Gene patents challenged again
A Labor backbencher has brought the gene patent controversy to the fore once again with a private member’s bill to ban patents on genetic material.
Australian Life Scientist: 16 May 2012
Two patients get eye stem cells transplanted to restore sight
Two people have had stem cells transplanted into their eyes as part of a clinical trial to treat corneal blindness
BBC: 21 May 2012
Gene therapy slows biological clock
Scientists have extended the lifespan of adult mice by boosting the activity of genes that code for the enzyme, telomerase.
Spanish National Cancer Research Centre: 15 May 2012
As our DNA defines us, science outpaces ethics
The ability to sequence whole genomes is advancing rapidly, such that the prospect of “personalized” or “precision” medicine is looming. This raises privacy and ethical questions that need to be discussed.
Op Ed Dr. Michael A. Wosnick Global Mail: 10 May 2012
Developing green biofuels for Australia
In times of global concern about food security, there is a serious ethical debate about using food crops and arable land for biofuel production.
The Conversation: 14 May 2012
Synthetic biology: our bipolar fears and aspirations
By Jason Major
TechNyou
It seems we don’t trust the establishment, industry or anyone of authority when it comes to synthetic biology. And in the hands of mad scientists, which is what they naturally are, we are doomed to become dehumanised Cybermen (and woman, if Cyberpeople have gender distinctions).
OK that is a bit of an exaggeration, but based on feedback from our recentpostcard this is an inkling of what we fear when it comes to this emerging science, though it isn’t all scary. Many still think synthetic biology will advance society and be of great benefit, others are more cautious and attach numerous caveats to their optimism.
Genome Jenga – the postcard
Mid last year we distributed a postcard to all those places you see those racks of free postcards. The art work, titled Genome Jenga, was on the topic of synthetic biology. People who got a card could post it back to us listing their fears and aspirations regarding this science and technology.
The results are in with about 150 cards returned. Not everyone listed their fears and aspirations (some requested info on other topics), but we got a snapshot of what postcard-collecting people think about this technology.
The first caveat, of course is that it is likely that many of those returning the postcard knew a smidgeon short of naff all about synthetic biology and its potential, but that is to be expected. It is after all still an emerging science. Consequently, some or many of these comments will be gut reactions, or an intuitive response based on a couple of media articles they may have read – possibly on our website?
What is syn bio
It sounds like the original deed done under that fateful apple tree; some will doubtless place it in the same category of evil. In reality it is where scientists blend biology, genetics, nanoscience and engineering. It is, for now anyway, an advanced form of genetic engineering.
Instead of installing a handful of genes with specific functions as you would do to make a genetically modified organism (GMO), synthetic biology is more about systems biology – putting novel biological systems such as whole metabolic pathways into organisms. Scientists are effectively trying to rewrite the genetic code, though one must be careful of suggesting it is about creating life. The aim, should we ever get a handle on this science, is to improve medical technologies, human health, food production, biofuel production and environmental monitoring…and anything else the imagination can conjure up.
As for a definition, it is such a new and fast evolving field that there doesn’t appear to be a standard definition for it. But here is one from the UK Royal Society:
“Synthetic biology is an emerging area of research that can broadly be described as the design and construction of novel artificial biological pathways, organisms or devices, or the redesign of existing natural biological systems.”
Our fears and aspirations
The first and obvious point to note from our postcard list was the large difference in the numbers of aspirations versus fears for synthetic biology. Fears outnumbered aspirations – 86 to 55
The second point was the apparent bipolar nature of our visions for this emerging technology: There were aspirations for the use of synthetic biology in human health and to enhance specific human traits. At the other end of the spectrum there were fears that it could damage our health, be used for enhancement purposes and disconnect us with our humanity. It was a similar story with the environment. Many thought it could make a positive difference to how we manage our environment especially with food production, but also with cleaning up contamination or in the production of biofuels. In contrast many feared that synthetic biology could lead to extinctions, damage the environment or contaminate our food. This possibly reflects differing values people have about technologies in general, especially when the applications are what I might call ‘personal’. For example, food has strong cultural links and the GM food debate has shown that we don’t like our food to be messed with either at the scientific level or by industrial monopolies controlling the end product. In addition, we are human and tweaking with us at a genetic, or bionic level conflicts with our concept of what is natural and off limits for many. If Chris Toumey’s research is anything to go by, I would hazard a guess that the more religious or spiritual among us would have stronger objections to the use of synthetic biology for any human enhancement. Research by Dietram Scheufele draws a similar conclusion.
The aspirations
I attempted to divide the aspirations into relevant groups. These can be seen in Table 1(a) below
I did further divide the environment group into sub-groups because there seemed to be natural sub-groups forming.
Top of the list of aspirations was finding ways to treat what ails us, from cancer to growing new organs, to disease in general. I included here, “repairing broken men” although I wasn’t sure if it belonged in the “What the…”category. On the bipolar side of things, one fear said the technology would lead to more cancers.
