Kenna Allison
Professor Martinez
ENC 1102
8 November 2012
Synthetic Biology
Since, according to how various genres reveal useful information regarding the values
and goals of discourse communities, I will be using the genres of a community that I plan to
enter as a way of analyzing how to communicate with that group. I have chosen to study
synthetic biology discipline, because synthetic biology can be a new step for mankind. Scientists
and researchers have already discovered a multitude of uses for synthetic biology, including: its
potential ways to create new drugs in order to cure deadly diseases, such as cancer; through its
malleable ways of manipulating cell genomes, there is a copious amount of experiments that can
be conducted to replicate and distinguish the human genome cell in order to improve our mental
and physical selves; and, by using synthetic biology to alter the genetics in food, organisms, and
microorganisms, the end to world hunger is right at our fingertips. These examples are only the
beginning to the perpetually endless list that synthetic biology can potentially provide for our
world. In order to analyze appropriate methods of communication for synthetic biology, I will
be examining three articles from this field, looking specifically into the genre’s settings,
participants, features, subjects, and patterns.
Setting:
The three articles “Synthetic Biology: Bits and Pieces Come to Life,” “Synthetic Biology,
Inspired by Synthetic Chemistry,” and “The Allure of Synthetic Biology,” were all accessed
through the University of Central Florida’s library’s student database. This database provides a
profound amount of information in many fields supplying students with easily accessible books,
articles, and journals. Through narrowing my search on the online database, I was able to come
across a plethora of synthetic biology journals. Each article that is being used, however, has
come from different journals and letters; such as Nature: The International Weekly Journal of
Science, the FEBS (Federation of European Biochemical Sciences) Letters, and the Science
Magazine. Together, these three articles support the constant improvements that synthetic
biology is making upon our world. All three of these articles provide well-rounded information
about the new improvements and breakthroughs in the field of synthetic biology.
The article “Synthetic Biology: Bits and Pieces Come to Life” was written by Dr. James
Collins, a professor of Biomedical Engineering at Boston University. “Synthetic Biology,
Inspired by Synthetic Chemistry” was written by Dr. Thomas Reiss, coordinator of Fraunhofer
Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, and Wilhelm Just, Professor of Biochemistry at
University of Heidelberg. Lastly, the article “The Allure of Synthetic Biology” was written by
Valda Vinson, Deputy Editor of Biology Education at University of Natal, and Elizabeth Pennisi,
writer and editor at AAAS Science. All of these articles that I have researched provide very indepth research in the field of synthetic biology; each one showing how vital the role of synthetic
biology is in improving the world. The articles all discuss in similar perspectives how lifealtering synthetic biology is becoming for the world—from providing a means to ending famine
to creating a new structure of the genetic code, synthetic biology is opening new pathways for
scientists and researchers to explore. A good example of this is provided in the article “Synthetic
Biology: Bits and Pieces Come to Life.” Dr. James Collins researches all the many new ways
that synthetic biology is helping the world, studying the improvements that have been made in
the ecosystem, medicine, and engineering. Dr. James Collins goes as far as to say “If scientists
can build genes from scratch, they can create organisms with new traits. They can create bacteria
that can clean up oil spills, rice with genes that keep the plant infection-free, or cells that can
churn out new materials” (Collins 2012). Through saying this, Collins is revealing to the reader
how synthetic biology can deconstruct a cell to its very origin and then be redesigned in order to
create new attributes in an organism. If a plant’s or microorganism’s traits can be manipulated in
ways to improve its survival rate, then eventually these changes can be made within humans, as
well.
