Professional Documents
Culture Documents
biology and synthetic genomics by Gabrielle N. Samuel, Michael J. Selgelid, and Ian Kerridge,
which is for regulation, and Will Overregulation in Europe Stymie Synthetic Biology? and
Give Genetic Engineering Some Breathing Room: Government regulations are suffocating
applications with great promise both of which are written by Henry Miller and Drew Kershen
and support deregulation. The articles by Miller and Kershen assert that the laws and regulations
of synthetic biology are doing more harm than good, bogging down advancements in
bureaucracy and needlessly taking up too much time, money, and effort. They believe that there
is an unsupported prejudice against synthetic biology as a myriad of testing and red tape hold
back anything that is genetically modified even if the product is the same as other approaches.
They say that the bias puts more scrutiny on biologically engineered products while not really
paying attention to older means of production even if those also have risks that are arguably
more likely due to a lack of precision. They advocate for a free market in regards to synthetic
biology and no or minimal protection of intellectual property [2].
People are worried that there are risks involved with synthetic biology or genetic
modification, but according to Miller and Kershen, Numerous national and international
scientific organizations have repeatedly addressed whether there are unique risks associated with
genetic engineering. Their conclusions have been congruent: There are no unique risks from the
use of molecular techniques of genetic engineering [3]. But this may be too idealistic. While
there may not be an inherent risk with the process and the product, (which also has not had a lot
of time to study long-tern affects), there is more going on in the broad field of synthetic biology
than simply the techniques. There is a large movement to create building blocks for DNA
constructs so that novices can do their own experiments at home.
organizations such as DIYBio.org and BioCurious.org that promote garage scienceamateurs tinkering at home using basic biological tools and supplemented by modular genetic
components ordered from the Internet. This harkens back to the small-scale inventiveness of the
likes of Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Fogarty (who invented a critical
and widely used catheter as a medical student). (Some would say its redolent as well of the
Unabomber, but thats a subject for another day.) [2]
This is a complete disregard for legitimate dangers. There is a big difference between
tinkering with bits of metal or plastic to create catheters or light bulbs versus the manipulation of
DNA and other biological materials. The authors bring up the Unabomber and then immediately
throw him out as a subject for another day. No, this is a subject that directly relates to this
topic. Sure, most people will be doing harmless stuff with their garage science, but there
definitely a real risk that needs to be addressed. There are people out there that given the
opportunity will engineer deadly viruses with terrorist intents. It is not overly-cautious or
paranoid to be concerned about these sorts of things, it is being smart and prepared because it
will happen and it has happened before. For example, after the Unabomber there was the 2001
anthrax attacks. Anthrax spores were mailed in letters to senators and people in the media, killing
5 and infecting 17 people [5]. Not everyone out there is just curious and wanting to research for
the sake of learning, there are people who will take advantage of synthetic biology to hurt other
people. Some people dont even need any reason other than chaos. If synthetic biology is
unregulated, there will be dangers. There needs to be regulation. There needs to be checks and
balances to keep people safe.
A lack of regulation also leads to corruption among the scientists themselves. Of course
the scientists want freedom to research and experiment with whatever they want, but not all
scientists are good and have the right intentions. They are biased and may disregard legitimate
dangers because they think that their research is more important or they just dont realize the
implications of what theyre doing and the ramifications of their actions and how they can affect
the environment or the population in unforeseen ways. There needs to be a balance to keep
everyone in check. Samuel, Selgelid, and Kerridge address this desire for self-governance by
saying,
[critics] argue that the risks of synthetic life science are profound and have an impact on
both society and the environment, and that research and researchers should be tightly regulated.
They believe it would be inappropriate for scientists and engineers, who might benefit from the
investigation and application of synthetic life science, to regulate themselves. [1]
The scientists are too invested in it to be trusted to create the rules of their own conduct.
Who watches the watchmen?
Those for deregulation have a lot to say about the current laws. It is true that existing
regulations for things such as genetic modification are faulty. They are biased and do not
necessarily focus on the right things. But that does not mean that there should be no rules at all.
There needs to be a reform rather than an eradication. There are options other than leaving it to
dopey politicians to make the rules. The Second International Conference on Synthetic Biology
proposed the organization of a working group to promote a range of safety measures.
These include software tools to identify DNA sequences that encode hazardous biological
systems or parts thereof; the control of oligonucleotide synthesis and trade using such sequencechecking technology; promulgation of new specific codes of conduct; and discussions within the
science and engineering research communities and stakeholders [1]
concerns and perspectives while the check-and-balance system would attempt to hold back
corruption.
The regulation problem will not be a quick issue to solve, but by working together and
rationally approaching the law-making, we can create a better system. Of course it wont be
perfect, and it wont be easy, but its better than allowing the government to create a messy
bureaucracy that gets nothing done, or just eliminating all regulation and letting chaos and
corruption reign.
SOURCES
[1] Managing the unimaginable: regulatory responses to the challenges posed by synthetic
biology and synthetic genomics