20vivo%20and%20funding%2020070108%2002
%20ms.pdf
40
Available here: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nest/docs/5-nest-synthetic-080507.pdf

12
  Biomedicine
o Complex molecular devices for tissue repair/regeneration
o Smart drugs
o Biological delivery systems
o Vectors for therapy
o Personalised medicine
o Cells with new properties that improve human health
 Synthesis of biopharmaceuticals
o Complex natural products
 Sustainable chemical industry
o Environmentally friendly production of chemicals
 Environment and energy
o Bioremediation
o Production of energy
o GMO safety
 Production of smart materials and biomaterials
 Security/ counter-terrorism.

The report led to framework six funding for 18 synthetic biology research and policy
projects [Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology 2008]. Further projects
within the EU include: ‘TESSY: Towards a European Strategy for Synthetic Biology’;
‘SYNBIOSAFE: Safety and Ethical Aspects of Synthetic Biology’, ‘EMERGENCE:
setting up the bases for synthetic biology in Europe’ ‘SYNBIOLOGY: an analysis of
synthetic biology research in Europe and North America’ ‘SynBioComm: towards a
European synthetic biology community’. The first intends to bring together research
groups through workshops to develop a research roadmap for European research on
synthetic biology. The second examines the ethics, perception, safety and security
of synthetic biology, with the third being concerned with education and infrastructure.

In the UK a joint call for proposals in Networks in Synthetic Biology was made in
October 2007 by the BBSRC, EPSRC, ESRC, and AHRC, for a total of £900,000,
part of which was intended for ethical and social debate. The funding and
development of ‘systems biology’41 has also been considered by the Academy of
Medical Sciences and the Royal Academy of Engineering42 [Academy of Medical
Sciences and Royal Academy of Engineering 2007]. Their report recommends the
establishment of three to five new academic centres at leading universities in the UK
costing ~ £325m over ten years and suggests that government financial support
would be needed for such a project. It also argues that the interdisciplinary nature of
the field poses problems for the contemporary structures of university departments
and the arrangement of research grant committees, stating that:

This needs to be reflected in approaches to leadership, career development,

peer review and publication criteria. Universities must break down barriers
between disciplines and consider new methods of organisation that promote
the development of novel scientific approaches. A substantial change in
culture is required, in which biology and medicine become more quantitative.

41
Some consider the term synonymous with synthetic biology, whilst others argue there are significant differences.
Irrespective of such confusion, the concerns of the academies remain applicable since, if they are different, they still retain
the common feature of interdisciplinarity and novelty.
42
Available at: http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/engagement/pdf/Systems_Biology_Report.pdf

13
 The Research Assessment Exercise, as currently structured, continues to be a
barrier to interdisciplinary research.
[Academy of Medicine and Royal Academy of Engineering 2007]

The differences between Europe and the US regarding synthetic biology’s

development are not solely financial. The SYNBIOLOGY report [SYNBIOLOGY
2006] indicates that key stakeholders feel that whilst there is opportunity for joint
funding schemes to be established between the US and Europe, there may be other
barriers to efficient collaboration. Some of these obstacles are cultural, with
respondents to the SYNBIOLOGY questionnaire believing that the US is more open
to competition whereas the EU is focused more upon collaboration. Furthermore,
they believe that many American projects are driven by military or defence initiatives,
which may inhibit collaboration with researchers outside of the US.

4. Synthethics, or Synbioethics:
The rise of concerns about Synthetic Biology
The scientific community hasn’t shied away from acknowledging the potential
dangers of synthetic life forms, with ethics playing a role in international conferences
and with almost every review of synthetic biology indicating a need for ethical debate,
internal regulation and safe practice. Indeed a declaration made by members at the
Second International Meeting on Synthetic Biology (Synthetic Biology 2.0) supports
the adoption of policies to ensure safe practice in the scientific community43. There is
some feeling that similar ethics and standards guidelines could be produced as have
been elsewhere:

A code of ethics and standards should emerge for biological engineering as it

has done for other engineering disciplines.
Church 2005, P423

A particular theme that crops up in the discussion on the ethics of this emergent
science is the comparison to the situation faced by genetic engineering in the 1970s
and ‘80s:
Synthetic Biology needs to establish itself as a community effort that is safe
and nurtures responsible practices and attitudes. For this, a code of ethics and
standards need to be developed for biological engineering. Learning from
gene therapy, we should imagine worst-case scenarios and protect against
them.
Chopra and Kamma 2006, p408

The Laurence Berkeley National Laboratory and MIT have both developed
programmes on synthetic biology that include some exploration of ethical issues. In
2005 the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation awarded MIT $570,000 to explore the potential
ethical issues arising from synthetic biology44. At the European level, in 2007 NEST
published a brief statement of intent to create a European framework of ethics,
regulation and public consultation on synthetic biology called SYNBIOSAFE45. The
project is funded for €236,000. By answering the questions posed by an ethics of
synthetics the project hopes to offer advice on risk assessment, safety, ethics,
43
Available here: http://syntheticbiology.org/SB2Declaration.html
44
MIT press release here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/syntheticbio.html
45
http://www.synbiosafe.eu/

14
intellectual property rights to researchers, stakeholders and the public. Initial findings
from the project based on interviews with leading researchers indicate that whilst
there are important issues to be addressed, most scientists believe there are no new
ethical issues raised by synthetic biology [Deplazes, 2008].

In part, the readiness of the scientific community to discuss ethical issues stems from
concerns within the profession and there have been calls for greater self-regulation,
with proposals for a new Asilomar Conference to consider how synthetic biology
should be governed46. However, it also acknowledges the fact that a number of
NGOs and civil society groups have raised social, safety and ethical concerns about
the development of this new field. These include environmental organisations such
as the action group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) and Friends of
the Earth, as well as peace and security groups such as the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists. In particular, ETC has been active on the subject, producing a major
report on the field titled Extreme Genetic Engineering: an introduction to synthetic
biology [ETC, 2007].

In thinking about the ethical, social and legal issues raised by synthetic biology a
number of areas of concern can be identified: uncontrolled release into the
environment, bioterrorism, patenting and the creation of monopolies, trade and global
justice, and the creation of artificial life. We now take each of these areas and use
some of the successes of synthetic biology to explore the main ethical and social
issues raised by scientists, NGOs, and the media.

5. Uncontrolled Release
a) Scientific/Technical Development
In 2003 Craig Venter, the somewhat infamous genome pioneer, caused a
controversy about synthetic biology when he announced that his team had taken just
fourteen days to create the first synthetic virus from scratch, bacteriophage Phi X174
(5,386 bp) [Smith et al 2003]. His latest company, Synthetic Genomics Inc., was
founded in 2005 with $30m of venture capital with the aspiration of developing
microbes for use in bioremediation and energy production. The Minimal Genome
Project is part of the non-profit Institute of Genomic Research (TIGR) which has been
exploring the minimal requirements for microbial life in multiple species since the
early 90s47. As part of that research, in 1995, TIGR was responsible for another first:
the complete DNA sequence of a bacterium, Haemophilus influenzae. A controversial
patent on the minimal bacterial genome48 is one of the latest in a series of
developments made by the TIGR team. The Canadian ETC group has named the
patented organism, Mycoplasma laboratorium, Synthia49 as a follower in suite to
Dolly the cloned sheep. Venter’s team appears to be getting close to their goal with
the publication of the first synthetic bacterial genome in January 200850. They
synthesised a 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium
JCVI-1.0, which they claimed to be the second step of three that might lead to the
creation of the first synthetic organism. As part of the process the team inserted
46
The Asilomar conference, held in 1975, was a landmark event in which the scientific community met to consider how the
new field of recombinant DNA and genetic engineering should be regulated.
47
Such experiments used gene knockouts or antisense RNA
48
Number 20070122826 ‘Minimal Bacterial Genome’ here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%
2220070122826%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070122826&RS=DN/20070122826
49
In their press release here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=631
50
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/

15
‘watermarks’ into the sequence that would not typically be found in Nature, which
were discovered to be advertising for the Venter Institute51.