Subject:
The themes of each article by Collins, Reiss, Just, Vinson, and Pennisi all take a very
similar approach to arguing their viewpoints on synthetic biology. These sources all provide
viable information on their claims and visions of the future of synthetic biology by providing
very thorough, intricate research, statistics, and examples. While Collin’s article and Vinson’s
and Pennisi’s article both take a more charismatic approach to defending the reasons for why
more research should be done in the field of synthetic biology; per contra, Reiss’s article takes a
more disciplined, intellectual approach on the subject—this can be determined through Reiss’s
very straight-forward language and usage of jargon throughout the entirety of his article. For
example, Reiss introduces his article with a very verbose, definitive explanation of his research,
“Still, synthetic biology is a discipline, which embraces interdisciplinary attempts in order to
have a profound, scientific base to enable the re-design of nature and to compose architectures
and processes with man-made matter” (Reiss 1). By using such a directional thesis in his
abstract, Reiss is giving a very general overview of what will come later in his surely loquacious
abstract. Reiss gives an overview of what general improvements have been made thus far in
synthetic biology, focusing more on the medical field; such as the development of artificial
organelles and cell-mimetic systems. Vinson and Pennisi discuss both the clinical application of
modified cellular circuitry and the perpetual progress of biofuels because of synthetic biology.
These researchers discuss the many ways that bacteria can be modified in efforts to produce
alternative fuel sources, leading to a more cost-effective, stable economic system and a more
eco-friendly environment (Vinson and Pennisi 3). Collins article, however, discusses a more
wide-ranged variety of positive changes that synthetic biology can provide for all of humanity—
from ending world hunger to altering and improving the human genome code.
Though the articles main not focus all of their attention on a single part of the
developments that synthetic biology has supplied, with every field that they identically discuss,
they seem to all come to an implicated general agreement. Each one of these articles concurs
with the concept that synthetic biology is thriving in new ways that researchers had once thought
impossible; and, that synthetic biology is one of the keys to helping humanity flourish and
prosper. Collins writes, “To address famine in developing countries, genetic engineers can make
inexpensive food crops, such as rice or corn, that contain extra nutrients. They could do this by
finding genes in other organisms that efficiently produce vitamin D, for example, and then add
those genes to the food's own genome. More than 36 million people a year around the world die
from hunger and malnutrition” (Collins 8). In another area, Vinson and Pennisi discuss how
researchers in synthetic biology are now discovering alternative fuel sources through easily
attainable resources, such as algae (Vinson and Pennisi 2). Each one of these articles supplies a
vast amount of information regarding the positive impacts that synthetic biology is constantly
making within our society. Though the study in synthetic biology is haphazard, being its lack in
definitive clarification and encroaching in unknown territory, each one of these authors see eye
to eye with the exactly how great the importance of synthetic biology has within our world.
Participants:
Science Magazine and Nature: The International Weekly Journal of Science are both
extremely popular journals within the science realm. The readers of these articles may vary from
students in biomedical engineering, and other science fields, to researchers and scientists
themselves; however, students have a tendency to focus on these journals more. These journals
provide a very simplistic, every-day structure form of explanation for what is currently occurring
in the field of synthetic biology. The articles that are in the FEBS Letters, however, are more
relevant to higher-up level research. Researchers, professors, and other people in the scientific
job industry are more likely to use this source, because of the formal, elaborate writing and
jargon that is used. The range of these articles, however, are so vast because these articles
provide so much useful information for anyone that may be interested in the topic of how
synthetic biology is constructing our world.
When reading these articles, readers must have an extremely disciplined, yet openminded interest in synthetic biology and biomedical engineering. Scientific articles, such as
these, are typically created by researchers currently in the field, or retired researchers that wish to
continue their studies elsewhere. As aforementioned, the writers of these articles were all
professors and researchers, many of them even claiming doctorates in their field of research.
Many of the authors were professors at universities all around the world, ranging from the United
States to Germany. For example, as provided earlier, James Collins, the writer of “Synthetic
Biology: Bits and Pieces Come to Life,” has a doctorate, the highest form of education, in
biomedical engineering, and is now currently a professor at Boston University. This provides
firm support that authors of these articles are not only extremely well-educated, but also still
working and researching their fields.
Features:
There are many recurring features shared by these articles, this includes extensive
science-related jargon and very formal research. A good example of this is provided in Reiss’s
article, saying, “Taken together, the field of artificial organelles is emerging. Still, more
examples need to be established; however, most polymeric man-made materials made are alien
to the biological context and need to be viewed under the perspective of biocompatibility and
degradability, respectively” (Reiss 32). This jargon is very specific and pertains wholly to
synthetic biology, so people who have not fully-emerged themselves within this field may have a
hard time comprehending these articles. However, even though these articles contain a large
amount of jargon, they also try to provide a more simplistic explanation for what they are saying.
