Tropes

WS_1452 01394.txt

Synthetic biology. What woes it mean for agriculture? Today post was prompted by an invitation from Andrew Revkin to join in on a discussion spawned by his recent post at NYTS oedot Earth titled, oewill Synthetic biology Benefit or Threaten Wild Things?.A recent conference at Cambridge university brought together two unlikely groups for a groundbreaking conversation between conservationists and synthetic biologists over the subject of synthetic biology. The two groups attempted to discuss all aspects of the subject including ethics, the science, concerns, regulation, purpose, and the technology potential. The groups also speculated as to whether synthetic biology that utilizes plants for food, energy, and medicine might lead to an increase or loss of biodiversity. The framing paper for the conference was oehow will synthetic biology and conservation shape the future of nature? FIRST, NOTES FROM the CONFERENCE S FRAMING PAPER I ve read through the lengthy paper and will share with readers here a few of the key points and statements made. The framing paper for the gathering was a very worthwhile read and the authors did a good job of at least touching upon many of the issues surrounding the use of this new science. The importance of global awareness concerning this subject cannot be overestimated since today DNA lab technology which is becoming very accessible and less expensive makes for a great deal of future uncertainty, with the potential for really good or really bad to come of it. Underlying questions from the conservationists are, oedo we really need this technology? and oedo the scientists really know what they are doing? This new field of biological engineers appears reckless at times to the conservationists because of their prevailing enthusiasm and optimistic outlook about a technology that is so difficult to predict at this point. Both sides see that it is coming at us rapidly and is unstoppable, however, and so the discussions need to begin. First, the paper three oeconcepts of synthetic biology: â oethe design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and systems and the redesign of existing, natural biological systems for useful purposes â oea scientific discipline that relies on chemically synthesized DNA, along with standardized and automatable processes, to address human needs by the creation of organisms with novel or enhanced characteristics or traits â a scientific focus on the design and fabrication of biological components and systems that do not already exist in the natural world, and on the redesign and fabrication of existing biological systems Or, as explained by Paul Freemont of the Centre for Synthetic biology at Imperial College in London, oewe can now chemically synthesise very large sections of DNA, and that allows us to design biological systems from scratch, just as an engineer designs and builds a piece of equipment starting from basics. The paper also sums up the six sectors in which innovation of synthetic biology will have an important role to play: â bioenergy: synthetic fuels, biofuels, electricity, hydrogen, etc. â agriculture and food production: engineered crops, pest control, fertilizers, etc. â environmental protection and remediation: restoration, monitoring, detection, etc. â consumer products: computers, sporting goods, cosmetics, etc. â chemical production: industrial compounds, high-value compounds, plastics, chemical synthesis, etc. â human health: medical drugs and devices, over-the-counter medicine, clinical therapies, etc. This field has taken on a life of its own due to economic incentives: In 2010, U s. revenues from genetically modified systems reached over $300 billion, or the equivalent of more than 2%of GDP. These impressive revenues are generated within three sub-sectors: genetically modified drugs (i e.,, oebiologics) at $75 billion; genetically modified seeds and crops at $110 billion; and industrial biotechnology (e g.,, fuels, materials, and enzymes) at $115 billion. U s. biotech revenues are growing at an annual rate of approximately 15%.%Global revenues are similarly growing at a rapid clip; China and Malaysia may each have biotech revenues in excess of 2. 5%of GDP, and both countries plan to at least double that share by 2020. These revenues are generated primarily through the application of more than three decades of experience with RECOMBINANT DNA TECHNOLOGY. In this context, a very generous estimate of 2012 total international revenues from synthetic biology would be $1 billion, primarily consisting of engineering tools and reagents, including synthetic genes. The paper points out that our own Obama administration has embraced oegarage biology entrepreneurs here in the U s. The relevant document signed by President Obama, can be paraphrased as oegarage biology is good and necessary for the future physical and economic security of the United states. This position acknowledges the historical analysis that because entrepreneurs and small organizations i e. oegarages have been critical drivers of diverse technological innovation in the U s. for several centuries, so are garages likely to be critical for future innovation in biotechnology. And it really entered the Star wars realm when it quoted