An example of how synthetic organisms may be deliberately released into the

environment is for the bioremediation of soil (e.g. for removal of environmental
pollutants), something Venter’s various research teams are interested in. Whilst
genetically engineered microorganisms have been developed for such purposes they
have only once been tested in the field and there are none in the regulatory pipeline
[Tucker and Zilinskas 2006].

b) Social and Ethical Issues Raised

The main concerns in this area are centred on the development of synthetic
organisms that are either intentionally or accidentally released into the environment.
The ETC Group raises this as a major issue that parallels the debates about GM
crops. Their report was spurred by the widely publicised patent application for a
minimal bacterial genome, a list of genes, submitted by the Venter Institute, detailing
the least number of genes that the bacterium M. genitalium requires for survival and
reproduction. Further concerns were expressed following the announcement of
Venter’s bacterial genome swap. Generally the media reports quickly dismiss certain
concerns, celebrate the research, and present a rather balanced approach52, e.g.:

Would a synthetic bug cause havoc if it escaped from the lab? No, because
it's too weak to survive in the wild. Could synthetic biology be used to build
bioweapons? Yes. … By the way, isn't it mindblowing that "life" can range
from a gaggle of 400 genes mooching about in a Petri dish, to a free-thinking
assortment of 30,000 genes, with sparkling eyes and heartstopping dimples?
nd
Anjana Ahuja, ‘Life is Just a Bowl of Petri’ The Times July 2 2007

Scientists have converted an organism into an entirely different species by

performing the world's first genome transplant, a breakthrough that paves the
way for the creation of synthetic forms of life. … The work is at the cutting
edge of synthetic biology … But critics fear the field is progressing too fast for
society to grasp. Some are concerned that artificial organisms could escape
and damage the environment, or that maverick scientists or terrorist groups
could create powerful new bioweapons.
th
Ian Sample, ‘First genome transplant turns one species into another’ June 29 2007

The ETC however were very critical and wrote to Venter and the patent authority
asking that it be withdrawn or rejected on the basis that it was contrary to the public
morality and safety. They claim that the patent application represents a “high-stakes
commercial race to synthesize and privatize synthetic life forms” [ETC Group 2007c].
They raise many other fears such as potential misuse of the organism, including
creating a biological weapon and also ask, “How could their accidental release into
the environment be prevented or the effects of their intentional release be
evaluated?” [ETC Group 2007c]. They draw comparisons to other controversies
including the Dolly clone and are sceptical about the promise of synthetic biology:

Synthia may not be as cuddly as a cloned lamb, but we believe this is a much
bigger deal. … It's purely speculation and hype that syns [synthetic living
organisms] will be used to ameliorate climate change by producing cheap

51
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/venter-institut.html
52
It is interesting to note that in the review of UK newspaper reports of synthetic biology undertaken for this paper, there
were few signs of sensationalist reporting, with most journalists writing in a balanced manner that, if anything, underplayed
the debate on the social and ethical issues raised by this technology.

16
 ethanol or hydrogen … The same minimal microbe could be harnessed to
build a virulent pathogen that could pose grave threats to people and the
planet.
th
Jim Thomas, ETC Group ‘Patenting Pandora’s Bug’ June 7 2007 [ETC Group 2007c].

A major issue raised by the critics of this technology is that by their very nature
biological machines are evolutionary machines; they are subject to natural selection
and potentially gene flow [Benner and Sismour 2005]. This means that mutations in
the genome of the synthetic organisms could produce unexpected interactions with
the environment and other living, natural organisms. Considering the myriad unusual
functions enabled by BioBricks that could be integrated in synthetic genomes, a
concern is that functions upon which nature has never operated may provide
advantages over natural organisms leading to unexpected proliferation of a synthetic
biology product, thereby radically altering the ecosystem. Microorganisms intended
for clean up of one particular chemical may interact with others, potentially passing
synthetic genes to natural species thereby “contaminating” the gene pool [Tucker and
Zilinskas 2006]. It’s also claimed that even without such evolutionary intervention the
released species may interact with naturally existing substances and cause
unexpected side-effects [Bhuktar 2005]. These fears are reminiscent of the concerns
voiced by anti-nano groups and individuals such as Prince Charles, who famously
envisaged a world reduced to “grey goo” by out of control nano machines53.

In this context questions have been asked about the adequacy of existing regulatory
regimes for the control of GMOs, which are based on assessing relatively simple
genetic changes to bacteria [Schmidt, 2008]. In particular, established risk
assessment methods may not be adequate to deal with the much more complex
changes brought about by synthetic biology, which involves the engineering of entire
biochemical pathways. This challenge may require important changes to the methods
and procedures used to assess the environmental risks posed by the novel
organisms created by synthetic biology.

c) Scientific and Policy Response

These concerns are quite similar to those raised about the ‘old’ genetic engineering.
A number of commentators have suggested that none of the more pressing fears
about recombinant DNA has yet emerged as real threats due to early, strict
regulation that was eased over the course of the field’s maturation [Tucker and
Zilinskas 2006; Garfinkel et al. 2007]. Furthermore, in addition to working within the
established regulatory regime, a number of technical measures have been adopted
to tackle this issue. Specifically, the threat of escape and proliferation has been offset
by engineering bacteria dependent on particular nutrients that don’t readily occur in
the natural environment, thereby significantly reducing their competitive capacity.
Similar proposals are being made with regards to using synthetic components of the
DNA structure (e.g. synthetic amino acids) such that the organism cannot replicate in
an environment devoid of them. Other strategies involve utilising some of the
naturally-inspired54 BioBricks that monitor the size of the population as it divides.
These could be connected to a ‘self-destruct’ mechanism that is triggered should a
population spurt occur or should the population density become too great [Benner,
S.A. and Sismour, M. 2005]. It has also been suggested that engineering biological
systems to reduce their viability outside the lab should become common practice
[Church 2005]. Tucker and Zilinskas [2006] advocate the precautionary principle,

53
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3883749.stm
54
Quorum sensing

17
‘treat synthetic microorganisms as dangerous until proven harmless.’ Using the NIH
guidelines for genetically engineered microorganisms they suggest that any synthetic
DNA containing BioBricks would have to be studied under high levels of physical
containment (level three or four).

A report, produced by Drew Endy of MIT, several of the J. Craig Venter Institute team
and G.L Epstein from the Center for Strategic and International Studies proposes
numerous ‘options for governance’ of synthetic genomics [Garfinkel et. al. 2007]. The
authors attribute the current biosafety framework to the “foresight of the scientists
who invented recombinant DNA” and argue that any proposed framework for
synthetic genomics should be based upon this existent scheme, since it has “enabled
the demonstrably safe development and application of recombinant DNA technology
over the past three decades”.

They identify six policy options to improve the safety of benign/beneficial synthetic
genomics:

1. Education about the risks of, and guidance on best practice for, synthetic
genomic experiments at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels
2. Production of a safety manual specifically tailored for synthetic biology labs
3. Development of a clearing house mechanism to dispense advice on best
practice and emergency procedures
4. Broadening of the Institutional Biosafety Committees’ (IBC) remit
5. 4 & - Creation of a National Advisory Group for extra-risky/novel experiments
6. Broader IBC review and enhanced enforcement of compliance with biosafety
guidelines

The first two options form part of a ‘modest’ portfolio of options, these two combined
with 4 and 5 may indirectly produce a more effective portfolio, but at greater expense.
Implementation of all six options would, according to the report, represent an
‘aggressive’ policy towards biosafety.