This is a very helpful key in obtaining a wider range of readers, helping support their arguments
for researching further into synthetic biology. Not only does Reiss’s article provide jargon with
explanations; but it also provides many diagrams and graphs to help the reader comprehend the
material being read—this is also done in Vinson’s and Pennisi’s article.
Providing diagrams and graphs is a very useful way to explain information in articles, it
improves the reader’s comprehension with not only a vivid explanation, but also providing a
visual enhancement for the reading. Vinson’s and Pennisi’s, as well as Collin’s, article also
provide a vast amount of examples for the reader, if more information is needed for the reader. A
good example of this is in Collin’s article, as he explains briefly, “Before the toggle switch, if
scientists wanted a cell to switch a gene from on to off or vice versa, they would have to
continuously give it an inducer for the gene encoding that protein. This is like having to hold
your finger on a light switch to keep it on, which is not very useful if you want to move around
the room” (Collins 3). Another type of explanation that Vinson and Pennisi provide is discussing
what they wish to talk about, then providing further information by giving out another source.
The writers actually mention Dr. James Collin’s and another article that he, and his fellow
researchers, had written, “Ruder, Lu, and Collins (p. 1248) discuss specific constructs that
highlight the potential for moving toward clinical applications. They envision synthetic circuits
that detect unhealthy cellular phenotypes and take corrective action” (Vinson and Pennisi 2). All
evidence that is provided is given with not only the source from where it was attained, but also
answers any questions that the reader may have directly after. There are personal testimonies
from some of the authors, considering their work they have done in synthetic biology, as well.
In each one of these articles, sources have been cited in MLA format. At the bottom of
each article, there is a grandeur list of where the authors had gone to complete their research,
along with provided links. The layouts of each of these articles are very similar in style. There is
a brief introduction to what the reader will be learning through reading this article, the brief
nomenclature, followed by different fields that are affected by synthetic biology, and then an
open-ended conclusion. The introduction primarily discusses what the reader will learn about all
of the current improvements in synthetic biology; the nomenclature shows extra information and
the arrangement of how the sections will be provided; the sections confer about how synthetic
biology has affected a specific field, such as the clinical field, the ecosystem, or worldwide
improvements. The lengths of these articles, however, are very different from one another.
Reiss’s article, being of a more educational profundity, is an extremely large journal, with
multiple columns and approximately twenty-two pages. In the middle is Collin’s article which is
approximately twelve pages; however it is only one column of text. Lastly, Vinson’s and
Pennisi’s article is the shortest of them all, being only one column of text and four pages.
Surprisingly, however, the shorter articles, though straight to the point, are very
charismatic and can easily allure its reader into becoming more fascinated with synthetic
biology. This is shocking because when scientific articles are shorter, they tend to be more blunt,
not having the time or space to delve into more lustrous illustrations of their words. Collin’s
article uses a very good paradigm by saying, “The genetic code is like any other language: to be
able to write it, you have to learn how to read it and understand it” (Collins 1). Collin’s manages
to grabbing the reader’s attention with such an uncomplicated explanation and example for the
genetic code is a great way of reaching a larger variety of readers. Vinson’s and Pennisi’s article
is similar to Collin’s in this sense; even though their article is short, they provide enough
information that will captivate the reader, advocating simpler words and encouraging readers to
look at the other sources that are provided within the reading. Reiss’ tone, however, is very
stringent jargon. He explains in a very definitive tone that “Synthetic biology addresses novel
approaches to build artificial cells; one is described as a top down approach and the second one
is known as a bottom up approach” (Reiss 4). Reading further, Reiss goes straight to discussing
what the top down approach and the bottom up approach is; it is shown that he is completely
disinterested in capturing the reader’s attention with anything that is unnecessary to his
explanation of synthetic biology.
