A Kickstop for Synthetic Biology?

Those concerned about the unregulated environmental release of organisms created with synthetic biology won a small victory on July 31, when crowdfunding website Kickstarter determined that its projects can no longer offer genetically modified organisms as a reward. The company quietly added this change to its guidelines after a project that promised to send its sponsors genetically modified seeds that would “likely” glow-in-the-dark became quite controversial.

The ETC Group launched a “Kickstopper” campaign in May to raise awareness about the dangers of releasing bioengineered seeds to thousands of people around the world – which, they pointed out, would constitute the first deliberate random release of synthetic seeds ever. It set up its own petition (on rival crowdfunding site, indiegogo), which raised a couple thousand dollars, but convinced Kickstarter to act only after it had handed over $484,013 to the glowing plant project.

Synthetic biology enthusiasts are not pleased with Kickstarter’s new rule, and have started an Avaaz petition to try to convince Kickstarter to reverse the ban on offering GMOs. The petition states that “lumping legal science in the same category as weapons or hate speech makes no sense.”

This point may have originated with Omri Amirav-Drory, one of the glowing plant project’s creators who made a very similar comment. But it’s not particularly convincing, since Kickstarter’s guidelines forbid plenty of completely benign things, such as cosmetics and sunglasses (for some reason). And while the US Department of Agriculture apparently does not consider the kind of genetic engineering used to create glowing plants to be in its purview, a lack of any regulatory framework should not be conflated with “legal science.”

Furthermore, putting synthetic biology in the same category as weapons does make some sense. Glowing plants might be a “frivolous” use, but some synthetic biologists have other applications in mind. Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute recently announced that synthetic biology could be the greatest global threat to humanity.

The issue boils down to a question asked by Azeen Ghorayshi in the East Bay Express: “Should there be stricter rules governing the DIY bio community? And if not, what happens next?”

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• "Democratizing Creation" with Synthetic Biology and Glowing Plants
• Craig Venter’s Bugs Might Destroy the World
• Is International Governance on the Horizon for Synthetic Biology?
• The President’s Bioethics Commission Misses the Mark on Synthetic Biology: “Prudent Vigilance” a Poor Substitute for Precaution