6. Bioterrorism
a) Scientific/Technical Development
The development of biological weapons has a long history, with military programmes
using advances in basic biology, including recombinant DNA techniques, to try to
create new forms of offensive weapons [Dando, 1999]. In this context, it is notable
that a CIA Report from 2003 [CIA 2003] painted a dark picture of the bioweapons
future suggesting that some “engineered biological agents could be worse than any
disease known to man” and that the genomic revolution had made such rapid
progress that the traditional methods of monitoring weapons of mass destruction
could prove inadequate. To ensure that the intelligence services remained
knowledgeable on the potential applications of bioengineering the report suggests a
closer working relationship with the biological science community. In the UK similar
concerns have arisen about synthetic biology with the Ministry of Defence
highlighting the field as one that may impact future military capabilities and in 2006
the Defence Science Advisory Council agreed to examine the military opportunities
and threats arising from the field (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
2008).

18
The major issues about synthetic biology’s ability to be misused centre around the
production of known, modified or new microorganisms designed to be hostile to
humans either directly or indirectly. The development, production and stockpiling of
bioweapons is restricted under the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention55. Tucker and Zilinskas [2006] point out that synthetic biology not only
allows for production of new forms of life, but also the synthesis of those that exist
already. By reproducing known pathogens in the lab, such as influenza, one might be
able to obfuscate the controls imposed on the movement of such organic
substances.

Researchers funded by DARPA at Stonybrook University successfully synthesised

polio virus from scratch [Josefson 2002]. The lead scientist, Dr. E. Wimmer, under
criticism from the media and fellow scientists defended the research suggesting that
it would not fuel bioterrorism since they created the virus from readily available
components and that it underscored the need to continue vaccination against the
disease [Josefson 2002]. Three years later another team of scientists published a
paper in Science announcing they had sequenced and built the pandemic Spanish
Flu virus of 1918 [Tumpey et al. 2005], which killed an estimated 20-50 million people
worldwide. This research was undertaken to understand the virus in more depth,
since much that was known about it was largely speculative. It was also hoped that
the research would help scientists understand virulent flu viruses more generally. An
editorial of the same issue of the journal Science defends its production and
publication [Sharp 2005]. Craig Venter described this as the ‘the first true Jurassic
Park scenario56.

b) Social and Ethical Issues Raised

Though researchers in the field are quick to point out the potential ethical dilemmas
and social implications, or at least acknowledge that they need to be investigated57,
the media has continued to see this as a major issue. In 2006 a Guardian reporter
ordered part of the DNA sequence of the smallpox virus and had it sent to his home
[Randerson 2006], which raised questions about the regulation of DNA sequence
supply. An article in the New Scientist [Aldhous 2005] on the sequence suppliers
found that, “Of the 12 companies that replied [to their communications], just five said
they screen every sequence received. Four said they screen some sequences, and
three admitted not screening sequences at all”. The Guardian article [Randerson
2006] also found that of three UK sequencing companies, “one did not screen
customers or sequences, one carried out checks on customers only and a third
checked customers and had carried out a pilot study on screening DNA orders but is
not currently doing so.” The major question raised by these reports is that if a
Guardian or New Scientist journalist can order and be supplied with genetic
sequences from dangerous pathogens then who else may have, or may be able to
do so?

Whilst the academic community continues debating regulation and ethics, biohacking
or ‘garage biology’ is, according to some media reports [Rowan 2006], being
established as a home hobby. As DNA sequencing becomes cheaper and quicker
and second hand equipment becomes available on eBay the power to create
synthetic sequences may be dispersed to many individuals and groups. Biohackers
have also become known by the portmanteau ‘biopunk’ (biotech punk)58, that has its
55
Available here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/bwc/text/bwc.htm
56
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/details.php?webcastid=15766
57
As evidenced in most scientific reviews of the field and the few ethical reviews
58
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopunk

19
origins as a science fiction genre. The most recent, and significant addition to this
movement has been the online publication of a ‘Primer for Synthetic Biology’, a
manual, written in simple, non-technical language, for those wishing to engage
themselves in some bio hacking [Mohr 2007]. Interestingly Mohr, a student at Boston
University at the time of writing, includes in his 72 page draft a notice of intent to
provide an outline of the key ethical issues facing synthetic biology titled ‘ethics for
everyone’. Though biohacking is beginning to develop a web presence, and is
certainly becoming quite prominent in the blogosphere there is little evidence, as yet,
that it has any active/practising following. Tucker and Zilinskas identify two potential
terrorist categories: the ‘lone operator’ and ‘the biohacker’. The lone operator is a
rogue synthetic biologist and the biohacker is, as above, a college kid eager to
demonstrate their technological prowess. If indeed second hand tools for genome
assembly are becoming available to the public at affordable costs then this would
seem to add weight to the concerns over possible terrorist use of synthetic biology
research.

However, Tucker and Zilinskas [2006] argue that ‘At present, the primary threat
of misuse appears to come from state-level biological warfare programs’. They
suggest that the construction of an entirely new pathogen using synthetic sequences
is unlikely given the present state of the art and that the more likely threat is from the
creation of already known pathogens, such as polio, as discussed above. The
technological obstacles to producing either pathogen are seen as a limiting factor
that renders synthetic biology no more concerning that previous debates about
genetic engineering [Tucker and Zilinskas 2006]. Furthermore, even if such
organisms could be produced, they are hard to ‘weaponise’ – something which would
be essential for their role as offensive weapons or instruments of terror.

Whilst the prospects for the creation of biological weapons based on synthetic
biology remain contentious and uncertain, a more fundamental problem has been
raised about the level of awareness within the scientific community of the potential
military uses of the technology. Most proposals for governance and oversight depend
on scientists being aware of and reporting potential misuses. However, this in turn
will critically depend on researchers being aware of the possible applications and
risks of synthetic biology. A recent study carried out by Alexander Kelle found a low
level of awareness of the key policy documents and debates about biosecurity
amongst synthetic biology researchers in Europe [Kelle 2007]. This raises major
questions about how easy it will be to implement any such measures in this area.

c) Scientific and Policy Response

The US policy agency, the National Science Advisory Board (NSABB) Working
Group on Synthetic Genomics produced a report that addresses itself to the dual use
nature of synthetic genomics – meaning that technology and knowledge from the
field can be both used and misused for and against the public health and national
security [NSABB 2006]. The working group sought to establish whether the existing
regulatory framework for Select Agents was sufficient to cover the generation of
synthetic organisms de novo. They highlighted a potential difficulty with the present
regulatory framework with regards to identifying whether or not a synthetic organism
is a Select Agent due to problems with screening sequences that may not exactly
resemble those covered under SAR59. Following consultation with various groups60
the NSABB considered and rejected a number of proposals, including:

59
Select Agent Regulation

20
 • Restricting access to new sequence information about Select Agents;
• Monitoring the sale of chemicals and lab equipment used to synthesize DNA;
• Voluntary/involuntary surveillance/tracking of researchers/students using or
trained to use synthetic genomics;
• Modifying the SAR so that all select agent genomes are covered; and
• Modifying the SAR or issuing new regulations defining Select Agents in
terms of their sequence.

The four recommendations that the working group settled on were:

1. The HHS61 and USDA62 should collaboratively disseminate harmonized

guidance to investigators and suppliers on the SAR in relation to synthetic
biology
2. The USG63 should: instruct federal agencies and outside experts to improve
the screening process; require federal grantees and contractors to order from
providers that screen; encourage international collaboration on establishment
of standards and practices
3. Repeal statute 18 U.S.C. 175c which makes it illegal to produce, synthesise or
engineer any part or whole variola virus. Examine the current language to
ensure that it fully covers synthetic organisms.
4. The USG should invite examination of the SA classification system to ensure it
meets the requirements of future scientific development and to consider
alternative frameworks.

The Sunshine Project, an anti-bioweapons NGO, argued that there was a conflict of
interest at the NSABB [Sunshine Project 2006]. In particular, the Project claimed that
the NSABB has set up a working group to ostensibly make recommendations for the
safe government of synthetic biology, but that it ‘will instead assault regulation of a
wide range of biodefense and biotech risks’ [Sunshine Project 2006]. This, they
argued, came from pressure exerted by powerful scientists on the NSABB and the
working group. The Sunshine Project identified a competition for funding between
two scientific camps: synthetic biologists and infectious disease researchers. Whilst
the two compete for funding they have a shared common goal, “to take down what
they perceive as a threat: biosecurity legislation designed to protect the public”
[Sunshine Project 2006].