Patterns:
The genre features, such as the provided examples, the jargon, and the tone that the
authors use have revealed a great amount of about synthetic biology and its future. Collins used
an extremely efficient way of explaining the future of synthetic biology to his readers, by saying,
“Many of the major global problems, such as famine, disease and energy shortages, have
potential solutions in the world of engineered cells” (Collins 8). After Collins makes this
statement, he continues by delving further into each one of these crisis, explaining exactly how
synthetic biology can change these dilemmas that have consistently threatened our world. This is
a great way for Collins to maintain his argument for why synthetic biology should be researched
even further, as it provides a means to an end for some of the most problematic disasters we
face—forcing the article to become even more relevant and pertinent to the reader. Reiss agrees
with Collins viewpoint by determining the probable, impactful future that synthetic biology has
in store for us; “Certainly, the future research of synthetic biology is about implementation of
materials and architectures into living matters, in view of increasing robustness, but in parallel to
understand the underlying concepts of life” (Reiss 20). It is shown in each one of these articles
that the authors firmly believe that synthetic biology can create an extremely positive effect
within our world; from creating new drugs that have the ability to cure cancer to manipulating
cell genome to end world hunger.
Each one of the articles provides a way for a vast amount of people to increase their knowledge
on the usurping field of synthetic biology. Though jargon is hard to initially grasp, these articles
supply more than enough information, examples, and explanations for the reader to deduce the
definition of any technical term. As mentioned earlier, the organization of each journal was clear
and concise; this shows that the authors are very formal and well-educated, and that the articles
are meant to educate its readers in a very official style. Since these articles did not follow the
typical dry lecture tone of the classic scientific journal, they successfully managed to both
educate and entertain their readers. Without the patterns used by Collins, Vinson, Pennisi, and
Reiss, they would not have been able to provide their stance on synthetic biology as efficiently as
they did. With all of the analysis that these writers have done, they successfully were able to
show their readers how synthetic biology is productively affecting us and our world.
Annotated Bibliography
After exploring genres common to the field of biology through a preliminary genre
analysis, I continued analyzing the language and genres of my field by tracing an argument
relevant to biologists. I gathered articles relating to the connection between the attitudes towards
synthetic biology, the research that synthetic biology has currently discovered, and the perpetual
impact that continuing research within the field can make. I found academic articles relating to
this topic, and traced the arguments and patterns common to these articles. Through my research,
I have found sources claiming that synthetic biology will indubitably play a vital role within our
society towards global progression. (Collins 2012; Reiss 2012; Hodgman, Jewett 2012; Carrara,
et al. 2012; Carrera, et al. 2012; Vinson, Pennisi 2011; Fierrez, et al. 2012) and others who claim
that synthetic biology is an uncertain field that questions humanity’s ethics (Schmidt and
Lorenzo, 2012; Fierrez, et al. 2012; McKay, et al. 2012). These sources have helped me to
identify the various aspects of this issue in relation to the field of biology. In addition, these
articles have helped me continue exploring the genre conventions that I will need to learn as I
enter a new community through my major.
Research in Synthetic Biology
After exploring genres common to the field of biology through a preliminary genre
analysis, I continued analyzing the language and genres of my field by tracing an argument
relevant to biologists. I gathered articles relating to the connection between the attitudes towards
synthetic biology, the research that synthetic biology has currently discovered, and the perpetual
impact that continuing research within the field can make. I found academic articles relating to
this topic, and traced the arguments and patterns common to these articles. Through my research,
I have found sources claiming that synthetic biology will indubitably play a vital role within our
society towards global progression. (Collins 2012; Reiss 2012; Hodgman, Jewett 2012; Carrara,
et al. 2012; Carrera, et al. 2012; Vinson, Pennisi 2011; Fierrez, et al. 2012) and others who claim
that synthetic biology is an uncertain field that questions humanity’s ethics (Schmidt and
Lorenzo, 2012; Fierrez, et al. 2012; McKay, et al. 2012).
These sources have helped me to identify the various aspects of this issue in relation to
the field of biology. In addition, these articles have helped me continue exploring the genre
conventions that I will need to learn as I enter a new community through my major. I decided to
explore this topic because synthetic biology is a flourishing field that can benefit our world
greatly—it has the potential to discover cures for currently terminal diseases, internationally end
world hunger, as well as improve the human race and its structure overall. The topic of analysis
structures is important to my field because synthetic biology can have an extremely vital impact
on the medical field, as well as many other fields of science. Through analyzing this topic, I am
able to learn about and understand the possibilities that this new research is providing, as well as
the reasons to why funding for this research is constantly questioned. Through exploring
synthetic biology, I am able to improve my understanding of both biology and chemistry.
