Reactions to Venter's Latest Synthetic Biology Announcement

On Thursday, May 20, 2010, Craig Venter and colleagues announced "the successful construction of the first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cell." This was the subject of a paper published online in Science Express, which will appear in a future issue of Science.

Reaction overall was rather muted and skeptical. Nobel laureate David Baltimore probably spoke for the majority when he told the New York Times: "To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this. ... He has not created life, only mimicked it."

The work did in fact rely upon the cytoplasm of a recipient cell to get the process started; life did not emerge from the primordial soup in a petri dish. This result is perhaps better seen as a stepping stone toward the "design, synthesis, assembly, and transplantation of synthetic chromosomes" [pdf] than as a completed task.

Nature collected advance comments from eight experts (brief quotes here, longer ones in this pdf), and rounded up further reaction here. A few responses were over the top (the Economist dragged Neanderthal creation into it) but most were balanced, such as this from British Nobelist Sir Paul Nurse, on the BBC [audio]:

"This paper is an important advance. I don't think it's really a major breakthrough like some have claimed. What it is not is the creation of synthetic life. ... What it is is for the first time a bacterial cell has been made which is controlled entirely by DNA that has been made in a test tube."

More reactions can be found here. Arthur Caplan wrote here and here (promise and peril). PZ Myers has a useful picture of the science here, and mentions the synthesis of urea, which heralded the end of vitalism. The New York Times and Washington Post news articles also included some cautious reactions.

Civil society organizations responded rapidly: The ETC Group called for a moratorium ("Panacea or Pandora's box?" they asked). Friends of the Earth was concerned that release might jeopardize ecosystems. The International Center for Technology Assessment stressed the overstatement of the announcement and called for strong regulations. David King of Human Genetics Alert decried "these scientists' ambitions for total and unrestrained control over nature," and joined the call for a moratorium. Helen Wallace of GeneWatch UK noted acutely:

"He [Venter] isn't God, he's actually being very human; trying to get money invested in his technology and avoid regulation that would restrict its use."

Indeed, several news sources pointed out that the notoriously provocative scientist/entrepreneur had arranged a $600 million deal between Synthetic Genomics (Venter's company) and Exxon "to produce biofuels from algae modified with artificial genes" and plans other commercial ventures.

Ethical issues were mentioned in the Science paper itself -- Venter claims to have been "driving the ethical discussion," though a better phrase might be "attempting to define and limit the ethical discussion." An overview written by Erik Parens, Josephine Johnston, and Jacob Moses of The Hastings Center last year pointed out that "members of the synthetic biology community ... have not yet paid much attention to the lessons from earlier and ongoing social science research." This needs to change, along with our regulatory structure, as Jonathan Moreno pointed out at Science Progress:

Self-policing by the scientific community is necessary but not sufficient. In this field there is an irreplaceable role for smart government, but authority for oversight and regulation of synbio in the United States is currently at best a partial patchwork. The National Institutes of Health require labs receiving its funds to comply with Recombinant DNA guidelines; the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve a drug created by synbio; and the Department of Agriculture might be responsible for avoiding the environmental release of synthetic organisms. But current regulations may not address unique risks posed by the technology.

The most important reaction, therefore, may be that of the White House. President Obama wrote a formal letter [pdf] requesting "that the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues undertake, as its first order of business, a study of the implications of this scientific milestone, as well as other advances that may lie ahead in this field of research." They are to consult with "a range of constituencies, including scientific and medical communities, faith communities, and business and nonprofit organizations" and to report back within six months with recommendations for action.

In the long run, that may be more more significant than this particular experiment.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• Struggling SynBio Gets a Boost
• Synthetic Biology, Drew Endy, and the Building of a Better Human from the Ground Up
• New Report on Synthetic Biology
• Caruso and Darnovsky on Synthetic Biology