The Sunshine Project has been very sceptical about the report and suggests that the
findings and recommendations are not logically coherent. They go even further and
argue that the report is a pre-emptive attack on the regulation of synthetic biology
and the SA rule to free up regulatory space for the development of synthetic
applications.

Where the Sunshine Project, along with many other civil society organisations,
advocate external regulation, the majority of the scientific community seek to
establish self-regulatory practices. In preparation for debate on self governance at
the Synthetic Biology 2.0 conference, Maurer, Lucas and Terrell [2006] produced a
report on safety and security. Their document argues that self regulation is important,
60
Practising synthetic biologists, representatives from the intelligence community, organisations that have conducted or are
conducting policy studies on the implications of synthetic genomics or synthetic biology, and federal agencies responsible for
implementing and enforcing the SAR.
61
Department of Health and Human Services
62
Department of Agriculture
63
United States Government

21
but that it shouldn’t ‘necessarily displace traditional interventions based on regulation,
legislation, and treaties’ [Maurer et. al. 2006]. They argued that the difference
between the ethical problems associated with more traditional biotechnological
developments and synthetic biology are minor and suggested the risk posed by
synthetic biology is relatively small. The four main areas of concern in the paper are:
i) sequence screening; ii) community norms; iii) continuing debate; iv) technological
solutions.

i) The practice of screening genetic sequences by oligo companies is mixed.

The paper suggests enforcing screening practices at the commercial side and
a community pledge not to place orders with any company that fails to
adequately screen from Jan 1st 2007. Furthermore, companies should
interconnect to ensure that dangerous sequences are not split over multiple
orders. Software for such screening should also be improved.
ii) Synthetic biologists have a responsibility to ensure their work isn’t making
terrorism easier. An ethics advisory committee should be developed. Advice
should be freely available and confidential, perhaps via an Ethics Hotline.
iii) The ethics of synthetic biology are not fully clear and may change over time
and as such debate must continue. An ethics ‘clearing house’ website where
members could report potential accidents and biosecurity threats should be
established. Creation of professional entities such as formal standards, codes
of ethics, advisory bodies, and a professional society seem reasonable.
iv) Synthetic biologists may be perfectly poised to develop solutions to ethical
problems at the design level. Barcodes that identify the creator of a synthetic
organism could be implemented and should be explored. Inherently safe
organisms can be developed that do not survive and propagate in nature.

In reaction to these proposals for self regulation a ‘global coalition of thirty-eight

international organisations including scientists, environmentalists, trade unionists,
biowarfare experts and social justice advocates’64 wrote an open letter asking the
Synthetic Biology 2.0 delegation to ‘withdraw your declaration of self-governance and
join with us in seeking a wider inclusive dialogue’ [ETC Group 2006]. A Nature
editorial following the conference [Nature 2006] argued that self-governance does not
preclude other forms of regulation and voiced some suspicion about the motivations
of the signatories with respect to campaign practices.

As has been described elsewhere several synthetic biologists co-authored a report

on ‘Options for Governance’ of the field [Garfinkel et al. 2007]. The focus of that
report was on biosafety and biosecurity. Their recommendations as regards
enhancing protection against synthetic biology becoming a tool of biological warfare
focus on recommendations to be implemented at four levels: (1) gene firms; (2) oligo
manufacturers; (3) DNA synthesisers; and (4) users and organisations.
Recommendations include such things as:

 1&2 (Gene firms/Oligo manufacturers): firms must screen orders and biosafety
officers must verify applications.
 3 (DNA Synthesisers): Equipment must be registered and licensed and a
license must be required to purchase reagents and services
 4 (Users and Organisations): broaden IBC review and creation National
Advisory Board

64
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=8

22
The debate over policy options clearly demonstrates that many synthetic biologists
are highly concerned about ethical issues, both in regards to not wanting to cause
harm and not wishing to lose the promise of synthetic biology to unwarranted media,
public controversy or regulation. Others fear the concentration of power over policy,
arguing that those practising the science cannot also be those regulating it. In
particular, they suspect that science will be supported by governments irrespective of
its potential risks and that public concerns are being sidelined.

All measures to control the potential misuse of synthetic biology, including self-
governance and statutory regulation, critically depend on policymakers and
researchers being vigilant. Evidence of a lack of awareness of the potential threats to
biosecurity posed by synthetic biology within the scientific community must therefore
be addressed as a matter of priority in order to meet this challenge.

7. Patenting and the Creation of Monopolies

a) Scientific/Technical Development
A major aspiration of synthetic biology is the alteration of microorganisms by genomic
intervention for production of living machines that can turn biomass into fuels such as
ethanol or hydrogen. Venter’s team hopes to produce a synthetic form of Clostridium
by amalgamating the genomes of two separate species, Clostridium cellulolyticum
and Clostridium acetobutylicum, that together could do just that [Ball 2007]. This
application is garnering a lot of funding from multiple sources with the Joint
BioEnergy Institute, a team of national US laboratories, expecting $125m over the
next five years from the US Department of Energy65. As huge amounts of money are
being invested in synthetic biology groups it is clear that there are high expectations
of a significant commercial return.

b) Social and Ethical Issues Raised

One of the main issued raised is that synthetic biology falls into US intellectual
property ‘at the confluence of biotechnology and computing’ [Rai and Boyle 2007].
Rai and Boyle highlight that patenting appeals have proven a rather problematic case
for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has consistently ignored the
‘obviousness’ clause of patent legitimacy, relying instead on per se rules developed
for 20th century chemical inventions. Coupled to this are the problems that software
caused by neither fitting into the intellectual property regime of patents or copyrights;
an issue that was hardly resolved by forcing it under both. Rai and Boyle suggest that
difficulty with the way in which the law handles software and biotechnology
individually could come together to form ‘a perfect storm’.

There are two major concerns about the intellectual property puzzle of synthetic
biology, namely patents that are too broad and those that are too narrow. The
difficulty is that broad patents may restrict collaboration and stifle development in the
field, and narrow patents may over-complicate the process, meaning that hundreds
of patents have to be negotiated to produce a system from standardized parts.

The spur for debate on the IP problems surrounding synthetic biology has come from
Venter’s patenting of Synthia. He hasn’t only sought a patent for the minimal living
cell in the US, but also at the international level through the World Intellectual

65
http://jbei.lbl.gov/team.html

23
Property Organisation66. More recently Venter has filed patent applications for
making synthetic genomes (UPSTO no. 20070264688) and putting them into cells
(20070269862). The ETC Group claims that Venter’s ‘enterprises are positioning
themselves to be the Microsoft of synthetic biology’ [ETC Group 2007b], or what they
called Microbesoft [Anjana Ahuja 2007]. ETC argues that the landmark ruling of
Diamond vs. Chakrabarty67 opened the door to patent all biological products and
processes, and that synthetic biology easily fits into its scope. Other than the
detraction to potential research on synthetic biology the ETC Group doesn’t expand
on why such a monopoly on synthetic life forms should be avoided.

c) Scientific and Policy Response

MIT’s BioBricks project has been setup as a way round the restrictions placed on
innovators by broad patent claims and hopes to replicate the open-source software
movement. Since 2004 the registry has increased from around 100 available parts to
approximately 2,000 in 2008. The BioBricks Foundation (BBF)68 is a non-profit
organisation established to ensure that the parts produced for the registry remain
freely available to the public. As part of that goal the BBF has trademarked ‘BioBrick’
and ‘BioBricks’. This project has been referred to as a ‘Synthetic Biology Commons’
[Rai and Boyle 2007]. Rai and Boyle suggest that copyright backing for the commons
might not be easily attainable and patents may prove far too expensive for a not-for­
profit organisation. A possible solution may lie in their analysis of recent movements
in statements of non-assertion, whereby those that hold patents on parts may make a
statement to the effect that they promise not to assert their right over academic
researchers. Another possibility they identify is the ‘Clickwrap’ license, as used in the
International HapMap project that disables those purchasing the license from
patenting products utilising the SNP data and from distributing it to anyone who has
not also signed the license.

Henkel and Maurer [2007] point out that the development of registries of
standardised parts is likely to stimulate the emergence of competing libraries that
may seek to license the entire library rather than individual components: “Suppose
that Company Y owns 70% of the most popular parts and Company Z owns the
remaining 30%. Then, Company Y can get 100% of the business by offering a
complete suite of whatever parts that the users need, that is, turning the contest into
a competition between libraries instead of individual parts.” This potential problem of
monopoly stems from what economists call a network effect, wherein the competition
between parts is mediated by reducing costs as some parts are used more frequently
than others [Henkel and Maurer 2007]. Costs reduce as experience increases. Thus
a part may become ‘locked in’ by being used more initially: those in the network
benefit by using the same parts over and over; whilst other competing parts become
used less frequently and may ultimately fall out of use. This is known as a ‘tipping
dynamic’. Henkel and Maurer go on to argue that the challenge to the open-source
synthetic biology movement is to foster the design of institutions that encourage
appropriate decision making as regards patents. They cite research that they say
indicates companies can earn more by sharing information rather than hoarding it.
They provide a further alternative to Rai and Boyle’s [2007] versions of the patenting
puzzle by suggesting that the registry be open only to those whom agree to make the
parts they develop similarly available, perhaps after a specified number of years of

66
number WO2007047148
67
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/206PQ193.htm
68
http://openwetware.org/wiki/The_BioBricks_Foundation

24
royalty returns. In a presentation given at SB 3.069 Henkel and Maurer indicated that
parts of the MIT registry were already patented and that the registry may benefit from
making it clear which these are so that researchers can avoid using them. They
conclude that synthetic biology will require a mixture of IP and open-source.

Whereas Rai and Boyle [2007] fear the intellectual property ‘perfect storm’, a Nature
editorial [Nature 2007] considered this conjunction to be more a ‘tempest in a test-
tube’. The editors claim that Venter’s patent looks unlikely to be awarded on the
basis that (a) it doesn’t give sufficient information to enable an expert in the field to
make or use it; and (b) many of the non-essential genes described are already in the
public domain. However, if Venter’s patent application for the minimal genome is
successful then he could monopolise the market for biofuel production. Henkel and
Maurer [2007], as paraphrased above, indicate that via the ‘tipping dynamic’ early
leaders in a field may become steadily entrenched over time and come to dominate.
Indeed Venter’s plans do sound grand, he told the Sunday Times, "Obviously, if we
made an organism that produced fuel, that could be the first billion or trillion-dollar
organism" [Sunday Times 2007] and according to the Guardian he plans to do it
within a decade [Ian Sample 2007]. The question, asks the Sunday Times is, “who
will benefit most - Venter or mankind?”

8. Trade and Global Justice

a) Scientific and Technical Developments
Perhaps the biggest success and at least the most applied research in synthetic
biology to date has been in the production of terpenoids70. These natural products
are often isolated from plants and are used ‘as commercial flavour and fragrance
compounds and antimalarial and anticancer drugs’ [Martin et al 2003]. It is for the
purpose of producing antimalarial drugs that the Gate’s Foundation has funded a
collaboration between UC Berkeley scientists, Amyris Biotechnology and the Institute
for OneWorld Health. The particular compound, artemisinin, commonly known as
wormwood [Herrera 2005], has found limited use because of the cost of extracting it
from plant sources. At present, farmers in East Asia and some parts of Africa are
growing wormwood for medicinal production. Thanks to synthetic biology the gene
responsible, amorpha-4,11-diene synthase, and the mevalonate isoprenoid pathway
from S. cerevisiae have been engineered into an E. coli for mass production [Martin
et al 2003]. Due to increasing resistance to other drugs the synthetic artemisinin
holds significant promise for malaria victims worldwide.

b) Social and Ethical Issues Raised

The ETC Group [2007] claims that the development of artemisinin has ‘become the
raison d’être of synthetic biology and given the field a philanthropic sheen’. They
draw a comparison to the poster child of the agricultural biotech industry ‘Golden
Rice’ which was designed to feed the poor and tackle vitamin deficiencies. The ETC
group suggests that the scale of the success has been drastically inflated to ensure
continued funding of Keasling’s lab and that ongoing research on synthetic biology
for such social and economic problems diverts resources from other more effective
approaches. It is recommended by the WHO that artemisinin should be mixed with
other malaria drugs, Artemisinin Combination Therapies (ACTs), to ensure that
69
Available here: http://www.syntheticbiology3.ethz.ch/proceedings/Henkel%20Maurer%20­
%20On%20the%20economics%20of%20SB%20SB3.0%202007-06.pdf
70
A class of isoprenoid – a highly diverse family of natural products

25
resistance does not build up. However, ETC argues that Novartis has a virtual
monopoly on ACTs and quote the Royal Tropical Institute of the Netherlands ‘This
monopoly-like situation has created an imperfect market defined by scarcity of raw
materials, speculation and extremely high retail prices’. Critics contend that synthetic
artemisinin would ensure that no local production of natural Artemisia could be
stimulated or sustained, thereby maintaining the discrepancy of wealth and health.

The Gates foundation has been applauded for its charitable and practical aim, but it
is not clear that producing a drug of this sort in developed countries is the best way of
either eradicating malaria in the long term or supporting sustainable development in
the poorest countries. As with many other advanced technologies, such as GM
crops, when applied to issues of economic development, public health and global
justice, a number of important questions are raised about the extent to which these
innovations help tackle these problems or make them worse.

9. Creating Artificial Life

a) Scientific and Technical Developments
One of the core ideas in synthetic biology is the notion of creating ‘artificial life’. This
has simultaneously provoked fears about scientists ‘playing God’ and raises deeper
philosophical and religious concerns about the nature of life itself and the process of
creation. The principle area of synthetic biology to raise these issues is the
production of life-like cells, which has been outlined above. Venter’s team calls these
minimal genome microorganisms, synthetic biologists more broadly may refer to
them as chassis, those in the UK synthetic chemistry field have named them chells.
Whichever term is utilised in this discussion, the significant feature of their
controversy is that they may be alive through human invention. Indeed, a recent
media furore [see for examples: Blakemore, 2008; Jha, 2008] was related to this
project of life creation following the announcement of the synthesis of the first
bacterial genome at the J. Craig Venter Institute.