Delving into the study of synthetic biology has given me questions and concerns, but also an
overall appreciation for the sciences, encouraging me to study even further.
Synthetic Biology’s Role toward Global Progression
Synthetic biology has played a vital role in the each field of science. Not only has it
provided new questions to research for medicine, chemistry, engineering, etc., it has also
provided new evidence towards what these fields have currently been studying. Synthetic
biological research has made impacts already in many fields; however, the progression is too
quick for society to understand, but not to look forward to. Many scholars suggest that there have
been many impacts that synthetic biology has already made within the medical field (Collins
2012; Vinson, Pennisi 2011; Fierrez, et al. 2012); for example, from altering human genomes to
avoid defects to helping fix human metabolic rates. Dr. James Collins explains that synthetic
biology will have an important effect on “many major global problems, such as famine, disease
and energy shortages, and have potential solutions in the world of engineered cells” (Collins
2012). Synthetic biology will be able to play a key part in the improvement of many world
problems; and, furthermore, it will be able to push the boundaries that we did not know existed
before (Hodgman, et al 2012). In the process of addressing world famine in under-developed
countries, genetic engineers have the ability to create food crops cheaply. Through altering the
foods genomes and adding extra-nutrients to these food crops, these crops will be more
accessible to the majority and they will be more efficient in their provided nutrients. If this is
done, for example, just by adding several vitamins from other organisms to these food crops,
then the countless people currently dying from hunger and malnutrition will have a significantly
better chance (Collins 2012).
Many authors have come to the concise conclusion that synthetic biology is fundamental
to improving our world. Synthetic biology, however, is still seen as a discipline, for it makes
interdisciplinary attempts in order to enable the re-design of nature, medicine, engineering, and
the architecture of life forms. Reiss claims that the future research of synthetic biology is about
the implementation of materials and architectures into living matters, in view of increasing
robustness, but in parallel to understand the underlying concepts of life” (Reiss 2012). Both
Collins and Carrara et al. agree on the attempts to discover advancements in these fields through
injecting and manipulating cellular forms. Carrara et al. discuss the technological advancements
that have been made within synthetic biology. There have been proteins injected into cell-like
systems to create biochemical machinery for signaling molecule production for decoding.
Through injections, these cell-like structures are able to be maneuvered and controlled to
generate altered, improved cell-like systems (Carrara, et al. 2012).
In another area, Vinson and Pennisi discuss how researchers in synthetic biology are now
discovering alternative fuel sources, just as Collins had mentioned, through easily attainable
resources, such as algae. These alternative fuels, also called “biofuels,” are becoming necessary
as our world slowly runs out of the sources that have been used for decades. These biofuels are
clean, cheap, and a renewable source of energy; and they are all a result of manipulating bacteria
and microbes (Vinson and Pennisi 2012). The researcher Fierrez discusses the synthetic
generation of algorithmic problems, designed to present many different applications in the ability
to research; such as “performance estimation, security evaluation in order to test existing
biometric solutions against fraudulent access attempts, individuality studies, or for synthetically
increasing the amount of enrollment data in order to improve the performance of a given
application” (Fierrez, et al. 2012). These performance adjustments that Fierrez and others discuss
will produce obstacles for fraudulence, while at the same time benefit the future studies in
biometrics by providing new hypotheses and theories for research.
A very important part of synthetic biology that is currently being researched is the
creation of new, synthetic organs and organelles. Carrera, and others, go in depth on the research
that has currently been made, such as synthetic hearts and lungs. Though these organs are still
under comprehensive study and research, these scientists are working their way to greatly
improving the medical field. As Carrera, and other researchers, explain, “All in all, the final
expected outcome would be a platform that will help synthetic biologists to design the regulatory
systems to engineer the future synthetic cells. Ideally, this platform would input a set of
specifications, in the form of human-readable programs, and would output a biological model
together with its compilation into a reliable DNA sequence” (Carrera, et al. 2012).
