The emerging field of synthetic biology is affirming itself at the forefront of modern science, possibly offering practical, effective solutions to many of the worlds most pressing problems. Described most simply as the ‘design and construction of new biological entities…’ synthetic biology, at first, seems to be a natural progression from twentieth century genetic engineering . However, synthetic biology sets itself a slightly different ethos, the central ‘from the bottom up’ dogma of the field means that organisms are designed, programmed, built, not just slightly altered or adjusted.
Origin & ScopeAlthough synthetic biology has only recently entered the scientific limelight, it was first mentioned back in 1912 by French biologist Stephane Leduc. Leduc published under the title ‘La Biologie Synthetique’ and in doing so introduced the world to synthetic biology . In his book, Leduc suggested that a science is only fully understood when it can be used in a synthetic manner in which we can employ strict rules to aid reproducibility . Thereafter, the field remained largely dormant for half a century, until the Polish scientist, Waclaw Szybalski began to emphasize the potential of synthetic biology throughout the 1970s. Then, on the awarding of the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1978 to Hamilton Smith, Werner Arber and Daniel Nathans for their discovery of restriction enzymes, theoretically enabling the ability to ‘cut and paste’ genetic material . Unsurprisingly, it was Waclaw Szybalski that concisely accentuated the magnitude of this discovery when he said ‘The work on restriction nucleases not only permits us easily to construct recombinant DNA molecules and to analyze individual genes, but also has led us into the new era of synthetic biology where not only existing genes are described and analyzed but also new gene arrangements can be constructed and evaluated.’ Immediately linking the discovery with the field of synthetic biology, allowing the science to become practically feasible .
Another main aspect of synthetic biology that sets it apart from previous genetic disciplines is its strong connections with engineering and biotechnology; in fact many people see synthetic biology as an inter-disciplinary subject. For example, a synthetic biologist can access a ‘parts catalogue’ to select and purchase specific genetic sequences based on the phenotypic effect they will produce. These parts are called ‘bio-bricks ’ and this regimental, regular formalization of genetics is related strongly to engineering more so than biology. This link is compounded by the emergence of competitions such as iGem that allow teams of biologists and engineers to create novel organisms from standard biological parts. Furthermore, such crossovers seem to generate great results such as the pioneering work of Tim Gardner and Jim Collins in 2000 when they constructed a genetic toggle switch (Riboswitch) in E. coli allowing even better genetic control in the future .
Synthetic biology may well be only in its infant stages but its had its fair share of success stories, one of the more publicized being the work of Jay Keasling. Keasling engineered yeast metabolism to generate an anti-malarial drug (artemisinic acid) using synthetic biology . Although Keasling’s work is the most ethically beneficial (although it’s not currently economically viable), many more advances have been made in recent years. The work at J. Craig Venter (JCV) lab has also been of note, for example in 2010 a team at JCV lab developed the first self-replicating bacterium, a crucial breakthrough enhancing the viability of future projects . Breakthroughs such as these have a far reaching impact over the scientific community, as people hypothesize over future uses of synthetic biology. Adam Rutherford writing for the Guardian explains that ‘There will be very few aspects of our lives that will remain untouched by synthetic biology.’ If current trends and developments continue, few can doubt his blunt claim .
Synthetic Biology & BiofuelsWhilst there has been substantial research (with success) regarding biofuels as a product of synthetic biology, most of the linkages between the two are limited to what ‘could happen’ and not necessarily what has already happened. Many papers have been published over the last few years detailing the obvious notion that one has the correct tools to engineer the metabolism of a microorganism in such a way that it can create biodiesel, hydrogen or other biofuels. In one such paper from Jay Keasling et al, one advantage of this technology is highlighted in that no infrastructural changes would have to be made if we sustainably created petroleum-derived fuels . Similarly, in 2008, the American Chemical Society published an article entitled ‘defossilizing fuel’ which pushed synthetic biology as the most favourable option for future fuel production.
With regards to the current situation, biofuels are being made from microorganisms by engineering their metabolism synthetically. Jay Keasling (2010) used plant biomass to derive biofuels via fatty-acid metabolism . Another example is the work of Chris Brigham (2012) that consisted of engineering a soil bacterium to generate branched-chain alcohols that resultantly formed a biofuel. There are many more examples of successful metabolic engineering to generate biofuels. So what are the drawbacks?
Safety, Economics & EthicsSynthetic biology is a fast advancing technology and one that has immense potential, however, there are potential stumbling blocks. Firstly, the safety risks and the resultant precautions that need to be taken. Firstly, the safety issues that surround synthetic biology mainly focus around two issues, the potential for ‘DIY biology’ and the potential for hazardous leakages. The former relating to the publication of the part catalogue previously mentioned (vii) and how it could be used to purchase and thus create dangerous synthetic organisms by non-professionals. The latter is regarding the possible destruction a leakage of synthetic organisms would cause on endogenous species as they compete for resources. Health and safety is a heated topic within the synthetic biology community. The importance of safety as an issue is best highlighted by a publication by the British Health & Safety Executive (HSE) . Also, by the fact that a European project entitled ‘SynBioSafe’ was commissioned to assess the safety of synthetic biology, the project received €226,000 of funding.
With regards to the economics, at present, synthetic biology is not a viable option for biofuel production. Jay Keasling, amongst others, has presented this informationxv and it’s the main hurdle for the technology to overcome. Another pressing issue within the field, regards who owns the genetic information? Who should be able to access or use the information? It is a question that needs to be addressed if the technology is to become economically mainstream.
Finally, synthetic biology also has many ethical talking points, mainly surrounding the ‘playing God’ controversy; should we be changing an organism’s natural objective? Should we be creating organisms? Only God supposedly holds these rights. This is another question that will have to be answered for synthetic biology to be able to achieve its full potential.
Concluding ThoughtsIn conclusion, synthetic biology can lead mankind into the future, with new sustainable technologies to produce vaccines, fuels and much more. Conversely, the field still has many ethical and economical hurdles to overcome before it can be a viable alternative from current technologies. The ability to engineer and build organisms to act in a productive, predictable manner is a great power and one that can be harnessed to fulfill many of our needs. In my opinion, I believe that synthetic biology holds the answer to many problems; I believe the benefits of the science far outweigh the minuscule drawbacks. Admittedly, the economical problems will be hard to overcome, but it will be overcome with time and when this technology is cheap, it will be even more accessible. So, possibly in 20-40 years synthetic biology will be creating our fuel, curing our diseases and forming part of our everyday life, but for now it seems that the technology is not quite ready for mass consumption
PLEASE NOTE- This article does contain references and is available (with more and previous) with references via the link below; please do take note of this...http://biochemperspectives.blogspot.co.uk/