A number of research teams have the creation of life-like cells as a major objective.
For example, a consortium of 13 partner institutions has been formed under the
banner ‘PACE’71 (Programmable Artificial Cell Evolution) and has, as its mission
statement, the goal of bringing the binary and living worlds closer together72.

b) Social and Ethical Issues Raised

The NEST high-level expert report [NEST 2005] indicates that the discussion of
artificial life is likely to be prompted by public concerns over scientists ‘playing God’.
The same report welcomes the discussion on synthetic life, but cautions ‘that it will
be productive only if we can develop a more sophisticated appreciation of what is
meant by ‘life’ than is current in popular discourse’. As witnessed by a number of
media reports, there is a feeling that the science of synthetic biology may have
outstripped our ethical reference points:

On the moral front, Mooney [of the ETC Group] says of Venter: "God has
competition." To argue that the making of life should remain the province of a
divine creator is no argument at all.
nd
Anjana Ahuja, ‘Life is Just a Bowl of Petri’ The Times July 2 2007

71
http://www.istpace.org/press/index.html
72
http://www.istpace.org/svx_media/pace-ist-results.pdf

26
 Fears have been raised about the dangers of tinkering with life and releasing
malignant bugs. "We don't yet know what are the social, ethical and even bio­
weapons implications of this research," said Hope Shand of the ETC
technology pressure group. The most ominous note was struck by a scientist
at MIT: "The genetic code is 3.6 billion years old. It's time for a rewrite."
st
Feature, ‘The Scientist Who Wants to put a Microbe in Your Tank’ Sunday Times July 1 2007

Scientists are a step closer to creating artificial life after transforming one type
of bacteria into another. … But the announcement has also triggered unease,
with some critics warning that the scientists were 'playing god'.
th
Reporter, ‘Scientists ‘Closer to Creating Artificial Life’’ Daily Mail June 29 2007

Synthetic biology has been touted as the discipline geared towards ‘engineering life’
[Chopra and Kamma 2006]. It is the notion of artificiality, the unknown quality, of
synthetic biology’s products that seems to underlie many of the aforementioned
ethical concerns. Furthermore, the living, breeding nature of the synthetic biology
output makes the threat of environmental contamination or the development of
biological weapons so powerful. In this way, the ascription of the term life gives them
agency; as though these microbes might seek to destroy us. It shouldn’t be surprising
then that this framing of the potential of biological engineering taps into the concept
of risk and that some of the responses, particularly the regulative strategies outlined
earlier that are aimed at identifying ‘risky’ engineers, are focussed on minimising
potential harms whilst enabling scientific progress. However, such concerns are
largely utilitarian, ‘what might happen if this microorganism escaped?’

Whilst these arguments are brought to the fore what have been pushed to the edges
of the scientific discourse are potentially more fundamental issues about tampering in
natural systems and creating ‘life itself’. It has been suggested by Edward Machery73,
a philosopher of science at the University of Pittsburgh, that a stable definition of ‘life’
is impossible and useless. Machery argues that synthetic biologists (amongst other
researchers) are confused over what life is, where it begins and particularly, how
complex it must be. This, he suggests, is no surprise and is consistent with a whole
programme of ‘life definitionism’ that fails to confine its object. A similar set of issues
have been raised in a recent Nature Editorial [Nature 2007], which notes that “Many
a technology has at some time or another been deemed an affront to God, but
perhaps none invites the accusation as directly as synthetic biology.” It then goes on
to argue that ‘It would be a service to more than synthetic biology if we might now be
permitted to dismiss the idea that life is a precise scientific concept.’

The final step in Venter’s three step process of creating a synthetic organism
involves inserting the synthesised genome into a bacterial cell and waiting to see if it
springs to life. The publication of this information in January 2008 resulted in quite
extensive media coverage with many articles leading with the life aspect: ‘Scientist
Creates Artificial Life – Almost’74; ‘Synthetic Life: Watch this Space’75. The Economist
concluded its article on the publication with the lines:

…if Dr Venter can take the final step of kicking the new, wholly synthetic
genome into reproductive life, he will not only have made a great technological

73
http://www.pitt.edu/~machery/ - his paper was available for download but is no longer – he is currently (spring 2008)

revising it.

74
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1706552-4,00.html

75
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/01/synthetic-life-watch-this-space.html

27
 leap forward, he will also have erased one of the last mythic distinctions in
science—that between living and non-living matter.
th
Anon, ‘Nearly There’ The Economist January 24 2008

Whilst others were less impressed:

But what does doing this really signify? What does it teach us about life that
we didn't know before? There was indeed a time when scientists believed
there was something fundamentally different about living matter and nonliving
matter. It's called the Middle Ages.
th
Carl Zimmer, ‘Artificial Life? Old News’ Wired.com January 25 2008

If Machery is right, that the idea of life is highly complex, but can possibly be defined
by science, it would require multiple definitions across multiple fields. What
implications might this have for an ethics that sought to trouble synthetic biology at
the level of life definition? Put another way, if life is not a stable concept how might
one argue that it is fundamentally immoral to create it? In contrast, if Zimmer is right
that our definition of life, or at least the scientific definition, hasn’t changed since the
Enlightenment, then perhaps the claim to be creating life is less about heresy and
more about hype. He argues that whilst being expertly technical and scientifically
significant, the research doesn’t reveal the mysteries of existence; in fact he argues
that it doesn’t even reveal the mysteries of genetics76 and that creating a new living
organism will lead to a whole new set of mysteries. In this sense we are a long way
from playing God.

c) Scientific and Policy Response

This ontology of emerging objects, whether synthetic products are living or not, is
being discussed by SynBERC, the NSF funded synthetic biology Engineering
Research Centre77. SynBERC’s ‘Human Practices’ project, lead by Paul Rabinow
(UCB) and Ken Oye (MIT), is also interested in general bioethical issues, security,
health, environmental effects, and IP. The ‘life’ side of the project seeks to do such
things as:

 Reflect on the form and essence of the parts, devices, chassis, and systems
being created by synthetic biology;
 Analyze the differences between the objects created in older recombinant
technologies and those projected in synthetic biology;
 Empirical research tracking how these parts, devices, chassis, systems, and
test beds are designed and the ways that evolution and contemporary
synthetic approaches differ from and enforce each other;
 Observe and design new institutional arrangements and interventions
appropriate to the new objects being brought into the world;
 Eventual standardization of this new mode of productively assembling
scientific, technological, economic, cultural, ethical, and security components.

Similarly, researchers from the PACE consortium have acknowledged ethical

exploration to be part of its remit, though the development of this work is limited to
date78.
76
Some 110 of the genes identified as being essential for life are as yet a complete mystery as regards their function.
Zimmer’s column: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/commentary/dissection/2008/01/dissection_0125
77
http://www.synberc.org/humanpractices.html
78
http://www.istpace.org/research_by_partners/artificial_life_group_at_du/social_and_ethical_implicat.html

28
A number of the scientists involved in the chell programme have argued the case for
a modified version of Turing’s test for life imitation [Crowin et. al. 2006]. Turing
developed a test as a response to the perceived uselessness of the question ‘can
this machine think?’ Turing argued that the more pertinent and pragmatic proposal
should be to assess to what degree the machine is capable of imitating living beings.
He believed, incorrectly, that machine imitations would be sufficiently sophisticated
by the year 2000 to be indistinguishable from human communications [Crowin et. al.
2006]. Others have found a longer history to the concept of an imitation test, with
some tracing it to Descartes’ observations on machines and men in his Discourse on
Method79.

The proposal made by the chell scientists is that the imitation test (or game) could be
modified to allow for a more universal means of assessing whether something is
living or not. They argue that such a method is required so ‘researchers from a
variety of communities … [may] objectively recognize success’ in creating life-like
cells. Their version of life is one that requires individual self-replication, self
sustaining systems, and a mechanism that allows for spatio-temporally resolved
organisation of information within these systems, though they themselves find this
somewhat restrictive [Crowin et. al. 2006]. The equivalent of the Turing test would be
one in which the chell was able to interact with natural cells in an appropriate manner
so as to be unrecognisable from those same cells. They foresee an ever increasing
level of complexity in both their understanding of the cell in its natural environment
and their capacity to imitate those processes such that the test for life becomes ever
more stringent.

However, taking into account Machery’s observations we may find that even the
obfuscation of the more intangible questions, via use of a Turing-like test, there
remains a fundamental barrier to translating the concept of life into a scientifically
robust concept. Furthermore, it is unclear if these moves to undermine folk or lay
concepts of life will ameliorate deeper fears about the blurring of the boundary
between the artificial and the natural world.

10. Conclusion and Recommendations

This report has argued that synthetic biology should be understood in terms of both
well established traditions within molecular biology and as an emerging field in its
own right. The idea of biological engineering has a long history and can be seen as a
central motif in 20th century biology. However, this promise has only started to be
realised as the speed and scale of existing technologies has increased. In this sense,
there is nothing completely new about synthetic biology that hasn’t already been
discussed in relation to the earlier development of molecular biology, recombinant
DNA and genetic engineering. Debates about biosafety, bioweapons and the ethics
of engineering life all took place in the 1970s and 80s.

