May 20th saw a groundbreaking announcement [1] from Dr Craig Venter that had the science, industry, medical and ethics community as giggly as school children, within hours of the news being released seasoned academics and scientist could hardly contain themselves as they scrambled to their computers and blogged, tweeted, facebooked and podcasted.... we really do live in the age of technology at our fingertips. Whilst the academic community developed their arguments, made calls for new regulation and mounted pledges for noble prizes to be dealt; the media took a more relaxed approach- I can only assume - swigging beer and bouncing around bad puns or misdirecting puns even to catch the general public’s eye. We’ve seen it before with issues such as GM crops, cloning, stem cell research yet it is still slightly disappointing to see such groundbreaking research being presented as “God 2.0” [2], “Its Life Jim but not as we Know it: Frankenstein doc creates life” [3], “Taking on God with a DIY Virus” [4], “Unto His Own Image God becomes man: Venter creates synthetic life“ [5].

Don’t get me wrong we all enjoy a laugh at a good pun or catchy headline every now and again, but when dealing with bringing scientific and possibly life changing discoveries to the general public, the media could be reasonably expected to put down their laptops for a moment and consider their social responsibility. Whilst everybody understands that newspapers have to sell papers, what they do not have to do is misrepresent the facts; such a mistake in the past has achieved irreparable damage to the scientific development of many technologies. The accusations of playing God are now an automatic accusation for any new technology that has the ability to change lives for better or for worse, it’s fair to say that in around 50% of all news stories, blogs, tweets and comments; that this was the ONLY argument used against this synthetic genome. Venter has even been forced to defend himself [6] stating: “That’s a term that comes up every time there is a new medical or scientific breakthrough associated with biology.” As science commentator, Tom Chivers writes in this Telegraph blog [7], this is such a commonly used term that it is now becoming redundant.

So given the current misrepresentation and jumping to conclusions going on in the media, let’s take a more balanced look at what has been achieved.  Over the last 15 years and spending anywhere between $30 and 40 million, Venter and his team created a synthetic genome which then replicated fully in a different but genetically similar host. This sounds complicated and it is! Venter began by mapping the genome of a bacteria called M. Mycoides, from here he was able to create a synthetic copy using computer sequencing and chemical genes, further from this they adjusted certain genes by rearranging the gene letters ‘A, C, G, T’ creating watermarks for their invention such as names of researchers and an email address. This synthesized genome was then transferred into similar bacteria M. Capricolum. The true test came when the bacteria that had formerly been M.Capricolum began to grow as M. Mycides with no sign of its original heritage, and it is this fact that is truly astonishing for me. Now whilst this did not produce an entirely new life, it did however prove several scientific abilities which can now be built upon by Venter’s team and others around the world.

Whilst many are worrying about whether this development is ‘playing God’ others are considering the potential benefits. First and foremost Venter has already stated that his team will be collaborating on a $600 million deal [8] with Exxon to create synthetic algae-based biofuels, this could have enormous potential for beating global warming, conflict over oil and hopefully more cash in our pockets! Other roll outs could include more efficient vaccinations or revolutionize industry in the same way as the combustion engine. 

As always with new technology the benefits come hand in hand with risks. In this particular case security questions could be raised in the form of bio-weaponry. This would be something that all those involved with the new discovery, would all seek to avoid in every possible way. However, this should not halt scientific work from proceeding, many would agree that the potential benefits far outweigh the risks presented at the moment and even if somebody did seek to weaponize this technology they are most likely already doing so. The potential for misuse of technology surrounds us daily and we must therefore not live our lives hemmed in by such a risk.

One way of providing assurance to the public and ethical community is by beginning to work now at this very early stage to develop regulation and suitable limits to applying this synthetic technology. As Venter has said a number of times, ethical considerations for the synthetic genome have been at the front of his mind since the beginning. Unlike some he sought advice and guidance before, during and after his research in order to satisfy his own mind that what he was creating was ethical. And this process should most certainly continue, the real trick comes in achieving the right balance. At first glance it seems as though the United States are taking the sensible approach. Rather than instigating an immediate moratorium as some have called for, President Obama wrote [9] to the chair of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues issuing “I therefore request.... as its [commission] 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”. Further to this he asked that the report be completed within six months, a document I’m sure will be eagerly awaited.

So all in all it’s been an exciting week for the world of bioethics, new questions arise, new possibilities are opened and for the media it’s a new opportunity to roll out a ‘good’ pun.

References

1. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5981/958
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-genome
3. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2981356/Frankenstein-doc-creates-life.html
4. http://www.heraldscotland.com/taking-on-god-with-a-diy-virus-1.840247
5. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=64058
6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html
7. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100008206/craig-venters-synthetic-life-is-it-really-playing-god/
8. http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/geneticist-j-craig-venters-synthetic-cell-spurs-ethical-debate/19486543
9.  http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/assets/2010/05/20/Gutmann.pdf

Downloads

	When Frankenstein becomes more monstrous than his monster pdf