With a reasonable gap, the various environmental sub-groups and human enhancement were the next most popular. There was a spread of thoughts about what human enhancements would be acceptable: living longer, boosting brain power, fixing busted spines, and bringing back dead rock stars. Again the latter might have gone in the “What the…” category. Interestingly, there were only a couple of fears along these lines: designer babies and zombies. The environmental aspirations largely involved food, either using the technology to improve crops or generally, taking the big picture suggesting that it could feed a growing population or prevent hunger.
Both aspirations and fears had a strong social, philosophical nature to them. The aspirations tended to be more general in a similar way to food, or that it would improve society, provide a better quality of life, and that it would add to our existing knowledge.
The Fears
By far the two biggest fear categories for synthetic biology were us humans misusing or abusing the technology, and the unknown or possible long-term effects. We have effectively zero trust in anyone or anything connected to business or power. Put the technology in the hands of crazy scientists; or subject to political influence and we will see it used for nefarious means such as biowarfare.
There was a significant proportion of fears related to human enhancement and how it would lead to the commodification of humans, or demean what it means to be human. It was also thought that it could also lead to inequality, discrimination, create a class of us and them (or the enhanced versus the unenhanced). Or as one fear announced it would lead to the discovery of the gay gene which the ultra-right will determine should be eliminated from the population.
More Caveats
Sometimes people didn’t label what they thought was an aspiration or fear, so there was some guess work involved for some of the comments. For example is “designer babies”, a fear or aspiration. Some people I know think it a grand idea – within reason. Others find it abhorrent at any level. This went in the fear category because most people I talk to are in the latter camp.
What the…
Some comments left me scratching the noggin:
Re-create any of my ex-wives (I am guessing that is a fear not a request?)
Return of the living dead (Is their widgee board not working and this is a request?)
And some people just watch too many movies:
The Happening, The Fly…etc
And some left me ….not sure if I have a word, incredulous, maybe? I’ll let you work out what comments I am referring to – see Table 1(b) below.
Table 1 (a) List of aspirations and on returned Synthetic Biology postcards
| ASPIRATIONS | FEARS |
| Environment General | Misuse/abuse of technology |
| Microbacteria to clean oil spills | Making clones (human) |
| Ecosystem/environmental research | Potential for biological weapons |
| Solve environmental issues | Crazy scientists |
| Concern about embryonic stem cell research, embryonic cloning | |
| Environment climate | Illegal selling of biosynthetic ‘goods’ |
| Biofuels for global warming | Organised crime |
| Mad scientists in white lab coats | |
| Environment Food | Bio weapons |
| improved crops | Integrity invention Men who do not think |
| Food that tastes like spagetti | Consequence – greed and $$$ management |
| Food crops and resoration crops to suit local conditions | Abuse of existing life (animals) |
| More resisilent crops and produce | Corporate influence |
| Synthetic protein sources (meat) for human consumption | Misuse of the technology |
| unethical usage | |
| Environment Food Social | Cloning used unwisely |
| Feeding the hungry | Out of control biological weapons |
| Feed hungry people | Abuse of the technology |
| Ensuring enough food for growing population in changing environment | Political overtake of technologies/wrongful application |
| Misuse of technology (unethical genetic manipulation) | |
| Environment – sustainable living | Abuse of stem cells and embryos |
| Allowing humans to live better for the planet | Private funding agencies don’t always tie in with what is best for the general public |
| We’re too stupid to synthesise/manage these issues | |
| Human Health treating illness | Greed, murder, rape and external domination of the superpowers eternity |
| Organ growing for replacement | Use for warfare, manipulation, violence |
| Find cures for disease | Misuse of the technology |
| Help for degenerative diseases | That vested interests steer the development direction |
| Prosthetics | Misuse of human gene technology |
| The ability to grow new limbs, organs, teeth | |
| growing medicine | Comodification of humanity/losing conection with humanity, spirituality |
| Extending life, curing disease | Use for vanity |
| new treatments for cancer | Genetic testing – ethical concerns about how we treat human life |
| Regrowing limbs as well as parts of human bodies | Designer babies |
| The possibility of cures to diseases | Lose the purity of the human body |
| Human health and diseases | Loss of, or direction away from, core spirituality |
| Cure for diseases | |
| Possible solution to life-long human ailments | It leads to the comodification of humanity |
| Individualised cancer treatments using own immune system | |
| Individualised stem cell for growing own organs | |
| To prevent or cure diseases | Social inequity/inequality |
| Repair broken men | Discrimination based on genetic diagnosis |
| Cell biology for disease management | That the gene for sexual preference will be discovered and the ulta-right will start turning it off, eg messing with gay rights |