However, it is also important to recognise that something new and important is

happening. In part this represents a growing confidence in the scientific community to
undertake the project of engineering life, but it also marks the maturity of a series of
powerful technologies, which are converging with other developments in computing,
79
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

29
materials science and nanotechnology. Furthermore, synthetic biology can point to
some important success, both in terms of creating new technology platforms, and in
developing practical applications in the manufacturing of drugs and the synthesis of
pathogenic viruses.
Despite its novelty, it is clear that the emergence of synthetic biology is following a
now well established path in terms of the debates about the social and ethical issues.
Many of the early fears surrounding the growth of recombinant DNA have never
come to pass, but this is, in large part, due to the creation of robust governance
regimes at local, national and international levels that have controlled the
applications of the science and technology. These have included rigorous
containment measures and multilateral controls on some aspects of their military use,
as well as public debates over sensitive ethical issues. This is not to say that all
concerns have been successfully resolved, but it points to a continuing dynamic in
relation to synthetic biology, where societal issues will have a major influence on the
funding of science, the types of technologies developed, their application in the real
world, how they are ethically framed and the extent of regulation. The history of
genetic engineering tells us that these debates can sometimes be long and difficult,
but that they have been essential to negotiating uncertainty around the risks and
benefits of the technology, regulating its socially acceptable use, and addressing
concerns over who should control it. In this way, we can think of the science,
technology, regulatory frameworks and social implications as co-evolving through a
process of mutual shaping.

Another important lesson from the development of biotechnology over the last 30
years is that whilst the technology holds great social and economic potential and
rapid scientific progress is possible, it is far more problematic to translate this
knowledge into real world applications outside the laboratory [Nightingale and Martin,
2004, Martin and Morrison, 2006]. High expectations of both the promise and threat
of synthetic biology should therefore be tempered by a realistic sense of how difficult
it is to create successful new biotechnologies.

10.1 Responding to the Challenge

How then should different stakeholders respond to the challenging issues raised by
synthetic biology? Firstly, it is vital to recognise the importance of maintaining public
legitimacy and support. This is an important principle in its own right, but is also
imperative if funding and other forms of institutional support are to be maintained.
This was clearly shown by the decline in public funding for the genetic modification of
crops following the GM food controversy in Europe in the 1990s. In order to avoid this
scientific research must not get too far ahead of public attitudes and potential
applications should demonstrate clear social benefits. Furthermore, the potential
benefits of the technology must not be overhyped or this risks both creating
excessive public anxiety and unrealistic hopes that cannot be fulfilled.

Secondly, the scientific community must take, and be seen to be taking, a lead in
debating the implications of their research and engaging with broader society around
the issues raised by synthetic biology. It is not sufficient to wait until particular issues
arise through the practical application of the technology, as this will be too late.
Public debates do not develop in a linear or rational fashion, but are unpredictable
and driven by often deeply held cultural attitudes to nature, the environment and the
place of science. Anticipatory intervention is therefore essential.

30
Thirdly, partnership with civil society groups, social scientists and ethicists should be
pursued as a highly effective way of understanding critical issues, engaging with
publics and winning support for emerging scientific fields. However, at the same time
it must be recognised that this is a two-way process and that some ethically
problematic scientific projects and potentially controversial technologies may have to
be abandoned in order to maintain trust. From this perspective, experiments in
upstream engagement and public consultation should be undertaken as they provide
a valuable channel for helping negotiate the boundaries of what is socially acceptable
science.

Finally, a robust governance framework must be in place before many of the

applications of synthetic biology are realised. This will require a thorough review of
existing controls and regulations, and the development of new measures in the areas
highlighted in this report, particularly relating to biosafety, environmental release and
biosecurity.

Research agencies, such as the BBSRC, therefore have an important role, not just in
terms of funding the best science, but also in steering and shaping the field so that
research is undertaken in a way that ensures ongoing public support and helps
realise the potential social and economic benefits of these powerful technologies,
whilst controlling their risks in a way that reassures both the public and the scientific
community.

Given the pervasive nature of synthetic biology and its potential for widespread
application in what ultimately may be a mundane fashion, its development and
application will need to be governed at multiple levels and using a range of policies
and practices. These may include the establishment of new professional norms in the
scientific community (e.g. codes of conduct concerning dual use technology), local
and national research oversight, statutory regulation (e.g. new laws and formal
regulatory agencies) and international co-operation and treaties. Such a multi-level
governance framework will have to provide a robust overarching framework, whilst
respecting different national traditions and empowering local enforcement. It will also
have to be fully supported by the scientific community and other professional groups
involved, through a process of training and awareness-raising. Finding the right
balance between formal statutory regulation and self-regulation of the scientific
community remains a contentious issue and will occur only after the risks of synthetic
biology are more widely understood and debated.

In thinking about how synthetic biology might be governed a number of important

questions must be answered:

Biosafety
 Are there new potential threats posed by synthetic biology in terms of risks to
health?
 Does synthetic biology require new forms of risk assessment and governance
beyond those already used in relation to established practices of genetic
engineering?

Environmental release
 Are there new potential threats posed by synthetic biology in terms of the risk
of unplanned release and damage to the environment?
 Under what circumstances could synthetic biology based products be safely
released into the environment?

31
  Do existing risk assessment procedures and controls on the release of GMOs
adequately cover novel organisms created using synthetic biology?
Bioterrorism
 What problems are posed by synthetic biology in terms of the development of
new technologies and capabilities for the development of biological weapons
by individuals, states and non-state groups?
 Do established international regimes for the control of bioweapons need to be
amended to incorporate the introduction of synthetic biology?
 What measures should be taken to increase awareness within the scientific
community of the biosecurity issues surrounding synthetic biology?

Scientific and economic monopolies

 To what extent are broad patents being granted that might lead to monopolies
over the exploitation and application of synthetic biology?
 How can policy be developed to balance the claims of inventors and broader
public interests to promote scientific research and affordable access to new
technology?

Exacerbating global inequalities in trade

 To what extent will synthetic biology create new, or exacerbate existing,
inequalities in international trade and development?
 What measures can be taken to promote global equity in areas most affected
by new technologies such as synthetic biology?

Creating artificial life

 To what extent does synthetic biology fundamentally challenge established
notions of what constitutes life?
 How can constructive public debate on the cultural and philosophical
implications of advances in synthetic biology be fostered?

Addressing the important questions raised by synthetic biology should be a policy

priority for government, research funders, and the scientific community in order to
ensure that it realises its potential in a way that is ethically acceptable and
commands broad public support.

32
 References

Academy of Medical Sciences and Royal Academy of Engineering (2007)

Systems Biology: A Vision for Engineering and Medicine downloaded 08/02/07 from:
http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/engagement/pdf/Systems_Biology_Report.pdf

Aldhous, P. (2005) The Bioweapon is in the Post New Scientist 9/11/05 available
here: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825252.900.html 18/09/07

Anjana Ahuja (2007) Life is Just a Bowl of Petri The Times July 2nd Features p.18

Ball, Phillip (2004) Starting from Scratch Nature 431: 624-626

Benner, S.A. and Sismour, M. (2005) Synthetic Biology Nature Reviews Genetics
6:533-543

Bhutkar, Arjun (2005) Synthetic Biology: Navigating the Challenges Ahead Journal
of Biolaw and Business 8(2): 19-29

Blakemore, Colin (2008) And Man Recreated Life. But now the Problems Begin.
The Observer January 27th Comment p.39

Central Intelligence Agency (2003) The Darker Bioweapons Future prepared by

Office of Transnational Issues available here: www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/bw1103.pdf on
10/08/07

Chopra, P. and Kamma, A. (2006) Engineering Life through Synthetic Biology In

Silico Biology 6: 401-410

Church, G. (2005) Let us go forth and Safely Multiply Nature 438: 423

Leroy Cronin, L., Krasnogor, N., Davis, B.G., Alexander, C., Robertson, N.,
Steinke, J.H.G., Schroeder, S.L.M., Khlobystov, A.N., Cooper1, G., Gardner,
P.M., Siepmann, P., Whitaker, B.j., and Marsh, D. (2006) The imitation game a
computational chemical approach to recognizing life Nature Biotechnology 24: 1203­
1206

Dando, M.R. (1999) The Impact of the Development of Modern Biology and Medicine
on the Evolution of Offensive Biological Warfare Programs in the Twentieth Century.
Defense Analysis, 15(1):51

Davis, B.G. (2004) Mimicking Posttranslational Modifications of Proteins Science

303: 480-482

Deplazes, A. (2008) Ethical implications of synthetic biology. Oral paper given to

conference on Genomics and Society: setting the agenda. Amsterdam, 18/18 April
2008.

