The bacterium whose parent is a computer

Craig Venter's feat in creating a synthetic microorganism is impressive, but not earth-shattering.
Michael Cook | 22 May 2010
comment   | print |

Scanning electron micrographs of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.It was described as a scientific earthquake, but Craig Venter was just a fraction more modest in summing up his team’s biotechnology milestone in May. His synthetic bacterium was, he said, merely “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.”

It certainly was an impressive feat of technology. As they reported in the journal Science, researchers from the J Craig Venter Institute painstakingly assembled the genome of one species of bacterium and inserted it into another cell. The constructed cell began to function, dividing and growing like a natural cell.   

Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, as Venter has dubbed the synthetic organism, is another step toward the creation of life-forms tailor-made for industry. Now that his scientists can “routinely write the software of life”, he hopes to create new biological products for synthesising fuels, cleaning water, discovering new vaccines and medicines and so on. Venter hopes that synthetic microorganisms will be able to generate biofuels from algae, for instance, enabling us to kick our addiction to fossil fuels. Commercially, synthetic biology could be the next big thing after IT and the internet.

The company’s next goal is to create a stripped-down cellular chassis with just enough biological machinery for independent life. Non-essential DNA regions from the synthetic genome will be whittled away until it is as concise as possible to sustain life. The result will be “a new vision of cells as understandable machines comprised of biological parts of known function”.

New visions always appeal to the fringe. Remember the Raelians? They are over the moon about Venter's feat. This weird sect, which believes that extraterrestrial scientists created all life on Earth invested heavily in cloning a human being and failed. Their spokesman declared that "The creation of the first cell controlled by a synthetic genome… shows the entire world that life isn't the mysterious gift of a hypothetical god."

This was bizarre, but even some respected bioethicists also interpreted Venter’s ambitious vision as a “God is dead” moment. Julian Savulescu, of Oxford University, declared breathlessly that Venter was becoming “a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally, creating life from the ground up using basic building blocks.” And the best-known bioethicist in the US, Arthur Caplan, ranked it with Darwin and Copernicus. “Venter’s achievement would seem to extinguish the argument that life requires a special force or power to exist,” he said. “In my view, this makes it one of the most important scientific achievements in the history of mankind.”

Really?

A survey of the media gives the impression that more non-scientists than scientists have been popping champagne corks. The closer to the lab bench, the more sceptical the comments. Although Venter is an accomplished scientist who shared line honours for the first human genome sequence, his colleagues describe him as a shrewd self-publicist and brilliant entrepreneur who likes to frame solid achievements as historic breakthroughs. This time, one of his stunts for the media was to insert “watermarks” into the genome, with the names of team members, favourite quotations and a URL coded in the DNA.

So it was a major technological feat, but not an epochal scientific advance, according to many biologists. Harvard’s George Church told Nature that “The semi-synthetic mycobacterium is not changed from the wild state in any fundamental sense. Printing out a copy of an ancient text isn’t the same as understanding the language.” And Martin Fussenegger, of ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, said that “Since appearing on the planet, mankind has rarely created something new. Instead, people help themselves to materials that are already present, and produce increasingly complex devices. This latest technology will simply increase the speed with which new organisms can be generated.”

An Irish geneticist, David McConnell, of Trinity College Dublin was scathing. Venter’s methods were complex, but not very interesting. “It is a scientific folly. There are no new ethical issues… In scientific terms we have learned nothing new.”

What about those ethical issues? Venter knew that his ambitious plans would be controversial and he has been preparing a soft landing for his high-flying projects for years. A report -- which he supported -- came last year from The Hastings Center, in New York. It envisaged two types of potential harms emerging from synthetic biology.

First are the physical harms of bioerror and bioterror. Environmentalists are worried that new bugs might escape from laboratories and destroy ecologies. Security experts fear that terrorists could create microbes to spread lethal diseases. But in a sense these risks are easily handled because there is abundant experience of how to fireproof and regulate dangerous technologies.

Venter’s company says that safeguards are already in place. The microorganisms will be engineered so that they cannot live outside the lab or other production environments. If they happen to escape, “suicide genes” will be activated.

Still, there is bound to be a fierce debate over whether government regulation is needed or whether just a voluntary synthetic biology code of ethics will suffice.

Less easy to deal with will be the non-physical harms which stem from his boast that he is creating life -- the fears of Frankenstein technologies, deranging the natural order and scientists “playing God”. There are scientists and bioethicists who dismiss such concerns as atavistic religious prejudice or irrational hysteria. But The Hastings Center disagreed: “Many critics concerned about this second class of non-physical harms are rational and profess no religion at all.”

In fact, two German bioethicists pointed out a couple of years ago in the journal Nature Biotechnology that if we begin to create lower forms of life and to think of them as mere building blocks or “artifacts”, then we “may in the (very) long run lead to a weakening of society’s respect for higher forms of life.” There is a serious danger that our hard-won respect for animal life and even human life would eventually be undermined.

Reactions like Savulescu’s and Caplan’s, to say nothing of the Raelians, suggest that some scientists and bioethicists do think that the construction of an artificial genome is epochal -- precisely because it confirms their belief that that all life forms, not just Mycoplasma mycoides, are only “complex chemical devices” and that there is no essential difference between inanimate and animate beings. Venter’s announcement may or may not be the opening salvo of a scientific revolution. It certainly opens a new chapter in the drama of whether man is the master or the servant of technology.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

This article is published by Michael Cook and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

comments powered by Disqus
Follow MercatorNet
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletters
Sections and Blogs
Harambee
PopCorn
Conjugality
Careful!
Family Edge
Sheila Reports
Reading Matters
Demography Is Destiny
Bioedge
Conniptions (the editorial)
Connecting
Information
our ideals
our People
Mercator who?
partner sites
audited accounts
donate
New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2
5 George Street
North Strathfield NSW 2137
Australia

editor@mercatornet.com
+61 2 8005 8605
skype: mercatornet

© New Media Foundation 2014 | powered by Encyclomedia | designed by Elleston