Conclusively, the role of synthetic biology is playing an extremely important role in the
benefitting of man-kind. These many researchers have discovered multiple uses and outlets that
synthetic biology can manipulate and attend to. Vinson and Pennisi provided the impactful
information on their research of accessing algae and bacteria in order to many alternative fuel
sources—this being an essential need to many industrial nations (Vinson and Pennisi 2011). The
vital research on engineering cellular genomes to end world hunger, by altering and injecting
cheaply-made food to provide nutrients many people cannot normally get, that Collins discusses,
is a very important solution that synthetic biology has created (Collins 2012). Carrera and others
researched the importance of altering the DNA-sequencing in cell-like structures and organelles
in order to improve the human body and potentially create synthetic organelles (Carrera, et al.
2012). As aforementioned, synthetic biology has provided many new alternative routes for our
world to challenge, from the alternative fuel and food sources to the many medical
improvements that can be made.
The Question of Ethics
Synthetic biology, no matter how much research can claim about its positive impacts,
will always be questioned by ethics. What if we cannot control what we create? What if synthetic
biological research falls into the wrong hands? What physical and non-physical harms will
synthetic biology have upon our society (McKay, et al 2012)? Markus Schmidt and Victor
Lorenzo both describe the great important of the potential harms that synthetic biology can have
on the environment. Considering that manipulating and controlling bacteria is a very complicated
task, the potential of bacteria escaping the lab is always a possibility. The release of thoroughly
engineered, modified, or even entirely synthetic/artificial microorganisms raises the
complications of their intentional or accidental interaction with the environment and society
(Schmidt and Lorenzo 2012). These researchers say with great concern that “the ease of DNA
synthesis and the uncertainty on how non-natural properties and strains could interplay with the
existing biological word poses yet again the challenge of designing safe and efficacious firewalls
to curtail possible interactions” (Schmidt and Lorenzo 2012). Fierrez, reluctantly agrees with
Schmidt and Lorenzo, about the problems that arise within synthetic biology. Fierrez may
acknowledge the many positive impacts of this field; however, he finds the questions that are
raised are more concerning than the potential advantages and applications of synthetic biology.
Though manipulating the cellular patterns of humans can provide many advantages in the
future towards alterations and improvements, there are still many problems that come along with
this research. “In spite of their advantages and potential applications, the generation of realistic
synthetic biometric data still represents a very complex pattern recognition problem: modeling
the information contained in a certain biometric trait as well as the inter-class and intra-class
variation found in real databases (i.e., variation between samples of different subjects, and
variation between samples of the same subject)” (Fierrez, et al. 2012). While there is surely more
work to do in conceptualizing the potential harms that synthetic biology can have on our world,
by waiting for the answers, research will come to an abrupt halt. The problem that arises with
this is: What if we never find these answers? Synthetic biology is a field that will constantly be
questioned; yet these questions can only be answered by using synthetic biology. Without the
application of this study, the answers for ethical questions can never be answered, because
researchers and scientists cannot be sure (McKay, et al 2012).
Conclusion
My sources have covered the vast amount of amazing possibilities, as well as ethical
dilemmas that synthetic biology perpetually provides for our world. These sources have shown
its readers all of the positive impacts, such as curing terminal diseases and ending world hunger,
synthetic biology is working towards; nevertheless, the scientific community has not shied away
from acknowledging the potential dangers of synthetic biology and life forms, whereas many
international conferences and ethical debates have been made. There are constantly going to
questions upon the ethics of synthetic biology, but these questions come with every other field of
science; for example, stem-cell research, genetics, neuroscience, and nanotechnology.
