| II. Synthia’s (not so) revolutionary character |
|
The announcement of the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell by the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in May 2010 caught worldwide media coverage. ‘This is not (yet) new life’, the general comments read. Or, as Craig Venter put it himself: “It is not life from scratch.”
Venter called the work “a baby step” in the field of synthetic biology. But ultimately, as he explained to the Health and Energy Committee on Energy and Commerce in the US House of Representatives, “Synthetic genomics is different [from standard molecular biology/genetic engineering] in that scientists start with digital information in the computer, which allows for the design of entire synthetic chromosomes to replace existing chromosomes in cells.” Disruptive character The question of ‘newness’ and the revolutionary or even disruptive character of synthetic biology is not only a purely scientific issue. It is highly relevant for society, and has strategic dimensions. For instance: the answer to the question of newness is decisive for decisions on research and regulatory policies. On the one hand, scientists and research institutes will tend to define synthetic biology as ‘new’ when they want to attract new investments. On the other hand, really new approaches in biology will trigger policy makers to call for stricter or new regulation. Moreover, the question whether ‘new life forms’ can be created or not, will influence public perception and acceptance. Philosophical watershed? A comment in the Vatican’s official newspaper (L’Osservatore Romano) on the self-replicating synthetic bacterium, stated that “It is not the creation of life, but the replacement of one of its motors”. It is illustrative for the majority of the institutional comments that JCVI’s achievement is not a philosophical watershed. In a public panel discussion about synthetic biology organised by the German Ethics Council, some of the participants likewise called for a “de-dramaticising” of the issue. On the other hand, President Obama asked his bioethics commission to study the implications of the JCVI research in a broad sense, suggesting that synthetic biology may raise new issues. This commission is expected to make recommendations on "any actions the Federal government should take to ensure that America reaps the benefits of this developing field of science while identifying appropriate ethical boundaries and minimizing identified risks" before the end of the year. More about JVCI’s achievement Alla Katsnelson. Nature News, 20 May, 2010
Craig Venter. The implications of our Synthetic cell, New Scientist 2762, p. 3, 26 May 2010. Prepared Statement Of J. Craig Venter, Ph.D. Before The U.S. House Of Representatives Committee On Energy And Commerce, May 27, 2010
More about comments Mildred K. Cho and David A. Relman. Synthetic “Life,” Ethics, National Security, and Public Discourse, Science Vol 329, pp 38-39, 2 July 2010, DOI: 10.1126/science.1193749 Gregory Kaebnik. Is the “Synthetic Cell” about life?, The Scientist Vol. 24, Issue 7, p. 27, 1 July, 2010 Synthetic Bacteria Cell ‘Not Life’, Says Vatican, Arab Times, May 21 More about Obama’s bioethics commission Barack Obama, Letter to the Presidential Commission for the Study on Bioethical issues, May 20, 2010 Jocelyn Kaiser, Bioethics Council Hears Pleas for More Oversight of Synthetic Biology, Science, July 9, 2010 |