Endy, D (2005) Foundations for Engineering Biology Nature Reviews 438: 449-453

ETC Group (2007) Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic

Biology downloaded here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=602
on 13/08/07

33
ETC Group (2007b) Backgrounder: J. Craig Venter Institute’s patent application on
World’s First Human-Made Species available here:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=631 13/08/07

ETC Group (2007c) Goodbye Dolly, Hello Synthia! J. Craig Venter Institute Seeks
Monopoly Patents on World’s First-Ever Human-Made Life Form available here:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=631 on 13/08/07
ETC Group (2006) Global Coalition Sounds the Alarm on Synthetic Biology,
Demands Oversight and Societal Debate ETC Group News Release containing the
open letter available here: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=8
09/09/07

Fraser, C.M. et al (1995) The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma genitalium

Science 270(5235) 397-403

Garfinkel, Michele, S., Endy, D., Epstein, G.L., and Friedman, R.M. (2007)
Synthetic Genomics: options for governance available here:
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/fileadmin/site/research/projects/synthetic-genomics­
report/synthetic-genomics-report.pdf last accessed: 08/04/08

Heinemann, M and Panke, S. (2006) Synthetic Biology – Putting Engineering into

Biology Bioinformatics 22(22): 2790-2799

Henkel, J. and Maurer, S.M. (2007) The Economics of Synthetic Biology Molecular
Systems Biology 3 (117):1-4

Herrera, S. (2005) Synthetic Biology offers Alternative Pathways to Natural Products

Nature 23(3): 270-271

Ian Sample (2007) First genome transplant turns one species into another: Research
is aimed at producing green fuel: Critics warn of terrorists creating new bioweapons
The Guardian, London June 29th Science Section

Jha, Alok (2008) Biologist Claims Significant Step Towards Artificial Life The
Guardian January 25th UK News and Analysis p.14

Josefson, D. (2002) Scientists Manage to Manufacture Polio Virus British Medical

Journal 325:122

Kay, L.E. (1993) The molecular vision of life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation
and the rise of the new biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelle, A. (2007) Synthetic biology and biosecurity awareness in Europe. Synbiosafe/

Bradford Science and Technology Report No 9. University of Bradford. Available
from http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/ST_Reports/ST_Report_No_9.pdf

Kochendoerfer, G.G. et al. (2003) Design and Chemical Synthesis of a

Homogenous Polymer-modified Erythropoeisis Protein Science 299: 884-887

Martin, P.A. and Morrison, M. (2006) Realising the potential of genomic medicine.
Report for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (Pharmacy Practice Research Trust).
~180 pages.

34
Martin, V.J.J., Pitera, D.J., Withers, S.T., Newman, J.D. and Keasling J.D. (2003)
Engineering a Mevalonate pathway in Escherichia coli for Production of Terpenoids
Nature Biotechnology 21 (7):796-802

Maurer, S. M., Lucas, K.V. and Terrell S. (2006) From Understanding to Action:
Community Based Options for Improving Safety and Security in Synthetic Biology
downloaded draft copy 1.1 April 15, 2006 from
http://gspp.berkeley.edu/iths/UC%20White%20Paper.pdf 06/09/07

Mohr, S.C. (2007) Primer for Synthetic Biology downloaded draft (18/07/07) from:
http://openwetware.org/images/3/3d/SB_Primer_100707.pdf on 06/01/07

Nature Biotechnology (2007) Patenting the Parts Nature Biotechnology 25(8): 822

Nature (2007) Meanings of 'life' Synthetic biology provides a welcome antidote to

chronic vitalism. Nature 447, 1031-1032 (28 June 2007)

Nature (2006) Policing Ourselves Nature 441(7092): 383

NEST (2005) Synthetic Biology: Applying Engineering to Biology Report of a NEST

High-Level Expert Group available here
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nest/docs/syntheticbiology_b5_eur21796_en.pdf

Nightingale, P. and Martin, P.A. (2004) The Myth of the biotech revolution. Trends
in Biotechnology. 22(11) p564-569

Pauly, P. (1987) Controlling life: Jacques Loeb and the engineering ideal in biology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2008) Synthetic Biology no. 298
accessed 13/02/07: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn298.pdf

Peterson, S. N., Hu, P.C., Bott, K.F., and Hutchison 3rd, C.A. (1993) A Survey of
the Mycoplasma genitalium Genome by Using Random Sequencing Journal of
Bacteriology 175(24): 7918-7930

Pleiss, Jurgen (2006) The Promise of Synthetic Biology App. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
73:735-739

Rai, A. and Boyle, J. (2007) Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property Rights, the
Public Domain and the Commons PLoS Biology 5(3): e58

Randerson, J. (2006) Lax Laws, Virus DNA and Potential for Terror The Guardian
June 14th available here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1796766,00.html
18/09/07

Rowan, D. (2006) The Next Big Thing: Biohacking The Times Sept. 16th, Times
Magazine p12

Schmidt, M. (2008) The biosafety of synthetic biology. Oral paper given to

conference on Genomics and Society: setting the agenda. Amsterdam, 18/18 April
2008.

Sharp, P.A. (2005) 1918 Flu and Responsible Science Science 310: 17

35
Smith, Hamilton O., Hutchinson III, Clyde A., Pfannkoch, C. and Venter, Crag J.
(2003) Generating a Synthetic Genome by Whole Genome Assembly: PhiX174
bacteriophage from Synthetic Oligonucleotides Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 100(26): 15440-15445

Sunday Times (2007) The scientist who wants to put a microbe in your tank July 1st
Features, News p21

SYNBIOLOGY (2006) An Analysis of Synthetic Biology Research in Europe and

North America downloaded 02/02/08 available here:
http://www2.spi.pt/synbiology/documents/news/D11%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

Szybalski, W. (1974) In Vivo and in Vitro Initiation of Transcription, Page 405. In: A.
Kohn and A. Shatkay (Eds.), Control of Gene Expression, pp. 23-24, and Discussion
pp. 404-405 (Szybalski's concept of Synthetic Biology), 411-412, 415 - 417. New
York: Plenum Press, 1974 (cited in Wikipedia)

Tucker, J.B. and Zilinskas, R.A. (2006) The Promise and Perils of Synthetic Biology
The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society, Spring 2006: 25-45

Tumpey, T., Basler, C., Aguilar, P., Zeng, H. Solorzano, A., Swayne, D., Cox, N.
Katz, J. Taubenberger, J.K., Palese, P. and Garcia-Sastre, A. (2005)
Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic Virus
Science 310: 77-80

van Kasteren, S.I., Kramer, H.B., Jensen, H.H., Campbell, S.J., Kirkpatrich, J.,
Oldham, N.J., Anthony, D.C. and Davis, B.G. (2007) Expanding the Diversity of
chemical Protein Modification Allows Post-translational Mimicry Nature 446:1105­
1109

You, L., Cox, R.S.III, Weiss, R. and Arnold, F.H. (2004) Programmed Population
Control by Cell-Cell Communication and Regulated Killing Nature 428(868):871

36