I have always felt that, aside from research that violates universal human mores, when it comes to technological applications, that which can be done will be done. What we need to do is rigorously attempt to anticipate what may be possible so that we can minimize the risks and maximize the benefits. We need to walk into the future, no matter how unnerving, with open eyes if society is to keep pace with technology.
This article was originally published with the title The Real Promise of Synthetic Biology.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentThis is a very interesting article, but I disagree on one point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors view is that we probably can't produce a virus that will destroy our species, since nature has not produced it through eons of time.
I disagree with him completely.
Species have come and gone and ours is the most vulnerable because we can best nature in the short run (just look at the wheel).
We can intelligently zoom into the worst possible virus and auto-destruct.
Evolution would take thousands, or millions, of years to produce such a virus, giving our species time to adapt.
In fact, that may be the reason, why we have not found intelligent beings in the universe. As soon as they evolve to auto-destruct, they do so.
Murphy's Law 101.
Any volunteers to make a ribosome?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAwesome
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif we human belong to the systerm ,how can we destroy the systerm?we just make changes in durabale ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree to the author .
"I expect that within 50 years the worlds economy will be driven not by computer-generated information but by biologically generated software."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's the difference really? By that time computer-generated information and biologically generated software would be the same thing. It will be really hard to make a distinction between the two. Systems (today we call them "animals") will be partly derived by what nature provided and partly by what we will build from scratch. Also the word "identity" will become obsolete. Thoughts will be contained in matter and travel at the speed of light in many locations around the universe.
benext... Sorry that makes no sense to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumanity is certainly capable of wiping itself out. Sure the larger "system" of the universe would continue on, but that doesn't help us much if we are all toast.
I agree that we shouldn't generate unreasonable fear over the possibilities, but a strong dose of caution as we proceed with powerful new technologies seems reasonable.
Just like computer viruses, we'll develop a synthetic anti-virus system. Eventually we'll have nanomachines that will be just as fast at updating and destroying synthetic pathogens as the creators can make them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've had the ability to wipe out the world for 65 years and we're all still here.
Of course when genetic engineers in Australia tried to create a mouse contraceptive they entirely by accident created an incredibly lethal version of mousepox. http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2009/11/armageddon-bug.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo really what could possibly go wrong.
Biochemists have used in vivo protein expression systems for so many years now. I don't see how this comes to a astonishing new fact to the author. The method is truly considered simple and quite basic. And I find it quite hard to believe that we are synthesizing new species intentionally. The field of biochemistry and molecular biology is still in its beginning stages, where they are trying to identify, isolate, and understand essential proteins and their roles in a cell system. therefore we don't have enough knowledge as to intentionally synthesize a functional organism unless they are just slight genomic mutations from an already known genome. and even then, this new organism should not be referred to as a new species but merely a mutant of an already existing one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand downplaying the concerns. The population is irrational, scientifically illiterate and prone to be reactionary and easily panicked. At the same time I don't agree that nature is more dangerous. Natural diseases evolve to propagate themselves, not to destroy life. The one is only an unintentional side effect of the other. In fact natural diseases that kill too quickly, like Ebola, burn themselves out by killing off all their vectors. On the other hand, society is littered with those whose intent is to wipe-out their enemies. The diseases they will create will not be controlled by population dynamics or evolutionary constraints. They will be able to create diseases that change antigens frequently thus never giving our immune system time to adapt. They will sculpt them so that they maintain their hosts in a communicable state for long periods of time, before killing or debilitating them. Instead of one disease, they will be able to make hundreds, or thousands thereby overwhelming not only our immune system but the natural immune variability in the population. And they will be able to disperse them at will, thereby eliminating our ability to contain them. Nature is certainly more inventive then us, but far less malevolent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Crucialitis, "Eventually we'll have nanomachines that will be just as fast at updating and destroying synthetic pathogens as the creators can make them." If technology will save us, then why do we still have computer viruses? And keep in mind that a computer presents a much narrower target than a person.
Perhaps we should put the safeguards in first, before an unfortunate event blindsides us. For once, let’s not wait for an accident to teach us how dangerous the technology is.
@robert schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe still get the flu every year. That doesn't mean our immune system is a failure.
Thinking about ways to proceed safely is one thing, mandating safeguards may hamper innovation.
robert schmidt: "If technology will save us, then why do we still have computer viruses? And keep in mind that a computer presents a much narrower target than a person."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides getting the flu and the common cold despite having immune systems. Keep in mind that people who don't take proper safeguards like hygiene and safe sex catch devastating viruses from nature. It's a matter of vigilance and common sense. Keep your nano machines updated and you won't get the bioplague.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Crucialitis, but that is not what you said. You claimed in effect we should not be concerned because science will do what it has yet to do, which is keep pace with those who misuse and abuse technology whether by accident or intentionally. Have you not heard of these events; Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, 9/11, 2001 Anthrax Attacks, Exxon Valdese, Bhopal? Is it wise to believe that there is no possibility of catastrophe, when time and time again every one of these technologies and the related systems meant to keep us safe have failed. To be honest, I’d rather hamper innovation than cause the deaths of thousands and or perhaps millions of people because of recklessness. You don’t seem to grasp the threat these technologies present. You place a great deal of faith in systems that have already failed. And your excuse for doing so is consumerism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@robert schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you seem to discount the safeguards that have arisen with each innovation.
Conversely, millions of lives may be lost by not bringing innovations to fruition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople will always misuse technology, but you don't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
The methods of producing synthetic organisms could incorporate notification if someone were to try synthesizing something suspicious, but ultimately there's no way as of yet to guarantee 100% safe use or 0% human error.
Yes, people get computer viruses. But that doesn't mean anti-virus software doesn't work. In many cases the system is compromised by human error. Downloading something they shouldn't have, or not keeping anti-virus software up to date. The ongoing balance between the two keeps improving our standard. Be honest, the world isn't going to stop making viruses. There's no sense hamstringing entire branches of science and industry over hypothetical boogeymen.
Life is always an adaptive process. Our technologies are no exception, in fact they are the method.
I place my faith not in "systems that have already failed" which is certainly an opinion you're entitled to; Rather, I have faith in the resilience of humans to overcome their obstacles.
I reiterate, we've had the ability to destroy the world for 65 years and we're all still here. Using the same technology to provide 20% of the energy you're using to display these words on your screen.
robin cook's books may turn out true after all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this