Designer Life: Scotland's Next Industrial Revolution?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fiona Godsman on April 8, 2010 at 8:27

Sounds like it will be a very interesting debate. I know very little about synthetic biology so can't comment on your questions, but I'd love to know what others think.

In my view, I think that the biggest challenge will be in communicating the science accurately to the general public. And that has to be a two way discussion, really listening to concerns and objections and responding thoughtfully to them. If the trust of the general public cannot be gained, then the potential of the technology will never be realised.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Greaves on April 8, 2010 at 9:17

II know this is a topic that the media like to get worked up about, labelling it as ‘Frankenstein technology' or 'man playing God', but, in my personal opinion, there is a less emotive argument.

Man has been manipulating nature ever since we stopped being 'hunter gatherers' and started farming (and probably before that). We started farming in a small way: clearing natural habitats (forests) and planting edible crops; putting animals into captivity to save the effort of hunting; and training animals (such as dogs and horses) to help with our work. Then we realised that we could get better crops, and animals that were meatier/yielded more milk/pulled a plough for longer, if we were a little selective about how the plants and animals were propagated/bred.

It wasn't long before we got quite smart about this, cross pollinating and grafting with plants (look at grape vines and high yielding crops such as wheat) and extensive in-breeding in animals (look at the extreme characteristics of some show dogs and race horses). This is genetic engineering, make no mistake, even if it's not very efficient. What we are doing is mixing up genes to produce an organism with characteristics that suit man, not nature.

And then we got a bit better at it; artificial insemination; good looking (if tasteless) fruit; and test tube babies. Even genetically manipulated yeasts to produce your favourite beer!

Then, a couple of decades or so ago, some breakthroughs in science offered the possibility to do this genetic manipulation more efficiently, and at the level of a single gene. And now we are facing the reality of gene therapy and medicines that could eliminate diseases, crops that could survive severe droughts and produce higher yields of more nutritious foods, plentiful supplies of green energy, production techniques that could revolutionise manufacturing industries and bugs that could clean up oil spills.

Of course there are risks. There are risks in all types of energy production and we're all familiar with the nuclear debate. Drug discovery carries risks - many of us remember the Thalidomide tragedy. The debate over genetically modified crops still goes on - although I think the starving millions on this planet would not refuse food from such crops. And if we could clean up the mess we're making of this planet as well, that would be pretty good, wouldn't it?

If we took no risks, we wouldn't have air travel, space exploration, oil and gas from below the sea, mains electricity, anaesthetics, drugs, surgery and much more. And yes, in the wrong hands, many technologies can be dangerous, but that shouldn't stand in the way of progress.

Embrace these new tools - there going to change our world for the better!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Struthers on April 8, 2010 at 10:13

Synthetic Biology is a hugely exciting area for science and for the general public. While it is controversial we must learn from mistakes and best practice from other emerging sciences disciplines and realise that a good initial step is learning to communicate the benefits to the public.

When genetically modified (GM) crops first appeared they had the potential to be welcomed with open arms by the public. These would be crops which could help reduce famine in the third world, made our plates full of healthy tasty cheap food and give our economy a timely boost. However the GM crops companies and lobby didn’t work together to get the message across. This was especially a problem in the UK as we were playing catch up with the large US corporations. Before long the anti-GM crops lobby managed to steal the initiative and now GM crops in the UK will forever be associated with Frankenstein foods.

However the stem cells research community on the other hand took the initiative and decided to go out and teach the public the benefits of the technology and why the ethical issues weren't quite as bad as could be portrayed. Agencies like the UK & Scottish Stem Cell Networks have been set up to help researchers talk to each other and educate the public on the potential benefits. Taking the initiative has been crucial and now stem cell research has excellent approval ratings in the British public. Now we are all waiting eagerly for the actual benefits to materials but crucially the research has been given time and money thanks to the public and therefore political support of the cause.

In the US they had almost the opposite effect, GM crops are a well established and supported sciences due to the large number of companies lobbying the government and public whereas stem cells is only just starting to get the recognition it deserves (only after years of attempts to keep it marginalised) as the anti-lobby managed to get in first and grab the publics attention. This goes to show if you can get in and educate the public early you will always be on the front foot.

We need to make sure Synthetic Biology goes down the stem cell route in this country so engaging the public is a crucial first step. In Scotland we have a number of good young scientists working in this area and we need to create a favourable political environment to help them succeed both scientifically and economically.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Rinaldi on April 8, 2010 at 12:49

This a genuinely exciting area that to be honest we don't were it will it go. Here is my thoughts based on were it all is right now.
Do you believe that humans have the right to change the genetic makeup of living organisms if it's for the greater good of humanity?
Yes, we have been doing this for millennia with plants and animals. If we hadn't we would not be around right now.
What do you think are the major issues in Synthetic Biology?
Hype versus reality. We are only able at this point in time to create relatively simple things such as novel synthetic pathways for the manufacture of a desired product. The attraction being that the pathways have the potential to be more efficient in terms of yield, purity and or offer an alternative to toxic chemical manufacture. I know Craig Venter remade the whole M. genitalium genome synthetically. But to be honest it was only to show it could be done technically, it had no other purpose than that.
What do you think might be the most important applications of this technology?
Enhanced biomanufacturing initially.
What limits should there be on synthetic life that we develop?
A good question and one that will vary according according different ethical, religious and moral viewpoints in the world on what actually constitutes life. Likely to be a similar position as for human embryonic stem cells where certain regions allow research and others do not.
Do you think Scotland could play a significant part in Synthetic Life research?
Yes, the capabilties are there and we have a great deal of experience in the area of DNA synthesis which is the key enabling technology. The key is translating this to econimic success for Scotland plc.

Fiona's point on public opinion is a crucial one. Calling it designer life is as Jim suggests is an emotive phrase. Let's stick with synthetic biology take the life out of it. We don't want this promising field to be tarnished at this stage of development due a political change driven by uninformed press hyped concerns. Whilst it will be possible as shown by Venter to make a simple bacterium. Muticellular organisms are many many orders of magnitude more complex. For instance there are 485 genes (1 million bases) in the M. genitalium genome, humans have 20,000 - 25,000 genes (3 Billion bases).
We have a long way to go in understanding the relationship between a given gene (DNA), the proteins it generates and the final properties of a complex organism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon Struthers on April 12, 2010 at 12:27

Interesting article in the Sunday Herald yesterday about Synthetic Biology in Scotland ahead of the debate on Tuesday.

Link - Sunday Herald - A Design for Life

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Siobhan McDermit on April 14, 2010 at 16:32

Missed the debate? - see what the audience thought here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Siobhan McDermit on May 12, 2010 at 15:28

Now you can watch the debate online here.

Siobhan McDermit said:

Missed the debate? - see what the audience thought here.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion