Synthetic biology, long the subject of science fiction, has come into its own this year as scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute published a report outlining an important goal reached on the road to creating synthetic life. Not to be confused with genetic engineering, which alters or enhances a particular organism by inserting specific pieces of genetic material into the cell, synthetic biologists are attempting to create an entirely new life.

The vocabulary of the synthetic biologist includes some terms that are essential to understanding what these creators of life are up to. DNA is the genetic material (what we call “genes”) that makes every life form similar to its parent. A chromosome is a threadlike structure that holds the DNA in a specific order; scientists identify the genes they are studying by their placement in the chromosome.  A genome is one complete set of chromosomes and is considered to be the full package of genes that give life its inherited traits. Every cell in a life form contains a genome.

In 2007, using bacteria whose entire genome consists of a single chromosome, scientists at the Institute demonstrated that they could successfully transplant the naturally occurring genome from one bacterium into the cell of a different bacterium. As anticipated, the cell that received the transplant then assumed the behavior of the chromosome donor. It is the genome that defines to the life form how it will function, including ingestion, reproduction, and the composition of its excrement. When scientists can build a genome to order, the life form will follow the instructions it has been assigned.   

While scientists have been able to identify the 485 working genes in the Mycoplasma genitalium bacteria used in the J. Craig Venter Institute research, they still don’t know which of those genes are essential for the organism to sustain life. It is the researchers’ hope that someday they will be able to construct the genomes from a program that lists each piece of DNA based on the proposed outcome, using the fewest genes required in order to accomplish the mission.

On the heels of the 2007 transplant success, the Venter researchers used yeast and E. Coli cells to create duplicate pieces of DNA material in the laboratory through the use of the four amino acids, adenine, guanine, cytosine and thiamine, and assembling them into an entirely laboratory-made chromosome. Members in the scientific community expect that 2008 will see a successful transplant of the synthetic genome, opening the door for bioengineers to design and produce organisms for specific, singular functions. 

The prevalent hope in the scientific community is that advances in synthetic biology will lead to the production of cells that can be grown to repair or control human-caused damage to the world’s ecology. The creation of new fuels that will diminish our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions is one of the driving forces behind this technology. Additionally, the same research is already taking us down the path of creating an organic means to clean up oil spills, producing specialized, high-tech fabrics, and supporting more economic methods of manufacturing pharmaceuticals.

Consumer watchdog organizations such as Canada’s outspoken ETC Group have been quick to state concerns about the wisdom of the research and development of artificial life with limited public discussion, lack of accountability, and an absence of oversight. With an eye toward economics, many are asking how the rights to own synthetic life and appropriately patent it will be managed. Because of bacteria’s ability to reproduce in more diverse conditions than viruses, there are also unaddressed safety concerns about contamination, accidents, unexpected results, and bio-terrorism. Environmental ethicists are asking for broad social debate before synthetic-biology advances to the point of creating organisms that can survive outside of the laboratory or, worse, become so simple that “recipes” can be found on the Internet for anyone to dabble with.

Scientists respond to the bearish concerns and the calls for governance by saying that these same doomsday risks already exist in readily available, naturally occurring resources and, therefore, need not be imposed on this industry. There are countless other means for creating havoc in the world that are equally devastating and as easily accessible but are not debated simply because we acknowledge that they cannot be controlled. While we wait for a right-to-life discussion that could go on as long and as contentiously as the abortion issues have been debated, precious time is lost in the development of a technology that has the possibility for doing great good here and now.

Using strategically placed bits of DNA to create a unique signature within the chromosome, the scientist establishes at least a minimal level of accountability. Even if the practice of marking the work may have more economic motivation than moral, doing so does leave a tracer of sorts to help identify if tampering has occurred. It also provides geneticists with the ability to determine if a genome is naturally occurring or if it was a synthetic creation. Researchers also claim that by virtue of their design with limited DNA content, synthetic life forms are not likely to be able to survive beyond the very specific conditions they are engineered for.

There are laboratories around the world pursing the development of synthetic life from different perspectives and with differing goals. Success promises the laboratory significant economic profitability and investors see the opportunity as a when, not if, proposition. While skeptics argue that nature is too complex to allow us to create a fully synthetic life, the researchers who believe in their goal continue to move forward step-by-step in this highly competitive arena.