Synthetic biology; learning the language of nature
It was, I suppose, inevitable that we would reach this point. The fate of Synthetic Biology to crystallise into a fully-fledged discipline was sealed when Watson and Crick famously arranged the aluminium components of their DNA model into a double-helix; a molecular breakthrough which in time allowed us to read the language of nature. As any languages student will attest, you can’t learn to read a language without also learning to write it. And so it followed that once we could understand the codified language of DNA we were, of course, going to attempt to use that language to write our own biological sentences. They are sentences which can speak of improved biotechnological processes, enhanced human heath, greener energy sources and even DIY biological experimentation. They are also sentences which speak volumes of our theoretical and practical advances in biology. The enabling technologies which allow us to both read and write long strands of DNA and even to build whole genomes from scratch are testament to the brilliant geneticists and engineers who have graced the field. DNA sequencing, molecular cloning, DNA synthesis to mention but a few – all technologies which have inspired a rate of advancement of around 8-fold per year, far outstripping the oft quoted Moore’s Law for electronics (a paltry 1.5-fold per year in comparison). Of course the intellectual spoils of this rapid advancement can be seen in the Human Genome Project, or dolly the sheep, or even the modified yeast used to brew our beer – all achievements in their own right, but now they can be viewed as waypoints along the road to a bigger prize. The prize of total genetic and proteomic control. However, no consideration of Synthetic Biology would be complete without the insights of Professor George M. Church. While I’m sure he’d think it an awful cliché, for many the Harvard Medical School based scientist is considered the god-father of the field. In a foreword he has written for the recently published Synthetic Biology: A Lab Manual _– the first of its kind for the discipline and another sure-fire sign it is to be treated as such – he points out that with the capabilities it brings, we can now truly claim to be ‘genetic engineers’. And furthermore – biological engineering in this way is set to outdo all previous engineering fields _– partially because it inherits the finely honed machinery of billions of years of evolutionary testing and improvement. To the synthetic biologist the cell is merely a host – a drone worker upon which we can bestow orders to our own ends. And, as we watch the sun peek over the horizon of this burgeoning field, we need to consider many things. What orders will they be, and what benefit can we take from them? Can we control and anticipate any potential misuse, or even mistakes? Important questions _– each with a myriad of answers, some of which we explore in our special feature, but for a final thought I’ll leave you in the capable hands of Professor Church: The central question, he says, is transitioning from “what can Synthetic Biology do?” to “is there anything Synthetic Biology will not impact?”
Related Content
Gatsby: a benchmark for STEM success
The Gatsby Foundation’s benchmarks are helping transform school careers guidance. Good news for STEM employers, says Rachel Bibby, who explains …
Moon myths: Artemis in proportion
Curious how space science is always exaggerated. If there’s a meteor shower due, when you might see a fleeting shooting …
When plasma leaves the laboratory
The orbital laboratory is evolving into something more ambitious, a controlled industrial environment for producing next-generation materials, explains Ed Smith and Andrew Griffiths. …