These sources have been a very helpful guide to introducing the subject of synthetic
biology; however, these sources have not covered all of the areas that synthetic biology can
impact, nor have they covered all of the ethical debates that are being consistently being
questioned. If I were to continue exploring this topic as a researcher, I would look more into the
health aspects that synthetic biology will bring about. Even though synthetic biology can provide
much for our world, there are still many unanswered questions that come about. The potential of
synthetic life forms is a very big topic that was not covered in many of my articles, and this area
is the most controversial area that synthetic biology provides. I still have many unanswered
questions, such as: What physical and non-physical harms will synthetic biology have upon our
world? Will researchers and scientists truly be able to control what they create? Considering
synthetic biology can be used to create biological weapons, what if these bio-weapons fall into
the wrong hands? Synthetic biology will always raise concerns within our world, because it is
progressing too fast for society to be able to grasp.
The Gap
In order to answer my gap, I went back to databases and found more articles relating to
synthetic biology and the question of its ethics. Through textual analysis I was able to gather
enough data that could determine the flaws that perpetually perturb the furthering of research in
synthetic biology. The dilemma that consistently arises within synthetic biology is the concerns
of not being able to control what we create—that the progress in this field will be too fast for
society to accept. However, through research, I was able to find enough evidence that contradicts
the inability to control the interaction that manipulated microorganisms will have within the
environment. These articles provide deep analysis and study on controlling microorganisms that
are created in labs and the unlikelihood of them escaping a controlled environment.
The ethical debates that coherently surround synthetic biology are constantly at question;
what physical and non-physical harms will synthetic biology have upon our world? Will
researchers and scientists truly be able to control what they create? Considering synthetic
biology can be used to create biological weapons, what if these bio-weapons fall into the wrong
hands? Though these questions can only be theorized, the statistical probability has shown that
the low possibility of negative consequences resulting from experimenting in synthetic biology
will be outweighed by the resulting positive impacts. Through synthetic biology, biologists are
able to understand how living things operate. As George Church, a Professor of Genetics at
Harvard Medical School, says, “In addition to advancing basic science, synthetic biology has
important potential applications for medicine, including the design of safe and effective vaccines
and targeted approaches to detect and cure diseases like cancer” (Church, et al. 2010). This
significant impact is just one of the many areas that synthetic biology will effect if granted
enough freedom to research. If altering genetics and microorganisms can provide grandeur
possibilities and solutions for ending terminal illnesses, the study in this field should encouraged,
not deterred.
“Playing God”
The main ethical question that is argued by theorists is whether or not scientists are
“Playing God,” which can be definitively interpreted as concerns about the intrinsic value of life.
If scientists can create artificial organisms, or life-forms, what if their creations learn more than
they were built to learn? This is the primary concern that many critics have with the furthering of
synthetic biology, as well as one of the blatant problems that the public has with understanding
synthetic biology. Herein lies the over-all dilemma that argues against synthetic biology: people
fear what they do not understand—they fear what they do not know; in turn, synthetic biology
can only provide the answers that society desires, if research is advanced and experiments are
conducted. An important factor to note is that since researchers and scientists in synthetic
biology do not fully know all of the resulting factors of experiments and lab work, these
biologists approach the field with major caution. “In most cases, in fact, biological systems that
have been engineered by scientists quickly revert to “wild type” (i.e., evolve to lose their
engineered function rather than gain a new one)” (Church, et al. 2010). Although this notion can
be extremely reassuring, it still does not weigh out the possibility that systems will still have the
ability to evolve in unpredictable, and potentially harmful, ways—particularly if these artificial
organisms escape from the laboratory into uncontrolled surroundings. “ If carefully nurtured and
guided, however, synthetic biology may provide an opportunity to integrate engineering and the
biological sciences into the living world, with potential benefits to national and international
security, food and energy supply, public health, and economic well-being” (McKay 2012).
Though the answer is indeterminable, the possibility of releasing an artificial organism from a
laboratory is an unlikely scenario, due to the many extreme precautions that scientists take when
performing an experiment.
Biomedical Products
Another quandary in synthetic biology that many people are worried about is the safety of
using biomedical products that would potentially be put on the market. Many critics are worried
that, even though the item is determined to be sufficiently proven safe, the product will prove to
harm rather than help. However, while biomedical activity may be risky, it is also an area that is
significantly worth pursuing, due to the potential benefits for the public’s health. When
researchers create biomedical products to be placed on the market, these products must go
through a series of tests to determine whether or not they are suitable for human consumption.