| To solve medical problems | The divergent evolution that may occur due to those priveleged people who have access to this technology |
| Overcoming pre-existing and acquired illness | Social inequity that could stem from being able to alter yourself |
| It increases inequality | |
| Human Health enhancing humans | |
| Preserve me for future prosperity | Unknown long-term effects, irreversible nature of technology |
| Recreate dead rock stars | DNA damage |
| Longer life spans | A fear that the technology will be used before we understand the implications of it |
| suynthetically made humans/test tube humans with synthetic sperm, etc | Irreversible genetic harm |
| Superpowers | Rejection by body |
| Enhancement of knowledge | side affects that we are unaware of at this point of time |
| To facilitate the next stage of human evolution | Harm to humans and other organisms |
| Brain implant software for foreign language acquisition | Deformaties |
| Interest in applications regarding spinal injuries, enhancements and stem cell research | Retardation |
| Interest in applications regarding sight, enhancement and stem cell research | Animal and species extinctions |
| Negative impact on human health, environment | |
| Social/societal | The technique producing organisms with unforseen harm |
| Add to existing knowledge | Side affects, mistakes |
| Better quality of life | We create ‘species’ we know not how to manage |
| New understanding of our biology | Introduction of new strains of virus and disease |
| Need fewer experiments on animals (and humans) | Unknown outcomes |
| A better understanding and compassion for biology | Damage to the environment |
| Improvement for society | Gene jumping between different species |
| DNA gene mutation | |
| Non-specific | Out of control cell reproduction |
| Genetic manipulation | That we don’t know long term effects |
| A new evolutionary paradigm | That it will cause more disease (cancer etc) |
| Limit = imagination | Zombies |
| Do diagnostic tests performed by synthetic cells refelct real situations in complex living organisms which we don’t even fully understand | |
| Others economics – biofuel | Create more damages than improvements in the process |
| Home-grown fuel crops to ease balance of payments | Side effects that we are unaware of at this point in time |
| Changes would not be reversible | |
| Others Space | |
| Space applications for space purposes | Environment, interfering with nature’s harmony |
| The effects of GM crops on nature | |
| Others career | Syntheticness |
| To work in labs on synthetic biology | Disruption of homeostasis in ecosystems |
| We upset the delicate harmony in nature | |
| Antibiotic resistant viruses/weeds | |
| Food | |
| Concern about GM food, human life – healthy for body to digest and absorb | |
| Contamination of organic / selectively-bred crops | |
| Food production control G.M | |
| Other – privacy | |
| Privacy concerns with how “wired” we are becoming | |
| Other – policy, inadequate debate | |
| Lack of debate about major/questionable projects | |
| Confusing and immoral legislation | |
| Launch of GM crops without thorough trials | |
| Other – commercial interests | |
| That private companies will own patents for genes | |
| Excessive commercialisation | |
| Excessive privatisation | |
| Cost | |
| Other – tech fix | |
| Technology replacing sustainable lifestyle changes | |
| Is it necessary, can’t we live without it? | |
| Other – ethics | |
| animal suffering through testing technology | |
| Bioethics keeping pace with biotechnology | |
| We will lose understanding of what we’re actually doing by viewing biology as ‘standardised parts’ |
Table 1 (b) The What the…? and uncategorised (general) comments on Synthetic Biology postcard
| What the… | General comment |
| Return of the living dead | Must be made in Aust – not India or China |
| The Fly | Must create jobs for Australians |
| The Happening | Must be taxed by Australians |
| Use of viruses to deliver biology | |
| Use of fungi to deliver biology | Public fear mongering |
| Re-create any of my ex-wives | Is it safe |
| And all of the following from one person | Isn’t it better to live naturally (without all this enhancement) |
| More into consequence than prevention, consequence = sickness | Not enough research |
| We have different bloodtypes, yet we all eat the same thing. Causing billions in sickness costs per year. | |
| No known antidote for rape | |
| All answers to disease were known by Leonardo da Vinci, BLOOD. No one listens | |
| Sausage sizzles = parcels of poison | |
| Answers to diseases, but still have poverty and war |
Q&A: Plant scientists answer your questions about GM wheat
Two UK scientists, one involved in the GM aphid-resistant wheat, answer questions in a Q&A by Sense about Science
Sense About Science, May 2012
Sharing isn’t always caring: genetic privacy must come first
Although the potential benefits of sharing genetic information are enormous, they cannot be allowed to come at the expense of individuals’ rights to privacy of their medical information.
The Conversation: 4 May 2012
Ageing blood stem cells rejuvenated to be functionally younger
Inhibiting a protein involved in cell signalling in hematopoietic stem cells has reversed their ageing providing hints to the cellular mechanisms of ageing.
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital 3 May 2012
Sharing is caring: we need open access to genetic information
Researchers argue open sharing of clinical trial data will lead to faster, more trustworthy evidence for many health problems.