this, by Freeman Dyson: oegenetic engineering, once it gets into the hands of housewives and children, will give us an explosion of diversity of new living creatures, rather than the monoculture crops that the big corporations prefer. Designing genomes will be a personal thing a new art form, as creative as painting or sculpture. So much of this discussion potentially relates to agriculture. The authors of the paper, Kent H. Redford, William Adams, Georgina Mace, Rob Carlson, Steve Sanderson, and Steve Aldrich, admit that a discussion of conservation and biodiversity as it relates to synthetic biology must address the topic of land use changes, and so far, the most important category for land use change has come from biofuels policies. A few things that synthetic biology might bring to us in agriculture are: the ability to raise crops using fewer pesticides; an offer of greater food security; improved nutrition; livestock which produce medications or biological substances such as spider-silk; and an optimal source of biofuel. For our health, we may see new ways to target infectious diseases and cancer, develop vaccines and cell therapies, enable regenerative medicine, or make cancer cells self-destruct. The potential seems limitless. The paper bioethical discussion was on target for including this key paragraph: Synthetic life delivers private benefits. Many forms of life being developed by synthetic biology are being patented. The benefits provided by these organisms will reflect the economic interests of those able to invest in and develop them. This may well favor applications in existing industrial processes and commodity chains (energy, agriculture, aquaculture) and the operations of large business corporations. Impacts on the wider environment will tend to be treated as an externality. Corresponding impacts on price and other economic changes for smaller producers (e g. smallholder farmers) will affect their decisions about land conversion and management and hence future patterns of biodiversity loss. How will a balance be struck between private risk and gain versus public benefit and safety? One point that the conservationists make is that good conservation means preservation of the natural evolutionary process of natural selection. Yet, progressive conservationists recognize that there is potential for synthetic biology to increase biodiversity, too. Not to be overlooked, the paper noted that oepopulation growth (and corresponding consumption) are key macro-scale drivers of biodiversity loss. It is unclear what role synthetic biology and its products will play in these relationships. But in fact, I might argue that a bigger driver is the opportunity to profit from using land for production purposes. REPORTS FOLLOWING the MEETING Science writer Julie Gould covered the conference here. Gould said that the new phrase which is catching on is oebiology is technology. She reported that the conference included mention of an impressive science project by Christopher Schoene from Oxford university, who was part of an Imperial College team of undergraduates that entered the igem competition. In a period of ten weeks the team created a bacteria, Auxin, that they believed would be useful in solving desertification which is a huge problem in the poorest agricultural regions of the world. They engineered E coli bacteria to contain sets of genes with growth hormone and also with malate, a root detector. The bacteria were able to swim towards roots, become absorbed by the roots, and then release hormones to stimulate growth. Ed Yong also wrote about the conferenece. He said that synthetic biology is oegrander in scope than most genetic modification which involves modestly changing a few genes. By contrast, synthetic biologists work with large networks of genes, thus a new acronym, SMO. I enjoyed Yong quote of conference organizer, Kent Redford, from the Wildlife Conservation Society, oeconservationists get more pessimistic when they drink, but synthetic biologists only get more optimistic. After all of the reading that I did about the event, the subject, and its take-aways, that statement summed it all up as well as any. The Guardian covered the conference by focusing on a recent lab achievement to produce the antimalarial drug, artemisinin which has heretofore been obtained from leaves of wormwood grown by African and Asian farmers. Re-engineered yeast can now do the job in vats, so the farmers have lost their product. Along with that loss may come the loss of the plant diversity and a new, less desirable oemonotherapy drug. Critics say the new drug production method is potentially damaging, entirely unnecessary, and causes harm by taking away the livelihood of poor farmers. The Guardian goes on to say that similar stories will soon be told for vanilla farmers, patchouli farmers, rubber producers, coconut farmers and saffron growers. Synthetic biologist Jay Keasling, says that oeanything that can be made in a plant can now be made in a microbe. While many of these vats of production may help save biodiversity in some regions, they clearly come with new economic winners and losers and have an impact on human jobs. Finally, here is feed the twitter from the event for anyone interested

< Back - Next >