September 22, 2009
Synthetic biology, 2
Drew Endy, a board member at the BioBrick foundation, commented on my last entry on synthetic biology:
The existing collection of BioBrick parts is fantastic, relative to nothing at all, but is still very far from being a mature technology platform. Much software and wetware engineering is still required simply to determine if the technical promise of the BioBricks approach will scale within the “messy molecular milleau” inside cells. Additional work in terms of defining if and how communities of responsible wetware engineers and hackers might develop and thrive needs to happen.
He seems to expand on this idea in the New Yorker:
Endy pointed out that we are spending trillions of dollars on health care and that preventing disease is obviously more desirable than treating it. “My guess is that our ultimate solution to the crisis of health-care costs will be to redesign ourselves so that we don’t have so many problems to deal with. But note,” he stressed, “you can’t possibly begin to do something like this if you don’t have a value system in place that allows you to map concepts of ethics, beauty, and aesthetics onto our own existence.
“These are powerful choices. Think about what happens when you really can print the genome of your offspring. You could start with your own sequence, of course, and mash it up with your partner, or as many partners as you like. Because computers won’t care. And, if you wanted evolution, you can include random number generators.” That would have the effect of introducing the element of chance into synthetic design.
Although Endy speaks with passion about the biological future, he acknowledges how little scientists know. “It is important to unpack some of the hype and expectation around what you can do with biotechnology as a manufacturing platform,” he said. “We have not scratched the surface. But how far will we be able to go? That question needs to be discussed openly, because you can’t address issues of risk and society unless you have an answer.”
Answers, however, are not yet available. The inventor and materials scientist Saul Griffith has estimated that powering our planet requires between fifteen and eighteen terawatts of energy. How much of that could we manufacture with the tools of synthetic biology? Estimates range between five and ninety terawatts. “If it turns out to be the lower figure, we are screwed,” Endy said. “Because why would we take this risk if we cannot create much energy? But, if it’s the top figure, then we are talking about producing five times the energy we need on this planet and doing it in an environmentally benign way. The benefits in relation to the risks of using this new technology would be unquestioned. But I don’t know what the number will be, and I don’t think anybody can know at this point. At a minimum, then, we ought to acknowledge that we are in the process of figuring that out and the answers won’t be easy to provide.
The eight page article is a valuable read if this subject has any interest to you. It traces the beginnings of synthetic biology, gives some context for how BioBricks came about and where the technology/movement is heading. It’s both scary and interesting: we are talking about mucking around with the fundaments of life and we all know where that could lead.
Leave a Reply
