Not Quite Artificial Life, But We're Getting Closer: Reactions to Venter's Synthetic Cell

    By James DeGiulio --

Recently, we reported that a research team led by Dr. Craig Venter had developed a "synthetic cell" controlled by purely synthetic DNA (see "Dr. Craig Venter Creates First Cell Controlled Entirely by Synthetic DNA").  To evaluate the significance of the discovery, the journal Nature asked eight synthetic-biology experts about the implications for science and society of the "synthetic cell" made by the Dr. Venter's research team ("Life after the synthetic cell").  Generally, most commentators downplayed the gravity of Dr. Venter's discovery, most finding the synthetic cell as falling short of "artificial life."  The following is a summary of each expert's commentary, to illustrate the variety of reactions to Dr. Venter's synthetic cell:

• Dr. Mark Bedau, professor of philosophy and humanities at Reed College in Oregon, noted four issues to keep in mind when forming opinions on Venter's discovery.  First, we now have an unprecedented opportunity to learn about life.  Second, even the simplest forms of life have unpredictable, emergent properties.  Third, these new powers create new responsibilities, since we cannot be sure about the consequences of making new forms of life, and we must "expect the unexpected and the unintended."  Finally, Dr. Bedau notes that we are moving ever-closer to creating life.  Dr. Bedau also notes "a prosthetic genome hastens the day when life forms can be made entirely from nonliving materials."

• Dr. George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, is of the view that no artificial life was created.  Dr. Church notes that the new bacterium is not changed from the wild-type state in any fundamental sense.  Dr. Church relies on the metaphor that "[p]rinting out a copy of an ancient text isn't the same as understanding the language."  He notes that geneticists already had the ability to make synthetic DNA and get it to function in cells, and that Venter's discovery was exercising that ability on a grander scale.  Dr. Church was interested, however, in the research potential of trimming down genomes, as Dr. Venter did, in order to understand what elements of the genome are essential for speed, efficiency, and robustness.

• Dr. Steen Rasmussen, a professor of physics at the University of Southern Denmark, disputes even calling the discovery a "synthetic cell" because Dr. Venter has only rewritten the genetics "program" running on the "hardware" of the modern cell.  Dr. Rasmussen contrasts the "top-down" approach, which Dr. Venter's discovery represents, and "bottom-up" approaches, which Dr. Rasmussen practices.  According to Dr. Rasmussen, a true synthetic cell can only be created using the "bottom-up" approach, which aims to "assemble life -- including the hardware and the program -- as simply as possible, even if the result is different from what we think of as life."

• Dr. Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, stands out from the other commentators by ruling the magnitude of Dr. Venter's discovery as immense, declaring it as "one of the most important scientific achievements in the history of mankind."  Dr. Caplan's commentary is more philosophical than scientific, describing the achievement as undermining a fundamental belief about the nature of life -- that no manipulations of the inorganic would permit the creation of any living thing.  Dr. Caplan fears Dr. Venter's achievement would seem to "extinguish the argument that life requires a special force or power to exist."

• Dr. Steven Benner, of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, viewed the magnitude of the discovery as mere "synthesis" -- a research strategy that can be applied to any field in which technology allows scientists to design new subject matter.  Dr. Benner finds the discovery analogous to chemical synthesis.  Nonetheless, Dr. Benner was impressed with the discovery, rejecting it as a trivial enhancement of previous gene synthesis.  Dr. Benner also noted the potential to resurrect species of ancient bacteria, so that evolutionary sciences, among others, may benefit from the work.

• Dr. Martin Fussenegger, a professor of biotechnology and bioengineering at ETH Zurich, finds that Dr. Venter's discovery is a "technical tour-de-force," but not much of a conceptual advance.  Indeed, chimera organisms have long been created through breeding and through the transfer of native genomes into denucleated target cells.  Dr. Fussenegger does note, however, that this latest technology will increase the speed with which new organisms can be generated, a thought that he acknowledges as "discomforting."

• Dr. Jim Collins, professor of biomedical engineering at Boston University, echoes the commentary downplaying the advancement as revolutionary.  His view is that Dr. Venter has made an important advance in our ability to re-engineer organisms, yet it does not represent the making of new life from scratch.  Dr. Collins finds Dr. Venter's microorganism to be analogous to a patient who has received an artificial, synthetic heart.  Dr. Collins admits that scientists simply do not know enough about biology to create life.  He states:  "It is like trying to assemble an operational jumbo jet from its parts list -- impossible."

• Dr. David Deamer, professor of biomolecular engineering at University of California, Santa Cruz, also states that Dr. Venter has not created artificial life, noting that the cytoplasm of the recipient cell, among other things, is not synthetic.  However, Dr. Deamer is encouraged that the discovery has the potential for understanding the "origin of life" as we know it.  Dr. Deamer notes that currently "all life arises from existing life.  But perhaps not for much longer."

As can be seen, it appears generally that Dr. Venter's discovery is not going to incite the bioethical pushback it potentially could have, for most scientists surveyed in the Nature article have recognized that DR. Venter has not actually "created" life.  Fortunately, the popular media has also noted this distinction.  In a May 30th New York Times editorial entitled "One Cell Forward," Dr. Venter's discovery of a "synthetic cell" was lauded as "overstated," because it "makes it sound as though [Dr.] Venter had constructed the entire cell, molecule by molecule.  What he has done is create a synthetic genome -- the longest string of DNA to be assembled in a laboratory -- and place it in a bacterium."  Nonetheless, the editorial recognizes that Dr. Venter's discovery is another step closer to artificial life, albeit not as large of a step as claimed, and recognizes that "[t]his newest step in [D]r. Venter's research brings a fresh urgency to the debate -- and the need for some profound decisions."

Patent Docs will continue to update our readers on the debate and decisions regarding Dr. Venter's "synthetic cell" technology.

For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:

• "Venter Denies Synthetic Cell Discovery Is Artificial Life, Vatican Agrees," June 6, 2010
• "Dr. Craig Venter Creates First Cell Controlled Entirely by Synthetic DNA," June 1, 2010
• "Playing the Bioterror Card in the Synthetic Biology Debate," December 19, 2007
• "The Synthetic Biology Sky Is Not Falling," December 16, 2007
• "Patenting Life (Really)," June 11, 2007

James DeGiulio has a doctorate in molecular biology and genetics from Northwestern University and is a third-year law student at the Northwestern University School of Law.  Dr. DeGiulio was a member of MBHB's 2009 class of summer associates, and he can be contacted at [email protected].

Comments

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Any idea if Dr. Caplan has a science background? It is possible that the reason for the difference in his response is that the other respondents have a better understanding of what Dr. Venter did (and didn't) do.

[6]

Interesting how Dr. Rasmussen compares the DNA to computer code. Indeed, that follows right along with how the DC held DNA to be unpatentable subject matter, even when isolated. Just as computer code would be, isolated or not.

[6]

"Fussenegger does note, however, that this latest technology will increase the speed with which new organisms can be generated, a thought that he acknowledges as "discomforting.""

See, there are some out there that know that these mad scientists should be stopped at all costs!

[General Admission]

Separated at birth -- Dr. George Church & Zach Galifianakis?