The products that are to be put on the market must go through the EU Directives, Regulations,
and Guidelines. Through this, the products are tested through regulations for that specific type of
product; for example, the items must be determined as to whether they more-so pertain to
product-based or phase-based regulations. Once this is determined, Sergio Gerotto discusses the
final stage of the product’s regulations as “the full life cycle of substances (starting materials
and active substances) and products (finished products) has to be considered, from recruitment,
manipulation, preservation and storage of biological materials and other active substances and
starting materials, to the testing and marketing of the finished products; from manufacture and
import of biomedical products – including storage, transportation, handling and labeling for
traceability – to the disposal of waste products and materials” (Gerotto 2010). Through all of the
precautionary measures that are taken, the passing of a biomedical product that is not suitable for
public health and consumption becomes highly unlikely.
While critics may be opposed to some of the questionable impacts that synthetic biology
may have upon our world, they still do not deny the potential ways that this science can
positively impact our society. Synthetic biology has provided many new questions and ideas for
scientists and researchers to answer, ranging from the improvements in the biomedical industry
to the creation of artificial life-forms. Synthetic biology requires an extremely high-level of
responsibility and regard; and, in turn, scientists are full conscientious of the liability that they
are taking on when they research this field. As aforementioned, synthetic biology has the ability
to progress faster than society has the capabilities to understand; so there is indubitable fear for
the unknown. Critics may be right to question the limited, yet possible consequences that
synthetic biology can have within our world; however, this is not valid enough reason to stop
synthetic biology as a field of inquiry.
Works Cited
Carrara, Paolo, Luisa Damiano, Livia Leoni, et al. “Semi-synthetic minimal cells as a tool for
biochemical ICT.” Biosystems. Vol. 109, Issue 1 (2012): 24-34. UCF Library Database. Web. 1
Oct. 2012.
Carrera, Javier, Thomas E. Landrain, Alfonso Jaramillo, and Guillermo Rodrigo. “Perspectives
on the automatic design of regulatory systems for synthetic biology.” FEBS Letters. Vol. 586,
Issue 15 (2012): 2037-2042. UCF Library Database. Web. 1 Oct. 2012.
Church, George, James Collins, Drew Endy, et al. “New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic
Biology and Emerging Technologies.” Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical
Issues. Washington, D.C. December 2010.
Collins, James. “Synthetic Biology: Bits and Pieces Come to Life.” Nature: The International
Weekly Journal of Science.
Vol. 483 (2012): S8-S10. UCF Library Database. Web. 9 Sep.
2012.
Gerotto, Sergio, Giorgia Guerra, Alessia Muratorio, et al. “Syn-Ethics: Ethical and Regulatory
Challenges Raised by Synthetic Biology.” Syn-Ethics. Report WP2 (deliverable 2). The
Netherlands. January 2010.
Hodgman, C. Eric, and Michael C. Jewett. “Cell-free synthetic biology: Thinking outside the
cell.” Metabolic Engineering. Vol. 14 Issue 3 (2012): 261-269. UCF Library Database. Web. 1
Oct. 2012.
Lorenzo, Victor, and Markus Schmidt. “Synthetic Constructs in/for the environment: Managing
the interplay between natural and engineered Biology.” FEBS Letters. Vol. 586, Issue 15 (2012):
2199-2206. UCF Library Database. Web. 1 Oct. 2012.
McKay, Christopher, Jacob Moses, Margaret S. Race, and Kasthuri J. Venkateswaran. “Synthetic
Biology in space: Considering the broad societal and ethical implications.” International Journal
of Astrobiology. Vol. 11, Issue 2 (2012): 133-139. UCF Library Database. Web. 1 Oct 2012.
Pennisi, Elizabeth and Valda Vinson. “The Allure of Synthetic Biology.” Science Magazine.
Vol. 333 (2011): no. 6047. UCF Library Database. Web. 9 Sep. 2012.
Reiss, Thomas and Wilhelm Just. “Synthetic Biology, Inspired by Synthetic Chemistry.” FEBS
(Federation of European Biochemical Sciences) Letters. Vol. 586, Issue 15 (2012): 2146. UCF
Library Database. Web. 9 Sep 2012.