Synthetic Biology

[Sadsack]

OMG!!! What does this picture look like????




Here's where I found it:
Roll over nanotechnology, synthetic biology is coming!

So you’re looking for a new technology concept—something that will stimulate research funding, make a buck or two, and maybe save the world—at least for another year or so. What do you need?

Here’s a quick checklist:

1. Something that’s revolutionary. Evolutionary change doesn’t hack it these days I’m afraid—your new technology needs to make a distinct break from the past—or at least, look as if it does.
2. Hype—and lots of it. A vision for how your technology will transform the world over the next ten to fifty years. If you can argue that civilization will collapse without the new tech, so much the better.
3. A focus on interdisciplinary research. Stove-piped technologies are so last century. To be hip and relevant in the 21st century, you need to be interdisciplinary. Fusions of two disciplines are good—more are better though. And if you can throw in a social science or two, better still.
4. Inter-agency collaboration. You know you are on to a winner when one government agency alone can’t cope with your idea.
5. An education crisis. As a rule of thumb, your new technology should be so out of the box that a whole new approach to education is needed to develop and sustain it.
6. Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Safe technologies aren’t sexy. Period. Actually, that’s not true, but there is an implicit assumption that any bold new technology concept will have a dark side—acknowledging this and working out how to handle it early on is de rigueur for the budding technology entrepreneur.
7. An intent to engage “the public.” Breathe easy—current evidence suggests that you don’t actually need to talk to “the public,” just act as if you want to. Of course, this approach may end up backfiring if you don’t move on to your next big idea fast enough.

OK so it’s a rather tongue in cheek list, but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to where nanotechnology—that doyenne of emerging technologies—was ten years ago. And it now seems to match up pretty well with the new emerging tech kid on the block: synthetic biology.
A couple of weeks ago, the UK Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) released a new report on the “scope, applications and implications” of synthetic biology. Reading through it, I couldn’t help experience a sense of déjà vu—the storyline is remarkably similar to how nanotechnology was being pitched at the end of the 1990’s (see for instance Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade from the Inter-agency Working Group on Nanotechnology—the precursor to the US National Nanotechnology Initiative. [PDF, 9.9 MB]) In fact reading it, I had the spine-tingling sense that I was looking at nanotechnology’s political successor here. It wasn’t so much the absence of any substantive references to nanotechnology—in spite of the rather significant lessons learned from the development of this technology over the past ten years—as the way in which the new technology was being pitched.
Holding the RAE report up to the New Technology Concept checklist, this is what you have:
Something that’s revolutionary. Check. “Synthetic biology could revolutionise a number of fields of engineering.”
Hype. Check. “Many commentators now believe that synthetic biology has the potential for major wealth generation by means of the development of major new industries, much as, for example the semi-conductor did in the last century, coupled to positive effects for health and the environment.”
A focus on interdisciplinary research. Check. “The coming together of engineering and biology that typifies synthetic biology means that it is, by nature, a multidisciplinary field of endeavour. Fundamental research requires collaboration between engineers, biologists, chemists and physicists, as well as social scientists and philosophers.”
Inter-agency collaboration. Check. “The elements set out above cut across several Government departments. A strategy would enable appropriate policies to be put in place that acknowledged their interdependency.”
An education crisis. Check. “The main challenge to providing training in synthetic biology is that its interdisciplinary nature does not fit naturally into the traditional university structure or the standard funding mechanisms.”
Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Check. “The development of synthetic biology brings with it a number of ethical and societal implications that must be identified and addressed.
An intent to engage “the public.” Check. “As well as an academic exploration of these issues by social scientists, ethicists and philosophers, early public dialogue is of the utmost importance to help promote listening and understanding of people’s hopes, expectations and concerns”
The RAE report actually has a lot to commend it. It provides a good account of what synthetic biology is all about. It makes the case reasonably well for greater UK investment in the technology. It even manages to outline many of the more prominent social and ethical concerns.
Yet I can’t help feeling that the report is naively outdated. Over the past ten years, we’ve learnt a lot about what works and what doesn’t when boosting a new technology. Nanotechnology was (still is) a technology concept grounded in science, but with a fair chunk of policy associated with it—a grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world. On balance it’s been a success so far, but with a steep learning curve that isn’t threatening to level out anytime soon.
Synthetic biology is also being pitched as a science-based grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world. This is fine—synthetic biology as a concept is pretty solid. But if the RAE report is to be believed, it is being promoted using an old and outdated model. Ten years ago, it might have looked fresh—now it just looks uninformed. For some reason, the lessons we are still learning with nanotechnology don’t seem to be translating across to synbio too well. Maybe it’s because of a genuine lack of awareness. Perhaps it’s intentional—with synthetic biology being seen as a competitive successor to nanotechnology. I don’t know. Either way, it doesn’t bode too well for the future of the synthetic biology enterprise.
The science and technology embedded in synthetic biology are important. But the hurdles the new technology faces to underpinning safe, successful and accepted innovations are substantial. Re-inventing old problems won’t help here. But leaning from similar experiences with other emerging technologies just might.
Rather than trying to roll nanotechnology out of its spot, perhaps its time for synthetic biology to do a bit of cozying up instead. There are, after all, more than enough problems needing technology-based solutions to go around. And I strongly suspect that, in this case, two metaphorical heads will be better than one in tackling them.

Read more: "Roll over nanotechnology, synthetic biology is coming!" - http://2020science.org/2009/05/18/roll-over-nanotechnology-synthetic-biology-is-coming/#ixzz0FtsyFfp3&A

SS