Synthetic biology: playing Lego with life

Gregory Crocetti and Bob Phelps

A coalition of 111 civil society organisations around the world – including Friends of the Earth Australia and Gene Ethics – just released 'The Principles for the Oversight of Synthetic Biology'. Synthetic biology is "extreme genetic engineering" − not only cutting and pasting genes but also writing genetic code to create new genes, genetic traits and new life forms from scratch, in our latest attempt to control Nature.

Until now, genetic manipulation (GM) typically allowed single genes to be cut and pasted into existing organisms. However, synthetic biology claims to take a 'real engineering' approach and use standardised parts to create new forms of life. Scientists, engineers, designers, undergraduates and even school students are encouraged to use these 'plug and play' living systems. They offer the attraction of playing Lego with life.

With the seductive promises of new pharmaceuticals, biofuels, plastics and profits, industry and governments are pouring billions into researching, developing and creating new living things that have never existed before. The science is progressing rapidly and new commercial players want to deliver synbio products to market. As with GM and nanotechnology (the science of the small), the claimed benefits of synthetic biology to society and the environment are used by industry and the government to 'counterbalance and neutralise' concerns of new risks. Synthetic biology is framed as the 'solution' to major crises – the end of oil and phosphates, food shortages and famine, global climate change.

But governments have failed to legislate, assess or eliminate the completely new, unknown and unforeseen risks from synthetic organisms that have never existed till now.

Synthetic biology is also set to deepen social and economic inequalities and injustices. Synthetic organisms designed to make pharmaceuticals, biofuels, plastics and profits all need to be fed. While some may ultimately use sunlight to make their own sugars, current versions of synthetic microorganisms are fed on the biomass that now feeds, clothes and houses people – typically from the global South. Thus, synthetic biology would widen the gap between rich and poor.

If released, synthetic organisms will evolve in response to the laws of nature and exchange their novel genes with other living beings. No-one knows what will result.

Even with stringent safeguards, organisms created using synthetic biology may threaten human health, disrupt ecosystems, and drive further inequality between classes and cultures. So, the effective oversight of synthetic biology is necessary, but is it sufficient? The citizens' principles for synbio oversight propose a moratorium to enable the ground rules to be settled first.

The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology

The following principles are necessary for the effective assessment and oversight of synthetic biology:

  • Employ the Precautionary Principle
  • Require mandatory synthetic biology-specific regulations
  • Protect public health and worker safety
  • Protect the environment
  • Guarantee the right-to-know and democratic participation
  • Require corporate accountability and manufacturer liability
  • Protect economic and environmental justice

The full declaration can be accessed from foe.org/principles-for-synthetic-biology. We call on the Australian government to recognise the declaration and to embrace the principles.

The Precautionary Principle

National governments are duty bound to fulfil their commitments as parties to the 1992 Rio Declaration and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a treaty made under the Convention on Biological Diversity, a binding commitment by the international community to ensure the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (bch.cbd.int/protocol). Over 160 nations have so far signed and ratified the protocol but Canada, the USA and Australia still refuse to do so. If the Australian government is serious about responsibly developing a synthetic biology industry then it must fully honour its commitments to the Rio Declaration and the CBD by signing onto the Biosafety Protocol.

Require mandatory synthetic biology-specific regulations

Industry self-regulation is unacceptable for any powerful, new technology and its products. In Australia, the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Office of Gene Technology Regulator may regulate some aspects of synthetic biology but the present laws would soon be outdated. For instance, our regulators use the weak industry concept of 'substantial equivalence' to compare the safety of GM and ordinary foods and crops in making their assessments. But synthetic organisms have never existed and have no history of safe use so comparisons with natural life forms will offer no assurance of safety.

Protect public health and worker safety

No synbio product should be mass-manufactured or sold until independent and iron-clad environmental health and safety rules are agreed and enforced.

Leading synthetic biologists say their aim is to remove as much complexity as possible from genomes that contain the codes of life as a way to understand and control what remains. However, this fails to acknowledge the unpredictable new traits that will emerge from the process of placing new genetic and metabolic pathways into completely new organisms. They also ignore the role of gene mobility and interactivity within and between genomes.

The lure of Do It Yourself, Lego-style 'plug and play' biology has attracted people all over the world with minimal skills and diverse backgrounds who are already 'playing' with synthetic organisms, though no effective regulatory frameworks or government oversight are in place. The Office of Gene Technology Regulator was alerted to community concerns about DIY biology and reluctantly issued a tepid warning.

Protect the environment

Industry and government already promise that synthetic biofuels will solve emerging energy crises. But do we even need this new technology? And how on earth can synthetic biologists guarantee that new forms of life are safe?

Scientists propose mechanisms to prevent synthetic organisms or genetic constructs from reproducing in the wider world, similar to Monsanto's promised 'terminator technologies'. It was claimed they would guarantee biosafety by preventing the transfer of pollen between plants. But terminator does not exist and is not fail-safe.

Guarantee the right-to-know and democratic participation

The Australian government has started to discuss ethics and public engagement around synthetic biology but effective regulation and enforcement, with real community participation, remains far off. Given the impact that synthetic biology might have on communities, farmers and other workers, the cultural, legal social and economic interests of these groups must be influential in all decision-making processes.

Require corporate accountability and manufacturer liability

Synthetic biology owners must bear the total costs of any negative risks, hazards and impacts of their products, if they are allowed to go ahead at all. Our governments must not allow owners to shed the burden of risk onto the community. If risks are too great for private investors and insurers to cover, then they are surely too great for the public to bear!

Protect economic and environmental justice

Abundance does not guarantee availability. GM promised a food revolution that would feed the world but GM crop plants yield no more than the best conventional varieties. In many places they are also now failing to kill insects and weeds as they were designed to do. A five-year scientific study commissioned by the World Bank and the UN − the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development − concluded that GM and other emerging technologies (such as synthetic biology) are unlikely to answer human food needs of the future.

With synthetic biology, most current interest is on a biomass-based economy, transforming crops like sugar, wheat, maize and soy into pharmaceuticals, fuels, plastics and profits. However, there is simply not enough land and water for all of the proposed demands. With companies like Amyris Biotechnologies already using synthetically engineered yeast to transform Brazilian sugar cane into biofuels, we see a trend to further loss of farmlands, forests and foods for pharmaceuticals, plastics and fuel, to make massive corporate profits.

Dr. Gregory Crocetti is a campaigner with the Nanotechnology Project at Friends of the Earth. Bob Phelps is Director of Gene Ethics.